Strategic Learner Training for the Merge of Language Learning and Crowdsourcing Elżbieta Gajek University of Warsaw Institute of Applied Linguistics, 55 Dobra Street, Warsaw e.gajek@uw.edu.pl Abstract There is a need for learner training on how to use digital tools and materials for effective learning languages. Numerous studies indicate that learners require encouragement and support to be autonomous and efficient in the use of ICT in language learning. Developing strategy training courses for both learners and teachers, as both need to be convinced that their digital activity is beneficial for developing their language skills and knowledge. Strategy training helps to prevent anxiety and ineffective use of technology. Basing on the research in language learning strategies and digital learning strategies the article suggests some language learning strategies with the use of crowdsourcing. Keywords: Language learning strategies, Digital learning strategies, Learner training, Crowdsourcing 1. Introduction In the most widely known taxonomy (Oxford, 1990) strategies are divided into Direct strategies and Indirect Assuming that for effective use of any tools and procedures requires learner training the text presents an approach to Strategies. Direct strategies cover Memory strategies, Cognitive strategies and Compensation strategies. While identification of learning strategies in a specific indirect strategies cover Metacognitive strategies, collaborative digital environment, in which crowdsourcing is implemented. Even digital natives are not able to use Affective strategies and Social strategies. Researchers emphasise the role of strategy training in the online tools proficiently and to their best advantage for the context of individual learner variables (Oxford, Scarcella, purpose of learning (Jeffrey et al., 2011; Thorne, 2003). Technologies “can only be effective if they are in the hands 1994). Then, the interest in strategies decreased slightly. However, some new insights were introduced in the of students who know what to do with them” (Figura, extended S2R Model which involves the role of learners’ Jarvis, 2007: 457) and that effective use of technologies requires learners to possess certain skills, strategies and culture (Oxford 2011) which revitalize the interest in strategies and strategy training. Finally, Griffiths (2013:15) attitudes (Hubbard, 2004). The results of the research on concludes “Language learning strategies are activities the use of language learning strategies and the digital learning strategies among young adult learners of English consciously chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating their own language learning”. (Gajek, Michońska-Stadnik, 2017) demonstrate the role of the teacher in the process of developing strategic approach to language learning. Although students may intuitively 3. Digital Learning Strategies develop their own strategies when they use a new tool, they Although LLS have become a core in teacher training do it more effectively if they are aware and trained in the courses, their use in a digital environment is not so well- strategic use of tools. For example, they use mobile phones known. Joan Rubin (1988, 1996) was an author of a popular in-campus and outside in very different ways but in the digital video disk for language learning. This technology same categories (Gajek, 2016). In distance learning online, got outdated soon, and the strategic approach it had the more strategies students know the more autonomous introduced was abandoned. Although many researchers they are in developing their own learning strategies (White, (Wenden, 1986; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1995: 44; 2003: 141). There are also many studies which 1990; Shorrocks, 1991; Ellis, 1994; Mitchell and Myles, show that teacher training for online learning environments 1998) emphasized the need for the use of strategies out-of- is necessary to enhance the effectiveness of online learning class, the language teachers in the eighties and nineties of (Ernest et al. 2013; Guichon, 2009; Hampel, Stickler 2005; the previous century rarely recognized digital environment Wang et al. 2010). Thus, learner training introduced by as a place where strategies could be utilized. But research language teachers will make crowdsourcing more familiar on LLS in CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning) and effective to students. has continued (Chapelle and Mizuno, 1989; Hagen, 1994; Harris, 2003; Hauck and Hampel, 2008; Huang, Chern and 2. Language Learning Strategies Lin, 2009; Li, 2009; Pujolá, 2002; Ulitsky, 2000; Chapelle, Language learning strategies (LLS) have been discussed 2000). Recent approaches discuss the role of strategies embedded in the digital tools (Ulitsky, 2000), strategic since Joan Rubin (1975) noticed actions of behaviours creativity of learners (Yoon and Jo, 2014) as well as the which good learners perform to achieve a success in learning. Then Stern (1975), Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern and influence of context on learners’ behaviour (Huang and Sheng Yi, 2016). The application of strategies in using Todesco (1996) characterized the good learner’s activities online dictionaries and corpus based learning is widely in more detail. Later the interest in language learning strategies grew (Bialystok, 1978; O’Malley et al., 1985; investigated (Charles, 2007; Gaskell and Cobb, 2004; Gilmore, 2009; Kennedy and Miceli, 2010; Lee and Chen, Wenden, 1986; Rubin, 1987; Oxford, 1989; O’Malley and 2009; Lee and Swales, 2006; O’Sullivan and Chambers, Chamot, 1990, Oxford, 1990; Michońska-Stadnik, 1996). The taxonomies become more and more extended. 2006; Sun, 2007; Yoon, 2008; Yoon and Hirvela, 2004). EnetCollect WG3 & WG5 Meeting, 24-25 October 2018, Leiden, Netherlands 13 Also the selection of digital tools available for the learners Awareness and implementation of pedagogical in the light of their strategic use has been discussed underpinnings of activities in class is to a great extent (Kukulska-Hulme, 2009; Bekleyen and Yilmaz, 2012, teachers’ concern but learners should be also aware of how Gajek and Michońska-Stadnik, 2017). they learn. o Goal 4.2 Learner oriented 4. Learner Strategic Training for This goal strictly refers to the selection and use of Crowdsourcing individual learning strategies. The gains of a user differ from the gains of a creator the materials. Awareness of As the studies presented above justify the need for learner educational incentives for a user may motivate them to strategy training both for language learning and for sustain and continue learning. innovative approaches to the use of technology for Ability to act as a developer of resources offer other pedagogical purposes. There is also a need for learner incentives and also contributes to learning. In the process training for combining crowdsourcing and language of creating materials for educational purposes the issue of learning. quality of the crowdsourced content requires constant 4.1 Goals of Learner Training for monitoring and evaluation by the author and by other stake- Crowdsourcing holders. It could be approached in various ways either via The generic goals of learner training for crowdsourcing can experts’ evaluation or via developing a sequence of be grouped into three areas. The first area is general and evaluative processes or via negotiations of the content covers entrepreneurial and ethical aspects of among the crowd. crowdsourcing that is goal 1 and 2. o Goal 4.3 Quality assurance  Goal 1. Enterpreneurial Either the users need to be trained how to evaluate critically The users need to understand the role of crowdsourcing in the materials they use or produce, which in the case of business and in education. Thus, they need to be aware of learners at low level of proficiency or very young might be benefits but also risks for contributors. This goal involves, difficult. Or there is a body of evaluators who monitor and e.g. time management, awareness of various incentives evaluate entries introduced by the crowd. The latter participants may get from crowdsourcing activities. approach requires a well-set quality control procedures  Goal 2. Ethical and/or extra voluntary work by contributors. Protecting personal data is one of the key issues in 4.2 Strategies for Combining Crowdsourcing crowdsourcing. The learners need to utilise their general and Language Learning knowledge about the cybersafety such as protecting An important part of learner training refers to taking the personal data, uploading images and video towards specific language learner perspective of the goals. This makes the crowdsourcing-related ethical issues depending on the idea of combining crowdsourcing and language learning activity they participate, e.g. a game, etc. or type of meaningful to learners. The statements which start with interactions among users e.g. peer assessment, « I » or can do approach are widely used in educational collaborative projects. documents such as Strategy Inventory for Language Learner training addresses the issue of critical thinking and Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990), TESOL Technology cautiousness at any stage of contribution in crowdsourcing Standards (Healey et al. 2011), Common European activities. Framework for Languages (CEFR). They help learners to The second area is technology specific and it depends on better understand their position, attitude, level of the functionalities of a single application as even a so called competences. This approach also helps learners to learn digital natives (Prensky 2001) may not use a device of from answering questions and reflecting upon them. The software effectively (Jeffrey et al. 2011, Thorne 2003). exemplary questions within each goal may be the Thus, Goal 3 is strongly related to the management of following: learning and learning strategies embedded in the software  Goal 1 used for crowdsourcing activities. 1. While entering a crowdsourcing application I am  Goal 3. Technological aware of my goals. As each resource requires its own operational actions, 2. I find time for crowdsourcing activities. learners need to be acquainted with the specific 3. I am able to assess how I benefit from the activities. functionalities. 4. I am able to justify my choice of the resources The third area of goals refers strictly to crowdsourcing for comparing them with other learning resources. language learning. Thus, Goal 4 relates to educational  Goal 2 issues. 5. I am aware of the safety conditions provided by the  Goal 4. Educational crowdsourcing portal. This goal falls into three specific subcategories which are 6. I know the purpose of sharing my data with the owners worth considering by both teachers and learners. of the resource. o Goal 4.1 Pedagogical 7. I know how to protect my own safety while I It refers to the pedagogical instructional design interrelated participate in the crowdsourcing activity. with technological solutions. The instructional approaches 8. I respect other participants’ rights. comprise: Collaborative projects, supplemental instruction, 9. I can monitor ethical issues in the progress of using and creating Open Educational Resources (OER) or activities. public content, assessment based on problem solving and 10. I know when to stop the activity if I have doubts about peer assessment, and various educational games (Anderson ethical issues. 2011: 583, cf. Zdravkova 2018). 11. I know how to end an activity without doing any harm to others. EnetCollect WG3 & WG5 Meeting, 24-25 October 2018, Leiden, Netherlands 14  Goal 3 Chapelle, C. A. (2000). Is network-based learning CALL? 12. I can use the functionalities of the resource. In M. Warschauer, R. and Kern (eds.). Network-based 13. I can follow the rules of a game. language teaching; concepts and practice. (204-228). 14. I am able to find technical resources which respond to Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. my goals. Chapelle, C. A. and Mizuno, S. (1989). Students' strategies 15. I can assess the effectiveness of the technical with learner-controlled CALL. CALICO Journal, 7(2), functionalities for learning. 25-47. 16. I search for the best technical resources with the Charles, M. (2007). Reconciling top-down and bottom-up growth of my linguistic level. approaches to graduate writing: Using a corpus to teach o Goal 4.1 rhetorical functions. Journal of English for Academic 17. I can collaborate with others for learning purposes. Purposes, 6, 289-302. 18. I know what Open Educational Resources (OER) are. Common European Framework of Reference for 19. I can identify resources stored under the Creative Languages: Learning, Teaching and Assessment (2001) Commons licenses. Council of Europe, Strasbourg 20. I take responsibility of my opinions while assessing Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. others. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 21. I can give feedback to my collaborators. Figura, K. and Jarvis, H. (2007). Computer-based 22. I can estimate learning benefits of games. materials: A study of learner autonomy and strategies. o Goal 4.2 System, 35 : 448-468. 23. I can monitor my linguistic progress while using Gajek, E. (2016). Mobile technologies as boundary objects crowdsourcing. in the hands of student teachers of languages inside and 24. I can contribute to the development of the resources I outside the university. International Journal of Mobile am using. and Blended Learning, 8(2)/April-June 2016, DOI: 25. I can select resources to develop a specific linguistic 10.4018/IJMBL.2016040107. content. Gajek, E., and Michońska-Stadnik, A. (2017). Strategie 26. I can select resources to develop linguistic skills I uczenia się w środowisku cyfrowym Warszawa: Instytut need. Lingwistyki Stosowanej. 27. I know how to share resources which I produce while Gaskell, D. and Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use learning. concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32, o Goal 4.3 301-319. 28. I can critically assess the quality of resources. Gilmore, A. (2009). Using online corpora to develop 29. I know how to check quality of the resource with the students’ writing skills. ELT Journal, 64(3), 363-372. use of other resources. Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in succesful 30. I know when and how to get help from others. language learning. Bristol-Buffalo-Toronto: The suggested list of statements may help learners to Multilingual Matters. acquire strategies, which they may use independently while Guichon, N. (2009). Training future language teachers to learning the language with the use crowdsourcing. The develop online tutors’ competence through reflective strategy training presented above can be implemented as analysis. ReCALL, 21(2), 166-185. part of language strategy training and digital literacy Hagen, L. K. (1994). Constructs and measurement in training. Teachers’ role is essential for making this happen. parameter models of second language acquisition. In E. F. Tarone, M. Gass, A. and D. Cohen (eds.). Research 5. Conclusions methodology in second-language acquisition (61-87). Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Association. The analysis attempts to mediate crowdsourcing as a big Hampel, R. and Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new cultural trend to the language teachers and learners. The adaptation of ideas to the learning environment they work, classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311-326. to their needs and making crowdsourcing meaningful to Harris, V. (2003). Adapting classroom-based strategy learners promotes the use of it for language learning purposes. It may also increase the effectiveness of learning, instruction to a distance learning context. TESL-EJ, 7(2), 1-19. awareness of ethical issues and critical thinking among Hauck, M. and Hampel, R. (2008). Strategies for online learners. Further work may be focused on integration the language learning strategies with crowdsourcing learning environments. In S. Hurd, and T. Lewis (eds.). Language learning strategies in independent settings techniques. To attract language teachers attention (283-302). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. worksheets and detailed lesson plans should be prepared. Healey, D., Hanson-Smith, E., Ioannou-Georgiou, S., Hubbard, P., Kessler, G. and Ware P. (2011) TESOL 6. Bibliographical References technology standards: Description, implementation, Anderson, M. (2011). Crowdsourcing higher education: A integration. Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to design proposal for distributed learning. Journal of Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. Online Learning and Teaching, 7, 576–590. Huang, H.-C., Chern, C.-L. and Lin, C.-C. (2009). EFL Bekleyen, N. and Yilmaz, A. (2012). Language learning learners’ use of online reading strategies and strategies and mobile learning. 7th International ELT comprehension of texts: An exploratory study. Research Conference, Çanakkale, 27-28. Computers & Education, 52(1), 13-26. DOI: Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.003. language learning. Language Learning, 28(1), 69-83. EnetCollect WG3 & WG5 Meeting, 24-25 October 2018, Leiden, Netherlands 15 Huang, Sheng Yi, C. (2016). Language learning strategies Pujolá, J. T. (2002). CALLing for help: Researching in context. The Language Learning Journal 1-13 language learning strategies using help facilities in a http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1186723 web–based multimedia program. ReCALL, 14(2), 235- Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of 262. CALL. In S. Fotos and C. and M. Browne (Eds.), New Rubin, J. (1975). What the good language learner can teach perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms us? TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 45-68. Rubin, J. (1988). The language learning disc. In W. F. Jeffrey, L., Hegarty, B., Kelly, O., Penman, M., Coburn, D. Smith (ed.). Modern technology in foreign language and McDonald, J. (2011). Developing Digital education: Applications and projects. Lincoln, IL: information literacy in higher education: Obstacles and National Textbook Co. supports. Journal of Information Technology Education, Rubin, J. (1996). Using multimedia for learner strategy 10, 383-413. instruction. In R. L. Oxford (ed.). Language learning Kennedy, C. and Miceli, T. (2001). An evaluation of strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives. intermediate students’ approaches to corpus Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum investigation. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3), Center, University of Hawai’i. 77-90 Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2009). Will mobile learning change language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, language learning? ReCALL, 21(2), 157-165. 31(4), 304-318. Lee, D. and Chen, S. (2009). Making a bigger deal of the Shorrocks, D. (1991). The development of children’s smaller words: Function words and other key items in thinking and understanding. In C. Brumfit, J. Moon and research writing by Chinese learners. Journal of Second R. Tongue (eds.). Teaching English to children (260- Language Writing, 18, 149-165. 274). London: Collins ELT. Lee, D. and Swales, J. (2006). A corpus-based EAP course Sun, Y. (2007). Learner perceptions of a concordancing for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available tool for academic writing. Computer Assisted Language specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Learning, 20(4), 323-343. Specific Purposes, 25, 56-75. Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in Li, J. (2009). The evolution of vocabulary learning intercultural communication. Language Learning and strategies in a computer–mediated reading environment. Technology, 7(2): 38-67. CALICO Journal, 27(1), 118-146. Ulitsky, H. (2000). Language learner strategies with Michońska-Stadnik, A. (1996). Strategie uczenia się i technology. Journal of Educational Computing autonomia ucznia w warunkach szkolnych. Wrocław: Research, 22(3), 285-322. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Wenden, A. (1986). Helping language learners think about Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning. English Language Teaching Journal, 7(2), 186- learning theories. London, New York: Arnold. 205. Naiman, N., Fröhlih, M., Stern, H. and Todesco, A. (1996). Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The The good language learner. Bristol-Buffalo-Toronto: influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Multilingual Matters Language Learning and Technology, 12(2), 31-48. O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Yoon, H. and Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL students toward Kupper, L.and Russo, R. (1985). Learning strategies corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Writing, 13, 257-283. Language Learning, 35(1), 21-46. Yoon, H. and Jo, J. W. (2014) Direct and indirect access to O'Malley, J. M. and Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning corpora. Language Learning and Technology 18(1) 96- strategies in second language acquisition. New York: 117. Cambridge University Press. Wang, Y., Chen, N.-S. and Levy, M. (2010). Teacher O’Sullivan, Í. and Chambers, A. (2006). Learners’ writing training in a synchronous cyber face-to-face classroom: skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner Characterizing and supporting the online teachers' evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), learning process. ComputerAssisted Language Learning, 49-68. 23(4), 277-293. Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: White, C. (1995). Autonomy and strategy use in distance A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy foreign language learning: research findings. In A. training. System, 17(2), 235-247. Wenden and L. Dickinson (ed.). System: An Oxford, R. L. (1990b). Language learning strategies: What International Journal of Educational Technology and every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House. Applied Linguistics. Special Issue on Autonomy, 23(2): Oxford, R. L. and Scarcella, R. C. (1994). Second language 207-221. vocabulary learning among adults: state of the art in White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. vocabulary instruction. System, 22(2), 231-243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language Zdravkova, K. (2018) Ethical issues of crowdsourcing in learning strategies. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. education. Presentation at Second Annual Meeting, Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: EnetCollect COST Action 16105, Iasi, Romania, 14-16th Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. March 2018. EnetCollect WG3 & WG5 Meeting, 24-25 October 2018, Leiden, Netherlands 16