CC BY
7
Вестн. Моск. ун-та. Сер. 19. Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. 2021. № 3
ИНФОРМАЦИОННО-КОММУНИКАЦИОННЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ В ОБРАЗОВАНИИ
Svetlana V. Titova
DEVELOPING STUDENTS' COLLABORATIVE
AND LANGUAGE SKILLS
THROUGH MOOC INTEGRATION IN CLIL
Lomonosov Moscow State University 1 Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991
The objective of this action research is twofold, first, to work out the possible ways of Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) integration in a blended CLIL course and to analyze the pedagogical impact of this intervention on developing student language and collaboration skills. The theoretical framework of the intervention is based on current MOOC theories, connectivism (G. Siemens, 2005) and SAMR model by R. Puentedura (2011) for implementing new technologies and open educational resources into teaching. Thirty bachelor students from Lomonosov Moscow State University enrolled in a blended course Methodology of English Language Teaching participated in the first cycle of the research. Student participation in the MOOC Understanding language: Learning and Teaching (Southampton University, UK) was evaluated using two assignments: the e-portfolios that reflected their participation in the MOOC forums and the course blog peer collaboration where they could comment on each other's contributions and experience. The analysis based on the qualitative and quantitative data (post-intervention questionnaire) demonstrated the learners' positive attitude to this intervention due to the following possibilities: getting familiar with the theories and terminology on EFL teaching and learning, sharing ideas and experiences on the MOOC forums with the learners from all over the world, and finally, improving their writing skills, digital literacies and EFL terminology knowledge.
Key words: MOOC; CLIL; collaborative language learning; interactive environment; collaboration skills; language skills; digital literacies.
Introduction
The new educational standards of Russian Federation require educators to design innovative instructional models based on digital technologies
Svetlana Titova - Professor, Department of Theory of Foreign Language Teaching, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Area Studies, Lomonosov Moscow State University (e-mail: [email protected]).
and open educational resources [Tikhonova, Raitskaya, 2018]. The Ministry of Education and Sciences of Russian Federation launched in 2015 a long-term project aimed at promoting students' and instructors' motivation in implementing and creating MOOCs for higher education. Some universities in Russia have accepted MOOCs for credits since 2016. With the increasing popularity of MOOCs and OER among learners and due to the innovative trends in higher education in Russian Federation, college instructors today are confronted with a lot of challenges: how to integrate MOOCs in traditional or blended learning courses, how to evaluate student participation once a MOOC or some materials from it were implemented in the course, what kind of tasks and activities can be designed using MOOCs, what kind of instructional design to choose for integration, how to pick up a MOOC that can fit the aims and objectives of the taught course, etc.
The background for the study
From multiple points of view MOOCs can be considered as self-paced distance courses supported by social networking and a peer-tuition approach [Manning, Morrison, Mcllroy, 2014]. Without any doubts, MOOCs provide a great deal of pedagogical potential to design innovative educational models [Yuan, Powell, 2013; Wilson, Gruzd, 2014]. They create authentic educational environment to develop learner communicative, digital and professional skills, they provide online interaction and high-quality online educational resources from top-ranking universities and colleges [Milligan, Littlejohn, Margaryan; 2013, Lage, Platt, Treglia, 2000; Mangan, 2012]. Forum discussions, that is an essential part of any MOOC, create interactive communities where participants from all over the world can share their experience, ideas and knowledge [Garrison, Vaughan, 2008]. MOOCs foster highly demanded in digital age approaches such as the general peer assessment and the calibrated peer review, collaborative enquiry-based and project-based methods [Godwin-Jones, 2014; Godwin-Jones, 2012; Dyer, 2014]. They enhance learner motivation through prompt and timely feedback from course participants [Milligan, Littlejohn, Mar-garyan, 2013].
Daphna Koller, the founder of COURSERA, stated MOOCs can be used "to wrap on-campus courses around existing MOOCs"1. The most frequently described way of MOOC integration is the use of MOOCs for flipped learning or "distributed flip" [Caulfield, Collier, Halawa, 2013] or hybrid MOOC model [Bruff, Fisher, McEwen, Smith, 2013; Griffiths et al., 2014]. In this model students are enrolled in the MOOC chosen by
1 Koller D. How online courses can form a basis for on-campus teaching. Forbes, 2012. URL: http://www.forbes.com/sites/coursera/2012/11/07/how-online-courses-can-form-a-basis-for-on-campus-teaching/ (accessed: 21.04.2021).
the instructor, they study the material presented online. In class they discuss, exchange ideas and opinions, share their progress, work in groups or individually, do the tasks tailored by their instructor using MOOC content to fit the objectives of his or her course [Israel, 2015].
Israel M. came to the conclusion that there are two theoretical models of MOOC integration in traditional classroom: single MOOC adoption in which a MOOC is used as the primary source of information is synchronized with the on-campus course and multiple MOOCs adoption in which a MOOC is used by the instructor as additional learning resources [Israel, 2015].
It is also possible to use learning materials not from one but from various MOOCs [Bruff, Fisher, McEwen, Smith, 2013]. The hybrid model seems to be very effective in terms of evaluation and assessment because learners can be provided with formative assessment and feedback from their teacher of the on-campus course [Hoi, 2014]. Hybrid degree programs that include a combination of traditional and MOOC courses, have been launched recently at the Georgia Institute of Technology in the United States [Hoi, 2014]. MOOCs can also be used to support students' self-directed language learning goals [Guillen, 2015; Manning, Morrison, Mcllroy, 2014; Stone, Perumean-Chaney, 2011].
The methodological framework of the research
The methodological framework of the research is based on the recently appeared pedagogical theories and approaches: connectivism, the Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition model (SAMR model) and the models of MOOCs integration offered by M. Israel [Israel, 2015].
Digital technologies have changed the way we interact, behave and learn. G. Siemens argues that the well-known pedagogical theories (behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism) cannot be implied any longer for designing a new educational/instructional model. Connectivism is the learning theory that fits the digital age education. According to the con-nectivism approach we "can no longer personally experience and acquire learning that we need to act. We derive our competence from forming connections" [Siemens, 2005]. In other words, learning in the digital age is a continual process that occurs in a variety of ways - through online discussions and forums, group interactive activities, group-based projects, etc.
Another theoretical approach that is very important for this research is the Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition model (SAMR) designed by R. Puentedura. It was created for teachers who would like to integrate digital technologies and OER in learning process. According to this model the use of new tech tools in education may lead
either to the enhancement of education (augmentation and substitution phases) or to the real transformation (redefinition and modification phases). Redefinition is the highest transformation phase which allows for a completely new format of tasks and activities that were previously impossible.
The rationale of the research
The growing interest for MOOCs and open educational resources (OER) provides new opportunities for language education [Martín-Moje, 2016; Wei Li, 2015]. Unfortunately, limited research and empirical data were provided to support the effectiveness of such intervention in blended CLIL or language classrooms. Godwin-Jones outlined the three areas within language learning where MOOCs can be implemented efficiently -teaching English as a second language (ESL), study of indigenous languages and teaching language for special purposes (LSP). The last area of integration is of particular interest for this research because MOOCs offer "a convenient vehicle for reaching professionals or trainees who need specialized language skills" [Godwin-Jones, 2014: 12]. Unfortunately, not much research and empirical data were provided to support the effectiveness ofsuch kind of intervention in blended CLIL or language classroom. So far it has been proved that MOOCs integration into traditional classroom has "modest positive impacts on learning outcomes, no significant evidence of negative effects for any subgroups of students, and lower levels of student satisfaction in blended MOOCs in classrooms" [Israel, 2015].
The objective of the research
The objective of this action research is twofold. First, to work out the possible ways of MOOC integration in a blended CLIL course to create an authentic online collaborative community, and second, to analyze students' perceptions of their MOOC experience as well as the pedagogical impact of this intervention on their motivation and learning outcomes.
The hypothesis of the research
The hypothesis of this action research was that OER, MOOCs specifically, could both enhance learner motivation by means of creating an authentic interactive online environment and influence the course performance or learning outcomes. This study, which was based on current MOOC theories, connectivism and SAMR approaches, focused on working out a new methodological framework for MOOC implementation in a CLIL course to create an authentic interactive environment where
students can collaborate with the participants from other countries and learn with authentic materials [Titova, 2017].
Materials and Methods
Participants
30 bachelor undergraduate students (22 females, 8 males) from Lo-monosov Moscow State University enrolled in a blended CLIL 15-week course Methodology of English Language Teaching participated in the first cycle of the research during the Fall semester 2017. The course, that is taught in English, aims at developing both professional and language skills (listening, reading, speaking) of the students. This course was designed to introduce a student-centered classroom, it is supported by the class blog where learners can communicate with the instructor and their groupmates and publish the assignments. The language competence of students was B2-C1 according to the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR). According to CEFR B2 level speakers can follow the essentials of lectures, talks and reports and other forms of academic/professional presentation which are propositionally and linguistically complex.
Research design
Our model of instruction includes a blended CLIL course supported by the group blog and student participation in the MOOC forums. The MOOC is used in this model as additional learning resources for setting up an authentic online collaborative community. This educational model provides different focuses of perspective on the course content, exposes students to different ways of teaching content, and helps students develop their communicative skills (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. The model of instruction
This action research includes the enhancement and substitution cycles [Puentedura, 2011]. The main objective of the enhancement cycle is to analyze MOOC intervention from the perspective of students' engagement and their attitude to the intervention rather than students' outcomes. The second cycle of the research will focus mainly on learning outcomes. In other words, we are planning to analyze the pedagogical impact of this intervention on developing student language skills and collaboration skills. This paper is devoted to the analysis of the first cycle of the research.
Assessments and Measures
At the enhancement cycle of the research the students were asked to enroll for the MOOC Understanding language: Learning and Teaching (Southampton University, UK) in 2017. The course that was created by the University of Southampton and the British Council is aimed at graduates with an interest in the development of languages and language teaching. It gives graduates a taste of postgraduate study in the field of English language teaching. Students had to follow the online materials, complete the assignments and participate in discussion forums. Student participation in the MOOC was included into the course evaluation and was assessed using the two ongoing summative assignments:
• the e-portfolios that reflected their participation in the MOOC forums,
• and the course blog peer collaboration where they could comment on each other's contributions and experience.
The participation in the discussion forums of the MOOC was required according to the course evaluation because as a lot of research showed students liked watching videos, reading extra materials but they didn't take active part in forum discussions [Perifanou, 2014]
The integration of the MOOC in the course syllabus helped the instructor enhance learner motivation by means of creating an authentic interactive online environment, provide them opportunities to engage in real, authentic collaborative works, develop online communication writing skills of the students [Stone, Perumean-Chaney, 2011]. As M. Perifanou, A. Economides stated one of the key steps for designing an efficient learning environment for language MOOCs is to design a successful and promising language learning environment [Perifanou, Economides, 2014].
Data collection of the enhancement cycle took place from September 2017 to January 2018. Survey data on the students' perception of the MOOC experience were collected using a post-intervention questionnaire. The post-intervention questionnaire contained 10 questions, out of which 5 questions in the format of Likert four-level scale, 3 multiple choice questions and 2 free-text comments aiming to get student views on their attitude to MOOC integration.
Results
The questionnaire was completed by 30 students (22 female, 8 male). Responses to the 5 questions in the format of Likert four-level scale are provided in table 1.
Table 1
Results of the post-study Likert questionnaire
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Participation in the MOOC helps me acquire some knowledge (theories and approaches) in teaching English as foreign language and get ready for the tests and colloquium 7 20 2 1
Engagement in the discussion forums of the MOOC helps me develop my writing skills 4 24 2 0
Engagement in the discussion forums of the MOOC helps me share my experience and opinions with other learners and be a member of peer community learning 7 21 1 1
Engagement in the discussion forums of the MOOC helps me develop my collaborative skills and digital literacies 3 23 4 0
I really enjoyed participating in the MOOC 3 23 3 1
Answering question 6 aiming to figure out how many MOOC forums the students took part in, 14 students answered - all the forums, 10 - some of the MOOC forums, 6 - few of the MOOC forums, none of the students chose - none of the MOOC forums.
In response to question 7 What components of the MOOC do you think were the most valuable to your future professional success, 16 students chose video lectures; 16 - articles, only 3 - forum discussion, 2 - web resources.
In response to question 8 What did you gain most from taking part in the MOOC? The students were asked to check all the variants that apply. 21 students marked the opportunity to get familiar with new theories and approaches, 10 students - the opportunity to develop your writing skills, 10 students - the opportunity to network with a like-minded group of people, 10 students - awareness of open educational resources. The two free-text comments are analyzed in Discussion.
Our data analysis demonstrated that the overall positive attitude of the learners to this intervention - 87% (26 students) (Fig. 2).
I REALLY ENJOYED PARTICIPATING IN THE MOOC
Ocnnn/n riicnnraa/4_
Disai
Strongly agreet
Figure 2. Students' attitude to participation in MOOC
Only 13% (4 students) were not satisfied with this innovative model. The main reasons for the negative attitude were the lack of time and the overloaded schedule of the course as these 4 students (13%) said answering the free text question What did you like least about taking part in
The learners agreed that MOOC integration in the course syllabus helped them:
• develop writing skills - 80% (24 students);
• develop collaborative skills and digital literacies - 77% (23 students);
• share experience and opinions with other learners and be a member of peer community learning - 70% (21 students);
• acquire some knowledge (theories and approaches) in teaching English as foreign language and get ready for the tests and colloquium -67% (20 students) (Figure 3).
80% of the students took part in all the forum discussions, opinion polls of the course. The analysis of their MOOC portfolios demonstrated that participating in 5-week course each of them posted from approximately from 3000 to 5000 words. On average, each of 24 students produced texts of approximately 3600 words. Some of them were very active on the course forums, initiating debates and discussions.
Some free-text comments provided additional insight into learner experiences and revealed their positive attitude to the MOOC intervention. Answering the question What did you like best about taking part in the MOOC? almost 70% of the participants (21 students) mentioned the opportunity to communicate with other people via forum discussions:
MOOC?
Discussion
Benefits of the MOOC integration from the point of view of the students
develop writing skills develop my collaborative skills and digital share my experience and opinions with acquire some knowledge (theories and
literacies other learners and be a member of peer approaches) in teaching English as foreign
community learning language and get ready for the tests and
colloquium
^H strongly Agreed LEE Agreed ^H Disagreed Strongly disagreed
Figure 3. Benefits of the MOOC integration from the point of view of the students
• "Online discussions, sharing experience, new theories, no deadlines."
• "The thing I liked most is the communication with the people from all over the world."
• "Being engaged in a conversation with the people with the same interests from all over the world."
• "Reading comments of the people from other countries."
• "Sharing ideas and my points of view with other participants."
• "I liked the online community which was represented by people from various countries."
There are other benefits resulting from the use of MOOCs: 43% (13 students) indicated the opportunity to learn more about teaching approaches, 27% (8 students) - liked the video lectures as the way the content was presented. Our findings suggest that the students place heavy emphasis on the value of the lectures showing and demonstrating some practical approaches. For example, the way English is taught in India was the most memorable and informative one (Fig. 4).
The most frequently mentioned negative impact on the MOOC experience identified by the students was the time requirements (33%) and the overloaded schedule of the course (27%) due to the intervention of the MOOC (Figure 5). The students complained that task completion required an extensive amount of time. This may be because some students did not have an appropriate language level, so they had to spend more time on
listening and reading tasks, although none of the students mentioned that it had a negative impact on their experience.
Positive impacts of the MOOC experience identified by the students
80
Название диаграммы
Forum discussions 70% More info on teaching approaches -43 % ■ The way the materials were presented -27%
Категория 1
Figure 4. Positive impact on the MOOC experience identified by the students
More than that, as the researcher figured out at the weekly face-to-face sessions the students had some difficulty understanding specialized ESL terms. Although none of the students highlighted it as the negative impact on their experience. In order to solve the problems of the language barrier, the instructors have to adjust the content of on-campus language or CLIL courses to integrate MOOC materials in learning process efficiently [Wei, 2015]. They have to provide language support through glossaries, tasks designed on MOOC materials. One more way to support knowledge development is through participant forums or blogs of on-campus courses, due to "a lack of familiarity among students with online learning and with the teaching and learning method used in a MOOC" [Godwin-Jones, 2014: 11].
One more reason for that is a lack of familiarity among students with online learning and with the teaching and learning techniques utilized as a part of a MOOC [Godwin-Jones, 2014, Bárcena, Read, Martín-Monje, Castrillo, 2014; Titova, Samoylenko, 2017]. For all the students participation in the MOOC was their first experience. These are how the students tried to explain the difficulties they encountered:
"It's the first time I am studying online. And so far I realized that I lack some discipline as I do these tasks with a slight holdup".
"Having completed the first week of the course I realized that I should pay more attention to my learning style."
It is possible to improve learners' performance by providing personalized planning, tips and hints for time management, study habits and teamwork, and a meeting point for people who need help to keep pace with the MOOC and need to know who can offer them support [Gutiérrez-Rojas, Alario-Hoyos, Pérez-Sanagustín, Leony, Delgado-Kloos, 2014].
Surprisingly enough, although 70% of the students mentioned the opportunity to communicate with other people via forum as their positive experience, still some (20%) argued that they didn't like collaborative tasks where they had to give arguments or counter arguments: "I didn't like the tasks where I had to react to other people's opinions as I don't feel comfortable doing this." "I don't like to participate in the forum discussions".
This can be explained by lacking student experience in participating in online discussion. It was the biggest challenge encountered by the students. As Griffiths et al. (2014) argue participating in MOOC forum discussion students gain strong critical thinking in terms of the ability to distinguish between opinions and augmentations, improve their skills in critiquing with analytical comments.
Negative impacts of the MOOC experience identified by the students
35% 30%
25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
Time requirements 33% the overloaded schedule of the course 27% Forum discussions - 20%
Figure 5. The negative impacts on the MOOC experience identified by the students
Conclusion
MOOCs in education represent a new stage not only in distance learning and self-directed learning, as many authors assert, but also in a tra-
ditional face-to-face classroom [Israel, 2015]. Integration of the MOOC in the course syllabus helped the instructor enhance learner motivation by means of creating an authentic interactive online environment that enabled students to be engaged in collaborative activities and develop communication and socio-cultural skills [Pavlovskaya, Perkins, 2016]. The data analysis demonstrated that the learners' positive attitude to this integration may be due to the following possibilities: sharing ideas and experiences on the MOOC forums with learners from all over the world, getting familiar with the theories on EFL teaching and learning, improving EFL terminology knowledge, and developing writing skills.
The future research steps or the second substitution cycle will be devoted to the investigation of the relationships between the students' use of MOOC and their learning outcomes as well as what kind of pedagogical strategies can enhance the course outcomes. The researcher is going to compare the learning outcomes in the hybrid group and in the traditional face-to-face group in terms of pass rates, scores on common tests and grades.
REFERENCES
1. Bárcena E., Read T., Martín-Monje E., Castrillo M.D. 2014. Analysing student participation in Foreign Language MOOCs: a case study. In Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit, Lausanne, 10-12 February 2014, pp. 11-12. URL: http://www.emoocs2014.eu/sites/default/files/Proceedings-Moocs-Summit-2014.pdf (accessed: 21.04.2021).
2. Bruff D.O., Fisher D.H., McEwen K.E., Smith B.E. 2013. Wrapping a MOOC: student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, no. 9(2). URL: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/bruff_0613. htm (accessed: 21.04.2021).
3. Caulfield M., Collier A., Halawa S. 2013, October 7. Rethinking online community in MOOCs used for blended learning [Web log post]. URL: http://www.educause. edu/ero/article/rethinking-online-community-moocs-usedblended-learning (accessed: 21.04.2021).
4. Dyer R.A.D. 2014. Exploring the relevancy of massive open online courses (MOOCs): a Caribbean university approach. Information Resources Management Journal, no. 27(2), pp. 61-77. URL: https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2014040105 (accessed: 21.04.2021).
5. Garrison D.R., Vaughan N.D. 2008. Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. New York, Jossey-Bass.
6. Godwin-Jones R. 2012. Challenging Hegemonies in Online Learning. Language Learning & Technology, no. 16(2), pp. 4-13.
7. Godwin-Jones R. 2014. Global reach and local practice: The promise of MOOCS. Language Learning & Technology, no. 18(3), pp. 5-15. URL: http://llt.msu.edu/issues/ october2014/emerging.pdf (accessed: 21.04.2021).
8. Griffiths R., Chingos M., Mulhern C., Spies R. 2014. Interactive online learning on campus: Testing MOOCs and other platforms in hybrid formats in the University System of Maryland (ITHAKA S+R Report). URL: http://www.sr.ithaka.org/sites/
default/files/reports/SR_Interactive_Online_Learning_Campus_20140716.pdf (accessed: 21.04.2021).
9. Gutiérrez-Rojas I., Alario-Hoyos C., Pérez-Sanagustín M., Leony D., Delgado-Kloos C. 2014. Scaffolding self-learning in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2014, pp. 43-49. PAU Education. URL: http://educate.gast.it. uc3m.es/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Scaffolding_self-learning_in_MOOCs.pdf (accessed: 21.04.2021).
10. Hoi K. Suen. 2014. Peer Assessment for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, no. 15(3), pp. 312 -327.
11. Israel M.J. 2015. Effectiveness of integrating MOOCs in traditional classrooms for undergraduate Students. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol. 16(5), pp. 102-118. URL: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2222 (accessed: 21.04.2021).
12. Lage M.J., Platt G.J., Treglia M. 2000. Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, no. 31(1), pp. 30-43. doi:10.1080/00220480009596759
13. Mangan K. 2012. October 1. Massive excitement about online courses. The Chronicle of Higher Education. URL: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Massive-Excite-ment-About/134678/ (accessed: 21.04.2021).
14. Manning C., Morrison B.R., McIlroy T. 2014. MOOCs in language education and professional teacher development: Possibilities and potential. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, no. 5 (3), pp. 294-308.
15. Milligan C., Littlejohn A., Margaryan A. 2013. Patterns of engagement in connectiv-ist MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, no. 9(2), pp. 149159. URL: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/milligan_0613.pdf (accessed: 21.04.2021).
16. Perifanou M. 2014. How to design and evaluate a Massive Open Online Course (#MOOC) for #Language Learning. In Proceedings of the 10th International Scientific Conference "eLearning and Software for Education" (eLSE), Bucharest, April 24-25. Vol. 3. URL: http://t.co/fWG0mzSgrN (accessed: 21.04.2021).
17. Perifanou M., Economides A. 2014. MOOCS for foreign language learning: an effort to explore and evaluate the first practices. In Proceedings of the INTED2014 conference. Valencia, Spain. URL: http://library.iated.org/view/PERIFANOU2014MOO (accessed: 21.04.2021).
18. Puentedura R.R. 2011. A brief introduction to TPCK and SAMR. URL: http://hip-pasus.com/rrweblog/ archives/2011/12/08/BriefIntroTPCKSAMR.pdf (accessed: 21.04.2021).
19. Siemens G. 2005. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, no. 2 (1), pp. 3-11.
20. Stone M.T., Perumean-Chaney S. 2011. The benefits of online teaching for traditional classroom pedagogy: A case study for improving face-to-face instruction. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, no. 7(3), pp. 393-400. URL: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no3/stone_0911.htm (accessed: 21.04.2021).
21. Titova S., Samoylenko O. 2017. Enquiry-Based Approach in Mobile-Supported Classroom to Develop Language Skills. Journal of Language and Education, no. 3(3), pp. 39-49. URL: https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2017-3-3-39-49 (accessed: 21.04.2021).
22. Titova S. 2017. The use of MOOC as a means of creating a collaborative learning environment in a blended CLIL course. In K. Borthwick, L. Bradley, S. Thouesny (Eds), CALL in a climate of change: adapting to turbulent global conditions - short papers from EUROCALL 2017, pp. 306-311.
23. Tikhonova E., Raitskaya L. 2018. An Overview of Trends and Challenges in Higher Education on the Worldwide Research Agenda. Journal of Language and Education, no. 4(4), pp. 4-7. URL: https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2018-4-4-4-7 (accessed: 21.04.2021).
24. Pavlovskaya G., Perkins M. 2016. Taking a MOOC: Socio-cultural Aspects of Virtual Interaction. In a Multicultural Learning Community. Journal of Language and Education, no. 2(1), pp. 16-21. URL: https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2016-2-1-16-21 (accessed: 21.04.2021).
25. Wei Li. 2015. Impact of International MOOCs on College English Teaching and Our Countermeasures: Challenge and Opportunity. Research Inventy: International Journal of Engineering And Science, no. 5 (4), pp. 11-15.
26. Guillen G. 2015. Review of Language MOOCs: Providing Learning, T. Boundaries. Language Learning & Technology, no. 19(3), pp. 61-64. URL: http://dx.doi. org/10125/44432 (accessed: 21.04.2021).
27. Martín-Moje E. 2016. Review of Researching Language Learner Interactions Online: From Social Media to MOOCs. Language Learning & Technology, no. 20(1), pp. 50-53. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10125/44445 (accessed: 21.04.2021).
28. Wilson L., Gruzd A. 2014. MOOCs: International information and education phenomenon? Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, no. 40(5), pp. 35-40.
С.В. Титова
РАЗВИТИЕ КОММУНИКАТИВНЫХ И ГРУППОВЫХ УМЕНИЙ ОБУЧАЮЩИХСЯ ПОСРЕДСТВОМ ИНТЕГРАЦИИ МАССОВОГО ОНЛАЙН-КУРСА В ПРЕДМЕТНО-ИНТЕГРИРОВАННОЕ ЯЗЫКОВОЕ ОБУЧЕНИЕ
Федеральное государственное бюджетное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Московский государственный университет имени М.В. Ломоносова» 119991, Москва, Ленинские горы, 1
Статья посвящена практическому исследованию преимуществ и недостатков интеграции материалов массового открытого онлайн-курса в процесс обучения студентов предметно-интегрированному курсу. Цель этого практического исследования двояка: во-первых, разработать возможные способы интеграции массового открытого онлайн-курса (MOOC) в смешанный курс CLIL и проанализировать педагогическое влияние этого вмешательства на развитие иноязычных коммуникативных умений и умений совместной работы студентов. Теоретическая основа интеграции основана на современных теориях МООК, коннективизме (Г. Сименс, 2005) и модели SAMR Р. Пуэнте-дуры (2011), посвященных внедрению цифровых технологий и открытых образовательных ресурсов в обучение. В первом цикле исследования приняли участие 30 бакалавров МГУ имени М.В. Ломоносова, обучающихся по смешанному курсу «Методика обучения английскому языку». Участие студентов в MOOC Understanding Language: Learning and Teaching (Southampton
University, Великобритания) оценивалось с использованием двух заданий: электронного портфолио, отражающего их участие в форумах MOOC, и совместной работы в блоге курса, где они могли комментировать вклад друг друга и свой опыт. Анализ, основанный на качественных и количественных данных (анкета после вмешательства), продемонстрировал положительное отношение обучающихся к этому вмешательству благодаря следующим возможностям: знакомству с теориями и терминологией преподавания и обучения иностранным языкам на английском языке, обмену идеями и опытом на МООК форумы с учащимися со всего мира, и, наконец, улучшению их письменно-речевых умений, цифровой грамотности и знаний терминологии EFL.
Ключевые слова: МООК; предметно-интегрированный языковой курс; интерактивная среда; умения групповой работы; коммуникативные умения; языковые навыки; цифровые компетенции.
Сведения об авторе: Титова Светлана Владимировна - доктор педагогических наук, зам. декана по дополнительному образованию, профессор кафедры методики преподавания иностранных языков факультета иностранных языков и регионоведения МГУ имени М.В. Ломоносова (e-mail: [email protected]).
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. Barcena E., Read T, Martín-Monje E., Castrillo M.D. Analysing student participation in Foreign Language MOOCs: a case study // Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit, Lausanne, 10-12 February 2014. P. 11-12. URL: http://www. emoocs2014.eu/sites/default/files/Proceedings-Moocs-Summit-2014.pdf (дата обращения: 21.04.2021).
2. BruffD.O, FisherD.H., McEwen K.E., Smith B.E. 2013. Wrapping a MOOC: student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning // MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 2013. № 9(2). URL: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/bruff_0613. htm (дата обращения: 21.04.2021).
3. Caulfield M., Collier A., Halawa S. Rethinking online community in MOOCs used for blended learning [Web log post], 2013. URL: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/ rethinking-online-community-moocs-usedblended-learning (дата обращения: 21.04.2021).
4. Dyer R.A.D. (2014). Exploring the relevancy of massive open online courses (MOOCs): a Caribbean university approach // Information Resources Management Journal. 2014. № 27(2). С. 61-77. https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2014040105
5. Garrison D.R., Vaughan N.D. Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. N.Y., 2008.
6. Godwin-Jones R. Challenging Hegemonies in Online Learning // Language Learning & Technology. 2012. № 16(2). С. 4-13.
7. Godwin-Jones R. Global reach and local practice: The promise of MOOCS // Language Learning & Technology. 2014. № 18(3). С. 5-15. URL: http://llt.msu.edu/issues/ october2014/emerging.pdf (дата обращения: 21.04.2021).
8. GriffithsR, ChingosM., Mulhern C., SpiesR. Interactive online learning on campus: Testing MOOCs and other platforms in hybrid formats in the University System of Maryland (ITHAKA S+R Report). 2014. URL: http://www.sr.ithaka.org/sites/default/
files/reports/SR_Interactive_Online_Learning _Campus_20140716.pdf (дата обращения: 21.04.2021).
9. Gutiérrez-Rojas I., Alario-Hoyos C, Pérez-Sanagustín M., Leony D, Delgado-Kloos C. Scaffolding self-learning in MOOCs // Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit. 2014. C. 43-49. PAU Education. URL: http://educate.gast. it.uc3m.es/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Scaffolding_self-learning_in_MOOCs.pdf (дата обращения: 21.04.2021).
10. Hoi K. Suen. Peer Assessment for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) // International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 2014. № 15(3). С. 312-327.
11. Israel M.J. Effectiveness of integrating MOOCs in traditional classrooms for undergraduate Students // International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2015. Vol. 16(5). С. 102-118. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2222
12. Lage M.J., Platt G.J., Treglia M. Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment // The Journal of Economic Education. 2000. № 31(1). С. 30-43. doi:10.1080/00220480009596759
13. Mangan K. (2012, October 1). Massive excitement about online courses // The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2012. URL: http://www.chronicle.com/article/ Massive-Excitement-About/134678/ (дата обращения: 21.04.2021).
14. Manning C., Morrison B.R., McIlroy T. MOOCs in language education and professional teacher development: Possibilities and potential // Studies in Self - Access Learning Journal. 2014. № 5 (3). С. 294-308.
15. Milligan C, Littlejohn A., Margaryan A. Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs // MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 2013. № 9(2). С. 149-159. URL: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/milligan_0613.pdf (дата обращения: 21.04.2021).
16. Perifanou M. How to design and evaluate a Massive Open Online Course (#MOOC) for #Language Learning // Proceedings of the 10th International Scientific Conference "eLearning and Software for Education" (eLSE), Bucharest, April 24-25, 2014. Vol. 3. URL: http://t.co/fWG0mzSgrN (дата обращения: 21.04.2021).
17. Perifanou M., Economides A. MOOCS for foreign language learning: an effort to explore and evaluate the first practices // Proceedings of the INTED2014 conference. Valencia, Spain, 2014. URL: http://library.iated.org/view/PERIFANOU2014MOO (дата обращения: 21.04.2021).
18. Puentedura R.R. A brief introduction to TPCK and SAMR. 2011. URL: http:// hippasus.com/rrweblog/ archives/2011/12/08/BriefIntroTPCKSAMR.pdf (дата обращения: 21.04.2021).
19. Siemens G. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age // International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2005. № 2 (1). С. 3-11.
20. Stone M.T., Perumean-Chaney S. The benefits of online teaching for traditional classroom pedagogy: A case study for improving face-to-face instruction // MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 2011. № 7(3). С. 393-400. URL: http:// jolt.merlot.org/vol7no3/stone_0911.htm (дата обращения: 21.04.2021).
21. Titova S., Samoylenko O. Enquiry-Based Approach in Mobile-Supported Classroom to Develop Language Skills // Journal of Language and Education. 2017. № 3(3). С. 39-49. https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2017-3-3-39-49
22. Titova S. The use of MOOC as a means of creating a collaborative learning environment in a blended CLIL course // K. Borthwick, L. Bradley, S. Thouesny (Eds), CALL in a climate of change: adapting to turbulent global conditions - short papers from EUROCALL 2017. С. 306-311.
23. Tikhonova E., Raitskaya L. An Overview of Trends and Challenges in Higher Education on the Worldwide Research Agenda // Journal of Language and Education. 2018. № 4(4). C. 4-7. https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2018-4-4-4-7
24. Pavlovskaya G, Perkins M. Taking a MOOC: Socio-cultural Aspects of Virtual Interaction In a Multicultural Learning Community // Journal of Language and Education. 2016. № 2(1). C. 16-21. https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2016-2-1-16-21
25. Wei Li. Impact of International MOOCs on College English Teaching and Our Countermeasures: Challenge and Opportunity // Research Inventy: International Journal of Engineering And Science. 2015. № 5 (4). C. 11-15.
26. Guillen G. Review of Language MOOCs: Providing Learning, T. Boundaries // Language Learning & Technology. 2015. № 19(3). C. 61-64. http://dx.doi. org/10125/44432
27. Martín-Moje E. Review of Researching Language Learner Interactions Online: From Social Media to MOOCs // Language Learning & Technology. 2016. № 20(1). C. 50-53. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44445
28. Wilson L, Gruzd A. MOOCs: International information and education phenomenon? // Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2014. № 40(5). C. 35-40.
