An Online Language Lab: Reaching and Teaching at a Distance

Jim B. Reynaert, MS Susan D. Penfield, PhD Garry J. Forger, MLS

Learning Technologies Center Department of English Learning Technologies Center
The University of Arizona, The University of Arizona, The University of Arizona,
reynaert@email.arizona.edu sdp@email.arizona.edu gforger@email.arizona.edu

Abstract: The ubiquity of computer technology has moved into all areas of education at all
levels. Our background in dealing with technology and language instruction has shown
that technology can effectively be used for language instruction, preservation and
revitalization. To meet a need that we have identified for these language instruction
areas, we are developing a communications service called the Multimedia Board System
(MBS). The Multimedia Board System is a distributed environment that allows instructors
and students to exchange multimedia messages in an online setting. The MBS implements
features from other systems such as Listservs, Web Boards, Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and
Instant Messengers (IM) and is used for language instruction. It requires no software
installation on the client side, reduces file attachment complexity, and provides an easy to
use interface so that participants can focus solely on learning goals.

Background
In January of 2003, under the auspices of a collaborative grant between the Colorado
River Indian Tribes (CRIT) and the University of Arizona, with funds provided by the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, a project was implemented to train tribal members in the use of
selected technologies that support language revitalization. The goals of this project were: 1) to
train CRIT speakers of Native American languages in the use of software and Internet tools
which will support preservation and pedagogy related to their languages 2) to use this training
episode as a model for training others and 3) to disseminate information about technology and
training through a website1 and course at the American Indian Language Development Institute.
Dr. Susan Penfield, Principle Investigator for this project, has many years of experience teaching
English as a Second Language (ESL) as well as experience with language planning for Native
Languages. She has successfully used MOO2 technology for instruction, however, the experience
of the Gates funded project identified a need for a more robust Internet communication tool for
language instruction that would duplicate the experience of a language laboratory in a distance
education, and Internet based setting.
The Learning Technologies Center (LTC) 3 supports the development and
implementation of tools and materials necessary for the expansion of effective
distance/distributed education in the University of Arizona. The TRIAD Team, a sub-unit of the
Learning Technologies Center, is available for assignment to specific academic projects and
distance learning initiatives brought forward by departments and colleges. The team works
collaboratively with faculty and staff from a variety of units to meet the goals of departmental
and grant-funded projects that expand distance education opportunities for the state. The
Learning Technologies Center (LTC), one of the partners on the Gates funded project, dedicated
resources to develop a prototype communication tool that could meet the needs of instructors.

1
Forger, G., Penfield, S. (2003) Technology in Native Language Preservation and Instruction: A Gates Foundation
Funded Initiative. Brief paper presented at Ed-Media 2003 Conference, June 23-28, 2003.
2
http://oldpueblomoo.arizona.edu
3
http://www.ltc.arizona.edu
The prototype that was developed has the ability to serve voice, video and text to create a rich
online environment for language instruction.

Pedagogical Demands of Technology Enhanced Language Learning

For many years, second language teachers in a variety of educational settings have made
use of language labs as a support for students. Language labs offer students an opportunity for
individualized work, repetitive sessions for reinforcement and access to oral language instruction
and practice. The support of technology (broadly defined) is consistent with theories of what best
promotes second language acquisition in that students can receive both “comprehensible input”
(Krashen 1985:2) and respond with “comprehensible output“ (Swain, 1985). According to Swain
(1995:126), such output can force a learner to see the “gap between what they want to say and
what they can say.”. Processing instruction (just one avenue for second language learning) can be
modeled in language lab formats and can be seen as a way to make the form-meaning mappings
more accessible to the ‘learner’. (Braidi, 1999:106). Successful second language learning results
from the relationship between the input, the student’s inter-language competence, and the
monitored output, which forms the basis for teacher response and can be encouraged in a
technology-enhanced setting.

Braidi notes that

“…language teaching is an extraordinarily complex process…: establishing long

and short term goals, selecting content; selecting, preparing and organizing
activities, materials and teaching strategies, meeting student prerequisite skills,
predicting and avoiding problems; meeting the needs of individual students,
motivating all students, managing the class, strengthening teaching skills,
evaluating results and re-evaluating teaching practices…. to name a few.” (1999:
183)

With all these tasks in mind, the place of the language lab is to reinforce the decisions a
teacher has made and to give students more support outside of the classroom environment.
According to Richards and Lockhart (1994-78-89) most teachers’ decisions fall into three
categories: planning decisions, interactive decisions (made in the process of language instruction)
and evaluative decisions with regard to students who are learning a second language. Preparing
lessons which support in-class work for a language lab environment also factors in all three of
these decisions on the part of teachers. And all three of these decisions must be taken into
account when planning for language learning in any on-line environment.
The current work being discussed here, a virtual language lab on-line, must entail all of
the above issues related to second language instruction in terms of pedagogical practice. The
vehicle being developed, now known as MBS, can deliver well-crafted language lessons which
provide students with oral or written input, allows for practice and the evolution of student
output (when they are ready) and allows the teacher to structure, monitor and evaluate lessons
for students in an on-line environment. The potential exists for its use as a language lab in
support of other classes or as a vehicle for on-line instruction in lieu of a classroom.
Software that is currently available can be categorized in one of the following ways:
Listservs, Web Boards, Internet Relay Chat (IRC), Instant Messengers and MOOs which usually
have some kind of messaging system built in. These solutions vary in usability, installation
complexity, platform support, performance, bandwidth specifications, synchronicity, and other
characteristics. While these technologies have been used effectively in instruction, they do not
meet the need we identified for a robust interactive environment that can be structured for
language instruction.

Requirements
Working with language instruction faculty, it was determined that the following aspects
of the MBS would need to be instituted. Knowing that conferencing software was available, we
held brainstorming sessions with faculty to determine ‘what if’ possibilities for the design of the
system. The following requirements were determined to be priorities:
Authentication: The MBS should work as either a stand-alone system or embedded within
a Learning Management System (LMS). If the latter is true then the MBS should authenticate
users by either interfacing with the system it is embedded in or allowing for a copy of the user
database to be updated from the source system. However, the most immediate need is to
authenticate users in the Desire2Learn LMS. As users in Desire2Learn change their profiles, the
change should proliferate to the MBS.
Authorization/Roles: Once users are authenticated the system should allow them to
assume different roles in the context of a conference, in other words, user A may be an instructor
in conference X and also a student in conference Y. These roles are similar to roles found in other
systems, however, there might or might not be a one to one mapping from the authenticating
source to the MBS. Thus, the MBS needs to keep track of its own users and roles. Among the roles
provided by the system we have the following:
Administrator Role: The MBS Administrator has all the privileges allowable to an
instructor and student. The administrator is in charge of the maintenance of the MBS. Sample
chores include; creating new boards, managing users, managing conferences, performing
backups, exporting and importing data to and from other systems and managing board archives.
Instructor Role: The instructor role is in charge of managing and moderating MBS
conferences. The sample permissions of an instructor include posting and manipulating messages
from the instructor and from other users within a conference. The instructor owns the conference
along with other instructors that may be co-managing the conference.
Student Role: The student role can post messages to a topic within a conference. It can also
review messages posted by other students and/or the instructor.
New Roles: Administrators should be able to create new roles dynamically and assign
permissions to these as new needs arise. One common role that appears in systems like the MBS
is that of a Teaching Assistant. There may be other roles needed in the future and the system
should accommodate for this scenario.
System Permissions: The MBS should allow a specific set of permissions to be assigned to
different roles within the context of a conference. For example, a participant may have role A in
one conference and simultaneously be in role B in another. The following is a minimal set of
permissions that can be assigned to a role within the system:
 Figure 1: Conference opened in MBS, with Topic expanded to show replies.

Conferences
A conference is a group of users who want to carry on a conversation. Administrators
create conferences for instructors and students to use. Instructors cannot create conferences, but
should have sufficient permissions to manage them. Within the conference the instructor role can
create different topics to which student reply.
Topics: Instructors can start new threads for discussion. Each thread will have a topic
associated with it. Students can reply to this topic and carry on a conversation asynchronously.
Topics and messages within topics should be managed by the instructor or Teaching Assistant
roles.
Message Types Supported: In the first iteration of the MBS messages the minimum
messages that should be supported are text, audio and video if the client platform supports it. A
brief description of the requirements for each format is given below. Adding the capability of
sending attachments is an optional secondary requirement.
Text Messages: A user can type simple text messages and post them to a conference. At
this point there is no need to keep formatting along with the text message. In other words, there
need not be font face, size or color information associated with the text message. However, it
would be a nice feature to be able to post HTML formatted messages along with the audio and
video.
Audio Messages: Because this is a conferencing platform that will be mainly utilized for
language instruction, it is very important that a user be able to post high quality audio to the
conference. No software, other than the audio subsystem that comes with the platform should
have to be installed in the client computer. Audio capturing should be accomplished with an
enabled microphone installed on the client system.
Video Messages: Although not as important as good quality audio, the system should
include the capability to post video messages provided participants have an enabled web camera
installed on their system.
User Interaction
After logging into the MBS the user will see a list of conferences that they are enrolled in,
either as an instructor or student. Highlighting a conference and clicking the ‘enter’ button places
the user in the conference. From here an instructor can create ‘Topics’ and listen to student
replies. A student can listen to ‘Topic’ level assignments and reply to the ‘Topic’ message to
complete an assignment. Instructors can listen to student’s replies, and then reply with
comments on the student recording. To use the MBS a user needs a computer with Internet
access, Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher with Flash 6 installed. To fully utilize the system,
headphones and microphone and a web cam are required. When configuring a conference, an
instructor can make the video portion of a conference optional or disable it completely. As the
system is used more we will determine the optimum configuration for a conference design, and
we will develop templates designed for specific applications that can be used by instructors. The
templates will vary from highly structured to more informal.

Technology Used
On the server side the focus is on designing the MBS in such a way that it delivers an
instructional structure along with reliability, performance and scalability. The MBS is made up of
a four-tier architecture. Its Internet service delivers a Macromedia Flash Client, which connects to
a Cold Fusion MX Service via Flash Remoting. The Cold Fusion MX Service in turn connects to a
DBMS, which organizes the instructional structures. The Flash MX Client also connects to a Flash
Communication Service in order to retrieve streaming audio and video.

Future Development
With the basic design of the MBS in place, and with a group of very interested language
faculty engaged, we will spend the fall 2003 semester perfecting the system. By using the MBS in
real life instruction, we will be able to develop a fully functional robust system that meets the
needs of language instructors and is easy to use and engaging for students. Plans for the
development are to develop both a stand alone and LMS integrated version of the system,
develop up to four templates that can be tested in different instructional settings and address a
variety of instructional needs, and to develop the system for the specific audiences of teaching
and preserving Native American languages, and for teaching ESL.

References

Braidi, S. (1999) The Acquisition of Second Language Syntax. London, UK: Arnold.

Krashen, S. (1985) Inquiries & insights: second language teaching: immersion & bilingual education,
literacy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Richards, J., Lockhart, C. (1994) Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. (1985) Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rawley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995) Principles and Practice In Applied Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.