ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES FROM OPPORTUNTIES IN CALL CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENTS

Hee-Jung Jung
heejungmail@yahoo.com
Abstract
_____________________
This qualitative study explores two K-12 computer assisted language learning (CALL) classroom environments in Korea. The data analysis exposes many advantages and disadvantages from the opportunities provided in the CALL classroom environments. Also, this study discusses technology integration in the CALL classroom environments and changing teachers’ roles. In the light of these findings, some implications are presented.
____________________
Introduction
In a classroom learning environment, students and teachers interact with each other and use a variety of tools and informational resources in their pursuit of learning activities (Wilson, 1996). Although the attributes of space are important, classroom environments are not limited to its physical space. The classroom environment is the interaction among space and activities that impact student learning. Teachers and students change, adapt, and impact the environment in many different ways.
There has been a gradual shift in educational literatures that is taking much of the focus away from teaching and redirecting it instead towards learning. Along with this shift in thinking, there has recently emerged a reinterest in the notion of classroom learning environments. Seminal studies (e.g., Fraser, 1986, 1987; Fraser & Walberg, 1991; Wilson, 1996) claim that learning can be fully understood only when it is examined within the context in which it occurs, and the relationships between learning and student perceptions of the classroom environment are generally positive. In other words, classroom environments greatly affect learning. However, while there are many current theoretical papers, there is relatively little empirical research on classroom environments. Therefore, it is important to explore classroom environments to understand experiences that lead to learning.
Furthermore, language classroom environments have rapidly integrated information and communication technology (ICT). During the late 1990s, the question of technology use gradually changed from “Should the computer be used in language teaching?” to “How can the computer best be used in language teaching?” (Chapelle, 2001, p.1). This shift implied that technology was not optional in language classrooms any more. In Warschauer’s (1999) ethnographic research, students in technology-enhanced, language-learning classrooms acquired both language and technology skills at the same time. He indicated that students viewed technology not as a secondary or optional tool, but as a critical tool that added value to language education.
With this trend, research on language learning has increasingly called attention to classroom environments. For example, some researchers investigate individual components of the classroom contexts in which language learning occurs (e.g., Warschauer, 2002). In this 58
regard, many researchers (e.g., Basena & Jamieson, 1996; Warschauer, 2000) found that language learning environments involving autonomous learning, collaborative learning, and the development and practice of language learning strategies motivate students to continue learning inside and outside the classroom. Also, some researchers examine classroom language to investigate the quality of the discourse that learners take part in through their oral and written texts (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 1987; Long, 1996). In these research studies, the focus of the research has been on the quality of the input to learners, their interactions, and their output (Gass & Lakshmanan, 1991). For example, Krashen’s (1985) hypothesis about the value of “comprehensible input,” and Long’s (1996) research demonstrating the importance of interaction have attempted to understand the input and conversational interaction that learners are exposed to during second language instruction. Discussions of learners’ sensitivity to input features have been a common theme in the field of SLA. Bardovi-Harlig (1997) claimed that input frequency can override the assumed difficulty of learning marked features, and Gass and Lakshmanan (1991) found a correlation between (ungrammatical) input and output data. The goal was to identify the environmental conditions under which ideal input and interactions take place (Chapelle, 1997).
Additionally, researchers have looked at language-learning tasks as a component of language learning environments (e.g., Crookes, 1989; Davis & Chang, 1994). Without denying the importance of linguistic outcomes, researchers placed greater emphasis on the type and amount of target language use and interaction that learners engaged in to provide evidence for the quality of classroom instruction. Consequently, these studies describe the language learning atmosphere and interaction in language classrooms. Mostly they found the following: “Time spent on learner talk is better than time spent on teacher talk; learners should have the opportunity to comprehend a variety of functions in the target language; learners should engage in communicative exchanges in the target language” (Chapelle, 1997, p.27). We can note that the researchers have tried to understand the learning context by avoiding studying simple cause and effect relationships.
In short, all research cited above has been investigating the environmental elements of language learning, rather than only focusing on the linguistic elements or learning outcomes of treatments. However, there is little research that discusses more than one environmental element. Although most studies investigated environmental elements rather than discrete skills, language learning cannot be described by only one environmental component. For example, motivation does not occur alone. It has complex connections with other components. Therefore, the exploration of language classroom environments should focus on multiple components for optimal language learning.
Besides, to date, the majority of research studies in the fields of SLA and CALL have focused on the benefits and/or possibilities of utilizing specific computer applications in language classrooms. For example, the evaluation of technology used in the language classroom often has looked at a program’s characteristics such as fancy graphics, sounds, or special effects, rather than examining the pedagogy, methodology, and structures that create the foundation for the effective use of the technology. More recently, research has focused primarily on students’ or teachers’ technological preferences rather than on the effectiveness of the use of technology in language learning environments. In other words, rather than conducting rigorous research on the effectiveness of CALL classroom environments to understand students’ and teachers’ experiences there, many investigations focused on the technology itself or reported anecdotally on its use (Lui, Moore, Graham, & Lee, 2002). 59
Due to inattention regarding the central role of learning opportunities and the corresponding influence on student learning, the technocentric approach to the evaluation of the effectiveness of CALL has proven unsatisfactory (Doughty, 1987). Therefore, much of the CALL literature (Chapelle, 1997, 1998; Doughty, 1991; Salaberry 1996, 2000; Salomon 1991; Warchauer, 2000, 2002) highlights the limitations of current CALL research and stresses the importance of examining language learning environments rather than the technology itself. To clarify the effectiveness of the technology, it is necessary to evaluate learning environments based on empirical observations. More importantly, it is imperative to include multiple environmental constructs when evaluating language learning. However, there is still little research that discusses language-learning environments with more than one environmental construct.
Salomon (1997) points out that effective research on technology in classrooms should encompass each and every aspect of the classroom with the reflection on social climates rather than any single aspect. He emphasizes that the focus of research on technology in classrooms should pertain to two highly interrelated entities—the individual and the learning environment—because what we really want to study is the changes in individuals within a learning environmental context that changes as well. Sheigold (1987) argues the necessity of considering the interaction between technology and learning environments that surround them due to the multiplicity of complex interactions in language classroom environments. Therefore, to understand the impact of technology in language learning, we must examine language classroom environments and investigate what extra benefit that students experience or what students miss out on the opportunities in the CALL classroom environments.
The Study
As discussed above, we need broad empirical research of how the technology used in classrooms affects the language-learning environment and what changes are experienced in language classrooms with technology. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore opportunities that teachers create to help EFL students learning English in CALL classroom environments. To achieve the purpose of this study, two main research questions were considered: (1) how and why do they use technology in CALL classrooms? and (2) what are the advantages and disadvantages from opportunities in CALL environments?
To conduct this study, the sites of this study were one elementary and one middle school in Korea. One English classroom from each of two different schools was selected: a 5th grade EFL classroom and an 8th grade EFL classroom. The selected schools were networked, and the EFL teachers regularly used technology as a primary instructional tool in their language classrooms. Additionally, all students learned English as a foreign language as a part of their regular curriculum and were exposed to CALL classroom environments.
A qualitative study was conducted to obtain a narrative, thick, descriptive interpretation of advantages and disadvantages from opportunities in two CALL classroom environments. A qualitative methodology was selected for this study because, rather than aiming to test research hypotheses, the purpose of this study is to explore natural classroom phenomenon through fieldwork. In other words, I wanted to generate data rich in detail concerning the language-learning environments. Thick descriptions of CALL environments provide clear understandings of the learning environments. In other words, I wanted to explore the CALL environments by illustrating what was going on in the classrooms and what teachers and students experienced rather than comparing which technological application was more effective or evaluating which 60
one was appropriate to teach discrete skills. Therefore, qualitative research methodologies were appropriate and supportive to describe the language learning environments.
To enhance the integrity and trustworthiness of the data collected in the aforementioned classrooms, the process of triangulation was employed. Specifically, semi-structured interviews were used to gain information from the two teachers and ten students involved in the study. In addition, observations of learning environments with technology and a collection of documents were employed to facilitate the triangulation process. The interviews were conducted individually and tape-recorded. For each observation, a checklist with eight conditions proposed by Egbert (1993) was used with a complete field notes description. Documents included lesson plans, students’ products, textbooks, and handouts.
During the process of data analysis, tape-recorded interviews, observational notes, and documents were transcribed, organized, and read to reveal relevant categories. My main categorizing strategy in the qualitative research was coding. For initial coding, I looked for what I could define and discover in the data, based on the research questions. Field notes and transcriptions were coded with colored pencils to identify different themes. After the initial coding, I identified meaning units with the same code and put themes together into excerpt files by cutting and pasting with the aid of a computer. I put all of this information together into an overall coherent framework. Eventually, the data were analyzed to answer the research questions in the overall framework.
CALL Classrooms
The 5th Grade CALL Classroom
Every English class in Korean elementary schools uses the same textbook, which was developed by the Ministry of Education (MOE). The textbook is accompanied by software and a teacher’s guidebook. The software, written in English, mirrors the content of the textbook; characters and activities in the textbook appear in the software and in the same order. The teacher’s guidebook includes class objectives, materials, and instructions for each lesson in detail.
During the two months of data collection, the 5th grade teacher finished three complete lessons from the text. During the term, the class was sometimes cancelled due to teachers’ seminars and school events. The teacher adapted a lesson plan by the MOE for each lesson to understand what she needed to teach. As shown in Figure 1, each lesson plan was comprised of whole lesson goals, objectives in each area (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), functions of communication and language rule, vocabulary words, activities, and evaluations. To finish one lesson, it usually took two weeks (four class hours). Lesson 12 This is a Bedroom
Lesson Goal Students will describe their house. In this lesson, students will learn useful expressions and vocabulary words to introduce their houses.
Objectives Listening Students can listen and understand about house structure in English
Speaking Students can speak about the house structure
Reading Students can read short words relating to the theme “house” (bedroom, kitchen, living room, bathroom, backyard, house)
Writing
Students can write simple vocabulary words of objects in house. (Table, Desk, Chair)
Functions of communication
Description
Function of communication and language rule
Language rule
This is __________________.
Where is ________________?
Vocabulary
Backyard, bathroom, bedroom, cook, future, house, kitchen, living room, spoon, dish
Class
Pages
Focus
Activity
1
p.96-97
Look and Listen
Listen and Repeat
Let’s play
􀂃 Review with picture cards
􀂃 Listen and repeat after software
􀂃 Guessing game
2
p.98-99
Look and Speak
Listen and Repeat
Let’s Chant
Let’s Play
􀂃 Listen and speak with software
􀂃 Chant “This is a Living Room”
􀂃 House game
3
p.100-101
Let’s read
Let’s Write
Let’s Play
􀂃 Read and write the words
􀂃 Game
Plans
4
P102-103
Activity
Review
􀂃 Students’ presentation about their houses
􀂃 Review
Evaluation & Notice
􀂃 Students need to understand the differences between our house and houses in other countries.
􀂃 Students’ presentations of “my house” will be evaluated.
Figure 1. A lesson plan developed by MOE and included in the teacher’s guidebook. It explains the goals and plans for the lesson (translated to English).
Before the students came to the classroom, the teacher set up her computer and projected the lesson onto a big screen television, and the students’ computer monitors. She then looked around the classroom to make sure all the computer monitors were working. Also, she attached all picture cards that would be used in the class to the blackboard. She used the Internet to search for games and other useful materials for the classroom. She usually visited the MOE sites to download materials and share her ideas. The picture cards were from the textbook or the Internet and portrayed various situations or objects in the lesson.
When her students came to the classroom, the teacher always spent about seven minutes reviewing what the students had learned during the last class in both English and Korean. Even though the students had their own textbook, they usually did not carry it when they came to class because they looked at the big screen television or their own monitors instead of looking at their books. To teach a lesson, the teacher usually used software, the Internet, and picture cards. During the class, the students did various activities such as role-plays, games, group work, and individual presentations. The students usually knew what they needed to do and what would do next because the teacher always followed a similar format and order for each lesson. They also had various assignments such as writing vocabulary words, preparing presentations, and making
62
class materials. The teacher assigned each student to a seat and placed students with different levels of English together so that classmates could help each other practice what they learned or do assignments.
The 5th grade class focused mainly on speaking and listening. The MOE prohibits teaching grammar, reading and writing at this level to encourage students to learn English. However, the teacher sometimes explained simple grammar rules because she believed that it was helpful for students to understand the patterns. The class was energetic and noisy because the students moved around to dance, chant, sing, and act. The teacher evaluated her students based on her observations rather than paper tests because the MOE prohibits any written assessment in case it would have a negative impact on students’ interest in learning English.
The 8th Grade CALL Classroom
Unlike the 5th grade integrated textbook, the content of English textbooks in Korean middle schools varies. Private publishers make the textbooks, and the school principal of each school selects a textbook for the school. Publishers provide software with their textbooks. The class mainly uses the software that mirrored the contents of the textbook.
Before the class started, one student hooked up cables to be ready for the teacher’s notebook computer. The teacher came to the class with the notebook computer, not with the textbook. Unlike the 5th grade classroom, while the 8th grade teacher did not carry the textbook, the students always used their textbooks as workbooks to take notes during the lecture and to write answers for questions from the software.
After a short greeting, the teacher projected his computer screen onto a big screen television. When a new lesson was started, the teacher asked his students to guess what the lesson would be about and asked some questions related to the lesson. During the class, the students wrote down important notes or expressions from the teacher and the software in their textbooks. The students usually stayed at their desks and did not perform any group project during the class because it required a lot of time and the teacher needed to finish certain lessons arranged by the MOE so that the students would be ready for the national English exams that are taken twice each semester. During the observation period, the 8th graders finished two complete lessons. The teacher adapted a lesson plan by the MOE for each lesson (see Figure 2 for a lesson plan). The students practiced listening, speaking, reading and writing with the software and textbook. In the listening section, the students warmed up by responding to the teacher’s personal experiences related to the content. After that, they listened to a situation with the software and marked their answers to questions from the software in the book. The students and the teacher compared their answers. The listening questions had various patterns such as matching, short answers, drawing, a bingo game, puzzles, and multiple choices.
In the speaking section, the students listened to a situation and practiced with partners. Also, they composed a dialogue using given expressions. In the reading section, the students read articles that were related to the lesson and discussed them with the teacher. In the writing section, the students wrote answers to questions or filled blanks. Sometimes, they needed to write essays that related to the lessons. Between and after these sections, the teacher assigned his students to create some projects related to the lessons as homework.
The teacher visited the public and local MOE Web sites to share his ideas and get materials for his class. He also managed his own Web site. He always updated the lessons so that students could access the class lessons any time. His Web site was composed of a bulletin board, links, pictures, assignments, and supplemental materials. On the bulletin board, the students
63
could post their questions and reply to other classmates’ or the teacher’s questions any time. In the picture site, the teacher posted pictures of his family and students. In the assignment site, the students could submit their own assignments through the web site or by email.
Lesson
Lesson 8 I’d Like a Cheeseburger
p. 147-149
Goals
1. Students can guess the content of lesson 8 based on their experiences
2. Students can understand the conversation about ordering in the fast food restaurant
Tools
Software, fast-food restaurant advertising posters, pictures, textbook
Steps
Opening:
Guess what?
(10 minutes)
1. Share experiences about fast-food restaurants
2. Discuss the content with the picture of “Guess what “ on page 147
Development:
Let’s listen
(30 minutes)
1. Look at the picture on page 148
2. Guess the situation
3. Listen to dialogues twice
4. Ask questions to make sure that students understand the dialogue
5. Respond to questions from software about the dialogues
6. Explain main expression and idiom
7. Review the dialogues
8. Teach pronunciations
Sum-up
(5minutes)
1. Summarize useful expressions and vocabulary
Figure 2. An 8th grade lesson plan. The MOE designed a lesson plan for each class to complete a lesson.
As homework, the students needed to make projects and to make conversation dialogues. All these assignments needed to be presented in the classroom. To do these assignments, the students usually used the Internet to find information. The teacher did not assign much homework for his students because most students attended private English institutes after school. He did not want to create a stressful situation in learning English that would cause students to lose their interest in the English learning. The 8th grade class was more organized and strict than the 5th grade class. The students sat in their chairs at all times and the class’s contents were specific to the structures to prepare for the national English exams.
Analysis
Advantages
In the CALL classroom environments, the students derived extra benefits from the opportunities that they experienced. First of all, technology modified the teachers’ inability in English and thus encouraged proper input and output for the students. During the interviews, the teachers admitted that they did not possess adequate proficiency in English, especially the oral skills to teach English. Although the EFL teachers were not able to speak English fluently, the schools were not able to afford native speakers to teach their students English due to a budget and the limited number of qualified native speakers. The teachers claimed that technology was supportive to cover their lack of oral skills in English. In the classrooms, the EFL students listened and repeated native speakers’ pronunciation rather than their teacher’s wrong or
64
unconfident pronunciation. Both teachers and students in this study agreed that the pronunciation of native speakers from the software was helpful to learn English. In short, although their classrooms could not have native speakers, technology helped the teachers and the students learn “English,” not “Korean English” that is mixed up with Korean-style pronunciations and structures. In the light of this, the students were exposed to more appropriate input and output in English.
Second, the technology gave the teachers mobility. The EFL teachers did not need to stay around their desks because they could see the class’s contents or materials from the software through a big screen television. The teachers walked around the classrooms and checked whether their students followed well. I observed that the teachers’ mobility reduced the chances that the students slept and were distracted during the classes. In other words, the students were facilitated to focus on the classes by narrowing the physical distance between the teacher and the students. Thus, the students were facilitated to learn English intentionally in the CALL classroom environments.
A third advantage from the opportunities in the classrooms was that the use of technology may have balanced student participation, decreasing chances for dominance by some outspoken students. For example, technology such as the class Web site facilitated the students’ participation and appeared to reduce anxiety when they presented in text. The use of technology also expanded time and space for learning through the availability and accessibility of technology. One of the students mentioned the followings:
I like his Web site because he always updates his site fast. Also, I can ask some questions easily without meeting him. Asking questions on the Web site is comfortable and fast because I am very shy. Before when I had any question, I just memorized the answers without comprehension because I was afraid of asking the question to the teacher and I did not want to waste class time because of my stupid question.
Additionally, in both classrooms, because the students practiced repeatedly on software and with classmates, they were more confident and willing to participate in the classroom activities. The ostentatious functions of the technology such as animated characters, sound, movie clips, and songs provide comprehensive input that caught the students’ attention and encouraged them to participate in the classrooms.
Fourth, the teachers’ repertories were expanded in the CALL classrooms. As a result, the students had various inputs and outputs in learning English. Although the teachers did not have enough technical skills, they could use various activities in their classrooms due to the support from the ministry of education (MOE). The 5th grade teacher mentioned:
If the MOE just asks me to use technology in my class without any support, I may still stick to the textbook because I am not good at computers. However, although I do not have much knowledge about technology, I can use technology in my classroom because the MOE provides something I can use easily. I cannot make puzzle programs, movie clips, and songs with the computer. But I don’t have to. The MOE does it for us. I just need to select and use them. That is what I can do and I need to do.
Both teachers used puzzle games, movie clips, chants, songs, and projects that the MOE or other teachers created to make learning interesting and efficient. The teachers visited the MOE sites, and they adapted the activities for their students and the lesson contents. Thus, the classrooms were various and energetic to motivate students to learn English.
Fifth, the students’ learning took place at home, and the parents were connected to the students’ learning. The teachers provided extra activities or information that the students and the
65
parents could visit through the Internet, and thus the students had opportunities for exposure and production in English for language learning outside of the physical classroom. The students could review what they learned in the classrooms at their own pace and time. Additionally, the handouts would help the parents know what their children learned in the school and how they could help their children. As a result, students’ learning could be expanded, and the parents had opportunities to understand the classroom curriculum.
Sixth, I observed a friendly relationship between the teacher and the students that seemed to be facilitated by the technology. According to an old saying in Korea, students cannot step even on their teachers’ shadow. Traditionally, the relationship between teachers and students was distant, formal, and strict in Korea. However, I observed a closer and more informal relationship developing with the aid of the technology. As a result, the friendly relationship facilitated a comfortable learning atmosphere and encouraged interacting for language learning. For example, in the 8th grade classroom, the students were able to contact their teacher and classmates with email and through the class Website. Their messages exchanged were friendly and practical (see Figure 3). The interaction on the class web site was the joint effort of the teacher and students, rather than just a masterpiece by the teacher. Through reviewing their postings on the class Website, I realized that the teacher was not only a knowledge transformer but also filled roles as a counselor, a friend, and a facilitator. In short, technology and the teacher’s technical skills helped him to accomplish his enthusiasm for being more available and breaking down the formal relationship. Thus, the classroom atmosphere was improved to facilitate learning.
Wow, Cute Bomin! Will you really pay attention to your study from now on? I cannot believe that. Is it true? Do I have to believe? If you give me any evidence, I will give you the answer of your question.
But, before that, look at the book and find answer by yourself!!
If you really cannot find it, visit my office anytime.
Trying to find the answer is the real learning.
Do you know who said that?
The answer is ….(see below)
E.T.
Figure 3. The 8th grade EFL teacher’s reply to the students’ question in the bulletin board from the 8th grade English class website. The reply is very friendly and close. They also use symbols to communicate (Translated to English).
Disadvantages
However, the students missed out on some things from opportunities when they were in the CALL classrooms. First, the standardized testing that focused on reading and grammar did not support to measure the learning in all EFL classrooms including the CALL classrooms of this study. Although the MOE supported interactive language learning environments using various activities with technology, they did not change the ways to evaluate students’ learning. In other words, the testing did not correspond to what the MOE suggested for EFL classrooms. As a result, the standardized test could not evaluate students’ academic learning, and there was no way to value the whole learning that took place, such as students’ understanding of collaboration, participation, and sharing from a project. With all the push toward standardization and
66
measurable outcomes, the value of experiences from the CALL classrooms seemed to be diminished and degraded by efforts to measure it with the testing. In other words, in the 8th grade EFL classroom, no one received a grade based on what they had learned from the projects and the interactions through the Website due to the standardized English exams. The 8th grade teacher claimed that he felt a great deal of pressure to focus his instruction on covering the standard curriculum material and raising test scores. I noted that this pressure diminished instructional innovation, such as the creative use of new technologies to reach goals.
Second, the students sometimes concentrated only on the features of the technology, rather than on its contents. Although the visualization of images or situations from software was helpful to catch the students’ attention, it sometimes caused the students to focus only on the screen. Some students only paid attention to what was on the screen without focusing on what the native speakers spoke. For example, I observed that some students laughed because of the looks of the characters, not because of the conversation on the screen. Also, some students danced or clapped their hands without singing or chanting because they only saw the motions. As a result, the students sometimes did not have comprehensive input and appropriate output. I realized that the students sometimes did not understand their class contents due to fancy functions of technology.
Third, the students addicted big activities in the CALL classrooms, and it caused the teachers stress to prepare their classes. The students were in the hypermediated world and the teachers attempted to provide some activities in each lesson to make students interested and provide chances to use the expressions they learned. However, I learned that the classroom activities made the students always expect some fancy and dynamic activities in their classes. The 5th grade teacher claimed that the students’ expectation caused stress for her when she prepared for her class. In other words, the students were used to participating in activities with technology in every single lesson. Thus, when the teachers could not prepared any activities or returned to the conventional activities, I observed that the students felt tedium and disinterest.
Fourth, lack of the teachers’ research skills and time limited resources for their students. The students could not get the best sites or materials in the classroom because the teachers did not have enough research skills and thus they kept using certain sites that were developed by the MOE. Although their resources were useful in the classrooms, if they could explore more various information and materials available in the Internet, the student would have better resources or more options for comprehensive input, output, and interaction to learn English in their classrooms.
Fifth, the software occupied the class time a lot. As a result, the students sometimes lost the chances to practice and negotiate meaning with classmates. Although software was able to provide samples of realistic communication and assist understanding of culture and norms of native speakers, it was difficult to skip or flip easily from the front to back thus more difficult to have a comprehensive overview of the content. A 5th grade student complained:
Sometimes, I miss group work. Because she focuses on software too much, it takes a lot of time, so we lose many chances to do group work. After we watch the software for today’s lesson, not much class time is left. Learning with group work or games is much more fun and is more helpful to learn English for me.
Similarly, another student mentioned:
When we learn chants or songs, it is really hard to control the speed. When we use tapes, we can slow down and repeat certain sections. But with software, we cannot. We should
67
review the whole thing again, not the section that we want to review. That is why we do not have enough time to do other activities.
Because of the many loops, branches, and paths that were built in the software program, it took a lot of time to go through the materials. This caused a reduction in other class activities. As a result, some students believed that they lost chances to interact with other classmates that they more prefer than using software to learn English.
Technology Integration In the CALL Classroom Environments
I found that the teachers integrated technology as a part of their classroom environments to support their literacy goals and to motivate their students to learn. In spite of differences between the classes, there was an important common thread: the students in both CALL classes did not consider technology as a special aid for language learning; rather, they saw technology as a part of their learning environments. During the students’ interviews, I asked the students about what technology they used in their classrooms. However, one of the students said that he did not use any technology in his classroom. While I saw many technologies in his classroom, the student did not regard computers and software as technology. Then, when I made reference to the technology tools in his classroom, he nodded his head and said “ ya, right! We use them.” I was curious why he did not notice these technological devices. His answer was “I thought that you wanted something huge or new.” I had similar responses from two more student interviewees. I realized that the technologies that they used were not something special to them; instead, it was just another tool such as chalk and a blackboard. It was only a favorite tool and it was always there in the classrooms. In other words, I noted that they perceived that technology served as one of vehicles to help them learn English like other tools in the CALL classrooms. From the teachers’ point of views, although they noticed the technology that they used in their classrooms, they believed that technology was one of the required tools to make language learning effective and fun in their classroom environments. In both classrooms, technology was not for decoration; instead, it was actively used for language learning.
Furthermore, the exploration of the CALL classrooms in this study showed that several components worked together to integrate technology into their classroom environments. For example, to achieve the teachers’ literacy goals, the MOE required using technology and provided technological and pedagogical support, and the teachers had opportunities to adapt various activities and appropriate technology based on their objectives, instructional strategies, and students’ needs. In addition, the teacher and the students interplayed to facilitate the language learning environments. For example, in both classrooms, although technology provided visualized features and pronunciation of native speakers, the feedback from the software was limited and was not very interactive. However, the teachers modified the problem by providing their students interactive feedback, and the students exchanged feedback during practice. In short, neither the teachers nor technology alone completed the learning environments. Each member (e.g., the MOE, the teacher, and the students) was engaged in facilitating the students’ language learning. During the data collection, I often observed that the MOE and the teachers coordinated and planned the activities in advance, and computers were not the central focus; instead, the teachers used technology as a means for students’ learning in the environments. In light of this, research to understand students’ learning in CALL classroom environments should investigate how components of the environment interact together, rather than focus on each single component. Additionally, CALL research should be goal-oriented rather than technology-oriented because technology is a tool that is developed and designed to support certain purposes.
68
Changing Teachers’ Roles
To provide opportunities for the students in CALL classroom environments, the teachers claimed that they needed to know more and to do more in order to facilitate learning. For example, the 5th grade teacher mentioned that although the textbook was improved a lot, it was still unlikely to satisfy the needs of the students and teachers because it was within the range of the target audience set by the textbook authors. Thus, the teachers claimed that they adapted their own materials and put a personal touch on materials and activities for their students and their learning environments. Also, in the 8th grade CALL classroom, the teacher designed and managed the class Website to encourage his students to participate, and to support his students’ learning. To do this, he invested more time to update his Website and learned more specific web-design skills. In short, the integration of technology into the classrooms required the teachers to learn new skills and open to loads of resources.
Furthermore, the teachers needed to consider the complexity of language classroom environments among context, students, and tools. While the environment might not improve test scores, I observed that it enhanced classroom dynamics and liberated students and teachers from the traditional roles that defined and limited their inquiries. However, I also saw many students who focused on the technology itself and lost sight of their learning goals. Thus, I realized that teachers must evaluate technology on the basis of its effectiveness in supporting a task for which it is designed because a learning task is beyond technology only.
In summary, the CALL classroom environments only sometimes granted benefits for the students’ learning. Although the teachers did not perceive what their students lost in the classrooms, the students sometimes caught what they missed due to the overuse of technology or the fact that the technology was a part of their classroom environments. While the students experienced valuable chances to learn English, they also lost some chances because they were in the CALL classroom environments (see Table1). In short, the CALL environments did not always guarantee the positive impacts for language learning that researchers have noted. Therefore, there is need to reexamine the previous research that only emphasized the positive impacts of technology on language learning. Also, we need to investigate whether these benefits are worth the sacrifice of other chances in the CALL classroom environments.
Advantages
Disadvantages
􀂃 technology modified the teachers’ inability in English and thus encouraged proper input and output for the students
􀂃 the technology gave the teachers mobility
􀂃 the use of technology may have balanced student participation, decreasing chances for dominance by some outspoken students
􀂃 the teachers’ repertories were expanded in the CALL classrooms
􀂃 the students’ learning took place at home, and the parents were connected
􀂃 the standardized testing that focused on reading and grammar did not support to measure the learning in all EFL classrooms including the CALL classrooms of this study
􀂃 the students sometimes concentrated only on the features of technology, rather than the contents
􀂃 the students addicted big activities in the CALL classrooms, and it caused the teachers stress to prepare their classes.
􀂃 lack of the teachers’ research skills and time limited resources for their students.
69
to the students’ learning.
􀂃 a friendly relationship between the teacher and the students seemed to be facilitated by the technology
􀂃 the software occupied the class time a lot. As a result, the students sometimes lost the chances to practice and negotiate meaning with classmates.
Table1. Advantages and disadvantages in CALL classroom environments.
Implications
Based on the findings from the data of this study, I present implications for research and practice/ technology use.
Research
The findings of this study point out the problems of previous CALL research that was filled with positive outcomes and the potential of technology for language learning. Technology did not always facilitate students’ language learning, and it was interwoven with other factors in the environments. This study suggests that CALL research should investigate learning environments that technology is surrounded because technology itself does not make students’ learning happen. Therefore, researchers should examine interactions among components of learning environments to truly understand students’ learning.
Practice/ Technology use
In this study, the students experienced advantages and disadvantages resulting from opportunities in the CALL classroom environments. In short, this study indicates that technology does not always grant promises of technology. It suggests that teachers need to realize both aspects in language classrooms. Teachers should look at whole pictures of CALL classroom environments and decide whether advantages that their students experience are more valuable than losses to reach their goals. In other words, teachers should not be blinded and should not forget their objectives due to technology features or possibilities; instead, they should recognize various impacts for their students’ language learning in their CALL classroom environments.
In addition, the data clearly indicate that technology itself does not lead to new methods, techniques, or ideas for language learning to make language classrooms better, and teachers should make their classroom interactive and effective for learning. For example, in this study, I saw the teachers’ struggles between their intentions and curriculum to determine how technology fits into their students’ language learning. The teachers investigated a variety of technological tools and resources, and they tried to adapt choices made for them by the MOE. In short, the fact that there is technology in a language classroom does not mean that students’ language learning is enhanced: instead, teachers’ knowledge of technology and efforts to integrate it into their classroom environments are more important in improving classroom environments. In the light of this, Burniske and Monke (2001) suggests that teachers must ask if tools and methods accompanying them will help their students “look out far” or “look in deep,” justifying “any watch they keep.” In short, teachers’ goal-oriented attitude, not technology, is critical to make authentic language learning classroom.
Conclusion
In the CALL classroom environments in this study, the students actively participated in various opportunities. The teachers and the MOE attempted to assist the students with linguistic needs or technical support to facilitate students’ learning. In addition, the learning environment
70
was not limited to the classroom but instead was expanded via technology. In some ways technology made the classrooms broader and allowed the students to access more resources and communicate with other students. However, from the opportunities in the environments, as I discussed earlier, the students lost some valuable chances while they got some extra benefits for language leaning. In short, these findings are evidence of that technology is not a magic stick that makes everything possible for language learning; the CALL classroom environments did not illustrate dreamy pictures that researchers expected with technology integration.
71
References
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and salience in second language acquisition. Language Learning,37, 385–407.
Basena, D. & Jamieson, J. (1996). CALL research in second language learning:1990-1994. CAELL Journal, 7, 14-22
Burniske, R. & Monke, L. (2001). Breaking down the digital walls: learning to teach in a post-modern world. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning and Technology, 1(1), 19-43. Available: http:// lit.msu.edu/voll num 1/chapelle/default.html.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge; UK: Cambridge University Press.
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, (4), 367-387.
Davis, B., & Chang, Y. L. (1994/95). Long distance collaboration with on-line conferencing. TESOL Journal, 4, (2), 28-31.
Doughty, C. (1987). Relating second-language acquisition theory to CALL research and application. In W.F. Smith (Ed) Modern Media in Foreign Language Education: Theory and Implication, Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13 (4), 431-469.
Egbert, J. (1993). Learner perceptions of computer-supported learning environments: Analytic and systemic analyses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tucson:University of Arizona.
Fraser, B.J., (1981). Using environmental assessments to make better classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13, 131-144.
Gass, S., & Lakshmanan, U. (1991). Accounting for interlanguage subject pronouns. Second LanguageResearch, 7, 181–203
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. New York: Longman.
72
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee, S. (2002). A look at the research on computer-based technology use in second language learning: a review of the literature from 1990-2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34( 3) 250-273.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition. Vol. 2: Second language acquisition. (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Moos, R. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings and policy implications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Salaberry, M. R. (1996). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 140), 5-36.
Salaberry, M. R. (2000). Pedagogical design of computer mediated communication tasks: Learning objectives and technological capabilities. Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 28-37.
Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative/ quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher. 20. 6. 10-18.
Salomon, G. (1997). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: some issues to be concerned with. Presented at EARLI, Athens, August. Available: http//cybercon98.Harvard.edu/wcm/sal_article.html.
Sheingold, K. (1987). The microcomputer as a symbolic medium. In R. Pea & K. Sheingold (Eds.). Mirrors of mind (pp. 198-210). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic Literacies: Language, Culture, and Power in Online Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Warschauer, M. (2000). Online learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic study. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching. Concepts and practice (pp. 41-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Warschuaer, M (2002). A developmental perspective on technology in language education. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (3), 453-475.
Wilson, B. (1996). Introduction: What is a constructivist learning environment? In B.G. Wilson (Ed.). Constructivist learning environments (pp.3-8). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Educational Technology Publications.

Second Language Acquisition and Synchronous Computer Mediated Communication

Ayako Kawase1
Introduction
Before personal computers became popular, social scientists had discussed the potential effects of new forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC) on society. Hiltz and Turoff (1978) claimed that computerized conferencing would exert a dramatic psychological and sociological influence on various types of group communication in the future. They correctly predicted that computers and the Internet have become a necessity for daily life, and they have greatly changed our lives during just the last decade or so.
Computers play a significant role in teaching and learning today. The use of computers in the classroom is becoming ever more popular in first language (L1) acquisition settings and in content-based classrooms. While computers are not seen as a substitute for the teacher, they are considered a new medium that has profoundly changed the ways in which we write, read, and in some cases, even the way we think (Selfe, 1989). Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has received a great deal of attention in the field of second language acquisition (SLA), and every year an increasing number of teachers are using computers in their second language (L2) and foreign language classrooms.
In the 1980s, people started using computer conferencing in academic and business settings. Since then, interaction through computers has steadily gained popularity. The many ways in which L2 learners can interact using computers in a classroom can be divided up into two broad categories: asynchronous forms (e.g., e-mail and bulletin boards) and synchronous forms (e.g., real-time discussion via online channels such as chat systems). In both cases, CMC can be used inside and outside of the classroom in a coordinated fashion, which is one of its major benefits. Using Local Area Network (LAN) technology, all students in a classroom can be connected via networked computers, and whole-class or small-group discussions can be held within such a class setting over a LAN.
There are several reasons why some teachers would want to incorporate computers into their classrooms. First, it motivates students to interact more in their target language (TL) (Kern, 1995; Schwienhorst, 2004; Warschauer, 1996). Second, students feel less intimidated about using the TL by CMC (Hiltz & Turoff, 1978) and so they can express themselves more freely, comfortably, and creatively during CMC (Warschauer, 1996). Warschauer added that CMC helped increase students’ thinking ability, and students felt less stressed while communicating via CMC. Third, CMC can enable learners to interact with other speakers of the TL without being in close geographical proximity. Currently, computers are being used for research on language use not only in classroom settings, but also in the context of e-mail and internet chat as it has become more widespread. Interaction between two or more speakers using online chat (i.e., synchronous CMC) has received a considerable amount of attention as well. With the advent of CMC, it has become a simple and inexpensive matter to create language learning groups all over a country and around the world (Ingram, Hathorn, & Evans, 2000). Even if CMC cannot be used in a classroom setting (due to local shortages of computers or networking technology, for example), L2 learners can still be exposed to and use CMC via the Internet.
2 Retrievable at http://www.tc.columbia.edu/tesolalwebjournal
The purpose of this paper is to compile the most current research available on synchronous CMC. This paper will primarily focus on the ways in which synchronous CMC facilitates interaction for L2 learners, discussing sociolinguistic issues as well as grammatical and lexical acquisition via synchronous CMC. This paper will also present implications for future research on synchronous CMC in the field of SLA. The research questions for this paper are as follows:
1. Does synchronous CMC facilitate L2 acquisition?
2. If synchronous CMC facilitates L2 acquisition, how does it do so?
3. What other research on synchronous CMC is needed in this field?
What Is Synchronous CMC?
The term CMC was first used by Hiltz and Turoff (1978). In their study of computer conferencing, they used it as a mode of electronic communication. Different researchers have used different definitions for CMC, some of which include e-mail and bulletin board communication, and others of which include only messages between individuals or groups. In this paper, the definition used by Murray (2000) will be adopted. According to Murray, synchronous CMC occurs in real time (i.e., in a manner similar to face-to-face conversation, in which interlocutors can expect immediate responses from one another), in such contexts as IRC MOOs (Internet Relay Chat, Multi-Object Oriented), internet chatrooms, and other online chat systems. In asynchronous CMC, conversational participants do not have to communicate with one another in real time—for example, in such contexts as e-mail and bulletin boards.
L2 researchers first began to pay attention to synchronous CMC as learners typically have easy access to synchronous CMC. Several significant advantages of CMC compared to face-to-face interaction both inside and outside of the classroom were noted. For instance, one of the greatest advantages observed was that learners tended to produce more TL output in CMC than in normal classroom settings. Even quiet students who did not usually speak up much in class generally participated more in a synchronous CMC setting, leading to more balanced participation in the TL (Warschauer, 1996).
Synchronous CMC has also received attention in recent years as a new type of interaction, both between nonnative speakers (NNSs) and native speakers (NSs) and among only NNSs of the TL. This type of interaction is unprecedented—some researchers claim that the processes involved in synchronous CMC are distinct from reading and writing (Blake, 2000; Kitade, 2000). Although synchronous CMC clearly involves both reading and writing, participants’ output in CMC is considered to have combined characteristics of speaking and writing (Smith, 2003). Smith states that synchronous CMC is similar to speaking in that the TL output takes place in real time, as in the case of normal face-to-face speech, and the stress on particular words and phrases can be indicated by using italicized or boldfaced text; but at the same time, it is also similar to writing in that it produces a relatively permanent record of the discourse, and makes use of punctuation and other devices that are used to form text. Synchronous CMC is thus characterized by: (a) its similarity to spoken/written language, (b) its use of simplified registers, (c) its organizational structure, and (d) its mechanisms for maintaining topic cohesion (Murray, 2000).
Second Language Classrooms and Synchronous CMC
Synchronous CMC was initially adapted for use in the second/foreign language classroom following its successful implementation with deaf children who studied English as a second language (ESL). Synchronous CMC led to increased motivation in deaf students, and foreign language educators started to use CMC to see if it would be applicable to other types of language acquisition and teaching. Research has shown that communicating in an L2 through synchronous CMC leads to a significant motivational increase in students (Warschauer, 1996). CMC may also elicit more learner participation than face-to-face communication (Kern, 1995) and higher-quality spoken output (Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996).
Another example of an effective application of synchronous CMC is the use of computers in certain situations such as in the learning of English as a foreign language (EFL) or of any other language in places where the TL is not the primary means of communication. In such settings, L2 learners typically have restricted and/or infrequent opportunities to use the TL outside the classroom. E-mail and chat gives NNSs more chances to interact with other speakers of the TL (comprising both NSs and NNSs) outside of the classroom. Recent research has also shown that computers help to increase the amount of interaction between learners, leading to greater use of the TL (Barson, Frommer, & Schwartz, 1993). The use of synchronous CMC has increased greatly in recent years, thanks to the ready availability of free software for connecting to web-based chat domains such as AOL Instant Messenger and Yahoo Messenger (Smith, 2003).
SLA, Interaction, and CMC
When second and foreign language teachers began to incorporate computers into language teaching in the 1980s, their rationale was the same as for incorporating computers into L1 teaching. However, it became evident that there were even more reasons for CMC to be incorporated into L2 teaching. Teachers could use CMC to give their students opportunities to interact with NSs of the TL and thereby enhance their understanding through cultural interchange. This would also give the students better opportunities to learn despite being in a foreign language setting. As teachers came to regard synchronous CMC positively, researchers started to investigate how synchronous CMC is related to SLA theories.
According to the Interaction Hypothesis (Gass, 1997; Long, 1996) learners’ efforts to resolve miscommunication facilitate their acquisition of the L2, as the interaction involved leads to more exposure to comprehensible input and modified output. This type of interaction is known as negotiation of meaning, which Pica (1994) defines as “modification and restructuring of interaction that occurs when learners and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive, or experience difficulties in message comprehensibility” (p.495). Recasts, reformulations, repetition, comprehension checks, confirmation checks and clarification checks are included in modification and restructuring (Long, 1996).
SLA research has demonstrated that input is necessary but not sufficient to acquire an L2. According to Swain’s (1985) output hypothesis, “pushed output” is also needed to promote acquisition. Such output may include writing or speaking exercises to develop grammatical features that do not seem to be have been fully acquired from the input provided alone. For these opportunities to produce output, the use of computers and synchronous CMC seem to provide the necessary means of producing output as indicated by Swain’s output hypothesis (Sotillo, 2000). Some research has shown features of corrective feedback in synchronous CMC situations (Sotillo, 2005) leading to modified output (Pellettieri, 2000). Through negotiation of meaning, learners receive input and produce a type of output that is facilitative and perhaps even necessary for grammatical competence to develop in oral interaction.
Although interaction may facilitate SLA, the amount of teacher-learner and learner-learner interaction is still quite restricted within the classroom setting, as indicated by Kitade (2000). Only certain grammar features that have been taught are actually used by the learners, and the range of contexts in which they are used is limited. Another issue is how the patterns of interaction in the classroom are not always authentic and may not prepare learners for the situations they are likely to face in the “real” world. CMC may help address this problem, since it can provide learners with more opportunities to interact with NSs and other NNSs all over the world.
Since synchronous CMC differs somewhat from ordinary writing and speaking, it represents a new type of interaction that may be of benefit to L2 learners. This is the case since the written mode of CMC allows learners to reflect upon the form and content of messages while interacting with someone in a manner approaching face-to-face verbal communication (Smith, 2003). This is the most beneficial aspect of synchronous CMC from the interactionist perspective, because if learners can feel as if they are talking with another person face-to-face, “learners elicit modified input from one another, are pushed to modify their own linguistic output, and receive important feedback on their TL use, thus potentially focusing their attention on their problematic utterances” (Smith, 2003, p. 39). Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos, & Linnell (1996) found that the modified interaction and the feedback observed between L1 Japanese NNSs of English was comparable in quality and quantity to that observed in other NS-NNS interactions. In the next section, current research on synchronous CMC will be introduced and discussed to investigate whether CMC is truly effective in promoting interaction and negotiation of meaning.
Negotiation of Meaning and CMC
A number of research studies have been conducted on negotiation of meaning and CMC (Blake, 2000; Fernández-García & Martínez-Arbelaiz, 2002; Kitade, 2000; Pellettieri, 2000; Smith, 2003). In general, most of the research has shown that synchronous CMC does facilitate negotiation of meaning interaction. However, each study has a different focus and a distinct set of research questions. Details of each study will be discussed below.
Comparing Face-to-Face Interaction and CMC
According to Lee (2001), synchronous CMC is a new form of discourse that is different from writing and speaking. Some researchers believe that CMC differs from reading and writing (Blake, 2000; Kitade, 2000), while others disagree (Smith, 2003). Although synchronous CMC has some characteristics in common with speech and writing, synchronous CMC also has unique traits that do not normally occur in speech or writing. Such characteristics of synchronous CMC include simplified register and syntax, abbreviations, and the use of symbols to express emotions (Smith, 2003). Openings and closings during the interaction have been reported to be optional in CMC in cases where they would be expected in face-to-face communication (Murray, 2000). According to currently available research, learners negotiate for meaning in ways that are both similar to and different from those found in the traditional classroom (Blake, 2000; Fernández-García & Martínez-Arbelaiz, 2002; Pellettieri, 1990).
Lee (2001) conducted research on 40 university students in New England who were mostly intermediate students studying Spanish. The setting was a private chatroom using a program named ParaChat., in which only class members could participate in the discussion. Discussion topics such as the role of men and women in modern society, L2 study at university, and occasionally, seasonally-themed topics (e.g., Halloween) were provided to the students by the teacher. The teacher did not participate in the discussions, and no particular instructions were given to the students except not to use a dictionary.
As in most studies, Lee’s (2001) study showed synchronous CMC to have positive effects. Lee observed that the strategies the subjects used during synchronous CMC were similar to those used in face-to-face interaction, and that clarification checks, requests, and self-corrections were the strategies used most in this particular study. Another interesting finding was how feedback was effective in this study, as the subjects tried to use different vocabulary and grammatical structures to understand each other. With respect to linguistic accuracy, the learners tended to ignore each other’s mistakes, as they were focusing more on meaning than on form during the conversation. In daily conversation, people also tend not to focus on others’ mistakes as much as on the meaning of what is being said. This could be a similarity between face-to-face interaction and synchronous CMC.
However, face-to-face interaction and synchronous CMC also have significant differences. In CMC, speakers do not receive visual paralinguistic and nonverbal clues when interacting (Murray, 2000). Additionally, greetings and closures are not always needed in CMC, as the computer screen identifies who is talking. Again, this is a significant difference from face-to-face interaction and synchronous CMC. It would be useful to consider the differences between face-to-face interaction and synchronous CMC as they may affect L2 learners’ language in a variety of ways, depending on the language used and grammatical structures used during the communication.
Task Types and CMC
Current research on synchronous CMC has been conducted with large groups discussing topics such as world politics or current events in short opinion-centered discussions. However, research has demonstrated that conversations are quantitatively and qualitatively affected, by the type of task in which the NNSs interact (Pica et al., 1989). It has also shown that negotiation of meaning is facilitated more when the tasks are goal-oriented and task-based than when they are oriented towards casual conversation (Pellettieri, 2000). For example, Pica et al. (1993) stated that jigsaw assembly task types brought about a high rate of learning, and that decision-making task types came near the end of the list. This was the rationale for choosing the task types in Smith’s (2003) study. Smith used 12 NNS-NNS dyads from the database of two tasks to measure the amount of interaction that occurred observing how task types affected learners’ negotiation of meaning. In current research, only a certain number of studies have focused on task-based CMC interaction.
Smith’s (2003) study showed that learners negotiated meaning when problems arose during task-based CMC. This may have been the case due to the subjects’ difficulties in dealing with the new lexical items that Smith presented to them. This is in accordance with the findings in the interactionist studies of other researchers such as Blake (2000) and Fernández-García & Martínez-Arbelaiz (2002). Smith concluded that the two task types seemed to have different effects on the amount of negotiation. In this study, the jigsaw tasks lead to more incidental negotiation, and the decision making tasks resulted in more negotiation sequences compared to jigsaw tasks. Ingram et al. (2000) examined the potentially problematic influence of task type on the effectiveness of synchronous CMC. To give an example, they found that instructing students to discuss a topic online may give way to unrelated, superficial conversations that may not necessarily be of educational value. Ingram et al. concluded that although synchronous CMC may be useful for some discussion tasks, asynchronous CMC may be more effective for others.
A synchronous chat program called Remote Technical Assistance (RTA) developed at University of California at Davis was used in Blake (2000). This program differs from other chat programs such as WebCT and Daedalus Interchange in several ways. For example, RTA permits learners to participate in point-to-point (one-on-one) and multipoint/group chat, which is not always possible with other chatting systems. Another important feature of the RTA was that it recorded all of the interactions between the learners in a chat window and also allowed them to do collaborative writing at the same time in a separate window labeled “Textpad”. Fifty NSs of English at the intermediate level in Spanish had to accomplish a given task by conversing with one another in a chat window, and used the Textpad window to summarize their results. The RTA chat window enabled the learners to interact in a manner resembling oral interaction. In contrast, the Textpad window only allowed one subject to have control of either the cursor or the stylus at a time, and therefore it more closely resembled a formal take-home writing assignment. 1-way and 2-way information gap tasks and jigsaw tasks were used in this study.
Based on the results of Blake’s (2000) study, jigsaw tasks were superior to other tasks in the amount of interaction that was produced (e.g. information gap, decision-making and learner discussions) and the jigsaw task seemed to facilitate students’ noticing of gaps in the lexicon of their interlanguage. As also shown in Smith (2003), lexical confusion was the most common precursor for negotiation occurring in the learner-learner interactions. Phonological, morphological, and syntactic errors also led to miscommunication, followed by negotiation of meaning, but much less often than lexical confusion did. Blake also stated that it would be interesting to see whether this would still be the case for learners studying a non-Romance language, such as Japanese.
Smith (2004) conducted another study following up on Smith (2003) focusing on computer-mediated negotiated interaction for lexical acquisition. This study was the first to focus on lexical acquisition in the context of CMC. 24 ESL learners from different L1 backgrounds participated, and a program named ChatNet was used. As in Smith’s (2003) study, two tasks were used: jigsaw tasks and decision-making tasks. Smith’s (2004) study showed again that although the subjects had the completion of the assigned tasks as their overarching goal, one-third of the interaction was based on negotiation of meaning and how learners helped their partners to learn new words. However, Smith did not compare the amount of interaction between the two task types in this study.
So far, research on synchronous CMC and task type has not arrived at any definitive conclusions. Results are contradictory in regards to whether task-type has an affect on SLA. Smith (2003) concluded that task types influenced different factors such as incidental negotiation and negotiation sequences. In comparison, Blake (2000) resulted that the jigsaw task led to more negotiation of meaning. However, in both Smith and Blake’s study, lexical confusions led to an increase of negotiation of meaning. More research on task-types and lexical difficulty is needed to investigate the potentials of synchronous CMC.
Problematic Issues in Negotiation of Meaning and CMC
Fernández-García and Martínez-Arbelaiz (2002) conducted a study with NSs of English in their third year of studying Spanish as their L2. The students received several content-focused questions to discuss in advance of the study. After an online discussion task, the students were asked to write a summary about reading using pencil and paper. In this study, the Open Transport (OT) chat group format on Macintosh computers was used as a medium of synchronous discussion. Using this chat system, participants were able to chat with one other person or several others at the same time.
Fernández-Garcia and Martínez-Arbelaiz (2002) also provided evidence of negotiation of meaning. According to Fernández-García and Martínez-Arbelaiz, synchronous CMC in the L2 classroom not only gives learners opportunities to negotiate for meaning, but it also enables them to do so at their own pace. However, some of the types of prompts for output used in the synchronous CMC differed from the ones used in oral interaction. A major problem in this study
12 Retrievable at http://www.tc.columbia.edu/tesolalwebjournal
was that some of the subjects started using their native language of English when they encountered difficulties expressing themselves in Spanish, despite having been specifically instructed not to use their L1.
As teachers have less control over the language used in online discussion than they do in traditional classroom discussions, the variability of language use may become an issue for using synchronous CMC in L2 classrooms. In addition, text-based harassment incidents have been reported in studies (Hall, 1996). Although most of the current research studies on synchronous CMC have yielded positive findings and synchronous CMC offers certain advantages for eliciting output from quiet, shy students, women and minorities, other issues need to be clarified and addressed before CMC is used in the classroom.
Research on Sociolinguistic Aspects of CMC in SLA
SLA researchers have focused on synchronous CMC not only in consideration of the interaction hypothesis, but also to investigate the potential sociolinguistic dimensions. Current research has shown positive effects when it comes to the sociolinguistic aspects of synchronous CMC (Hiltz & Turoff, 1978; Kern, 1995; Kitade, 2000; Schweinhorst, 2004; Smith, 2003; Warschauer, 1996). For example, some studies measured the amount of interaction between learners via synchronous CMC quantitatively, and compared it with face-to-face interaction (Kern, 1995; Schweinhorst, 2004; Warschauer, 1996). Other researchers focusing on the sociolinguistic aspects have looked at the language used during synchronous CMC and grammatical features have also been examined (Warschauer, 1996). Details of these studies will be discussed below.
The Amount of Interaction within a Synchronous CMC Context
Schweinhorst (2004) conducted research on bilingual conversations that arose in “Multiple-User Domain (MUD), Object-Oriented” (MOO) online contexts and compared the data with that obtained in face-to-face NS-NNS discourse. In this study, the Irish learners were at an intermediate level of proficiency in German, and the German learners were at an advanced level of proficiency in English. Both groups met for one hour each week in a text-based synchronous CMC environment, which was a Center for Language and Communication Studies (CLCS) campus MOO for a total of eight class sessions. The teachers focused on four tasks that were partially computer-related in a bilingual speaking environment in the MOO. Hyperlinks to authentic text and image resources relevant to the four tasks were also given to the students.
Although the Irish and German groups differed in proficiency in their respective TLs, the results showed that in their foreigner talk discourse (FTD) both in English and in German, the rate of topic initiation was found to be more equally balanced between NSs and NNSs than in research on face-to-face FTD (Long, 1981). Unfortunately, there was no control group comprising NSs only or NNSs only in this study to serve as a baseline for comparison. For further research on NNSs’ rates of topic initiation in electronic discourse, ideally, three groups would be needed: a NS-NNS group, a NNS-NNS group and a NS-NS group.
Research comparing synchronous CMC and face-to-face interaction has also suggested that quiet speakers are more expressive in CMC (Kitade, 2000), and additionally that the balance of contribution to the discourse as a function of socioeconomic or gender roles may be altered or reversed in CMC (McGuire, Kiesler & Siegel, 1987). McGuire et al. found that men were five times as likely to put proposals forward in face-to-face discussion. In comparison, in networked decision-making experiments women offered proposals just as often as men did. Warschauer (1996) also observed that during synchronous CMC, students who seldom took the floor in class spoke up more, and students who often took the floor in class spent more time listening to others. Since input and output are both essential for L2 acquisition, synchronous CMC may force those learners who tend to speak up more to listen and receive more input, while helping those learners who tend to speak less to contribute more and produce more output.
Kern (1995) conducted research on differential rates of participation in a French class at a university during CMC and face-to-face interaction. There turned out to be a difference between the two classes even though they were held for the same amount of time. All students participated in the whole-class CMC. However, only five students dominated in the face-to-face discussion, and four did not participate in the face-to-face discussion at all.
Whereas Kern’s (1995) research focused on discussion at the whole-class level, Warschauer (1996) conducted research with smaller groups, investigating differences in the amount of CMC and face-to-face interaction that occurred among 20 advanced learners of ESL. Warschauer’s study was one of the first to focus on small groups within the class in comparing the rates of participation in CMC and face-to-face interaction. The subjects in Warschauer’s study comprised five Filipinos, five Japanese, four Chinese and two Vietnamese, who were divided into four groups of four that were heterogeneous in terms of L1 background. The Daedalus InterChange program was used for the electronic discussion. In general, there was a tendency for more interaction in CMC than in face-to-face discussion. However, the rates of participation did not differ significantly between CMC and face-to-face discussion in the group that had no Japanese speakers (all of the other three groups included at least one Japanese student). This happened as three out of the four Japanese students did not speak up often in the face-to-face interaction but participated in the computer mode, and their low participation rate skewed the results significantly.
The quiet Japanese students of the face-to-face discussion increased their rates of participation in the synchronous CMC from 1.8% to 17.3%. This increase was significant, thus, the four Japanese students went from near silence to a level of participation that was more proportionate to their numbers in each group. Before the experiment, all subjects were assessed on reading and writing with the Secondary Level English Proficiency Test (SLEPT). Interestingly, this was correlated with the amount of individual increase in participation in the computer mode. As can be inferred from the results, the NSs of Japanese experienced disproportionate difficulty speaking up during the face-to-face interaction, which Warschauer (1996) noted could be as a cultural issue. However, Warschauer also pointed out that in addition to shyness, limited comprehension of the discussion at hand may lead students to keep quiet during the face-to-face interaction and speak up only in the CMC discussion. Not only is the fact that students do not speak up during class because they cannot understand the content a separate issue from shyness, but it is crucial to consider in the L2 classroom. Before coming to any conclusions about cultural differences, more research must be conducted with different TLs and different cultural backgrounds.
Another important point made by Warschauer (1996) is that the language in the electronic discussion was more formal and complex than the face-to-face interaction. Synchronous CMC may benefit learners by providing an ideal environment in which to practice using language that is formal and complex, lexically and syntactically. However, a problem that cropped up in the electronic discussion was that it lacked the features of face-to-face discussion—such as questioning, recasting, confirmation checks and paraphrasing—that are important for language learning. Again, more research is needed to confirm the advantages and disadvantages of CMC identified by Warschauer.
Kitade (2000) conducted research on American university students studying Japanese as a foreign language and obtained results indicating that synchronous CMC provides potential benefits for learning by facilitating comprehensible and contextualized interaction, promoting self-correction by learners, and creating a collaborative learning environment. Furthermore, Kitade’s study is important as it discussed the acquisition of L2 pragmatics and phonology through synchronous CMC. As it was impossible for the learners to overlap or interrupt each other, turn-taking competition did not become a problem in this study. However, according to Smith (2003), turn-taking overlaps occurred more frequently in general in synchronous CMC compared to face-to-face interaction.
The body of current research on the sociolinguistic aspects of CMC seem to indicate that synchronous CMC is effective for most situations. However, there is clearly a need for more research as there are relatively few studies on this topic and their findings have frequently been inconclusive. For example, in Warschauer (1996), it was Japanese learners who tended to be quieter in face-to-face interaction, and their participation increased greatly in synchronous CMC. However, it is uncertain whether this implies that CMC is more effective for learners from a certain L1 or cultural background. In general, though, synchronous CMC seems to provide more input and output for different groups of learners in a manner appropriate to their respective needs. Moreover, synchronous CMC’s positive effects were not limited to Japanese learners but were also observed to spill over into the normal classroom, where the amount of participation and number of NSs-NNSs interaction increased overall (Schweinhorst, 2004). Grammatical Competence, Corrective Feedback, and CMC
Few studies have focused on grammatical competence within the synchronous CMC setting. Kern (1995) was one of the few studies that investigated the effects of synchronous CMC on grammatical competence. Kern focused his study on L2 acquisition by the same learners via oral (i.e., face-to-face) and synchronous CMC. Kern claimed that increased participation in the electronic discussion lead to proportionately greater TL production with a wider variety of verb forms and clause types. The increased amount of the TL could have influenced learners’ attention on grammatical accuracy. However, Kern also noted the disadvantages of Network Based Communication (NBC) as “discourse mediated by networked computers bears linguistic consequences…details fall by the wayside: Orthographic accents are often missing, verb conjugations are simplified” (p. 459).
Pellettieri (2000) included 20 students who were NSs of English and intermediate learners of Spanish in his study, using a UNIX program known as “ytalk” to enable the students to participate in the NBC. The subjects participated in five communication tasks ranging from open conversations to jigsaw-type activities. According to Pellettieri’s study, synchronous NBC (SNBC) did lead to negotiation of meaning and form-focused interaction due to the corrective feedback they provided each other. An interesting observation from this study was how the subjects were not only correcting each others’ speech, but they were going back to their own typed speech and correcting their own speech as well. In some cases, the subjects self repaired their own speech into a more advanced syntax. Pellettieri concluded that because the learners were able to watch their speech on the screen as they typed it out, they “monitored” their speech, which in turn led to higher-quality speech than in face-to-face interaction contexts. In face-to-face interaction, it is difficult or almost impossible to self correct an ungrammatical sentence that a learner produced a few minutes ago or a while ago. This is an advantage of synchronous CMC, as users of most chatting systems users can record their interaction with others. L2 learners can review the language used in their previous conversations, examine their errors and see whether any corrective feedback was provided by their conversation partner(s). This can be advantageous to learners, and it may be a better means of data collection for researchers as it is not as intrusive as recording face-to-face interaction (Smith, 2003).
Sotillo’s (2005) study focused on learner errors, examining learners’ grammatical errors and corrective feedback provided by the learner’s conversation partners in response to the errors. Yahoo! Instant Messenger was used, and web cameras and microphones were also used so that learners could see and hear their partners during their conversations. Some conversations took place in NS-NNS pairs and others in NNS-NNS pairs. The errors fell into four categories: grammatical, lexical, mechanical (spelling) and phonological. In Sotillo’s study, 47% of the errors in the L2 learners’ output consisted of grammatical (morphosyntacitic) errors. For example, some learners omitted third person singular, past participles and used past-tense forms of irregular verbs. Notably, Sotillo discovered through comparison of the errors and corrective feedback that occurred in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS pairings that NNSs corrected their partners’ English more often if the partner was also an NNS, and that NNSs tended to correct their partners’ mistakes more than NSs. Another interesting observation was that NNSs tended to provide more explicit feedback on their partners’ errors than NSs did. This is an interesting observation and leads to some questions to be addressed in future research.
Discussion and Implications for Future Research
The currently available research on synchronous CMC suggests that it has positive effects on SLA (Blake, 2000; Fernández-García & Martínez-Arbelaiz 2000; Kitade, 2000; Pellettieri, 2000; Smith, 2003). First, as research has shown, synchronous CMC increases the amount of learner participation in discourse relative to face-to-face interaction (Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996). Synchronous CMC seems to motivate negotiation of meaning, which facilitates language learning according to widely accepted SLA theories (e.g., Ellis, 1985; Gass, 1997; Long, 1996; Swain, 1993).
Recent studies have indicated that teachers tend to spend less time engaged in teacher talk when synchronous CMC is conducted (Kern, 1995). As for language learning, classrooms have generally shifted away from being teacher-centered towards being more student-centered, with the help of certain implementations of technology (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). If the use of CMC steers teachers away from spending time producing teacher talk, this may again affect L2 acquisition as students will have more time to generate TL output. Studies have shown that students who are normally quiet during class tend to speak up more during synchronous CMC interactions, which could have to do with synchronous CMC’s ability to lower the affective filter that can impede learners’ L2 output in normal classroom settings and in face-to-face interaction (Warschauer, 1996). It is also important to note that synchronous CMC may give rise to better quality speech (Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996)
A problem that has been encountered in conducting research on synchronous CMC is that most studies on the subject have been conducted using different computer programs in a wide variety of settings. In order to produce results that are readily interpretable and comparable to those obtained in future research, the instruments and means of synchronous CMC should have properties that are similar enough to compensate for variation in the results arising from differences between subtler features of the programs and technologies being used. Despite this, different chat programs have been used in recent studies (i.e., ytalk, Yahoo! Instant Messenger and MOO’s), and the results may also vary depending on the operating system being used (i.e., Linux vs. Mac OS vs. Windows) as well as the physical environment in which the computers are being used. As research in this field continues to advance, it is not inconceivable that new programs and paradigms for online chat that come into existence will have features so vastly different as to render the findings of currently available research inapplicable or irrelevant to future synchronous CMC contexts.
For example, Lee (2001) found students used symbols to express agreement, incomprehension, dislike, and confusion. These symbols were used during online chat as discourse markers which function similarly to facial expressions and gestures. Depending on the software being used, some systems have relatively few or many symbols with variation in their graphical presentation differing depending on factors such as the particular chat program, the operating system and which version of the chat program, just to name a few of the many variables. Also, the operating system as well as the user-controlled options that the individual has selected within the chat program and operating system may be different. Students may use the same symbols to represent different meanings, thus confounding researchers’ attempts to analyze the conversation. Some students may have anywhere from little or no familiarity to extensive familiarity with synchronous CMC at the time of the study. This is another factor that needs to be considered in preparing to conduct future research. Although most researchers provide a tutorial to familiarize the participants with CMC before the experiment begins, prior experience with online chat may affect students’ production and affective filter while using synchronous CMC.
Synchronous CMC may be especially useful for a classroom setting in which learners could benefit from spending more time contributing and listening to the discussion. CMC seems to have a positive impact on SLA by enabling learners to spend more time contributing to the discussion and listening to others in ways that seem to meet their respective needs (Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996). However, further research is needed to investigate the origins of these differential effects, as they may in fact be arising from individual and/or cultural differences. Future research should involve different L1s and TLs but similar chatting situations to determine whether the current findings are comparable or generalizable to all of SLA. Also, it would be desirable to investigate whether pragmatics is teachable through synchronous CMC as Kitade (2000) found in her research. Depending on the results of such future studies, synchronous CMC may prove more effective for some L2s than others. As Kitade stated, CMC seems to be potentially beneficial for L2 learning, but the effects of CMC should be compared to those of other interactions (e.g. “interactional”, “text-based”, “not face-to-face”, etc.) before being implemented in the classroom.
Blake (2000) and Smith (2003) conducted research on task-based CMC, a topic that has not been researched thoroughly within the field of SLA. According to Blake and Smith, the task that was used during the study influenced L2 learners’ performance and production. However, the two studies yielded conflicting results as to which task types were more effective and the nature of their effects. Again, more research is needed to investigate whether task-based CMC facilitates SLA and which task types are most effective. Research on the effectiveness of various types of synchronous CMC may provide teachers with ideas about how to use synchronous CMC in the L2 classroom.
The main issue with synchronous CMC is that not enough research is available yet, so definitive conclusions may not be drawn. Based on the research that has been done, synchronous CMC seems to be effective in encouraging negotiation of meaning and in enriching the sociolinguistic environment. However, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions at this point due to the dearth of research on the topic as well as a large amount of variability across the existing studies. Another point that needs to be made is some of the current research compares data on CMC with literature on face-to-face communication. If only the amount of negotiation of meaning in synchronous CMC is being measured, it may not be necessary or desirable to establish a control group. However, in comparing the amount of interaction via CMC and face-to-face interaction, there should be a control group to produce baseline results for comparison. To gain more evidence on the potential benefits of CMC, research needs to be conducted in similar settings and with a control group to provide baseline data. It would also be desirable to conduct research on patterns of interaction between the various combinations of NSs and NNSs of a TL. Ideally, research should be carried out involving all four possible combinations interacting via CMC and face-to-face communication, since doing so would yield a complete set of findings from which further research could be extended.
Conclusion
There are a number of studies on the topic of synchronous CMC which have demonstrated positive effects for this type of communication in SLA. Research has shown that CMC promotes negotiation of meaning and has various sociolinguistic effects. However, each study varies greatly from the next, and there are vastly differing sets of experimental conditions in each. At present, it is impossible to state conclusively that CMC is an effective tool for L2 teaching, due to the small number of studies and the many differences between the studies that have been conducted up until now. Additionally, research on different task types is needed to shed light on which tasks facilitate negotiation of meaning the most.
There also may be differences between NS-NNS and NNS-NNS interaction, but the trend in current research has been mainly to focus on one or the other, without making comparisons between the two. Again, researchers have begun to compare the characteristics of CMC interaction to those of face-to-face interaction, but a control group has not been included in most currently available studies, with findings from literature on face-to-face interaction being used as a basis for comparison instead. To gain more results that have more validity, future studies need to be conducted involving a CMC group to yield baseline data, rather than comparing the CMC group with data from previous studies that did not consider interaction in the form of CMC.
The research available at present has shown that CMC is effective in facilitating SLA, especially by promoting negotiation of meaning. There are also sociolinguistic aspects of synchronous CMC that seem to be effective for L2 acquisition. For researchers and educators in the fields of SLA, second language education, and foreign language education, it has become increasingly apparent that attention needs to be paid to language use during synchronous CMC, due to the burgeoning popularity of computers and the Internet. As L2 learners use computers for communicative interaction all the more each day, we need to investigate how they can take advantage of such interaction towards the goal of SLA. While it may be too early to draw any conclusions or speculate about pedagogical implications, further research on synchronous CMC is certain to have positive effects on the field of SLA in near future.
References
Barson, J., Frommer, J., & Schwartz, M. (1993). Foreign language learning using email
in a task-oriented perspective: Interuniversity experiments in communication and collaboration. Journal of Science and Technology, 2, 565-584.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage.
Language Learning and Technology, 4, 120-136. Retrieved August 3, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/
24 Retrievable at http://www.tc.columbia.edu/tesolalwebjournal
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford; UK: Oxford University
Press.
Fernández-García, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in non-native
speaker-non-native speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19, 279-224.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Hall, K. (1996). Cyberfeminism. In S.C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication:
linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.147-170). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hiltz, S. R.,& M. Turoff. (1978). The network nation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ingram, A.L., Hathorn. L.G., & Evans, A. (2000). Beyond chat on the internet. Computers &
Education, 35, 21-35. Retrieved August 3, 2005, from http://www.scienc edirect.com /science/journal/03601315
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on
quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-
476.
Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2, 143-166.
Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13, 232-244.
Long, M.H. (1981). Questions in foreign language discourse. Language Learning, 31, 135-
157.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C.
25 Retrievable at http://www.tc.columbia.edu/tesolalwebjournal
Richie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective.
(pp.39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917-
930.
Murray, D.E. (2000). Protean communication: The language of computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 397-421.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of
grammatical comptetence. In M. Warschauer & R.Ken (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. (pp.59-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning
conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
Pica, T., Holliday. H., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comphrensible ouput as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63-90.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In G. Crookes & S.Gass (Eds.), Tasks and second language learning (pp.9-34). Clevedon, UK; Multilingual Matters.
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learner interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of second language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 59-84.
Schwienhorst, K. (2004). Native-speaker/non native speaker discourse in the MOO:
26 Retrievable at http://www.tc.columbia.edu/tesolalwebjournal
Topic Negotiation and initiation in a synchronous text-based environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 35-50.
Selfe, Cynthia L. (1989). Redefining literacy: The multilayered grammars of computers. In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Critical perspectives on computers and composition instruction (pp.3-15). New York: Teachers College Press.
Sotillo, S. M., (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and
asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4, 82-119. Retrieved August 5, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/warner
Sotillo, S. M. (2005, October). Analyzing learner errors in communicative activities via instant
messaging. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, New York, NY.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-Mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern
Language Journal, 87, 38-57.
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365-398.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7-25.
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An Overview.
Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.

http://journals.tc-library.org/templates/about/editable/pdf/Kawase.pdf