Facilitating Language Learning with LMS: (A Brief Review on Blackboard and Moodle)

The advent of technologies in computer networking has enabled language teachers to shift their practice in using computers for their teaching. Learners are no longer working only on stand-alone computers and CD-ROMs, but now they are also able to access mass of resources on the web. With the help of Internet, there are many ways of becoming autonomous learners (Chapelle, 2001). They now have opportunities to access the learning resources from anywhere at anytime. In addition, with Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) language learners now also have access to practice the language in the real communication with the people who have been beyond their reach. They now can communicate with either their fellow learners or native speakers (Warschauer, 1995).

Nowadays, online language learning is now not only limited to informal and independent individual learning. Many language institutions have adopted online language learning that provides them opportunities to have students from many different places. Mostly, teachers publish their materials on their web and communicate with students using emails. Course outlines are commonly uploaded on departmental web sites (Britain & Liber, 1999). Some others use commercial Learning Management Systems (LMSs).

The current commercial LMSs, however are usually designed not for the use in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) contexts. They are designed for distance education in general. Distance learning SLA contexts needs an LMS that accommodates “not only input and output of the character set of the target language, but also some other learning tools such as discussion boards, vocabulary activities, grammar clinics, online dictionaries, and writing draft books, feedback and assessment tools; all organized around the learning activities and communicative practice in all four language skills (Sawatpanit, Suthers, & Fleming, 2003, 2004).

This article evaluates how Blackboard and Moodle can be maximally exploited in the context of Second Language Acquisition. Blackboard is taken into account because it is one of the most widely used LMSs. This commercial LMS is then compared to Moodle, an open source LMS that is available for free.

Evaluation Framework

The discussion in this paper is mainly based on the Conversational Framework by Britain and Liber (1999). This framework is focused on how an LMS allow dialog among students and between students and teachers that mutually influence each other to allow modification of both conceptions and actions on the part of the students (Britain & Liber, 1999). This framework then is integrated to the second language acquisition principles.

There are a number of key characteristics of the conversational model. Britain and Liber take these features from Laurillard (1993).

• Discursive
  • Teacher’s and student’s conceptions should each be accessible to the other
  • Teacher and students must agree learning goals for the topic and task goals
  • Teacher must provide an environment within which students can at on, generate, and receive feedback on descriptions appropriate to the topic goal.

  This feature is indicated with the available tools that the teachers and students can use to communicate.

• Adaptive
  • The teacher has the responsibility to use the relationship between their own and the student’s conception to determine the focus of the continuing dialog.

  This feature includes how easy it is to adapt the activities associated with a learning topic, according to the needs of students.

• Interactive
  • The students must act to achieve the task goal
  • The teacher must provide meaningful intrinsic feedback on the actions that relate to the nature of the task goal
• Reflective
  • The teacher must support the process in which students link the feedback on their actions to the topic goal for every level of description within the topic structure.

  This feature can be identified by seeing how the LMS allow the teachers to help the students link the given feedback to their learning activities.

The framework above is considered in line with some principles of Second Language Acquisition. Firstly, following Krashen’s input hypothesis, it is believed that learners should have a comprehensible input to make comprehensible output. Therefore, a language learning environment should encourage the production of comprehensible output (Chen, Belkada, & Okamoto, 2004). In other words, the learning environment should enable learners to make interactions. This is also supported by Gonzales-Lloret saying that interaction facilitates comprehension better than learning conditions without interactions (Gonzales-Lloret, 2003). The second idea underlying this review of LMSs is about Zone Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978). This concept underscores the role of scaffolding provided by peers to achieve more knowledge. Finally, it is also worth considering the concept of situated learning (Wenger, 1998) which views learning as legitimate peripheral participation. A person’s intentions to learn are engaged and the meaning of learning is configured through the process of becoming a full participant in a socio-cultural practice. This social process includes the learning of knowledgeable skills (Lave and Wenger 1991).

The perspective of situated learning, rather than looking to learning as the acquisition of certain forms of knowledge, Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger (1991) have tried to place it in social relationships – situations of co-participation: “Rather than asking what kind of cognitive processes and conceptual structures are involved, they ask what kinds of social engagements provide the proper context for learning to take place” (Lave & Wenger, 1991). It not so much that learners acquire structures or models to understand the world, but they participate in frameworks that that have structure. Learning involves participation in a community of practice. And that participation ‘refers not just to local events of engagement in certain activities with certain people, but to a more encompassing process of being active participants in the practices
of social communities and constructing identities in relation to these communities’ (Wenger 1998).

Learning Management System

The term Learning Management System (LMS) refers to a server-based software that control access and delivery of online learning resources through a standard web browser. This term has many other synonyms like Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) or Content Management System (CMS). An LMS usually comprises a set of web-based tools to manage information online for administrators, teachers, and learners as well. In general, the tools included in an LMS can be categorized into three main types: study skills tools, communication tools, and productivity tools.

Tools for study skills include the authoring modules to create activities or materials for learners. In general this category of tools covers, to mention some, quizzes, online materials presentations, assignments, and tasks. The quiz module has such many functions as a question database, feedback, scoring and tracking of students’ progress. Quiz types may include –but not limited to— multiple choice, short answer, true/false, matching, or cloze exercises. Interestingly, such quizzes can incorporate multimedia files (audio and video). It is possible that some LMSs do not have all these types of quiz, but usually they can host some quizzes created using other authoring tools, including the one using Java-script like Hot Potatoes or Webwiz. The second tool for study skills is used for material presentations. The materials can simply be uploaded to the LMS or presented in a form of links to other sites. Another tool used for study skills is the assignments or tasks. With this tool, teachers can post the assignments or tasks that learners can do online. Interestingly, some LMSs have a time restriction facility that enables teachers to post the assignments long time before they are presented on the LMS and can be accessed by students. Learners then can do the assignments or tasks and modify them as many times as they want until the specified due date.

The second tool category in an LMS is communication tools. This category includes the means of communication available for teachers and learners. Such communication tools enable the learners to interact with their classmates or with their teachers. The most commonly available communication tool is announcement. This tool is used to give all learners any new information about the course, including the latest news and upcoming events. Usually, this tool is presented on the first page after the students log in to the LMS. Another common communication tool is discussion board. This is a standard forum of communication where both teachers and learners can post their messages and read the comments from others. Some LMSs allow users to include links and images in their messages and provide spelling checker facilities. Chat facility is another tool of communication in an LMS. This will benefit those who are interested in having synchronous discussion. The latest technologies have enables teachers and learners to have voice-based chat (using Wimba or Tapped-in), not only the commonly used text-based chats (instant messaging). Then, teachers and students can also communicate using emails.

Finally, the productivity tools in an LMS cover document management system, calendar, progress checks, and Surveys or questionnaires. The document management system allows teachers and learners to upload or download their files from any computer connected to the Internet. Usually, there is a space limit or quota for this facility. Some LMSs, however, give this access only to teachers. The calendar function is essential for any online learning setting where learners have to manage their time efficiently. This facility allows the instructors to list event dates. Another management tool commonly available in an LMS is the record of students’ access and progress. This facility enables teachers to assess students’ participation and progress. Some LMSs even allow the students to check their overall progress as well as their grade for each assignment. In addition, using document management tools, surveys can also be administered online. This feature allows teachers to get feedback from their students. In some LMSs both the surveys and the results can be presented to all or certain groups of members (students). The results are presented in colorful bar graphs to show the data clearly.

Blackboard and Moodle

Blackboard is one of the most popular LMSs in the world. Its brochure mentions that currently more than 700 teachers are using it for over 2000 courses, a dramatic progress from only six in 1999 (http://www.blackboard.com).

As other LMSs, Blackboard is equipped with some tools so that it can function as an authoring tool for the learning content, an administrative tool, and as a means of communication as well. The content authoring module provides editing tools that are similar to the ones in word processors. In other words, to use Blackboard, teachers do need any sophisticated programming experience. Blackboard can be used for pure online learning or blended learning (combination of face-to-face and online sessions).

As an administrative tool, Blackboard is capable of recording all students’ access to the materials. In addition, it has also a facility to see the students’ progress so that teachers can make further reflection. The data is presented in tables and bar graphs as well.

As a communication tools, Blackboard provides emails and discussion boards. The email can be used in one-to-one exchange or in public exchange. Blackboard can also integrate other communication tools from other operator. With Horizon Wimba, for example, all users can communicate using voice bulletin boards or voice emails.

Moodle, then, is actually the acronym that stands for Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environments. This package works in with web-browsing software like Internet Explorer or Netscape. This LMS allows teachers to create pure online courses or online courses supported with face-to-face sessions. Moodle was created by Martin Douigamas. As an open source management, Moodle is being currently modified and improved by a number of enthusiasts. This makes Moodle become more complete with more modules added by the team. Today, Moodle is completed with 23 modules (http://moodle.org).

As an LMS, Moodle also has three main functions: an authoring tool, an administrative tool, and a means of communications. As an authoring tool, Moodle helps teachers who do not have programming experience. It has built-in templates where teachers can simply put their materials. The authoring tool includes creating quizzes, bulletin boards; and presenting learning materials.

Similar to what happens in Blackboard, any information added to Moodle is saved in a database. This information includes the names of all students and teachers, the individual quiz items, journal entries, records of students’ access to the materials and exercises, students’ progress and so on. Seen from the perspective of teachers’ control, Moodle is not worse than Blackboard.

As a means of communication, Moodle is equipped with many tools. There are tools to facilitate communications between students and students; and between students and teachers, either in private or public forum. The latest version is even completed with wiki where students can collaboratively develop a web page.

This following section contains the review of Blackboard and Moodle on how the tools they provide can accommodate the principles outlined in the Conversational Framework. Then, the possibilities of these two LMSs to facilitate language learning are presented.

Conversation Principles in Blackboard and Moodle

Discursivity

In Blackboard, teachers (but not students) have access to modify the learning materials. Likewise, it is the teachers that have authority to determine the learning goals. All the syllabus and learning materials are determined and designed by the teachers. What students can do is just accessing the materials, doing some practices, and doing the assignments designed by the teachers. Students have no opportunities to re-describe the conceptions. It seems that teachers have so big authority that students can only follow what teachers have determined. The only channels of students’ presentation are through the communication tools available on a different module: email, bulletin boards, and whiteboard. In addition, students can exchange files with their friends, as long as this facility is granted by the teachers.

In Moodle, besides using the bulletin boards and emails, students can also present their conceptions using wiki. It is also interesting that students can also upload their files.

Interactivity

A basic pre-requisite for an LMS in language learning is that it should be interactive. It is not enough for material to be presented to students and tested. An LMS should allow students to restructure the presented material, add resources, annotate material, launch and run simulations etc. The students should not merely be a passive observer of the micro-world designed by the teachers.

In Blackboard, the micro-world is the course information and course materials. Teachers have time for preparation before uploading these to the LMS. Teachers can also modify the materials during the course period. Blackboard can also accommodate some multi media authoring tools for creating course materials, practices, and tests. In the practice modules, students will get feedback as long as provided by the teachers. Students, however, cannot annotate the contents.

Like Blackboard, Moodle has built-in functions to make different types of quizzes. Quiz types relevant to language teaching are: multiple choices, true/false, matching, description, and cloze. Both audio and video files can also be integrated in the materials created with Moodle. Similar to Blackboard, students may get feedback from the exercises they are doing, as long as they are provided by the teachers. Moodle also allows the instructor to upload comments about the students’ work in form of audio-based files (e.g. MP3).

Adaptability

It seems that both Blackboard and Moodle give privileges to teachers to adapt their courses to the current situation. When it seems that the contents do not match the ongoing situation, teacher can make any modifications. It is worth noting here, that both Blackboard and Moodle also provide “hidden until” feature that enables teachers to post content, but make it visible at the specified date and time. It means that when teachers change their minds and want to revise the content, they have time before the content is really shown on the LMS.

Reflectivity

Blackboard has a facility to record students’ access to the contents and exercises, as well as the students’ grade. Not only teachers, students can also view their own test results. Feedback can be given through their emails or discussion boards. When students have difficulties, they can go to the communication modules where they can select the media to share their problems either with teachers or with their peers. The available communication tools are email and discussion board. As long as they are still in the time frame determined by the teachers, students still have to do the practices based on the feedback from the teachers.

Basically, Moodle can also facilitate self-reflection as what Blackboard does. Moodle is also capable of recording students’ access to the contents and their progress. The exercises created with Moodle can also be supplied with feedbacks, either for individual question or for the complete exercise. Again, like Blackboard, teachers have a choice of whether or not to give feedback.

Language Learning through Blackboard and Moodle

As far as interaction is concerned, it seems that both Blackboard and Moodle can facilitate it. In term of human – computer interactions, students can interact with the systems especially when they are accessing the quizzes supplied with feedback. When human-to-human interaction is considered more important, then Blackboard can only facilitate it with asynchronous communication tools: emails and discussion boards. Meanwhile, besides providing asynchronous communication tools, Moodle also has a chat module that enables the users (students and teachers) to have a real-time conference.

In term of collaborative learning, again Blackboard can only facilitate using emails and bulletin boards. There are no other available modules that facilitate the learners to work together on a specific task. However, Blackboard has a facility to make the students discuss in groups (using discussion board limited only to the members of the groups) and then present the result of the group discussion in a class discussion using wider discussion boards. Moodle, on the other hand, has wiki module where students can collaborate in creating and maintaining a web-page. This means of interaction will trigger more negotiations of meaning, since the students involved in the project have similar purposeful activity. In addition, Moodle also has webquest module so that students can make collaboration deeper. In both Blackboard and Moodle, discussion forums can be set so that only the teacher or any of the students can post a message. Teachers also have an option to restrict or allow for further discussions and replies within a thread.

In terms of Legitimate Peripheral Participation, it seems that both Blackboard and Moodle have similar properties. It will depend on the teachers then whether to allow the students participate in the periphery or to require them to be active participants. When participation is not included in the scoring system, and it is believed that peripheral participation can generate understanding at the same level as the core participation, then students have their own choice to participate. The peripheral participation is highly accommodated through the discussion board where all students have the same access, but not always required to post their messages. They can learn from their peers’ interactions. However, since the interaction tends to be directed by the teachers through the materials, exercises, and assignments, it is hardly possible that the interaction will last long.

However, both Blackboard and Moodle do not allow non user to access the any single module. This will be a problem when students need native speakers to support their learning. As a result, the interaction is limited among themselves, not with other people not enrolled in the class. This will hinder the creation of a community of practice of language learners where students can learn more through the interactions.

Conclusion

In summary, both Blackboard and Moodle have facilities to be a learning environment. The authoring tools facilities enable teachers to create learning materials, exercises, and assignments with or without feedback. Their capability of recording students’ access and progress enable the teachers to modify the learning process it is going on. Also, the students’ access to the records also enables them to make self-evaluation. Finally the communication tools also enable the students to learn from each other, cooperatively.

In the sense of the learner-centeredness, it is worth saying that these both LMSs let the teachers make the teaching styles. Both LMSs indeed provide facilities for learners to be active participants, including uploading files so that other students can view them. However, they have such restrictions that students only follow what the teachers have planned and posted to the LMSs. The “control panel” in Blackboard is accessible for teachers only, not for students. With these facilities, teachers have great control of the students. What students can follow what the teachers have designed.

As long as collaborative learning is concerned, Moodle has more complete facilities than Blackboard. Blackboard facilitates collaborative learning with the asynchronous means of communications, while Moodle has a chat module that enables them to interact in real-time forum. In addition, Moodle has a wiki module where students can compose or work together on a web page. Besides, they also have web-quest module for further collaborative learning. In other words, Moodle is more applicable to promote socio-constructivist pedagogy.

In short, seen from the pedagogical views, especially on language learning, Moodle as an open source Learning Management System has more facilities than Blackboard. It depends on the teachers, then, whether or not to give “freedom” to the students. In other words, it is the teachers who can assign the roles that students can play in the learning environment.

References:

Britain, S., & Liber, O. (1999). A Framework for Pedagogical Evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments. Retrieved 20 May, 2005, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001237.htm

Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for Teaching, Testing, and Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, J., Belkada, S., & Okamoto, T. (2004). How a Web-based Course Facilitates Acquisition of English for Academic Purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 33-49.

Gonzales-Lloret, M. (2003). Design Task-Based CALL to Promote Interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1), 86-104.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sawatpanit, M., Suthers, D., & Fleming, S. (2003). Evaluating a Second Language Learning Course Management System. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education, Hong Kong.

Sawatpanit, M., Suthers, D., & Fleming, S. (2004). BRIX: Meeting the Requirements for Online Second Language Learning. Paper presented at the The 37th Hawai’i International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-34), Hilton Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawai’i.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.

Warschauer, M. (1995). Virtual Connections: Online Activities & Projects for Networking Language Learners. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Design, University of Hawai’i.

Wenger, E. (1998). Community of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.