Sun - Learn Persp On Fully Online Lang Learn - DistanceEduc - 35-1 - 2014

This article was downloaded by: [Tulane University]
On: 30 August 2014, At: 20:31

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Distance Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20
Learner perspectives on fully online

language learning
a
Susan Y. H. Sun
a
School of Language and Culture, Auckland University of
Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Published online: 19 Mar 2014.
To cite this article: Susan Y. H. Sun (2014) Learner perspectives on fully online language learning,
Distance Education, 35:1, 18-42, DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2014.891428
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.891428
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Distance Education, 2014
Vol. 35, No. 1, 18–42, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.891428
Learner perspectives on fully online language learning

Susan Y. H. Sun*
School of Language and Culture, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland,

New Zealand
(Received 23 October 2013; final version received 27 January 2014)
This study builds on this author’s 2011 article in which the author reflects on the
pedagogical challenges and resultant changes made while teaching two fully
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 20:31 30 August 2014
online foreign language papers over a four-year period (Y. H. S. Sun (2011).
Online language teaching: The pedagogical challenges. Knowledge Management
& E-Learning: An International Journal, 3, 428–447). Drawing on current litera-
ture, the present study surveyed learners (n = 46) in an attempt to investigate the
difficulties that confronted them and the ways they had adapted to fully online
learning. The quantitative and qualitative data obtained from a questionnaire were
integrated and analyzed with an inductive method. Results identified six major
difficulties: (1) following the schedule and studying regularly, (2) getting hold of
classmates and finding suitable time to work together, (3) pairing/teaming up and
working collaboratively, (4) ensuring constant engagement with the class, (5)
keeping self-motivated and being a self-directed learner, and (6) socializing.
Keywords: online learning; online language learning; online participation;
collaborative learning; online learning strategies
Introduction
Studies on difficulties and challenges confronting online learners
The global learning landscape of the twenty-first century is being transformed and
shaped by the uptake of digital communication tools and online-networked applica-
tions, along with the changing characteristics, needs, and demands of students
(McLoughlin & Lee, 2010). As a result, online teachers are confronted with unprec-
edented challenges amid a state of flux in which traditional hierarchies and relation-
ships between teachers and learners are shifting, and new hierarchies and
relationships are constantly being forged (Bertin & Nancy-Combes, 2012). It is a
shift “from teacher-centered approaches towards a personalized, small-group orien-
tated, multi-dimensional model of teaching” (Sun, 2011, p. 428), and to “pedagogies
that are more personal, social and participatory” (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010, p. 28).
Responding to the changes and challenges, online teachers and researchers have
been examining and reflecting on their teaching practices, for example, by exploring
and developing ways of incorporating computer-mediated communication (CMC)
effectively and efficiently in their teaching (see, e.g., Blake, 2011; Ernest, Heiser, &
Murphy, 2013; Grooms, 2003; Hasler-Waters & Napier, 2002), identifying the com-
petences and skills necessary for successful online teaching (see, e.g., Baumann,
*Email: susan.sun@aut.ac.nz
© 2014 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.

Distance Education 19
Shelley, Murphy, & White, 2008; Guichon, 2009; Hampel & Stickler, 2005; Shelley,
White, Baumann, & Murphy, 2006; Stickler & Shi, 2013; White, 2003), and propos-
ing new pedagogic approaches and frameworks (see, e.g., Ally, 2004; Chateau &
Zumbihl, 2012; Comas-Quinn, de los Arcos, & Mardomingo, 2012; Compton,
2009; Hampel & Stickler, 2005; Wang & Chen, 2013), just to name a few.
In an earlier study, this author (Sun, 2011) reported on the delivery of two fully
online papers from a teacher’s perspective. (A “paper” is a course or module of study
in New Zealand universities, and a “unit of study” in Australian universities.) The
findings of that study lend further support to previous research (see, e.g., Bertin &
Nancy-Combes, 2012; Comas-Quinn et al., 2012; McLoughlin & Lee, 2010), which
had observed that the roles and relationships of teachers and students had undergone
changes compared to those in traditional face-to-face settings. It discussed two major
breakdowns in online language teaching: (1) the lack of interaction among students
themselves and with teachers and (2) the non-functioning of the virtual classroom,
that is, synchronous class activities—formal lectures or casual meetings—that had

become unattainable. The study also observed significant changes of learning behav-
iors (use of learning strategies and approaches to learning) among learners. From
those findings, it seems that further in-depth studies, especially on online learners,
are warranted in order to shed more light on online learning. Online learners are
undoubtedly the most important participants in the online learning adventure and
their perspectives and concerns need to be heard and investigated.
Research into online learning typically looks at individual stand-alone online
learning tools, or teaching methods, or particular settings of a blended learning pro-
gram. The focus is often on the attitude toward, the perception and evaluation of, or
the satisfaction and performance of, online learners, and the findings of most of these
studies are overwhelmingly positive and favorable. Wiebe and Kabata (2010) note
that “studies that investigated students’ perception and evaluation of CALL materials
mostly indicate positive outcomes” (pp. 222–223). The researchers’ concerted effort
seems to suggest, unwittingly, that online learners are by and large getting on with
their new way of learning with few problems and issues. If there are any, the prob-
lems are minor ones. Unsuspecting readers could easily be led to believe that online
learning is mostly trouble free, as many studies show (see, e.g., positive findings in
Ayres, 2002; Chateau & Zumbihl, 2012; Christie, 2001; Heller, 2005; Holmes, 1998;
Lai & Gu, 2011; Lee & Chan, 2007; Ma & Kelly, 2006; Nguyen, 2011; Son, 2007;
Stepp-Greany, 2002; Yaneske & Oates, 2010; Yang, 2011).
The overall impression has been that online learners may have, at times, various
attitudes, perceptions, and preferences on certain settings, design, or methods, but
they are, most of the time, agreeable and satisfied, and, most importantly, almost
trouble free in their learning. However, the hard questions remain to be answered.
How difficult was it to study online? What were the major difficulties? How did
online learners take up the challenges and adapt, or, maybe in some cases, avoid the
challenges? And in the case of language learning online, how do online learners
engage, interact, pair, or team up, and collaborate without the affordances of lan-
guage learning in a traditional classroom environment? Learner perspectives on all
of these challenges and more seem to be under investigated in the literature on lan-
guage learning at a distance. Lacking specifically is direct, focused probing of diffi-
culties confronting fully online learners, and their overall experiences in a course
rather than just on one or two stand-alone online settings or methods within a
course.
20 S. Y. H. Sun
The present study concentrates entirely on the difficulties and challenges that
confront online language learners and also on the way they adjust and adapt in this
new learning environment. The terms difficulty and challenge are used synony-
mously in this study, although the two words have slightly different focuses.
Blended language learning vs. fully online language learning

It is worth noting that most of the studies into online learning in the literature are
not in fully online learning, “in which learners and education providers are physi-
cally separated from each other, and learning is essentially supported by online edu-
cation technologies” (Wang & Chen, 2013, p. 17). Rather, they are in blended
learning—which is partially online with some face-to-face teaching. The present
study, on the other hand, is concerned with fully online learning, which is regarded
as “a distinct field of education that has its own unique and inherent characteristics,
significantly different from campus-based education or blended learning” (Wang &

Chen, 2009, p. 4). What sets apart fully online learning from the other forms is the
fact that there is no face-to-face interaction among teachers and students; any diffi-
culties encountered by the teachers and learners cannot, therefore, be remedied by
reverting to, even just momentarily, traditional classroom teaching methods. Many
studies in the distance education literature do not make the distinction between
blended and fully online teaching and learning, and there is even less appreciation
of the fact that there exists yet another set of difficulties and challenges in fully
online learning and teaching. Very little has been published specifically on fully
online learning and teaching, let alone on learner difficulties. Primary studies with
original, empirical data in the area are still rare.
Furthermore, unlike studies which examine stand-alone CMC tools as mentioned
earlier, this study investigates fully online courses situated within a learning manage-
ment system which “employs a range of information and communication technolo-
gies to offer an online platform over the Internet, where a whole course can be
planned, facilitated and managed by both the teachers and the learner” (Wang &
Chen, 2009, p. 2). In effect, this is an examination of a learning network.
It is, therefore, the intention of this study to bridge those two gaps mentioned
above: (1) learners’ positive feedback versus difficulties/challenges and (2) blended
learning versus fully online learning. Building on the field of research in distance
learning (distance language learning in particular) that has accumulated a wealth of
knowledge in blended learning, this study looks at learners who had studied in fully
online language courses, with a strong focus on the difficulties experienced by fully
online learners. It is hoped that it will not only shed more light on distance learning,
but also help move this body of knowledge forward to include fully online language
learning. Ultimately, it is hoped that it will contribute to the pedagogies of distance
learning.
Literature review
In the distance education literature, two major, long-standing problems have been
well documented: (1) lack of two-/three-way communication and (2) difficulties
associated with self-regulation of learning (Bernard & Rubalcava, 2000). Although
interaction and collaboration are now attainable through technology in online learn-
ing (Beldarrain, 2006, p. 140), students involved in online collaborative learning are
still commonly feeling frustrated (Capdeferro & Romero, 2012), and teachers are
still finding it no easy task trying to facilitate interaction and collaborative learning.
The second problem, self-regulated learning, is an inherently problematic area in
networked learning, as it obliges learners to develop skills of self-management and
adopt better approaches to, and be responsible for, their own learning (Hurd, 2006).
A third important area attracting a lot of debate in recent years has been the role of
content (instructional materials) in online courses. Content design is even more
important in online second language learning. In the following subsections, an
attempt is, therefore, made to review literature which investigates difficulties con-
fronting online learners in the following three areas: participation and collaborative
learning, learning strategies, and approaches, and content design.
Because research specific to fully online language learning is scarce, particularly
from the perspective of fully online language learners, it becomes necessary to look
into other related research literature, for example, studies on blended language learn-
ing and/or fully online learning of non-language-specific subjects.
Online participation and collaborative online learning

Learner participation and interaction is of crucial importance in successful language
learning, whether it is face-to-face, blended, or fully online (Sun, 2011). It is
believed that greater participation in course communication results in students expe-
riencing greater cognitive and explanatory learning (Paskey, 2001), and appropriate
interaction is tied to higher student satisfaction and achievement (Borokhovski,
Tamim, Bernard, Abrami, & Sokolovskaya, 2012; Meyer, 2003), just to name a few
of its benefits. As for collaborative learning, the often cited advantages include that
it encourages active and constructive learning and deep processing of information,
as well as evoking critical thinking, reasoning, and goal-based learning (Bernard &
Rubalcava, 2000).
Online participation and collaborative learning is made possible through the
application of CMC, which “provides a powerful environment for collaborative
learning across the globe” (Grooms, 2003, p. 2). More and more language teachers
are integrating CMC, both synchronous and asynchronous, into their classroom. The
uptake of CMC for teaching and learning has become a strong new trend in higher
education programs (Nguyen, 2011). Researchers are exploring the nature and qual-
ity of CMC for effective ways of using it in their teaching (see, e.g., Biasutti, 2011;
Cañado, 2010; Capdeferro & Romero, 2012; Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, Jochems, &
Broers, 2007; De Smet, Van Keer, De Wever, & Valcke 2010; Grooms, 2003;
Gruba, 2004; Liaw & Bunn-Le Master, 2010; Mohd Nor, Hamat, & Embi, 2012;
Tsai, 2010; Wang & Chen, 2009).
What makes online participation more difficult and challenging is that classes
only exist in cyberspace with limited physical interaction between teachers and stu-
dents and this can create difficulties in working with others (Willging & Johnson,
2004). The resultant feelings of disconnectedness and isolation can affect students’
attitudes toward online learning (Mohd Nor et al., 2012), and thus can also put a
significant damper on students’ motivation and enthusiasm (Lee & Chan, 2007). Hurd
(2005) argued that students’ perceived “lack of opportunities to practice with others
and share experiences can have an adverse effect on motivation levels” (p. 9).
Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems (2003) warned that “one cannot take for granted that
participants will socially interact simply because the environment makes it possible”
22 S. Y. H. Sun
(p. 8); and Nguyen (2011) argued that CMC learning “does not automatically ensure
the successfulness of the integration of CMC into language education” (p. 1414).
One significant problem in online learning is nonparticipation (Anderson &
Simpson, 2004; Biasutti, 2011). The imbalance of participation among members
results in imbalance of individual contribution and commitment, which in turn cre-
ates a high level of frustration among learners (Capdeferro & Romero, 2012). An
investigation by Tseng and Yeh (2013) into students’ perceptions of online team-
work learning revealed strikingly similar findings, namely some team members (1)
lacked the willingness to communicate with team members, (2) lacked a sense of
individual accountability, and (3) did not contribute to teamwork in the way as they
should. Similarly, Moore and Iida (2010) investigated students’ frequency of use
and the reasons for non-use of three online tools of a course developed in Black-
board 9 and found that the majority of students used two of the tools, namely
Groupwork and Discussion, less than expected. Apart from the technical problems
and confusion with how the applications work, students were “discouraged by the
inactivity of other students” (p. 976) and they “felt they had nothing to contribute”
(p. 977). These findings are alarming but not totally unexpected. They serve to
remind us that “facilitating group communication and interaction are areas beckon-
ing attention as we continue to effectively organize the online classroom of this new
millennium” (Grooms, 2003, p. 1).
Grooms (2003) examined learner perceptions of CMC in an online doctoral pro-
gram (n = 28) and found that the respondents considered communication and inter-
action vitally important. All of them articulated the fundamental importance of
communication in the online program. They also expressed a desire to periodically
engage in some form of real-time or synchronous activity and suggested the need
for instructors to continually encourage the participation of all. From the responses
by the participants in Groom’s investigation, students’ frustration over the lack of
communication and interaction is obvious. It becomes apparent that more in-depth
and extensive investigations into learners’ experience in participation and collabora-
tive use of various CMC tools are needed.
Online learning strategies and styles

The consensus is that people behave differently when communicating online and in
face-to-face situations (Roed, 2003), and furthermore, that online communication
leads to students improving their learning approaches and acquiring new skills
(Hurd, 2006). Sun’s (2011) findings of earlier investigations into the delivery of two
fully online papers provide support for such assertions. Sun observed that fully
online learners:
shied away from class meetings at the virtual classroom … subtly altered the ways they
interact with teachers and fellow students … adjusted their learning styles by forming
smaller groups or working in pairs. They preferred small group collaboration in the
online learning environment … stopped trying to know and work with other members
of the class rather than their own small group. (pp. 441–442)
It is a change to go from classroom-based large-group learning to small-group

learning. Biasutti (2011) reported similar working patterns in her investigation of
student experience of collaborative e-learning, in which she concluded, “for nearly
all students, small group activities improved communication and the development of
social skills, demonstrating that also in virtual environments group size in learning
is important” (pp. 1873–1874).
Another behavioral change is from one-size-fits-all to individualized or personal-
ized learning, as Sun (2011) observed:
There was a radical shift in the way people learn languages – independently through
choosing their own tools, and, as a consequence, creating their own “Personal Learning
Environments”.
… In this environment, a learner is able to choose his/her own learning materials …

his own tools to best suit his learning methods and style … His learning environment
continues to evolve as learning progresses. He is the center and everything else, e.g.,
learning materials and tools, teachers and peers, etc., circle around him. (pp. 441–442)
Learning is also shifting toward more self-directed, self-regulated learning, sup-

ported by the socially based tools and technologies of the Web 2.0 movement
(McLoughlin & Lee, 2010). Online learners are increasingly required to “prepare for
his/her own learning, take the necessary steps to learn, manage and evaluate the
learning and provide self feedback and judgement, while simultaneously maintaining
a high level of motivation” (p. 29). Distance learners need to “regulate and oversee
the rate and direction of their learning to a far greater degree than classroom learn-
ers” (White, 1994, pp. 12–13).
To encourage and facilitate self-directed, self-regulated learning, online courses
have been increasingly equipped with self-access centers incorporating technology
to support the development of learner autonomy. Studies have been carried out to
examine the effects of these tools and mechanisms on student learning (see, e.g.,
Hurd, 2006; Reinders, 2006; Toogood & Pemberton, 2002). Nevertheless, almost all
the findings of those studies are positive; and in the case of Reinders (2006, 2007),
it was reported that students were extremely satisfied with the program. However,
when the records of student work stored in the database were closely examined, they
“gave a somewhat less positive picture … many students did not complete their ini-
tial needs analysis and very few updated their learning plans … the suggestions
made by the computer were seldom followed by the students” (Darasawang &
Reinders, 2010, unpaginated). Reflecting on the problem of underuse of these pro-
grams and designs, Darasawang and Reinders (2010) pointed out that students in
fact do not have a great deal of experience in maintaining a record of their own
learning or keeping track of and reflecting on their learning, which is required and
encouraged by the self-directed and self-regulated learning approach. It seems a con-
siderable challenge for online learners to learn to become self-directed, self-regulated
learners. Students’ weakest learning strategies in online collaboration are planning,
reflecting, or monitoring, as reported by Wang (2010).
Again, there is a clear lack in the literature of knowledge about learners’ experi-
ence and perception of small-group, personalized, self-directed, self-regulated learn-
ing. Most importantly, what are the difficulties they must overcome in order to adapt
to the new learning environment? Very few studies specifically discuss behavioral
changes or examine learners’ strategic steps taken to resolve problems encountered
in online learning. There are even fewer, if any, studies which detail students’ self-
reported changes of learning behavior. Nevertheless, we are well aware that “how
24 S. Y. H. Sun
successful we are as language learners generally depends on our ability to use effec-
tive learning strategies” (Roed, 2003, p. 157).
Online content (instructional materials)

The rethink of pedagogy in the global learning landscape of the twenty-first century,
that is, the shift from a traditional teacher-centered approach to student-centered, self-
regulated, personalized learning through CMC, has called for the re-evaluation of the
role of content (instructional materials) in online courses (see McLoughlin & Lee,
2010). Based on the principles of social constructivism, online content is no longer
prescribed, pre-packaged materials; instead, it focuses on the process of learning (as
opposed to the product) through designing experiences which build capability,
develop skills, and facilitate personal learning, such as real-life problem-solving and
critical thinking skills, and self-directed, self-regulated, personalized learning
(Hirshon 2005; McLoughlin & Lee, 2010). Central to online content design is collab-
orative learning tasks (Gruba, 2004). It is even more so in second language learning,
as Chapelle (2001) emphasized that “anyone concerned with second language teach-
ing and learning in the twenty-first century needs to grasp the nature of the unique
technology-mediated tasks learners can engage in for language acquisition” (p. 2).
These tasks should not only be teamwork- or project-oriented, but also should pro-
vide real-world context (e.g., critical working relationships) and facilitate experiential
learning (Correia, 2008). Similarly, in second language learning, there is a growing
emphasis on integrating authentic activities, and “loosely directed” learner self-
directed tasks, so as to encourage learner creativity and reflection (see Gruba, 2004).
Online interaction has in recent years “been extended in educational contexts to
include student interactions with curricular content” (Borokhovski et al., 2012,
p. 313). Introduced by Moore (1989), student–content interaction refers to students
interacting with the subject matter they are studying to construct meaning, relate it
to personal knowledge, and apply it to problem-solving. An online virtual classroom
should be able to support not only peer–peer and student–instructor interaction, but
also student–content interaction—a three-mode interaction model (Borokhovski
et al., 2012; Subramaniam & Kandasamy, 2011; Wang & Chen, 2013). “It is funda-
mental that interaction between the student and the course content … contributes to
learning” (Meyer, 2003, p. 57).
It will be interesting to see how the students perceive the content of online
courses, which have been shaped increasingly by social constructivist theories.
Research question
This exploratory study, informed by the author’s experience of developing and
teaching fully online language courses at a New Zealand university and also by the
current research literature in CMC and computer-assisted language learning,
attempts to open up a field of enquiry into the following questions:
(1) What are the difficulties for fully online language learners in CMC and
collaboration?
(2) What emerging new learning behaviors are brought about by online pedago-
gies and CMC in the context of language learning?
(3) How do students perceive the content of fully online language courses?
The third question above is a minor aim compared to the first two. Content
design is an area of concern more for teaching than for learning. A thorough investi-
gation on learner–content interaction would certainly be interesting, but is beyond
the scope of this learner-focused research. However, in light of the new understand-
ing of and demand for content design brought about by online pedagogies, learners’
perceptions on that, for example, collaborative tasks, authentic materials, will show
how well they have grasped and adapted to the new learning environment, or help
uncover learner difficulties in the area.
Methodology
The context
The two fully online Chinese language papers under investigation were set up in a
multimodal learning environment with various online voice/video tools (e.g., Wimba
Voice Board, Voice Direct Conferencing, Voice Presentation, Elluminate Live) inte-
grated in the Blackboard suite in a New Zealand university.
They were designed with an extremely strong focus on interaction (oral interac-
tion in particular) between and among class members and teachers. It had been a
strong belief on the teachers’ part that communicative language can only be learned
in an active, interactive learning community. There had always been multiple rooms
specifically created for not only text, but also audio/video socialization, paired or
group practice and presentation, and weekly drop-ins. The assessments are largely
interactive, with two individual online assignments, two paired/group oral presenta-
tions (focusing on encouraging learner–learner synchronous and asynchronous
interaction and collaboration), and a final oral exam (focusing on encouraging lear-
ner–teacher synchronous and asynchronous interaction). They are designed in such a
way that they provide ample opportunities for learners to interact and collaborate
throughout the course.
The participants
All the class members of the two online papers in that four-year period (2008–2011)
were considered prospective participants in this project, but only 140 of them were
contactable (assuming their addresses were still current and they all received the
invitation, which is very unlikely); others left without further contact details. After
several mass e-mails, 46 of them replied and participated in the study, giving a
response rate of approximately 33%. It’s worth noting that not all the 140 partici-
pants had passed the online papers. There were no particular recruitment criteria to
either include or exclude any particular type of students. It was the researcher’s
intention to include as wide-ranging views as possible on fully online learning, from
those who successfully passed the papers and those who failed.
Data collection
The research instrument in this study is a survey employing both qualitative and
quantitative methods for data collection. The survey is in the form of a questionnaire
developed by the researcher (see Appendix) drawing on the literature and adapted for
students of fully online learning. It consists of two sections with 32 questions in total.
26 S. Y. H. Sun
Part 1 used a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)

for questions asking students to indicate to what extent they agreed or disagreed
with the 19 statements on four areas of fully online language learning: online partici-
pation (items 1–4), collaborative e-learning/group work (items 5–8), content of
online courses (items 9–14), and learning strategies and styles (items 15–19). The
results were analyzed using SPSS, which provided means and deviation for each
question. Reliability analyses were also conducted to measure the internal consis-
tency of each of the four areas calculating Cronbach’s alpha.
Part 2 of the survey consisted of 13 open-ended questions (items 20–32) asking
participants to share their personal experience in fully online language learning. The
questions focused on two areas: online participation/collaboration and self-regulation
of learning, which would help to answer the first two research questions in more
depth. A broad spectrum of descriptive data concerning these two research areas
was collected. After integrating with data from part 1, where appropriate, an induc-
tive method was employed to analyze the integrated data and capture the emerging
categories. The process included five phases: (1) immersion (recognizing all the dis-
cernible different answers), (2) categorization (categories emerging), (3) phenomeno-
logical reduction (establishing themes), (4) triangulation (sustaining researcher’s
interpretations), and (5) interpretation (explaining with reference to previous
research) (see Biasutti, 2011, for more detailed explanation of this method).
Results
The results from the questionnaire are organized into three sections corresponding to
the three research questions, integrating data from the 19 Likert-scale questions and
the 13 open-ended questions.
Difficulties in fully online participation and collaborative learning

The first four questions in part 1 of the questionnaire listed some commonly
observed problems in online participation and interaction, such as (1) lack of oppor-
tunities for peer interaction and difficulty in participating and engaging with others;
(2) interactions being limited to small groups; and (3) learning in small groups, and
knowing very few classmates. Students’ responses were overwhelmingly favorable
with all the means above the average means of three on a five-point Likert scale
(see Table 1). In particular, the means for question two is the highest in the group at
3.87, which seems to confirm rather convincingly that students are indeed interacting
and learning in small groups at online settings.
The next set of questions is four positively worded statements asking students’
opinions regarding group work, project-type work, learner cooperation and
collaboration, and group discussion. Students’ responses were overwhelmingly
Table 1. Learner experience of fully online particpation.

Question/Statement N Mean (3) SD
1 46 3.22 1.009
2 46 3.87 .582
3 46 3.83 .70881
4 46 3.13 .74859
Table 2. Learner experience in collaborative online learning.

5 46 3.74 .77272
6 46 3.93 .80006
7 46 4 .59628
8 46 3.39 .80217
positive (see Table 2). While all the means are rather high (3.39 and above), the
response for question seven stands out in particular with its means being four. The ori-
ginal data (which gives the details of how many respondents ticked each Likert-scale
point) shows that no one disagreed, let alone strongly disagreed, with the statement
that learner cooperation and collaboration should be encouraged in online learning.
Three open-ended questions (items 21–23) in part 2 of the questionnaire also
addressed the problem of participation and collaborative learning. They had been
designed specifically to ask students to describe, reflect, and comment on their per-
sonal experience. After careful and repeated reading, and analysis of the answers
from the 34 respondents (of the 46 respondents, 12 skipped part 2 of the question-
naire for unknown reasons), two discernible categories of concern emerged:
difficulties with socializing and interacting; and

collaboration only with one or a few classmates (small group).
Nine respondents said there had only been limited socialization and interaction,
and four said that they never socialized. One student explained that it had been “dif-
ficult to get hold of people.” Another student noted, “once you had a partner there
was not much socializing as you would only go online during organized time frames
with them. People seemed reluctant to chat randomly with one another because you
did not really know who they were.”
Four participants reported that they had only worked/collaborated with one class-
mate throughout the course, and another four students said they had only worked
with their own friends in the class (presumably friends they had known before the
online classes). One student described the interaction being “more clinical than
social, as partners were busy, interactions were to the point to ensure efficiency.”
Emerging new learning behaviors (fully online learning strategies and styles)
Questions 15–19 in part 1 of the questionnaire inquire about the ways which fully
online learners learn as opposed to face-to-face classroom learning (see Table 3).
Some rather technical terms which increasingly characterize online learning, for
example, self-directed, self-regulated, individualized or personalized learning,
flexibility, self-direction, choice, personal learning environments, were put to the
participants.
Self-directed and self-regulated learning (in question 15) may have been new
jargon for some students (two respondents opted to skip the question), but their
responses (means: 3.93) seem to indicate that they practiced self-regulation of
learning and were aware of its importance in fully online learning.
Questions 16–17 are concerned with individual learners having choices in
selecting various technologies and being able to configure/form their own personal
28 S. Y. H. Sun
Table 3. Learner experience of learning strategies and style.

15 44 3.93 .84627
16 46 3.76 .89901
17 46 3.70 .66230
18 46 3.80 .90969
19 46 3.70 .86589
learning environments. Data collected show strong agreement (means: 3.76 and
3.70) among students. It confirms that they did, to some degree, pick and choose,
and learn in their own preferred ways.
Question 18 represents an attempt to find out whether online learning better
meets learners’ personal learning preferences, needs, social life, and technology
choices than traditional classroom learning. Results suggest that this is indeed the
case for most of the respondents (means: 3.80).
Many respondents agreed with question 19 that they had control over their learn-
ing (means: 3.70).
As for the open-ended questions (items 20, 26–31) regarding the changed,
emerging learning behaviors, responses from the 34 participants brought new dis-
coveries and fruitful insights.
When asked how to keep engaged with the course (question 20), the strategies
for 10 respondents had been “keep checking” and “keep learning” regularly. Four
respondents emphasized the importance of assessment deadline in helping their
engagement in the course.
When asked what changes and effort they had made to adapt (question 26), the
responses reveal a variety of learning strategies:
put in more time (mentioned by 3 respondents);

put an effort to study consistently (3);
improved time management skills (2);
tried harder to interact with other students (2);
be self-motivated (2);
organized information according to my own pattern (1);
did more self-study (1);
got into a different routine (1); and
prepared ahead of time (1).
When asked what were successful and the not-so-successful learning strategies
(question 27), self-motivation seemed to be the biggest one, with four participants
attributing their success directly to being highly motivated, and two others mention-
ing that self-directed learning had been the key. One participant regretted not being
able to maintain motivation.
Responding to question 28, many participants (20) regretted that they had not
spent more time on study and put more effort into interacting and practicing the lan-
guage with classmates. This does not necessarily mean that the participants had been
slack in their studies; rather, it may indicate that fully online learning places greater
demand for self-regulation of learning on learners.
When students were asked whether they had noticed any new ways or models of
learning by other class members (question 29), almost all the respondents (31 out of
34) replied with a simple “no.” This is rather interesting, since many of them had
indicated earlier on in the questionnaire that they had indeed altered many of the
ways in which they learn. The majority “no” responses seem to indicate that the
new learning environment had in some way demanded change or the adoption of
new learning strategies, but that the learners had only just been slowly coming to
grips with it, and they had yet to develop full awareness.
In questions 30 and 31, participants were asked again to reflect on their learning
strategies and try to establish the best practices/ways in online learning and how
teachers can better facilitate their learning. Although most of the answers fell into
the usual categories, for example, keep working, practice more, interact with other
class members more, there were reflections which touched on self-regulated, collab-
orative learning. One student said the best method is “a combination of weekly dis-
cussions, group work, class get-togethers;” another suggested “encouraging a group
atmosphere where there is place for informality and giving a relaxed environment,
[and] where it is easy to connect with other students to learn together and help moti-
vate one another.”
Online content (instructional materials)

Another set of statements (questions 9–14) in part 1 of the questionnaire is con-
cerned with instructional materials in online learning. Respondents were asked to
look back to their experience of online learning and see how much they would agree
with those statements. The intention was to gage students’ opinions on (1) task-
based instruction, (2) authentic teaching material, (3) learner initiatives in designing
online instructional materials, (4) learner co-construction of course material and
resources, (5) learner creativity, and (6) the role of the instructional materials in
developing students’ real-life problem-solving and critical thinking skills.
Expectations were not high for lots of feedback, as the learners may not have
been familiar with the area of instructional materials (content design in general).
However, the responses show a high level of appreciation of good content design
among the learners. All the means are 3.61 and above, with that for question 11
being the highest in all the responses in the questionnaire at 4.09 (see Table 4). It
seems that students do give a lot of thought to content design of online courses, and
through their interaction with the content they know what kinds of instructional
materials work better for them.
There were no open-ended questions specifically seeking learners’ opinions in
online content design. Full investigation into content design and learner–content
Table 4. Learner perceptions of online content design.

9 46 3.61 .74471
10 46 3.83 .79734
11 45 4.09 .70137
12 44 3.70 .79474
13 46 3.59 .85832
14 45 3.87 .69413
30 S. Y. H. Sun
interaction requires data from the teachers as well. It is obviously beyond the scope
of this research.
Difficulties and challenges in online learning

Finally, there were two additional open-ended questions in the questionnaire which
address all three research questions. They had been designed specifically to focus
learners’ attention to the difficulties/challenges encountered over the entire online
course.
In question 24, students were asked to share with us the “most challenging
thing” in fully online learning. Their responses highlighted an array of challenges
which recurred in their answers throughout the questionnaire:
lack of interaction and practice with peers (mentioned by 4 respondents);

practicing pronunciation (4);

keeping up with things and studying consistently (3);
limited socialization (3);
no immediate feedback (3);
communicating on a computer (2);
time management (2);
lack of group discussion (2);
writing Chinese characters (2);
listening to Chinese (2);
keeping motivated (2);
having less communication with the teacher (1);
finding partners to work with (1);
isolation (felt lonely) (1);
self-study (1);
oral presentations (1);
live chat with teachers (1) and;
reduction in social cues (having a definitive sense of what is going on and
assessing myself with respect to my peers) (1).
In question 25, 11 potentially difficult areas were listed and students were asked to
tick as many items as were applicable to them. The results (see Table 5) show that the
biggest difficulty in fully online learning was to “follow the schedule and study regu-
larly” (50%), followed by “finding partners to work and practice with” (47.1%). The
third biggest problem was “finding a common available time to work with a partner”
(44.1%). Also at 44.1% was “technical difficulties,” which was expected but will not
be further investigated in this project as numerous previous studies have dealt with that.
In summary, the participants throughout the survey reiterated several themes. Six
defining difficulties in fully online learning emerged from the integrated data:
(1) following the schedule and studying regularly;

(2) getting hold of classmates and finding suitable time to work together;
(3) forming a pair or teaming up and working collaboratively;
(4) ensuring constant engagement with the class;
(5) keeping self-motivated and being a self-directed, self-regulated learner and;
(6) socializing.
Table 5. Difficulties identified by percentage of learners.

Questions 25
What other difficulties did you encounter during the course? (tick as many items below as
were applicable to you)
Original item
numbers in Response
questionnaire Items of difficulty (%) Responses
9 Following the schedule and study regularly 50.00 17
2 Finding ‘partners’ to work and practice with 47.10 16
3 Finding a common available time to work with a 44.10 15
partner
1 Technical difficulties 44.10 15
5 Keeping in touch with the class 32.40 11
6 Keeping in touch with the teacher, e.g., turning up 29.40 10

at the weekly Virtual Classroom sessions
8 Keeping motivated 26.50 9
11 Being self-regulated as a successful learner should 26.50 9
7 Keeping interested in the course 20.60 7
4 Sticking to the pair-work or group-work schedule 17.60 6
10 Keeping the assessment deadlines 2.90 1
12 Others. Please state: 2.90 1
Note. N = 46; answered question = 34; skipped question = 12.
Discussion
Fully online foreign language learning is still in its infancy. Empirical data from
learners, such as has been gathered in this research and the recurrent themes that
have subsequently emerged, is undoubtedly of great value in helping to better under-
stand the learning process in this new cyberspace environment and in guiding effec-
tive instructional design.
While the six major difficulties identified by the learners are in fact all interre-
lated, they fall into two areas (themes): interaction and collaboration, and learning
strategies, as illustrated in Figure 1.
The discussion below will firstly focus on the area of interaction and collabora-
tion (the first three difficulties in Figure 1) with an attempt to answer the first
research question of this study, followed by the discussion of learning strategies (the
last three difficulties in Figure 1) with an attempt to address the second research
question. Finally there will be a brief discussion with reference to the third research
question.
Research question 1: Difficulties in online participation and collaborative

learning
The first three difficulties in Figure 1 point directly to the root of the inherent prob-
lem in fully online learning: lacking a physical place where students can meet, study,
and socialize routinely at a fixed given time.
32 S. Y. H. Sun
Major difficulties in fully online foreign language learning
Interaction & collaboration Learning strategies
(1) (4)
Get hold of Follow schedule &
classmates & find study regularly
suitable time to work
together
(5)
Ensure engagement
(2) with the class
Pair/team up and
work collaboratively
(3) Keep self-motivated

& be a self-directed,
Socialize self-regulated learner
Figure 1. Learners’ perceived major difficulties in fully online language learning.
The majority of participants not only agreed in their Likert-question answers that
these had been the difficulties, but also repeatedly pointed them out in their open-
ended question answers. It was in fact rather alarming that so many participants said
(in question 23) that they did not socialize (4) or did very little socializing (9). This
is consistent with Muilenburg and Berge’s (2005) finding when they surveyed 1056
online learners and reported that “a lack of social interaction was the severe barrier
as perceived by students overall” (p. 45). Low participation in online activities has
been frequently reported in the research literature (Comas-Quinn et al., 2012).
Collaborative interaction is the “heart and soul of an online course” (Draves,
2002, cited in Wang & Chen, 2013). There is no surprise that students rated group
work highly, be it project-type work or group discussion. Students also favorably
rated cooperative and collaborative learning. This is due perhaps to the lack of that
—in other words, due to the fact that there had not been enough opportunities for
them to do so, and they could not emphasize enough its importance. Many students
reported that they had ended up, disappointingly, pairing only with one other person
(a friend, in several cases) or teaming up in a small group for collaborative work
(this small-group strategy will be revisited in the next subsection), with the interac-
tion overall being minimal, just enough to ensure efficiency.
Another widely reported problem of online collaboration in the literature is
unequal participation and contribution (see, e.g., Comas-Quinn et al., 2012; Wang &
Chen, 2013), which interestingly was not mentioned by the participants in this study.
The rule of thirds accepted by many involved in online learning is that in an online
learning community, there is usually a third of students contributing regularly,
another third only sporadically, and a third not at all (see Comas-Quinn et al., 2012).
This author, who had also been the instructor in the online courses under investiga-
tion, has certainly seen a lot of unequal contribution in collaboration, which led to
student frustrations. When respondents in this study reported difficulties in
collaboration as one of the biggest problems with little elaboration, unequal contri-
bution should perhaps be considered as part of it.
Nevertheless, the positive assertion by participants of this study on the values and
benefits of interaction and collaboration offers support to the literature in which
numerous researchers have highlighted the importance of scaffolding interaction and
collaboration to support online learners (e.g., Bernard & Rubalcava, 2000; Dewiyanti
et al., 2007; Gruba, 2004; Hasler-Waters & Napier, 2002; Su & Beaumont, 2010;
Subramaniam & Kandasamy, 2011; Wang, 2010; Wilson, 2004).
Research question 2: Emerging new learning behaviors (online learning

strategies and styles)
Three out of six most difficult things identified by the students relate directly to
self-directed and self-regulated learning (see Figure 1). The biggest problem was
“following the schedule and studying regularly” followed by “ensuring constant
engagement with the class.” It seems, from their answers, that they were aware of
the need to be self-motivated and self-disciplined in order to succeed in fully online
learning. However, for many of them, self-regulated learning skills such as setting
goals, orienting one’s action accordingly, planning, monitoring, asking for help
when needed, trying out different strategies, and reflecting (see Guichon, 2009;
Hurd, 2006; Wang, 2010) had perhaps not been previously acquired. In fact, these
learning strategies could have been new to many online students. “It is a mistake to
assume that learners naturally possess the prerequisites for skillful collaboration, or
for that matter, any form of online experience,” argued Bernard and de Rubalcava
(2000, p. 266). In the report on their successful online assessment design, Wang and
Chen (2013) also asserted strongly the need to train learners for not only interacting
and collaborating, but also reflecting effectively. In her study on student online col-
laboration and offline interaction Wang (2010) concluded that although the imple-
mentation of information and communications technology tools in blended learning
does promote social interaction and engagement, it “does not automatically facilitate
students in their adoption of active learning strategies” (p. 842).
The complete disappearance of the classroom has undoubtedly made meeting
and socializing among learners extremely difficult, let alone learning collaboratively.
Under the circumstances, students had no choice but to make changes and adapt,
evidently (from the data gathered) through switching to small-group learning, and
individualized, personalized learning. Interestingly, although students mentioned the
various changed learning behaviors in different places in the survey, when asked
whether they had made the effort to change and adapt to the new learning environ-
ment, they did not seem to be aware that they had, nor that they had also become
heavily reliant on these new ways of learning. The terms small-group learning and
collaborative learning are often used interchangeably (Bernard & Rubalcava, 2000)
in the literature. Small-group strategy is in fact one of the main strategies people
adopt in online collaborative learning. This new way of learning has been observed
and reported in the author’s previous study (Sun, 2011). Indeed the present study
attempted and is now able to confirm the use of this strategy, lending support to sim-
ilar findings in the literature (Anderson & Simpson, 2004; Biasutti, 2011).
There has also been confirmation from the students that they individually chose
various tools to configure and form their own learning environments. Data collected
show that some students had been learning with their own style, for example,
34 S. Y. H. Sun
different ways of using the audio and video resources to practice speaking, various
group-work patterns (meeting online, face-to-face, telephoning). One participant
noted, “I organized information according to my own pattern” and another reported
making his own flashcards to put on his iPhone. One can easily appreciate the diffi-
culties confronting online learners when their accustomed old learning approaches
and strategies no longer work for them. They initiate changes themselves out of
frustration, while grappling with new applications and tools and trying to meet their
preferences, needs, social habits, and technology choices.
Research question 3: Perceptions of online content (instructional materials)

Finally, this study also attempted to find out how fully online language learners per-
ceive online learning materials through their interaction with the content. It is a little
surprising, admittedly, but pleasing that the respondents showed a high level of
awareness and appreciation of various pedagogical features in online content, for

example, task-based, authentic, learner-generated materials; development of real-life
problem-solving and critical thinking skills. Although there were no open-ended
questions asked regarding content design in the questionnaire, since content under-
pinned by social constructivism is closely tied to collaborative, self-regulated learn-
ing, it was not surprising to find many respondents indirectly touching on content
design while answering questions in the survey. One student said appreciatively,
“Tasks were assigned which needed to be completed. This requirement ensured con-
stant engagement.”
Conclusion
This study identified six major difficulties pertaining to fully online language learn-
ing, online communication and collaboration, and self-regulated learning: (1) follow-
ing the schedule and studying regularly, (2) ensuring constant engagement with the
class, (3) getting hold of classmates and finding suitable time to work together, (4)
pairing/teaming up and working collaboratively, (5) keeping self-motivated and
being a self-directed learner, and (6) socializing. Data from this study confirms that
fully online learning is personalized, self-directed, and self-regulated, with paired or
small-group activities.
It also established that online learners have a high level of awareness and appre-
ciation of a range of online pedagogical features underpinned by a social construc-
tivist theoretical framework. Although most of the findings are not new and in
general agreement with the distance learning literature, the strengths of this study
are threefold:
(1) It provided learners’ perspectives with totally learner-reported data and

including a considerable amount of descriptive data.
(2) It focused entirely on learning difficulties in a fully online environment.
(3) It asked students to reflect on and evaluate a whole fully online course rather
than a single or a few stand-alone online tools, settings, or methods.
It, thus, contributes to the understanding of fully online language learning as a

whole, and sheds light in particular on learner difficulties.
Finally, it has to be pointed out that there are two limitations to this study.
Firstly, although the two papers were set up similarly over the years (2008–2011),
there have been changes due to the ever-advancing online technologies. As a result,
students in different classes/years might have experienced slightly different instruc-
tional designs. The findings are, therefore, general in nature and should be treated
with caution when interpreting the results. Secondly, this is a convenient sample.
The researcher surveyed only the students she had access to. The results cannot be
generalized to represent a wider fully online learner population.
Notes on contributor
Susan is a senior lecturer at the School of Language and Culture, Auckland University of
Technology, New Zealand, with more than 10 years’ experience in designing and teaching
blended and fully online language courses (Chinese language focus). This has been her main
research area in recent years.
References
Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson &
F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 3–31). Athabasca: Athaba-
sca University. Retrieved from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/pdf/TPOL_book.pdf
Anderson, B., & Simpson, M. (2004). Group and class contexts for learning and support
online: Learning and affective support online in small group and class contexts. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5. Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index
Ayres, R. (2002). Learner attitudes towards the use of CALL. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 15, 241–249. doi:10.1076/call.15.3.241.8189
Baumann, U., Shelley, M., Murphy, L., & White, C. (2008). New challenges: The role of the
tutor in the teaching of languages at a distance. Distances et Savoirs, 6, 364–392.
doi:10.3166/ds.6.365-392
Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster
student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27, 139–153. doi:10.1080/
01587910600789498
Bernard, R. M., & Rubalcava, B. R. (2000). Collaborative online distance learning: Issues for
future practice and research. Distance Education, 21, 260–277. doi:10.1080/
0158791000210205
Bertin, J.-C., & Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2012). Tutoring at a distance. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 25, 105–109. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.649087
Biasutti, M. (2011). The student experience of a collaborative e-Learning university module.
Computers & Education, 57, 1865–1875. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.0 06
Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 31, 19–35. doi:10.1017/S026719051100002X
Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012). Are
contextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in dis-
tance education? Distance Education, 33, 311–329. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723162
Cañado, M. L. P. (2010). Using virtual learning environments and computer-mediated
communication to enhance the lexical competence of pre-service English teachers: A
quantitative and qualitative study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23, 129–150.
doi:10.1080/09588221003666222
Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learn-
ing experiences? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
13, 26–44. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer application in second language acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
36 S. Y. H. Sun
Chateau, A., & Zumbihl, H. (2012). Learners’ perceptions of the pedagogical relations in a
flexible language learning system. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25, 165–179.
doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.636053
Christie, K. N. (2001). Web-based multimedia in business Italian: A longitudinal evaluation
of learner experiences and attitudes. Italica, 78, 499–525. Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=italica
Comas-Quinn, A., de los Arcos, B., & Mardomingo, R. (2012). Virtual learning environ-
ments (VLEs) for distance language learning: Shifting tutor roles in a contested space for
interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25, 129–143. doi:10.1080/095882
21.2011.636055
Compton, L. (2009). Preparing language teachers to teach language online: A look at skills,
roles, and responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 73–99.
doi:10.1080/09588220802613831
Correia, A.-P. (2008). Moving from theory to real-world experiences in an e-learning commu-
nity. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/j/
ISSN-1552-3233
Darasawang, P., & Reinders, H. (2010). Encouraging autonomy with an online language sup-
port system. CALL-EJ Online, 11(2). Retrieved from http://callej.org/index.html

De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2010). Cross-age tutors in asyn-
chronous discussion groups: Exploring the impact of three types of tutor training on pat-
terns in tutor support and on tutor characteristics. Computers & Education, 54, 1167–
1181. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.002
Dewiyanti, S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. J. (2007). Students’ experiences
with collaborative learning in asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning
environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 496–514. doi:10.1016/
j.chb.2004.10.021
Ernest, P., Heiser, S., & Murphy, L. (2013). Developing teacher skills to support collaborative
online language learning. The Language Learning Journal, 41, 37–54. doi:10.1080/
09571736.2011.625095
Grooms, L. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: A vehicle for learning. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4, 1–16. Retrieved from http://
www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index
Gruba, P. (2004). Designing tasks for online collaborative language learning. Prospect, 19,
72–81. Retrieved from http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/resources/prospect
Guichon, N. (2009). Training future language teachers to develop online tutors’ competence
through reflective analysis. Recall, 21, 166–185. doi:10.1017/S0958344009000214
Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach
languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 311–326. doi:10.1080/
09588220500335455
Hasler-Waters, L., & Napier, W. (2002). Building and supporting student team collaboration
in the virtual classroom. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 345–352.
Retrieved from http://www.infoagepub.com/index.php?id=89&i=25
Heller, I. (2005). Learner experiences and CALL-tool usability – Evaluating the chemnitz
internet grammar. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 119–142. doi:10.1080/
09588220500132316
Hirshon, A. (2005). A diamond in the rough: Divining the future of e-content. EDUCASSE
Review, 40, 34–44. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero
Holmes, B. (1998). Initial perceptions of CALL by Japanese university students. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 11, 397–409. doi:10.1076/call.11.4.397.5674
Hurd, S. (2005). Autonomy and the distance language learner. In B. Holmberg, M. A. Shel-
ley, & C. J. White (Eds.), Languages and distance education: Evolution and change
(pp. 1–19). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hurd, S. (2006). Towards a better understanding of the dynamic role of the distance language
learner: Learner perceptions of personality, motivation, roles, and approaches. Distance
Education, 27, 303–329. doi:10.1080/01587910600940406
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interac-
tion in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the
research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335–353. Retrieved from http://

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632/33
Lai, C., & Gu, M. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 317–335. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.
568417
Lee, M. J. W., & Chan, A. (2007). Reducing the effects of isolation and promoting
inclusivity for distance learners through podcasting. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 8, 85–105. Retrieved from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/index.htm
Liaw, M. L., & Bunn-Le Master, S. (2010). Understanding telecollaboration through an anal-
ysis of intercultural discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23, 21–40.
doi:10.1080/09588220903467301
Ma, Q., & Kelly, P. (2006). Computer assisted vocabulary learning: Design and evaluation.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 15–45. doi:10.1080/09588220600803998
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web
2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Austral-
asian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 28–43. Retrieved from http://www.asci-
lite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/index
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-
order thinking. JALN, 7, 55–65. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/
jaln_main
Mohd Nor, N. F., Hamat, A., & Embi, M. A. (2012). Patterns discourse in online interaction:
Seeking evidence of the collaborative learning process. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 25, 237–256. doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.655748
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education,
3, 1–7. doi.10.1080/08923648909526659
Moore, K., & Iida, S. (2010). Students’ perception of supplementary, online activities for Jap-
anese language learning: Groupwork, quiz and discussion tools. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 26, 966–979. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/sub-
mission/index.php/AJET/index
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor
analytic study. Distance Education, 26, 29–48. doi:10.1080/01587910500081269
Nguyen, L. V. (2011). Learners’ reflections on and perceptions of computer-mediated com-
munication in a language classroom: A Vietnamese perspective. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 27, 1413–1436. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/
submission/index.php/AJET/index
Paskey, J. A. (2001, April 26). Survey compares 2 Canadian MBA programs, one online and
one traditional. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/
article/A-Survey-Compares-2-Canadian/108330/
Reinders, H. (2006). Supporting self-directed learning through an electronic learning environ-
ment. In T. Lamb & H. Reinders (Eds.), Supporting independent learning: Issues and
interventions (pp. 219–238). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Reinders, H. (2007). Big brother is helping you: Supporting self-access language learning
with a student monitoring system. System, 35, 93–111. Retrieved from http://www.jour-
nals.elsevier.com/system/
Roed, J. (2003). Language learner behaviour in a virtual environment. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 16, 155–172. doi:10.1076/call.16.2.155.15880
Shelley, M., White, C., Baumann, U., & Murphy, L. (2006). ‘It’s a unique role!’ Perspectives
on tutor attributes and expertise in distance language teaching. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7, 1–15. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/ir-
rodl/index
Son, J.-B. (2007). Learner experiences in web-based language learning. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 20, 21–36. doi:10.1080/09588220601118487
Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Student perceptions on language learning in a technological envi-
ronment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning and Technology, 6,
165–180. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/
Stickler, U., & Shi, L. (2013). Supporting Chinese speaking skills online. System, 41, 50–69.
Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/system/
38 S. Y. H. Sun
Su, F., & Beaumont, C. (2010). Evaluating the use of a wiki for collaborative learning.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47, 417–431. doi:10.1080/
14703297.2010.518428
Subramaniam, N. K., & Kandasamy, M. (2011). The virtual classroom: A catalyst for institu-
tional transformation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 1388–1412.
Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/index
Sun, Y. H. S. (2011). Online language teaching: The pedagogical challenges. Knowledge
Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 3, 428–447. Retrieved from http://
www.kmel-journal.org/ojs/index.php/online-publication/index
Toogood, S., & Pemberton, R. (2002). Integrating self-directed learning into curriculum: A
case study. In P. Benson & S. Toogood (Eds.), Challenges to research and practice
(pp. 86–110). Dublin: Authentik Language Learning Resources.
Tsai, C.-W. (2010). Do students need teacher’s initiation in online collaborative learning?
Computers & Education, 54, 1137–1144. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.021
Tseng, H. W., & Yeh, H.-T. (2013). Team members’ perceptions of online teamwork learning
experiences and building teamwork trust: A qualitative study. Computers & Education,
63, 1–9. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03601315
Wang, M. J. (2010). Online collaboration and offline interaction between students using asyn-
chronous tolls in blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26,
830–846. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/
index
Wang, Y., & Chen, N. S. (2009). Criteria for evaluating synchronous learning management
systems: arguments from the distance language classroom. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 22, 1–18. doi:10.1080/09588220802613773
Wang, Y., & Chen, N. S. (2013). Engendering interaction, collaboration, and reflection in the
design of online learning assessment in language learning: A reflection from the course
designers. In B. Zou, M. Xing, C. Xiang, Y. Wang, & M. Sun (Eds.), Computer-assisted
foreign language teaching and learning: Technological advances (pp. 16–38). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global.
White, C. (1994). Language learning strategy research in distance education: The yoked
subject technique. In T. Evans & D. Murphy (Eds.), Research in distance education 3
(pp. 10–20). Geelong: Deakin University.
White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Wiebe, G., & Kabata, K. (2010). Students’ and instructors’ attitudes toward the use of CALL
in foreign language teaching and learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23,
221–234. doi:10.1080/09588221.2010.486577
Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2004). Factors that influence students decision to drop out
of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8, 105–118. Retrieved
from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/jaln_main
Wilson, G. (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teach
online. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20, 33–48. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/index
Yaneske, E., & Oates, B. (2010). Using voice boards: Pedagogical design, technological
implementation, evaluation and reflections. ALT-J, 18, 233–250. doi:10.1080/09687769.
2010.529106
Yang, Y. F. (2011). Engaging students in an online situated language learning environment.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 181–198. doi:10.1080/09588221.2010.
538700
Appendix.
The survey questionnaire
Please note: Your completion of this survey indicates your consent to participate in this
research.
Part I: General characteristics of online language learning

(Please circle one number from the 5-point scale)
A. Participation (Questions 1–4)

(1) There was not enough opportunity for peer interaction. I found it more
difficult to participate and engage in an online class than a traditional
classroom.
Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––
Strongly agree
(2) Instead of interacting with many people in a class (multidimensional
interactions), my interactions with classmates were often limited to a small
group of classmates.
Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––-3––––––4––––––5––––––
Strongly agree
(3) I learnt in a small group rather than in a big class, e.g., I only practiced
with a handful of classmates as I knew fewer classmates than I would have
done in the traditional classroom setting.
Strongly disagree––––––1––––––-2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––
Strongly agree
(4) Much work was needed by the teacher to foster the building of an online
learning community.
Strongly agree
B. Group work (Questions 5–8)
(5) I liked the group work we had to do.

Strongly agree
(6) Group work and project-type work are important parts in online learning.
Strongly agree
40 S. Y. H. Sun
(7) Learner cooperation and collaboration should be encouraged in online

learning.
Strongly agree
(8) There needed to be more group discussions on study-related matters
amongst class members and with the teachers.
Strongly agree
C. Instructional material (Questions 9–14)
The next six statements below (Question 9–14), rather than specifically refer to the
online Chinese paper(s) you did at AUT, they represent the aspirations and ideals as
to how online instructional material should be generally. Looking back in your
experience, how much do you agree with these statements?
(9) Online language learning instruction should be task-based rather than rote
learning.
Strongly agree
(10) Online language learning material should help develop real-life problem-
solving and critical thinking skills.
Strongly agree
(11) Authentic learning materials should sometimes be used.
Strongly agree
(12) Learner initiatives should be encouraged rather than everything prepared
and spoon-fed by the teacher, e.g., having some topics of learning sug-
gested by learners.
Strongly agree
(13) Learners should be encouraged to co-construct class resources and the
learning environment, and co-create new learning and knowledge.
Strongly agree
(14) Learner creativity should be encouraged.
Strongly agree
D. Learning style (Questions 15–19)
(15) Without a classroom and the presence of a teacher, I found online learning
to be more self-directed and self-regulated.
Strongly agree
(16) Online learning is individualized or personalized learning. It allows flexibil-

ity, encourages self-direction and choice, e.g., I did not always just follow
the teacher’s instructions, or I was able to re-arrange learning material, or
choose my own online tools, and configure the learning environment to
best suit my learning goals and needs.
Strongly agree
(17) I believe other class members formed their own personal learning environ-
ments too.
Strongly agree
(18) My preferences, needs, social life, technology choices, etc. were better
served by online learning.

Strongly agree
(19) I felt that I had control over the learning process.

Strongly agree
Part II: Personal experience (Questions 20–32)

These are all open-ended questions. Please answer the following questions in as
much detail as you can.
(20) Without the benefit of a traditional classroom, how did you keep engaging
in the course?
(21) Without the benefit of a traditional classroom, how did you interact with
other class members?
(22) Without the benefit of a traditional classroom, how did you pair up and
team up for collaborative work, e.g. the paired oral presentation?
(23) Without the benefit of a traditional classroom, how did you socialize in an
online class?
(24) What is the most challenging thing about online language learning, in your
experience?
(25) What other difficulties did you encounter during the course? (tick as many
items below as were applicable to you)
(a) Technical difficulties, e.g., getting online, or going into the Virtual
Classroom (vRoom), or getting online tools to work (e.g., Voice Recor-
der, the Studio to record paired oral presentations), etc.
(b) Finding “partners” to work and practice with
(c) Finding a common available time to work with a partner
(d) Sticking to the pair-work or group-work schedule
42 S. Y. H. Sun
(e) Keeping in touch with the class

(f) Keeping in touch with the teacher, e.g., turning up at the weekly Vir-
tual Classroom sessions
(g) Keeping interested in the course
(h) Keeping motivated
(i) Following the schedule and study regularly
(j) Keeping the assessment deadlines
(k) Being self-regulated as a successful learner should
(l) Others. Please state:
(26) In the new environment of learning (as opposed to traditional classroom

learning), what changes and what effort did you have to make to adapt?
(27) What was successful and what was not in your new effort/methods?
(28) What more could you have done to achieve a better result?
(29) Did you notice any new ways/models of learning by other class members?
(30) In your opinion, what are the “best practices/ways” in online language
learning?
(31) How can online teachers better facilitate and promote these new practices/
ways of learning?
(32) Any other comment?

Sun - Learn Persp On Fully Online Lang Learn - DistanceEduc - 35-1 - 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Sun - Learn Persp On Fully Online Lang Learn - DistanceEduc - 35-1 - 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sun - Learn Persp On Fully Online Lang Learn - DistanceEduc - 35-1 - 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Tulane University]

On: 30 August 2014, At: 20:31

Learner perspectives on fully online

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.891428

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Learner perspectives on fully online language learning

School of Language and Culture, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland,

© 2014 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.

that is, synchronous class activities—formal lectures or casual meetings—that had

Blended language learning vs. fully online language learning

signiﬁcantly different from campus-based education or blended learning” (Wang &

ing and/or fully online learning of non-language-speciﬁc subjects.

Online participation and collaborative online learning

Online learning strategies and styles

It is a change to go from classroom-based large-group learning to small-group

… In this environment, a learner is able to choose his/her own learning materials …

Learning is also shifting toward more self-directed, self-regulated learning, sup-

Online content (instructional materials)

Part 1 used a ﬁve-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)

Difﬁculties in fully online participation and collaborative learning

Table 1. Learner experience of fully online particpation.

Table 2. Learner experience in collaborative online learning.

 difﬁculties with socializing and interacting; and

Table 3. Learner experience of learning strategies and style.

 put in more time (mentioned by 3 respondents);

Online content (instructional materials)

Table 4. Learner perceptions of online content design.

Difﬁculties and challenges in online learning

 lack of interaction and practice with peers (mentioned by 4 respondents);

practicing pronunciation (4);

(1) following the schedule and studying regularly;

Table 5. Difﬁculties identiﬁed by percentage of learners.

6 Keeping in touch with the teacher, e.g., turning up 29.40 10

Research question 1: Difﬁculties in online participation and collaborative

Major difficulties in fully online foreign language learning

Interaction & collaboration Learning strategies

(3) Keep self-motivated

Figure 1. Learners’ perceived major difﬁculties in fully online language learning.

Research question 2: Emerging new learning behaviors (online learning

Research question 3: Perceptions of online content (instructional materials)

awareness and appreciation of various pedagogical features in online content, for

(1) It provided learners’ perspectives with totally learner-reported data and

It, thus, contributes to the understanding of fully online language learning as a

port system. CALL-EJ Online, 11(2). Retrieved from http://callej.org/index.html

research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335–353. Retrieved from http://

Part I: General characteristics of online language learning

A. Participation (Questions 1–4)

B. Group work (Questions 5–8)

(5) I liked the group work we had to do.

(7) Learner cooperation and collaboration should be encouraged in online

C. Instructional material (Questions 9–14)

experience, how much do you agree with these statements?

D. Learning style (Questions 15–19)

(16) Online learning is individualized or personalized learning. It allows ﬂexibil-

served by online learning.

(19) I felt that I had control over the learning process.

Part II: Personal experience (Questions 20–32)

(e) Keeping in touch with the class

difﬁculties with socializing and interacting; and

put in more time (mentioned by 3 respondents);

lack of interaction and practice with peers (mentioned by 4 respondents);