Learning Management Systems for Language Learning: The Groningen Case

1. Learning Management Systems for Language Learning:The Groningen Case ELC Workshop Berlin 14-15 December 2001 Sake Jager University of Groningen

2. Presentation • The introduction of a general-purpose learning management system at the University of Groningen • Strengths and weaknesses of such a system for language learning • Future directions for web-based language learning environments

3. Need for strategy • ICT: active field of top-down and bottom-up initiatives • ICT for language learning largely bottom-up • Top-down introduction of LMS: • Why introduced? General advantages? • Benefits for language learning? • What strategies are needed? • Nestor project: Blackboard as the standard virtual learning environment

4. The Nestor project • Reasons for introduction: • More flexible learning methods (time and place independent) • More student-centred learning activities • Enhancing the use of ICT by staff • Focus for ICT-related training and support • Using it because others are doing it! • No explicit learning philosophy or pedagogy

5. Implementation at Faculty of Arts • Leading role in introduction • Integral use • Development along four lines • Infrastructure • Staff training • Integration into the curriculum • ICT Management

6. Staff training plan • All staff (600) are to be trained by 2003 • Directors of Study responsible for getting staff trained • Training in operation and didactic applications • Training on the basis of real courses taught • Training on faculty computer networks • Assistance available: faculty co-ordinator, servicedesk, student-assistants • Extra assistance for innovative applications

7. Basic features LMS’s • Presentation Areas • Discussion Forums • E-Mail • Chat and Whiteboard • Group Activity Areas • Web Resource and Linking Areas • Assessment • See also: Online Educational Delivery Applications: A Web Tool for Comparative Analysis (http://www.ctt.bc.ca/landonline/)

8. Screenshot Nestor

9. Screenshot startpagina

10. Screenshot documents

11. Screenshot arabische tekst

12. Screenshot Executable

13. Results after one year • Over 125 staff trained since last January • Over 150 courses launched • Used by experienced and inexperienced in ICT • Also used for language learning in spite of certain restrictions • Not a replacement for CALL packages

14. Acceptance of ICT as learning tool • Great interest • No steep learning curve • Actual use • Useful for increasing computer-literacy and focal point for training; cf Gillespie (2000): • “computer-based social context for staff and students” • “human connectivity” • “reinforcement of computer-skills” • Primary motivation for Nestor project

15. Use by experienced and inexperienced staff • Also used by HTML-proficient staff and programmers • Combination of features appealing • Individual components less powerful than stand-alone counterparts • Standard program with appropriate support • Automated enrollment students, backups, helpdesk • Possibility for integration with other web resources

16. Support for languages • Essential for language learning [Siekmann] • Possible through external formats: • Word documents • HTML • Platform dependent fonts • Results unpredictable, certain areas do not allow use of foreign languages • General lack of Unicode support (interface, scripting, database levels)

17. Specific CALL functionality • Not up to CD Rom-based courseware • Limited feedback and branching • Lower quality/low speed multimedia • Interactive exercises primarily for assessment, not training • Emphasis on information, communication, collaboration: • Putting people in touch with each other, not with a machine. • Complementary to CALL, no replacement • Use in addition to CALL • Develop CALL to be integrated into these environments

18. Perspectives on web-based language learning • True potential of the web largely unexplored • Open-ended, student-centred, task-based learning activities • Authentic materials, real-life tasks and real-life problems • Self-directed learning, collaboration • Project-based work

19. Integrative CALL Warschauer: “In contrast, integrative CALL is based on a socio-cognitive view of language learning. From this viewpoint, learning language involves apprenticing into new discourse communities. The purpose of interaction is to help students learn to enter new communities and familiarize themselves with new genres and discourses. From this point of view, the content of the interaction and the nature of the community are extremely important. It is not enough to engage in communication for communication’s sake.” ‘The Death of Cyberspace and the Rebirth of CALL’

20. LMS’s and integrative CALL • Support for integrative, task-based CALL • E.g. for setting up tasks related to finding a job • Same can be done using separate tools • HTML Editor, Discussion Board, E-mail, etc. • Preferred by some over Swiss-Army Knife type learning environments • Difficult to provide training and support for

21. Further points to consider • Labour intensive: • Time for course development • Time for running the course • Largely teacher-controlled • Access to publishing functions mainly for teachers • Students must use other authoring tools

22. Enforcement of pedagogy • No enforcement of pedagogy • Not based on a particular learning philosophy • May lead to substition, rather than transformation of learning process • Familiarization with pedagogic and didactic principles needed

23. Directions for future work • Strong emphasis on didactic uses • Institution-wide strategies are needed, with a sensible mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches • Combine the best features of LMS’s with the strong points of dedicated CALL programs • Assess the potential of emerging technologies for language learning

24. Conclusion • LMS’s not the “be all and end all” for web-based language learning. • Catalyst for change, esp. acceptance of ICT as learning tool • Didactic changes most important • No substitution, but transformation • Additional training in didactic use necessary

25. Some references • Chizmar J.F. and D.B. Williams (2001). ‘What Do Faculty Want?’, Educause Quarterly 1, pp. 18-24. • Debski, R. (2000). ‘Exploring the Re-creation of a CALL Innovation’, Computer-Assisted Language Learning 13:4-5, pp. 307-332. • Felix, U. (1998). Virtual Language Learning: Finding the Gems among the Pebbles. Melbourne, Language Australia. • Felix, U. (1999). ‘Web-Based Language Learning: A Window to the Authentic World’ in R. Debski and M. Levy (eds), World CALL: Global Perspectives on Computer-Assisted Language Learning (Lisse, Swets and Zeitlinger), pp. 85-98. • Gillespie, J. (2000). ‘Towards a computer-based learning environment: a pilot study in the use of FirstClass’, ReCALL 12:1, pp. 19-26.

26. References (cont’d) • Hogan-Brun, G. and H. Laux (2001). ‘Specialist Gateways through Chaos: a Changing Learning Environment’, System 29, pp. 253-265. • Siekmann, S. (2001). ‘Calico Software Report: Which Web Course Management System is Right for Me? A Comparison of WebCT 3.1 and Blackboard 5.0’, CALICO Journal 18:3 , pp. 590-617. • Warschauer, M. (2000a). ‘The Changing Global Economy and the Future of English Teaching’, TESOL Quarterly 34:3, pp. 511-535. • Warschauer, M. (2000b). ‘The Death of Cyberspace and the Rebirth of CALL’, available http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/cyberspace.html (downloaded 30 October 2001).

27. Siekmann (2001) “In a foreign language learning context, it is important to create a target language environment that motivates students to use the second language. Ideally, it should be possible to present a language course site entirely in the target language. Both systems fall short of this goal at the time, but WebCT offers more opportunities to create a target language environment (for many western European languages) than Blackboard. (CALICO Journal 18: 3, 593)