Second language learning designs in online adult education

References

• Akiyama, Y., & Cunningham, D. J. (2018). Synthesizing the practice of SCMC-based telecollaboration: A scoping review. Calico Journal, 35(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.33156
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, R., & Ponti, M. (2014). Participatory pedagogy in an open educational course: Challenges and opportunities. Distance Education, 35(2), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.917703
   Google Scholar
• Appleton, J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
   Google Scholar
• Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Pozzi, F., Hernández-Leo, D., Prieto, L. P., Persico, D., & Villagrá-Sobrino, S. L. (2017). Towards teaching as design: Exploring the interplay between full-lifecycle learning design tooling and teacher professional development. Computers and Education, 114, 92–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.011
   Google Scholar
• Awuor, N. O., Weng, C., Piedad, E., & Militar, R. (2021). Teamwork competency and satisfaction in online group project-based engineering course: The cross-level moderating effect of collective efficacy and flipped instruction. Computers & Education, 176, 104357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104357
   Google Scholar
• Bauer-Ramazani, C. (2006). Training CALL teachers online. In P. Hubbard, & Michael, L (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp.183–202). John Benjamins Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, D. (2019). Special issue: Augmented and virtual reality in education: Immersive learning research. Journal of Educational Computing, 57(7), 1619–1625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119854035
   Google Scholar
• Bergdahl, N. (2021). Emerging practices and persisting challenges—A year into distance education in upper secondary school [Paper presentation]. Proceedings in 7th International Designs for Learning Conference; Remediation of Learning, (p. 11), May 24-25, 2021, Stockholm, Sweden. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13065.98400
   Google Scholar
• Bergdahl, N., & Bond, M. (2021). Negotiating K-12 (Dis-)engagement in blended learning. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 2635–2660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10714-w
   Google Scholar
• Bergdahl, N., & Gyllander-Torkildsen, L. (2022). Analysing visual representations of adult online learning across formats [Paper presentation]. In the 24th Human Computer Interaction International Conference HCII 2022, Part II, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 26- July 1, 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13309. Springer Nature.
   Google Scholar
• Bergdahl, N., Nouri, J., Fors, U., & Knutsson, O. (2020). Engagement, disengagement and performance when learning with technologies in upper secondary school. Computers and Education, 149, 103783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103783
   Google Scholar
• Bond, M., & Bergdahl, N. (2022). Student engagement in open, distance, and digital education. In Olaf Zawacki-Richter, Insung Jung (Eds.), Handbook of open, distance and digital education (pp. 1–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0351-9_79-1
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
   Google Scholar
• Butler-Pascoe, M. E., & Wiburg, K. (2003). Technology and teaching english language learners. Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Canals, L. (2021). Multimodality and translanguaging in negotiation of meaning. Foreign Language Annals, 54(3), 647–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12547
   Google Scholar
• Chapelle, C. A., & Voss, E. (2016). 20 years of technology and language assessment in language learning & technology. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 116–128.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, M. H., Kim, Y., & Choi, D. (2017). The effect of self-regulated learning on college students’ perceptions of community of inquiry and affective outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.04.001
   Google Scholar
• Conole, G. (2012). Designing for learning in an open world. (Vol. 4). Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Coryell, J. E., & Chlup, D. T. (2007). Implementing e-learning components with adult English language learners: Vital factors and lessons learned. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220701489333
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed-methods research. (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers and Education, 69, 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.013
   Google Scholar
• Dohn, N. B., Godsk, M., & Buus, L. (2019). Learning design: Approaches, cases and characteristics. [Learning Design: Tilgange, cases og karakteristika.]. Laering Og Medier (LOM), 21(June), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v12i21.112639
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x
   Google Scholar
• Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners’ classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson, I. (2020). Knowing what works… (Från att veta vad som fungerar…). In Åsa Hirsch and Anette Olin (Eds.). School development in theory and practices. (Skolutveckling i teori och praktik) (pp. 185–299). Gleerups.
   Google Scholar
• Ernest, P., Guitert Catasús, M., Hampel, R., Heiser, S., Hopkins, J., Murphy, L., & Stickler, U. (2013). Online teacher development: Collaborating in a virtual learning environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(4), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.667814
   Google Scholar
• Ess, C. (2016). Digital media ethics. In A. Jung, M. Keller, & D. White (Eds.), The Oxford research encyclopaedia of communication (pp. 1–47). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 800–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00670.x
   Google Scholar
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
   Google Scholar
• Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M. T., Schall Linn, J., Hofkens, T. L., Sung, H., Parr, A., & Allerton, J. (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction, 43, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.009
   Google Scholar
• From, J. (2017). Pedagogical digital competence—Between values, knowledge and skills. Higher Education Studies, 7(2), 43. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n2p43
   Google Scholar
• Geeslin, K. L., Klee, C. A., & Face, T. L. (2006). Task design, discourse context and variation in second language data elicitation. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages (pp. 74–85). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
   Google Scholar
• González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In M. Gonzélez-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 1–22). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6
   Google Scholar
• Goodyear, P. (2020). Design and co-configuration for hybrid learning: Theorising the practices of learning space design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1045–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12925
   Google Scholar
• Goodyear, P., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2013). In medias res: Reframing design for learning. Research in Learning Technology, 21(1), 19909. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.19909
   Google Scholar
• Greene, B. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50, 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.989230
   Google Scholar
• Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2018). Self-regulation, co-regulation and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 83–106). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hampel, R., & Pleines, C. (2013). Fostering student interaction and engagement in a virtual learning environment: An investigation into activity design and implementation. Calico Journal, 30(3), 342–370. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.3.342-370
   Google Scholar
• Hermerén, G. (2011). Good research practice. Swedish Research Council.
   Google Scholar
• Insulander, E., Majlesi, A. R., Rydell, M., & Svärdemo Åberg, E. (2021). Multimodal analysis of classroom interaction [Multimodal analys av klassrumsinteraktion]. Liber.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). Cooperation and the use of technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 659–670). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). Exploring socially shared regulation in the context of collaboration. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12, 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.267
   Google Scholar
• Kern, R. (2021). Twenty-five years of digital literacies in CALL. Language Learning & Technology, 25(3), 132–150. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/73453
   Google Scholar
• Khalil, M., & Ebner, M. (2017). Clustering patterns of engagement in Massive Open Online Courses MOOCs: The use of learning analytics to reveal student categories. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 291, 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9126-9
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G. R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. The modes and media of contemporary communication. Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G. R., & Selander, S. (2012). Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition. The Internet and Higher Education, 15, 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.003
   Google Scholar
• Kuropka, D., Laures, G., & Tröger, P. (2008). Core concepts and use case scenario. In D. Kuropka, S. Staab, P. Tröger, & M. Weske (Eds.), Semantic service provisioning (pp. 5–18). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78617-7_2
   Google Scholar
• Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Journal of Physics, 76(11), 1066–1069. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2978182
   Google Scholar
• Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as design science building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leijon, M., Juni, T. (2021). Future Learning Environments - A research overview [Framtidens lärandemiljöer - en forskningsbaserad översikt]. Akademiska Hus, 3–42.www.akademiskahus.se/aktuellt/event/2021/kvartal-4/framtidens-larandemiljoer–ny-forsknings-presenteras/
   Google Scholar
• Li, J. (2016). The interactions between emotion, cognition, and action in the activity of assessing undergraduates’ written work. In D. S. P Gedera & J. P. Williams (Eds.), Activity theory (pp. 105–119). Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Lockyer, L., Agostinho, S., & Bennett, S. (2016). Design for e-learning. The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp. 336–353).
   Google Scholar
• Lockyer, L., Heathcote, E., & Dawson, S. (2013). Informing pedagogical action aligning learning analytics with learning design. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1439–1459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479367
   Google Scholar
• Loncar, M., Schams, W., & Liang, J. S. (2021). Multiple technologies, multiple sources: Trends and analyses of the literature on technology-mediated feedback for L2 English writing published from 2015-2019. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–63 (Aug, 21). https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1943452
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, J., O’Toole, J. M., & Chen, S. (2017). The impact of word recognition from speech (WRS) proficiency level on interaction, task success and word learning: Design implications for CALL to develop L2 WRS. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1–2), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1129348
   Google Scholar
• Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X118036
   Google Scholar
• Mejia, C. (2020). Using VoiceThread as a discussion platform to enhance student engagement in a hospitality management online course. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 26, 100236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100236
   Google Scholar
• Mežek, Š., McGrath, L., Negretti, R., & Berggren, J. (2022). Scaffolding L2 academic reading and self-regulation through task and feedback. TESOL Quarterly, 56(1), 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3018
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. A., & Saldana, J. (2014). Drawing and verifying conclusions. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 275–322. January 11, 2016
   Google Scholar
• Mor, Y., & Craft, B. (2012). Learning design: Reflections upon the current landscape. Research in Learning Technology, 20(SUPPL), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.19196
   Google Scholar
• Olofsson, A. D., Fransson, G., & Lindberg, J. O. (2020). A study of the use of digital technology and its conditions with a view to understanding what ‘adequate digital competence’ may mean in a national policy initiative. Educational Studies, 46(6), 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1651694
   Google Scholar
• Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759
   Google Scholar
• Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
   Google Scholar
• Peng, H., Jager, S., & Lowie, W. (2021). Narrative review and meta-analysis of MALL research on L2 skills. ReCALL, 33(3), 278–295. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344020000221
   Google Scholar
• Powell, A., Oliver, W. (2019). National Standards For Quality Online Teaching. In Quality Matters and Virtual Learning Leadership Alliance. www.nsqol.org.
   Google Scholar
• Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
   Google Scholar
• Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
   Google Scholar
• Reeve, J., Cheon, S. H., & Jang, H.-R. (2019). A teacher-focused intervention to enhance students’ classroom engagement. Handbook of Student Engagement Interventions, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813413-9.00007-3
   Google Scholar
• Reinhardt, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2019). Digital literacies as emergent multifarious literacies. In N. Arnold & L. Ducate (Eds.), Engaging language learners through CALL (pp. 208–239). Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Rienties, B., Lewis, T., McFarlane, R., Nguyen, Q., & Toetenel, L. (2018). Analytics in online and offline language learning environments: The role of learning design to understand student online engagement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(3), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1401548
   Google Scholar
• Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., Nguyen, Q., & Littlejohn, A. (2019). Unpacking the intertemporal impact of self-regulation in a blended mathematics environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.007
   Google Scholar
• Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2005). Task design for audiographic conferencing: Promoting beginner oral interaction in distance language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(5), 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220500442772
   Google Scholar
• Saito, K., & Akiyama, Y. (2017). Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility, and second language speech learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 67, 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12184
   Google Scholar
• Selander, S. (2008). Designs of learning and the formation and transformation of knowledge in an era of globalization. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9068-9
   Google Scholar
• Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age Ekim, 6, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Sinha, T., Li, N., Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). Capturing" attrition intensifying"structural traits from didactic interaction sequences of MOOC learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.5887. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/w14-4108
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233
   Google Scholar
• Soleimani, F., & Lee, J. (2021 Comparative Analysis of the Feature Extraction Approaches for Predicting Learners Progress in Online Courses: MicroMasters Credential versus Traditional MOOCs [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale, (pp. 151–159). https://doi.org/10.1145/3430895.3460143
   Google Scholar
• Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strang, K. (2016). How student behavior and reflective learning impact grades in online business courses. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 8(3), 390–410. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-06-2015-0048
   Google Scholar
• Stockwell, G. (2014). Exploring theory in computer-assisted language learning [Paper presentation].Alternative Pedagogies in the English Language & Communication Classroom: Selected Papers from the Fourth CELC Symposium for English Language Teachers, In (pp. 25–30).
   Google Scholar
• Sugden, N., Brunton, R., MacDonald, J., Yeo, M., & Hicks, B. (2021). Evaluating student engagement and deep learning in interactive online psychology learning activities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6632
   Google Scholar
• Sunar, A. S., Abdullah, N. A., White, S., & Davis, H. (2015 Personalization in MOOCs: A critical literature review [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Computer Supported Education, In (pp. 152–168). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Tempelaar, D. (2020). Supporting the less-adaptive student: The role of learning analytics, formative assessment and blended learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 579–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1677855
   Google Scholar
• Teng, M. F. (2017). Flipping the classroom and tertiary level EFL students’ academic performance and satisfaction. Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(4), 605. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.4.2.605
   Google Scholar
• Toro-Troconis, M., Alexander, J., & Frutos-Perez, M. (2019). Assessing student engagement in online programmes: Using learning design and learning analytics. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(6), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n6p171
   Google Scholar
• Thorpe, M. (2013). Perceptions about Time and Learning. In I. Bernath, A Szücs, A. Tait, & M. Vidal (Eds.), Distance and E-learning in transition: Learning innovation, technology and social challenges (pp. 457–472). Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118557686.CH31
   Google Scholar
• Toetenel, L., & Rienties, B. (2016). Learning design—Creative design to visualise learning activities. Open Learning, 31(3), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2016.1213626
   Google Scholar
• van Aalst, J. (2013). Assessment in collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 280–296). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vuopala, E., Hyvönen, P., & Eagle, S. (2014). Collaborative processes in virtual learning spaces - Does structuring make a difference? Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7697(271–278). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43454-3_28
   Google Scholar
• Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational success. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00753.x
   Google Scholar
• Wigham, C., & Satar, M. (2021). Multimodal (inter)action analysis of task instructions in language teaching via videoconferencing: A case study. ReCALL, 33(3), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344021000070
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and method. (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L. J., & Zhang, D. (2018). Metacognition in TESOL: Theory and practice. In J. I. Liontas & A. Shehadeh (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopaedia of English language teaching, Vol. II: Approaches and methods in English for speakers of other languages (pp. 682–792). Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0803
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, S., Zhang, J., Gao, M., Xu, K. M., & Zhang, J. (2020). Using learning analytics to understand collective attention in language MOOCs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(7), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1825094
   Google Scholar
• Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta- analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500025X
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909
   Google Scholar