Developing a theoretical model of online language learning, presentation by Matthew Absolom at AFMLTA conference in Sydney 2009

1. Developing a theoretical
model of online language
learning
Matthew Absalom
The University of Melbourne

2. Why online language learning 1
 Web 2.0
The promise of Web 2.0 technologies is
different. Their impact on the learning
process and the practice of teaching is truly
revolutionary in that it does not promise
efficiency but it extends the relations between
teachers and students beyond the two-
dimensional models of instruction to
multidimensional networks that resemble the
world we live in closer than ever before…
(Sturm et al. 2009:368)

3. What’s Web 2.0 all about?
Web 1.0 is about Web 2.0 is about
 reading  writing
 companies  communities
 homepages  blogs
 owning  sharing
 wires  wireless
 dialup  broadband
 web forms  web applications
 Netscape  Google
 Hardware costs  Bandwidth costs
From http://joedrumgoole.com/blog/2006/05/29/web-20-vs-web-10/

4. Why online language learning 2
 Digital natives vs Digital immigrants
…problems inherent in having non-
native instructors in charge of education
in the digital language…digital-native
students are fundamentally different to
traditional students and thus require a
new pedagogy… (MacLean & Elwood
2009:157)

5. New pedagogies
Digital natives Digital immigrants
• receive info quickly • receive info slowly
• multi-task • uni-task
• parallel processing • linear processing
So what do we (?) digital immigrant teachers need?

6. Our quick change cabinet
 Pedagogy first
 too often the technology is used without
appropriate reflection and pedagogical
foundation
 Parameters
 synchronicity
 visibility
 dialogicity
 dynamicity

7. What technologies?
Web 1.0 Web 2.0
 Webpages  Wikis
 Email  Blogs
 Instant messaging Social networking

8. Unpacking parameters
 Synchronicity
 asynchronous: anywhere, anytime
 synchronous: right here, right now
 Effects on learning
 asynchronous: caters well for learner
difference; less anxiety → deep learning
(plan, test, reflect)
 synchronous: caters for particular types of
learners; more anxiety

9. Unpacking parameters
 Visibility
 visible: how participants act is
visible/trackable
 invisible: how participants act is invisible/
untrackable
 Effects on learning
 visible: excellent for group
work/collaborative projects → motivation
 invisible: more challenging to promote
collaboration

10. Unpacking parameters
 Dialogicity
 dialogic: 1-to-1; 1-to-many; interaction
with peers (here and there), teachers, etc.
 monologic: 1-to-1 only
 Effects on learning
 dialogic: excellent for group
work/collaborative projects → motivation
 monologic: more challenging to promote
collaboration

11. Unpacking parameters
 Dynamicity
 dynamic: mirrors dynamic L&C, and
learners relationship to L&C
 static: L&C as artefact
 Effects on learning
 dynamic: challenge conceptions →
hypothesis, test, deconstruct, reconstruct
 static: L&C as set of monolithic rules

12. Testing the technology
 Email (web 1.0)
 asynchronous
 semi-visible
 predominantly monologic
 static
 Wiki (web 2.0)
 asynchronous
 visible
 dialogic
 dynamic

13. What do you need?
 What are the challenges to onlining your teaching?
References
MacLean, G.R. & Elwood, J.A. (2009) ‘Digital Natives,
Learner Perceptions and the Use of ICT’. In Thomas
(ed.) 156-175.
Sturm, M. Kennerll, T. McBride, R. & Kelly, M. (2009)
‘The Pedagogical Implications of Web 2.0’. In
Thomas (ed.) 367-384.
Thomas, M. (2009) Handbook of Research on Web 2.0
and Second Language Learning. Information Science
Reference.