This article was downloaded by: [University of Sherbrooke]On: 19 November 2014, At: 03:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computer Assisted Language LearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Virtual learning environments (VLEs)for distance language learning: shiftingtutor roles in a contested space forinteractionAnna Comas-Quinn a , Beatriz de los Arcos a & Raquel Mardomingoa

a Department of Languages, Faculty of Education and LanguageStudies , The Open University , UKPublished online: 31 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Anna Comas-Quinn , Beatriz de los Arcos & Raquel Mardomingo (2012)Virtual learning environments (VLEs) for distance language learning: shifting tutor roles in acontested space for interaction, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25:2, 129-143, DOI:10.1080/09588221.2011.636055

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.636055

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Virtual learning environments (VLEs) for distance language learning:

shifting tutor roles in a contested space for interaction

Anna Comas-Quinn*, Beatriz de los Arcos and Raquel Mardomingo

Department of Languages, Faculty of Education and Language Studies, The Open University, UK

This article describes the rationale for pedagogical, technological and organisa-tional choices in the design of a virtual learning environment (VLE) for an upper-intermediate Spanish course with regard to the roles of participants (tutors,moderators and learners). We report on findings from a preliminary evaluation ofthe interaction between the different actors and this space, using quantitative andqualitative data obtained from interviews, questionnaires and analysis of usagelogs. We look at the tensions that emerge as tutors and learners adopt new rolesand engage in new pedagogical relationships around the opportunities affordedby this kind of teaching and learning space. We argue that our attempt topromote interaction through our VLE model has resulted in a contested spacewhere traditional hierarchies and relationships between tutors and learners are ina state of flux and where new hierarchies and relationships are constantly beingforged. Finally we explore new ways in which tutors’ roles might be organised tomore effectively fulfil their supportive and facilitative functions in this new onlineenvironment.

Keywords: VLE; distance language learning; e-moderating; blended learning;tutor roles

1. Introduction

The introduction of technology in distance language learning has not only greatlyenhanced opportunities for interaction but has also resulted in changes in pedagogy.In particular, the adoption of Web 2.0 tools and approaches to language teachingand learning have subverted the traditional roles of tutors and learners: tutors are nolonger the only ‘experts’ that learners have access to, whilst learners can more easilyadopt the roles of content-creators and peer-supporters.

This article assesses a distributed learning environment, consisting of paper-based and interactive audio-visual distance learning materials plus a virtual learningenvironment (VLE), for an upper-intermediate undergraduate Spanish course. Theonline environment was designed to be student-centred, flexible and dynamic, topromote interactive competence, and to provide opportunities for students to share

*Corresponding author. Email: A.Comas-Quinn@open.ac.uk

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Vol. 25, No. 2, April 2012, 129–143

ISSN 0958-8221 print/ISSN 1744-3210 online

� 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.636055

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

their own understandings, interpretations and perspectives of the subject matter withtheir peers and tutors.

First we offer a brief review of the evolution of distance language teachers’ rolesin online environments; next, we explain the rationale behind the design of thecourse’s VLE, and evaluate the effectiveness of our model and the impact that theseparation of teacher and moderator roles has on teacher–student relationships.Please note that the terms ‘teacher’ and ‘tutor’, and ‘student’ and ‘learner’ are usedindistinctively throughout the study.

2. Literature review

Moore and Kearsley (1996) look at distance education as a system where all thedifferent components – learning, teaching, communication, design and management– are integrated in such a way that ‘anything that happens in one part of the systemhas an effect on other parts of the system’ (p. 5). They highlight the factors thatseparate distance education from conventional education, including among others,the bigger role played by technology and the importance of providing motivationalsupport to distance learners and making them active participants in the learningprocess.

It follows from Moore and Kearsley’s (1996) considerations that languageteaching at a distance is also different from language teaching in the face-to-faceclassroom. White (2003) adapts their views to point out the areas that pose achallenge to language professionals new to distance environments: on the one hand,they must be aware that communicating and interacting via a range of technologiesrequires knowledge not only of the affordances and limitations of each of these, butalso of teaching strategies different from those employed in a traditional classroom;on the other, the realisation of the new roles needed in distance environments alsoimplies the development of new skills.

2.1. Tutor roles in distance language learning

According to Dias (1998), computer-mediated communication (CMC) triggers avariety of roles and relationships unlikely to exist in a traditional classroom setting.

Table 1. Tutor roles according to Dias (1998).

Tutor role Activity

Integrator Teacher examines what she wants to accomplish, what content needsto be covered, what skills to cultivate.

Solicitor/salesperson Teacher attracts the interest of colleagues, seeking project partners.Negotiator Teacher selects partners to match her own timetables, course features

and expectations.News reporter Teacher keeps students informed of developments or problems.Confidant Teacher shows students what goes on behind the scenes.Nervous parent Teacher worries about intentional or inadvertent abuse of CMC.Teaches teaching Teacher instructs students to provide peer feedback.Troubleshooter Teacher provides technical advice.Human being Teacher acknowledges her own mistakes.Student Teacher learns something she did not know at the outset of the

project.

130 A. Comas-Quinn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using examples of his own experience working on an email project, he talks about 10roles (see Table 1) that distance teachers play in constant fluctuation.

In trialling an audio-graphic system used to offer distance language learners morespeaking practice, Hauck and Haezewindt (1999) found that the key figures were theteachers. They evaluated how tutor roles were affected by the new environment andobserved that teachers had to be confident in the use of the online tools to be able todeal appropriately with glitches during the sessions; they also had to adapt theirteaching style to suit the environment and develop strategies to help students take amore active role in their learning. As weeks progressed and learners became moreautonomous, teachers evolved into managers of learning resources and organizers oflearning events. Comparing tutor roles in the synchronous audio conference with thetutor roles identified by Dias (1998), Hauck and Haezewindt (1999) experienced thesame unpredictable flux of changing roles: ‘teacher as confidant’, giving learners aninsight into the project’s rationale to encourage their active participation; ‘teacher asnervous parent’, coping with the possibility of misuse of the conference; ‘teacher astrouble-shooter’, offering technical advice; ‘teacher as student’, benefiting fromlearners’ keenness to collaborate with peers and tutor; and ‘teacher as human being’,getting to know others through the flexibility of communication provided by thetechnology (p. 51).

Lamy and Goodfellow (1999) distinguish between social and cognitive tutoringstyles in their study of asynchronous text conferences by referring to the tutor whoencourages socialization as opposed to the tutor who is ‘subject-knowledge oriented’(p. 467). Shield, Hauck and Hewer (2001) consider that the majority of tutor roles insynchronous audio conferences are social in nature, and add a third tutoring style,administrative, when the tutor acts as convenor of plenary sessions and time keeper.Hauck and Hampel (2005) conclude that the online distance language tutor isno longer an instructor and a transmitter of knowledge, but a facilitator ofcommunication between learners, a guide as they work through tasks, a moderatorof their contributions and a co-learner.

2.2. Tutor skills in distance language learning

Tait (2000) defines the functions of learner support in open and distanceeducation as:

(1) cognitive: supporting and developing learning through the mediation of thestandard and uniform elements of course materials and learning resources forindividual students;

(2) affective: providing an environment which supports students, createscommitment and enhances self-esteem; and

(3) systemic: establishing administrative processes and information managementsystems which are effective, transparent and overall student friendly. (p. 289)

It would not be unreasonable to suggest that these three functions correspond tothe cognitive, social and administrative tutoring styles mentioned above; Shelley,White, Baumann, and Murphy (2006) and Baumann, Shelley, Murphy and White(2008) provide the necessary evidence: with the intention of identifying the skillsneeded to teach languages at a distance, and adopting a research approach whichallowed for consultation and reflection, they were able to map the outcomes of their

Computer Assisted Language Learning 131

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

project to Tait’s framework, as shown in Table 2. In a follow up study on the skillsand attributes needed for distance teaching from distance learners’ point of view,Murphy et al. (2010) corroborate this division of the tutor role into affective, systemicand cognitive functions. In their conclusion they regard tutoring languages at a distanceprimarily as a learner support role, ‘strongly underpinned by affective and organisa-tional dimensions of tutor practice’ (p. 132). They call for tutor training programmes toaddress the so far undeveloped but crucial affective side of the tutor role.

Hampel and Stickler (2005) also suggest the skills that language tutors must havein order to function effectively in a synchronous online environment. As theyadvocate the notion that skills build on one another, the authors propose the figureof a pyramid (see Figure 1) from basic ICT skills and the ability to use the specificsoftware, to the teacher’s own style.

Table 2. Tutor skills in Tait’s (2000) framework of student support according to Baumannet al. (2008).

Cognitive Affective Systemic

. Pedagogical expertise, e.g. takeaccount of different learningstyles

. Subject matter expertise, e.g.understand how learners learngrammar.

. IT skills

. Group support andmanagement, e.g. establish afriendly and communicativeatmosphere.

. Professional skills andresponsibilities, e.g. know whento refer a problem on to othersupport service.

. Qualities and affectiveorientation, e.g. flexible,open-minded,enthusiastic, respectingindividuals

. One-to-one interactivesupport skills, e.g. adaptto students’ languagelevels.

. Self-management, e.g.respond promptly tostudents’ queries.

. Group support andmanagement.

. IT skills

. Self-management

. Group support andmanagement

. Professional skills andresponsibilities

Figure 1. Skills pyramid (Hampel & Stickler, 2005, p. 317).

132 A. Comas-Quinn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Hampel and Stickler (2005) endorse that institutions involved in online teachingshould not simply be content in the knowledge that their staff are technically literate,but offer training that looks to ‘online socialization of communities of learnersand the languages specific need for facilitating communicative competence’ (p. 323).It is paramount, though, that tutors themselves approve of this type of training andengage in reflective practice.

Wang, Chen and Levy (2010) also emphasize the idea that teacher trainingshould be about reflection, and agree with Murphy et al. (2010) that the affective sideof the tutoring experience is being sidelined, hence their argument that teachereducation should foster ‘the trainee’s personal development to become a confidentand competent online teacher by paying careful attention to their emotions, feelings,and reactions’ (p. 290). However, Comas-Quinn (2011) notes that most of thetraining available to teachers does not encourage them to ‘construct their ownpersonal understanding of what online teaching [is]’ (p. 229).

In her critique of Hampel and Stickler’s (2005) framework, Compton (2009)points out that skills can be developed concurrently rather than sequentially and thatthe model fails to indicate when online teachers are ready to teach. In her opinion,Hampel and Stickler’s (2005) framework is not specific enough to language teaching;her alternative focuses exclusively on the skills of online language teachers, dividingthem into three categories (technology, pedagogy and evaluation) at three differentlevels of expertise (novice, proficient and expert). She bases her model on a systemsview of online language teaching, claiming that the natural transition of teachingskills from the conventional classroom to the online environment does not exist.She supports Moore and Kearsley’s (1996) argument that ‘neither the teacher alonenor the technology will make distance education work’ (p. 7) and that whatmakes distance education successful is the division of work and the specialization oflabour – ‘. . . teachers [need] to be trained to work as specialists within a [total]system’ (p. 8).

In the following sections we look at research carried out in a distance languagelearning environment in which we aimed to see how teaching roles could be moreeffectively organised to satisfy teachers’ and learners’ needs.

3. Tutor roles in a distributed online language learning environment

We start with a brief description of the context for the case study, followed by anexplanation of the rationale for the design of the course, our research questions andmethodology.

3.1. Context

The data have been gathered from an upper-intermediate Spanish course offered atthe Open University, UK, (OU) a large distance education institution that uses ablended learning approach for its language courses. Learners work through self-study paper-based and interactive audio-visual materials and are supported by atutor who assesses their work, monitors their progress and provides support throughface-to-face, and synchronous and asynchronous online teaching. The coursematerials are created by a central team of course developers and the delivery of thecourse is overseen by a course co-ordinator who provides support and leadershipfor the teachers and learners on the course. The online activities may be moderated

Computer Assisted Language Learning 133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

by a dedicated e-moderator or be allocated to the teachers as part of their teachingworkload. For learners, assignments and exams are the only compulsory elementsof most OU courses; working through the course material, attending tutorials orcompleting online tasks are not.

When this course was updated in 2010, an online component was added, basedon a Moodle VLE. This online learning environment was designed to structure andcomplement the rest of the course materials, and to provide learners with a spacewhere they could interact with other learners and teachers.

3.2. Course design

At the time that this course was being written, the introduction of a blendedapproach to language learning at the institution was very recent. Language courseswhich had pioneered the introduction of online teaching at the OU were reporting anumber of issues with its implementation, and that led course developers to considervery carefully what model of online teaching would be most appropriate andeffective. Nevertheless, the rationale for the choices made in relation to pedagogy,technology and organisation of the online component was based on publishedresearch as well as the experiences being reported by colleagues at the institution.

Ensuring that all course components are ‘constructively aligned’ (Biggs, 1999)and that any technology used is well integrated with the course (Kirkwood & Price,2005) is essential to successful course design. Therefore, integration between self-study print-based and audio-visual materials, and the materials and activitiesprovided online was the starting point for the design of the online environment. Thiswas conceived as an extension of the other course materials, providing links torelevant online resources, and practice activities where learners could communicate,compare their understanding of the course material and share their own experienceswith others.

Research has shown that students, particularly part-time, mature ones with manycalls on their time, will invest more time and effort on elements of the course that arelinked to assessment (Kirkwood, 2008), applying a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ (Lock-wood, 1995) to decide where to focus their limited resources. Taking this intoaccount, the course designers flagged clearly those links and activities that could beused as preparation for assignments, so that learners could target their efforts better.

One of the main claims for the use of an online learning environment is that itenables learners to interact and receive feedback from teachers and other learners.This is particularly useful in a distance education context where the opportunities formeeting face-to-face are scarce and communication is often mediated by technology.However, Goodfellow (2007) claims that ‘[t]he supposed benefits of onlineinteraction are just not obvious to many learners’ (p. 6), an assertion possiblylinked to frequent reports of low participation in online activities. It is worthremembering, though, that the public nature of online activities makes it simpler tosee whether learners have completed a task whereas we do not have this informationfor activities in books or audio visual material.

Researchers and practitioners have observed that participation in onlinecommunities is unequal (Nielsen, 2006; Rosewell, 2009) with some memberscontributing more than others and frequency of contributions changing over time.The ‘rule of thirds’, proposed by Mason (1989) and accepted by many involved inonline learning, establishes that in online learning communities a third of students

134 A. Comas-Quinn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

contributes regularly, a third only sporadically and a third not at all. It is importantto remember though that those learners who are not active contributors may stillderive learning benefits from reading the contributions of others.

For online learning to be successful, extensive teacher training is required(McPherson & Nunes, 2004; Salmon, 2003). Ernest and Hopkins (2006) claim that‘delivering online language courses is extremely labour intensive’ and that they spend‘more time on teacher support and development than on any other area’ (p. 555).Besides acquiring the necessary skills to be able to teach online, teachers need tounderstand the pedagogical function of online tools and be able to convey this tolearners (Comas-Quinn, 2011).

Some teachers come to online teaching reluctantly and find it hard to transformtheir pedagogical approach to fit the new medium. The less hierarchical atmosphereof forums does not always match some teachers’ underlying values and conception ofteaching and learning. Comas-Quinn (2011) reports on teachers at the sameinstitution who do not see ‘the pedagogic value of blogs and revision exercises thatare not properly marked [by the teacher]’ (p. 228). Equally, many in her studystruggled to see e-moderation as ‘proper teaching’ or a central component of theiridentity as teachers, and preferred to hand over this part of online teaching to adedicated e-moderator. One of their frequent complaints was that learning was toodistributed and that they would rather have fewer places to moderate, contribute to, etc.

One last consideration in developing the course was the fact that, with low activeparticipation in the online environment, it was necessary to organise interactiveonline activities to ensure a critical mass of learners taking part. For this reason,different types of online activities were written: some that provided extensionmaterials linked to what students had seen in the books and DVD-ROM; some thatshowed students how to use a particular tool (Wikipedia and newspaper databases);some that required students to share their experiences or opinions in a blog or aforum; and one for collaborative writing in a wiki. For activities that requiredinteraction, the whole cohort was expected to work together in a space moderated bythe e-moderator, and in order to avoid overloading learners and teachers, the onlineactivities were limited to one or two a week.

The course website (Figure 2) was the spine of the course, with a calendar thatindicated to students what sections of the books and DVD-ROM they had tocomplete each week. Online activities were integrated in the calendar in the week inwhich they had to be completed, and consisted of a set of instructions and a link tothe corresponding forum, wiki or blog. Online activities could be accessed by allstudents and teachers and were moderated by a single e-moderator.

Links to the online audio-graphic tool (Elluminate) used for synchronousteaching and to all the course resources and guidance were also available from thecourse website, as well as access to different kinds of forums (see Table 3).

3.3. Research questions

Having invested a lot of careful thinking and effort into the design of online teachingin this course, the course developers were anxious to evaluate it, hence our firstresearch question:

. Does this pedagogical, technological and organisational model of onlineteaching work for our learners and teachers?

Computer Assisted Language Learning 135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

We also wanted to know more about the role of the e-moderator in relation to thatof the teacher, and any issues that may have arisen for learners and/or teachers fromthis organisational arrangement. We formulated our second research question as:

. Does separating the teacher and e-moderator role create unexpected tensionsamongst learners and/or teachers?

3.4. Methodology

Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered by the authors during and after thecourse. One of the authors worked as course coordinator and e-moderator on thecourse and through her roles engaged in participant observation. Her insightswere compared with data gathered in two questionnaires, one to students and one toteachers.

Figure 2. Course website.

Table 3. Forums and roles in the VLE.

Course forum Tutor forum Tutor-group forumOnline tasks(forums, wiki, blog)

Moderator Coursecoordinator

Coursecoordinator

Tutor e-moderator

Participants All students andteachers

Teachers only Individual teachersand their owngroup of students

All students

136 A. Comas-Quinn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

The student questionnaire was sent to the whole cohort of students (235) at theend of the course. The questions were designed to find out their opinions of theonline tasks, their preference on the different types of tasks, how helpful theythought the tasks were with regard to practicing the language and learning aboutculture, what motivated them to take part or not, and whether they had anysuggestions for future online tasks. The questionnaire preparation was a jointeffort between the authors and the dedicated course evaluation team who alsocarried out the delivery and initial data collation. Sixty six respondents returned thequestionnaire (56 complete, 10 incomplete), representing 28%.

The questionnaire to teachers (N¼ 16) was developed by the authors using anonline survey tool. It was emailed to all teachers on the course (26) and wascompleted by 16 of them (response rate of 62%). It focussed on teachers’ experiencesof using the online forums and their familiarity with the online activities.

The course debriefing forum, available only to teachers, contained two strands inwhich teachers were asked their opinions on the course website and on their role asan online tutor. An online synchronous session was later conducted by the coursedirector with seven volunteer teachers in which the themes that emerged from thedebriefing forum discussions could be explored further. The minutes from thissession have been used to triangulate some of the findings from the questionnaire toteachers and the content of the debriefing forum discussions.

A semi-structured interview was conducted with the e-moderator – also coursedirector – to deepen reflection on her role and how it had evolved during this firstyear of implementation of this new model. Questions were drafted to elicit examplesof roles as defined by Dias (1998).

4. Results and discussion

We have separated the analysis of the data into three sections that correspond to themain players in this learning system.

4.1. The learners

Amongst the respondents to the questionnaire, 57% had done between 1 and 15 ofthe total 30 online activities, and 22% had completed between 16 and 30 of them.For one student, ‘the online activities were easily the most enjoyable part of thetaught course (. . .) an opportunity to interact in a non assessed environment thatother students were quite silly to disregard’. Several students did them just ‘forinterest’ or because they were related to assignments. Tutor recommendation provedto be the most effective motivator to complete these activities, ahead of seeking extrapractice.

Twenty per cent of respondents did not complete any of the online activities.Lack of time was the main reason (54%) given for not completing them, as well asthe fact that they were not compulsory (31%). Some students were put off by thepublic nature of the online space – ‘I do need more writing and speaking practice butnot for the eyes and ears of hundreds of other students’ – or the perceived proficiencyof others – ‘I found everyone else’s answers intimidatingly sophisticated’. Othersfelt overwhelmed by the technology – ‘to have to cope with downloading thetechnology to do the task then up load (sic) it, especially if you are not confident withtechnology’ – or unwilling to spend time in front of the computer – ‘Many people

Computer Assisted Language Learning 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(myself included) have to spend a lot of time during the day working in front of acomputer. The last thing we want to do in our study time is to spend yet more timeonline’.

In terms of reactions to the different types of tasks, 77% of respondents foundthe links to additional material useful; tasks that required posting a writtencontribution were considered useful by 52% of respondents, and those requiring anoral contribution only by 37% of respondents.

Amongst those who claimed to have completed some online activities, most(53%) had followed (read or listened to) the material but not actually made acontribution to the activity. This is consistent with an analysis of the VLE usage logsand an examination of the content posted by students for each task. To take just oneexample, the online task ‘Working from home’, which could be used as preparationfor one of the assignments, was accessed over 500 times by 145 students, but only15 students posted a written contribution to its forum.

4.2. The teachers

In the debriefing forum, tutors expressed the view that the course website was ‘veryattractive in its design, comprehensive, useful and user-friendly’ and that ‘it wasgreat having all the information wherever I was, without having to have lots ofpaperwork or even carrying the books’. They reported that students at times haddifficulty finding things, on which occasions they had to adopt the role of managersof the learning space (Hauck and Haezewindt, 1999) – ‘once I had pointed them inthe right direction, they found what they needed straightaway’.

Many tutors commented on low participation rates for their own tutor groupforum, as most of the interaction, socialisation and peer support took place in thegeneral course forum. Whilst the potential for interaction of the general courseforum was acknowledged, there were also fears that opinions shared in thisspace could amplify students’ anxieties. For tutors, this small group forum had littleuse besides allowing them and their students to introduce themselves (for 13 out ofthe 16 respondents) and for managerial tasks such as housekeeping, answeringtechnical queries and posting materials from tutorials (for 6 respondents). Very fewsaw this forum as a teaching space to give feedback on common errors (5), to preparestudents for the exams (3), to inform students about Spanish related events takingplace locally (2) or about the target language culture (1). In this regard then, we canconclude that tutors did not see their participation in the tutor-group forum as partof a cognitive role, but more social and administrative (Shield et al., 2001).

The online activities constituted the bulk of the asynchronous online teaching.Although teachers were not involved in moderating these tasks, of the 16respondents, five said they were very familiar with them, and nine that they werefamiliar with some but not all of them. In fact, 13 of the 16 respondents had accessedthe online activities to see the contributions of their own students, but interestingly,they did this as spectators rather than participants. This is a good example of howteachers were able to let someone else (the e-moderator or other learners) takeresponsibility for the facilitating and supporting role, without any apparent threat totheir identity as teachers. Some tutors found that these online tasks were good forthe more able students and 14 respondents had encouraged their students tocomplete them. However, although 10 respondents reiterated to students the benefitsof taking part in the online tasks, they could understand why many students might

138 A. Comas-Quinn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

not complete them: ‘Most of my students were not keen to do the online activitiesalthough I advised them to participate. I think that the reason is lack of time andpressure from work and family commitments’.

A common experience reported by many tutors in the debriefing discussions wasthat online teaching had become more labour intensive: ‘my pastoral role hasescalated this year ‘or ‘I had to be more proactive than in previous years and I havefound that students emailed me more often asking me all sort of queries andquestions’. One tutor comments on the paradox that ‘for some students learning hasbecome ‘dependent’ (of their tutor) instead of independent’, a situation that goesagainst the whole philosophy of learner autonomy underpinning distance education.

4.3. The e-moderator

‘Moderating for me meant that I had to be present (. . .) to try and help students inwhichever way I thought was best.’ This quote from our e-moderator places her rolefirmly in the area of learner support, as understood by Murphy et al. (2010). Butwhat exactly does this mean? The e-moderator has a sense that her role variesaccording to the function of the space that she moderates.

In the course forum, she makes use of her cognitive skills as course coordinatorto give learners information and guidance, for example on assessment. Her mentionof a case ‘when [students] were freaking out because a tutor-marked assignment wastoo difficult or they didn’t know how to do it’ shows her awareness of the emotionalneeds of distance learners, but also her ability to respond promptly to their concerns,a fair instance of self-management skills (Baumann et al., 2008).

In the tutor forum, her position as course coordinator dominates hercontributions, but she is eager to situate herself as co-learner, given the fact thatthis was a new course and some of its elements were as unfamiliar to her as to thetutors: ‘I was clarifying all kinds of questions about the course (. . .) but I would sayto [the tutors]: bear with me a bit (. . .) I’m learning myself.’

For the online activities, her role initially required explaining how tocommunicate effectively in a forum – how to reply to a thread rather than startnew ones on the same topic, for example. In this administrative role, she takes on theresponsibility of managing group interaction efficiently: ‘My role was to read theirmessages in the forums, and post a message myself sometimes summarising someof their contributions, or sometimes giving them extra information’. This is acontinuation of her managing the learning experience, for which she needs IT skillsand subject-matter expertise, engaging both cognitive and systemic functions.

Interestingly, the e-moderator would not correct the students’ language in theonline tasks, as she felt their function was not to do with accuracy but with fluency,a social rather than cognitive style of teaching (Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999). Shementions, however, editing the students’ work on a collaborative writing activitycarried out in a wiki; since students had to produce a permanent document, accuracywas important in this particular case.

The online tasks forums are also where the e-moderator encouraged learners, aspart of her most affective role: ‘[I would say] to them ‘well done, this is great stuff,I look forward to seeing you in the next activity, (. . .) I liked your message or I reallyenjoyed listening to your podcast’. Here is also where we see the e-moderator gettinginvolved as a human being (Dias, 1998): ‘I was being quite open and honest abouthow I was reacting to some of those experiences being shared’.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Intent on finding out whether she experienced the role of ‘teacher as confidant’(Dias, 1998; Hauck & Haezewindt, 1999) we asked our e-moderator whether shetook time to explain to students the benefits of taking part in the online tasks andthus foster their taking more initiative over their learning. Assuming that this was theresponsibility of the tutors, she had not.

To the same extent, we were curious to learn of her attitude towards having tocensor communication in the forums –‘teacher as nervous parent’ (Dias, 1998;Hauck & Haezewindt, 1999). Overall, she was pleased that students were generally‘well-behaved’, and that there were netiquette rules dictated by the institution whichshe could invoke if necessary. That was indeed the case when a student becamesomehow aggressive and she had to delete his messages from the forum:

The students then were perceiving me as the police, coming in and censoring things, andthey felt they were grown up enough to manage things themselves, (. . .) I had to remindthem that there were some netiquette rules that were being broken; the whole debateonly stopped once I actually [posted] those rules (. . .) in the forum, and then everyonecould see that it wasn’t a personal thing, that it wasn’t me, it was just that I was havingto uphold the rules.

Such a personal ordeal reveals an e-moderator who implicates herselfemotionally: she feels misunderstood by the students, which prompts the need tojustify her actions; this is indeed a very human e-moderator.

The e-moderator in our study did not see herself as a troubleshooter (Dias, 1998;Hauck & Haezewindt, 1999); remarkably, she refers to hers as a mediating role:‘I would be the first one to see the complaint or the difficulty so then I would have todecide who can help’. The e-moderator needs to know the system thoroughly to beable to direct this traffic of queries to the people who can help with each problem,thus ensuring effective learner support and a successful distance learning experience.Notice once more her emotional involvement: ‘A lot of students came to the courseforum and complained about stuff, ‘I haven’t got my marks yet’; well, have you beenin touch with your tutor? I understand your frustration but there’s no point cominghere.’ By acknowledging the students’ feelings she provides affective support, whileat the same time training them to become more independent distance languagelearners.

Our e-moderator observed multiple instances of peer teaching among students,especially in the course forum, which occurred without her intervention; this suggeststhat she did not play the role of ‘teacher teaches teaching’ (Dias, 1998). Students toldtheir peers about language learning resources (e.g. grammar books, dictionaries,useful websites), corrected each others’ language, explained how to do particularactivities, etc. but it was rarely that the e-moderator participated or promptedsuch conversations. Neither was she a ‘news reporter’ (Dias, 1998) as students keptcolleagues abreast of cultural events happening in their areas and commented oncourse-related current affairs.

One further point merits our attention and that is the cross-fertilization offorums: students who participated in the online tasks would visit the course forum toinvite colleagues across; for example, in one particular activity students wererequired to watch a video showing how carnival is celebrated in different parts of theHispanic world, and post a contribution with their impressions; some of thoseengaged in the task would then leave a message in the general course forumrecommending the video, even if their peers did not mean to take part in the task.

140 A. Comas-Quinn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

In a similar turn of affairs, the e-moderator would serve as a link between forums,for instance by communicating in the tutors’ forum a specific concern that thestudents had expressed in the course forum.

Overall, the experience reported by this e-moderator was very positive, and sheparticularly enjoyed learning from and with the teachers and students on this course.‘I enjoyed [having] that space with the students; we were both in a similar situation,we were both learning as we went along’. The non-assessed nature of the onlineenvironment encouraged participants to express themselves at a more personal level:‘I got to know a different side of the students that without the forums I wouldn’t beable to see; it was a freer space making the human side of her role more prominent’.

5. Conclusion

In this article we understand distance language teaching and learning as a totalsystem, based upon a division of labour: the different players in the system performseparate roles for which they are specialists; if any of these players falters, the otherswill see an effect on their role, to the extent that the whole system may peril (Moore& Kearsley, 1996).

In addition, we endorse the argument that teaching languages at a distancesuccessfully depends on how well learners are supported (Baumann et al., 2008;Murphy et al., 2010). In our online learning model, learner support is shared betweentutors (in the tutor-group forum), the e-moderator (in the online tasks forums) andthe course coordinator (in the general course forum).

Our findings reveal that the tutors’ participation in the tutor-group forum was atbest nominal: the tutor-group forum as a social space was made redundant by theuse of other channels of communication between tutors and the students in theirgroup (email, group lessons). On the other hand, the e-moderator and the coursecoordinator, roles that in our project just happened to be played by the same person,became invaluable in the online environment. Whether supporting students ortutors, the e-moderator’s role had elements of the three functions identified byBaumann et al. (2008): cognitive – using her subject-matter expertise andprofessional skills –, administrative – as organiser of interaction in the onlinelearning space – and above all, affective, as she not only had to react to the students’(and even tutors’) emotional needs, but also implicate herself as a human being andas a co-learner.

With reference to the first of our research questions, how well does thispedagogical, technological and organisational model of online teaching work for ourlearners and teachers?

For the learners, this model provides an opportunity to work on their languageskills away from those more structured and assessed elements of the course; we areproviding a freer space and a chance to interact at a more personal level. Not allstudents are able or willing to fully engage with this because of their circumstances orpreferences, but those who do, appreciate and enjoy having the space.

As far as the teachers are concerned, we addressed the anxieties previouslyreported about working in a distributed learning space (Comas-Quinn, 2011) byrelieving them of e-moderating duties associated with online activities. Many tutorsstill felt that their workload had increased in relation to previous years, a naturalresult of the transition from face to face to blended learning, which presented someof the teachers with a steep learning curve.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Does separating the teacher and e-moderator role work or does it createunexpected tensions amongst learners and/or teachers?

We think that disaggregating the e-moderator role from the traditional teacherrole is a natural split of responsibilities and works well as long as all stakeholders areclear about their roles and they communicate effectively with each other. An instancein which this synergy was not entirely successful occurred when the e-moderator feltthat tutors would have explained the benefits of completing the online activities totheir students but 25% of tutors reported that they had not.

We argue that the online environment becomes a contested space for interactionas tutors step back from their roles as ‘guides’ of the learning experience, allowinglearners to take the initiative for interaction and learning, and handing theresponsibility for facilitating that learning to a dedicated e-moderator. Learners whochoose to participate in this experience prove that they can perform effectively theirroles as independent learners and supporters of their peers. As a consequence, therole of the tutor tends to stay in the private sphere of his or her small group ofstudents, whilst a more ‘public’ relationship is forged between students and thee-moderator.

Notes on contributors

Anna Comas-Quinn, BA, MA, joined the Open University in 1999 where she is a Lecturer inSpanish and a Teaching Fellow for the Support Centre for Open Resources in Education(SCORE). She has researched and published in the area of technology-enhanced languagelearning, mobile learning, tutor roles and open educational resources. She is involved ininitiatives to engage language teachers with digital technologies and open practices, such ashttp://loro.open.ac.uk and www.performinglanguages.eu.

Beatriz de los Arcos, BA, MSc, PhD joined the Open University (OU) in 2000 as an AssociateLecturer in Spanish. She is currently working as a research associate at the Institute ofEducational Technology (OU). Her research interests and publications are in the areas oftechnology-enhanced distance language learning, mobile language learning, and openeducational resources.

Raquel Mardomingo is a lecturer in Spanish at the Open University and holds a Mastersdegree in Media and Communications. She has been involved in the development oflanguage courses for over 10 years and her research interests include languageteaching methodology, intercultural learning and cultural studies. She has published inthe area of computer-mediated communication and its application to language teachingand learning.

References

Baumann, U., Shelley, M., Murphy, L., & White, C. (2008). New challenges: The role of thetutor in the teaching of languages at a distance. Distances et savoirs, 6, 364–392.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Society for Researchinto Higher Education and Open University Press.

Comas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach online or learning to become an online teacher:An exploration of teachers’ experiences in a blended learning course. ReCALL, 23, 218–232.

Compton, L. (2009). Preparing language teachers to teach language online: A look at skills,roles, and responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 73–99.

Dias, J. (1998). The teacher as Chameleon: Computer-mediated communication and roletransformation. In P. Lewis (Ed.), Teachers, learners and computers: Exploring relation-ships in CALL (pp. 17–26). Tokyo: JALT.

Ernest, P., & Hopkins, J. (2006). Coordination and teacher development in an online learningenvironment. CALICO Journal, 23, 551–568.

142 A. Comas-Quinn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Goodfellow, R. (2007). Rethinking educational technologies in the age of social media: From‘tools for interaction’ to ‘sites of practice’. Keynote presentation for Echanger PourApprendre en Ligne (EPAL) conference, Universite Stendhal, Grenoble. Retrieved fromhttp://w3.u-grenoble3.fr/epal/pdf/goodfellow.pdf

Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teachlanguages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 311–326.

Hauck, M., & Haezewindt, B. (1999). Adding a new perspective to distance (language)learning and teaching – The tutor’s perspective. ReCALL, 11, 46–54.

Hauck, M., & Hampel, R. (2005). The challenges of implementing online tuition in distancelanguage courses: Task design and tutor role. In B. Holmberg, M. Shelley & C. White(Eds.), Distance education and languages: Evolution and change (pp. 258–277). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Kirkwood, A. (2008). Getting it from the Web: Why and how online resources are used byindependent undergraduate learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 372–382.

Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: What dowe know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information andcommunication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education,30, 257–274.

Lamy, M-N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). Supporting language students’ interactions in web-based conferencing. CALL Journal, 12(5), 457–477.

Lockwood, F. (1995). Students’ perception of, and response to, formative and summativeassessment material. In F. Lockwood (Ed.), Open and distance learning today (pp. 197–207). London: Routledge.

Mason, R. (1989). An evaluation of CoSy on an Open University course. In R. Mason &A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers and education (pp. 115–145).Oxford: Pergamon Press.

McPherson, M.A., & Nunes, J.M.B. (2004). The role of tutors as an integral part of onlinelearning support. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Maggie_MsP.html

Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont: WadsworthPublishing Company.

Murphy, L., Shelley, M., & Baumann, U. (2010). Qualities of effective tutors in distancelanguage teaching: Student perceptions. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,4(2), 119–136.

Nielsen, J. (2006). Participation inequality: Encouraging more users to contribute. Retrievedfrom http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html

Rosewell, J.P. (2009). Equitability and dominance in online forums: An ecological approach.Presentation delivered at CAL’09 Learning in digital worlds, 23–25 March 2009, Brighton,UK.

Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (2nd ed.). Londonand New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Shelley, M., White, C., Baumann, U., & Murphy, L. (2006). ‘It’s a unique role!’ Perspectiveson tutor attributes and expertise in distance language teaching. International Review ofResearch in Open and Distance Learning, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/297/609

Shield, L., Hauck, M., & Hewer, S. (2001). Talking to strangers – the role of the tutor indeveloping target language speaking skills at a distance. In A. Kazeroni (Ed.) Proceedingsof UNTELE 2000, volume II (pp. 75–84). France: Technological University of Compiegne.Retrieved from http://www.utc.fr/*untele/volume2.pdf

Tait, A. (2000). Planning student support for open and distance learning’. Open Learning 15,287–299.

Wang, Y., Chen, N-S., & Levy, M. (2010). Teacher training in a synchronous cyber face-to-face classroom: Characterizing and supporting the online teachers’ learning process,Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(4), 277–293.

White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

02 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014