the educational theories and approaches that
underpin the range of courses hosted by different
institutions. Critics of methodology and terminology
divide MOOCs into two camps (Daniel, 2012): ones
based on traditional modes of instruction, typically
hosted by proprietary learning platforms (like our
virology example), and ones based on connectivist
peer-learning approaches, typically built on open
source platforms (Siemens, 2005).
The MOOC language collections we have built
demonstrate the affordances of the FLAX software.
FLAX is open source and can be downloaded to
build language support collections with any text-
based content and supporting audio-visual material,
for both online and classroom use. It is designed so
that non-expert developers—whether language
teachers, subject specialists, or instructional design
and e-learning support teams—can build their own
collections.
Content varies in terms of licensing restrictions,
depending on the publishing strategies adopted by
institutions for their content. FLAX has been
designed to offer a flexible suite of linguistic support
options for enhancing such content across both open
and closed platforms.
6 INTO THE FUTURE
A recent review commissioned by the UK
Department for Business Innovation and Skills
(2013) tracks the progress of the MOOC
phenomenon as it moves from experimentation into
maturity. Current work focuses on meeting the
accreditation needs of learners, and on devising and
developing new pedagogical models to better
support online learning.
FLAX’s capabilities for building language
collections with comprehensive facilities for search
and retrieval, and customized interactive learning of
key domain terms and concepts, addresses the needs
of both native and non-native speakers who are
interested in engaging deeply with specific academic
resources in English while developing their
receptive reading and listening skills.
We plan to investigate further MOOC collections
to determine whether FLAX can assist not only with
mastery approaches to learning and assessment like
those employed in the Virology course, but also with
constructivist approaches that support peer learning
and assessment—where collections will be derived
from student texts, seminar discussions, and peer-
review texts, as well as from expert text and lecture
transcripts. This will promote the aggregation of
crowd-sourced content for collaborative peer
learning.
REFERENCES
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2003). “Lexical
bundles in speech and writing: an initial taxonomy.” In
A. Wilson et al. (Eds.), Corpus linguistics by the lune
(pp. 71–92). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). “If you look at
lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks.”
Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.
Biber, D., Barbieri F. (2007). “Lexical bundles in
university spoken and written registers.” English for
Specific Purposes, 26, 263–286.
Bishop, H. (2004) “The effect of typographic salience on
the look up and comprehension of unknown formulaic
sequences.” In N. Schmidt (Ed.) Formulaic sequences:
Acquisition, processing, and use (pp. 227-244).
Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for
methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-
one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13 (6), 4-16.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL
Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a
maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of
Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved on Nov 17,
2013 from http://jime.open.ac.uk/2012/18
Dudley-Evans, T., St John, M.J. (1988). Developments in
English for Specific Purposes: A multidisciplinary
approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gabrielatos, C. (2005) “Corpora and language teaching:
Just a fling or wedding bells?” Teaching English as a
second or foreign language, 8(4). Retrieved Oct 21
2013 from http://tesl-ej.org/ej32/a1.html.
Hill, J. (2000) “Revising priorities: form grammatical
failure to collocational success.” In M. Lewis (Ed.),
Teaching collocation, 70–87, LTP, England.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for Academic Purposes: An
advanced resource book. London: Routledge.
Milne, D. and Witten, I.H. (2013) “An open-source toolkit
for mining Wikipedia.” Artificial Intelligence, (194),
pp. 222-239, January.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003) “The use of collocations by
advanced learners of English and some implications
for teaching.” Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223-242.
Ng, A. and Koller, D. (2013) “The online revolution:
education for everyone.” Proc ACM SIGKDD Int Conf
on knowledge discovery and data mining, p.2.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for
the digital age. International Journal of Instructional
Technology & Distance Learning, 2(1).
Stubbs, M., and Barth, I. (2003) “Using recurrent phrases
as text-type discriminators.” Functions of Language,
10(1), 61-104.
UK Government Department of Business Innovation &
CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
358