Implementing online discussion forums based on principled approaches

For three months, Japanese university learners (N=40) utilized the YoTeach! application by Pedagogic and Active Learning Mobile Solutions (PALMS) Project, PolyU as a part of their English discussion class. Researchers re-purposed the application, which originally was designed to be an online classroom backchannel, as an asynchronous, pre-task activity so that learners could exchange ideas about homework topics (e.g. university life, foreign customs) for their discussion. Researchers chose a backchannel chat room rather than a discussion forum to accommodate the learners’ spoken interactions rather than formal discussion. To foster interactions, researchers implemented the YoTeach! application based on principles in the field of second language (L2) development and Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) from Doughty and Long (2003) and Stockwell and Hubbard (2013). Using learners’ and researchers’ reflection journals, we consider ways we can connect and adapt the principles to our teaching context.


Introduction
Given that Doughty and Long (2003) and Stockwell and Hubbard (2013) mainly addressed different issues (i.e. language learning versus online environment implementation) we decided to separate their principles and address them in two research questions. Doughty and Long (2003) discuss optimal psycho-linguistic environments for online foreign language learning and offered teachers guidance by providing ten Methodological Principles (MP) of task-based language teaching for Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL). They categorized 10 principles into four groups (Table 1): (1) activities, (2) input, (3) learning processes, and (4) learners (Doughty & Long, 2003).  Stockwell and Hubbard (2013) discussed emerging principles for MALL and explained potential issues concerning the design and implementation of online language learning environments. We categorized Stockwell and Hubbard's (2013) principles into four groups (Table 2): (1) activities, (2) environment, (3) learning processes, and (4) stakeholders.  Doughty and Long's (2003) language teaching MP and (2) Stockwell and Hubbard's (2013) MALL principles of design and implementation to Rikkyo University's online discussion course using the YoTeach! application?

Participants and settings
Forty participants at a Japanese co-educational university enrolled in a first-year compulsory English discussion course to increase spoken fluency, discussion skills, and communication skills. The course was twelve weeks and moved online due to COVID-19. Participants scored 480 to 679 on the TOEIC 3 . The purpose of the discussion course is threefold: increase student English speaking fluency, teach them discussion and communication skills, and broaden their understanding of important topics.

Procedure
YoTeach! is a free, online chat room created by PALMS PolyU to support collaborative mobile teaching and learning (PALMS, 2018). We created two online, YoTeach! chat rooms for 20 participants each, then taught participants how to use the app. We also used Blackboard, where we gave participants weekly reflective journal assignments, in which learners were asked to write at least two to three sentences about their experiences using YoTeach! for three months. Researchers also wrote weekly reflections for three months on how to connect, modify, and adapt Doughty and Long (2003) and Stockwell and Hubbard's (2013) principles.

Analysis
Weekly reflective journals from researchers and participants were examined using the qualitative method of thematic analysis. Our discussion was based on the interactions about chat and application use. We do not use the chat room as a direct source of data. We did use an inductive approach to thematic analysis insofar as we created themes after reading the reflections. Additionally, we did not analyze for underlying assumptions, but rather explicit reflections from researchers and learners. After reading the reflections, we highlighted interesting or prevalent comments. Next, we created, reviewed, and named themes. Lastly, we connected those themes to principles created by Doughty and Long (2003) and Stockwell and Hubbard (2013).

Consider integrating applications with YoTeach!
As a platform for student to student interaction, YoTeach! was not designed to evaluate L2 performance and development. We paired it with Blackboard to (1) provide corrective feedback, (2) help learners focus on form, and (3) individualize instruction (i.e. MP 6, 7, and 10). Feedback, focus on form, and individualized instruction improves learning outcome because students can identify areas that they can improve upon.

Specify the number and types of interactions
YoTeach! does not require a specified amount or type of interaction. However, interaction type matters because the discussion course evaluates learners not only on their ability to respond to questions, but also ask questions. We believe that specifying the interaction types improves the learning outcomes of participants because they use more language chunking and learning by doing (MP 5 and MP 2).
We realized that task instructions should specify a minimum number of interactions and require more replies than questions to help decrease unanswered questions.

Plan output rules for translanguaging and translation devices
Participants needed to know when using Japanese and translation devices would be acceptable. We did not say, 'no Japanese', especially because our participants use Japanese to help other classmates learn about the L2. Some participants also expressed a desire not to overuse Japanese because they wanted to express their ideas in English. Given that we could not control whether they used translation devices on YoTeach!, language instructors should teach learners how to reflect on aspects of the language that compelled them to use translation devices to promote learner autonomy. In this way, learners can improve their learning outcomes by noticing the gap between what they know and what they do not know about the language.

Plan the extent to which the teacher participates
In Asia, one disadvantage of teachers giving opinions is learners might be hesitant to disagree with or challenge their ideas. We did respond to some unanswered questions to promote more cooperative or collaborative learning (MP 9). YoTeach! does not highlight unanswered questions so these questions might go unnoticed by other learners and then ignored.

Change the purpose of the task if changes to the learning environment occur
We originally wanted to incorporate YoTeach! assignments so that learners can have discussions outside of class, then with COVID-19, we flipped the classroom and YoTeach! tasks became pre-task planning for Zoom meetings (Principle 1).

Anticipate and plan for application server crashes
Several times the YoTeach! app crashed so learners submitted their work via Blackboard rather than on the application (Principle 4).

Open communication channels with other teachers
Open communication channels with other teachers to know the applications and programs they use in their courses. Participants stated that they spent too much time learning apps and programs that it would be better to limit the number (Principle 10).

Pilot the application
We re-purposed YoTeach! because we appreciated the shorter exchanges as it is more comparable to spoken discussion than discussion forums, but some participants stated that the chatroom was not as organized as a discussion forum. It would be valuable information to know the application's original purpose when considering its affordances and limitations and then pilot it with other teachers, to gather ideas on the strengths and weaknesses of using it (Principle 1).

Conclusion
The main research findings were (1) teachers should consider app integration to give better form focus instruction, (2) create a guideline and activities for students to do when they use translation devices so that they can focus on the form they did not know, (3) anticipate app crashes by having a back-up plan so that students can continue to submit work, and lastly, (4) pilot the application before using it to see the strengths and weaknesses of the app. We recommend that other teachers also utilize these principles to improve the implementation and use of applications.