ONLINE LANGUAGE LEARNING & TEACHING: IS IT A MYTH OR A PROMISE TO A BETTER LANGUAGE EDUCATION?

ONLINE LANGUAGE LEARNING & TEACHING: IS IT A MYTH OR A PROMISE TO A BETTER LANGUAGE EDUCATION? ISMIE ROHA MOHAMED JAIS Senior Lecturer, Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam SUPYAN HUSSIN, PhD Associate Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences & Humanities Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia OTHMAN ISMAIL, PhD Associate Professor, Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam HADZRIE ABDUL KHAN Lecturer, Faculty of Education & Language Studies Universiti Industri Selangor (UNISEL) ABSTRACT Technology and learning apparently dominate the education scene these days. In light of the situation, this paper explores the online language learning and teaching setting in which there is a need to reveal whether online language learning and teaching is effective or otherwise for language. Therefore, the paper illustrates the learners perceptions and readiness level in their quest for language betterment through the use of LMS. It also highlights the language learning and acquisition theories in response to the online classroom. The findings suggest that there are pros and cons of online learning and teaching in relation to the use of LMS. It leaves the readers with points to ponder on the potential of online language programmes and some suggestions are put forward in ensuring the effectiveness of online language learning and teaching. Keywords: Online Learning and Teaching, Learning Management System (LMS) 77

INTRODUCTION The advent of technology has changed the mode of teaching and learning today in which more options are made available for many to pursue for paper qualfication. Many especially adults who work and do not wish to leave their jobs, opt for online learning as it is an opportunity for them to gain higher qualification. This is evident as the increased of online learners in Malaysia as reported shows that every year, enrolment for online programmes is tremendously encouraging. OUM when it first started recruited approximately 10,000 learners and to date it has 83,456 learners (Harian Metro, 2009). This is a huge jump to exhibit the popularity of online programmes among Malaysians. Based on a statistical report from the Education Department in America, online learning shows an increased every year. In 2002, the percentage of higher learning institutions offering online learning increased drastically as compared to 1990. The increase is from 33% to 45% between 1995 and 1997 and from 1998 to 2001, one fifth of the higher learning institutions globally offer online learning. Therefore, it is evident that there is a high demand in online learning, but the question is how effective this mode is for language learning. In response to this, in this era of rapid advancement in computer technology, it cannot be denied that English is becoming a globally accepted language for communication as well as professional development. There is thus a need to develop literacy and communication skills in new online media, which is of critical importance to meet the challenges of the present and future academic, social and workforce enforcement in this borderless world (Warschauer, 1999). WHAT IS ONLINE LEARNING & TEACHING? In this paper, online learning refers to a hybrid approach that encompasses four (4) sessions of face to face and online interactions that include e-forum, e-chat, email, synchronous and asynchronous communications and other features offered by Learning Management System (LMS). UiTM and OUM are the two selected universities in this study as the two offer similar online approach which is blended or sometimes referred to as hybrid. Whitelock & Jefts (2003), Alavi & Gallupe (2003), Arbaugh (2005) and Peterson (2003) in Hisham et. al. (2006) referred to BL as the integrated combination of traditional learning with web-based online approaches, the combination of media and tools deployed in an e-learning environment and the combination of a number of pedagogical approaches, irrespective of the learning technology used in each case. The first definition is perhaps the most common interpretation. The second is also widespread, although sometimes advocated in a more general form as concerning models that combine various delivery modes (Singh, 2003), rather than privileging e-learning. BL seems to be an approach that combines the use of multiple delivery media that are designed to complement each other and promote learning and the learning application or technology used. In addition, Singh (2003) also provided a more substantial description that elaborates BL as a 78

much richer set of learning strategies or dimensions that can be blended in ways such as: offline with online; self-paced with live, collaborative; structured with unstructured; custom content with off-the-shelf and so on. Therefore, with the array of definitions, in a nutshell, blended or hybrid learning is termed as the combination of online and offline interactions. LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND LEARNING THEORIES There is a crucial need to evaluate the theories on language acquistion and learning in order to relate online language learning and teaching with learners performance. Among the most referred to theories are the ones brought forward by Piaget, Vygotsky and Krashen. Later, these theories are assessed along with Badrul Khan s online theory. Piaget According to Piaget (1973), learners can learn better when they are active agents in the learning process and the instructor s role is to facilitate rather than teaching in the learning process. Learner-centred approaches require change in the learners roles and will also allow the instructors roles to change in tandem. Learners are seen as autonomous in the scenario of online language learning as they determine the amount of learning to take place in their learning process. In autonomous learning, the learners need to be enthusiastic about learning through the process of discovery (Krish, 2006). This can be achieved by providing dialogue and academic challenge between instructors and learners in the online tasks posted to the learners. In support of this, instructors need to recognise their roles in making sure the learning of language takes place in the pursuit for better language competency. According to Dhanarajan (2002) and Garrison and Anderson (2003), believe that instructors should be pedagogically mindful of a meaningful and worthwhile learning experience. In breif, it can be encaapsulated that the instructors act as constructivist leaders who should facilitate and promote learning engagement through online mode by providing various avenues in order to attract learners to access online materials. Having discussed all these issues on the theory of Piaget as well as online roles of both learners and instructors, it is important to note that online learning and teaching represents a wider spectrum of activities such as interaction, guidance, feedback, support, the development of a learning environment and the relation within the environment. 79

Krashen Let s now explore the Input Hypothesis advanced by Krashen (1982) that connect input and acquisition. Krashen strongly holds to the idea that in order for input to be available for acquisition, it must be comprehensible. The Input Hypothesis is one of the prominent theories for Second Language Acquisition in which he emphasizes acquisition rather than learning. According to this hypothesis, the learner improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'. Therefore, in online classrooms, instructors need to be clear of this theory as to ensure when learners are given the opportunity to engage in communication through LMS, much can be gained in terms of acquisition rather than learning. In relation to this, meaningful interactions need to be increased for learners to benefit from online language programmes. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) In Diagram 1, the thick line represents the actual zone for learning, while the dotted lines represent the potential zone in which acquisition takes place. It highlights the ability for learners to maximize their potential in learning when provided with support learning system and in this diagram, E-Forum is one of the instances. The question is how does E-Forum work? In online learning, E-Forum is one of communication tools that allow learners to interact with the instructors as well as among friends without physical and time limitations. Vygotsky (1978) emphasizes that learning language occurs in social context and interaction that takes palce among learners and instructors and friends are needed in the learning process. E-Forum can be used intensely by all quarters involved provided a systematic and relevant content development is provide. Moreover, learners have to be well informed of their participation in optimizing their potential in learning the language. 80

Potential Zone Actual Zone of Proximal Development Learning & Acquisition Learning & Acquisition E-forum Diagram 1: Learning and Acquisition in the ZPD when using E-Forum Diagram 2 represents the holistic understanding of online learning and the elements that need to be accounted for in the development of online learning and teaching. Badrul Khan (2005) draws the ideas that an extensive amount of work and commitment are required in making it appropriate for learning and teaching to take place. The 3P Model that covers People, Product and Process highlights the importance of combining efforts in producing the output for online learning to occur. From the three elements, comprehensive learning materials are developed. 81

Diagram 2: The 3P Model for E-Learning DISCUSSION It cannot be denied that mushrooming of online programmes is tremendously high as the demand for it is evident through statistics as mentioned earlier. The question now lies whether online language learning and teaching allows for improve language proficiency or otherwise. This becomes a concern as there are studies that indicate unfavorable outcomes of language learning experience. A number of researchers found that there was no significant difference in the performance of online and offline students (Barry & Runyan, 1995; Johnson et al., 2000; Johnson; 2002; Ismie Roha, 2006). The similarities in all the studies identified are uncalled for as learners stated that they did not depend on online interactions and discussions to gain the language proficient as materials provided online were not appealing and unchallenging. In addition to this, the learners further mentioned that online materials were similar to face to face sessions. Thus, the need to depend on online materials was not required. 82

This paper highlights a research conducted among UiTM and OUM distance education that will later be referred to as epjj and the latter as online learners. 63 learners from each university were chosen at random to answer a set of questionnaire in order to obtain information about their language learning experience through the epjj and online modes. The focus is on the usage of LMS in relation to language learning. Table 1: Learning materials available in the LMS Question Disagree Agree UiTM OUM UiTM OUM C30. Learning materials are systematic. 9 3 53 59 14.3% 4.8% 84.1% 93.6% C31. Learning materials are easily available. 17 8 45 54 27% 12.7% 71.4% 85.7% C32. Learning materials are easy to understand. 14 7 48 55 22.2% 11.1% 76.1% 87.3% C33. Materials provided all for basic understanding. 17 9 44 53 27% 14.3% 69.9% 84.2% C34. Materials provided are extremely good for understanding. 10 15.9% 8 12.7% 52 82.5% 54 85.7% C35. Materials are used for self-learning. 24 13 49 49 20.6% 20.6% 77.8% 77.8% C36. Materials provided allow for enhancement of knowledge. 24 20.6% 24 20.6% 49 77.8% 49 77.8% C38. Materials provided are suitable for adult learners. 6 9.5% 4 6.3% 56 88.9% 54 85.7% 83

Findings from Table 1 for both universities indicate positive output towards the development of materials provided on LMS. The responses are fairly good for all questions as the percentage ranges from 69.9% to 93.6%, which is obviously more than 50%. This suggests that online materials developed for both universities are relevant and appropriate for online learners to benefit from and possibly maximize their learning potentials. Table 2: Lecturers roles in promoting LMS to Learners Question Disagree Agree UiTM OUM UiTM OUM C40. Lecturers use the LMS very frequent. 44 59 18 1 69.9% 93.6% 28.5% 1.6% C41. Lecturers provide feedback within a short period of time. 47 74.6% 53 84.1% 15 23.8% 5 8% C43. Lecturers encourage the use of LMS to get learning materials. 17 27% 56 88.9% 12 19.1% 7 11.1% C46. Lecturers do not handle the LMS well and discourage the usage to learners. 8 12.7% 7 11.1% 54 85.7% 56 88.9% C47. Lecturers have good knowledge in the various communication online modes in the LMS. 49 77.8% 59 93.7% 13 20.7% 4 6.3% In contrast to the earlier findings, human factor as in the instructors roles in managing the LMS seem disappointing as responses towards Disagree dominate the findings instead of Agree. This suggests that instructors do not seem to play effective roles in managing the LMS and to a certain extent may be the cause for the poor usage of LMS among online learners. Question C46 has a point to be highlighted in which for UiTM and OUM, the response is very negative towards the way the instructors handle the LMS. 85.7% for UiTM and 88.9% for OUM are findings that exhibit more efforts neeed to be taken up by the Universities to re-train the instructors. 84

The findings suggest that the teachers literacy behavior, which is to be competent about the multiple forms computer communication, plays a fundamental position in ensuring the success of online language learning. This is supported by Pandian and Sachithanantham (2000) that it is essential for instructors to be well informed of the use of computer programmes and networks in the effort to produce educated and informed students through the online learning. They further states that instructors need to be well equipped with IT literacy, then only they would be able transmit this knowledge to their learners. In light of this study, it can be partially accepted as many respondents indicated that they were unhappy with the materials posted on LMS as there were quite similar to what were presented in the face to face sessions. Moreover, materials were not challenging and appealing; therefore, the urgency for them to access LMS was not called for. Hence, to a certain extent, the critical need for instructors to be IT literate is deemed important but may not be the ultimate in evaluating an online language classroom. CONCLUSION It is vital to evaluate holistically about online language learning and teaching in order to report on the success or the failure of an online classroom. The changing trend of learning now calls for greater demand in literacy knowledge and competence as this mode may be the dominating classroom scenario in the years to come. Therefore, continuous development in this field is imperative in terms of infrastructure and the training of instructors with effective pedagogical skills to be employed in teaching and learning through the online mode. The emphasis must move to training rather than spending on LMS development as the critical agenda discovered in this study is the failure of instructors to play their effective roles such as promoting the use of LMS, content development, material selection and understanding the overall picture of what online learning and teaching entails. There is no compromise on human roles when technology comes into play as quoted technology cannot replace teachers but teachers who do not use technology can be replaced is truly apt in this modern age of education. 85

REFERENCES Ashby, C. M. (2002). Distance Education: Growth in distance education programs and implications for federal education policy. United States General Accounting Office Report GAO-02-1125T. Dhanarajan, G. 2002. Learner Learning and Support on a Virtual Campus. Paper presented at the Fifth Asia Pacific Conference on Learners Affairs, Sydney, Australia, October 2, 2002. Garrison, D.R. and Anderson, T. (Eds). 2003. E-Learning in the 21 st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. London: Routeledge Falmer. Harian Metro. 2009. Paradigma Perubahan Pendidikan. NSTp: Kuala Lumpur. Hisham Dzakiria, Che Su Mustafa & Hassan Abu Bakar. 2006 Krish, P. 2006. Learning English Online: Learners Perspective in Online Teaching and Learning in ELT. Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia. Pandian, A and Sachitanantham, T.M. 2000. A Study of the Attitudes of TESOL Trainee Teachers Towards the Learning of English in Teacher-Training Colleges in Malaysia. Paper presented at the Malaysian International Conference on English Language Teaching (MICELT), May 15-17, 2000. Malacca. Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning program, Educational Technology, 43(6), pp.51-54. Warschauer, M. 1999. Electronic Literacies: Language, Culture and Power in Online Education. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 86