Métodos, procedimientos y componentes electrodermográficos

This chapter focused on analyzing whether or not different LMS components are used in the development and implementation of different activities in fully online

2.4% 2.2% 4.4% 1.1% 4.5% 2.2% 2.5% 3.6% 4.3% 2.3% 1.2% 0.0% 3.5% 3.3% 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 4.4% 1.3% 7.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 8.2% 7.8% 5.6% 2.3% 11.2% 5.6% 1.3% 7.1% 6.5% 11.5% 4.8% 1.1% Grammar Tutorials Grammar Activities Vocabulary Activities Listening Comprehension Reading Comprehension Writing

Speaking (Individual Oral Recordings)

Writing Activities or Assignments in Pairs or Groups

Pair Oral Activities

Cultural Awareness Activities

Watch Videos

Lesson Assessments

language teaching. As a first step, the study examined how often participants used the various LMS components, and determined that whilst participants made frequent use of the reporting, asynchronous communication, and informational tools (email,

announcement area, course content modules and links and files), they barely used the synchronous and collaborative tools (chat-rooms, whiteboards, multimedia rooms, peer review, whiteboards, Wikis, and document sharing). The very low scores of the

synchronous and collaborative tools stand out because they indicate a substantially reduced use of those capabilities that can foster social-constructivist learning.

In order to find out if there is a relationship between the LMS used, the language taught or the instructors’ amount of online teaching experience and the reported use of the LMS components, the research employed a series of logistic regressions. The results were not very conclusive, since they showed significant associations for only a few of the tools: the email, announcement area and document sharing capability. In relation to the LMS used, it was found that instructors using a publisher’s LMS tended to use email less, and instructors who used Angel Learning tended to use it more than Blackboard instructors. In relation to the language taught, Spanish instructors tended to use email more often than Romance (French, Italian and Portuguese) and other

European language instructors. Moreover, Spanish Instructors are much more likely to use the announcement component than Romance instructors. Finally, in relation to online teaching experience, more experienced instructors tended to use LMS email less frequently, but the document sharing capability more frequently.

A second analysis focused on finding more specific relations between LMS tools and the types of learning activities they are mainly used to support. The analysis also examined whether the LMS used, the language taught, or the level of online teaching expertise of instructors were factors influencing such relations. Even though the results were complex (as it was necessary to construct many series of contingency tables and likelihood tests), a few interesting relations were found.

In relation to the different LMSs, it was found that some of the components of Angel Learning, Blackboard, Canvas, Moodle and Publisher platforms were associated to the delivery of some learning activities. Blackboard was the system with the most associations between tools and learning activities, with five significant associations. The tests showed that Blackboard instructors do not tend to use the discussion board tool to

deliver oral recording activities, nor the files tool to deliver vocabulary activities. They also indicated that instructors who used a Publisher platform tended to make more use of email to deliver pair or group writing activities, while Angel Learning instructors used it more to deliver cultural awareness activities.

The language taught was the variable with the most associations between LMS tools and language activities. All categories — Spanish, Romance, German, other European and Oriental and Asian languages—seemed to be associated with the use of tools and activities. Some of the differences between languages that were noted were that while Spanish instructors tended to use content modules to deliver or implement grammar activities, Asian instructors tended to use the email for this purpose. The results also indicate negative associations in the sense that the teaching of some

languages did not involve the use of some tools for delivering certain activities that other languages would. For example, this was the case with Oriental language instructors, who do not normally use Links and files or test creators to deliver grammar activities, or other European language instructors who do not use Links and files to deliver grammar explanations.

The third factor, the number of years of online teaching also proved to be related to some of the LMS tools and the learning activities they are used for. In general, results showed that least experienced instructors tended to use some tools less than the more experienced instructors. This was the case with discussion boards used to deliver vocabulary activities, or content modules used to deliver reading comprehension and video- watching activities.

Chapter 5 presents the results of the second part the study, which examines whether there is a relationship between the use of different LMS components and

instructors´ self-reported pedagogical preferences. It also presents the qualitative results regarding how instructors believe teaching online through a LMS influences their ability to enact their pedagogical preferences.