CyberDeutsch

Language Production and User Preferences in a Moodle Virtual Learning Environment

Authors

  • Ursula Stickler
  • Regine Hampel

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.1.49-73

Keywords:

Language Learning, Virtual Learning Environment

Abstract

This case study focuses on two learners who took part in an intensive online German course offered to intermediate level students in the Department of Languages of the Open University. The course piloted the use of a Moodle-based virtual learning environment and a range of new online tools which lend themselves to different types of language learning activities (e.g., wikis for collaboration and blogs for reflective learning). The study shows that an online language course can combine different approaches to learning and teaching, such as using language communicatively and focusing on form and language practice. It also illustrates the link between students' choice of tools and their learning preferences (focus on form or communication; preference for written or spoken language).

References

Andrade, M. R. (2007). Online survey software to monitor self-access listening and reading. Retrieved from http://www.call-is.org/moodle/file.php/9/miniworkshop07.html

Ashby, R., & Broughan, C. (2002). Factors affecting students’ usage of virtual learning environments. Psychology Teaching and Learning, 2, 140-141.

Batardière, M.-T., & Jeanneau, C. (2006). Quel est le bœuf? Beefing up language classes with collaborative blogs. Paper presented at EUROCALL 2006, Granada, Spain.

Blood, R. (2002). Introduction. In J. Rodzville (Ed.), We’ve got blog: How weblogs are changing culture (pp. 7-16). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

Brandl, K. (2005). Are you ready to “Moodle?” [Review of Moodle]. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 16-23. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num2/default.html

Buckingham Shum, S., Marshall, S., Brier, J., & Evans, T. (2001). Lyceum: Internet voice groupware for distance learning. Paper presented at Euro-CSCL: 1st European Conference on ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, Maastricht, NL. Retrieved from http://www.ll.unimaas.nl/euro-cscl/Papers/24.pdf

Conole, G. (2008). New schemas for mapping pedagogies and technologies. Ariadne, 56. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue56/conole

Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design. Computers and Education, 43, 17-33.

Dolle, J., & Enjelvin, G. (2003). Investigating “VLE-ffectiveness” in languages. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 469-490.

Dougiamas, M. (1998). A journey into constructivism. Retrieved from http://dougiamas.com/writing/constructivism.html

Dyke, M., Conole, G., Ravenscroft, A., & de Freitas, S. (2007). Learning theory and its application to e-learning. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: Themes, methods and impact on practice (pp. 82-97). London: Routledge and Falmer.

Eckes, T., & Grotjahn, R. (2006). A closer look at the construct validity of C-tests. Language Testing, 23, 290-325.

Ehrmann, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System, 31, 313-330.

Engstrom, M. E., & Jewett, D. (2005). Collaborative learning the wiki way. TechTrends, 49(6), 12-15.

Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students’ behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 409-442.

Gánem Gutiérrez, G. A. (2006). Sociocultural theory and its application to CALL: A study of the computer and its relevance as a mediational tool in the process of collaborative activity. ReCALL, 18, 230-251.

Grotjahn, R. (2003). Lernstile/Lernertypen. In K.-R. Bausch, H. Christ & H.-J.Krumm (Eds.), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht (4th ed.) (pp. 326-331). Tübingen: Francke.

Hassan, X., Hauger, D., Nye, G., & Smith, P. (2005). The use and effectiveness of synchronous audiographic conferencing in modern language teaching and learning (online language tuition): A systematic review of available research. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Retrieved from http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWebContent/reel/review_groups/MFL/mfl_rv3/mfl_rv3.pdf

Hubbard, P. (2005). A review of subject characteristics in CALL research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 351-368

Hsu, H.-Y., Wang, S.-K., & Comac, L. (2008). Using audioblogs to assist English-language learning: An investigation into student perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 181-198.

Jung, U. O. H. (2002). Medien im Fremdsprachenunterricht—Wozu braucht man sie eigentlich. Fremdsprachen und Hochschule, 66, 7-44.

Jung, U. (2005). CALL: Past, present and future—A bibliometric approach. ReCALL, 17, 4–17.

Klein-Braley, C., & Raatz, U. (1984). A survey of research on the C-Test. Language Testing, 1, 134-146.

Krauss, M. (2005). CALL lab basics. Retrieved from http://www.lclark.edu/~krauss/hondurasweb/lab.html

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335-353.

Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee, S. (2002). A look at the research on computer-based technology use in second-language learning: A review of the literature from 1990-2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 250-73.

McDonald, K. (2007). Wikipedia projects for language learning. CALL-EJ Online, 9(1), n.p. Retrieved from http://www.tell.is.ritsumei.ac.jp/callejonline/journal//9-1/mcdonald.html

Naeve, A., Palmér, M., Nilsson, M., Paulsson, F., Quick, K., & Scott, P. (2006). CoCoFlash: Conzilla, Confolio, and FlashMeeting integration for enhanced professional learning. Paper presented at The 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT ’06), Kerkrade, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/icalt/2006/2632/00/263201186.pdf

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Plass, J. L. Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 25-36.

Ravenscroft, A. (2003). From conditioning to learning communities: Implications of fifty years of research in e-learning interaction design. ALT-J, 11(3), 4-18. Retrieved from ALT_J_Vol11_No_3_2003_From conditioning to learning.pdf

Robb, T. N. (2004). Moodle: A virtual learning environment for the rest of us. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 8(2), 8. Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej30/m2.html

Rüschoff, B,. & Ritter, M. (2001). Technology-enhanced language learning: Construction of knowledge and template-based learning in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14, 219–232.

Schmidt, J. (2007). Blogging practices: An analytical framework. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1409-1427

Sclater, N. (2008). Web 2.0, personal learning environments, and the future of learning management systems (Research Bulletin, Issue 13). Boulder, CO: Educause Center for Applied Research.

Scott, P., Castaneda, L. J., Quick, K. A., & Linney, J. (2007). Trialogical learning in public: FlashMeeting recording and reuse in a peer-learning context. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 3, 529-541

Spitzberg, B. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), n.p. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/spitzberg.html

Steele, D. J., Johnson Palensky, J. E., Lynch, T. G., Lacy, N. L., & Duffy, S. W. (2002). Learning preferences, computer attitudes, and student evaluation of computerised instruction. Medical Education, 36, 225-232.

Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature. ReCALL, 19, 105-120

Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures of use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38-67. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/default.html

Wang, Y., & Chen, N.-S. (2007). Online synchronous language learning: SLMS over the internet. Innovate, 3(3), n.p. Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view= article&id=337

Ward, J. M. (2004). Blog assisted language learning (BALL): Push button publishing for the pupils. TEFL Web Journal 3(1), n.p. Retrieved from http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_26/push button publishing ward 2004.pdf

Wertsch, J. V. (1991) A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85-100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wintergerst, A. C., DeCapua, A., & Itzen, R. C. (2001). The construct validity of one learning styles instrument. System, 29, 385-403.

Zorko, V. (2007). A rationale for introducing a wiki and a blog in a blended-learning context. CALL-EJ Online, 8(2), n.p. Retrieved from http://callej.org/journal/8-2/zorko.html

Downloads

Published

2013-01-14

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Stickler, U., & Hampel, R. (2013). CyberDeutsch: Language Production and User Preferences in a Moodle Virtual Learning Environment. CALICO Journal, 28(1), 49-73. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.1.49-73