Potential and pitfalls of speech-based CMC

1. Potential and pitfalls of speech-based CMC Eurocall 2005 Cracow Sake Jager University of Groningen

2. Introduction • Potential of speech-based CMC for language learning • Project in 3 Dutch HE institutions involving use of Horizon Wimba speech tools • Analysis of applications developed, consultation teachers, questionnaire (not yet completed) • Part of PhD research on implementation of CALL in ‘blended’ learning environment

3. Student-student Student Student-content Student-teacher Deep and meaningful learning Teacher Content Teacher-content Content-content Teacher-teacher Modes of interaction (Garrison and Anderson) From: Garrison, D. R. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice, p. 43. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

4. Garrison and Anderson (cont’d) • Six forms of interaction: teacher-student student-student, student-content, teacher-content, teacher-teacher, content-content. • Interaction: bi-directional, applicable to any type of learning • Interaction should contribute to: Cognitive presence, social presence, teaching presence

5. Language learning setting • University of Groningen, University of Tilburg, Hanze University Groningen • Use of computers together with classroom-based learning and teaching: ‘blended’ language learning environment • VLE: Blackboard • Technology provides extra flexibility, increases the range of choices for teaching and learning (cf. Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible Learning in a Digital World. Abingdon, Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer).

6. Horizon Wimba • Voice email: Recorded email messages to one or more recipients. Written text possible. • Voiceboard: Asynchronous discussion boards for spoken messages. New threads for new topics. Access restriction possible. • Voice conferences: Synchronous chatting based on speech; Text support possible; one person at a time; virtual hand-raising mechanism. • Voice announcements: Announcements in speech rather than writing. • Voice authoring: Pre-recorded speech to describe objects, processes, etc.

7. Wimba Pilot • Provide more speech in text-based VLE (enhance ‘language experience’) • Announcements and instructions in speech • CMC-based language learning tasks (building on examples from text-based CMC, cf. Warschauer and Kern (2000)) • Primarily intended for teacher-student and student-student interaction (Garrison and Anderson) • Uses different than expected • Teachers keen on using Wimba

8. Examples Wimba applications • Hanze University: International Business and Languages, Spanish: • Voiceboards • Students presentations, Group reports, Discussion, Interviews • Open and closed activities • University of Groningen: Dept of German, Oral proficiency • Voiceboards • Summaries of presentations in class • Teacher feedback • University of Groningen: Dept of English, Oral proficiency • Voiceboards • Reading out text for pronunciation • Referral to web sites where pronunciation of words and phrases can be found

9. Preliminary findings • Primarily voiceboards • Recordings of single contributions • Alternating speakers sharing a microphone in a singel thread • Devices for storing and playback of recorded speech. • Not many applications for discussion • Unidirectional communication; of students to teacher or of students to peers. • Communication often prepared, scripted by teachers or students • Range from pronunciation exercises to semi-open tasks. • Stimulus-response type exercises, though not strictly behavouristic • Different notion of distance • Away from class • Students not removed from each other (even NS on campus) • Organisational and logistical advantages • Not always teaching innovation • Time-saving for teachers • Ease of recording

10. Types of interaction used • Student-teacher and student-student interaction to elicit feedback • Interaction offline, recorded and submitted online • Student-content interaction by individual students with content prepared in advance by teachers • Focus on providing cognitive presence, less on social presence, no use for teaching presence (no announcements)

11. Conclusion • Social presence established in the classroom • Negotiation of meaning not much in evidence online; likely to have occurred in offline (classroom or on campus) • Uses of speech-based CMC are different in classroom-based vs distance-based environment • Qualitative differences between sound and written text also important: • Status spoken vs written announcements • Text can be scanned and ignored at will; sound is linear, requires explicit opening and listening to • Speech-based CMC in classroom causes interference, delays in transmission, etc. (no problem with text-based CMC)

12. Further information • Contact: s.jager@rug.nl, +31 50 363 59 21 • References: • Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible Learning in a Digital World. Abingdon, Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer. • Garrison, D. R. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer. • Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.