|
|
Report
Topic & Research Question
What is SCMC?
Research Process
Findings
Recommendations for Using SCMC in the Classroom
Conclusions
Sources
Appendix
There is a growing love affair with new computer technologies in TESOL.
It seems to have great potential in opening our students up to greater
authentic and meaningful opportunities to interact with the world. The
question we need to ask now is how and when can these technologies most
effectively be used in our classrooms to aid in the acquisition of a
second language? The technology I will focus on in this report is typed
synchronous computer mediated communication (SCMC), such as Internet
Relay Chat, MOOs, and local area network discussion programs. In my
own experience as a student using a chat room, I found that the communication
that was taking place felt more like a communicative practice even though
I was writing with a keyboard and reading from a screen. Intuitively,
it seemed like ESL students would gain fluency from participating in
such fast paced "conversation-like" interactions. I wanted to find out
if my intuition was correct. Besides appearing to be good practice for
ESL learners, I found that using chat rooms and Moos can be fun. As
a teacher of an ESL speaking/listening course I am always interested
in finding activities that help students to learn AND that are fun.
In this paper, the question I aim to answer is this: Does synchronous
computer mediated communication contribute to the development of communicative
competence in ESL students? I want to know if having real time "conversations"
on-line can help students develop their speaking skills in face-to-face
situations. I plan to do this by reviewing research done on the similarities
between actual speech and synchronous computer mediated communication,
and then to examine these similarities within a context of second language
acquisition (SLA) theory and communicative competence research. I will
also examine the benefits and limitations of using SCMC in the classroom
within the same context.
Synchronous computer mediated communication, or SCMC, is any real-time
immediate communication that takes place via the computer. In this paper
I am looking specifically at SCMC that is typed, not spoken. SCMC can
be communication sent to one or several users over the Internet or through
a local network to computers that are hooked up to each other. An example
of SCMC on the Internet is Internet Relay Chat (chat) in which users
type a message in a lower screen and hit a send button or return to
send the message to a main screen that can be viewed by all users that
are logged on(links). Closely related to chat is a MOO (which stands
for Multi-user domain, object oriented), which is a text or graphic
based environment on-line where users can chat and participate in simulations,
"such as moving from room to room or examining objects" (Meloni, Shetzer
& Warschauer, 2000 p.4). SchMOOze University (link) is a popular example
of a MOO. Another example of Internet SCMC is one-to-one communication
such as ICQ (I seek you)(link), or Yahoo! instant messenger(link). SCMC
can also take place in one place where many computers are connected
through a local area network (LAN). An example of a program used in
this type of set up is Daedalus Interchange(link), which is the chat
function of a larger program designed for collaborative writing. Remote
Technical Assistance (RTA) is another example of a LAN program. In addition
to a chat feature, RTA has a second window for constructing group tasks
and writing group assignments while chatting in the other. While researching
this topic I found that much of the research applied to all of these
types of SCMC.
In order to find the answer to my question, I reviewed
all the literature that I could find on the topic of SCMC in the classroom,
conducted a survey among ESL learners, and assisted in a composition class
using Daedalus Interchange. I found that most research in this area centered
around comparing face-to-face communication with SCMC, and analyzing the
features of SCMC. The conclusions of these articles were mainly based
on the amount of similarities found and if there were enough to provide
appropriate input for second language acquisition. I was interested to
find that many of these researchers did not agree in their conclusions.
One area of research on the topic in which the authors agreed is research
that analyzed the amount of participation of students in face-to-face
discussions compared to SCMC classroom discussions. The conclusions of
these articles were in agreement that SCMC classroom discussions led to
more participation and more equal participation as well. Two articles
(Kelm, 1992 Blake, 2000) discussed the outcomes of using SCMC in their
second language classrooms, and offered many suggestions for using this
tool in the classroom. This active research was the most helpful in answering
my question, but unfortunately, there is very little literature like this
available. I was unable to find any literature or research in which an
experiment had been conducted to reveal the actual effects of the use
of SCMC on communicative competence. Since I couldn't find any research
that could tell me that SCMC directly affected communicative competence,
I sought out ESL learners with questionnaire in hand to find out what
they thought about using computers for learning English. (See appendix
for survey) Most students agreed that SCMC helped them to learn slang
and casual speech, that it helped them improve their English, and that
it helped them to practice conversations in English (See appendix for
results of survey). To get a better idea of the use of SCMC in the classroom,
I observed an English composition class at San Francisco State University.
(link) The class is English 50, a remedial composition course for first
year freshmen. The class consisted of 4 ESL students and 8 native English
speakers. The instructor used Daedalus Interchange, a local area network
discussion program that allows students in the same computer lab to discuss
readings and writing topics via the computer. They can then save transcripts
of the "conversation" to use as heuristic devices for writing their essays
for class. Although this instructor was using SCMC as a writing heuristics
tool and not for fluency practice, it gave me a lot of insight into the
logistics of using the computer for live in-class discussion.
The first thing I wanted to know when starting to research
this topic was if my intuition that SCMC is like a face-to-face conversation
was correct. I found that many researchers must have started with this
same question because most of the research so far on SCMC looks into the
similarities and differences between SCMC, speech, and writing. Most of
the research is based on collecting speaking transcripts, SCMC transcripts,
and writing samples and then comparing the occurrence of linguistic features
in each. Some researchers describe the similarities as a hybrid between
speech and writing (Archee, 1993); others consider type SCMC a register
all its own (Kiesler, Love & Rice, qtd. in Aoki, 1995, Yates qtd in Warschauer
1997). In a study conducted by Kwang-Kyu, a comparison of speech, writing,
and SCMC shows that SCMC is more similar to speech than writing. However,
it also shows that SCMC is more "speech-like" than actual speech is some
cases. For example, wh-clauses is one feature that occurs much more often
in speech than in writing. In SCMC these features occurred even more often
than in speech, making it more "speech-like". In addition, SCMC has some
features that occur less often than in either speech or writing. The most
important of these features is type/token ratio, which refers to the number
of different words compared to the total number of words. This means that
SCMC uses less of a variety of words, and therefore many authors conclude
that speech is more complex that SCMC. While SCMC is a unique combination
of features seen in writing and speech, the important point here is that
this combination is more closely related to speech than writing (1996).
(See appendix for a complete comparison of speech, writing, and SCMC features.)
Besides similarities in individual linguistic features, SCMC also uses
many discourse functions such as greetings, requests, apologies, complaints,
and reprimands, in the same way and form as in speech (Sotillo, 2000,
Negretti, 1999). Sotillo and Nunan also point out that social interaction
is the main function of both SCMC and speech (2000, 1999). For example,
Sotillo found that her subjects engaged in requesting personal information,
flirting, and joking more often that in face-to-face classroom discussion.
The similarities in purpose and function contribute to speech and SCMC
being similar to each other (2000). There are of course, major differences
between oral communication and SCMC. The lack of turn taking is probably
the biggest and most important difference. No turn taking means topic
change conventions and polite interruption are not used in SCMC. The medium
itself makes it very different from speech. There is no listening or pronunciation
involved, and the interlocutors must be able to read and to type (Lee,
1999, Snooks, 1995). There are delays and as a result, responses and turns
are out of chronological order (Negretti,1999). Another major difference
is the lack of paralinguistic clues such as gestures, facial expressions,
and intonation. Chat, and especially Moos, has developed several strategies
for coping with this fact, with the use of onomonopia, capitalization,
and punctuation for intonation or stress, and emoticons for facial expressions
and emotions. The conventions for using these are somewhat different from
spoken language, but they do fill a lot of the gaps left by a lack of
aural and visual cues. Social and environmental cues are also missing
in SCMC. Markers of respect and social relationships or hierarchies are
nonexistent in most SCMC discussions(Lundstrom). As an exception, MOOs
do establish social roles somewhat since some members have titles such
as "wizard", which mean they are in charge of a particular space on the
MOO. MOOs also provide some environmental context with descriptions of
"places" within the MOO and "objects" that users can interact with. For
example, SchMOOze University is set up based on what we know about a typical
university campus with classrooms, teachers' offices, and a student union.
Users can "sit" at a table in an office and teachers can "write" on blackboards.
The social and physical environment exists in the mind of the user, but
for many this is a real and binding context where they behave according
to the real world's corresponding social expectations. But if the social
and environmental context is not real in the mind of the user, it will
be just like a traditional chat room void of social and environmental
cues. Because of these major differences between conversations via the
computer and face-to-face conversations, many researchers have concluded
that SCMC is not appropriate for transference of skills between the mediums(Lundstrom).
However, I believe that what is lacking in SCMC can be a benefit for language
learners. No turns means that students can contribute when and how often
they wish. With no social pressures, they can think and compose as long
as they need to(Kroonenberg in Warschauer, 1997a). Fear of having a strong
accent is lifted. Social pressure from more dominant groups or leaders
is also lifted. These benefits plus the similarities described by several
researchers were just what I was hoping to find. Except, I realized that
learning if SCMC was like speech didn't really tell me what I wanted to
know. At first, I was not convinced that the similarities between speech
and writing were enough to transfer over to speaking skills. Since no
one had proven that the input was similar enough to standard speech that
just practice would transfer to oral skills, and no one had studied the
improvement of oral skills after using SCMC, I wasn't sure that it really
would help learners acquire speaking skills. However, I went back to the
literature on second language acquisition and teaching communicative competence
and changed my mind. I was reminded that sufficient input is not the only
factor needed to improve speaking skills, and that oral production is
only one part of producing comprehensible output. So I'm using these two
frameworks, SLA theory and communicative competence research, to argue
that SCMC does positively affect communicative competence. Second language
acquisition theory tells us that for a learner to acquire a second language,
certain variables are necessary: Krashen argues the importance of comprehensible
input (qtd. in Lee, 1999), Swain adds to that by stressing the importance
of comprehensible output and negotiation of meaning (in Lee 1999, Shumin
1997). Gass and Schmidt claim that the noticing of structural forms is
also necessary for SLA (1997, 1990). I will look at how SCMC can contribute
to each of these variables and in turn how these variables contribute
to the development of communicative competence. (See Holliday for a good
review of SLA theory and CALL, 1999) Research by Canale and Swain proposes
that communicative competence includes four aspects: grammatical competence,
discourse competence, socialinguistic competence, and strategic competence
(in Shumin,1997). Grammatical competence refers to mastery of morphology,
syntax, vocabulary, and pronunciation. Discourse competence refers to
the rules of "cohesion and coherence" in discourse, and the structures
needed for cohesion such as "markers to express ideas, show relationships
of time, and indicate cause, contrast, and emphasis"(Shumin, 1997,p.10).
Discourse competence also includes skills in turn taking. Sociolinguistic
competence is knowing "what is expected socially and culturally by users
of the target language"(Shumin, 1997, p.11). Strategic competence "is
the ability to compensate for gaps in knowledge of linguistic, sociolinguistic
and discourse rules", and to know "how to clear up communication breakdown
as well as comprehension problems"(Shumin, 1997, p.11). SCMC encompasses,
in various degrees, each of these aspects of communicative competence.
The greatest potential effect that SCMC has on the acquisition of language
is though production of comprehensible output. Many studies have shown
that classroom participation is greater in SCMC than in face-to-face discussion.
(Warschauer, 1996a, 1996b, 1997a, 1998, Kelm,1992, Kern,1995) The increase
in student participation may be attributed to the fact that the anonymity
of SCMC lifts the pressure of public speaking; it relieves the stress
and apprehension that comes with speaking in front of a class and being
called on by a teacher. The medium also lends itself to student centered
teaching and student autonomy. Students dominate the discussions (instead
of the teacher) and they direct the questions at their peers rather than
the teacher. Students also have more control over what they choose to
talk about. This may sound strange, but Kelm found that she had a hard
time keeping the students from ignoring topics they didn't like in on-line
discussions. On the positive side though, Kelm describes honest and candid
discussions that were never seen before in face-to-face class discussions(1992).
Besides being anonymous and student centered, students report that CMC
is fun and motivating. Students reported that they felt free to say what
they wanted and thus wanted to participate more, and prepared for class
more so that they could participate in the on-line discussions(Kelm 1992,
Warshauer1996b). Not only have studies shown that almost all students
participated more, the distribution of participation was more even. Women,
minorities, and students who were shy or lacking confidence participated
in discussions much more and dominant students were not dominating the
SCMC discussions as much. This can be accounted for by the fact that no
one can be interrupted. All students are free to contribute whenever and
as often as they like. In addition, the lack of dominant social groups
or authority figures made contribution less stressful for minorities and
shy participants. In addition to participation in general, Kelm found
that her students also used the target language more in the SCMC discussions.
For example, asides and personal comments were rarely spoken in the target
language in her face-to-face class discussions, but almost always were
on-line. She found that students also relied on target language strategies
to clarify misunderstandings more often, rather than code switching to
the native language to be understood. (Kelm's students did fall into code
switching again towards the end of the semester, but went back to using
the target language after a gentle reminder.)(1992). This type of target
language strategies practice leads to strategic competence. Students also
exhibited more risk taking behavior, in other words, they moved outside
their comfort zone and attempted language structures they normally avoided
during face-to-face interaction (Kelm, 1992). This may be very helpful
in communicating with native speakers. SCMC offers a safe and anonymous
environment where the students can test out the language with native speakers.
While chatting on-line with a native speaker may not transfer to good
speaking skills, it can serve as a bridge in which the learner can gain
confidence in interacting with speakers of the target language. Based
on Swain's theory that comprehensible output in the target language is
one of the necessary factors for SLA, increased participation in discussion
will positively affect communicative competence(in Shumin,1997). Krashen
argues that comprehensible input is also a necessary factor for SLA(in
Shumin, 1997 and Egbert and Hanson-Smith, 1999). While some researchers
argue that English via SCMC is "impoverished and non-standard" (DiMatteo
qtd. in Peyton, 1999) because of the high occurrence of abbreviation and
lack of complexity, it still contains many of the features and language
chunks used in spoken English. The lack of complexity means that the texts
have vocabulary that is repeated often in many contexts, which Warschauer
points out is a good environment to learn vocabulary (Meloni et al, 2000).
Blake also reported increased vocabulary acquisition in his students after
using SCMC(2000).Vocabulary building is considered a part of building
grammatical competence. Discourse functions such as greetings and apologies
are the same in both SCMC and speech, which can contribute to the development
of sociolinguistic competence( Sotillo, 2000,Negretti,1999). Vocabulary
and discourse functions are a small part of the input needed for SLA,
but they are a necessary part. SCMC should be considered a part of a wide
range of input sources for the second language learner. Especially in
the EFL context where access to native speakers may be difficult, SCMC
may offer the most authentic, interactive native input possible. Especially
if phone calls, voice chat, or video conferencing are too expensive(Snookes,1995).
Another factor necessary for the acquisition of language according to
Swain, is the negotiation of meaning(in Shumin, 1997, Egbert et al., 1999).
Several studies of comparing face-to-face discussion and SCMC found that
there was substantial negotiation of meaning in SCMC (Pelletieri in Meloni
et al,2000, Kelm, 1992). Especially without the ability to use gestures
and facial expressions, students must rely on language to get their message
across. This aspect of SCMC contributes to the development of strategic
competence. The lack of visual or aural clues also raises learners' awareness
of being too direct or abrupt when they receive more negative feedback
to inadvertently abrupt language. Adjusting their language accordingly
helps students to develop sociolinguistic competence by practicing using
structures that soften requests, advice, and statements in English. The
final variable in second language acquisition is noticing language structures.
SLA research by Schmidt suggests that "learners must develop their own
metalinguistic awareness in order to stimulate a change in their interlanguage"(1990).
In order for learners to continue to acquire language, they must be able
to notice new features of the language as well as "notice the gaps"(Gass
1997) in their own language. In SCMC, a transcript of what has been said
in a discussion can be saved and printed out. This gives learners an opportunity
to reflect on what was said, as well as analyze their own language(Beauvois,
1992). They have a chance to go back and look at their own language use
during a fast paced, fluency-like activity. This kind of activity contributes
to the grammatical competence. Holliday states that "grammar [instruction]
can assist fluency if linked to learner negotiation"; SCMC is the perfect
opportunity for such grammar instruction(1999,p.186). Kelm found that
this type of activity was useful for students to see language errors and
how they affect communication(1992). By addressing all of the aspects
of communicative competence through input, output, negotiation of meaning,
and noticing language structures, SCMC can aid in the acquisition of communicative
competence.
Using SCMC in the Classroom
[back to top]
While I have attempted to show how SCMC can affect the
acquisition of communicative competence, the question for teachers remains:
How can we use this technology in the classroom? Since the biggest benefit
of using SCMC is increased participation, in class discussions are a good
activity in which to utilize SCMC. The output does not need to be produced
with native speakers, the negotiation and interlanguage between students
is just as useful in SLA. Some sample activities might be: · Have inter-
and intra- classroom discussions, especially if the content of the discussions
would be helpful for later use. (See my lesson plan on my home page) ·
Use as a pre-activity to a face-to-face discussion. Studies showed that
face to face Discussions were more in-depth and had greater participation
after a warm-up conversation on-line (Kroonenberg in Warschauer, 1997a).
This is a good way to combine the strength of both mediums. · Role-playing
with pseudonyms, and developing on-line characters. This is a fun way
to take advantage of the anonymous nature of the medium especially with
animated chat. (link) Where the students can really assume the identity
of their character. · Supplementing key-pal projects to establish social,
personal connections. E-mail projects can be lacking in personal connections
and the social interaction may make such projects more meaningful for
students(Lee,1999). The other big benefit of SCMC is the safe and anonymous
environment in which to seek out conversations with native speakers. Teachers
can have native speakers in the classroom if using a LAN program, or have
native speakers act as guest speakers from their home or work over the
Internet. Some sample activities might be: · Interview native speakers
(see my lesson plan on my home page) · Conduct surveys for cultural differences
Instructors can also teach their students to use chat to seek out native
conversation partners on-line, in order to practice the language on their
own. Of course there are many considerations when using technology in
the classroom that might not exist in a traditional classroom. The following
is what I have learned about potential problems and possible solutions
to using SCMC in the classroom. This includes logistic considerations,
assessing student abilities, interaction, behavior, and task design considerations.
The first considerations when setting up a synchronous computer mediated
communication activity should be the logistics. In inter-classroom discussions,
or seeking native speakers in other countries, it may be difficult to
coordinate discussion time due to time zone differences. Find a class
that meets at the same time as your class, i.e., an 8am class in California
can meet with a 4pm class in France. (link to time zones website) Time
delay or lag in communication can cause frustration with students especially
when some participants are experiencing more than others. Consider carefully
if you have an Internet connection or server that is able to support synchronous
CMC. When considering what type of synchronous communication to use, it
is important to know that Internet Relay Chat and MOOs are free for users,
while local area networked software costs around $200 in addition to the
cost of networking computers in the same room together. On the other hand,
speed over a local server is usually faster than some Internet connections,
and often a local server can be more dependable than an outside connection
to the Internet. Student ability is another important consideration when
deciding to use SCMC. The biggest problem that students experience is
information overload(Negretti,1999). Often the cognitive task of reading
many messages and typing in their own message can be overwhelming. Separating
students into groups can help by reducing the number of contributions
a student must read. Making groups is possible in MOOs and LAN discussion
programs, but is next to impossible to set up in a traditional chat room.
Low computer and/or typing skills and low reading levels can also make
using SCMC very difficult(Snookes,1995). Blake's students reported that
one of the main problems with using SCMC was a lack of computing skills(2000).
It is very important to conduct student assessments before implementing
SCMC to make sure students have the literacy and typing skills needed.
As far as skills in the second language needed, the students need enough
language ability to negotiate meaning to benefit from SCMC interaction.
Hedge states that students need to be able to check for understanding
and to be able to request clarification (chapt. 8). This too, needs to
be assessed before implementing SCMC in the classroom. Once you have decided
that SCMC is appropriate for your students and considered the facilities
you have available, it is important to be prepared for the interaction
that occurs in SCMC. As I mentioned before, there in no turn taking in
SCMC. In one-to-one conversations more orderly turn taking can take place,
so if this is important for the task you have designed, consider using
an instant messenger such as ICQ or Yahoo! messenger. (Note: ICQ software
takes up a lot of space on your computers) The most practical advice may
be that if turn taking is important for your lesson, old-fashioned face-to-face
discussions will be more fruitful. The result of no turns, several threads
of conversation at once, can seem like chaos at first. Don't be put off
by it, give your students time to practice using this technology. Kelm
found that with a small amount of practice all her students were able
to follow along. They easily coped by ignoring some threads. They could
always go back and read saved versions later(1992). Another factor that
can make interaction difficult is the lack of a dominant social group
or person, which makes participation much freer and thus more difficult
to reach a consensus(Kroonenberg in Warschauer 1997a, Poster in Aoki,
1995). Information gap activities are a good task that requires negotiation
but not consensus. If consensus is necessary for the task you have designed,
try assigning group leaders, or roles for all the members, each with a
specific "job" or task to do.(Peyton, 1999) Consider carefully how much
you want to control the discussion and how you will do it. There are advantages
to letting students discuss topics on their own, but it is possible for
the teacher to control the conversation with "passing the talking stick"
types of activities, where only the person with "the floor" contributes.
(Peyton, 1999) Deciding what type of interaction you want will help you
decide what type of CMC you should use. Consider using asynchronous and
synchronous CMC together to make up for the weaknesses of each. (Lee,
1999) For example, E-mail discussion uses more complex structures, and
is easier to use if partners are in different time zones. Flaming occurs
less in e-mail, while chat has more social interaction. E-mail is also
more form focused, that is, students are more worried about their accuracy
than their content(Sotillo,2000). Another big problem with interaction
in SCMC is "flaming" and a-social behavior. Anonymity helps with participation,
but also contributes to inappropriate behavior such as swearing, insulting
others, and abusing others especially in a racially motivated way(Warshauer,1995,
Kelm, 1992, Peyton, 1999). This can become a serious problem and teachers
need to decide how to handle such behavior. "Time outs", (owners of chat
rooms can block people from participating; some chat rooms have feature
in which users can "vote" people off; after a certain number of requests,
a user will be blocked from the chat room) strict rules, and penalties
for hurtful language. While this is a problem that does not always arise,
more benign general goofing around, socializing, and testing the limits
of the forum will inevitably occur. Students want to know how free they
are to "speak" in the on-line discussions and many will test out how much
swearing or how many radical opinions they can get away with at first.
Kelm found that if she gave them a chance, they got it out of their systems
and calmed down(1992). Frizler Octavio also points out that when teaching
adults, even teachers, it is still necessary to give them time to get
the socializing and fooling around out of their systems. (lecture presented
2/21/01) If cliques form, and students begin to ignore others, Kelm suggests
using pseudonyms. Using fake names is also useful for discussing sensitive
topics. A final point about behavior on line is a reminder to teach "netiquette".
There is a community of speakers out there, with their own set of communication
conventions. As CMC becomes more a part of the workplace, academia, and
socializing, communicating effectively in this medium will be an important
skill in its own(Lundstrom). There are also issues in contacting native
speakers out in the real world, especially if there are young students
involved. Talk to your students about meeting strangers on the net and
about taking common sense precautions. The final consideration in using
SCMC is designing tasks in which to use with it. Since the benefit of
greater participation will be reinforced if the focus is on the meaning
of their interaction, make sure students know the focus of the discussion
is not on form. Correction of grammar or spelling during a discussion
will reduce participation and risk taking. Grammar lessons can be created
from the transcripts after the discussion is over.(Kelm, 1992) Teachers
should notify students when a discussion is being saved and should change
names on a transcript if using it as an example in later lessons(Frizler
Octavio lecture presented 2/21/01). Not only is participation necessary
in a good SCMC activity, but negotiation and interaction should be a part
of it as well. I found in observing on-line class discussions that many
students would concentrate on contributing a-social monologues rather
than building upon ideas put out by others. Moran also found this happening
in his investigation of SCMC as well(in Warschauer,1997a). It is necessary
to build interaction into any task. SCMC doesn't guarantee interaction
on its own. Swain found that jigsaw and information gap type activities
worked best in encouraging meaningful interaction(Holliday,1999). Finally,
when designing synchronous in-class discussions, Kelm recommends 1.5 hours
as the ideal length of time. She reports that many of the discussions
were just getting somewhere after an hour(1992). Blake's students also
reported that they often wanted more time to continue discussions and
complete tasks(2000). I hope the potential problems and solutions I have
described above will be helpful to teachers planning to implement SCMC
into their classrooms.
Based on my review of the research done so far, and the
research done in SLA and communicative competence, I believe that SCMC
can contribute to the development of oral fluency. In addition, the majority
of language learners who I surveyed that have used SCMC feel that it helped
them to develop their ability to communicate in their second language.
A distance-learning teacher told me about a woman who had taught herself
English through Internet chat alone (personal communication 2001). Another
second language learner expressed how chatting with a native speaker increased
her confidence and motivation in class. (Frizler Octavio, personal communication
2001) Yet another described how it helped to see language forms that are
rarely written down such as slang and casual speech(personal communication
,2001). Granted, statements like this are highly anecdotal, and my conclusions
are still a theory based on SLA and communication competence theory. There
needs to be research conducted on the actual improvement of communicative
competence after using SCMC for language learning, as compared to learners
using traditional oral production methods. While I have concluded that
SCMC is a useful tool in developing communicative competence, I also concede
that it is not complete with out actual oral production and practice.
I recommend that such a tool be used as part of a complete and variated
program, taking advantage of the strengths of practice in both type SCMC
and oral communication.
Aoki, K. (1995). Synchronous multi-user textual communication in international
tele-collaboration. Communication Institute for Online Scholarship,
Inc. Retrieved March 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web http://www.cios.org/getfile/Aoki_V5N495
Archee, R. (1993).Using computer mediated communication in an educational
context: Educational outcomes and pedagogical lessons of computer conferencing..
Vol. 3, No. 2. Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, Inc.
Retrieved March 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web.http://www.cios.org/getfile\archee_V3n293
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted
classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation
in slow motion. Foreign
Language Annals, 25(5), 455-464.
Blake, R. (2000).Computer mediated communication: A window on
L2 Spanish interlanguage Language Learning &
Technology Vol. 4, No. 1120-136 .Retrieved April 29, 2001
from the World Wide Web. http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html
Brown,H.D., Gonzo,S. (1995). Readings on
Second Language Acquisition. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents
Chun, D. (1994).
Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive
competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
Cook,
V. (1996). Second language Learning and Language Teaching. London:Arnold
Daedalus
Inc. (1989). Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment [computer program]
Austin, TX: Daedalus Group. http://www.daedalus.com/tech/docs.html
Egbert, J.and
Hanson-Smith, E.(1999). In Egbert and Hanson-Smith (Eds.) Call Environments:
Research, Practice, and Critical Issues. (17-26). Virginia: TESOL
Gass, S. (1997).
Input, Interaction, and the Second Language
Learner.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holliday,L.
(1999). Theory and research: input, interaction, and CALL. In Egbert
and Hanson-Smith (Eds.) Call Environments: Research, Practice, and
Critical Issues. (181-187). Virginia: TESOL
Kelm,
O. (1992). The use of syncronous computer networks in second language
instrucion: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25
(5), 441-454
Kern, R. (1995).
Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects
on quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language
Journal, 79(4), 457-476
Kitade, K.
(2000). L2 Learners' discourse
and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat.
Computer
Assisted Language Learning Volume 13,number 2, University of Hawai'i at Manoa,
Honolulu, USA Retrieved March
5, 2001, from the World Wide Web
Kwang-Kyu, K. (1996). Structural characteristics of computer-mediated language:
A comparative analysis of interchange. Discourse.Communication Institute
for Online Scholarship, Inc. Vol. 6, No. 3, 1996 Retrieved March 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web http://www.cios.org/getfile\Ko_V6N396
Lee, Cheol-Houn. (1999). An exploration of pedagogical implications of
using networked-based computer mediatied communication in the communicative
language classroom. Interpersonal Computing and Technology
Volume 7, Number 1-2 Retrieved
March 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~ipct-j/1999/n1-2/Lee.html
Lundstrom K.M.A. (date unknown). Will Internet talkers improve the communicative competence of ESL/EFL
students? Phoenix. University of Hawaii, Manoa Retrieved March 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web http://elicos.qut.edu.au/truna/Lan618/phoenix.txt
Maynor, N. (1994). The language of electronic mail:
written speech? In G.D. Little & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Centennial
Usage Studies (pp. 48-54). Tuscaloosa, AL: Al. UP.
Meloni,C.,
Shetzer, H., Warschauer,M..(2000). Internet for English Teaching.
Virginia: TESOL
Nagata, N.(1998). Input VS. output practice in educational software for
second language acquisition. Language Learning and Technology
. Vol.1. No.2, 23-40. Retrieved March 5, 2001, from the World
Wide Web http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt/vollnum2/article/default.html
Negretti, R.(1999) Web-based
activities and SLA: A conversation analysis research approach. Language
Learning & Technology Vol. 3, No. 1, 75-87 Retrieved March
5, 2001, from the World Wide Web. http://lltdraft4/default.html
or http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/negretti/index.html
Nunan, D. (1999). A foot
in the world of ideas: Graduate study through the Internet. Language Learning & Technology
Vol. 3, No. 1,52-74 Retrieved
March 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web http://polygot.cal.msu.edu/llt/vol3num1/nunan/index.html
Ortega, L. (1997) Processes and outcomes in networked
classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer
assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology Vol. 1, No. 1, 82-93. Retrieved
March 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web. http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/ortega/default.html
Peyton, J. (1999). Theory and research: Interaction via computers. In Egbert and Hanson-Smith (Eds.) Call Environments:
Research, Practice, and Critical Issues. (17-26). Virginia: TESOL
Salaberry,
M. R. (1996). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical
tasks in computer mediated communication. CALICO
Journal, 14,
5-34. Retrieved March 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web
Schmidt, R.
(1990). The role of consciousness in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 11, 219-258. Retrieved March 10, 2001,
from the World Wide Web
Shumin, K. (1997). Factors to consider: Developing Adult EFL Student’s
Speaking Abilities. English Teaching Forum 8-13
Snookes,P.(1995) CALL Review The
Journal of the IATEFL Computer Special Interest Group Retrieved
April 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web http://www.iatefl.org/calrevnv.html
Sotillo, S. M. (2000).Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in
synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning &
Technology.Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 82-119.Retrieved March 5, 2001,
from the World Wide Web. http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt
or http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html
Warschauer, M. (1995). Heterotopias, panopticons, and Internet discourse.
University of Hawai’i Working
Papers in ESL 14(1). 91-121. Retrieved March 5, 2001, from the
World Wide Web. http://lltdraft4/default.html
http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/heterotopias.html
Warschauer,
M. (1996a). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the
second language classroom. CALICO Journal 13(2/3), 7-26. Retrieved
April 4, 2001, from the World Wide Web.
http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/comparing.html
Warshauer, M. (1996b). Moticational
aspects of using computers for writing and communication: Using the
Internet for Interactive Text-Based Communication and Learning Activities.
Second Language Teaching
& Curriculum Center
University of Hawai`i Retrieved March 10, 2001, from the World
Wide Web
Warschauer, M. (1997a).Computer-mediated
collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal,
81(3), p. 470-481. Retrieved March 5, 2001, from the World Wide
Web. http://lltdraft4/default.html
or http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/cmcl.html
Warschauer,
M. and Whittaker, P.F..(1997b) The Internet for English Teaching: Guidelines
for Teachers. TESL Reporter
30,1. 27-33 Retrieved March 10, 2001, from the World Wide Web
http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Articles/Warschauer-Internet.html
Warschauer,
M. (1998).Interaction, negotiation, and computer-mediated learning.
In M. Clay (Ed.), Practical applications of educational technology
in language learning. Lyon, France: National Institute of Applied
Sciences. Retrieved March 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web.
http://lltdraft4/default.html and http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/default.html
Young, R. (1988). Computer-assisted language learning conversations: negotiating
an outcome. CALICO Journal, 5, 65-81. Retrieved March 3, 2001, from the World Wide Web
Appendix A
Student Survey
Arianne Nichol Spring 2001
Attitudes and skills in using computers
Mailbox: Hum. 101
arianne_nichol@yahoo.com
Level ________
Age ________ Sex
________
Native Language__________________________
Home Country___________________________
Please rate your typing ability:
poor_____ fair______ good_______ very good_________
Please rate your knowledge
of computers:
poor_____ fair______ good_______ very good________
Do you have a computer at home? yes______ (for how long?____________)
no_______
Have you ever used a computer to do the following things?:
Word Processing: in English: a lot_______ a little _________ never__________
in Native Lang.: a
lot_______ a little _________
never__________
E-mail: in English: a lot_______
a little __________never__________
in Native Lang: a lot_______ a little _________ never__________
MOOs(virtual reality chat
room):in English: a lot_______ a little _________
never__________
in Native Lang: a lot_______ a little _________ never__________
Chat rooms: in English: a lot_______
a little _________ never__________
in Native Lang: a lot_______ a little _________ never__________
World Wide Web: in English: a lot_______ a little _________ never__________
in Native Lang: a lot_______ a little _________ never__________
Would you like to come to
a workshop to learn how to use Internet (text)Chat?
yes _____ no _____
Arianne Nichol Survey p.2 2001
For each of the remaining
questions, please write a number (1-5):
1=strongly disagree 2= disagree 3= neutral 4=agree 5=strongly agree
Write N/A on any questions that do not apply to you.
For example, if you have never used chat, write N/A in number 4.
1.
___ I enjoy using the computer to communicate with
people around the world.
2.
___ I enjoy using the computer to communicate with
my classmates.
3.
___ Communicating by computer is a good way to improve
my English.
- ___ Using Chat helps me learn slang and casual speech.
5.
___ Using e- mail & chat is a good way to learn
more about different people and cultures.
6.
___ Using a computer is worth the time and effort.
7.
___ I am more afraid to contact people by e- mail than
in person.
8.
___ If I have a question or comment, I would rather
contact my teacher in person than by e- mail.
9.
___ Using a Chat room helps me to practice conversations
in English.
- ___ Using Chat helps me feel more comfortable speaking
to native speakers.
- ___ Using e- mail and the Internet makes me feel part
of a community.
12.
___ Using a computer gives me more chances to read
and use real English.
13.
___ Learning how to use computers is important for
my career.
14.
___ I can learn English more independently when I use
a computer.
- ___ Computers are usually very frustrating to work with.
Please add any comments about
learning English on the computer on the back of this page.
If you finish this survey
after class, please return it to my mailbox in Hum 101 anytime before
MAY 10th.
Thank you so much for your
participation.
If you would like to see the results of this survey,
you can see my website at http://www.geocities.com/arianne_nichol/
Adapted from Mark Warschauer(1996) Motivational
Aspects of Using Computers For Writing and Communication Second
Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Univ. of Hawaii, Manoa.
Appendix B
Survey Results
47 students surveyed
Level high
intermediate
Age __19-32______
Sex _M: 43%__F:57%_____
Native Language_93% Asian, 4% Spanish, 3% Polish___
Please rate your typing ability:
poor_26%____ fair_367%_____ good__33%_____ very
good__4%___
Please rate your knowledge
of computers:
poor__24%___ fair__46%____ good__28%___ very good___2%___
Do you have a computer at home? yes__83%_ (for how long?_1-7 years__)
no___17%_
Have you ever used a computer to do the following things?:
Word Processing: in English: a lot__48%__ a little ___50%____ never__2%______
in Native Lang.: a
lot___25%_ a little ___28%___
never___15%____
E-mail: in English: a lot___52%_ a little ____46%___never____2%____
in Native Lang: a lot___61%_ a little ___28%____ never____11%____
MOOs(virtual reality chat
room):in English: a lot___7%___ a little
___22%____never____57_%___
in Native Lang: a lot___17%__ a little ___11%___ never_____65%___
Chat rooms: in English: a lot___9%___
a little ___37%___ never____54%____
in Native Lang: a lot___24%__ a little ___20%___ never_____52%___
World Wide Web: in English: a lot___54%__ a little ___44%_____never____2%___
in Native Lang: a lot___59%__a
little ____24%___ never____15%____
Would you like to come to
a workshop to learn how to use Internet (text)Chat?
yes _____ no _____
Arianne Nichol
Survey p.2 2001
For each of the remaining questions, please write a
number (1-5):
1=strongly disagree 2= disagree 3= neutral 4=agree 5=strongly agree
Write N/A on any questions that do not apply to you.
For example, if you have never used chat, write N/A in number 4.
1.
___ I enjoy using the computer to communicate with
people around the world.
2.
___ I enjoy using the computer to communicate with
my classmates.
3.
___ Communicating by computer is a good way to improve
my English.
- ___ Using Chat helps me learn slang and casual speech.
5.
___ Using e- mail & chat is a good way to learn
more about different people and cultures.
6.
___ Using a computer is worth the time and effort.
7.
___ I am more afraid to contact people by e- mail than
in person.
8.
___ If I have a question or comment, I would rather
contact my teacher in person than by e- mail.
9.
___ Using a Chat room helps me to practice conversations
in English.
- ___ Using Chat helps me feel more comfortable speaking
to native speakers.
- ___ Using e- mail and the Internet makes me feel part
of a community.
12.
___ Using a computer gives me more chances to read
and use real English.
13.
___ Learning how to use computers is important for
my career.
14.
___ I can learn English more independently when I use
a computer.
- ___ Computers are usually very frustrating to work with.
Please add any comments about
learning English on the computer on the back of this page.
If you finish this survey
after class, please return it to my mailbox in Hum 101 anytime before
MAY 10th.
Thank you so much for your
participation.
If you would like to see the results of this survey,
you can see my website at http://www.geocities.com/arianne_nichol/
Adapted from Mark Warschauer(1996) Motivational
Aspects of Using Computers For Writing and Communication Second
Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Univ. of Hawaii, Manoa.
The above chart shows the degree of agreement with the
questions listed above in the survey. A value of 1 corresponds to strong
disagreement and a value of 5 corresponds to strong agreement.
Yellow: Students who have used SCMC before
Red: Students who have not used SCMC before
Blue: Average response from total group.
Appendix C
Results of
Kwang-Kyu Study
Kwang-Kyu, K. (1996). Structural characteristics of computer-mediated
language: A comparative analysis of interchange. Discourse.Communication
Institute for Online Scholarship, Inc. Vol. 6, No. 3, 1996 Retrieved
March 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web
http://www.cios.org/getfile\Ko_V6N396
The following charts illustrate the linguistic
features of speech, writing and SCMC that Kwang-Kyo compared in the
study cited above. The results are split into three parts: Patterns
of comparison where SCMC and speech exhibited more frequency of features
than in writing, patterns where SCMC exhibited features more frequently
than either speech or writing and a third pattern, where SCMC exhibited
features less frequently than either speech or writing.
The conclusion that I draw from the
results is that SCMC is a unique combination of linguistic features
found in both speech and writing, but more importantly, that in all
of these comparisons, SCMC is closer to speech than it is to writing.
|