Computer Mediated Communication

1. Computer Mediated Communication LRC Workshop 12/9/02 Dick Feldman Cornell University

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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 self-expression, 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.

19. 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

20. 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.

21. “Objects” • Rooms – only chat with people in the same room • Notes • Things – gifts, texts, links, etc.

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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

31. 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?

32. Bulletin board hands-on instructions • Go back to Internet Explorer • Click on “Home>Events and Scheduling>Events>LRC-sponsored 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