Computer-Mediated Communication in South Asian Language Instruction

1. Computer-Mediated Communication in South Asian Language Instruction SALRC Pedagogy Workshop June 7, 2005 J. Scott Payne Penn State University jspayne@psu.edu

2. Role of Output in SLA • "Noticing" - make learners aware of gaps in their knowledge. • Test hypotheses, experiment with new structures and forms. • Internalization of new forms and increased control over previously internalized forms. • Enhance fluency through practice. Swain (1985); Swain & Lapkin (1995)

3. Synchronous + communicative urgency + presence - processing constraints Tools: IRC-style chat Immediate display-style chat (ICQ) Instant Messaging Asynchronous + distance/reflection + depth of engagement - volume issues Tools: Email/listservs Threaded discussion Weblogs Wikis Comparing CMC Modalities & Tools

4. Chatroom Tasks & Pedagogy • Chatroom Task Types: • Structured - jigsaw task, role-play, info-gap • Unstructured - discussion of text, open-ended question, free topic • Pedagogical Issues: • Group size • Level • Activity Type

5. Chat Activity 1 - Liar, Liar • One person makes a statement such as “My sister-in-law has eight children.” Other members of the group must ask questions to determine whether this statement is true or not (e.g. “what are their names?”). The objective is to formulate a question that would be difficult to answer if the person is lying. Once you are certain that the person is lying (though he/she may be telling the truth), then you can accuse them of lying.

6. Chat Activity 2 Respond to the following quote: “All education is distance education, that is until we learn how to fuse our brains together.” Gregory Farrington, Middlebury College, June 2000.

7. Characteristics of Chatroom Discourse • Increased monitoring of language - focus on accuracy • More monitoring of language output and input • No turn-taking rules, hence more output • Participation = attendance • Requires language for communication • Decreased speed of conversation • Non-ephemeral nature of chatroom conversation.

8. Findings from CMC Research • Students tend to produce more complex language in chatrooms than in face-to-face conversational settings (Warschauer, 1996; Kern, 1995). • Increase in social equity and learner participation (Warschauer, 1996; Kern, 1995; Chun, 1994; Cummins & Sayers, 1995). • Improved attitudes towards the target language (Healy-Beauvois, 1992; Warschauer, 1996; Kern, 1995; Chun, 1994). • Increase in the total production of language by students (Kern, 1995, Warschauer, 1996)

9. Findings from CMC Research Cont’ • Restructuring of interlanguage over time(Chun, 1994; Sotillo, 2000) • Expansion of authentic discourse options available to learners(Kinginger 1998, 1999, 2000; Thorne, 2000) • May assist the noticing of lexical gaps and promote communicative output(Blake, 2001) • Increase affordances for cultural contact, conflict, and development(Belz, 2001; Kramsch & Thorne, 2001; Warschauer & Kern, 2000) • Indirectly improve oral proficiency(Payne & Whitney, 2002; Payne & Ross, to appear)

10. Conversation & Memory • Schema • Socio-pragmatics Topic Knowledge

11. Conversation & Memory • Schema • Socio-pragmatics Topic Knowledge Lexical Knowledge • Lexical access • Phonological encoding • Grammatical encoding

12. Conversation & Memory LTM • Schema • Socio-pragmatics Topic Knowledge Lexical Knowledge • Lexical access • Phonological encoding • Grammatical encoding

13. Conversation & Memory LTM • Schema • Socio-pragmatics Topic Knowledge Topic Knowledge Lexical Knowledge Lexical Knowledge Discourse Record Macro/Micro-level planning • Lexical access • Phonological encoding • Grammatical encoding

14. Conversation & Memory LTM • Schema • Socio-pragmatics Topic Knowledge Topic Knowledge Lexical Knowledge Lexical Knowledge Discourse Record Macro/Micro-level planning • Lexical access • Phonological encoding • Grammatical encoding Memory Resources Communicative Behavior

15. Developing L2 Speaking Ability • Speaking ability is improved by practice speaking – in a variety of situational contexts and on a range of topics with diverse socio-pragmatic requirements.

16. Study of Transfer from Chatting to Speaking (Payne & Whitney, 2002) • Hypothesis: chatting will develop the same cognitive mechanisms underlying L2 speech. • 58, third-semester Spanish students • Quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest design • Control: four hours/week of classroom instruction • Experimental: 2 hours chat, 2 hours classroom • Curriculum was the same for both conditions. • Oral proficiency measured in weeks 2 and 15 • Working memory measured in week 2

17. Results • Oral proficiency increased more for experimental group. • Role of working memory in oral proficiency development. • Conversational “bootstrapping” effect

18. Chatting and Speaking • How do speaking and chatting differ? • Speaking is faster • Speech is ephemeral • Oral/aural versus textual • Presence/Absence of paralinguistics • Enhanced monitoring of language input and output (Kelm, 1992; Payne & Whitney, 2002) • Helps students chunk language better (Kelm, 1992)

19. Implications for L2 Oral Proficiency Development • Teaching L2 speaking only via F2F interaction may actually disadvantage a significant portion of our students. • Challenges for us as teachers: • design activities that reduce the cognitive burden placed on students. • Question our assumptions about L2 instruction.

20. Reducing Cognitive Demands • Pre-task planning • Transform the cognitive constraints of conversational exchange. • Use technology in a principled fashion.

21. Integrating CMC into Language Instruction • Coordinated use of Synchronous and Asynchronous CMC (Payne, 2004). • Curriculum sequence: • Asynchronous discussion followed by real-time discussion of the same topic. • Real-time discussion can be f2f or in a chatroom.

22. Configurations & Dynamics • Intra-class interaction: whole class and small groups • Similar level: + volume of L, classroom culture, modality shifts • Inter-class interaction: within or across institutions • Differing levels: + near peer role models, peer editing, projects • International interaction: FLL as x-cultural travel • Mark Twain: “I was greatly discouraged …” • Cost-efficient access to expert speakers • To embed FLL in development of meaningful relationships

23. Cultura Project • Uses word-association, asynchronous discussion, and sentence-completion exercises to illustrate cultural differences. • http://web.mit.edu/french/culturaNEH/

24. Weblogs in FL Instruction • Weblog -- “blogs”: public journaling, personal narrative and reporting, opinions, comment feature • individually (or group) controlled • massive popular culture usage among youth • study abroad • Wiki: collaborative writing tool, universal write-access, distributed text production, • distributed expertise (wikipedia, collective fiction, pooled resources)

25. References • Payne, J.S. & Whitney, P.J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through sychronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20 (1), 7-32. Available online: http://php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/j/s/jsp17/articles/calico2002/ • Payne, J.S. (2004). Making the most of synchronous and asynchronous discussion in foreign language instruction. In R. Terry, L. Lomicka, and J. Cooke-Plagwitz (Eds.), Heinle Professional Series in Language Instruction: Teaching with Technology, 1 (pp. 155-161). Boston: Heinle. • Kelm, O.R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary study. Foreign Language Annals, 25 (5), 441-454. • Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. • Levelt, W.J.M. (1993). Language use in normal speakers and its disorders. In G. Blanken, J. Dittmann, H. Grimm, J. Marshall, & C. Wallesch (Eds.), Linguisitic disorders and pathologies: An international handbook (pp. 1-15). Berlin: de Gruyter.