Fostering student interaction and engagement in a virtual learning environment: An investigation into activity design and implementation

Authors

  • Regine Hampel The Open University
  • Christine Pleines

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.3.342-370

Keywords:

distance education, online education, virtual learning environments, activity design

Abstract

Online tools, such as forums, wikis, and blogs lend themselves to learners negotiating meaning and co-constructing knowledge through interaction. However, not enough is known about how tasks need to be designed to make best use of the possibilities of complex virtual learning environments (VLEs) to motivate and support learners, foster interaction, and contribute to knowledge construction. This article reports on a two-year study exploring the design and implementation cycle of online activities as an integral part of a distance language course. When the course was introduced in 2009, activities had been designed on the basis of second language acquisition principles as well as sociocultural theories, providing a basis for student interaction and taking into account the affordances of the environment, a Moodle-based VLE. After the end of the first year an evaluation was carried out that examined quantitative and qualitative data (Moodle user logs, learner survey and learner interviews). It was found that students preferred forums to other tools and that assessment-related activities attracted higher participation rates than other tasks. It also highlighted a number of issues, including low participation in on-task discussions, a large gap between viewings and contributions, very large differences in individual engagement, low priority given to the online activities by some students, and varying levels of e-literacy amongst learners. Consequently, activities were re-designed and a number of changes were implemented in 2010 that included more teacher involvement, fewer tasks, a simpler structure, and a reduced number of tools. A comparison of learner participation across the two years shows that these changes had a positive impact on learner engagement.

References

Adams, H.,& Nicolson, M. (2008). The languages classroom: Comfort zone or obstacle course. In M. Edwardes (Ed.), Proceedings of the BAAL annual conference2008,Greenwich University. Availableat http://oro.open.ac.uk/26481/.

Arnold, N., Ducate, L.,& Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing group dynamics and revision process in wikis. CALICO Journal,29(3), 431-448.

Beasley, N.,& Smyth, K.(2004). Expected and actual student use of an online learning environment: Acritical analysis.Electronic Journal on e-Learning, 2(1),43-50.

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign language teaching curriculum: From teacher-to student-centered approaches. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 87-107. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/brandl/

Brandl, K. (2005). Are you ready to ‘Moodle’? Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 16-23.

Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923-939.doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00678.x

Chapelle, C.A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22-34. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article1/index.html

Chapelle, C. A. (2005). Interactionist SLA theory in CALL research. In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (Eds.), Research perspectives on CALL(pp. 53-64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chapelle, C.A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. Modern Language Journal,93, 741-754.doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00970.x

Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System,22, 17-31. doi: 10.1016/0346-251X(94)90037-X

Comas-Quinn, A., de los Arcos, B.,& Mardomingo, R. (2012). Virtual learning environments (VLEs) for distance language learning: Shifting tutor roles in a contested space forinteraction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(2), 129-143. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2011.636055

Comas-Quinn, A., Mardomingo, R.,& Valentine, C. (2009). Mobile blogs in language learning: Making the most of informal and situated learning opportunities. ReCALL, 21(1), 96-112. doi: 10.1017/S0958344009000032

Doughty, C.,& Long, H. M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology,7(3), 50-80. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/doughty/default.html

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research,20(4),193-220. doi: 10.1177/136216880000400302

Felix, U.(2002). The web as vehicle for constructivist approaches in language teaching. ReCALL, 14(1), 2-15. doi: 10.1017/S0958344002000216

Fung, Y. Y. H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning: The Journalof Open, Distance and e-Learning, 19(2), 135-149. doi: 10.1080/0268051042000224743

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & H. M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition(pp. 224-255). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470756492.ch9

Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL,18(1), 105-21. doi: 10.1017/S0958344006000711

Hampel, R. (2010). Task design for a virtual learning environment in a distance language course. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching with technology(pp. 131-153). London: Continuum.

Hampel, R. (in press). Making meaning online: Computer-mediated communication for language learning. In A. Peti-Stanti? & M.-M. Stanojevi? (Eds.), Language as information. Proceedings from the CALS conference 2012. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal,79(4), 457-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05445.x

Lamy, M.-N.,& Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230592681

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

Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,5(2), 177-93. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100004848

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition(pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.

Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36, 437-455. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.004

Miceli, M., Visocnik Murray, S.,& Kennedy, S. (2010). Using an L2 blog to enhance learners' participation and sense of community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23,(4), 321-341. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2010.495321

Mitchell, R., Myles, R., & Marsden, E. (2013) Second language learning theories(3rdedition). Abingdon: Routledge.

Murray,L.,& Hourigan, T. (2008). Blogs for specific purposes: Expressivist or sociocognitivist approach? ReCALL,20(1), 82-97. doi: 10.1017/S0958344008000719

Nagata, N. (1998). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 23-40. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/article1/default.html

Nielsen,J. (2006). Participation inequality: Encouraging more users to contribute. Available at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html(last accessed 30 July 2010); ‘The 90-9-1 principle’, available at: www.90-9-1.com.

Price, L., Hampel, R., & Pleines, C. (2010). Report on L203 Motive: Upper intermediate German. Effectiveness and usability of new-style online assessment-related tasks.The Open University (internal report).

Richards, J. C.,& Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667305

Rovai, A.P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1-16.

Simina, V.,& Hamel, M.-J. (2005). CASLA through a social constructivist perspective: WebQuestin project-driven language learning. ReCALL,17(2), 217-228. doi: 10.1017/S0958344005000522

Sotillo, S.M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronouscommunication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html

Stickler, U.,& Hampel, R. (2010). CyberDeutsch: Language production and user preferences in a Moodle virtual learning environment. CALICO Journal,28(1), 49–73.

Stockwell G. R. & Harrington, M.W. (2003). The incidental development of L2 proficiency in NS-NNS email interactions. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 337-359. Available at http://journals.sfu.ca/CALICO/index.php/calico/article/view/639/505

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition(pp. 235-53). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M.,& Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391. doi: 10.1093/applin/16.3.371

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal,13(2-3), 7-26. Available at http://journals.sfu.ca/CALICO/index.php/calico/article/view/503/377

Warschauer, M. (1998). Online learning in sociocultural contexts. Anthropology and Education Quarterly,29(1), 68-88. doi: 10.1525/aeq.1998.29.1.68

Warschauer, M.,& Kern, R. (Eds.) (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524735

Weininger, M. J.,& Shield, L. (2003). Promoting oral production in a written channel: An investigation of learner language in MOO. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(4), 329-349. doi: 10.1076/call.16.4.329.23414

Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.

White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667312

Yang, S.C. & Chen, Y.-J. (2007). Technology-enhanced language learning: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior,23, 860-879. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2006.02.015

Downloads

Published

2013-09-26

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Hampel, R., & Pleines, C. (2013). Fostering student interaction and engagement in a virtual learning environment: An investigation into activity design and implementation. CALICO Journal, 30(3), 342-370. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.3.342-370

Most read articles by the same author(s)