LANGUAGE LEARNING MOOCS : REFLECTING ON THE CREATION OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED LEARNING MATERIALS IN A MOOLC"

Research collaboration

Context and problem

Downes (2014) claims that the success of a MOOC is process-defined

rather than outcomes-defined, and that it should be seen as a vehicle for

discovery and experience.

Completion rates may be misleading (Jordan and Gee).

Cormier and Carré insist on the possibility to propose learning

environments that would act as a catalyst of knowledge.

LMOOCs : participants ? Diversity of participants and heterogeneous

language learning outcomes and learning processes.

LMOOCs : Aim ? Move away from an inherent educational potential of

digital technology of MOOCs and instead focus "on means-end" way of

thinking course design.

How well can language learning take place in an LMOOC ?

Theoretical background

Complexity theory and

emergentism

Unpredictable complementarity

of the tasks

Links between process and

tasks

Necessity of interactions

Limitation of the training

Performances vs skills

Social interactionist theory

Social Motivation of the

learning but doesn't take into

account training process

Necessity to take into account

the context of learning

Activity Theory allows the essential

apprehension of the dynamic nature of the

process.

If perceptions drive actions then "good

design" makes affordance (Gibson) explicit.

Course design and

adjustment

(Intervention research)

LMOOCs

• LMOOC context : variability of learning objectives/emerging needs/ language

learning takes place in an informal technological environment, long life learning

takes place in a learning environment which has a goal that is pursued but can not

be achieved (Koper, 2004).

• Language learning in LMOOCs should focus on process and performance vs skills

= language learning environment acts as a catalyst of knowledge = reflecting on

language learning strategies.

• Course design : the more open the course is, the more the potential of

participants will be limited by the lack of structure, but instructional design may

also miss critical elements of learning process (ZDP).

• Previous research works (Narcy-Combes, 2007) showed that the implementation

of a "soft system' was able to take into account an emerging context of learning

and manage heterogeneous groups.

• Implementing a language learning environment within an LMOOC = design

course and content so as they act as organizing circumstances (Spear and

Mocker) in order for participants to act.

Based on Bertin JC and Narcy-Combes model

Linear

process/technological/institu

tional instruction

Course design

non linear process

Macro tasks and micro tasks

Course design (managing heterogeneity) : follow a non-linear path including

alternative learning objective, oriented macro-tasks which create needs for micro

tasks. Macro tasks designed for the development of learning and micro tasks

designed for linguistic training ( Demaizière - Narcy-Combes 2005).

The design of the language learning environment included tasks focusing on both

form(s) (Ellis,) and meaning to trigger “exploration” and “pursuance” of “emergent

goals”.

In SLA, different definitions of “task” are presented, Candlin (1987) : "one of a set

of differentiated, sequenceable, problem posing activities involving learners and

teachers in some joint selection from a range of varied cognitive and communicative

procedures applied to existing and new knowledge in the collective exploration and

pursuance of foreseen or emergent goals within a social milieu".

Process and performance = no MCQ but rather "Use of dynamic and productive

learning tasks that stimulate higher-order thinking processes and problem solving,

such as analysis, synthesis, experimentation,creativity, and the examination of

language learning from different perspectives" (Koper, 2004).

Content

• TBLT approach = cognitivism, focus on meaning and forms / socio

constructivism = collaboration and interaction + regular completion of

"real" tasks to favor language acquisition. (Narcy-Combes M.F et Belan

S, 2010).

• Macro tasks : identification and categorization of problems in production.

Input related to every day life topics/ output with focus on meaning.

• Micro tasks : sociolinguistic and pragmatic language skills. Focus on form

& noticing (Swain 2000).

• Self evaluation questionnaire and peer assessment : peer assessment,

identification and categorization of problems in production, collective

feedback on errors. Self-evaluation questionnaire individualized feedback

and advice on remedial work (metacognitive reflection).

• Forum : interaction with peers and language use in context.

Results

• Participants' perception of the course design : 1.

Comparison of course instruction (selection of macro-tasks and

micro-tasks) and participants' activity. 2. Learner's appropriation of

the design to take control of their own learning.

• Success of design and of language learning : how well the course

design has achieved language learning goals set by the course and

goals participants set themselves ?

• How well has language learning taken place ? This requires to try to

evaluate the role of "input, interaction and output" in the learning

environment, learners' language reflective activity through the

MOOC, including the language use in context (Forum interaction).

• Data are collected from active participants in the MOOC

(participants who have done at least one action during the MOOC).

Macro task

Cognitive

questionnaire

Micro tasks

Related to

the macro

Tasks

Micro task :

French

pronunciation

Micro tasks

Discourse structure

Micro tasks

Taking notes

Discussions

Achievement of design, organizing

language learning

Course statistics :

number of

actions/task

Course design/ learners' use of course

statistics/ participants'surveys

6 5 42 3

6

4

1 5 2

6

4

53

2

0

4.5

9

13.5

18

22.5

Main macro task Micro tasks Cognitive questionnaires useful links pool of microtasks

Discussions

Course statistics

Participants' answers (post survey)

Course design

Achievement of learners' goals

95 45 23 54 32 27 71

Results of learners perception of tasks

Macro task

Micro tasks related to macro tasks

Course cogntive surveys

Remediation tasks from Ressource center

Peer assessment

Forum

Input : videos and chosen topics

81 79 78 82 79

Week 3 : results of partcipants'survey

Achievement of personal goals

Feeling of improvement in language skills

Language reflecting activity

Additionnal tasks completion

Ability to achieve tasks throughout the course

Content analysis of week 3 : forum interactions

discussions methodology (2000 threads during 5 weeks)

• Lamy and Goodfellow, 1999 : reflexive conversations refer explicitly to language

learning. Schon 1987 demonstrated that reflection is an essential component of

professional knowledge and practice.

Week 3 : 366

messages

Reuse of the

input the

output

Reflective

dialogues over

language

Reflective

monologues

Reflective

ConversationsConversations

Macro task

related

discussions ++++ + + +

Micro task

related

discussions ++ +

Overall

discussions

During week 3+ + ++ + ++

Conclusion • TBLT approach is interesting in the design of LMOOCs but selection of micro tasks are

based on learners' needs. They are unpredictable in MOOC contexts.

• Goal oriented tasks encourage learners to reflect on their own use of language (Lamy

and Good fellow, 1999; Pelletieri,2000).

• Type of tasks and topics chosen have an important effect on the nature of on line

discussions. Interaction and use of language in context is a way to make use of

LMOOCs as catalysts of language learning.

• LMOOCs may allow the outsourcing of messages and operations that circulate in the

neuronal system, information and codes. Cognition moves towards this new tool,

making participants aware of language learning metacognition processes. A reflection

on how the design (using simple cognitive tools vs focus on technical materials) can

favor meta linguistic awareness may be a way to emphasize language learning

performance in LMOOCs.

• Research limitations : out of the 10755 participants we don't exactly know what the

remaining 10 000 "non active participants" have done during session 1. Many issues

and questions remain open and need to be addressed in future research. Adjustment

of the existing experimental MOOC may help LMOOC designers to create successful

Massive Open Interactive Language LearningEnvironments.

Thank you for listening

MOOC Paroles de Fle, team SPIN, Damien Aubert, SUL, I-FLE,

scientific advisor, JP Narcy-Combes.

Session 2 : https://www.fun-

mooc.fr/courses/univnantes/31001S02/session02/about

Email : christelle.hoppe@univ-NANTES.fr

References

• Bertin, J-C., Gravé, P. & Narcy-Combes, J-P.(2010). Second language distance learning and Teaching :theoretical

perspectives and didactic ergonomics. Hershey (Penn) : IGI Global.

• Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Lancereau-Forster.

• McAllister, J., M.-F. Narcy-Combes & R. Starkey-Perret (2012). “Language teachers' perceptions of a task-based

learning programmein a French university”. In Shehadeh, A. & C.A. Coombe (eds.). Task-Based Language Teaching

in Foreign Language Contexts: Researchand Implementation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 313–342.

• O’Grady, W. (2010). Emergentism in P. Hogan (dir.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the LanguageSciences (pp.

274-76). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

• Piaget, J. (1970). Psychologie et épistémologie. Paris : Gonthiers Denoël.

• Randall, M. (2007). Memory, psychology and second language learning. Amsterdam-Philadelphia : JohnBenjamins.•

• Spear, G. E., & Mocker, D. W. (1984). The organizing circumstance: Environmental determinants in selfdirected

learning. Adult education quarterly, 35(1), 1-10

• Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J.

Lantolf (Ed.),Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114), Oxford, Oxford University Press

• Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B.Seidlhofer (Eds.), For H.G.

Widdowson: Principles and practice in the study of language (pp.125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References

• Dave Cormier (18 April 2013). [Video on YouTube Attention les MOOC!?! University of

Prince Edward Island.

• Downes, Stephen. "Learning networks and connective knowledge", Instructional

Technology Forum, 2006, accessed 31 July 2012

• Koper, E.J.R. (2003). Combining re-usable learning resources and services to

pedagogical purposeful units of learning. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing Online

Resources: A Sustainable Approach to eLearning (pp. 46-59). London: Kogan Page.

• Koper, R., & van Es, R. (2004). Modeling units of learning from a pedagogical

perspective. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online education using learning objects. London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

• Lave J, Wenger E: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge; 1991.

• Yuan, Li; Powell, Stephen; Olivier, Bill (2014). "Beyond MOOCs: Sustainable Online

Learning in Institutions". Cetis publications. Retrieved 31 January 2015.

No lectures vs videos

Macro task

Micro Tasks