BRIX The University of Hawaii’s Framework for Online Language Learning

1. BRIX The University of Hawaii’s Framework for Online Language Learning John Standal • Stephen TschudiCollege of Languages, Linguistics & LiteratureUniversity of Hawai‘iPacific Rim Digital Library Alliance  Pacific Neighborhood Consortium Electronic Cultural Atlas InitiativeEast-West Center  November 3, 20052:00 p.m. Asia Room (2F)

2. FL Distance Education at UH • Distance learning for foreign languages at UH since 1995 – initially Chinese on interactive TV • Web courses since 2000 • Started with text-intensive advanced courses • Now supporting courses in:

3. Requirements for SLA • Distance Education – on Web, various modes may work better than others • Needs of online learning system to support L2 (second language) learning activities • Not only input/output of characters, but • Vocabulary activities • Discussion board / Voice board • Draft Book • Online Dictionary • Assessment tools, etc. • Easy to build and maintain course

4. Insufficiency of Commercial Software • Evaluated WebCT & Blackboard based on requirements of NFLRC development project • 8 areas did not meet L2 instructional needs • Language –target languages not fully supported • Discussion Board – no non member access to private group • Discussion Board – no (asynchronous) voice capability • Dictionary – no integrated online dictionary

5. Insufficiency of Commercial Software • Composition Activities –peer review, editing, rewriting of essays not supported • Reading Activities – no particular features for vocabulary, annotation, textual & audio pronunciation, etc • Exercise & Quiz – no self practice in Blackboard • Organization & Navigation –hierarchical menu grouping by lesson not fully supported

6. BRIX & NFLRC • Instructional activities of online language course • NFLRC had developed hand crafted web-based language courses at high cost • BRIX – language course management – provided support for the pedagogical requirements of these courses Figure 1

7. Action Module F Display Module A Query Module C Fusebox Content module Content module Quiz 1 Quiz 1 essay 1 essay 1 Forum 1 Forum 1 Display Module F query Module B Display Module D vocab 2 vocab 2 BRIX Technical Model BRIX Framework FuseBox Methodology DB Quiz 1 Quiz 2 Course menu Forum 1 clients Forum 2 essay 1 essay 2 server vocab 1 vocab 2 user page Organizing contents Creating contents Building navigator Dynamic html pages

8. Building a Course With BRIX • Faculty designs and proposes course – “from brain to paper” • Language Learning Center approves course for support, IT specialist creates BRIX entity • Designer builds course, supported by Instructor in Tech for FL Education – “from paper to BRIX” • Elements using Language Activities • Elements contained on user-made Web pages • Course menu construction

9. Language Activities

10. Vocabulary tool • Co-construction of knowledgeà la Vygotsky means students should build knowledge together • Tool for everyone (including teacher) to contribute words in current lesson • Words are vetted by teacher, feedback & icons • Words subsequently available in a reference list in any Essay assignment in the same lesson Sample: CHN399a Spring 2005 Lesson 2 Cuisine

11. Vocabulary tool

12. Voiceboard feature • Experience says: Web not sufficient as sole tool for four-skills language instruction • Voice tool still desirable and necessary • Asynchronous voice tools not common three years ago – long process of selection • Home-built solution on Macromedia Flash Communication Server • Students are rapidly becoming accustomed to using Voice feature Sample: CHN201 Spring 2005 Lesson 22 FollowUp1

13. Voiceboard feature

14. Essay tool: collaborative learning • Process writing stresses gradual emergence of product • Peer feedback often part of the picture • Essay tool links Draft Book and Essay Discussion Forum • Provides start-to-finish look at multiple drafts • Shows intervening discussion plus teacher feedback, private grading

15. Essay tool: collaborative learning Essay Discussion Board DRAFT BOOK

16. Evaluation • Formative usability evaluations – previously published • Evaluation of authoring tools • Are course authors satisfied? • Survey • Easy to use overall; modularity of contents increases complexity of authoring course menu • Evaluation of instructional effectiveness • Do students increase desired activities in comparison to hand-crafted systems? • System logs and student surveys • Increased use of language bank, revisions of essay, participation in discussion

17. Conclusions • Disciplinary areas may require specialized features in online learning environments • For example, language must be used communicatively for acquisition to take place • BRIX provides features required for language learning in an online course construction tool

18. Further reading • Fleming, S., Sawatpanit, M., and Suthers, D. (2004). “BRIX: Meeting the requirements for online second language learning.” Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004; Waikoloa, Hawaii. p. 4 (full text on accompanying CD-ROM). Los Alamitos, CA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). • Fleming, S., Sawatpanit, M., and Suthers, D. (2003).“BRIX — Elements for Language Course Creation.” Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2003 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, June 23-28, 2003; Honolulu, Hawaii. p. 415-422. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). 2003.

19. Mahalo & Aloha!

20. Feature comparison of course authoring software and BRIX

21. Feature comparison of course authoring software and BRIX (cont.)