Transcript Computer Mediated Communication

Computer Mediated Communication
LRC Workshop 12/9/02
Dick Feldman
Cornell University
Major forms of CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning)
•
•
•
•
Computer as drill-master
Computer as multimedia database
Computer as intelligent interlocutor
Computer as communication tool: CMC
Computer as drill-master
•
•
•
Computer (via programmer/author/teacher) is in control
Corresponds to ALM: students memorize, learn "habits"
Still good for morphology repair, but not very popular
Computer as multimedia database
Can be a simple audio/video library (our media library)
• Provides models of grammatical and communicative competence
as well as a vivid view of C2
• Can take many complex and interesting forms, associated with a
wide variety of tasks
• More sophisticated programs allow S to make choices, see
consequences, manipulate elements and create narratives
•
Computer as intelligent interlocutor
•
•
•
•
Few attempts at doing this across cultures
Simulations - cross-cultural?
Can we replace a teacher? A human being?
Implemented for limited uses where context is supportive and
limited: training tools, etc.
Computer as communication tool: CMC
•
•
•
Computer usually linked to LAN or WAN
Various communication tools available:
 IRC, IM, collaborative writing software, MOOs, email,
listserves, bulletin boards
Within class, among NNS, NS-NNS, across cultures,
collaborative learners
Why choose CMC technology?
•
“If we as educators perceive and value the role of peer talk in our
classrooms (Dyson, 1994), we should focus on software
environments like MOOs that make room for peer talk as well. If
we seek to negotiate a more permeable curriculum that makes
room for the diversity of cultural experience and materials that
students bring into the classroom (Dyson, 1993), we should
appreciate software environments like MOOs that allow for the
inclusion, manipulation, and presentation of these materials.”
McCallum, 1997
Types of CMC
•
•
►
-
Synchronous
 IRC, IM: Instant Messenger
 Collaborative Writing software: Daedalus, Aspects
 MOO (multiple object oriented): chat in places and with
things
Asynchronous
 Email
 Listserves
 Bulletin boards (text and voice)
Different communicative functions suited to different media preference for email, chat for certain purposes (don't email to
friends)
Different media for different pedagogical purposes and tasks
Distinguishing characteristics: less rich channel
•
•
•
•
•
•
No non-verbal cues (personal presence, voice, gender, dress, gestures, eye
contact)
Somewhere in between speaking and writing
No turn-taking competition - each can be composing at the same time
disadvantages - students write and leave persistent mistakes; no oral skills
practice
Generally a less rich channel - typed language only
But CMC channel is focused on language, not other factors
Distinguishing characteristics: Turn-taking
different than in F2F
•
•
•
•
No turn-taking competition
Turn-taking is difficult for a "dominator" to control
different rules from F2F for maintenance of topic focus as
threads are interwoven; this may cause incoherence
CMC [can] be simultaneously incoherent and enjoyable because
the availability of a persistent textual record of the conversation
renders the interaction cognitively manageable, hence offsetting
the major "negative" effect of incoherence in spoken interaction.
Herring, 1999
Distinguishing characteristics: persistence of
language in chat window
•
•
•
Communication process is slowed down by having to type
language is made persistent: S type in box, review before sending and can
scroll back to history
Coherence problems are largely alleviated by the ability to look back at the
history of the conversation
Research criteria and approaches
•
•
Criteria for evaluation of CALL: "Language learning potential, Learner fit, Meaning
focus, Authenticity (how much like real-life task) "impact" ("engage in sound
practices"), practicality. Chapelle, 2001.
"Three approaches to researching the use of computers in the language classroom are
distinguished [note the parallelism between the research approaches and CALL types drill-master, media database and CMC; as well as teaching methods - ALM,
communicative/function, and literacy/critical]:
 (1) the determinist approach views the effects of computer-assisted language learning
(CALL) as partially (pre-)determined by the power of the computer itself, implying that
only the extent of effects must be studied
 (2) the instrumental approach views technology as a tool to fulfill the purposes of its user,
suggesting that the computer is a neutral element of the language learning environment
whose influence can be assigned at will
 (3) the critical approach focuses on the effects of not only the computer as machine or
tool, but also on the effects of technology on the broader ecology of language learning. It
involves research of the literacies demanded by the new technologies & their interaction
with social (e.g., race & gender) & institutional factors, & is therefore found to require
interpretive qualitative methods, often based on ethnographic research, beside
quantitative & empirical test designs." Warschauer 1998.
Relevant Second Language Acquisition principles and CMC chat
•
•
•
•
Negotiation of meaning fosters comprehensible input and “pushes” output
Attention to form within the context of meaning creation is held by many
researchers in SLA to be essential to the building of a grammar by a learner
Learner output “can push learners from the more semantic type of language
processing required for comprehension to a more syntactic processing”
Pellettieri, 2000.
Implicit and explicit corrective feedback temporarily focus attention on form
NNS chat and learning new forms
•
"Overwhelmingly, the research on NNS interaction suggests that, whether
through interactional moves or more directly through corrective feedback, the
negotiation of meaning pushes learners' L2 abilities and produces
interactionally modified or 'pushed' output. Modified output of this type is
claimed not only to aid in the consolidation of existing linguistic knowledge,
that is, increased control over a form or structure (Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993;
Swain & Lapkin, 1995), but also to lead to the internalization of new linguistic
forms and structures (Pica, Holliday, Lewis, & Morgenthaler, 1989; Gass &
Varonis, 1994; Swain & Lapkin, 1995)." Pellettieri, 2000
Research shows that all this can occur in CMC chat with
the right task
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Learners provide explicit and implicit feedback (recasts)
"Learners incorporated 70% of target-like explicit feedback and 75% of the target-like
implicit feedback. . . " Pellettieri, 2000.
Evidence of monitoring in backspacing to make syntactic elaborations
Visual comparison heightens saliency of corrective recasts
Potentially defective NNS speech is more monitored than in F2F
Many studies show much more language produced in CMC than F2F - Kern, 1995
reports "two to three and a half times more turns"
More variety and complexity of discourse functions used by S in CMC than F2F
Several studies report students feeling more at ease in participating in discussion with
CMC than F2F
CMC chat is amenable to research, since it usually provides a transcript
Importance of Task
•
•
•
"Research by Crookes and Roulon (1985), Brock, Crookes, Day, and Long (1986); and
Pica et al. (1989) has proven that the interactional structure of NNS conversations is
both quantitatively and qualitatively affected by the type of task in which the learners
are involved: the negotiation of meaning and the resultant learner modifications are
much more prevalent in goal-oriented, task-based interaction than in casual
conversation. Furthermore, current research suggests that negotiation will have a
stronger effect on grammatical accuracy when the task demands rest crucially on the
correct interpretation or usage of the target language.” (Loschky & Bley-Vroman,
1993) Kern 95
"Tasks should be goal-oriented, with a minimum of possible outcomes, and they should
be designed in such a way that all participants are required to request and obtain
information from one another. . . " Pellettieri, 2000.
After meaning-focused communication task, use transcript to bring focus back to form,
though this is not the most desirable dual (form-meaning) context
Limitations
•
•
•
•
•
“a meaning-focused system may rely on an underdeveloped L2 system that will
perhaps prevent further development of the L2” Salaberry, 2000.
Attention to accuracy varies a lot among students
Depending on task, the instructor tends to lose direct control
Face-to-face writing feedback includes useful digressions that cmc does not.
Especially for beginners at chat, coherence may be difficult to maintain
because of the several concurrent threads.
CMC: the philosophical trade-offs
•
Questions about the “effectiveness” of InterChange use must
therefore be framed in terms of particular goals. Formal
accuracy, stylistic improvement, global coherence, consensus,
and reinforcement of canonical discourse conventions are goals
not well served by InterChange. Conversely, unfettered selfexpression, increased student initiative and responsiveness,
generation of multiple perspectives on an issue, voicing of
differences, and status equalization are supported by
InterChange. Teachers considering the use of InterChange need
to reconcile for themselves the inherent tension between these
sets of goals—which ultimately reduces to the tension between
the conservation of traditional roles and the destabilization of
hierarchy and power.” Kern, 1995.
Hands-on Task 1
•
•
Try synchronous CMC chat: discuss the role, tasks and effects of
NNS-NNS communication, F2F or not, in your program with
your assigned partner
Directions:
 Start up IM
 Log on with your assigned screen name
 Go find out the screen name of your partner
 Add your partner's screen name to your buddy list
 Double-click on your partner’s name to start chatting
 Chat on the topic for 20 minutes
MOO
•
•
“Multiple Object Oriented”
"For many of the people who use them, MUDs provide what
Erikson called a psychosocial moratorium . . . a time of intense
interaction with people and ideas . . . a moratorium . . . not on
significant experiences but on their consequences. Of course,
there are never human actions that are without consequence, so
therefore there is no such thing as a pure moratorium . . .
nevertheless . . . the experiences themselves feel removed from
the structured surroundings in one's normal life.” Haynes and
Holmevik, 1998.
“Objects”
•
•
•
Rooms – only chat with people in the same room
Notes
Things – gifts, texts, links, etc.
Descriptions
•
•
•
•
Text descriptions of all objects, including yourself, your room,
your notes, your gift
Can be viewed and closed; edited only by owner or group
Can include a graphic already on the web
Wizard manages accounts, “quota,” collection of transcripts, etc.
Goals of Cross-cultural CMC
•
•
•
•
Experience meaningful communication in L2
Learn content about C2
Experience the difficulty and confusion of cross-cultural
communication
Experience the "otherness" yet shared humanity of C2
individuals
Hands-on Task 2
•
With MOO objects in mind, brainstorm an environment for
cross-cultural CMC between the two cultures in your group
 Simple, direct, context-free chat may lead to confusion
 Think of cultural spaces that will provide equivalent
communication expectations for both cultures
•Restaurant? Dorm lounge? Student's home? Bubble tea
shop?
 Discuss how to design those spaces in the MOO
 Objects include rooms with text definitions, connected
images, and associated objects, like signs and bulletin
boards
MOO project instructions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Under the apple menu select "Applications>Browse the Internet"
Once you have started Internet Explorer, select "Vassar MOO
login" under "Favorites."
Enter your MOO user name. Password is cmc
Scroll down to Cornell Campus, then to CMC Workshop, then to
your assigned room
Greet and start chatting with the others there
Hints
 click on "look" to update the screen and see who’s there
 You may have to click again in the (lower left) chat box to
type
 press the "say" button to chat
Limitations of Cross-cultural CMC
 Principles of successful conversation
 "Grounding" - "The contributor and his or her partners mutually believe
that the partners have understood what the contributor meant to a
criterion sufficient for current purposes" Clark and Brennan 1991 from
Salaberry, 2000.
 "Footing" vous/tu
 Alignment with interlocutors
 affective stance - feeling, attitude, emotional intensity
 epistemic stance - ironic, tongue-in-cheek, commitment to truth
 Three knowledge bases or strategies (Kramsch, 2002): negotiation of
meaning with grammar, vocabulary and "context" (send them abroad);
sociolinguistic rules of deference and distance ("Can we distinguish
them on the screen?"); camaraderie - openness and politeness
Problem examples from Belz, 2002:
•
•
•
personal relationship building versus completing assignments ->
"Germans are lazy."
different modes of academic organization - small assignments
versus long-term projects
Differences in technology access and assumptions about
technology access
Possible solutions to problems with cross-cultural CMC
•
•
Teacher needs to take an active role in helping students interpret
cross-cultural CMC
Buffer direct interaction with structured, contextualized tasks
Teach Intercultural competence
Don't model cultural attitudes or skills on (possibly ethnocentric)
native speaker
• Cultural learners need greater intercultural skills
 intercultural attitudes - willingness to relativize
 knowledge - of how cultures differ and about C2
 skills of interpreting and relating
•
•
explain a document, relate it to one's own
 skills of discovery
acquire new knowledge of a culture and cultural practices in real
time
•
 critical cultural awareness of C1 and C2 Byram, 2001.
CULTURA Project
•
•
•
Buffered, focused, specific activities
 both groups react to parallel words, phrases and situations,
then compare reactions
 read responses in L2, discuss in L2, respond in L1
 Bulletin board for responses
Broad cultural study - films, census, surveys
See complete explanation at
http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/furstenberg/default.html
Bulletin board
•
•
•
•
•
Topics and Threads
Describe a proposed CMC project in your program
Then react to others'
These will remain online, open to other CU teachers to think
about
Speculation about video - richer channel better?
Bulletin board hands-on instructions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Go back to Internet Explorer
Click on “Home>Events and Scheduling>Events>LRCsponsored Bulletin Board
Click on the title of a message to view it
When you are viewing a message, click on "Post" to post a reply
to it, to continue the same "thread."
To start your own thread, click on "Topic Home" and then "Post."
Please fill out the paper workshop evaluation before leaving for
lunch