Advertisement

The COMALAT Approach to Individualized E-Learning in Job-Specific Language Competences

  • Lefteris AngelisEmail author
  • Mahdi Bohlouli
  • Kiki Hatzistavrou
  • George Kakarontzas
  • Julian Lopez
  • Johannes Zenkert
Chapter

Abstract

COMALAT (Competence Oriented Multilingual Adaptive Language Assessment and Training) project aims to strengthen the mobility of young workers across Europe, by improving job‐specific language competence tailored individually to particular needs. In this work we will concentrate on the COMALAT learning management system (LMS), which is a language learning system for Vocational Education and Training (VET). COMALAT LMS aims at providing learning material as an Open Educational Resource (OER) and is capable of self‐adapting to the needs of different learners. Each learner is treated individually in acquiring new language skills related to job‐specific competences. In addition, it is specifically tailored towards addressing competence areas, and therefore it is not a generic language learning platform. We discuss some technical details of the COMALAT platform and present the various aspects of system adaptability which tries to imitate the help provided by an instructor by observing the users’ strengths, weaknesses and progress in general, during the learning process. Also we discuss the digital e‐learning materials in COMALAT.

References

  1. 1.
    European Commission, “The Bruges Communiqué on enhanced European Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training for the period 2011–2020,” European Commission, 2010.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Mittas, G. Kakarontzas, M. Bohlouli, L. Angelis, I. Stamelos and M. Fathi, “ComProFITS: A web-based platform for human resources competence assessment,” in 6th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA), Corfu, 2015.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Paramythis and S. Loidl-Reisinger, “Adaptive Learning Environments and eLearning Standards,” Electronic Journal of E-Learning, vol. 2, pp. 181–194, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IEEE, “Learning Object Metadata standard,” IEEE, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    IMS Global Learning Consortium, “IMS Learner Information Packaging Information Model Specification,” 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kontopoulos, E. et al., “An ontology-based planning system for e-course generation,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 35, p. 398–406, July-August 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jia, Haiyang et al., “Design of a performance-oriented workplace e-learning system using ontology,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, p. 3372–3382, April 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Hauger and M. Köck, “State of the Art of Adaptivity in E-Learning Platforms,” 15th Workshop on Adaptivity and User Modeling in Interactive Systems, pp. 355–360, 2007.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    O. Zaiane, “Building a Recommender Agent for e-Learning Systems,” in International Conference in Education, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Lu, “Personalized e-learning material recommender system,” in International Conference on Information Technology for Application, 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Minaei-Bidgoli, B. et al., “Mining interesting contrast rules for a web-based educational system,” in International Conference on Machine Learning Applications, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Romero, C. et al., “Knowledge discovery with genetic programming for providing feedback to courseware author,” User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research, vol. 14, no. 5, p. 425–464, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Merceron and K. Yacef, “Mining student data captured from a web-based tutoring tool,” Journal of Interactive Learning Research, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 319–346, 2004.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freyberger, J. et al., “Using association rules to guide a search for best fitting transfer models of student learning,” in Workshop on Analyzing Student-Tutor Interactions Logs to Improve Educational Outcomes at ITS Conference, 2004.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Markellou, P. et al., “Using semantic web mining technologies for personalized e-learning experiences,” in Web-based education, 2005.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Ramli, “Web usage mining using apriori algorithm: UUM learning care portal case,” in International. Conference on Knowledge Management, 20005.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Doughty and C. Nielson, “Rosetta Stone™ Evaluation Executive Report.Final Technical Report E.3.1,” University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 2008.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. B. Nielson, “Self-study with language learning software in the workplace: What happens?,” Language Learning & Technology, vol. 3, no. 15, pp. 110–129, 2011.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nielson, K. et al., “Learning foreign languages at a distance: Characteristics of effective online courses (TTO 32131).,” 2009.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Walker and G. White, Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Connecting Theory and Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Reinders and C. White, “20 years of autonomy and technology: how far have we come and where to next?,” Language Learning & Technology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 143–155, June 2016.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Law, “Using fuzzy numbers in educational grading system,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 83, pp. 311–323, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Bax, “Normalisation Revisited: The Effective Use of Technology in Language Education,” International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, vol. 2, no. 1, April-June 2011.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Bax, “CALL past, present and future,” System, vol. 1, no. 31, pp. 13–28, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. J. Blake, Brave New Digital Classroom, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. Warschauer, “Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction,” in Multimedia language teaching, Tokyo, Logos International, 1996, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. Ellis, The Study of Second Language Acquisition., Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Celce-Murcia, Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 2001.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Morisson, Independent Language Learning, Hong Kong University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    E. Macaro, “Developments in Language Learner Strategies,” in Comtemporary Applied Linguistics vol. 1, London, Continuum, 2009, pp. 10–36.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Clark M. et al., “Stickiness and Online Language Learning Pedagogical Suggestions for Engaging Learners in Languagenation.,” University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language, 2014.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. Nunan, Task-based language teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    P. Robinson, Task-based language learning, Malden,MA: Blackwell, 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lefteris Angelis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mahdi Bohlouli
    • 2
  • Kiki Hatzistavrou
    • 1
  • George Kakarontzas
    • 1
  • Julian Lopez
    • 3
  • Johannes Zenkert
    • 2
  1. 1.Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and TEI of ThessalyThessaloniki, LarissaGreece
  2. 2.University of SiegenSiegenGermany
  3. 3.University of AlicanteAlicanteSpain

Personalised recommendations