Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T03:23:06.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Designing speaking interaction in LMOOCs: An eTandem approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2021

Christine Appel Open the ORCID record for Christine Appel [Opens in a new window]  and
Joan-Tomàs Pujolà Open the ORCID record for Joan-Tomàs Pujolà [Opens in a new window]
Christine Appel
Affiliation:
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain (mappel@uoc.edu)
Joan-Tomàs Pujolà
Affiliation:
Universitat de Barcelona, Spain (jtpujola@ub.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Promoting speaking interaction remains a challenge for language massive open online courses (LMOOCs), both from a pedagogical and technological standpoint. This paper describes the design process of the tandemMOOC, which exploits the massive, open and online features of MOOCs in order to offer language learners online speaking interaction practice with native speakers of their target language. The course is based on eTandem language learning principles and equips learners with the necessary competences to be able to cope with online second language (L2) speaking opportunities. Following a design-based research approach, this paper presents an analysis and discussion of seven components of the design: learning environment, facilitation dynamics, dyad configuration, task types, task topics, feedback provision, and gamification components. The analysis of the implementation of these elements results in a set of key features for the integration of L2 speaking interaction activities in LMOOCs.

Keywords

LMOOCspeaking interactioneTandemdesign-based research

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 33 , Special Issue 2: Researching Massive Open Online Courses for language teaching and learning , May 2021 , pp. 161 - 176
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akiyama, Y. (2015) Task-based investigation of learner perceptions: Affordances of video-based eTandem learning. In Dixon, E. & Thomas, M. (eds.), Researching language learner interaction online: From social media to MOOCs (CALICO Monograph Series Vol. 13). San Marcos: CALICO, 149–170.Google Scholar
Appel, C. (2013) Aprendizaje de peer-to-peer en asignaturas de lenguas extranjeras. In Gros, B. & Mas, X. (eds.), La Comunicación en los espacios virtuales. Enfoques y experiencias de formación en línea. Barcelona: UOC Innova, 47–64.Google Scholar
Appel, C. & Mullen, T. (2002) A new tool for teachers and researchers involved in e-mail tandem language learning. ReCALL, 14(2): 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344002000228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appel, C., Nic Giolla Mhichíl, M., Jager, S. & Prizel-Kania, A. (2014) SpeakApps 2: Speaking practice in a foreign language through ICT tools. In Jager, S., Bradley, L., Meima, E. J. & Thouësny, S. (eds.), CALL design: Principles and practice: Proceedings of the 2014 EUROCALL Conference, Groningen, The Netherlands. Dublin: Research-publishing.net, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2014.000187 Google Scholar
Appel, M. C. & Vogel, C. (2001) Investigating syntax priming in an e-mail tandem language learning environment. In Cameron, K. (ed.). C.A.L.L.: The challenge of change: Research and practice. Exeter: Elm Bank Publications, 177–184.Google Scholar
Beaven, T., Hauck, M., Comas-Quinn, A., Lewis, T. & de los Arcos, B. (2014) MOOCs: Striking the right balance between facilitation and self-determination. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1): 31–43. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no1/beaven_0314.pdf Google Scholar
Borrás-Gené, O., Martínez-Núñez, M. & Martín-Fernández, L. (2019) Enhancing fun through gamification to improve engagement in MOOC. Informatics, 6(28): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6030028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, H. P. & Messenger, K. (2016) Consistent and cumulative effects of syntactic experience in children’s sentence production: Evidence for error-based implicit learning. Cognition, 157: 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.09.004 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colpaert, J. (2014) Conclusion. Reflections on present and future: Towards an ontological approach to LMOOCs. In Martín-Monje, E. & Bárcena, E. (eds.), Language MOOCs: Providing learning, transcending boundaries. Berlin: De Gruyter Open, 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conde Gafaro, B. (2020) MOOCs in the language classroom: Using MOOCs as complementary materials to support self-regulated language learning. In Andujar, A. (ed.), Recent tools for computer- and mobile-assisted foreign language learning. Hershey: IGI Global, 194–211. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1097-1.ch009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1978) Language-learner language. In Richards, J. C. (ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning: Issues and approaches. Rowley: Newbury House, 71–93.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Language Policy Unit.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2013) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Design-Based Research Collective (2003) Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1): 5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
El-Hariri, Y. (2016) Learner perspectives on task design for oral–visual eTandem language learning. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(1): 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1138578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (1999) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3): 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimeno-Sanz, A. (2017) Designing a MOOC for learners of Spanish: Exploring learner usage and satisfaction. In Borthwick, K., Bradley, L. & Thouësny, S. (eds.), CALL in a climate of change: Adapting to turbulent global conditions – short papers from EUROCALL 2017. Dublin: Research-publishing.net, 122–127. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2017.eurocall2017.700 Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.) (2014) Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guàrdia, L., Maina, M. & Sangrà, A. (2013) MOOC design principles: A pedagogical approach from the learner’s perspective. eLearning Papers, 33: 1–6. http://hdl.handle.net/10609/41681 Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2004) Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1): 83–100. https://doi.org/10125/25231 Google Scholar
Levy, M. (2013) Design-based research and the quest for normalization in CALL. In Rodriguez, J. C. & Pardo-Ballester, C. (eds.), Design-based research in CALL. San Marcos: CALICO, 31–40.Google Scholar
Lin, C.-H., Warschauer, M. & Blake, R. (2016) Language learning through social networks: Perceptions and reality. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1): 124–147. https://doi.org/10125/44449 Google Scholar
Little, D. & Brammerts, H. (eds.) (1996) A guide to language learning in Tandem via the Internet (CLCS Occasional Paper No. 46). Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language and Communication Studies.Google Scholar
Martín-Monje, E., Castrillo, M. D. & Mañana-Rodríguez, J. (2018) Understanding online interaction in language MOOCs through learning analytics. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(3): 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1378237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenney, S. E. & Reeves, T. C. (2012) Conducting educational design research. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
McLoughlin, L. & Magnoni, F. (2017) The Move-Me project: Reflecting on xMOOC and cMOOC structure and pedagogical implementation. In Kan, Q. & Bax, S. (eds.), Beyond the language classroom: Researching MOOCs and other innovations. Dublin: Research-publishing.net, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2017.mooc2016.671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motzo, A. & Proudfoot, A. (2017) MOOCs for language learning – opportunities and challenges: The case of the Open University Italian Beginners’ MOOCs. In Kan, Q. & Bax, S. (eds.), Beyond the language classroom: Researching MOOCs and other innovations. Dublin: Research-publishing.net, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2017.mooc2016.673 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, E. G., Chang, Y. & Park, S. W. (2020) Design review of MOOCs: Application of e-learning design principles. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32: 455–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09243-w CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, B. (2007) Models of telecollaboration (1): eTandem. In O’Dowd, R. (ed.), Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers. New York: Multilingual Matters, 41–61. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690104-005 Google Scholar
Ortega-Arranz, A., Muñoz-Cristóbal, J. A., Martínez-Monés, A., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L. & Asensio-Pérez, J. I. (2017) How gamification is being implemented in MOOCs? A systematic literature review. In Lavoué, É., Drachsler, H., Verbert, K., Broisin, J. & Pérez-Sanagustín, M. (eds.), EC-TEL 2017: Data driven approaches in digital education. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 10474. Cham: Springer, 441–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66610-5_40 Google Scholar
Pujolà, J.-T. (2002) CALLing for help: Researching language learning strategies using help facilities in a web-based multimedia program. ReCALL, 14(2): 235–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344002000423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pujolà, J.-T. & Appel, C. (2020) Gamification for technology-enhanced language teaching and learning. In Kruk, M. & Peterson, M. (eds.), New technological applications for foreign and second language learning and teaching. Hershey: IGI Global, 93–112. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2591-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, T. & Bárcena, E. (2020) Toward a framework for language MOOCs and mobile assisted language learning. Propósitos y Representaciones, 8(1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.20511/pyr2020.v8n1.470 Google Scholar
Reeves, T. C. (2006) Design research from a technology perspective. In Van Den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S. & Nieveen, N. (eds.), Educational design research. Abingdon: Routledge, 52–66.Google Scholar
Reeves, T. C. & McKenney, S. (2013) Computer-assisted language learning and design-based research: Increased complexity for sure, enhanced impact perhaps. In Rodriguez, J. C. & Pardo-Ballester, C. (eds.), Design-based research in CALL. San Marcos: CALICO, 9–21.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1): 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubio, F., Fuchs, C. & Dixon, E. (2016) Language MOOCs: Better by design. In Martín-Monje, E., Elorza, I. & Riaza, B. G. (eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning for specialized domains: Practical applications and mobility. Abingdon: Routledge, 177–188.Google Scholar
SCORE2020 (2016) Output 5 SCORE2020: Instructional design models for different types and settings of MOOCs. Maastricht: EADTU. http://score2020.eadtu.eu/images/Results/Final_outputs/O5-Instructional_design_models_for_different_types_and_settings_of_MOOCs.pdf Google Scholar
Shao, K., Pekrun, R. & Nicholson, L. J. (2019) Emotions in classroom language learning: What can we learn from achievement emotion research? System, 86, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, Z., Lin, C.-H., Wu, M., Zhou, J. & Luo, L. (2018) A tale of two communication tools: Discussion-forum and mobile instant-messaging apps in collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2): 248–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, F. & Hannafin, M. J. (2005) Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4): 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, P. D. & O’Dowd, R. (2008) Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1): 43–63. https://doi.org/10125/44130 Google Scholar
Werbach, K. & Hunter, D. (2012) For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Appel and Pujolà supplementary material

Figures S4-S7

Download Appel and Pujolà supplementary material(File)
File 2.3 MB