Learning Management Systems for Language
Learning:
The Groningen Case
ELC Workshop Berlin
14-15 December 2001
Sake Jager
University of Groningen
Presentation
 The introduction of a general-purpose learning management
system at the University of Groningen
 Strengths and weaknesses of such a system for language
learning
 Future directions for web-based language learning
environments
Need for strategy
 ICT: active field of top-down and bottom-up
initiatives
 ICT for language learning largely bottom-up
 Top-down introduction of LMS:



Why introduced? General advantages?
Benefits for language learning?
What strategies are needed?
 Nestor project: Blackboard as the standard virtual
learning environment
The Nestor project
 Reasons for introduction:





More flexible learning methods (time and place
independent)
More student-centred learning activities
Enhancing the use of ICT by staff
Focus for ICT-related training and support
Using it because others are doing it!
 No explicit learning philosophy or pedagogy
Implementation at Faculty of
Arts
 Leading role in introduction
 Integral use
 Development along four lines




Infrastructure
Staff training
Integration into the curriculum
ICT Management
Staff training plan
 All staff (600) are to be trained by 2003
 Directors of Study responsible for getting staff
trained
 Training in operation and didactic applications
 Training on the basis of real courses taught
 Training on faculty computer networks
 Assistance available: faculty co-ordinator,
servicedesk, student-assistants
 Extra assistance for innovative applications
Basic features LMS’s








Presentation Areas
Discussion Forums
E-Mail
Chat and Whiteboard
Group Activity Areas
Web Resource and Linking Areas
Assessment
See also: Online Educational Delivery
Applications: A Web Tool for Comparative Analysis
(http://www.ctt.bc.ca/landonline/)
Screenshot Nestor
Screenshot startpagina
Screenshot documents
Screenshot arabische tekst
Screenshot Executable
Results after one year
 Over 125 staff trained since last January
 Over 150 courses launched
 Used by experienced and inexperienced in
ICT
 Also used for language learning in spite of
certain restrictions
 Not a replacement for CALL packages
Acceptance of ICT as learning tool




Great interest
No steep learning curve
Actual use
Useful for increasing computer-literacy and focal point for
training; cf Gillespie (2000):
 “computer-based social context for staff and students”
 “human connectivity”
 “reinforcement of computer-skills”
 Primary motivation for Nestor project
Use by experienced and
inexperienced staff
 Also used by HTML-proficient staff and
programmers
 Combination of features appealing

Individual components less powerful than stand-alone
counterparts
 Standard program with appropriate support

Automated enrollment students, backups, helpdesk
 Possibility for integration with other web resources
Support for languages
 Essential for language learning [Siekmann]
 Possible through external formats:



Word documents
HTML
Platform dependent fonts
 Results unpredictable, certain areas do not allow
use of foreign languages
 General lack of Unicode support (interface,
scripting, database levels)
Specific CALL functionality
 Not up to CD Rom-based courseware


Limited feedback and branching
Lower quality/low speed multimedia
 Interactive exercises primarily for assessment, not training
 Emphasis on information, communication, collaboration:

Putting people in touch with each other, not with a machine.
 Complementary to CALL, no replacement


Use in addition to CALL
Develop CALL to be integrated into these environments
Perspectives on web-based
language learning
 True potential of the web largely unexplored
 Open-ended, student-centred, task-based learning
activities
 Authentic materials, real-life tasks and real-life
problems
 Self-directed learning, collaboration
 Project-based work
Integrative CALL
Warschauer: “In contrast, integrative CALL is based on a
socio-cognitive view of language learning. From this
viewpoint, learning language involves apprenticing into new
discourse communities. The purpose of interaction is to help
students learn to enter new communities and familiarize
themselves with new genres and discourses. From this point
of view, the content of the interaction and the nature of the
community are extremely important. It is not enough to
engage in communication for communication’s sake.”
‘The Death of Cyberspace and the Rebirth of CALL’
LMS’s and integrative CALL
 Support for integrative, task-based CALL

E.g. for setting up tasks related to finding a job
 Same can be done using separate tools



HTML Editor, Discussion Board, E-mail, etc.
Preferred by some over Swiss-Army Knife type
learning environments
Difficult to provide training and support for
Further points to consider
 Labour intensive:


Time for course development
Time for running the course
 Largely teacher-controlled


Access to publishing functions mainly for
teachers
Students must use other authoring tools
Enforcement of pedagogy
 No enforcement of pedagogy
 Not based on a particular learning philosophy
 May lead to substition, rather than
transformation of learning process
 Familiarization with pedagogic and didactic
principles needed
Directions for future work
 Strong emphasis on didactic uses
 Institution-wide strategies are needed, with a
sensible mix of top-down and bottom-up
approaches
 Combine the best features of LMS’s with the strong
points of dedicated CALL programs
 Assess the potential of emerging technologies for
language learning
Conclusion
 LMS’s not the “be all and end all” for webbased language learning.
 Catalyst for change, esp. acceptance of ICT
as learning tool
 Didactic changes most important

No substitution, but transformation
 Additional training in didactic use necessary
Some references

Chizmar J.F. and D.B. Williams (2001). ‘What Do Faculty Want?’, Educause Quarterly 1, pp.
18-24.
 Debski, R. (2000). ‘Exploring the Re-creation of a CALL Innovation’,
Computer-Assisted Language Learning 13:4-5, pp. 307-332.
 Felix, U. (1998). Virtual Language Learning: Finding the Gems among
the Pebbles. Melbourne, Language Australia.
 Felix, U. (1999). ‘Web-Based Language Learning: A Window to the
Authentic World’ in R. Debski and M. Levy (eds), World CALL: Global
Perspectives on Computer-Assisted Language Learning (Lisse, Swets
and Zeitlinger), pp. 85-98.
 Gillespie, J. (2000). ‘Towards a computer-based learning environment: a
pilot study in the use of FirstClass’, ReCALL 12:1, pp. 19-26.
References (cont’d)
 Hogan-Brun, G. and H. Laux (2001). ‘Specialist Gateways through
Chaos: a Changing Learning Environment’, System 29, pp. 253-265.
 Siekmann, S. (2001). ‘Calico Software Report: Which Web Course
Management System is Right for Me? A Comparison of WebCT 3.1 and
Blackboard 5.0’, CALICO Journal 18:3 , pp. 590-617.
 Warschauer, M. (2000a). ‘The Changing Global Economy and the Future
of English Teaching’, TESOL Quarterly 34:3, pp. 511-535.
 Warschauer, M. (2000b). ‘The Death of Cyberspace and the Rebirth of
CALL’, available http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/cyberspace.html
(downloaded 30 October 2001).
Siekmann (2001)
“In a foreign language learning context, it is important
to create a target language environment that
motivates students to use the second language.
Ideally, it should be possible to present a language
course site entirely in the target language. Both
systems fall short of this goal at the time, but
WebCT offers more opportunities to create a target
language environment (for many western European
languages) than Blackboard. (CALICO Journal 18:
3, 593)