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

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 Course design and adjustment (Intervention research) 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.

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.

Linear process/technological/institu tional instruction Course design non linear process Based on Bertin JC and Narcy-Combes model

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).

Achievement of design, organizing language learning Micro task : French pronunciation Micro tasks Related to the macro Tasks Course statistics : number of actions/task Macro task Micro tasks Taking notes Cognitive questionnaire Discussions Micro tasks Discourse structure

Course design/ learners' use of course statistics/ participants'surveys Course statistics Participants' answers (post survey) Course design 6 4 6 6 4 5 3 5 1 5 4 2 2 2 3 Main macro task Micro tasks Cognitive questionnaires useful links pool of micro tasks Discussions

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 Achievement of personal goals Feeling of improvement in language skills Language reflecting activity Additionnal tasks completion Ability to achieve tasks throughout the course Week 3 : results of partcipants'survey

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 Conversations Conversations 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.funmooc.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