Editorial: Distance learning and language learning

Welcome to the February 2021 issue of Open Learning. This issue contains five full papers which broadly address the theme of language learning within distance education. What is notable about these papers is their diversity in terms of their origin and diversity in terms of the different methods they adopt. The papers presented in this issue are from UAE, Taiwan, Turkey and Iran. This issue also contains a book review of ‘Open and Distance Education Theory Revisited: Implications for the Digital Era’, a volume edited by Insung Jung.

The subject of language learning and the intersection between information technology and distance learning has a long history within this journal. One of the earliest papers published in Open Learning was by Hocking (1991) who introduces the OU’s centre for modern languages. In his article he writes about gaps in provision, the independent learner and learner-centred language development. A later paper by Lyman‐Hager (1995) begins to address the importance of technology and language learning, writing about some of the opportunities it provides. Research by Hyland (2001) begins to explore an issue that is of significant importance to distance learning and language learning: the effectiveness of feedback, which can be linked to the subject of assessment.

This issue begins with a paper entitled ‘E-cognitive scaffolding: does it have an impact on the English grammar competencies of middle school underachieving students?’ by Abdelaziz and Al Zehmi (2020) who are both from the School of e-Education, Hamdan Bin Mohamed Smart University, Dubai, UAE. Whilst referencing familiar theorists such as Bruner and Vygotsky, they ask questions about the design of interactive activities (e-activities) that support the learning of grammar and the effectiveness of scaffolding activities on students’ achievements. In asking these questions they also propose a conceptual framework for designing e-activities. A quantitative methodological approach is used to analyse a design. A personal view is that the framework may represent one of the key contributions made by this paper.

The next paper, entitled ‘Exploring undergraduate EFL students’ perceptions and experiences of a Moodle-based reciprocal teaching application’ is by Chang and Lan (2019), National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. This well structured paper presents an interesting literature review on the subject of reciprocal teaching (RT) before presenting two research questions about student perceptions of RT, and whether application of RT can help the reading comprehension of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students.

The theme of EFL is continued with the next paper in ‘Transactional distance and learner outcomes in an online EFL context’. Kara (2020), who is currently based in Amasya University, Turkey, provides a useful summary of the notion of ‘transactional distance’ (TD). Drawing on Moore, Kara writes that TD is the ‘psychological and communications distance between teacher and students’, a concept which is linked to dialogue, structure and autonomy. His study aims to examine the influences on perceived learning and perceived satisfaction. I liked that the paper explicitly draws on the concept of learning outcomes and shows the way that theory can be used to influence and to guide research.

The fourth paper, entitled ‘Computer-assisted language proficiency assessment tools and strategies’, is by Bahari (2020) who is from the University of Qom, Iran. Bahari carries out a detailed systematic literature review of 286 peer reviewed articles to answer questions about assessment tools, strategies, commonalities and inconsistencies. If you are reading the printed edition of this journal, I do recommend (if you are able to do so) to download and access the full colour version of this research to fully appreciate the detailed graphics that summarise the research that Bahari has carried out. The contribution of this paper lies with the collection of references it summarises, representing a very useful summary of research that contributes to the important subject of computer-assisted language assessment.

The final paper of this issue, ‘Predicting achievement in distance language learning: a structural equation model’ is by Kızıl (2020) who is from the School of Foreign Languages, Izmir Bakırçay University, Turkey. Her research aim is introduced succinctly: ‘this study investigates the predictive power of the sense of community, perceived learning and learning satisfaction as the possible factors having an influence on academic achievement’. The paper is said to present findings that have ‘implications for the design of distance language courses’. There are parallels between the discussion of the Community of Enquiry (CoI) framework and its three components, Teaching Presence (TP), Social Presence (SP) and Cognitive Presence (CP), and the notion of Transactional Distance (TD) which was discussed by Kara’s paper. There are further parallels with Kara’s paper when Kızıl discusses the role of perceived learning and learner satisfaction, before concluding with some recommendations for those involved in the design of learning environments for language learners.

The final feature in this issue is a book review by Don Olcott (2021) who presents a thorough review of ‘Open and Distance Education Theory Revisited: Implications for the Digital Era’ edited by Insung Jung. I have always found the role of theory in education to be fascinating due to the way that theories and frameworks can be used to make sense of educational practice and activity. Theories also have the opportunity to lead to the development of new perspectives and enable researchers to draw on new and potentially unexpected literature.

Olcott presents an effective and readable summary of the chapters within Jung’s volume. Some of the theories mentioned by Olcott, such as Transactional Distance and Community of Enquiry are referenced in the papers that are presented earlier within this issue. I was particularly struck by his thoughtful consideration of what additional theories may have also been useful to include, which are worth noting.

In some respects, Olcott’s book review represents a really useful endnote that looks back over all the previous papers, gently emphasising the role that theory can play in guiding and understanding open and distance learning teaching, research and scholarship.

To conclude, on behalf of Denise Whitelock, Lucy Rai and myself I would like to thank all our peer reviewers for their continued contribution to Open Learning. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our book reviews editor Paola Trimarco and also our editorial assistant, Vicky Cole. Vicky works very closely with editors, authors and our publisher to facilitate the successful production of this issue.