Evaluation and design recommendation for busuu.

com

Agnieszka Jankowska, LT
 The study aimed at investigating the second language acquisition (SLA) through interaction with
community learning language platform busuu.com1. The social network services it offers are particularly
appealing because learning foreign languages is as much about learning new vocabulary as getting to know
people and their culture – with culture being a heritage of social interactions including language, gastronomy,
architecture, literature and music. The study analysis were based on learners from a variety of backgrounds and
their attitude towards using computers in general as well as using them as means of social interaction with
particular focus on SLA.

The objectives of this report focus on assessing the usefulness of busuu.com and its possible utilization in a
classroom environment as well as individual learning experience in the context of computer-aided learning
languages a.k.a. CALL framework. We will also try to identify possible pitfalls of this teaching method and
seek possible improvements in fields of Pedagogy, Adaptivity and Technology.

The ultimate goal is to help teachers taking advantage of busuu.com tool to improve their teaching activities in
order to enhance learning experience in and out of the classroom.

Vygotsky’s social development theory lies at the core of constructivism which is a currently leading
learning approach that acknowledges the fact that social interactions play a fundamental role in the process of
cognitive development2. Constructivism is therefore fundamental to introducing new forms and tools of
computer-assisted language learning where “the others” play an important role (Schaffert & Ebner, 2010) 3.
Furthermore, social constructivism through development of learning environment facilitates the possibility to
reflect and compare ideas with learners’ counterparts.

Computer-assisted langue learning CALL, and computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) has
been a focus of attention as according to Kawase (2005)4 more and more teachers use computers to deliver
learning material. Origins of CALL (Gündüz, 2005)5, reach back to 1960s where pioneering projects in
computer Assisted Instructions (CAI) emerged across American universities for creating suitable learning
conditions in linguistics. This phenomenon spread in 1980s into educational institutions and individual houses
and it was around that time when CALL software became available on the market (Ittelson: 2000) 6. After over
thirty years of using CALL in education Warschauer & Healey(1998)7 divided its history into three stages:
behaviouristic CALL where computer was seen as mechanical tutor who hardly allowed students working at
their own pace, communicative CALL that corresponded closer to cognitive theories stressing learning as a
process of discovery, development and expression (Jean Piaget) and integrative CALL that took advantage of
new SLA theories and socio-cognitive views. It is in the era of integrative CALL that computer-supported
collaborative learning (CSCL) was formed and has become underlying concept of this study. The group formed

1
www.busuu.com

2
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

3
Schaffert, Sandra & Ebner, Martin (2010): New Forms of and Tools for Cooperative Learning with Social Software in Higher Education.
In: Brayden A. Morris & George M. Ferguson (Ed.), Computer-Assisted Teaching: New Developments. Nova Science Pub, p. 151-165.

4
Kawase, A. (2005). Second language acquisition and synchronous computer mediated communication. Retrieved February, 2011 from
http://journals.tc-library.org/templates/about/editable/pdf/Kawase.pdf

5
Gündüz, N. October 2005. Computer Assisted Language Learning: CALL. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. Vol.1, No.2,

6
Ittelson, J C. (2000). Computers. Microsoft encarta encyclopedia 2000. 1993-1999 Microsoft

Corporation.

7
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. 1998. Computers and language learning: an overview. Language teaching forum. 31, Pp.57-71.
of Gerry Stahl, Timothy Koschmann and Dan Suthers8 produced a work that dealt with studying how people can
learn together with the help of computers. CSCL was a reaction to CALL existing techniques that forced
students to learn in isolation despite the already existing potential of Internet and it proposed the development of
new software and applications that bring learners together and can offer creative activities of intellectual
exploration and social interaction.

They have challenged the belief that classroom content and activity can simply be delivered to a larger
auditorium in a digitalized form with only a little involvement from teachers and at a minimal cost. Following
four statements formed basics of CSCL manifesto:

1. A multimedia content such as videos, slides or text can be as important resource as a textbook but it
can only be effective when scaffold by a larger motivational and interactive context.

2. A teacher effort per student ratio will have to increase as his work will no longer be limited to content
production available by computer but she will have to motivate and guide each student through on-
going interaction and a sense of social presence.

3. Since CSCL emphasises collaboration among students the learning has to take place through the very
interaction between them. They learn by posting their questions or better yet, working on the common
inquiry together, teaching each other and observing how others learn. As a result the computer support
for such collaboration is essential to e-learning where stimulating and sustaining productive student
interaction is difficult to achieve and requires skills in: planning, coordinating, implementing
curriculum, pedagogy and technology.

4. CSCL also deals with face-to-face (F2F) collaboration; this however will not be the object of this
study.

Software selection:

I have encountered busuu.com website while studying Spanish language last year. I was looking for an
on-line tool with multimedia content that was engaging and motivating enough to help me achieving my
learning goals at a time. I found many sources dedicated to learning Spanish language however websites like
livemocha.com or busuu.com were very intriguing in their innovative approach learning foreign language. The
main reason for selecting busuu.com for this report was the many rewards the site was granted including:
European Langue Label9 - an award granted by European Commission in the field of learning languages
rewarding new initiatives and techniques in language teaching10. The teaching is also organised around the
recommended levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)11. It is also
worth mentioning that majority of its content is free. Never the less I was interesting to investigate if learners
with a different set of skills both in the Spanish language and in the use of computers were able to take an
8
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical

perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press. Available at http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf,

9
http://blog.busuu.com/busuu-com-wins-the-european-language-label-for-innovative-projects-in-language-learning/ - last accessed on the
1st of March, 2011.

10
http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/european-language-label/index_en.htm - last accessed on the 1st of March, 2011

11
CEFR, is a guideline used to describe achievements of learners of foreign languages across Europe and, increasingly, in other countries.

*Studies omitted a busuu talk activity as none of the participant felt confident enough to challenge other members of community with
talking in their native language.
advantage of such tool. Furthermore we asked whether busuu.com could play an active role in a traditional
teaching model.

The preparation for group observation:

Learners’ selection: based on the friends network with a focus on those who expressed a will to learn Spanish
language and those who had taken steps in language acquisition within a formal education. 5 learners selected
from following cultural backgrounds: Turkish (beginner), British (beginner), Polish (intermediate), Brazilian
(intermediate) and French (advanced) plus bilingual speaker from Spanish-German background.

Localisation: two sessions took place inside private homes (so non-educational institution).

Tools used: 2 x video cameras, 1 x voice recorder, 3 laptops.

The experiment plan schedule:

1. Brief introduction to the experiment – 10 min,

2. Brief introduction to software, including setting-up accounts – 15 min,

3. Working on a single unit – 30 min,

4. Test – 10 min,

5. Reflections – 20 min.

(Effective time spent: 2h)

Type of observation: structured observation for a specific task.

The six participants were divided into 3 groups: a pair of beginners, a pair of intermediate and a single
advanced learner. The sixth participant was a native speaker who helped facilitating the session. The group of
beginners and intermediates were video recorded and the advanced learner was voice-recorded while working
on the learning task. Video-recorded session took roughly two hours and was conducted simultaneously in two
different rooms, while the session with advanced learner was conducted separately due to time constraints. The
rationale behind joining learners in pairs was to receive verbal comments on usability, teaching approach and
interface for later analysis. All learners were actively engaged to voice out their comments as the experiment
was carried out. All groups were asked to complete one computer-aided learning unit as well as computerized
test unit that was measuring the unit‘s comprehension of vocabulary.

All experimental groups were meant to complete four on-line based language focused tasks within a unit:

- vocabulary,

- Dialogue, followed by short test on understanding,

- Writing task, later corrected by busuu community members,

- Busuu talk *

Learners then had to take a computer-based test that measured their language acquisition and was made of
following sections:
 - Vocabulary knowledge test, Choose the right answer!

- Drag and drop, Drag the words from the left side to their correct translation on the right side, again an
extrinsic feedback is given when words are matched incorrectly,

- Listening test, Listen to the phrase and choose the right picture,

- Writing test, Listen and type word/phrase in the box,

Learners would receive extrinsic feedback when a mistake was made in a form of sound and written command
after each incorrect answer. Upon completion of the test a full review was given on all four parts of the test in a
form of picture frames that represented the content of the material. Mistakes were coloured in red. Learners then
had a choice of trying the review again. Phrases previously answered incorrectly appeared more frequent than
others.

Observation was followed by unstructured discussion on general use of the software, technical and learning
difficulties learners came across – discussion was also recorded and used for further analysis. A sample of
video-recording transcript can be found in Appendix II.

Pedagogy, Adaptivity and Technology aspects of the software were examined with a use of detailed
questionnaire later circulated via email. Summary of findings can be found in Appendix I.

Our finding indicate that the busuu.com platform does not comply with the modern objectives of
CALL learning neither it does reflect the CSCL best practice for delivering digitalised content and facilitating
learning and teaching activities. It does, to certain extent represent the behaviouristic CALL model: machine
given material – input from the student – feedback. It does not build on the constructivists’ idea of ‘building the
knowledge’ as users have very little control over content once the lesson begins and there is no interaction with
other learners during the learning activity. Learners can interact however in an unstructured manner outside of
the learning task and some may argue that it facilitates collaboration. However it does not happen in a real-time
i.e. while the content is being delivered. In our opinion busuu.com also over-emphasising the social activities
thus taken focus away from learning the language. We concluded that native speakers’ feedback does not have
the same impact as the teacher’s feedback. The platform seems to follow Conversational Framework for
teaching12 as the learning unit includes: tuition, practice, but facilities for discussions and collaborations are
provided outside of learning activity. A user feedback on learning activity comes with a delay and the comments
being as different as individuals who posted it.

Despite the software not following pedagogical paradigms for teaching with aid of computers all participants
found the tool rather useful in additional language training. Following the observation we can conclude that this
software can only facilitate intermediate level learning activity as there is no guidance given to beginner’s and
the content is not engaging enough for advanced learners.

We asked a Spanish teacher and an English teacher about their thoughts on incorporating this tool into
their teaching activity. The Spanish teacher, Maria had claimed she will never bring Facebook-like activities
into the classroom as this may cause a complete chaos during her lecture. She didn’t feel software considered a
role of a teacher in its development: she did not find any transparency in her students’ process of cognition. She
could not find any ways to support her students activities during the task and when referring to students
engagement and motivation she said that “trees and berries doesn’t measure the progress, ability to fully
understand the next task and make connection to material already studied, do” (See Appendix III for more
explanation on motivation techniques incorporate into busuu.com website). In her opinion there was no option
to overview group progress therefore again she was disappointed to see a student sent into the corner of

12
Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies, (2nd
edn) (London, RoutledgeFalmer).
individual learning. When asked about possibility to connect with native speakers, Maria cut short: there is a
Facebook for that.

The teacher of English, Danielle, summed-up: if I had to use this tool in my classroom I will need to ensure
every workstation is logged in and the student is presented with the learning task alone to avoid chaos caused by
more eager students keen to discover functionality of the software. The anxiousness about how to use software
can make the lecture very hectic with some people being desperate to learn, some annoyed and some very
excited. Teacher therefore needs to be able to control the room and with so many questions about the poor
design it may be simply a waste of time to introduce such tool into the classroom.

In her opinion developers need to re-think their approach to beginners’ level but she claims the tool can be
useful addition to the session. It will require a lot of knowledge about the interface from the teacher to keep
control over the students and their unlimited endeavours.

We have taken a very wide approach to assess the usability of the software, perhaps too wide as it became
impossible to produce all findings within such a short report. Our observation was also based only on 5
participants therefore it is not of any statistical significance. Despite these limitation following are the redesign
recommendations:

I. Pedagogy:

a. More tutoring on basic grammar must be made within the linguistic content to avoid
confusion while advancing to the next step, especially for the beginners,

b. Learners should be able to pick and mix the content they want to learn within the unit,

c. Real-time collaboration is required both with teacher and with learning peers during the task.

d. It should be redesign according to the needs of the community it targets: presently follow
learners are called Friends, perhaps Students would be more appropriate.

e. Provisions should be made to encourage learners to talk to each other – perhaps in a form of
cyber cafe with a teacher as facilitator.

II. Adaptivity:

a. Level assignment test should precede any learning activity – with assessing current language
skills built-in the process of signing on to the community.

b. A more meaningful feedback is required based on the learner answer. Links to the material
that slipped of the cognitive process will be a big plus.

c. Validation of quality of comments must be provided thus giving a power to real-teacher to

facilitate the process of commenting on the posts.

d. More intrinsic hints and less extrinsic, rather meaningless comments should be implemented
to emphasise the self-motivation in learning.

e. More guidance given to students who struggle with the material.

III. Technology:
 a. Accessibility13:

• It requires a java plug-in so if a browser does not have Java plug-in activated there is
no content on the website coding for non-java enabled browsers is required,

• Does not make provisions to learners with disabilities: hearing/blind imperilment,

• It does not make provision to mobile learners.

b. Navigation:

• It is not clear where the user is at a given moment – lack of breadcrumb navigation14.

• Doesn’t have highlighted submenus as an aid to help user locating him on the page.

• No Up-to-Parent Links that facilitates navigating to the level up in the content

hierarchy.

• General lack of description to the menus.

c. Layout:

• Colours are mixed (the website doesn’t follow colour theme best practice),

• No menus and submenus in the course section,

• Good visibility of content only in Firefox browser,

Above redesign will have to take place for busuu.com to become truly social within the CSCL context making it
more successful. Effectively it will help both teachers and students to learn collaboratively taking advantage of
best social constructivist theories and practice. Stating that we must not forget that this web 2.0 platform
attracted already over million users and its community is growing steadily. With anticipation of the site being
relatively young (2 years) we look forward to future development exploring the potential CSCL and WEB 2.0
and what it can bring into second language acquisition process as we know it.

References:

1. Gündüz, N. October 2005. Computer Assisted Language Learning: CALL. Journal of

Language and Linguistic Studies. Vol.1, No.2,

2. Ittelson, J C. (2000). Computers. Microsoft encarta encyclopedia 2000. 1993-1999

Microsoft
Corporation.

3. Kawase, A. (2005). Second language acquisition and synchronous computer

mediated communication. Retrieved February, 2011 from http://journals.tc-
library.org/templates/about/editable/pdf/Kawase.pdf

4. Kárpáti, A. (2009). Web 2 technologies for Net Native language learners: a “social
CALL”. ReCALL, 21, pp 139 156 doi:10.1017/S0958344009000160
13
http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility - last accessed on the 4th of March.

14
http://www.webdesignpractices.com/navigation/breadcrumb.html - last accessed on the 4th of March.
 5. Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework
for the effective use of learning technologies, (2nd edn) (London,
RoutledgeFalmer).

6. O'Reilly T. (2005) What Is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the
Next Generation of Software at http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-
20.html

7. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

8. Schaffert, Sandra & Ebner, Martin (2010): New Forms of and Tools for Cooperative
Learning with Social Software in Higher Education. In: Brayden A. Morris &
George M. Ferguson (Ed.), Computer-Assisted Teaching: New Developments.
Nova Science Pub, p. 151-165.

9. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. 1998. Computers and language learning: an

overview. Language teaching forum. 31, Pp.57-71.

10. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative
learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook
of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. Available at http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf,

Internet references:

1. http://blog.busuu.com/busuu-com-wins-the-european-language-label-for-
innovative-projects-in-language-learning/ - last accessed on the 1st of March,
2011.
2. http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/european-language-label/index_en.htm -
last accessed on the 1st of March, 2011
3. http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility - last accessed on the 4th of
March.
4. http://www.webdesignpractices.com/navigation/breadcrumb.html - last accessed
on the 4th of March.
5. www.busuu.com – last accessed on the 4th of March.

APPENDIX I. Detailed findings.

Table 1 summarises answers given during the interviews conducted in person and short question circulated via
email. The type of questions asked summed up previous discussion hence only yes/no answers were required
(we included full answers in Appendix IV.).

Beginners Intermediate Advanced Facilitator

GULEN ILONA DANIELLE DANIEL VALERIE SANDRA
I. Pedagogy
a. Do you think the software can be used as a
stand-alone teaching device or rather as an
additional tool supporting both teachers and
learners? NO NO NO YES YES NO
b. Do you think the software covered
pedagogical aspects of teaching i.e.
i. facilitates learning; NO NEITHER YES YES YES YES
ii. scaffolds the learning process; NO NEITHER NO YES YES NO
iii. makes learning more tractable; NO NO NO YES NEITHER NO
iv. makes complex and difficult tasks
manageable; NO NO YES YES YES YES
v. coaches, structures the tasks, provides hints; NO NO NO YES YES NO
vi. helps students engage in sense-making; NO NO NO YES YES NO
vii. guides towards independence NO YES NO NO YES YES
c. Does it keep you motivated? NO NEITHER YES YES YES NO
d. Is it interesting in the learning context, NO* NO* NO* YES* YES NO
e. Does it help you communicating with
others? NO YES YES YES YES YES
f. Does it help you collaborate on your
learning activity with others? YES YES YES YES YES NO
g. Does it make efficient use of consulting
and / or collaborating with other learners? NO NEITHER YES YES YES YES
h. Did you learn anything? YES YES YES YES YES NO
II. Adaptivity
a. Does it have varied levels of teaching? NO YES YES YES YES NO
b. Has the current level of skills been
assessed? NO NO NO NO NO NO
c. Does it automatically adapt to the
individual’s level of knowledge? NO NO NO NO NO NO
d. Was the level of content appropriate? YES YES YES YES YES NO
e. Was the feedback immediate? NO NO YES NO YES NO
f. Was the feedback meaningful in terms of
results and did it promote some self-reflection? NO NEITHER NO NO NO NO
g. Were you given hints or guidance during
your learning activity? YES NO YES NO NO YES
h. Did you have a control over content you
were studying? NO NO NO NO YES YES
i. Was grammar covered appropriately? NO NO NO YES YES NO
j. Was the response from users informative? NEITHER NO NO NEITHER NEITHER YES
k. Has the involvement in commenting on
others output made you more engaged in the
studies? YES YES NO YES YES NO
l. Did you feel it avoided ‘one size fits all’
teaching approach? NO NO NO YES YES NO
III. Technology:
a. Was the graphical interface attractive and
intuitive? YES NO NO YES NO NEITHER
b. Was the interface innovative? YES YES NO NO NO NO
c. Was the relevant content visible during
activity i.e. did you have to scroll the screen,
where you sure that what you were looking at
was relevant? YES NO YES NO YES NO
d. Was the layout of the interface supporting
your learning activity? NO YES NO YES YES NO
e. Were colours invasive/destructive? YES NO NO NO NO NO
f. Was text large enough to make it clear and
visible? YES YES YES NO YES YES
 g. Did the technology use contributed
positively/negatively to your learning
experience? NO YES YES NO YES NEITHER
h. Was multimedia content
interesting/engaging/relevant? NO YES NO NO NO YES
i. Did you enjoy this learning experience? NO YES NO YES YES NEITHER
j. Does computer-aided social learning of
languages work for you? NO YES NO YES YES NO

* learner did not find the category section

Table 1. Summary of participants answers.

Findings on pedagogical aspect:

In general beginners felt that the software was lacking completely pedagogical approach. Students with
minimal or zero knowledge of Spanish language could not make sense of material presented to them due to a
complete lack of explanation. Software failed to build new skills based on existing knowledge i.e. in Spanish
when talking about age, a person HAVE a number of years while in English a person IS a number of years old.
This resulted in mistaking verb tener – “to have” for a verb “to be”. There was also no explanation provided
about the foreign language punctuation resulting in mistaking inverse exclamation mark for a letter. Another
problem beginners were faced with was that there was no introduction to pronunciation rules, i.e. pronunciation
of double l in word “llama” was taken as an exception from the rule as the learners could not make sense of the
double l being pronounced as “yah”.

Their impression was that the tool assumed the certain knowledge of foreign language and completely dismissed
differences in relation to English language. On the contrary intermediate and advanced learners did not struggle
with the lack of introduction, however they pointed out that the social language learning has to be supervised by
a skilful teacher as they will not trust the feedback left by native speakers. In their views:

a) It is impossible to verify their language competencies,

b) Regular learners do not have pedagogical background and necessarily knowledge to teach their
language.

c) Learners may choose to identify themselves as Spanish speakers when in fact they may only study
Spanish.

With these in minds all groups undermined feedback given by the native speakers. Never-the-less both groups:
intermediate and advanced found the feedback motivating as well as the fact that it engaged them in correcting
posts left by other learners in English language. Beginners group however found it being unnecessarily
disruption as at that stage they were unable to take advantage from the correction left on their post and not
feeling adequate in level of SLA to correct the posts of others.

The extrinsic and immediate feedback given lacked any explanation why the answer was incorrect. No attempt
was made to point learner into the right direction therefore the learning exercise appeared to be a guess work,
especially during the task that followed dialog. Also there were no direct links to material that the learners failed
to comprehend.

Generally Beginners group decided that the structure of the tool and its content did not help them learning the
language while intermediate and advanced were much more enthusiastic about its innovative approach.

Findings on Adaptivity:

Busuu.com completely disregarded evaluation of the current level of language skills. It left it to one own
judgment from which level learners should begin their experience with the tool. Neither had it adapted to the
learning progress, except where it asked more frequently about the phrases learners answered incorrectly at the
beginning of the activity. Such approach however was met with annoyance rather than enthusiasm. Nonetheless
everyone found the content of a lesson being appropriate to the level they studied. It failed to deliver meaningful
feedback i.e. it did not point student to relevant material and it did not suggested hints for the answers. Except
for advance learner none of the participant felt they had a power over the content they studied. Group of
beginners strongly felt that that the tool assumed “one size fits all” as it didn’t recognise their needs for
understanding basic differences between the language they knew and the language they tried to learn. The other
two groups however thought it gave them a better control over content and that in turn gave them opportunity to
take a better advantage of the learning software. Danielle was the exception as she was criticising the software
from a teacher/learner point of view and decided the tool did not make any provision to distinguish between
different levels.

Findings on the technology:

Technological aspect of the software received mixed comments and analysis were conducted based on the
observation experiment as well as the answers given. The observation reviled those learners with higher skills in
ICT found the interface easier to navigate and could make intuitive choices about the proceedings to the next
steps.

Other participants found the interface somehow similar to facebook and depending on their attitude to that social
network website they were either in favour of the busuu.com platform or rather hostile. General feel of the site
was that it was overloaded with irrelevant content to their learning activity and gave precedence to social
connections rather than learning activity.

Appendix III – busuu.com attempt to motivate its users:

What are busuu-berries?

busuu-berries reward your language learning efforts and your participation to help others of our language

learning community. So whenever you do a learning activity (e.g. finishing a unit) or teach others (e.g. by

correcting their writing posts) you will receive busuu-berries.

When you register for the first time on www.busuu.com, you are granted 10 busuu-berries as a welcome gift!

How can I earn busuu-berries?

You receive busuu-berries for the following learning activities:

• 5 busuu-berries: finishing one part of a learning unit (i.e. vocabulary, dialogue, writing-exercise, busuu-talk,

review)

• 5 extra busuu-berries for an excellent writing exercise (rated by at least 3 people with .)

• 20 busuu-berries: finishing an entire learning unit

 • 50 busuu-berries: completing a course-test

• 1000 busuu-berries: finishing one complete course (i.e. A1, A2, B1 or B2)

You receive as well busuu-berries for the following activities:

• 1 busuu-berry: inviting one of your friends to busuu.com via www.busuu.com/invite

• 5 busuu-berries: correcting one writing exercise of another user

• 5 extra busuu-berries: having done a very helpful correction (voted by at least 3 people with the button)

• 100 busuu-berries: creating a group

• 500 busuu-berries: being the leader of 1 active group

• 1000 busuu-berries: being the leader of 3 active groups

What can I do with my busuu-berries?

Your busuu-berries show your activity and learning progress on busuu.com to other users of our community.

The more berries you have, the more active you are within our community.

But you can also use busuu-berries to motivate your busuu.com friends! Each time you press the button “send

busuu-berries” to one of your friend, 1 of your busuu-berries will be transferred to your friend and he/she

will receive a motivational email. So you shouldn’t keep all these delicious berries for yourself, share them as

well with your friends!

What is 'my Language Garden'?

The Language Garden is a snapshot of your language skills. It shows the languages you are learning and those

you teach. The size of each tree indicates your learning progress in that language. By clicking on a particular

tree you can access the learning material of the language concerned.
What can I do in my Language Garden?

1. Let your trees grow!

The more learning units you have finished and the more active you are within the community, the bigger your

language tree will be.

2. Get gifts for your Language Garden!

Of course you will be rewarded for your efforts! While finishing units within your courses and passing a test

related to them, you will receive a funny animated gift for your Language Garden.

3. Fight the bugs!

Whenever you make mistakes within the review session of a unit or a test within a course, nasty bugs will attack

your trees. If you don't study your vocabulary properly, your trees will be slowly eaten up…

4. Make friends and teach other users!

For every 10 writing exercises you correct, you will receive one apple as a gift for your Language Garden.

Additionally, you can teach your native language to other users by clicking on the language signs in the “I
speak” area. There you will see a list of people who are learning the language you are able to teach. Add them as

your friends and start practicing your new languages with them via busuu-talk.