Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition Rita de Cássia Veiga Marriott University of Birmingham, UK Patricia Lupion Torres Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil
InformatIon scIence reference Hershey • New York
Director of Editorial Content: Managing Development Editor: Senior Managing Editor: Managing Editor: Assistant Managing Editor: Copy Editor: Typesetter: Cover Design: Printed at:
Kristin Klinger Kristin M. Roth Jennifer Neidig Jamie Snavely Carole Coulson Maria Boyer and Sue Vander Hook Jeff Ash Lisa Tosheff Yurchak Printing Inc.
Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200 Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com and in the United Kingdom by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 3 Henrietta Street Covent Garden London WC2E 8LU Tel: 44 20 7240 0856 Fax: 44 20 7379 0609 Web site: http://www.eurospanbookstore.com Copyright © 2009 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Handbook of research on e-learning methodologies for language acquisition / Rita de Cassia Veiga Marriott and Patricia Lupion Torres, editors. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-59904-994-6 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-59904-995-3 (e-book) 1. Language and languages--Computer-assisted instruction. I. Marriott, Rita de Cassia Veiga. II. Torres, Patrícia Lupion. P53.28.H365 2008 418.0078'5--dc22 2007052786 British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book set is original material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher. If a library purchased a print copy of this publication, please go to http://www.igi-global.com/agreement for information on activating the library's complimentary electronic access to this publication.
Editorial Advisory Board
Clarissa Jordão Universidade Federal do Paraná, Brazil
Peppi Taalas University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Felicia Zhang University of Canberra, Australia
Piet Kommers University of Twente, The Netherlands
Gavin Dudeney The Consultants-e, Spain
Steve Mann University of Warwick, UK
Jacques Viens Université de Montréal, Canada
Terry Kidd University of Texas, USA
Jeannette Littlemore University of Birmingham, UK
Vera Menezes Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Panayiotis Zaphiris City University London, UK
List of Reviewers
Adail Sebastiao Rodrigues Junior Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Brazil
Irene Mamakou University of Peloponnese, Greece
Ademilde Silveira Sartori Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Brazil
Janae Gonçalves Martins Sociedade Educacional de Santa Catarina (SOCIESC), Brazil
Alejandro Martins Sociedade Educacional de Santa Catarina (SOCIESC), Brazil
Jenifer Prettyman Matthew Bolton College, UK
Ana Maria Carneiro Costa Silva Universidade do Minho, Portugal Astrid Gesche Queensland University of Technology, Australia Beatriz Regina Tavares Franciosi Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Brazil Betty Rose Facer Old Dominion University, USA Bryan Carter University of Central Missouri, USA Christine Rosalia New York University, USA Edemilson Jorge Ramos Brandão Universidade de Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil Euline Schmid University of Education Heidelberg, Germany Fabricio Ricardo Lazilha Centro Universitario de Maringa (CESUMAR), Brazil Gerson Pastre de Oliveira Faculdade de Tecnologia de Jundiaí (FATEC), Brazil
Jing Wang Allegheny College, USA Kevin Wilkinson Anglia Ruskin University, UK Lorena Llosa New York University, USA Lucia Izabel Czerwonka Sermann Centro Universitário Franciscano do Paraná (UNIFAE), Brazil Mahieddine Djoudi University of Poitiers, France Malinee Prapinwong Indiana University Bloomington, USA Mar Gutiérrez-Colon Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Italy Marcos Vinicius Santos Kucharski Universidade Tuiuti do Paraná, Brazil Margareth Murphy Griffith University, Australia Mauro José Kummer Pontificia Universidade Católica do Parana (PUCPR), Brazil
Renata Chylinski LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
Snea Thinsan Indiana University Bloomington, USA
Ria Hanewald LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
Victoria Russell The University of South Florida, USA
Robert Zheng University of Utah, USA
Xiaotian Guo New Vision Language Centre, UK
Rosângela Schwarz Rodrigues Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil
Yasunori Nishina University of Birmingham, UK
Sarah Guth University of Padova, Italy
List of Contributors
Abdous, M’hammed / Old Dominion University, USA ................................................................................. 339 Akayoğlu, Sedat / Middle East Technical University, Turkey ........................................................................ 291 Alastuey, Mª Camino Bueno / Public University of Navarre, Spain............................................................. 480 Altun, Arif / Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey ....................................................................................... 291 Barata, Ana / Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Portugal ............................................................. 497 Baturay, Meltem / Gazi University, Turkey ................................................................................................... 186 Boyer, Jeff / University of Florida, USA ........................................................................................................ 132 Braga, Junia de Carvalho Fidelis / Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil ..................................... 22 Camarena, Margaret M. / Old Dominion University, USA .......................................................................... 339 Carter, Bryan / University of Central Missouri, USA.................................................................................... 443 Carvalho, Carlos Vaz de / Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Portugal......................................... 497 Chaka, Chaka / Walter Sisulu University, South Africa ................................................................................. 539 Chylinski, Renata / Monash University, Australia ........................................................................................ 387 Daloğlu, Ayşegül / Middle East Technical University, Turkey ....................................................................... 186 Djoudi, Mahieddine / Université de Poitiers, France.................................................................................... 352 Elseth, Dayton / Mohawk Valley Community College, USA........................................................................... 443 Facer, Betty Rose / Old Dominion University, USA ...................................................................................... 339 Gesche, Astrid / Queensland University of Technology-Brisbane, Australia ................................................ 524 Grigoriadou, Maria / University of Athens, Greece ...................................................................................... 456 Guth, Sarah / Università degli studi di Padova, Italy .................................................................................... 424 Hanewald, Ria / La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia................................................................. 104, 387 Irala, Esrom Adriano / Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil............................... 307 Isharyanti, Neny / Satya Wacana Christian University, Indonesia................................................................ 271 Jarvis, Huw / University of of Salford-Greater Manchester, UK ................................................................... 367 Juhary, Jowati / The National Defence University of Malaysia, Malaysia ................................................... 151 Laine, Päivö / Seinäjoki Polytechnic, Finland ................................................................................................ 497 Leffa, Vilson J. / Universidade Catolica de Pelotas, Brazil ............................................................................. 39 Li, Zhuo / University of Florida, USA ............................................................................................................ 132 Liu, Feng / University of Florida, USA........................................................................................................... 132 Llosa, Lorena / New York University, USA .................................................................................................... 322 Mamakou, Irene / University of Peloponnese, Greece .................................................................................. 456 Marriott, Rita de Cassia Veiga / University of Birmingham, UK ................................................................. 120 Martins, Antônio Carlos Soares / Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica de Januária/Fapemig, Brazil .............................................................................................................................. 22 Matas, Cristina Poyatos / Griffith University, Australia ............................................................................... 253 Murphy, Margaret / Griffith University, Australia........................................................................................ 253 Nishina, Yasunori / University of Birmingham, UK....................................................................................... 204
Nyongwa, Moses / University of Manitoba CUSB, Canada ........................................................................... 165 Okada, Alexandra / The Open University, UK ................................................................................................ 84 Paiva, Vera Lucia Menezes de Oliveira e / Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais/CNPq/FAPEMIG, Brazil ................................................................................................................... 53 Pérez-Paredes, Pascual / Universidad de Murcia, Spain ................................................................................... 1 Petrucco, Corrado / Università degli studi di Padova, Italy ......................................................................... 424 Plana, Mar Gutiérrez-Colon / Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain ................................................................ 409 Ramos, Andreia Ferreira / Faculdade Luterana São Marcos/RS, Brazil ..................................................... 120 Rodrigues-Junior, Adail Sebastiao / Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Brazil ....................................... 53 Rosalia, Christine / New York University, USA ............................................................................................. 322 Sánchez-Tornel, María / Universidad de Murcia, Spain ................................................................................... 1 Santos, Marcus Vinicius dos / Ryerson University, Canada ......................................................................... 165 Schmid, Euline Cutrim / University of Education Heidelberg, Germany ....................................................... 69 Schultz, Rosa / University of Vienna, Austria ................................................................................................. 509 Seppänen, Ann / Tampere Polytechnic, Finland ............................................................................................ 497 Simon, Heli / Seinäjoki Polytechnic, Finland ................................................................................................. 497 Swertz, Christian / University of Vienna, Austria .......................................................................................... 509 Toifl, Katharina / University of Vienna, Austria ............................................................................................ 509 Torres, Patrica Lupion / Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil .................... 120, 307 Viana, Vander / Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ................................................................ 219 Wang, Jing / Allegheny College, USA ............................................................................................................ 237 Woungang, Isaac / Ryerson University, Canada ............................................................................................ 165 Yildirim, Soner / Middle East Technical University, Turkey.......................................................................... 186 Zyngier, Sonia / Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ................................................................. 219
Table of Contents
Foreword ...........................................................................................................................................xxiii Preface ................................................................................................................................................ xxx Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................xxxiii
Section I E-Language Learning: Theories, Tools, and Pedagogical Resources Chapter I Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context ............................................................................................ 1 Pascual Pérez-Paredes, Universidad de Murcia, Spain Mariá Sánchez-Tornel, Universidad de Murcia, Spain Chapter II The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities ............................................................. 22 Antônio Carlos Soares Martins, Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica de Januária/Fapemig, Brazil Junia de Carvalho Fidelis Braga, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil Chapter III CALL as Action .................................................................................................................................... 39 Vilson J. Leffa, Universidade Catolica de Pelotas, Brazil Chapter IV Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment ..................................................................... 53 Vera Lucia Menezes de Oliveira e Paiva, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais/CNPq/FAPEMIG, Brazil Adail Sebastiao Rodrigues-Junior, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Brazil Chapter V Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL.................................................................... 69 Euline Cutrim Schmid, University of Education Heidelberg, Germany
Chapter VI OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning................................................................... 84 Alexandra Okada, The Open University, UK Chapter VII Learning Objects: Projects, Potentials, and Pitfalls ............................................................................ 104 Ria Hanewald, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia Chapter VIII English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR ......................................................... 120 Patrica Lupion Torres, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil Rita de Cassia Veiga Marriott, University of Birmingham, UK Andreia Ferreira Ramos, Faculdade Luterana São Marcos/RS, Brazil Chapter IX Amusing Minds for Joyful Learning through E-Gaming ................................................................... 132 Zhuo Li, University of Florida, USA Feng Liu, University of Florida, USA Jeff Boyer, University of Florida, USA Chapter X A Non-Language Learning Courseware and its Challenges ............................................................... 151 Jowati Juhary, The National Defence University of Malaysia, Malaysia Chapter XI A Pliant-Based Software Tool for Courseware Development ............................................................ 165 Marcus Vinicius dos Santos, Ryerson University, Canada Isaac Woungang, Ryerson University, Canada Moses Nyongwa, University of Manitoba CUSB, Canada
Section II E-Language Learning: Developing Skills and Competencies Chapter XII Designing a Constructivist Vocabulary Learning Material ................................................................. 186 Ayşegül Daloğlu, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Meltem Baturay, Gazi University, Turkey Soner Yildirim, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Chapter XIII A Lexical Study Based on Parallel Corpora, DDL, and Moodle ........................................................ 204 Yasunori Nishina, University of Birmingham, UK
Chapter XIV EFL through the Digital Glass of Corpus Linguistics......................................................................... 219 Vander Viana, Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Sonia Zyngier, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Chapter XV Electronic Strategies to Improve Chinese Reading Skills .................................................................. 237 Jing Wang, Allegheny College, USA Chapter XVI Politeness in Intercultural E-Mail Communication ............................................................................ 253 Margaret Murphy, Griffith University, Australia Cristina Poyatos Matas, Griffith University, Australia Chapter XVII Interactional Modifications in Internet Chatting ................................................................................. 271 Neny Isharyanti, Satya Wacana Christian University, Indonesia Chapter XVIII The Functions of Negotiation of Meaning in Text-Based CMC ......................................................... 291 Sedat Akayoğlu, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Arif Altun, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey Chapter XIX The Use of the CMC Tool AMANDA for the Teaching of English.................................................... 307 Esrom Adriano Irala, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil Patrica Lupion Torres, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil Chapter XX Assessing the Quality of Online Peer Feedback in L2 Writing .......................................................... 322 Christine Rosalia, New York University, USA Lorena Llosa, New York University, USA Chapter XXI The Impact of Podcasting on Students’ Learning Outcomes .............................................................. 339 Betty Rose Facer, Old Dominion University, USA M'hammed Abdous, Old Dominion University, USA Margaret M. Camarena, Old Dominion University, USA Chapter XXII Listening Comprehension of Languages with Mobile Devices .......................................................... 352 Mahieddine Djoudi, Université de Poitiers, France
Chapter XXIII Computers and Independent Study: Student Perspectives .................................................................. 367 Huw Jarvis, University of Salford-Greater Manchester, UK Chapter XXIV Creating Supportive Environments for CALL Teacher Autonomy .................................................... 387 Renata Chylinski, Monash University, Australia Ria Hanewald, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia Chapter XXV Frustration in Virtual Learning Environments .................................................................................... 409 Mar Gutiérrez-Colon Plana, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain
Section III E-Language Learning: Methodological Approaches and Future Tendencies Chapter XXVI Social Software and Language Acquisition ........................................................................................ 424 Sarah Guth, Università degli studi di Padova, Italy Corrado Petrucco, Università degli studi di Padova, Italy Chapter XXVII The Usefulness of Second Life for Language Learning ..................................................................... 443 Bryan Carter, University of Central Missouri, USA Dayton Elseth, Mohawk Valley Community College, USA Chapter XXVIII Project-Based Instruction for ESP in Higher Education ..................................................................... 456 Irene Mamakou, University of Peloponnese, Greece Maria Grigoriadou, University of Athens, Greece Chapter XXIX WebCT Design and Users’ Perceptions in English for Agriculture .................................................... 480 Mª Camino Bueno Alastuey, Public University of Navarre, Spain Chapter XXX The LAFEC Experience for Language Skills Acquisition .................................................................. 497 Heli Simon, Seinäjoki Polytechnic, Finland Päivö Laine, Seinäjoki Polytechnic, Finland Ann Seppänen, Tampere Polytechnic, Finland Ana Barata, Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Portugal Carlos Vaz de Carvalho, Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Portugal
Chapter XXXI Language Teaching in Live Online Environments.............................................................................. 509 Christian Swertz, University of Vienna, Austria Rosa Schultz, University of Vienna, Austria Katharina Toifl, University of Vienna, Austria Chapter XXXII Adapting to Virtual Third-Space Language Learning Futures............................................................. 524 Astrid Gesche, Queensland University of Technology-Brisbane, Australia Chapter XXXIII Portable Handheld Language Learning: From CALL, MALL to PALL............................................. 539 Chaka Chaka, Walter Sisulu University, South Africa Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 554 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 595 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 608
Detailed Table of Contents
Foreword ...........................................................................................................................................xxiii Preface ................................................................................................................................................ xxx Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................xxxiii
Section I E-Language Learning: Theories, Tools, and Pedagogical Resources Chapter I Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context ............................................................................................ 1 Pascual Pérez-Paredes, Universidad de Murcia, Spain Mariá Sánchez-Tornel, Universidad de Murcia, Spain Pascual Pérez-Paredes and Maria Sánches Tornel investigate the e-skills necessary for foreign language learning as part of an ongoing research project sponsored by the Spanish Ministry of Education. The authors first clarify the terms “skill,” “strategy,” and “computer expertise” in the CALL domain, then discuss the adaptation of course book material used by English language students taking their CEF C1 level in the Lengua Inglesa III 2006/2007 in order to produce more student-centered and constructivist computer-mediated e-material. From data gathered from a questionnaire investigating “e-communication,” “computer use,” “FL-specific skills,” and “Attitudinal/strategic indicators,” the authors draw on feedback and analyze their e-skills model questionnaire. Chapter II The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities ............................................................. 22 Antônio Carlos Soares Martins, Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica de Januária/Fapemig, Brazil Junia de Carvalho Fidelis Braga, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil Antonio Martins and Junia Braga discuss social presence in blended and online learning environments in light of the Complexity Theory and the Community of Inquiry Framework. The authors analyze the affective, interactive, and cohesive dimensions in computer-mediated communication (CMC) within two learning communities. They discuss the conclusions relating to the pedagogical implications based on the corpus analyzed.
Chapter III CALL as Action .................................................................................................................................... 39 Vilson J. Leffa, Universidade Catolica de Pelotas, Brazil Vilson Leffa discusses the dichotomies that exist in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) for individuals working on their own or working collaboratively and interactively as part of a community. Arguing that to focus on one dichotomy only would be a reductionist approach, or an “or” approach, he proposes instead an “and” approach to CALL. From this perspective, he points out that CALL could then focus on the action of doing something via a mediating tool, and thus become the “CALL Action Approach.” Chapter IV Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment ..................................................................... 53 Vera Lucia Menezes de Oliveira e Paiva, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais/CNPq/FAPEMIG, Brazil Adail Sebastiao Rodrigues-Junior, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Brazil In this chapter, Adail Rodrigues Jr. and Vera Paiva seek to take the discussion on “footing,” originally presented by Goffman 1981, one step further by applying it to online environments. They propose that footing “is the element that clearly shows how learning is taking place and how interaction unfolds while interactants are contributing to meaning construction.” They consider the categories of social footing, teaching, and cognitive footing, and give examples from their corpus of work by Brazilian EFL students in an online academic forum to illustrate their argument. Chapter V Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL.................................................................... 69 Euline Cutrim Schmid, University of Education Heidelberg, Germany The potential of interactive whiteboard technology (IWB) to support language learning and the teaching of English for academic purposes (EAP) is investigated by Euline Schmid in light of Bax’s theory of the normalization of computer-assisted language learning (CALL). The concept of integrated CALL and the invisibility of technology in the classroom environment is examined against the claim that IWB supports teacher-centered approaches in addition to highlighting the need for devising appropriate teacher training programs. Chapter VI OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning................................................................... 84 Alexandra Okada, The Open University, UK Alexandra Okada examines the open learning movement for language teaching and for fostering language-learning communities using the software tool Compendium developed for the project OpenLearn by the Open University, UK. This is used for knowledge mapping; flashmeetings, which allow for videoconferencing to take place (offering resources such as whiteboard and voting system); and MSG,
“an instant messaging application with geolocation maps” similar to a “personal radar that shows who is online and where.” The application of these free tools for language teaching and an evaluation of student participation are demonstrated. Chapter VII Learning Objects: Projects, Potentials, and Pitfalls ............................................................................ 104 Ria Hanewald, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia Ria Hanewald provides a theoretical view of learning objects and repositories, exploring their potential and application in language education. She discusses issues such as pedagogical neutrality, language, content, culture, quantity, and quality in relation to the production of learning materials, introducing innovative resources and collections of repositories online, and encouraging practitioners to contribute to these. In addition, she discusses the features of learning objects in light of the issues raised, her goal being to foster leading-edge practice and stimulate future research in the area. Chapter VIII English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR ......................................................... 120 Patrica Lupion Torres, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil Rita de Cassia Veiga Marriott, University of Birmingham, UK Andreia Ferreira Ramos, Faculdade Luterana São Marcos/RS, Brazil Patricia Torres, Rita Marriott, and Andreia Ramos give an evaluation of the Learning Objects (LOs) used at the Pontifical Catholic University of Parana, with specific reference to the LO used for English language learning. This is delivered via a Web-based student support system called Sistema de Apoio ao Aluno via WEB or SAAW, which is a development tool offered in the university’s virtual learning environment. The authors discuss the findings, which are based upon qualitative feedback from postgraduate students and the conclusions drawn from the results. Chapter IX Amusing Minds for Joyful Learning through E-Gaming ................................................................... 132 Zhuo Li, University of Florida, USA Feng Liu, University of Florida, USA Jeff Boyer, University of Florida, USA The potential of e-gaming for foreign language learning is investigated in this chapter by Zhuo Li, Feng Liu, and Jeff Boyer. Following a discussion of the use on traditional games for language learning, the authors examine the role of student motivation in order to situate e-gaming in the context of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL). The challenges encountered within the concept of e-gaming, such as game design, teacher training, and assessment, are also explored. In addition, a number of online resources for use by the foreign language instructor is provided, highlighting the potential of these for foreign language teaching.
Chapter X A Non-Language Learning Courseware and its Challenges ............................................................... 151 Jowati Juhary, The National Defence University of Malaysia, Malaysia Jowati Juhary reports on the implementation of a nonlanguage learning software (NLLS) as used for the teaching of English to a group of 118 cadets in the National Defense University Malaysia (NDUM). The author discusses the main findings of a quantitative survey, which highlights the technical, theoretical, and pedagogical challenges faced in this project, and discusses the implications arising from this practice. Chapter XI A Pliant-Based Software Tool for Courseware Development ............................................................ 165 Marcus Vinicius dos Santos, Ryerson University, Canada Isaac Woungang, Ryerson University, Canada Moses Nyongwa, University of Manitoba CUSB, Canada Marcus Santos, Isaac Woungang, and Moses Nyongwa examine ‘Pliant’, open source software for webbased courseware development and ‘Academia’, a web portal based on Pliant. The features of these tools and their feasibility for e-learning and language acquisition are assessed via the findings of a case study carried out in Translation Studies in a course on Localization, developed at the CUSB School of Translation in Winnipeg, Canada.
Section II E-Language Learning: Developing Skills and Competencies Chapter XII Designing a Constructivist Vocabulary Learning Material ................................................................. 186 Ayşegül Daloğlu, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Meltem Baturay, Gazi University, Turkey Soner Yildirim, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Ayşegül Daloğlu, Meltem Baturay, and Soner Yıldırım focus on Web-based vocabulary learning via WEBVOCLE, a project funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. The authors examine this concept in light of its positive attributes. Based on vocabulary learning and retention theories and the constructivist approach, the emphasis is upon learner-centeredness, contextualized knowledge and meaning construction, opportunities for production, and ongoing/periodic recycling, which takes into account how vocabulary is learned, recycled, and practiced. The effectiveness of WEBVOCLE is analyzed via qualitative research, and the implications of the findings are discussed.
Chapter XIII A Lexical Study Based on Parallel Corpora, DDL, and Moodle......................................................... 204 Yasunori Nishina, University of Birmingham, UK In this chapter, Yasunori Nishina proposes the idea of using data-driven learning (DDL), Parallel Corpus, and Moodle for Bilingual Lexical Studies in a computer-assisted language learning (CALL) environment such as Moodle. More specifically, he argues that EFL students benefit more if they first base their studies on parallel corpora and then move on to the use of monolingual corpora. Using examples from Japanese and English of Error Analysis from Learner’s and Native Speaker’s Corpora, and Translation Analysis from a Parallel Corpus, the author demonstrates how Moodle can be beneficial in the study of corpus linguistics in the bilingual classroom. Chapter XIV EFL through the Digital Glass of Corpus Linguistics.......................................................................... 219 Vander Viana, Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Sonia Zyngier, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Vander Viana and Sonia Zyngier examine the use of corpora in the EFL classroom. Via an analysis of the British National Corpus (BNC) online database, the authors give examples of how this can be exploited for language learning and teaching, in addition to advocating its use as a method for developing student autonomy. Chapter XV Electronic Strategies to Improve Chinese Reading Skills................................................................... 237 Jing Wang, Allegheny College, USA Jing Wang investigates the use of online/off-line hyperlinked dictionaries and authentic e-materials by Chinese EFL students. By introducing a series of studies and comparing and discussing the achievement of beginners, intermediate, and advanced learners in terms of their reading comprehension and vocabulary recall, the author argues that these e-tools are better suited for intermediate-level students. In the conclusion, she proposes some e-activities supported by e-materials and considers new possibilities for language tutors in the teaching of EFL to Chinese intermediate-level students. Chapter XVI Politeness in Intercultural E-Mail Communication............................................................................. 253 Margaret Murphy, Griffith University, Australia Cristina Poyatos Matas, Griffith University, Australia Margaret Murphy and Cristina Matas focus on how to assess linguistic politeness in e-mail communication and how an awareness of e-mail politeness can assist e-teaching practices. By implementing The Tool Kit, developed over four years, e-mail excerpts are assessed using a 10-level criteria to give a Total Politeness Percentage. Limitations of The Tool Kit are discussed as well as its application for second language teaching online.
Chapter XVII Interactional Modifications in Internet Chatting ................................................................................. 271 Neny Isharyanti, Satya Wacana Christian University, Indonesia Neny Isharyanti analyzes the synchronous exchanges that take place between non-native speakers of English when engaged in two communicative language tasks aimed at promoting language acquisition. The tasks are a jigsaw task and a decision-making task. The author analyzes the types of interactional modifications in the negotiation of meaning from the transcripts taken, and compares and discusses the results achieved. Chapter XVIII The Functions of Negotiation of Meaning in Text-Based CMC ......................................................... 291 Sedat Akayoğlu, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Arif Altun, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey Using computer-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA), Arif Altun and Sedat Akayoglu focus on the types of negotiation of meaning in exchanges among Native Speakers (NS) and Non-Native Speakers (NNS) of English in a synchronous computer-mediated communication environment. Two research questions are investigated: first, what types of negotiation of meaning exist; and second, whether there is a difference between NS and NNS of English in the negotiation of meaning functions. The findings of this study provide both parallel and emerging results that are consistent with the existing literature and could be further explored to advantage by teachers/lecturers preparing their students for online communication. Chapter XIX The Use of the CMC Tool AMANDA for the Teaching of English.................................................... 307 Esrom Adriano Irala, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil Patrica Lupion Torres, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil Esrom Irala and Patricia Torres analyze and discuss the use of the AMANDA program (Environment for Mediation and Analysis of Argumentative Discussions) for foreign language learning. This intelligent system, which mediates group debates over the Internet in a mainly automatic procedure, issues reports enabling the teacher to follow the discussion and to evaluate each student’s participation. The feedback from its implementation with intermediate- and postintermediate-level students is discussed, and possible ways of implementing AMANDA in the language class are suggested. Chapter XX Assessing the Quality of Online Peer Feedback in L2 Writing .......................................................... 322 Christine Rosalia, New York University, USA Lorena Llosa, New York University, USA In this chapter, Christine Rosalia and Lorena Llosa introduce an instrument used to formatively assess the quality of peer feedback in a second language online asynchronous writing learning environment. The Online Peer Feedback Assessment (OPF Assessment) is explained by means of examples from peer reviews, and its rubrics are introduced and examined. The authors suggest that the OPF Assessment can
potentially be used in a variety of contexts as a formative tool to improve not only the quality of peer feedback but also the writing proficiency of both writers and reviewers. Chapter XXI The Impact of Podcasting on Students’ Learning Outcomes .............................................................. 339 Betty Rose Facer, Old Dominion University, USA M'hammed Abdous, Old Dominion University, USA Margaret M. Camarena, Old Dominion University, USA Betty Rose Facer, M’hammed Abdous, and Margaret Camarena of the Old Dominium University explore the potential benefits of podcasting for foreign language learning and study habits. Based on qualitative and quantitave data derived from a pilot project developed with an Italian beginner’s class and a French advanced-level group, the authors examine student use of podcasts and the effect of this on their study practices, acquisition of language skills, and knowledge. Interesting conclusions are drawn from the findings, enabling the authors to make suggestions for the future use of iPods/MP3 players and podcasting in the improvement of foreign language learning and education. Chapter XXII Listening Comprehension of Languages with Mobile Devices .......................................................... 352 Mahieddine Djoudi, Université de Poitiers, France Mahieddine Djoudi presents an approach to listening comprehension in foreign language learning using mobile devices. The author first situates mobile learning (m-learning) in distance learning (dlearning) and contextualizes listening comprehension within the language skills. He fully discusses this approach, which incorporates the use of information technology, the Internet, and mobile devices in order to examine the course management system (CMS) and its functionalities such as Podcasting Tool and Interactive Logbook. In conclusion, the author suggests an approach to the evaluation of listening comprehension. Chapter XXIII Computers and Independent Study: Student Perspectives .................................................................. 367 Huw Jarvis, University of Salford-Greater Manchester, UK The use of computer-based materials (CBMs) by students involved in self-study in language resource centers (LRCs) is examined in this chapter. Huw Jarvis specifically investigates the use of CBMs by undergraduates and postgraduates, both native and non-native speakers of English, in the study of Arabic, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and English as a Foreign Language (EFL). He discusses findings from a qualitative and quantitative study carried out in 2005 to support the conclusion that LRCs are effective in the development of both language skills and learner autonomy. Chapter XXIV Creating Supportive Environments for CALL Teacher Autonomy .................................................... 387 Renata Chylinski, Monash University, Australia Ria Hanewald, La Trobe University, Australia
Renata Chylinski and Ria Hanewald discuss the development of an online portal that aims to support teacher autonomy in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) programs. Designed to promote professional development and centralization of access to all CALL material across four campuses, the project had three stages over a six-month period: concept design, platform design, and project evaluation. Their findings, based on the qualitative data gathered from the research, are fully documented. Chapter XXV Frustration in Virtual Learning Environments .................................................................................... 409 Mar Gutiérrez-Colon Plana, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain Mar Gutiérrez-Colon proposes a theoretical viewpoint of the problems facing students engaged in virtual courses in addition to discussing what is currently believed to be characteristic of a good e-learning environment. Based on the findings of a questionnaire at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona, Italy, in which EFL students evaluated blended courses delivered using the Moodle platform, GutiérrezColon reaches conclusions as to what can motivate or demotivate students to e-learning.
Section III E-Language Learning: Methodological Approaches and Future Tendencies Chapter XXVI Social Software and Language Acquisition ........................................................................................ 424 Sarah Guth, Università degli studi di Padova, Italy Corrado Petrucco, Università degli studi di Padova, Italy Web 2.0 technologies and social software for language education provide the focus for this chapter. Advocating their benefit for language learning, Sarah Guth and Corado Petrucco offer an analysis of two projects carried out with advanced English Language students at the University of Padua, Italy, in which Skype, a wiki, blogs, and social software tools were used. The assessment criteria implemented and the challenges faced when using networked technologies in formal education are fully documented and discussed. Chapter XXVII The Usefulness of Second Life for Language Learning ..................................................................... 443 Bryan Carter, University of Central Missouri, USA Dayton Elseth, Mohawk Valley Community College, USA Bryan Carter and Dayton Elseth examine the use of the 3D virtual reality world “Second Life” for language learning. After considering the role of distance learning, social learning, and e-gaming in education, the authors report on two studies. The first was conducted with students on a Composition Course over a period of two years, and the second with a group at beginner level learning German as a foreign language. Both studies took place at the University of Central Missouri. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the future of distance education and its challenges.
Chapter XXVIII Project-Based Instruction for ESP in Higher Education ..................................................................... 456 Irene Mamakou, University of Peloponnese, Greece Maria Grigoriadou, University of Athens, Greece Irene Mamakou and Maria Grigoriadou describe and discuss a student-centered Language for Specific Purpose (LSP) course developed in e-Class, a learning management system. The authors introduce the methodological proposal, which is based on social-constructivist pedagogy and on collaborative and project-based learning, and discuss its implementation based on qualitative and quantitave research findings. Chapter XXIX WebCT Design and Users’ Perceptions in English for Agriculture .................................................... 480 Mª Camino Bueno Alastuey, Public University of Navarre, Spain Mª Camino Bueno examines the implementation of an English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course on Agriculture at the University of Navarre using WebCT as the virtual platform. The author focuses specifically on the usefulness of student input at the end of each of the three years implementation, commenting on the observed changes in organization of content taking place in each course. An evaluation of the results achieved from both quantitave and qualitative research is given in conclusion. Chapter XXX The LAFEC Experience for Language Skills Acquisition .................................................................. 497 Heli Simon, Seinäjoki Polytechnic, Finland Päivö Laine, Seinäjoki Polytechnic, Finland Ann Seppänen, Tampere Polytechnic, Finland Ana Barata, Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Portugal Carlos Vaz de Carvalho, Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Portugal The Languages for eCommerce Course (LAFEC), as presented by Heli Simon, Päivö Laine, Ann Seppänen, Ana Barata, and Carlos Vaz de Carvalho, is part of the Leonardo da Vinci program. The course focuses on the acquisition of language skills for trainees in initial vocational training and those in the labor market in the specific field of e-commerce. It is offered to students from participating higher education institutions and developed in a virtual learning environment, Moodle. LAFEC aims to develop the writing skills necessary to convey information in e-commerce Web sites, while considering the needs and cultural background of the target audience. The authors detail the six modules comprising this methodological approach and follow this with a discussion of the challenges identified in its first implementation (October 2006 through April 2007), based on feedback from participants. Chapter XXXI Language Teaching in Live Online Environments ............................................................................. 509 Christian Swertz, University of Vienna, Austria Rosa Schultz, University of Vienna, Austria Katharina Toifl, University of Vienna, Austria
Christian Swertz, Katharina Toifl, and Rosa Schultz discuss the design and implementation of LANCELOT (LANguage learning with CErtified Live Online Teachers), an online language training program for teachers funded by the Leonardo da Vinci Programme of the European Commission. LANCELOT implements an e-learning methodology known as Web-Didactics, which allows students to choose from different paths when learning a topic. The three strands of the LANCELOT course (technology, language teaching methods, and intercultural communications) are presented along with its tools, methodology, and assessment criteria. The feedback from its first implementation is analyzed and will be refined and made available to all interested parties under the Creative Commons License for public use. Chapter XXXII Adapting to Virtual Third-Space Language Learning Futures............................................................. 524 Astrid Gesche, Queensland University of Technology-Brisbane, Australia In this chapter, Astrid Gesche discusses learning within the concept of “third spaces in hyperspaces.” She compares learning in conventional third spaces with learning in virtual third spaces, considering the effects of aspects such as cultural diversity. She addresses the question of data and information privacy, and proposes three fluid and interdependent categories for teaching and learning in online virtual environments: Affective, Cognitive, and Operational. Chapter XXXIII Portable Handheld Language Learning: From CALL, MALL to PALL............................................. 539 Chaka Chaka, Walter Sisulu University, South Africa Chaka Chaka’s research area focuses upon the topic of “handheld and portable language learning aids.” The author first reviews and discusses the current literature on Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL). Second, he examines in detail the latest research on pocket PCs; mobile phones; PDAs; iPods; and Nintendo DS, PSP, and J2ME for their application and potential in language learning. In conclusion, he argues that the future of m-learning lies in Pen-Assisted Language Learning (PALL), and outlines future MALL trends. Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 554 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 595 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 608
xxiii
Foreword
E-LEarning (rEsEarch) and ForEign LanguagEs: an introduction In this opening piece, I attempt to offer an introduction to the Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition, edited by Rita de Cassia Veiga Marriott and Patricia Lupion Torres, from the perspective of a nonparticipant observer. I am very grateful for the invitation by the editors to share my comments on their ambitious project in this way, and I will do so not only on the basis of a careful reflection on the chapters featured in this book but also against the background of my own personal professional engagement as a teacher and researcher over many years, the latter in a leading specialist higher education institution, inter alia with the fields of foreign language (FL) teaching, learning, and research, as well as FL teacher education and development with particular reference to digital technologies and their application for (FL) teaching and learning. In so doing, my main points of reference will be the chapters of this handbook and their individual and collective contribution to the field. Partly due to lack of space and partly because the historical overviews and literature reviews featured by individual chapters already offer an engagement with at least some of the key literature in the field, I will refrain from providing my own topography here. This allows me to concentrate on the following observations: FL teaching and learning can be considered particularly suited to the use of technologies, new and old, with the focus in this introductory piece firmly on the former. Among other things, the skills and processes involved in FL teaching and learning align well with the characteristics and potential of digital technologies, be it in relation to traditional uses such as drill-practice (e.g., to enhance memorization of new lexical items); the systematic capturing and analysis of linguistic data, both at semantic and syntactic levels; or skill-based work around modeling to improve pronunciation, be it practicing listening through digital artefacts or speaking through the production of digital audio, practicing reading by accessing authentic material on the Internet, or developing writing through computer-mediated synchronous or asynchronous communication tools, to name but a few. The possibilities for the application of new technologies in FL teaching and learning are extensive; the list of examples given here is only indicative but it should suffice to support the previous assertion. In fact, I want to go further than just assert a particularly good fit between the characteristics and potential of new technologies, such as their communicative emphasis, multimodality, distributed nature, interactivity, and so forth, and FL teaching and learning here (for a detailed discussion, see Allford and Pachler [2007]) and instead posit that in view of the increasing proliferation, if not to say ubiquity and functional convergence of technological devices, FL learners as well as their educators can ill afford not to engage proactively with new technologies in the twin processes of FL learning and teaching. While this is not to argue that new technologies have reached the state of normalization, Bax (2003) argues in his oft-cited piece on the past, present, and future of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)
xxiv
(i.e., that the technology has become invisible and truly integrated). While invisibility, or rather ubiquity, appears to be increasingly the case in the life-worlds of many learners, particularly of young and teenage learners in the so-called developed countries (Bachmair, 2007), these technologies have far from infiltrated the personal and professional life-worlds of their teachers. I focus on the term ubiquity rather than invisibility since although devices are becoming increasingly portable and wireless networks increasingly allow for anytime and anyplace connectivity, they remain physical entities with potentially disruptive influence on the ecology of formal learning situations. Wireless connectivity cannot readily be equated with true integration (Bax, 2003). Another, in my view, very important dimension that Bax’s notion of normalization ignores or, at best, does not explicitly engage with, is the ideological baggage embedded in technology. While the notion of ubiquity runs the risk of the ideological undergirding remaining undetected, the notion of normalization bestows upon it mainstream status without really examining it critically. In Kress and Pachler (2007), drawing on Bruce and Hogan (1998), we argue that all technological tools embody certain social and cultural values, and we note that it is important to understand how technologies are designed, interpreted, used, constructed, reconstructed, and so forth. Although this current piece is by no means an attempt to deconstruct Bax’s (2003) very helpful critical reassessment of Warschauer’s history of CALL, another important notion that warrants discussion here is what Graham (1997) calls “dynamic obsolescence,” (i.e., the problem of hardware and software constantly evolving and becoming out of date). This fact works fundamentally against normalization. The current—and future—trend is firmly toward mobile, visual, and social technologies (cf. Web 2.0) (for a detailed discussion of these technologies, see Kress and Pachler [2007] and Owen, Grant, Sayers, and Facer [2006]). Suffice it to note that these trends arguably require new explanatory frames for the processes, context, and practices of (FL) learning and are associated with an entirely new set of technologies. For a discussion of these technologies in the context of FL teaching and teacher education, see Pachler, Barnes, and Field (2008). The pace of change is relentless, and it is inevitably difficult to do it full justice in a medium-term project such as this handbook that took two years from conception to completion. It is very pleasing to see, therefore, that some of the contributions (e.g., the chapters on Second Life, podcasting, handhelds, and social software) engage with new technologies, tools, and applications explicitly. My assertion is simply that there is a huge new research agenda emerging and that the challenge for researchers as well as learners and teachers continues, despite the publication of this very helpful and commendable volume. Although the current volume offers a very useful and impressive array of studies, in view of the preceding, it can at best be viewed as work in progress, and there remains an urgent need for more research in this constantly evolving field. In developing this new research agenda, one could do much worse than reflect on the efforts to date of various academics such as Bax (2003) to analyze the developmental trajectory of the use of new technologies in FL teaching and learning. Kern (2006), for example, asks the very pertinent question whether CALL should still be called CALL. In my view, the term is in need of a reappraisal, and I concur with Kern, who, with reference to Egbert (2005) and Warschauer (1999), argues that with the proliferation of tools, the focus on computers is no longer appropriate and the term CALL suggests a dislocation of technology from the normalcy of learners’ and teachers’ engagements with FLs and as “outside the ecology of language use.” The question arises, therefore, what should be used in its stead. The term e-learning appears to be used by contributors to this volume in the same generic sense as the UK government in its 2005 e-strategy (DfES, 2005). Another widely used term, at least in the UK context, is Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). My personal preference is for a more generic term such as “digital technologies,” as this allows for a wider range of use apart from information retrieval, processing, production, and communication. It seems to me to foreground that which is substantively different from older technologies (i.e., the digital format of the content and the possibilities that affords).
xxv
What, then, of the importance of the contribution of this handbook collectively to the debate around the use of digital technologies in FL teaching and learning? In order to be able to answer this question, a closer look at the individual contributions is required. One thing is clear and can be stated with some confidence: the handbook brings together an impressive range of topics and types of technology from a wide range of contributors based on a rich diversity of contexts, languages, learners, and ages. This affords the reader an opportunity to familiarize himself or herself with a wide range of interesting examples. As it is not possible to provide a detailed discussion of all the contributions to this volume given the sheer number of contributions as well as the limited space available for an introduction, I shall confine myself to glossing and commenting briefly, in no particular order, on a few papers with particular emphasis on the newer technologies. Ria Hanewald discusses the potential of digital learning objects; in particular, by examining the tension of neutrality vs. certain value orientations. She argues in particular that while free digital learning objects in digital repositories are important to prevent the marginalization of language education online, attention to the cultural situatedness and pedagogical framing of FL learning and teaching are important, and therefore, particular attention needs to be paid to the conceptualization, standardization, and application of learning objects and repositories. Very useful about her piece is the introduction it offers to a range of selected online repositories, even if it is left to the reader to apply the useful criteria for evaluating them presented in the latter part of the piece. Chaka Chaka coins the acronyms MALL (Mobile-Assisted Language Learning) and PALL (Pen-Assisted Language Learning) as replacements for CALL. The chapter offers an attempt of a multidimensional definition of m-learning and envisions a future in which various portable and ubiquitous computing devices with new types of functionality leading to portable and pervasive, personalized, context-aware, just-in-time flexible language learning. Euline Cutrim Schmid discussed the use of interactive whiteboards (IWBs); in particular, what techniques in their use are available and how these facilitate the integration of multimedia into the curriculum, cater to diverse learning needs, enhance motivation, enhance interaction and collaboration with teachers having to guard against an emphasis on teacher-centered approaches, and an undue acceleration of pace. Betty Rose Facer and M’hammed Abdous examine the impact of podcasting in relation to the reinforcement of content through provision of self-paced access to authentic material and the improvement of pronunciation and vocabulary as well as of oral and aural skills. They describe the application of podcasting very much in the context of an alternative way of curriculum delivery, although they acknowledge that podcasts present a real opportunity for knowledge creation and dissemination by students. Sarah Guth problematizes the relationship between emergent social software as an extension to network-based approaches and FL learning, and stresses access to sites of real and authentic language production and uses they afford. She posits that the focus is on activities rather than applications that focus on the creation, sharing, and managing of knowledge. Alexandra Okada emphasizes the potential of open source educational resources and attendant knowledge mapping techniques for FL learning, such as concept, mind, argument, and Web mapping. For a detailed discussion of these techniques, see the Special Issue of Reflecting Education (http://reflectingeducation.net) on the topic published in 2007. The chapter outlines some open learning communities and their features, such as open products, integrity, transparency, nondiscrimination, and noninterference. As with a number of other areas in this volume, it will be interesting to see some of the concepts and notions critically discussed in future papers. Mar Gutiérrez-Colon Plana discusses the use of VLEs in FL learning from a student perspective; in particular, the frustrations at times experienced by learners, and with reference to relevant background
xxvi
literature, she identifies good and bad practices. The discussion tends to focus on the potential technical and general stumbling blocks; a consideration of these factors may invite the reader to consider how best to teach aspects of listening comprehension online. Margaret Murphy and Cristina Poyatos Matas focus on the issue of politeness in intercultural e-mail communication, and they present, on the basis of their research with Australian and Korean subjects, an instrument to assess politeness and consider the pedagogical application of their instrument. The authors note the limitations of their instrument in terms of subjectivity and potential cultural bias. Interaction-based research in the context of online communities is, indeed, one of the main foci of the volume. In view of the prominence of this theme in the literature, this is not surprising. Adail Sebastiao, Rodrigues Jr., and Vera Paiva offer a conceptually interesting piece in which they use the notion of footing; in particular, social, teaching, and cognitive as a frame for trying to understand and explain online interaction. They argue that in view of the lack of prosodic segmentation and paralinguistic resources bound up in talk-in-context, there is a need for interlocutors to make their footing visible and explicit online. They interpret footing as the indexing of utterances to facilitate knowledge construction. They also relate their discussion to Halliday’s (2004) transitory model. Arif Altun and Sedat Akayoglu in turn investigate the functions of negotiation of meaning across native and non-native speakers using computer-mediated discourse analysis in an attempt to provide a taxonomy for text-based synchronous CMC environments. Junia de Carvalho Fidelis Braga and Antonio Martins use Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) inquiry framework to explore the role of social presence in blended and online learning environments. Jing Wang examines the use of hyperlinked dictionaries in developing reading of authentic material for learners of Chinese. The study notes the variability of findings across proficiency levels, which is linked to the nature of characters and words in Chinese. With reference to Hubbard (2000), they use the term meaning technologies in relation to hyperlinked dictionaries. Last, but by no means least, for current purposes, Christine Rosalia and Lorena Llosa offer a very useful discussion of peer feedback in online writing. In particular, they describe an instrument developed to assess the quality of peer feedback. In order to enable the reader to make better sense of the diversity offered across theories, practices, methodologies, and contexts, the handbook would have benefited from a more substantial editorial offering an explicit frame of reference against which to read the various contributions. The handbook offers a collection of more or less systematic and inquiry-based reflections on pedagogical and didactic practices, which are, to a greater or lesser degree, aligned to certain theoretical conceptualizations drawn from (a combination of) constructivist, social interactionist, as well as (inter)cultural and/or semiotic approaches (Pachler, 2005). An extended foreword would have supported the reader in the process of meaning-making and categorization in this respect. This diversity of perspectives, in my view, is not necessarily a bad thing, and with Egbert (2005), who made the point in the context of research into technology-enhanced FL teaching and learning, I would argue the need for plurality in theoretical and methodological, pedagogical, and didactic perspectives. However, it is somewhat surprising that those few generic explanatory frames for technology-enhanced and online learning and teaching that do exist, the most prominent being Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) framework for research and practice and Laurillard’s (2002, 2007) conversational model, are conspicuous by their absence in all but very few of the contributions to this handbook, as is, by and large, reference to the fora in which they tend to be debated, such as the Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN) (http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/) and the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education (IRODL) (http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl). My contention here is that reference to and critical engagement with the world of educational research and practice more generally
xxvii
can only benefit the advancement of our understanding of FL-specific practices and processes and is a challenge to be taken up by future volumes. Let me finish my critical commendation of this volume by reminding us all that what matters is not technology itself, but rather how it is used. As others have rightly observed before me (Kern, 2006, 2000), technology-enhanced FL teaching is not a methodological approach in itself but must be seen as embedded in particular teaching methods and conceptualization of FL learning processes. Any research into the use of technology for FL teaching and learning must, therefore, take cognizance of these teaching methods and assumptions about how language learning takes place and treat them as important variables. It is, therefore, hoped that this volume will provide inspiration for further research into this important field of study.
Norbert Pachler Institute of Education, University of London, London Norbert Pachler is a Reader in Education at the Institute of Education, University of London, where he is the co-director of the Centre for Excellence in Work-Based Learning for Education Professional. His research interests include foreign language pedagogy, teacher education and development, and new technologies in education, and he has published widely in these fields. He is currently co-editor of the Language Learning Journal (Routledge), associate editor of the London Review of Education (Routledge), and editor of Reflecting Education (WLE Centre).
rEFErEncEs Allford, D., & Pachler, N. (2007). Language, autonomy and the new learning environments. Oxford: Peter Lang. Bachmair, B. (2007). M-learning and media use in everyday life. In N. Pachler (Ed.), Mobile learning: Towards a research agenda (pp. 105–152). London: WLE Centre. Retrieved from http://www.wlecentre. ac.uk/cms/files/occasionalpapers/mobilelearning_pachler_2007.pdf Bax, S. (2003). CALL—Past, present and future. System, 31, 13–28. Bruce, B., & Hogan, M. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 269–281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~chip/pubs/disappearance.shtml Chambers, A., Conacher, J., & Littlemore, J. (Eds.). (2004). ICT and language learning: Integrating pedagogy and practice. University of Birmingham Press. Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 19–43. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/chapelle/ Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: CUP. Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology. Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Bejamins Publishing.
xxviii
Davies, G. (1997). Lessons from the past, lessons from the future: 20 years of CALL. In A.-K. Korsvold, & B. Rüschoff (Eds.). (1997). New technologies in language learning and teaching. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/coegdd1.htm DfES. (2005). Harnessing technology: Transforming learning and children’s services. London. Retrieved from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/e-strategy/docs/e-strategy.pdf Egbert, J. (2005). Conducting research on CALL. In J. Egbert, & G. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 3–8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer. Halliday, M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (Third Edition). London: Arnold. Hubbard, P. (2000). The use and abuse of meaning technologies. Proceedings of the Ontario TESL Conference. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.stanford.edu/~efs/phil/MT.pdf Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2006). The future of CALL. ELT Journal, 60(4), 382–384. Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183–210. Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243–260. Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci. edu/person/markw/frontiers.pdf Kress, G., & Pachler, N. (2007). Thinking about the “m” in m-learning. In N. Pachler (Ed.), Mobile learning: Towards a research agenda (pp. 7–32). London: WLE Centre. Retrieved from http://www. wlecentre.ac.uk/cms/files/occasionalpapers/mobilelearning_pachler_2007.pdf Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching. A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd Edition). London: Routledge. Laurillard, D. (2007). Pedagogical forms of mobile learning: Framing research questions. In N. Pachler (Ed.), Mobile learning: Towards a research agenda (pp. 153–176). London: WLE Centre. Retrieved from http://www.wlecentre.ac.uk/cms/files/occasionalpapers/mobilelearning_pachler_2007.pdf Owen, M., Grant, L., Sayers, S., & Facer, K. (2006). Opening education: Social software and learning. London: Futurelab. Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/opening_education.htm Pachler, N. (2005). Theories of learning and ICT. In M. Leask, & N. Pachler (Eds.), Learning to teach using ICT in the secondary school (2nd Edition) (pp. 189–206). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Pachler, N., Barnes, A., & Field, K. (2008). Learning to teach modern foreign languages in the secondary school (Third Revised Edition). London: Routledge. Thorne, S., & Payne, J. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO Journal, 22, 371–397. Warschauer, M. (1999). CALL vs. electronic literacy: Reconceiving technology in the language classroom. Retrieved from http://www.cilt.org.uk/research/resfor2/warsum1.htm
xxix
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Brown (Ed.), New perspectives on CALL for second and foreign language classrooms (pp. 15–25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/markw/future-of-CALL.pdf Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57–71. Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/markw/overview.html Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: CUP. Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7–27.
xxx
Preface
Language teaching has seen the development of a variety of methodologies and approaches over the past decades. These have included the grammar translation method, the total physical response method, the silent way, and the communicative approach. These practices have involved the use of a range of tools, including the cassette player and VCR and DVD players, and have concentrated on the development of language skills, grammar, vocabulary, and communicative competence. They have also, in the main, relied upon teachers and course books as the principal sources of information and guidance. After the birth of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in the late 1970s, foreign language teaching and learning saw the introduction of the use of micro and networked computers and the development of hardware and software designed specifically for language instruction. Since the end of the 1990s, with the popularization of synchronous and asynchronous communications and the Internet, a number of CALL research papers and projects have focused on the use of e-mail for language teaching and the establishment of cross-cultural communication activities (Chapelle, 2001). More recently, CALL methodologies have gone a step further, this time to embrace not only the new technology but also methodologies and approaches brought about by the use of the Internet and virtual learning environments. These take into consideration the needs and interests of both students and institutions within the context of a technological and democratic society. It was in this context that the idea for putting together a publication germinated. The initial thoughts of organizing this book stem from several research projects carried out by the editors on computer-mediated learning. From the first investigations, Marriott and Torres sought to propose methodologies that would develop a student’s critical sense, methodologies that would overcome the more traditional teaching methods centered in the reproduction of content. They were also looking for innovative solutions using information and communication technologies, aiming to give support to their own methodological proposals. In 2004, Marriott created the Language Learning Lab (LAPLI)1 (Laboratório de APrendizagem de LInguas). LAPLI is a hybrid (50% face-to-face [F2F] and 50% distance learning) methodology for intermediate and advanced language learning students, developed in a collaborative virtual learning environment (VLE). Involved in its 12 activities, students research on topics of their own interest associated with linguistics or education and select authentic material from trustworthy sources online, saving them in the VLE for all to access and work on. They work at word, paragraph, and text level, and are involved in several activities such as concept mapping2; questioning and answering; creating grammar exercises; and developing summaries, reviews, articles, and PowerPoint presentations. Learners work individually, interactively, and collaboratively among themselves and in small groups formed according to shared interests or involvement in the activities. LAPLI’s activities are designed to challenge students to go beyond their limitations while developing their fluency and accuracy in reading, writing, and oral skills. LAPLI is based on Torres’ distance learning methodology LOLA3 - The Online Learning Lab (Laboratório Online de Aprendizagem4) was created in 2002. Both LAPLI and LOLA are based on
xxxi
constructivist, collaborative, and meaningful learning approaches, placing the students in the center of the process, developing their autonomy, responsibility, and social skills. Following the development and evaluation of these proposals, several new research projects have been undertaken, which has led to an increase in the number of publications in this area. It was in light of these new investigations that the idea of editing this publication took shape and the Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition was conceived. First, let us explain what we mean by “e-learning,” “methodologies,” and “language acquisition.” Elearning means in its broadest sense to “explore new approaches to learning supported by technologies” (HEFCE, 2005), involving the innovative use of information and communication technology (ICT) for F2F, hybrid, and distance learning initiatives in order to be able to “transform learning and teaching” (HEFCE, 2005). Methodology is perceived in its general meaning to encompass “approaches, methods, techniques, procedures and models” (Harmer, 2001) within which theoretical and pedagogical approaches combine, supporting and guiding the use of teaching resources available, and a set of procedures designed to achieve the expected learning outcomes is found. As for language acquisition, we understand this to mean “a natural developmental process of gaining knowledge and mastery of a speech system in a living environment” (Pham, 1994), whereas language learning, also covered in this publication, is “a largely conscious process that involves formal exposure to rules of syntax and semantics followed by specific applications of the rules, with corrective feedback reinforcing correct usage and discouraging incorrect usage” (Felder & Henriques, 1995). Therefore, in this Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition, we gather research on innovative theoretical and practical approaches to language learning and teaching in the area of CALL, using current available teaching resources for F2F, distance, and hybrid courses. The 33 chapters are written by 60 prominent, internationally known authors from all six continents of the world and cover both language learning and language acquisition as well as language teaching. They cover a variety of topics such as the use of computer mediated communication, Web2.0, social software, mobile learning, virtual learning environments, e-gaming, mapping techniques, hyperlinked dictionaries, interactive whiteboards, corpus linguistics, learning objects, virtual reality environments, and podcasting. They report on research and studies focusing on the theory and methodologies for the learning, teaching, and acquisition of languages online, fostering students’ foreign language competencies and communicative skills as well as their autonomy, responsibility, and social skills. The Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition covers the areas of pedagogy, methodology, assessment, current and future challenges of online language learning, and teaching. It is divided into the following three foundational areas under the e-language learning umbrella heading: Section I – Theories, Tools, and Pedagogical Resources; Section II – Developing Skills and Competencies; and Section III – Methodological Approaches and Future Tendencies. This publication aims to contribute to the education of language students, novice teachers, academics, and researchers who not only wish to keep abreast of current developments but also want to introduce innovative methodologies and approaches into their own practice. It aims to promote insights into current e-learning practices and methodologies for language teaching, learning, and acquisition, and to foster the development of both theoretical and practical issues concerning learning, skills development, interaction, communication, collaboration, and evaluation of foreign/second language education online, encouraging professional discussion and progress in this fast developing field.
Rita de Cássia Veiga Marriott and Patrícia Lupion Torres Editors
xxxii
rEFErEncEs Felder, R., & Henriques, E. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language learning education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 21–31. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/FLAnnals.pdf Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd Ed.). Harlow: Longman. HEFCE. (2005). HEFCE strategy for e-learning. Retrieved November 2007, from http://www.hefce. ac.uk/pubs/HEFCE/2005/05_12/05_12.doc Pham, L. (1994). Infant dual language acquisition revisited. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 14, 185–210. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/jeilms/vol14/ pham.htm
EndnotEs 1
2
3
4
For information on LAPLI, see Marriott, R., & Torres, P. (2006). LAPLI – The Languages Learning Lab: A methodological proposal for a hybrid course in a virtual environment. In P. Zaphiris, & G. Zacharia (Eds.), User-centered computer aided language learning (pp. 133–151). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. For information on LAPLI focusing on concept mapping activities, please refer to Marriott, R., & Torres, P. (2008). Enhancing collaborative and meaningful language learning through concept mapping. In A. Okada, S.B. Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography—Software tools and mapping techniques. Springer-Verlag. LOLA was awarded 1st place in the category “Research” by ABED, the Brazilian Association for Distance Learning (Associação Brasileira de Educação a Distância) and by EMBRATEL, a Brazilian telephone communications company, in 2003. For information on LOLA, see Torres, P.L., & Marriott, R. (2007). The LOLA strategy and e-learning knowledge management. In T. Kidd, & H. Song (Eds.), Handbook of research on instructional systems and technology (pp. 656–669), Volume II. New York: Information Science Reference.
xxxiii
Acknowledgment
We would first like to thank the many authors who contributed to this publication for their enthusiasm for the project, and also the Editorial Advisory Board and the reviewers who gave so much of their time. Grateful thanks are extended to Norbert Pachler, not only for writing the foreword but also for his guidance during the latter stages of production; to the editorial team at IGI Global for their support; and to Janet Schofield for advice. In addition, we thank our families for their support throughout the process: John, Rita’s husband, for his insights and encouragement during all the writing process, and children Rebecka and Nicholas for their understanding and patience during the endless weekends dedicated to the book; Patricia’s husband, Gilberto, for his support and dedication, and children Tattiana and Patrick for their love and understanding during the time spent away from them. We are also grateful to our mothers Maria de Lourdes Silva Veiga and Maria Helena Ribas Lupion and Rita’s brother Fernando Cesar Silva Veiga for being there. Finally, our most heartfelt thanks to four close family members who have enjoyed our happiness and encouraged us from the beginning. They are the late José Schwansee Torres, the late Kenneth Kolbe Marriott, the late José Lupion Jr., and the late Jose Irineu Ribas Veiga. We are sure they would be very proud of the completed venture.
Rita de Cássia Veiga Marriott and Patrícia Lupion Torres Editors
Section I
E-Language Learning:
Theories, Tools, and Pedagogical Resources
Chapter I
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context Pascual Pérez-Paredes Universidad de Murcia, Spain María Sánchez-Tornel Universidad de Murcia, Spain
abstract The research we report is a pilot study carried to test English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students’ reception of an electronic foreign language teaching (FLT) task. In doing so, our aim was to collect information that can allow us to refine our own e-skills model, a model that adapts to the specific learning context of our students by focusing on the objectives, competence, and learning activities that our students engage in, in their everyday learning experience. In this way, our e-skills model is field-specific and context-survey-driven. The factor analysis results suggest that, although our four-factor solution explains much of the variance, the original dimensions of e-skills in our FLT context should be reformulated and further adjusted.
introduction: putting E-skiLLs in thE broad picturE Within the context of the European Union (EU), e-skills have become one of the main areas of discussion of the so-called ICT Task Force, which was created in June 2006 to foster a debate on the use of information and communication technologies in all major types of activities across the EU. In
the words of the European Commission, the ICT Task Force is “one of several actions undertaken to create a more favorable EU business environment under the Growth and Jobs initiative proposals for specific actions, such as designing a long-term e-skills strategy and promoting interoperability.”1 A report produced by this group in October 2006 stated that a “steadily growing demand for people with ‘e-skills’ (ICT skills) is a long-run trend for
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
business of all sizes and sectors [where] non-ICT related professions will increasingly require at least basic user e-skills.”2 There is, therefore, a strong link between a “knowledge-based economy which has made education and training a lifelong process rather than a one-off activity”3 and “technology-enabled learning (e-learning) [which] can significantly contribute to lifelong learning and make it a reality.”4 Although e-skills have been successfully implemented in other professional and academic areas, it remains to be seen what the potential for foreign language teaching (FLT) is. In 2003, the European e-Skills Forum was established by the European Commission to promote the effective use of ICT and its successful introduction in all major areas of human activity, especially in the business and industrial sectors. As the focus is the promotion of enhanced labor policies, education and training are key factors in this process. In the European E-Skills 2004 Conference5 held in Thessalonica, Greece, e-skills were defined as encompassing a wide range of capabilities (knowledge, skills, and competences) whose dimensions span a number of economic and social areas. However, the ways individuals interact with ICT vary considerably, depending on the work organization and context of a particular employer, or home environment, as the Synthesis Report of the E-Skills Forum reckons. This notion of variation will precisely be of great interest in the following paragraphs as we want to shed some light on adjacent or related terms by surveying the FLT and CALL literature that has dealt with them. Moreover, we want to create our own model of e-skills, a model that adapts to the specific learning context of our students by focusing on the objectives, competence, and learning activities our students engage in, in their everyday learning experience. In this way, our e-skills model is field-specific and context-survey-driven. One of the major challenges of our research is to try and narrow down the usefulness and epistemology of the e-skills term in our field by:
(1) analyzing existing work, (2) submitting our e-skill frame proposal to the learners’ evaluation, and thus (3) in the future, building a data-driven construct that can serve as a starting point for future research. Concerning the first area, once we have discussed mainstream FLT practices, we want to make an effort to outline a notion of eskill in FLT on three different well-defined areas: (a) new curricular needs and the transformation process (Timuçin, 2006), (b) the well-known normalization issue first introduced by Bax (2003), and (c) the new model for communicative competence (Kenning, 2006) and the need to establish a social context for the adaptation of ICT skills to continuous change. This component of our research is distinctively part of a theoryinformed process which seeks to define problems explicitly (Widdowson, 2003). Regarding the second item abovesubmitting our e-skill frame proposal to the learners’ evaluationwe want to feed on the discussion above to later on submit to our Common European Framework (CEF) Level C1 university learners of English a framework for the understanding of e-skills in their learning process. Our drive here is to adapt an e-skills scheme that meets the specific needs of the students mentioned previously. This scheme goes beyond the widespread user skills approach that covers the utilization of common generic software tools and the use of specialized tools supporting functions within industries other than the ICT industry. We will first stay on more familiar ground by going deeper into the research carried out in the field of FLT and CALL.
background FLt Mainstream context Existing terms such as skill, strategy, and computer expertise have traditionally been and still are of paramount importance to the field of language learning and teaching. In particular, the concept
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
of skill is broad and appears in several different domains within FLT. In general terms, a skill can be defined as “a special ability to do something well, especially as gained by learning and practice”; expertise is a “great skill in a specific field,” while strategy is “skillful planning or a particular plan for gaining success in a particular activity.”6 Other definitions for these terms are shown in Table 1 (entry number is provided). The different definitions vary in their appraisal of the actors and activities that these terms involve. As the definitions from Table 1 and from the Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture show, these three terms are well related. If we take the term skill, we see how the terms ability and training are in the core of most definitions. This goes to show that, as we will later see in the discussion of skills within the FLT context, those who want to achieve ability in a field need to go through the appropriate training and practice. As for expertise, it is clear that the notions of great skill or special knowledge
are common. As inferred from these definitions, there is a relationship between skill and expertise, as there is a question of degree that differentiates them. Therefore we see that expertise is situated along the know-how ladder in a higher position than skill, as expertise is related to the mastering of a skill. Our third term, strategy, is related to the military field and has to do with the development of a plan to achieve a goal or success on a particular activity. The most frequent terms in the definitions we collected are success and plan or planning. As students are expected to achieve a certain degree of mastering of the languagethat is, developing certain skills or even achieving an expert levelstrategies will be instrumental in the process. In FLT, skill is used to refer to the four basic language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Mainstream FLT authors (Hedge, 2000, among others) devote special attention to each of the skills separately by considering their main features by offering models to manage them in
Table 1. Term definitions Skill OED
7
Expertise
7. Knowledge or understanding of something.
Strategy 2. The art of a commander in chief, the art of projecting and directing the larger military movements and operations of a campaign. 3. The office of a strategies.
COBUILD8
…special ability in a task, sport, etc., esp. ability acquired by training. 2 2. something, esp. a trade or technique, requiring special training or manual proficiency.
1. Special skill, knowledge, or judgment; expertness.
2. A particular long-term plan for success, esp. in business or politics. 3. a plan or stratagem.
WEBSTER’S9
1. An ability that has been acquired by training. 2. Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain; “the skill of a well-trained boxer”; “the sweet science of pugilism.”
1. Skillfulness by virtue of possessing special knowledge.
1. An elaborate and systematic plan of action. 2. The branch of military science dealing with military command and the planning and conduct of a war.
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
class. In this traditional approach to the study of skills, a division into receptive skills (reading and listening) and productive ones (speaking and writing) is common. If we bear in mind the general definition of skill, we can see that, up to a point, there is a link between the way in which Hedge (2000) conceives the development of reading skills and the concept of skill itself. This link is seen in the two senses in which Hedge conceives reading as an interactive process: from a top-down perspective (schematic knowledge) or from a bottom-up (language knowledge) perspective. In the first case, reading is seen as interactive because the student links words or expressions found in the text with his schematic knowledge, or as Hedge (2000) quotes from Cook, his “mental representations of typical situations…used in discourse situations to predict the contents of the particular situation which the discourse describes” (p. 190). Therefore, if a skill is a special ability obtained through practice or learning, we could say that practice has a clear influence on the development of schemata in the mind of the learner, and consequently on the development of the skill as a whole. Further, the richer those mental images are, the greater the possibility of establishing useful relationships between them and elements from the reading task, which would put the student in a better position to develop the task successfully and eventually to achieve a good command of the skill under consideration. From a bottom-up perspective, reading is an interactive skill because of the fact that a good knowledge of the language system makes the student able to recognize lexical items or syntactic structures he finds in the text, helping him to make sense of it, as Hedge (2000) states. In this case, we see the importance of practice and learning, the two ways to develop a skill. When acquiring reading competence, the greater the knowledge about the language, the easier to identify and understand certain words or structures in the text; in other words, declarative knowledge plays a great role in skill developing (Williams, 2001; Ellis,
Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2002). A second relevant aspect in her view is the purpose of reading. There are different categories of reading depending on the intention of the reader, such as receptive reading, reflective reading, skim reading, scanning, or intensive reading. Each of these types of reading involves the use of certain strategies, for instance skimming is largely based upon a top-down strategy. Traditionally, reading tasks have consisted basically of providing students with a text that has been assessed by means of comprehension questions. This is an interesting area for researchers that want to go deeper into the new models of communicative competence that emerge as a result of new communication paradigms (Kenning, 2006). What used to be considered a static skill could now become a more complex and evolving concept that requires constant re-definition and skill scaffolding. Certainly, not all the skills are managed in the same way by FL practitioners. Hedge (2000) points out that the writing skill is “often relegated to homework and takes place in unsupported conditions of learning” (p. 301). She goes on to suggest the need to raise the students’ awareness on the existence of certain strategies, and to encourage them to develop these strategies whereby they can become more efficient writers. It is in this context that strategies and skills converge. As we saw at the beginning of this section, a strategy is a “skillful planning or a particular plan for gaining success in a particular activity.” Hence the importance of developing these strategies10 to gain a good command of this skill in particular. As happens with reading and listening, practice and the use of declarative knowledge of the language serve as facilitators in the development and improvement of writing. Besides, research shows that attention to form can be integrated successfully and is effective in programs where the emphasis is on communication (Williams, 2001). If we move from mainstream perspectives, such as those of Hedge (2000) or Oxford (2001), to those maintained by Widdowson (2000, 2003),
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
we find certain disparity in the way of facing skills. In the entry for Skills and Knowledge in Language Learning,11 Widdowson diverges from the traditional view of the four-skill division as the touchstone for language learning. This author maintains that, although this division is “well-established” (Byram, 2000, p. 549) in determining the objectives of language learning, it might not be “well-founded” (p. 550) and introduces the concepts of mode and medium of manifestation. Widdowson states that the division of skills in productive and receptive skills is merely based on the channel or medium of manifestation, aural or visual, and that there is a need also to consider the mode of interaction and not only the roles of the participants in communication as “physical producers or receivers” (p. 550). Consequently, the author defends that literacy in a language has to do with the ability of the student to act according to the principles that rule different types communicationthat is, the modes of interaction, whether written or oral. Again, we find some grounding to re-define the notion of skill as a dynamic concept. Widdowson (2000, 2003) holds the opinion that learners should be taught how language is used by native speakers in different social contexts and that an appropriate way to attain this is by means of task-based learning. Tasks are intended to put the students in a position to use language in a real-like communicative situation, hence the focus on the adequacy of language to each social context and not only on the linguistic code in isolationas structuralists defend. Nevertheless, this position poses the problem of the impossibility to teach the appropriate for every communicative context. In Widdowson (2003) we find a discussion of the limits of the well-known presentation-then practice-then-production (PPP) scheme and classroom task-based learning. Despite the pedagogical implications for the design of material and methodology, which evidently lie outside the scope of this chapter, the fact that real issues and real activities enhance language
learning leads us to a felicitous occasion when we suddenly discover that most of the e-skills are, by definition, real tools that real people use on an everyday basis. Widdowson’s authoritative view matches the expectations posited on the socio-cognitive model of CALL. Authors such as Kern and Warschauer (2000) stress the role within this paradigm of computer networks that allow for “interactive human communication” (p. 11), and the incorporation of “online activities for their social utility as well as for their perceived particular pedagogic value” (Kern & Warschauer, 2000, p. 13). Some CALL-specific terms that we will review later fall within this paradigm. While the scope of skills in the phrase language skills remains ample, the status for expertise, or more specifically, computer expertise (CE), is similar. However, despite the gradation of this concept, it remains central in the area of CALL as it is an essential requisite to the implementation of ICT-based learning. If expertise is “a great skill in a particular field,”12 computer expertise is, accordingly, a great ability in the use of computers. It is now when we see a more clear reflection of what we posited in the previous introduction to the concepts of skill, strategy, and expertise. From the discussion above emerges a model for understanding these terms which, a priori, is independent of the CALL teaching model (see Figure 1). So, how skilled is an expert? How expert should students be in order to show CE? The following definition taken from Ruiz Madrid (2005), which quotes the U.S. Department of Education, is clarifying: computer expertise is the group of “computer skills and the ability to use computers and other technology to improve learning, productivity and performance” (p. 133). In the same work, we find a division of CE according to the foundations of the NETS (National Educational Technology Standards) Project. The NETS Project has been conducted within the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and aims at defining “standards
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Figure 1. A framework for understanding e-skills
for students, integrating curriculum technology, technology support, and standards for student assessment and evaluation of technology use.”13 Among these standards we find14: 1. 2. 3.
Basic operations and concepts, Personal and professional use, and Applications in instruction and learning.
The first heading includes “running software, managing and manipulating data, publishing results and evaluating the technology”; the second includes the “use of productivity tools, telecommunications, assisting devices for problem solving, collaboration, research and lifelong learning” (Ruiz Madrid, 2005, p. 134). The third heading is more oriented towards the integration of “a variety of software applications, and learning tools,”15that is, towards the application of “computers and related technologies to support
instruction.”16 Different studies have incorporated CE in their analyses: Sahin and Thompson (2006) report low levels of CE in a study of college teachers as a factor that deters the implementation of CALL in the curriculum. Beatty (2002)17 explores the notion of expertise in the area of collaboration and states that “determining expertise is classified as a collaborative strategy because it helps to clarify what each partner knows or does not know about a task. Learners who start off by determining expertise are better able to collaborate because they are better positioned to evaluate what they and the other person knows.” Expertise here is seen both as necessary and an element for rapport-building in peer or group work. However, it seems to us that the very fact that CE is negotiated and established plays against the interest of CALL as it indicates that normalization is yet to come (Chambers & Bax, 2006). It follows that, in the field of CALL, expertise performs a similar role as skill does in the field of FLT.
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Finally, two additional concepts related to the area of computer expertise address the new online collaboration paradigm: electronic literacy and skills of electronic literacy. The former, coined by Chapelle (2001, p. 2), refers to the “communication in registers associated with electronic communication,” while the latter comprises “the skills needed for successful interaction online: for example, how to participate in online discourse and how to access the technology” (Simpson, 2005, p. 327). Simpson’s study is much based upon Vygotskyan theories on language learning through social collaboration, as he proposes that this social collaboration cannot only be applied to language learning in particular, but also to learning in general. Accordingly, in the same way interaction allows students to improve their language skills, it can also have a very positive impact on their skills of electronic literacy, helping them to enhance what Chapelle called “electronic communicative competence” (Simpson, 2005, p. 330). There is, consequently, a link between both Chapelle’s and Simpson’s concepts, since skills of electronic literacy can be placed within the broader area of electronic communicative competence. Once more, there is evidence of the importance of the impact of new technologies in most basic aspects of our everyday lives, and of the importance of developing students’ electronic skills to an optimal level that allows us to get the most out of the ICT resources available for EFL. Simpson’s study was grounded on basic concepts of Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory. Vygotsky considers collaboration as the key to learning and proposes the need for scaffolding, that is, “the process of supportive dialogue which directs the attention of the learner to key features of the environment, and which prompts them through successive steps of a problem” (Mitchell & Miles, 2004, p. 195). The point Simpson makes is that this scaffolding or collaboration can be extrapolated to the acquisition of the basic skills necessary to work with computers within
the field of language learning. Thus, he splits skills of electronic literacy into the knowledge of discourse management and the knowledge of technology, encompassing “both access to the technologythe computer hardware and an Internet connection, and also a technical capacity enabling a participant to download particular software, to log on to the system and to join an online group, among other things” (Simpson, 2005, p. 337). Both types of knowledge can be achieved through collaboration in a computermediated communication environment. To finish this overview on computer expertise, we should briefly mention the present-day situation and the new needs of students. Chapelle (2001) draws our attention to the fact that the evolution of technology has an effect on language learning and, therefore, current trends should take into account the new needs of students. One of the authors who has devoted his attention to the way in which the evolution of technology has a direct effect over students’ lives in general is Warschauer (1999). He maintains there is a direct relationship between the use of ICT resources in the classroom and multi-literacies, including electronic literacy, which all language users need in the Western World. This position represents a step forward, as Warschauer considers literacy in new technologies as something that most students live with in their everyday routine. As we infer from the three perspectives we have mentioned so far, great advances in this field have taken place over the past 20 years. We see how we have moved from a position where the main interest was the access or lack of access to technology in a educational context, from an intermediate position concerned with the use of such technology in everyday life to a more recent trend which assumes that the use of technology is common to most students and centers around the specific needs of students using ICT in an educational context. This is to have an effect on the way e-skills spread across education as they become more visible. In this respect, research
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
shows that the more familiar students are with computer use, the more readily they will incorporate e-skills into their skill repertoire (Fernández Carballo-Calero, 2005). The last concept we are concerned with is strategy. As we have seen beforehand, a strategy is a sort of plan designed to achieve an aim, specifically a skillful planning or a particular plan for gaining success in a particular activity. We assume here that this concept is strictly related to the field of language learning in general and to the field of CALL in particular, for adult students use, conscious or unconsciously, certain plans to achieve their goals when learning. In a similar way and more closely related to the topic of language learning, strategies are defined by O’Malley and Chamot, quoted in Vinther (2005, p. 253), as “the special thoughts and behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn or retain new information.” He adds that “a strategy for learning must be positive, since the objective is to point to elements which purposely and encouragingly help the student forward towards the goal of accomplishing new understanding and competence.” This remark is worth mentioning, since it clearly reflects the nature of the term strategy at its most essential meaning. If we go deeper into the field of strategies within language learning, we see how Vinther (2005) considers three different types of strategies in his analysis of students’ use of CALL: affective strategies, cognitive strategies, and memory strategies. Affective strategies are the student’s emotional thoughts or utterances as a result of the student’s interaction with the computer. Within affective strategies, Vinther differentiates indirect statements (sighs and laughs) from direct statements (verbal utterances). As part of future work into CALL-based tasks and e-skills, the individuals that took part in our research also were invited to express their cognitions as regards the different activities being completed. Cognitive strategies are instrumental in integrating old and new knowledge and restructure information, and
include reasoning inductively and deductively, guessing from context and analyzing. In turn, memory strategies are usually the first step in learning declarative knowledge and “help learners link [in a simplistic, stimulus-response manner] a new item with something new” (Oxford, 2001, p. 167). So far, we have tried to go deeper into the definitions of skill, strategy, and computer expertise, three concepts of huge importance that often appear in the literature of CALL. Our aim was to delimit each of them independently, and to clarify some of the possible relationships and overlapping among them that may sometimes cause problems in approaching the topic of instructed second language acquisition (c.f., skill and expertise distinction is neutralized in CALL). Our own scheme proposal, evaluated by the learners themselves, seeks to offer students and the FLT community an informed proposal for the effective integration of so-called e-skills in our own FLT context. It is this evaluation on the part of learners that we discuss in depth in this work, together with the description of the process that we have adopted throughout our experience. Based on the discussion above, we decided on the rationale for our e-skills model as integrative of two types of ICT skillse-communication and computer user skillsas well as FL-specific skills and attitudinal/strategic indicators.
aiM oF thE studY and Working dEFinition For E-skiLLs As the main aim of our research is to establish the foundations to understand e-skills in the FL classroom, we have integrated the discussion presented above into a model that can be submitted to advanced learners of English. This model subsumes the previously discussed notions of skill in FLT, that of (computer) expertise and that of
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
strategy under the same heading: e-skills. One of the main tenets of the e-skill approach is that it does not exclude non-ICT practitioners. Rather, it includes all activity sectors and is user oriented: e-skills are “the capabilities required for effective application of ICT systems and devices by the individual. ICT users apply systems as tools in support of their own work, which is, in most cases, not ICT.”18 From this, it follows that there exists an array of capabilities that matches the efficient use of ICT systems in performing tasks that are field specific. The challenge was to generate an appropriate e-task instrumental in identifying these context-bound capabilities/abilities (Chambers & Bax, 2006). We want to emphasize the fact that e-skills support individuals’ work, which presents itself a propaedeutic value of interest and in connection with Widdowson’s (2003) notion of learning English as a pedagogic construct where personal investment is a most crucial feature. Based on the discussion presented earlier, and in the specific context of our research, the operational notion of e-skills that we have adopted can be formulated as the group of abilities that encompasses both top-down as well as bottom-up language processing in a digital learning environment and which are instrumental in the process of FL task resolution.
sEtting For thE rEsEarch The target population informing this work is a group of third-year university learners of English (n = 9, mean age = 22.0) who are taking an undergraduate course in English Studies at the University of Murcia, Spain. Before leaving tertiary education, these students will be taking two further years. Their curriculum is one that emphasizes a balance between literary and cultural studies, on the one hand, and linguistic and language on the other.
rEsEarch MEthodoLogY As already stated, in this work we report on a pilot study carried out to test the students’ reception of a CALL-based task in order to collect information that can allow us to refine our e-skills model. Based on Timuçin’s (2006) guidelines for the implementation of CALL in FLT, we believe that this process must be: (a) teacher driven, (b) student oriented, and (c) context specific (following Chambers & Bax, 2006). The steps that were taken are summarized in Figure 2 and discussed immediately after.
Analysis of Subject-Specific objectives Our research analyzes the feedback of students (n = 9) taking a compulsory course of English language (CEF C1 level) 01D6 Lengua Inglesa III during the 2006-2007 academic year, a course where CALL-driven classroom instruction plays no significant role. It must be said that this is the last English course that these students will take before their graduate studies and, accordingly, they are expected to achieve the C1 level mentioned above, which posits a great burden in terms of study hours and exam preparation. As the e-skills model is highly dependent on the field of application, we set out then to identify the objectives of our academic subject where eskills could make a relevant contribution.
Identification of Related E-Skills The first group of objectives is specific objectives related to the analysis of the language as a code. This is a very comprehensive block encompassing both theoretical and practical objectives of a lexical-grammatical and pragmatic nature. Thus, the acquisition and use of advanced vocabulary, the noticing of nuances of connotation and denotation, the command of different communicative
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Figure 2. A framework for e-skills model refinement
domains, and the difference of formal and informal registers are areas covered by this first block of objectives. For these objectives to be fulfilled in a CALL-driven environment, students are expected to check word meanings, identify specific contexts of use, and find collocates. Among the varied electronic resources existing, the ones that are more closely related to the development of this first objective are online dictionaries, online thesauri, concordancers, or using the Web as a corpus. The second block of objectives is specific objectives related to reading. Here we find direct reference to some aspects covered before in the background information section, such as the one concerned with approaching different types of reading in the communicative process. For these objectives to be fulfilled in a CALL-driven environment, students are expected to find both general and context-specific information, get the gist of the topic dealt with in the text, check word meanings,
0
and interpret prosody. Among the varied electronic resources existing, the ones that are more closely related to the development of this second objective are online dictionaries, encyclopedias and newspapers, and online corpora. Table 2 shows the subject objectives where we found that implementing CALL-based activities would be feasible, as well as their corresponding, well-delimited functionality. These functionalities have been described as micro skills (Pérez-Paredes et al., 2003) as each of them requires some sort of specific, well-limited learning and practice for its mastery.
Experiment design Once we had decided on the target objectives underlying the e-task, we went on to adapt a set of activities from the subject course book. To minimize the impact of the novelty of a CALL-
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Table 2. Language course objectives where CALL can make a contribution
E-RESOURCES
FUNCTIONALITY
Online Dictionary
• Check meanings or uses
Descriptor: dictionary Search
• Find similar words or words within the same Online Thesaurus Descriptor: search & find a suitable word
semantic field
Concordancer
• Find concordances of words
Descriptor: search & build hypothesis on which
• Find collocates
words co-occur together
• Find contexts of use • Interpret prosody
Webcorp
• Find concordances of words
Descriptor: search & build hypothesis on which
• Find collocates
words co-occur together
• Find contexts of use • Interpret prosody • Get information on reading, speaking and writ-
Online Encyclopedias Descriptor: search & select useful info
ing topics, facts, and so forth • To solve doubts • Get information on writing topics, facts
Online Newspapers/Magazines/Journals
• Observe the register of different types of texts
Descriptor: search & select useful info
based task, we decided that we should keep this adaptation as close as possible to the original format of activities in the course book. In adapting this group of activities to a CALL environment, our main goal was to move the focus of the traditional classroom-based book activities from a pair/group work, teacher-managed setting to a more individualized and constructivist computer-mediated learning environment. A rationale for the e-task that we designed can be found in Figure 3. For operational purposes, we decided to focus on the reading skill as the starting point for our task. From the perspective of the researchers, the
fulfillment of this task should require putting into practice the micro-skills in column 2 of Table 3. The task matches the reading skills can-do statement for ALTE19 L4 / CEF-C1: “the student can read quickly enough to cope with an academic course, to read the media for information or to understand non-standard correspondence.” The students were given no indication on the resources to use, their URLs, or their names. In this way, we wanted to give them the chance to approach the task in exactly the same way as they would have done if they had to complete it either in the classroom, where no reference resources are available, or at home, where they are free to
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Figure 3. A description of the e-task
decide on the references and materials to use. One of the issues that we want to address is whether our students perceive CALL as normalized (Bax, 2003) and do it in the very context where their learning takes place (Chambers & Bax, 2006, p. 467). In so doing, we purposefully stressed the gap between classroom book-driven activities and our proposal for a CALL-driven implementation.
data-collection tool and Administration of the Task During the fourth week of the second term of the 2006-2007 academic year, students were instructed to access the computer lab facility and invited to sit down at computer stations that had already been set up by the researchers in order to avoid tedious computer starting operations. Nine students out of a potential total of 12 attended the two-hour lesson. It must be stressed that the students had not been informed that this task would be carried out in the computer lab. The collection tool we designed for our research is found in Appendix A. The tool reflects
the dimensions that we consider of relevance for the e-skill model we want to evaluate. As in the case of other experiences (Timuçin, 2006), we designed a questionnaire intended to collect the students’ perception of the task and their view of the skills involved in its resolution. The questionnaire was administered immediately after the completion of the task. The questionnaire reflects our e-skill rationale (see Table 3). The questionnaire gathers information from well-limited areas discussed earlier in this work. First, we find the ICT-skills components relevant to our field, which include e-communication ICT skills and computer use skills. They differ in the role and purpose given to the computer. Second is the FL-specific component, where we have included items that measure the use of computers for academic purposes (5), software use, including a browser and a word processor (16), perception of difficulty of the task (17), time management in connection with the task (18), and creativity in using resources to solve the task (24). Third, a group of items point out to the sort of attitude
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Table 3. E-skills rationale Relevant ICT Skills:
Relevant ICT Skills:
E-Communication
Computer Use
FL-Specific Skills
Attitudinal/Strategic Indicators
ICT SKILLS
Items
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
2 4 6 7 8 9 10
13
5
COMPONENT 4
1 (never) to 5 (several times a day) Likert scale description Items
11 12 13 14 15 19 21* 22*
16 17 18 24*
Likert scale
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
20 23 25* 26 27 28 29
description
and CALL-oriented planning manifested by the learners in approaching the e-skill task: we expect item 20 to play no role on the use of e-skills, but the rest fully address attitudinal variables such as perceiving computers as time savers (23), preferring working with computers to traditional study methodology (25), enjoying e-tasks more than book-based tasks (26), considering the lab a useful tool for learning (27), having a desire to engage in further e-tasks (28), and relating the e-task to new ways of approaching the FL experience (29). The values of the items with an asterisk are reversed when computing their means.
rEsuLts
2,4,6,7,8,9,10. The questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. In an exploratory study like this (n = 9), the median is even more revealing than the mean itself as it gives us the typical distribution of answers. The analysis of these tables shows that the items that obtain lower scores are those that involve the use of computers in the university context: items 3 (I use the university computer labs.) and 5 (I use computers for academic purposes.). The educational institution itself is not free from
Table 4. Frequency scores for e-skills component 1 Mean
Median
Q2
4.22
4.00
Q4
3.44
4.00
Q6
3.78
4.00
Q7
3.56
4.00
Q8
2.00
2.00
Q9
3.67
4.00
Q10
2.11
2.00
descriptive data Tables 4–7 show the mean values of the scores for every component and item. For every component (1,2,3,4), you can find below the mean and the median scores for each of the items. For example, Table 4 shows the mean and median values for the items (Q) in component 1, that is,
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Table 5. Frequency scores for e-skills component 2 Mean
Median
Q1
3.44
4.00
Q3
2.33
2.00
Q11
4.11
4.00
Q12
4.11
4.00
Q13
3.89
4.00
Q14
4.11
4.00
Q15
3.44
4.00
Q19
3.00
3.00
Q21
2.33
2.00
Q22
3.22
3.00
Table 6. Frequency scores for e-skills component 3 Mean
Median
Q5
3.11
2.00
Q16
4.00
4.00
Q17
3.56
4.00
Q18
3.11
3.00
Q24
4.22
4.00
Table 7. Frequency scores for e-skills component 4
Mean
Median
Q20
3.11
3.00
Q23
3.67
4.00
Q25
3.11
4.00
Q26
3.56
3.00
Q27
3.89
4.00
Q28
3.89
4.00
Q29
3.89
4.00
Q30
3.89
4.00
criticism, as computer facilities simply are not up to standard, according to our survey. It is interesting to note that for item 8 (I use my e-mail to communicate with my teachers), the mean and the median are the same, which posits a great challenge on instructors in our research context. Item 10 (I use videoconference (Messenger, VideoCam, Skype, etc.).) shows that computermediated videoconferencing is still in the process of becoming a major communication channel for our students, while item 21 (Speaking while doing the activities made me feel uncomfortable.) shows that multitasking, a feature of professional e-skills, is still a problem. In the other items, the medians are 4, indicating either high frequency or a strong agreement on a positive polar statement. Scores for items 18 (I had enough time to complete the activities.), 19 (The performance of the computer was satisfactory.), and 20 (The design of the task was attractive.) point to the fact that students would have liked to have a longer period of time to complete the task (18) or would have liked to use a more cutting-edge PC.1 Item 22 (I feel lost when working with Internet resources.) did not cast a polarized result, and neither did item 26 (Working with a computer makes the activities more attractive than working with the textbook.), with a mean score of 3.56, which shows that while having the computer expertise to manage a computer, students see CALL as distant. Item 29 (This experience has opened up new ways into learning English.) shows that close contact with a CALL-driven task may encourage learners to further use e-skills in their everyday language learning.
data reduction Method In order to corroborate the existence of underlying, latent dimensions in our e-skills model, we performed a factor analysis to identify whether our insights actually are translated into the questionnaire we designed. Factor analyses are widely used in social and empirical sciences to identify and
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
reduce the dimensions of a given construct. By performing this analysis, a multi-faceted problem can be better studied and understood. Lim and Shen (2006, p. 217) used a principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation “in order to identify relationships among items, and therefore, Table 8. Rotated matrix, four-factor solution PA Components 1
2
3
4
Q1
,306
,773
-,391
-,157
Q2
,799
,398
,007
,396
Q3
,805
-,102
,295
,271
Q4
,388
,326
-,155
,356
Q5
,931
,030
-,095
,035
Q6
,784
-,209
,278
,100
Q7
,684
,147
,472
-,083
Q8
,630
,018
,300
,682
Q9
,678
,593
,067
,121
Q10
,154
-,363
,709
,492
Q11
,744
,215
-,149
-,162
Q12
,166
,006
,147
-,796
Q13
,326
-,027
,743
,075
Q14
-,332
-,739
-,007
-,053
Q15
,819
,184
,115
-,408
Q16
,216
-,190
-,921
,188
Q17
,230
-,049
-,078
-,660
Q18
,286
,234
,795
,343
Q19
-,341
-,139
,402
-,622
Q20
,021
-,051
-,048
-,450
Q21
-,062
-,167
,782
-,276
Q22
,757
,392
,027
-,149
Q23
,114
,767
,291
-,301
Q24
-,723
-,301
,176
,230
Q25
-,088
,753
-,153
,132
Q26
,042
,807
-,097
,391
Q27
,378
,804
,138
-,025
Q28
,243
,720
-,100
,341
Q29
,033
,617
,283
,564
Q30
-,316
,710
,342
-,479
the subscales or factors which could be taken as summary measures of the items.” A principal component analysis rests upon the identification of linear combinations of variables, the items included in the questionnaire, looking for a maximum variance in each combination. In our case we performed the same statistical analysis although we specified a four- and a three-factor solution to gain insight into our questionnaire dimensional nature. Table 8 shows the rotated matrix which emerged from the analysis. This is the starting point for the identification and classification of the dimensionsthat is, the factors that explain the construct, in other words, the dimensions that make up our model. The loading index is the correlation coefficient between the item in the questionnaire and the factor. For membership purposes, it is irrelevant whether the loading polarity. All items above obtained >.30 loadings in at least one of the factors. This is the factor structure that emerges from our data. The second component underlying our proposal, Relevant ICT skills: Computer use, appears scattered in all factors, while components 1 and 3, Relevant ICT skills: E-communication and FL-specific skills, this latter to a lesser degree, retain many of their original members. Factor 4 presents little coherence and is a candidate for reformulation.
FuturE trEnds Felix (2005) has pointed out that the focus of Computer-Assisted Language Learning research has increasingly shifted from an interest in the learning efficiency and new technologies to an interest in the very process of learning. This is the area that will develop more significantly in forthcoming years. As formal learning becomes more influenced by social work and entertainment collaboration frameworks, it seems essential to incorporate
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Table 9. Members and loadings for Factors 1–4 FACTOR 1
FACTOR 2
FACTOR 3
FACTOR 4
Q5
,931
Q26
,807
Q18
,795
Q8
,682
Q15
,819
Q27
,804
Q21
,782
Q20
-,450
Q3
,805
Q1
,773
Q13
,743
Q19
-,622
Q2
,799
Q23
,767
Q10
,709
Q17
-,660
Q6
,784
Q25
,753
Q16
-,921
Q12
-,796
Q22
,757
Q28
,720
Q11
,744
Q30
,710
Q7
,684
Q29
,617
Q9
,678
Q14
-,739
Q4
,388
Q24
-,723
these factors into e-skills models that reflect more faithfully the engagement of a new generation of students with new technologies. These, and particularly the spread of Web 2.0, are to have an important impact on the range of skills that learners bring to the foreign language classroom. New models of e-skills in FLT should take into account research frameworks such as the one included in this chapter, as well as learners’ technology use prior or simultaneous to instruction and the role of collective knowledge and collaboration. In this way, relevant contributions can be made to a new communicative competence (Kenning, 2006) by dealing with the traditional marginalization of technological matters in the descriptions of communicative competence in FLT.
concLusion This research presents the results of a pilot study where an e-skill model questionnaire was answered by language students so as to help our understanding of the relationship between nontraditional skills and new CALL environments. By doing so, we intended to assess the e-skills dimensional structure that underlies the completion of language e-tasks designed by FLT instructors and implemented in CALL classrooms. The results suggest that, although the four-factor solution explains 74.9% of the variance, the different original dimensions of e-skills in our FLT context(1) Relevant ICT skills: E-communication, (2) Relevant ICT skills: Computer use, (3) FL-specific skills, and (4) Attitudinal /strategic
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
indicators should be reformulated and further adjusted. Our original components do not appear to cluster around corresponding dimensions in all four components. In particular, only components 1 and 4 appear to cluster together significantly. It must be stressed, however, that the population of this survey is by no means representative in terms of statistical significance, and accordingly, the factor analysis should feed on more informants in the future. The results also suggest that CE fails to become substantial as a component of its own. This might be an indication that using computers outside the FLT context has become normalized (Bax, 2003), and depending on the group of students, it might not be an issue any more. At the same time, it appears that the attitudinal/strategic dimension manifests itself as strong and coherent. It might be of interest in future research to explore the correlations of the different factors and the individual items to fully appreciate the nature of their interweaving. Again, it is crucial that we develop more substantial research that makes use of a larger sample of informants. Our research presents a framework to implement e-tasks, or group of activities, in instructional learning environments where CALL plays no methodological role. Figure 1 presents a whole model for e-kills refinement which ranges from the identification of the curricular objectives of the course where e-skills are to be used to the very moment when instructors and researchers are presented with data that can allow them to refine their initial stands. On a general level, the e-skill rationale presented in the background and literature review of this work can serve as the starting point for researchers to start implementing their own datadriven construct. For us, this is the beginning of a process that will take us to conduct further research in both the components of the e-skills model and the data collection instrument.
acknoWLEdgMEnt This work is part of an ongoing research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education: “ESkills for Advanced Common European Framework of Reference for Languages C1 Learners of English as a Foreign Language: Identification, Implementation and Evaluation.”
rEFErEncEs Bax, S. (2003). CALL: Past, present and future. System, 31(1) 13-28. Beatty, K. (2002). Describing and enhancing collaboration at the computer. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(2). Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.2/ beatty.html Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalization. System, 36, 465479. Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30(4), 419-432. Felix, U. (2005). What do meta-analyses tell us about CALL effectiveness? ReCALL, 17(2), 269-288. Fernández Carballo-Calero, M.V. (2005). Does familiarization with CALL improve students’ attitudes towards CALL? Porta Linguarum, 4, 69-75. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In R. Kern & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). New York: Cambridge University Press. Levy, M. (1997). CALL: Context and conceptualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lim, K., & Shen, Z. (2006). Integration of computers into an EFL reading classroom. RECALL, 18(2), 212-229. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford, R. (2001). Language learning strategies. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 166-172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pérez-Paredes, P. et al. (2003). La redacción como proceso: Recursos electrónicos comentados para el inglés académico. LFE: Revista de lenguas para fines específicos, 9-10, 217-250. Ruiz Madrid, M.N. (2005). Aprendizaje autónomo en el aprendizaje de lenguas asistido por ordenador. Un estudio de casos comparativo de las conductas de los aprendices en el contexto de inglés como lengua extranjera. Castellón: Universitat Jaume I. Sahin, I., & Thompson, A. (2006). Using Rogers’ theory to interpret instructional computer use by COE faculty. JRTE, 39(1), 81-104. Simspon, J. (2005). Learning electronic literacy skills in an online language learning community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 327-345. Timuçin, M. (2006). Implementing CALL in an EFL context. ELT Journal, 60(3), 262-271.
Vinther, J. (2005). Cognitive processes at work in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 251-271. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies. Language, culture, and power in online education. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Widdowson, H.G. (2003). Defining issues in ELT. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325-340.
kEY tErMs Computer Expertise: Refers to the mastering of the use of computers. In the context of CALL, this term is tightly connected to the abilities the students need to have in order to be able to work efficiently with a computer in the process of language learning. Among these abilities, taking the NETS project’s division, we can mention those related to the management of basic software, the use of computers in the personal and professional contexts, and the capability of using computers in instruction-related contexts. E-Skill: The group of abilities that encompass both top-down as well as bottom-up language processing in a digital learning environment and which are instrumental in the process of FL task resolution. E-Task: A task designed to be performed on a computer. These types of tasks appear in special formats, such as hypertext formats. The process of e-task solving is closely related to the use of electronic resources, as students can turn to this type of resource to overcome possible difficulties they might find during the completion of the task.
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Factor Analysis: Data-reduction technique used to interpret underlying dimensions in a construct.
7
8
Normalization: Based on Bax (2003), a future vision of future development of CALL in FLT. Skill: A complex term whose scope spans different domains. Within the field of FLT, skill refers to the four basic abilities students must develop to achieve a good command of the language. From a more general perspective, skill refers to any ability acquired by training or practice, allowing individuals to perform well in multifarious types of tasks. In this context, a skill is an ability that is acquired through practice and by using declarative knowledge. Strategy: A plan designed to achieve a goal. Thus, in the context of second language learning, we can take the term strategy as a plan the students devise to solve the tasks and challenges they are presented in the process of language learning.
9
10
11
12
13
14
EndnotEs 1
2
3 4 5
6
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction. do?reference=IP/06/1635 Task-Force on ICT Sector Competitiveness and ICT Uptake. Working Group 5 Skills and Employability (p. 5). Ibid. Ibid. http://eskills.cedefop.europa.eu/eskills2004/ index.htm Definitions from The Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. Second edition first published in 1998; sixth impression, 2003.
15 16 17 18
19
The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Ely House, London WI. First edition 1933; reprinted 1963, 1970. Collins English Dictionary. Fifth edition first published in 2000; HarperCollins Publishers 1979, 1986, 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000. http://dictionary.reverso.net/englishdefinitions/skill Webster’s Online Dictionary, http://www. websters-online-dictionary.org/ Among the repertoire of strategies, we can find planning, generating ideas, organizing information, selecting appropriate language, making a draft, reviewing it, and editing (Hedge, 2000, p. 302). Byram, M. (2000). Routledge Encyclopaedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge. The Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. Second edition first published in 1998; sixth impression, 2003. “What is the NETS Project?” http://cnets. iste.org/index.shtml Standards for Basic Endorsement in Educational Computing and Technology Leadership, http://cnets.iste.org/ncate/old/ n_literacy-old.html See 14 See 14 Electronic document European E-Skills Forum, E-Skills for Europe: Towards 2010 and Beyond, Synthesis Report (2004, p. 5) http://www.alte.org/can_do/alte_cando. pdf
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
appEndiX a: post-task E-skiLL ModEL QuEstionnairE Name : BLOCK 1. GENERAL QUESTIONS 1.1 Rate the following statements according to this scale: 1: never 2: from time to time 3: almost every day 4: every day 5: several times a day 1 1.
I use a computer at home.
2.
I can connect to the Internet at home.
3.
I use the university computer labs.
4.
I use computers for leisure purposes.
5.
I use computers for academic purposes.
6.
I check my e-mail…
7.
I use my e-mail to communicate with my friends/family.
8.
I use my e-mail to communicate with my teachers.
9.
I use Microsoft Messenger or similar instant message software.
10.
I use videoconference (Messenger, VideoCam, Skype, etc.).
2
3
4
5
1.2 Rate the following statements according to this scale: 1: strongly disagree 2: disagree 3: neutral 4: agree 5: strongly agree 1 11. I can perform basic operations with a computer (run programs, play CD-ROMS or DVDs, copy CDs, scan documents/pictures, attach files to emails…). 12.
I can use a word processor satisfactorily.
13.
I can use search services like Google satisfactorily (i.e., I know tips to improve searches, etc.).
14.
I can typewrite, this is no problem.
BLOCK 2. YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE TASK 2.1 Rate the following statements according to this scale: 1: strongly disagree 2: disagree 3: neutral 4: agree 5: strongly agree
0
2
3
4
5
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
1 15.
Operating the software was easy.
16.
The instructions were clear.
17.
The level of difficulty of the activities was adequate to my English language learning profile.
18.
I had enough time to complete the activities.
19.
The performance of the computer was satisfactory.
20.
The design of the task was attractive.
21.
Speaking while doing the activities made me feel uncomfortable.
22.
I feel lost when working with Internet resources.
23.
Electronic resources save time in comparison with other resources.
24.
I would have liked to have a list of suggested Internet resources.
25.
I prefer working with a textbook and with traditional resources.
26.
Working with a computer makes the activities more attractive than working with the textbook.
27.
The language lab is a valuable option to complement traditional lectures in the classroom.
28.
I would like to do more English language learning activities with computers.
29.
This experience has opened up new ways into learning English.
2
3
4
5
2.2 SUGGESTIONS
Chapter II
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities Antônio Carlos Soares Martins Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica de Januária/Fapemig, Brazil Junia de Carvalho Fidelis Braga Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
abstract The discussions presented herein emerged from two empirical studies in progress:“Online Learning Communities in the Realm of Complexity” and “The Complexity of Learning Environments” in the Graduate Program in Applied Linguistics at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil. One of the major pillars of both studies centers around Complexity Theory. Initially arising from the natural sciences, Complexity Theory has been gaining ground in the comprehension of human and social sciences. This chapter presents some ideas regarding the role of social presence in both blended and online learning environments, in line with the Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). Moreover, the authors hope to contribute to a better understanding of patterns that emerge from social interactions as well as of the ideas embedded in learning communities as complex systems.
introduction The Community of Inquiry, as reported by Garrison et al. (2000) and Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer (2004), who provide a detailed report of social presence, sets the stage for this
chapter to discuss the emergence of social presence in blended and online learning communities in asynchronous medium. A great number of studies dedicated to the investigation of social presence, in the terms of the Community of Inquiry, focused mainly
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
on quantitative methodology to interpret social expressions in a qualitative manner (Heckman & Annabi, 2002; Rourke & Anderson, 2002; Rourke et al., 2004). Considering these discussions, our chapter presents a complementary contribution that aims to analyze, in the light of complexity, the content of some messages exchanged in blended and online learning communities. By qualitatively analyzing the manifestation of social presence in this setting, we attempt to show possible patterns that may arise.
coMpLEXitY and appLiEd Linguistics: transdicipLinarY diaLogs At first glance, complexity is a phenomenon that encompasses a great quantity of interactions and interference among its agents. For Morin (1990), complexity effectively includes the interweaving of events, actions, interactions, retroactions, determinations, and random events that constitute our world, full of phenomena. Complexity has its place in science due to research that has attempted to explain questions which challenge all conventional categories (Waldrop, 1992). Davis and Sumara (2006, p. ix) argue that “complexity thinking has captured the attention of many researchers whose studies reach across traditional boundaries.” Examples of phenomena under investigation in the education arena include: •
•
How do social collectives work? The assumption that the actions and potentialities of social groups are sums of individual capacities has been challenged as it is becoming more evident that collectives can exceed the summed capacity of their members. What might this mean for classrooms, school boards, communities, and so on? What is the role of emergent technologies in shaping personalities and possibilities?
Children are able to integrate the latest technologies into their existences. What might this mean for formal education, in terms of the pragmatic activity and with regard to common understandings of the purposes of schooling? In this direction, Complexity Theory in its transdisciplinary nature can assist in better understanding the events that take place in blended and online learning environments. A complex system is dynamic, non-linear, open, and presents emergent properties. Moreover, this type of system is capable of adapting, which leads to self-organization, and ultimately to the emergence of new patterns and behaviors (Holland, 1997). An adaptive complex system is made up of agents who interact dynamically and adapt with one another as well as with the environment, as they seek mutual accommodation to optimize the benefits that will ensure their survival. An ever-increasing number of articles over the past years have sought to analyze the second language acquisition process, as well as the language learning classroom in general, in the light of chaos and complexity theories (Cameron, 1999, 2004; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2006; Paiva, 2002, 2005a, 2006a, 2006b; Parreiras, 2005). Although other works had already reflected on the implications of chaos and complexity on teaching and language learning (Bowers, 1990; Connor-Linton, 1995; Lewis, 1993; Van Lier, 1996), it was Larsen-Freeman (1997) who brought these theories to the forefront of Applied Linguistics. In her article, Larsen-Freeman (1997) draws attention to the many similarities between complex systems found in nature and second language acquisition. One of the implications of this perspective, she writes, is that it discourages reductionist explanations of teaching events and language learning. In discussing issues relative to inter-language, individual differences, and the effects of instruction, Larsen-Freeman (1997)
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
contends that in non-linear systems, such as second language learning, the behavior of the whole emerges from the interactions of the parts. Thus, by studying the parts in isolation, one by one, we will merely be discussing each part as opposed to the manner in which the parts interact. After the publication of Larsen-Freeman’s work, several papers have reflected upon the implications of complexity in understanding the relations between language learning and teaching. In Brazil, the first to study complexity in Applied Linguistics was Paiva (2002), who sought to understand the process of foreign language learning as a complex system. This perspective would be further developed in her later works (Paiva, 2004, 2005, 2006). In this same manner, Kramsch (2002) and van Lier (2004), using the “ecology” metaphor, sought to re-think teaching and learning through complexity. In 2006, the journal Applied Linguistics dedicated an entire special edition to Complexity Theory’s contributions to Applied Linguistics, demonstrating this theory’s role as a system of interpretation for studies seeking a broader comprehension of the factors involved in the second language learning process. The basic notions of Complexity Theory will be taken as a viewpoint to understand the role of social presence in investigating online and blended communities, especially as reported by Garrison et al. (2000) and Rouke et al. (2004).
onLinE and bLEndEd LEarning coMMunitiEs as coMpLEX sYstEMs Technology as a mediating resource for the construction of shared1 knowledge is stressed by Lévy (1993), who contends that cyberspace, unlike classic media, introduces an all to all type of interaction, where participants can be both senders and recipients, thus leading to a collective intelligence.
In this light, Palloff and Pratt (1999, p. 5) argue that distance learning is invariably active: “the keys to the learning process are the interactions among students themselves, the interactions between faculty and students and the collaboration in learning that result from these interactions.” Computer-mediated communication (CMC), particularly computer conferencing, has become a versatile medium for the delivery of both distributed and on-campus education. One such advantage is that text-based communication offers opportunities for reflection in terms of the Community of Inquiry (Garrison et al., 2000). The creation of learning communities is one of the most debated pedagogical interventions used by educators and researchers to contemplate philosophical change related to knowledge construction. This line of thinking suggests that we construct and maintain knowledge through negotiation and not merely by examining the world. Other key aspects embedded in learning communities are those involving interaction, the relationships of reciprocity, and collaboration, essential components in the process of constructing shared knowledge (Cross, 1998; Wenger, 1998). These precepts of learning communities align themselves with the assumptions found in the literature regarding online learning communities. Joint enterprise,2 the relationships of reciprocity, and the sharing of common purposes, vital aspects if a learning community is to function productively, have also been identified by Rogers (2000) in online dialogs. According to Harasim, Teles, Turroff, and Hitz (2005), the words ‘community’ and ‘communication’ stem from the same root, ‘comunicare’, which means ‘to share’. The authors emphasize that people are naturally attracted by the media, sources of communication, and community formation. Paiva (2006a) adds that technological resources provide new opportunities and challenges for the learning process such as collaborative instructional projects, which boost the collective intelligence.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
Like online learning communities, blended learning communities have arisen to combine different instructional modalities. The concept of blended learning, as explained by Graham, Allen, and Ure (2003), refers to combining instructional modalities (or delivery media), combining instructional methods, and combining online and face-to-face instruction. In this chapter, the term ‘blended learning’ will be used to refer to educational experiences which combine faceto-face conversation classes with online classes, thus reducing the time spent inside a classroom. This interaction seeks to maximize the potential of both environments. Both blended learning and online learning are imbued with elements that are common to those found in the notions of complexity. The life of a learning community, like other complex systems, is sustained by the interactions among its agents as well as by the relation of interdependence that emerges from these interactions. Moreover, learning communities are open and sensitive to feedback, and are constantly exchanging energy (information, input ) with other systems. Other properties of the systems such as redundancy3 and diversity, as pointed out by Davis and Sumara (2006), are also described in the literature on learning communities. The sharing of responsibility and the relation of reciprocity, as described by Wenger (1998) and Cross (1998), may serve to illustrate instances of redundancy in such pedagogical environments, be they face-to-face, blended, or online. Respect for diversity, on the other hand, is considered by Wenger (1998) to be a crucial element within a learning community, as it is by way of accepting new ideas and embracing the changes and challenges brought on by different perspectives that a community will develop and learn. Literature on complexity thus can trigger relevant insight into understanding online and blended learning communities alike.
thE coMMunitY oF inQuirY ModEL: sociaL prEsEncE The increasing interest on the part of higher education institutions in computer conferencing led Garrison et al. (2000) to propose the Community of Inquiry framework. Assuming that within this community learning takes place through the interaction of the three core elementscognitive presence, teaching presence, and social presence the Community of Inquiry framework, inspired by Dewey (1933), attempts to serve as a tool to investigate the quality of the learning process in text-based environments. In Garrison et al.’s (2000, p. 4) terms, cognitive presence is defined as “the extent to which the participants in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication.” The second component, teaching presence, consists of two general functions in the educational experience: (1) designing, usually performed by a teacher, and (2) facilitating, a function shared by the teacher and the participants. The third element, social presence, is defined as “the ability of learners to project themselves socially and emotionally in a community of inquiry.” Although this definition may embrace the affective and social aspects of social presence, it lacks the common purpose and cohesive aspects imbued in the notion of a learning community. For this reason, we adopted the expanded definition proposed by Garrison (2006, p. 2), for whom social presence is “the ability to project one’s self and establish purposeful relationships.” The main function of social presence in Garrison et al. (2000) is to support cognitive objectives through its ability to instigate, sustain, and support critical thinking within a community of learners. As Rourke et al. (2004) argue, communication theorists seem to agree that setting the atmosphere for discussion is an important element in all modes of teaching and learning based on peer
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
collaboration. Based on these issues, the discussions regarding blended and online collaborative experiences presented herein will focus on the aspects that appear to promote the emergence of social presence. The longtime attempt to understand human social interactions was set in motion with the development of modalities of mediated technology. In conversational analysis, reports from Schegloff and others (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, 1968; 1973; Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks 1977) sought to understand the nature of telephone and face-to-face conversations. Rourke et al. (2004) cite a variety of reports in communication theory which studied a number of machines, including facsimile machines, voicemail, and audio-teleconferencing in organizational settings, through the concept of “immediacy” from Mehrabian (1969). This concept, developed to analyze face-to-face interaction, refers to “those communication behaviors that enhance closeness to and nonverbal interaction with another” (p. 203). These behaviors involve nonverbal channels, such as facial expressions, body movements, and eye contact, which lead to more effective and more immediate interactions among the interlocutors. Rourke et al. (2004) examine many early works that argued that the critical difference between face-to-face communication and computer-mediated communication was the absence of social context cues. According to Rourke et al. (2004), however, recent revisions of social presence question to what extent these results from previous studies can be generalized to all media and to all their applications. One difference between face-to-face contexts and online contexts, highlighted by Garrison (2006, p. 27), is that “communication for social presence in an online context is less frequent and more deliberate and intentional compared to a face-to-face context where physical presence more naturally stimulates expressions of social presence.”
Garrison further points out that an online experience does offer opportunities for reflection in a manner not at all possible in face-to-face environments, which require verbal agility, spontaneity, and self-confidence to address a group. Thus, an online learning environment reflects a “group-centered” pattern of interaction as opposed to an “authority-centered” one in a face-to-face environment. Moreover, there is a greater tendency to lean on the commentaries of others in online environments as compared to the turn-taking dynamics in face-to-face environments. In this manner, according to Garrison (2006, p. 25), there is evidence indicating that “online learning may in fact have an advantage in supporting collaboration and creating a sense of community.” Rourke et al. (2004), in one of the key works on assessing social presence in computer conferencing, propose three broad categories of communicative responses: affective responses, interactive responses, and cohesive responses. These categories, although relabeled to better reflect the nature of the emergent indicators defined by the authors, correspond directly to Garrison et al.’s (2000) original categories. In this chapter, the term dimension, instead of responses, is preferred as the events under investigation involve more than simple responses. The affective dimension involves personal expressions of emotion, feelings, beliefs, and values, and includes indicators such as expressions of emotion, use of humor, and self-disclosure. The interactive dimension includes communication behaviors that provide evidence that others are present, such as agreement/disagreement, approval, and referencing of previous messages, as well as involves indicators such as: continuing a thread, quoting from others’ messages, asking questions, complimenting, and expressing appreciation. The cohesion present here encompasses communication behaviors that build and sustain a sense of group commitment, such as greetings and salutations and group or personal reference. The interweaving of events, actions, and in-
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
teractions in the notions of complex systems is present in the interrelationship of social, cognitive, and teaching presences in a Community of Inquiry (Garrison et al., 2000). Although the categories and indicators suggested in the Community of Inquiry model are in a certain way presented in a static and non-realistic manner, when we consider, for example, that the selection of text segments used to illustrate the indicators in Rourke et al. (2004) is fabricated, the ideas embedded in this model appear to signal the presence of agents (learners, cultural artifacts, contexts), offering possibilities to identify several qualities such as dynamism, self-organization, emergence, and so on, which are common to complex systems. The next part of this chapter will present an overview of classic and contemporary thought with the aim of promoting a better understanding of the core ideas of complexity.
contEXtuaL issuEs The discussion presented herein has emerged from the analysis of two distinct studies: “Online Learning Communities in the Realm of Complexity” and “The Complexity of Learning Environments.” The first study discusses the main characteristics and functions of online learning communities as well as the emergence of social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence in terms of Communities of Inquiry (Garrison et al., 2000). This study’s core analysis focused on the interaction of 50 undergraduate students who participated in a 20-week course for pre-service teachers at the School of Languages and Literatures, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, in the first semester of 2004. This course involved theoretical and practical issues of teaching and learning a second language. These students were divided into small groups of three to five participants and interacted in an online environment without the direct intervention of the teacher.
The second study, a longitudinal ethnographic work, discusses the content of the interactions of 08 undergraduate students in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) academic writing course at the School of Languages and Literatures, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, during the second semester of 2004. This study was designed in a blended format so as to give students the opportunity to interact both online and face-to-face, and thus focuses on learner interaction and collaboration in peer-review activities in both face-to-face and online asynchronous classes. Rather than directly comparing the learning environments, or attempting to discover which is more effective, this research focuses both on their possibilities and constraints, as well as on the value of their combination. In keeping with the perspectives of this chapter, a special inquiry was formulated by choosing two distinct scenes: one related to blended learning and the other related to online learning. Regarding the online experience, the corpus of UFMGPRAT English 1, one of the subcommunities investigated in the study “Online Learning Communities in the Realm of Complexity” was chosen. Throughout the course, participants made use of a discussion list to carry out the tasks assigned in the teaching practice course. For each task, the instructional design involved: (1) posting an individual contribution to the discussion list, (2) discussing these contributions, and (3) posting a collective contribution to a forum for feedback from teachers and members of other subcommunities. In the second study, activities alternated between face-to-face and online classes. Face-toface classes entailed reading and discussing theory as well as presenting seminars. The online classes were conducted in an electronic forum where texts produced by students were posted. Also present here was a discussion list via e-mail intended to resolve problems and doubts that would inevitably arise between one face-to-face encounter and another. For the sake of analysis, the data from
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
this study’s online and face-to-face experiences is presented separately. Enlightened by complexity theory, this analysis considers blended learning as a unit, as all events occurring within both online and face to face is intimately interrelated.
(2) Ellen: I am a bit stunned…I got home from college, wrote, sent and…The msn disappeared…I couldn’t believe it…I almost cried. (original text in Portuguese) (3)
Findings This section will be dedicated to pinpointing evidence of the affective, interactive, and cohesive dimensions as well as patterns that may emerge with the support of social presence.
affective dimension Regarding the exclusively online experience of the UFMGPRAT English 1 subcommunity, it can be observed that emotions, feelings, and humor seem to be expressed emphatically, as can be found in excerpts 1 and 2. Any divergence that could otherwise have been resolved by means of looks, tone of voice, or any other resource typical of a face-to-face interaction tends to be expressed textually: (1) Lisa: …Gee, sorry if I offended ya. Didn’t mean to say that all your sentences were bad. On the contrary! What I meant was that we had (in all) a lot of sentences and we would have to be more selective because if we flood the students with visual aids we may end up not getting the result expected. As I said before, when I answer e-mails quickly (most of the time, unfortunately) I end up simplifying the text and it gets a tad too forward. Please don’t get me wrong. I’m really enjoying working with you guys! Expressions of humor and self-disclosure are also constant in the interactions observed in the UFMGPRAT English 1, as illustrated in 2 and 3:
Ellen: I am going to have to punish you… (laughing). (original text in Portuguese) Concerning blended learning, expressions of emotion, feelings, and humor can also be clearly observed in the participant speech of this community. Excerpts 4 and 5 illustrate the presence of the affective dimension, especially expressions of emotion in the face-to-face experience. In excerpt 4, for example, the emotion is expressed not only linguistically, but also non-linguistically, through pauses and laughter in short statements, which are typical of face-to-face conversations. The teacher’s manifestation upon facing a student’s difficulty in performing one of the tasks proposed by the course is immediate, which draws direct correlation to the concept of Mehrabian’s (1969) “immediacy,” which contemplates communicative behavior related to the specific proximity of interaction possibilities in the face-to-face experience: (4) Nathalie: Ana, I’m in trouble! I don’t know how to do it. Ana: You are not, Nathalie! Nathalie: Yes! Ana: I think you’re… Nathalie: I don’t know. Ana: I think you’re in the right way. (Laughter) Ana: I think you’re in the right way. Write it on the board please.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
(5) Chris: People are trying to convince me not to talk about (laughs) things that I want to talk about. Expressions of emotion can also be observed in excerpts 6 and 7 in the difficulties the students encounter in performing the tasks. In both cases, non-linguistic elements can be observed, such as pauses and laughter, which aid in the expression of emotion:
It is interesting to note that this message was sent to the teacher’s private e-mail account and not to the discussion list as shown in excerpt 8 sent by the teacher to the discussion list. This event seems to show that, in affective terms, the students preferred to interact directly with the teacher since the proposal of the discussion list, in its course design, had the objective of offering opportunities to resolve problems regarding the completion of tasks.
interactive dimension (6) Chris: We are supposed to continue mine because this is my best. But I’m not going to talk about drama (laughter) ah please help me! How can I do this thesis statement? I’m going crazy (laughter). The interactions observed in the online experience in blended mode do not demonstrate the marked affective dimension seen in the face-toface experience. Yet, due to the absence of certain non-verbal resources typical of a face-to-face interaction, the affective dimension tends to be more linguistically marked, which may indicate that this dimension is more marked in text-based online interactions. This can be observed in excerpts 7 and 8 when one student writes the teacher an e-mail about her difficulty in drafting a composition: (7) Amanda: I am in doubt about how to do my composition. I have surfed the whole Net and can’t find anything. Please, give me some help. (original text in Portuguese)
The core of the interactive dimension is related to the evidence that the other is involved in the common principles of the community. In this manner, indicators, such as using the reply feature to post messages, quoting directly from the conference transcript and referring explicitly to the content of others’ messages, are all types of interactive responses in CMC (Rourke et al., 2004). Of the 189 messages exchanged by the PRATUFMG English 1 subcommunity, 55 present these indicators, mainly referring to the content of others’ messages and the reply feature to post messages. Evidence of complementing and expressing appreciation, indicators that communication is being reinforced in a text-based medium, seem to play a key role in the process of integration in the aforementioned community. Upon demonstrating appreciation for the work of their colleagues, participants of the community express their interest, engagement, reciprocity, and commitment to the proposals of the groups, as illustrated in excerpts 9 and 10: (9)
(8) Ana: Amanda I answered your e-mail but it returned to me as undelivered mail. So, I’m sending it to you in the text factory. I hope it can still help you.
Ellen: Lisa a nd Julia , cong rat ula tions, your texts are very good and I’m sure they’re gonna be useful. I totally agree with what you wrote.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
(10) Julia: All the sites are interesting (some I knew others I just now visited) I thought the bloglesworld was great and I suggest it be on the list. (original text in Portuguese) Two other indicatorsexpression of agreement and asking questionsemphasized by Rourke et al. (2004) were also observed in the messages from community participants. In addition to the expressions of agreement, it could also be observed that expressions of divergence can instigate, sustain, and give support to critical thinking within the community, one of the major goals of the collaborative experience. In excerpt 11, for example, one community participant manifests not only agreement but also intention to produce knowledge through her classmate’s suggestion: (11) I agree with you about treating the cultural transversal plurality theme suggested by Lisa. Okay, I’m going to base my part on it. (original text in Portuguese) Likewise, the manifestations of divergence, although categorized as indicators of cognitive presence in the model formulated by Garrison et al. (2000), express displeasure and, as in expressions of agreement, may give rise to the development of critical thinking. In excerpt 12, one participant reacts to a long list of expressions suggested by her classmates. These phrases, part of the completion of one of the group tasks, served to facilitate the interaction among the students in the classroom: (12) I think that we have to make a selection of the phrases from the whole because we can’t bombard the students with phrases, right? (original text in Portuguese)
0
In blended learning, it can be observed that, in the face-to-face environment, the interactive dimension is also manifested in a non-linguistic form. The “evidence that the other is attending,” for example, is perceived through looks, gestures, and so forth. The elements of the interactive dimension that most commonly appear linguistically in this context are asking questions and expressing agreement, as we can see at the end of excerpt 12 as well as in excerpts 13 and 14. In excerpt 13 the student expresses her agreement with the ideas from a classmate, while in excerpt 14 Nathalie agrees with a commentary from the professor regarding her text: (13) Chris: Ok Ok I agree with you. (14) Nathalie: Yeah it’s kind of confuse… In excerpts 15 and 16, we can see examples of questions that appear frequently in the interactive dimension of the face-to-face classroom: (15) Angélica: It’s a good idea? (16) Angélica: How can I improve? In the online experience, the interactive dimension is much more linguistically present than in the face-to-face experience. One common indicator in this context was complimenting and expressing appreciation, as exemplified in excerpts 17 and 18: (17) Your text is much better now. Congratulations!
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
(18) Angélica, your text is very good with just few mistakes. Congratulations!! In this context, which involved the peer editing of their texts, the students frequently wrote commentaries complimenting their colleagues or highlighting the positive aspects of the text before making any corrections or giving any sort of suggestion.
cohesive dimension As pointed out by Garrison et al. (2000) and Rourke et al. (2004), the cohesive expression can be exemplified by activities that construct, develop, and sustain group behavior all at the same time. It can be observed that the vocative cases were constant through the entire life of the PRATUFMG English-1 subcommunity. In addition, there were a number of moments in which the community participants addressed the group using pronouns that refer to the collective, such as “we,” “our,” and “us,” as well as the use of the verb in the third-person plural in messages written in Portuguese. Another indicator of the group cohesion could be identified through communication using phatic expressions and salutation. Many times the community participants spoke to the group using expressions such as “Hi everybody” or “Hi all.’ Also observed was “Hi, Powerpuff Girls,” referring to the cartoon “The Powerpuff Girls,” “saving the world before bedtime.” It is interesting to note that this nickname was not defined in the interactions that occurred in the course discussion forum, demonstrating an intimate identity within the subcommunity. In addition to this nickname, the participants of the UFMGPRAT English-1 group constantly search for motivational and cohesive expressions in the language, which can be considered a new indicator of social presence pointing toward the development of group cohesion. These manifestations can be observed in examples 19, 20, and 21 (original texts were in Portuguese):
(19) Lisa: United we stand!!!! (20) Ellen: A big hug, all for one and one for all!!!! Go girls. (21) Lisa: Together we will overcome the difficulties. I hope so…I’m going to continue to try to resolve these little problems and I hope that they will not hurt us because we’ve worked hard, right? This attachment to group cohesion can be interpreted as a need for the group to ‘stand on its own two feet’ until the end of the course. This fact seems to be related to the pedagogical proposal of the course which established the “own life” of each subcommunitythat is, autonomous communities without the direct intervention of the teacher. The social expressions that emerged from the participants’ interactions in the aforementioned asynchronous learning community seem to offer collaboration and support to the emergence of patterns such as the negotiation of meaning, the overcoming of conflicts, and the development of group cohesion. One of the major joint enterprises that emerged from these interactions within UFMGPRAT English-1 is distributed leadership. The community participants chose to alternate leaders so that each member could participate equally in group activities. Thus, the role of the management of a learning community, many times taken on by the teacher, is distributed among the community participants. Although UFMGPRAT English-1 was the subcommunity investigated for the discussions debated in this chapter, it is important to emphasize that the emergence of distributed leadership occurred in most subcommunities from the course for pre-service teachers, original corpus for the study “Online Learning Communities in the Realm of Complexity.”
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
In blended learning, the cohesive dimension is not as linguistically marked as it is in the faceto-face experience. Vocative cases are inevitably used, as can be seen in excerpt 22: (22) Ana, in my essay I used this. Nevertheless, this use of vocative cases occurred only when attempting to call the attention of the other since the face-to-face conversation dynamics offered diverse nonverbal resources to indicate to whom certain comments were directed. One very common element used was to address or refer to the group using inclusive pronouns, as shown in excerpts 23 and 24: (23) Angélica: And the name (opens the folder and begins to flip through the pages) I bring it for you… Ana: For us (laughter). (24) Ana: We’ve seen the classification essay right? We’ve seen the process analysis essay… In the online experience, even in the electronic forum where the tasks involved only the edition of texts from classmates, the students commonly used the vocative cases, as demonstrated in excerpts 25 and 26: (25) Angélica, these are some suggestions that might improve your text. (26) Amanda, your text is very good, but I think the use of “that is the way it is a valid experience” in the second paragraph is not very clear, maybe you could change the words.
discussion Both learning communities investigated, blended and online, contain characteristics commonly found in adaptive complex systems. These characteristics can be observed in the corpus investigated in this chapter. The results presented herein demonstrate that the communities are in a constant movement of statethat is, dynamicity, which can be illustrated through the events of the aforementioned divergence and convergence. Emergence can be considered the most preponderant aspect in the investigated corpus. Distinct patterns of leadership arise within the studied contexts. In blended learning, leadership centered on the teacher appears in face-to-face classes. Likewise, as reported in a number of studies regarding classroom interaction (van Lier, 1988; Tsui, 1995; Chaudron, 1988; Dalacorte, 1999), the classroom interactive dynamics are, essentially, centered on the teacher who, in general, controls the turn-taking dynamics. In online activities in the blended experience, there arises a more decentralized leadership. In this context, the presence and coordination of the activities by the teacher occurs, but not at the same intensity as in face-to-face classes. These findings are in accordance with studies that indicate a trend toward a greater participation of learners in online classes (Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996; Paiva, 1999; Fernández-García & Arbelaiz, 2003). In the online community where there was no direct intervention from the teacher, a pattern of distributed leadership emerged. It is important to emphasize that the aforementioned management patterns were supported by social expressions: affective, interactive, and cohesive. These expressions, in addition to being interrelated, as defended by Rourke et al. (2004), manifest themselves in an interdependent manner, and are based on a constant interweaving in an attempt to comply with the diverse common purposes of both blended and online learning communities.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
Another emerging aspect is the fact that social presence is more linguistically apparent in online interactions than in face-to-face interactions. In face-to-face interactions, diverse non-verbal paths, such as looks, facial expressions, and gestures, play key roles in marking social presence or “immediacy,” as defined by Mehrabian (1969). These results are aligned with previous studies (Davis & Thiede, 2000; Martins, 2005, 2006) which indicate that, due to restrictions in contextualization (Gumperz, 1982), common in face-to-face interactions, expressions of emotion and politeness tend to appear more linguistically marked. The results also point out that the expressions of affection, expressions that involve efforts in interactions, and interactions that address the collective, aid in the development process of group cohesion, thus promoting the collaborative experience and opportunities for the construction of shared knowledge. In this sense, the discussions based on the data presented in this chapter follow in line with the findings from Garrison et al. (2000) and Rourke et al. (2004), which indicate that social presence may trigger and sustain the construction of shared knowledge. As the purpose of this discussion has been to prompt some reflection on complexity thinking and social presence, we hope that this study will serve as an incentive for future investigations in other contexts, as the discussion presented herein is based on a small sample from two distinct case studies which was specifically investigated in this chapter.
guidELinEs For FuturE rEsEarch In this chapter we have presented some differences between the processes of socialization in online learning and blended learning. However, further inquires on this topic are still needed, especially those conducted regarding the characteristics of
social presence with different learners and in different learning contexts. Although social presence has been considered to be intrinsically interrelated with cognitive presence, as well as with teaching presence in Garrison et al.’s model, this chapter focuses on social presence only. Therefore, further studies wishing to examine the remaining components of the Community of Inquiry model in both online and blended environments are to be encouraged. In the discussions presented in this chapter, the Community of Inquiry has been scrutinized under the notions of complexity. Considering that our focus was on emergent phenomena in both online and blended learning, research into other characteristics of complexity in learning communities is valid. The use of Complexity Theory as the foundation for the study of online learning is still quite recent, hence an open field for further investigations still exists.
concLusion Initially brought to the field of Applied Linguistics from isolated initiatives, complexity thinking has gradually established itself as a consistent epistemological basis for the understanding of contexts and events involved in teaching and language learning activities. These events, as regards the process of second language learning, much like the universe as a whole, are complex in nature. The complex nature of phenomena has led classic scientists to establish methodological procedures that reduced the phenomena to the investigative conditions of the time. Scientific and technological advances stemming from these efforts established the reductionist view of classic science as a reliable paradigm. The emergence of another viewpoint allows us to investigate certain aspects of a phenomenon, which in many cases is not in fact contemplated within a sole paradigm.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
This idea aligns with Halliday (2001) in the sense that second language teaching is too complex and multifaceted to be analyzed according to one sole perspective, be it what it may. In this light, Larsen-Freeman, (2002b) emphasizes that one of the contributions of complexity is that it enables us not only to review our concepts of teaching and learning a second language but also to perceive the underlying concepts of the more traditional paradigms. In this focus, we share Demo’s (2002) idea that knowledge and learning are considered activities that are imbued in non-linear processes, both in the process of formation and reconstruction as well as in its internal interweaving, due to the fact that they signal typically complex phenomena because they are not exhausted in logical alignments. The discussions related to social presence in both blended and online environments presented in this chapter aim to reiterate the social nature of these types of pedagogical interventions and the potential for the use of CMC in educational practices as far as the construction of shared knowledge is concerned. The creation of blended and online learning communities must therefore be guided by a perspective that embraces instructional designs that, in turn, foster social interactions, considering that out of the issues of effectiveness, interactivity, and cohesion, there may emerge patterns such as reciprocity, commitment, as well as different patterns of negotiation of meaning (e.g., convergence and divergence) and patterns of management (e.g., decentralized and distributed leadership), elements that may trigger the process of critical thinking, one of the major goals of the collaborative experience in the education arena. In this light, the issues herein presented enhance the value of social interactions in textual asynchronous environments and acknowledge the complex nature of blended and online learning communities. As these issues involve both theoretical issues and important practical pedagogical implications, we hope the discussion proposed
in this chapter will contribute to research on elearning methodologies for language teaching and learning as well as pinpoint issues and challenges for others to address and build upon.
rEFErEncEs Bowers, R. (1990). Mountains are not cones: What can we learn from chaos? In J.E. Alatis (Ed.), Proceedings of the Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics (pp. 123-136). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Cameron, L. (1999). The complex dynamics of language use on tasks. Retrieved November 10, 2004, from http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cross, K.P. (1998). Why learning communities? Why now? Retrieved June 10, 2006, from http://www. doso.wayne.edu Connor-Linton, J. (1995). Complexity, linguistics and language teaching. In J.E. Alatis, C.A. Straehle, & B. Gallenberger (Eds.), Proceedings of the Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics (pp. 596-604). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Dalacorte, M.C.F. (1999). A participação dos aprendizes na interação em sala de aula de inglês: Um estudo de caso. Tese (Doutorado), Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Davis, B., & Thiede, R. (2000). Writing into change: Style shift in asynchronous electronic discourse. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
Demo, P. (2002). Complexidade e aprendizagem: A dinâmica não linear do conhecimento. São. Paulo: Editora Atlas.
Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2002). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath.
Kuhn, T.S. (2005). A estrutura das revoluções científicas (9th ed.). São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Fernández-Gracía, M., & Arbelaiz, A.M. (2003). Learners’ interactions: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 15(1), 113-136. Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105. Garrison, D.R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1). Graham, C.R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2003). Blended learning environments: A review of the research literature. Unpublished Manuscript, Provo, UT. Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. (2001). New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In A. Fill & P. Mühlhäusler (Eds.), The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment (pp. 175202). London: Continuum. Harasim, L., Teles, L., Turroff, M., & Hitz, S. (2005). Redes de aprendizagem: Um guia para ensino e aprendizagem. São Paulo: Editora Senac. Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2002, November). How do ALNs change the role of the teacher in case study discussion. Proceedings of the 8th Sloan-C International Conference on Asynchronous Learning Networks, Orlando, FL. Holland, J. H. (1997). Ordem oculta: como a adaptação origina a complexidade. Trad. José Luiz Malaquias. Lisboa: Gradiva.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141-165. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002a). Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization (pp. 33-46). London: Continuum. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002b). Part one: Commentaries. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization (pp. 88-95). London: Continuum. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-619. Lévy, P. (2003). A inteligência coletiva: Por uma antropologia do ciberespaço (4th ed.). São Paulo: Loyola. Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. Hove Language Teaching. Macgill, V. (2005). A history of chaos and complexity. Retrieved May 20, 2005, from http://complexity.orcon.net.nz/history.html Martins, A.C.S. (2005). Interação e discurso eletrônico: Práticas sociais e identitárias em aulas online. In J.M.C. Quintino & M.I.A. Muniz (Eds.), Estudos lingüísticos (pp. 9-35). Montes Claros: Faculdades Unidas do Norte de Minas. Martins, A.C.S. (2006). Discurso e construção de identidades no ciberespaço. In L.C. Travaglia, E.S. Bertoldo, F. Mussalim, M.A.F. Rocha, & M.V. Araújo (Eds.), Lingüística: Caminhos e descaminhos em perspective (pp. 1-11). Uberlândia: EDUFU.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1(6), 205-207. Paiva, V.L.M. de O. (1999). CALL and online journals. In R. Debski & M. Levy (Eds.), WorldCALL: Themes for the new millennium (pp. 249-265). The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Rogers, J. (2000). Communities of practice: A framework for fostering coherence in virtual learning communities. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 384-392. Rossi, P. (2001). O nascimento da ciência moderna na Europa. Tradução de Antonio Angonese. Bauru: EDUSC.
Paiva, V.L.M. de O. (2002). Caleidoscópio: Fractais de uma oficina de ensino aprendizagem. Memorial, Faculdade de Letras, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Exploring social interaction in computer conferencing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(3), 257-273.
Paiva, V.L.M. de O. (2005a). Modelo fractal de aquisição de línguas. In F.C. Bruno (Ed.), Ensinoaprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras: Reflexão e prática (pp. 23-36). São Carlos: Claraluz.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R., & Archer, W. (2004). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based, computer conference. Journal of Distance Education, 14, 2.
Paiva, V.L.M. de O. (2006a). Comunidades virtuais de aprendizagem e colaboração. In L.C. Travaglia (Ed.), Encontro na linguagem: Estudos lingüísticos e literários (pp. 127-154). Uberlândia: UFU.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Paiva, V.L.M. de O. (2006b). Autonomia e complexidade. Linguagem e Ensino, 9(1), 77-127.
Schegloff, E. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075-1095.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-383.
Parreiras, V.A. (2005). A sala de aula digital sob a perspectiva dos sistemas complexos: Uma abordagem qualitativa. Tese (Doutorado). Belo Horizonte: FALE–UFMG.
Schegloff, E.A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289-327.
Prass, A. (2005). História da física. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from http://fisicanet.terra.com. br//historia Prigogine, I. (1996). O fim das certezas: Tempo, caos e as leis da natureza. São Paulo: Editora da Unesp. Prigogine, I., & Steners, I. (1984). A nova aliança: A metamorfose da ciência. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília.
Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29, 491-501. van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second language acquisition. London: Longman. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London/New York: Longman.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cognitive Presence: Defined by Garrison et al. (2000) as “the extent to which the participants in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication.”
van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization (pp. 140-164). London: Continuum.
Cohesive Responses: This category encompasses communication behaviors that build and sustain a sense of group commitment, such as greetings and salutations, and group or personal reference.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Interactive Responses: This category of social presence, in terms of Community of Inquiry, refers to communication behaviors that provide evidence that others are attending, such as continuing a thread, quoting from others messages, asking questions, or complimenting and expressing appreciation.
Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
kEY tErMs Affective Responses: This category of social presence, in terms of Community of Inquiry, involves personal expressions of emotions, use of humor, and self-disclosure. Blended Learning: Refers to combining instructional modalities (or delivery media), combining instructional methods, and combining online and face-to-face instruction (Graham et al., 2003). This term has been used in the e-learning literature to refer specifically to educational experiences that combine face-to-face conversation classes with online classes, thus reducing the time spent inside a classroom. This interaction seeks to maximize the potential of both environments.
Learning Community: “…dynamic whole that emerges when a group of people share common practices, are independent, make decisions jointly, identify themselves with something larger than the sum of their individual relationships, and make long-term commitments to the well being of the group” (Shaffer & Anundsen, 1993, as cited in Palloff & Pratt, 1999). Social Presence: Concept defined by Garrison et al. (2000) as “the ability of learners to project themselves socially and emotionally in a community of inquiry.” Garrison (2006) expanded this notion, defining it as “the ability to project one’s self and establish purposeful relationships.” Teaching Presence: Involves designing and facilitating the educational experience (Garrison et al., 2000).
EndnotEs 1
The term “shared” is used in this chapter to refer to the type of knowledge that stems from “negotiation and/or exchange” in the solution of problems.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
2
3
Joint enterprise in this context is seen as a result of a collective process of negotiation that reflects the full complexity of mutual engagement (Wenger, 1998). Redundancy in this text is used in Davis and Sumara’s (2006, p. 138) terms: “In social grouping redundancies include common language, similar social status, shared responsibilities, constancy of setting and so on.”
Chapter III
CALL as Action Vilson J. Leffa Universidade Catolica de Pelotas, Brazil
abstract The objective of this chapter is to offer a new approach for research in Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL). It starts with the assumption that CALL has traditionally emphasized unresolved dichotomies such as tutor vs. tool or individualized instruction vs. collaborative learning. It is argued that a unifying theory, capable of incorporating these conflicting views, is needed. For this purpose, Activity Theory, based on Vygotsky’s ideas and developed by Leontiev, is proposed. It is suggested that research in CALL should focus neither on the individual nor on the community, but on the mediating tool that links them in situated context. CALL is seen as a cultural artifact that needs to be naturalized by the language teaching community.
introduction Mainstream theories in foreign language teaching tend to emphasize either the individual (focusing on such aspects as individualized instruction, learning styles, self-directed strategies) or the community (including methodologies such as community language learning, collaborative learning, study teams). The introduction of computers into foreign language instruction seemed to have contributed further to this dichotomy,
raising awareness of the differences between a student working alone in front of the computer or interacting with others in a community of learners. The basic motivation for writing this chapter is the assumption that an emphasis on either the individual or on the community results in a reductionist approach to the problem, incapable of addressing the complexity of CALL. What is proposed, then, is to emphasize the point where they intersect. For the individual to interact with the community, he or she has to do something (ac-
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
CALL as Action
tion), through some kind of mediation (tool). This is described here as the “action” approach. CALL as mediated action introduces a new paradigm in language teaching and research, putting the focus neither on the student nor on the teacher, but on the relation between them in the learning community. The chapter is structured in two main parts: (1) CALL as divided theory and (2) CALL as mediated action. The first part reviews classifications that have been proposed to explain CALL and its development, starting with the tutor/tool dichotomy and evolving to the concept of CALL as an invisible technology. Whereas in the tutor perspective, the computer is still seen as a traditional teacher, conducting drill practice with individual students, in the tool view the computer is seen as an instrument used by people to communicate with each other. The movement from tutor to tool also signals a movement from a focus on the individual to a focus on the community, with an emphasis on collaborative learning. The second part tries to build the concept of CALL as mediated action, using the Activity Theory perspective: human beings are different from other species because they create tools and are modified by the tools they create, thus evolving and producing history. CALL is described as a cultural artifact, with resources of its own, including higher interactivity and connectivity. It integrates with other components in the learning community, transforming the way teachers and students work and think. From this collective perspective, teaching and learning become a unified activity, distributed not only among the community members but also on the artifacts available in the environment. The main objective of the chapter is thus to describe CALL as a mediating tool, standing between subject (usually the student) and object (usually the content to be learned). In this chapter, we argue that change, and consequently learning, will be more easily implemented if the emphasis is neither on the teacher, as has traditionally been
0
done, nor on the student, as proposed by studentcentered approaches, but on the instruments that link student to content, and the whole learning community, including teacher, other students, rules, and division of labor. We believe that an emphasis on the instrument, for its capability in binding all the elements in the community, offers a more comprehensive view of CALL in situated practice, with more possibilities both for teaching and research purposes.
caLL as a housE diVidEd The idea of CALL as either an individual or a social activity can be related to CALL classification attempts, three of which are detailed here, not only for their historical impact on the area, but mainly for their relevance to the line of reasoning developed in this chapter. They are the magister/pedagogue distinction, as proposed by Higgins (1988), the CALL phases described by Warschauer (1996), and the approaches suggested by Bax (2003). The acknowledged need for a theory to explain CALL (Levy, 1997) has led some investigators to propose different theoretical frameworks, which resulted in different classifications. One of the earliest was postulated by Higgins (1988), who viewed the computer as playing two opposite roles in CALL, either as “magister” or “pedagogue.” Thus, the magister: wears an academic gown to show that he is qualified in subject knowledge. Visible in his top pocket is his salary check, symbolizing the security of tenured appointment. In one hand he holds a handkerchief, symbol of the care and concern which (we hope) he feels for individual learners. In the other he carries a cane, symbolizing the authority to evaluate, praise and censure. In front of him is the book, the symbol of the order of events, the structure which is imposed on him by the syllabus makers and which he will impose
CALL as Action
on the learners by means of the lesson plan. (Higgins, 1988, p. 13) To explain pedagogue, Higgins resorts to the figure of the Greek slave, who was used to assist children in their daily learning activities: So think of a man in sandals and a cheap cotton robe, walking five paces behind the young master. He carries the young master’s books for him, but no cane. The young master snaps his fingers and the pedagogue approaches. He answers the young master’s questions, recites a poem, translates words, plays a game, or even, if that is what the young master demands, gives a test. The young master snaps his fingers again, and the pedagogue goes back to his place. He hopes he has given satisfaction, since otherwise he may starve. (Higgins, 1988, p. 14) According to Higgins, a computer is a magister when it plays the role of a tutor, controlling and guiding the student through a series of drills. The interaction between machine and student is typically conducted through exchanges, as in the IRF (Initiate/Respond/Follow-up) model proposed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) for traditional classroom discourse. It can be easily seen that the basic classroom exchange, in its three sequential moves, is faithfully reproduced in the CALL environment: (1) computer sets the task (initiate move), (2) student tries to accomplish the task (respond move), and (3) computer evaluates (follow-up move). Considering that, in this case, the machine is not a mediational means between teacher and student, but an actor in the exchange, we can argue that there is an attempt to replace the teacher with the computer; the one-to-one classroom interaction is seamlessly extended to one-to-one computing, with an emphasis on individual learning. On the other hand, computer as pedagogue inverts the master/slave relation between student and machine. Unlike the IRF model, control is
now handed over to the student, who initiates the exchange and tells the computer what to do; the computer responds by trying to accomplish the task. The student finally evaluates the results and may or may not be satisfied with the job done by the machine, now seen as an obedient slave, ready to make things easier for its master. When Higgins proposed the magister/pedagogue dichotomy, in fact based on a previous paper (Higgins, 1983), the Internet, as we know it, was not yet available. Today, with Orkut, discussion lists, and distance learning, the pedagogue metaphor would certainly serve the purposes of collaborative teaching with its emphasis on the collective aspects of learning. Warshauer classifies CALL in three phases, which he refers to as behavioristic, communicative, and integrative. The behavioristic phase is characterized by the heavy use of drills, following the audio-lingual model, with the computer playing the role of tutor. According to Warschauer (1996, p. 4): Programs of this phase entailed repetitive language drills and can be referred to as ‘drill and practice’ (or, more pejoratively, as ‘drill and kill’”)…A computer can present such material on an individualized basis, allowing students to proceed at their own pace and freeing up class time for other activities. The communicative phase emphasizes the use of authentic materials and interactive activities, with the computer playing different roles, not only as a tutor but mainly as a tool for students’ discussions, writing, and other creative activities. Through the use of authentic materials, the emphasis is not on teaching the language per se, but on using the language, taking advantage of materials that were not produced for students. “In this role, the programs do not necessarily provide any language material at all, but rather empower the learner to use or understand language” (Warshauer, 1996, p. 6).
CALL as Action
The integrative phase combines multimedia (integrating text with graphics, sound, animation, and video) with the impact of the Internet (allowing language learners to communicate with other learners 24 hours a day). The use of computermediated communication clearly favors collective learning over individualized instruction: It also allows not only one-to-one communication, but also one-to-many, allowing a teacher or student to share a message with a small group, the whole class, a partner class, or an international discussion list of hundreds or thousands of people. (Warshauer, 1996, p. 9) A third classification for CALL activities, of special interest here, was proposed by Bax (2003). He also uses a three-element categorization, but defines CALL as restricted, open, and integrated. The restricted variety is related to Warschauer’s behavioristic CALL, but is not limited to the underlying theory, since it includes activities that cannot be described as behavioristic. The term restricted is preferred because of the limitations that are still observed, considering, for example, the software used, the feedback offered to the students, and the role played by the teacher. By contrast, the open variety is more flexible in all of these aspects, integrating them with simulations and games. It is on the integrated type, however, that Bax differs most from Warschauer, and offers an interesting perspective on CALL. Whereas Warschauer sees integrative in terms of technology, that is, the ability to integrate text with audio and video, for example, Bax describes integrated in terms of socio-cultural aspects, emphasizing not the ability to integrate, but rather the ability to be integrated. The technology, which is visible in Warschauer, becomes invisible in Bax (2003, p. 24): This concept [integrated CALL] is relevant to any kind of technological innovation and refers to the stage when the technology becomes invisible,
embedded in everyday practice and hence ‘normalized’. To take some commonplace examples, a wristwatch, a pen, shoes, writing–these are all technologies which have become normalized to the extent that we hardly even recognized them as technologies. In theory CALL has gone a long way, developing from Higgins’s (1988) metaphor of the magister, placed in center stage, to Bax’s (2003) idea of CALL as an invisible technology. In fact, it starts developing from the center (computer as conspicuous tutor), moves to the margin (computer as an obedient slave, walking five paces behind its master), and finally reaches invisibility (computer as a naturalized tool). Along this journey from visible tutor to invisible tool, there is also a movement from individual action to social activity. Computer as tutor usually emphasizes individualized instruction, with the student working alone in front of the screen. Computer as tool, on the other hand, tends to emphasize collective learning, with students forming a community of learners, working cooperatively, exchanging ideas, and learning together through continual negotiations. The development from tutor to tool goes hand in hand with the development from individual learning, with an emphasis on cognition, to social transformation, with an emphasis on historicity and collective learning. In classroom practice, however, the historical development of CALL does not reflect the ideas defended in mainstream theory. Considering what happens in the classroom, the tendency is towards stability: (1) keep things as they are, not as they should be; (2) if change is inevitable, improve from what is available, not by replacing things; and (3) merge dichotomies instead of strictly adhering to one side or the other. In mainstream theory (Kuhn, 1962), the tendency is in the opposite direction: (1) new things must be proposed and tried out, because there is no evolution without change; (2) scientific revolutions depend on paradigm replacement, not on their improvement; (3) dichotomies represent incompatible, mutually exclusive positions.
CALL as Action
The concept of development as substitution can be detected in the idea that we have moved from computer as tutor to computer as tool, replacing one by the other. This is more a theoretical construction than a practical fact. The development of CALL, as the development of most cultural artifacts in the history of civilization, is better characterized by the idea of evolution, where old artifacts are not replaced by new ones, but incorporated into them. It seems that separation is a theoretical necessity. If we want to investigate CALL, we must find a way to divide and classify it, describe each one of these parts, and then hopefully relate these parts to one another, creating a system or a model. We may devise categories such as types of CALL (behavioristic, communicative, and integrative in Warschauer’s terminology or restricted, open, and integrated, in Bax’s). We may also create dichotomies such as tutor vs. tool or individual vs. society. All this breaking up and possible reassembling is part of the theoretical procedure. We may assume that the theorist’s job is to make all these things visible, so that they can be described and analyzed. In classroom practice, however, it is the opposite. As will be explained later, separation does not work. Using CALL with students is like taking them on a journey into invisibility. Software and computers have to become transparent so that students can see through them; they cannot be in the way between students and the content they need to learn. Tutor/tool or individual/society dichotomies are not adhered to, but ignored or blended together (e.g., Hubard & Hiskin, 2003). The point made here is that both adherence to the fragmentation paradigm, where parts of the whole are separated and analyzed, as done in theory, and adoption of the blending model, where things are put together, as done in practice, are misleading. It can be argued, for example, that the different classifications proposed by different authors are different because the criteria they use to classify them are arbitrary. Although we may
defend the idea that science is after all a subjective truth, dependent on the argumentative skills of the author, the possibility of having innumerable classifications is problematic and may be characteristic of the early stages of a new science, still in a consolidation process, as is probably the case with CALL. Different classifications may lead not only to an excessive concern with the parts, in detriment of the whole, but also preference for some parts in detriment of others, which may result in a blind man’s view of reality, taking the tree for the forest. In a dichotomy, when we chose one side, this side becomes the whole and the other is erased. On the other hand, adopting a blending model, in which both the whole and the parts are considered, is a practical necessity. In the classroom, for example, the teacher cannot always address the whole group; sometimes individual questions from individual students must be answered. Integrative exercises, such as summary writing, may go hand in hand with discrete item activities, such as gapfilling and multiple-choice tests. In CALL terms, computer as tutor is intensively used in some courses, along with collaborative tasks in which students work together with other students. What is needed is a theory, robust enough to incorporate both sides of the dichotomy, no matter how they oppose each other, no matter how apparently incompatible they are. Such a theory is based on the idea of mediation. The concern is neither the individual nor the community, neither the student nor the content to be learned, but the relation between them. Learning does not occur directly but through a mediational artifact, which stands between student and learning as a bond, cementing them. This idea of mediational artifact as cement is important because, although we cannot change either a person’s nature or the nature of an object, we can change the mediational artifact that links them together. Considering, for example, a student learning a foreign language, it is obvious that we cannot change either the foreign language or the student. We might wish to erase
CALL as Action
some verb irregularities in the language we teach to make our job easier, but that is not possible. We might wish to have different students, but that is not possible either. We have to take language and students as they are. The only place where changes are possible is in the artifacts we use: books, learning activities, computer software. If we want to change the way students learn, we have to change the artifacts they use.
caLL as a uniFYing tooL This section addresses the main point of this chapter, which is to present a unified theory for CALL, merging long-standing dichotomies such as tool vs. tutor and individualized instruction vs. collective learning. Unifying different points of view is not an easy task in any area of human activity and seems to be even more difficult in the area of educational research. A view of available literature shows that researchers in education tend to group themselves in different scientific paradigms (Piagetean, Vygotskyan, Chomskyan, etc.), surrounding themselves with a shield that automatically blocks out all the others. Any suggestion to mix different paradigms into one eclectic approach may be discarded as “intellectual obscenity,” according to a saying attributed to Krashen (Barasch & James, 1994). The attempt to describe CALL as mediated action questions this feudalized view of science and offers a multifaceted perspective, viewing research as bricolage (Kincheloe & Berry, 2004). It is proposed that what is traditionally defined as static, lifeless, and a-historical, frozen in space and time, becomes a dynamic, living, and historical entity. The parts are no longer isolated from each other, but integrated into a living organism that reacts to the surrounding environment: what functions as tool in one context may function as tutor in another and vice versa. Describing CALL as a unifying tool in a living organism is obviously more complex than describing it as a
static entity. Previous views on related cultural artifacts such as books, classroom lectures, and language teaching activities have to be revised and reconceptualized for a post-digital perspective. What follows is an attempt to describe CALL in this direction. Due to human tendency to anthropomorphize objects, the tutor/tool dichotomy can be applied to many cultural artifacts, including books, television, radio, tape recordersand CALL. Books are of special interest here, both for what they have in common with computers and for the differences that set them apart when they are anthropomorphized. Teachers are familiar with books and can easily integrate them in their classroom activities; they know exactly when to treat them as physical objects or psychological realities, and know exactly when they are talking in a figurative or in a literal way. As regards computers, however, they are unsure, mainly because the boundary between the figurative and the literal worlds becomes unclear. When they say, for example, that “a book is a teacher,” they know they are talking metaphorically, but if they hear that “a computer is a teacher,” they may not know how to interpret the sentence. Is it a metaphor or can the computer really act as a teacher? The differences between book, computer, and teacher are dealt with here, considering the notion of anthropomorphization, resistance to new technologies, and the need to appropriate the new technology. The basic idea is that a computer should not be seen as a substitute for either book or teacher, but as a technology that integrates them into a greater unit. Considering that the tutor/tool dichotomy is confusing, it is replaced by the words teacher, artifact, and tool. No difference is made between the words tool and instrument, both seen as mediation. As mediation, a tool can be either an object (book, computer) or a subject (teacher, student). Both books and computers are cultural artifacts that can be anthropomorphized, but there are some differences in this anthropomorphization process that must be taken into account. First,
CALL as Action
as regards books, there is an association between object and subject that is not found in computers. Books, unlike computers, are individual entities written by people, which makes it easy to associate any book with its author. We may say that we love Shakespeare, Chaucer, or Charles Dickens, referring to the books they have written, thus erasing the difference between the author and his work. There is no need for the author to be present when he is read; he can be represented by the work he produced. Literally speaking, author and book belong to opposite worlds; one is a subject, the other is an object. Metaphorically speaking, however, they share the same subjective nature. It is also important to notice that no reader is diminished and no author is depreciated when a book is referred to as a person. Computers, on the other hand, are not individual entities; they are artifacts manufactured by a few big companies and registered as trademarks. They have general characteristics (more or less memory capacity, higher or lower speed), but they cannot be easily associated with an author, as happens with books. We may know that Steve Jobs is the maker of Apple Computers, but if we say that we love Steve Jobs, we are probably referring directly to the person, not to the machine that he made. The author is not visible in the computer. Although a given computer usually leaves the factory with a specified serial number, that number is restricted to the documentation; it is not used in our daily interaction with the machine. Computers are not born with individuality; they are produced on an assembly line, all alike, within the specifications of a given model. Individuality is added later, when we buy them, adding accessories, and mainly with use, when we customize them to our needs. Computers do not come ready-made for use, unlike books that come ready-made to be read. There are no metaphors involved here; they literally grow with use, reacting and changing to our personal wishes and needs. Computers are not prêt-à-porter artifacts.
Anthropomorphization is easier with books than with computers. We accept without any sign of discomfiture the notion of a book as a dear friend, always ready to help us, more than we do with computers. The metaphor of a book as a patient friend has probably been used since the days people started reading books. The segment “book is a friend,” for example, produced more than 26.2 million hits in a Google search in early 2007. Some examples: • •
•
•
“A book is a friend.” (American proverb) “A book is a friend; a good book is a good friend. It will talk to you when you want it to talk and it will keep still when you want it to keep still; and there are not many friends who know enough to do that.” (B.A. Billingsly) “A book is a friend you can trust, a friend you can turn to for advice and inspiration whenever you like.” (Anonymous) “Each book is a friend that converses with and teaches me.” (Warren Wiersbe)
Being friendly and trusty are subjective characteristics that are attributed to an object, through anthropomorphization, as we have traditionally done with animals (Easter Bunny, Mickey Mouse) and toys (Pinocchio, the Hardy Tin Soldier), including, lately, household objects (SpongeBob). This process of anthropomorphization is seen as something natural. In the case of books, it is also seen as desirable, based on the assumption, in most cultures, that books are essentially good and should be loved and respectednot for their physical reality, just leaves of paper bound together, but for their psychological content. On the other hand, as regards computers, they may easily spark feelings of disapproval, whether anthropomorphized or not. Some examples: •
“Most schools would probably be better off if they threw their computers into the dumpster.” (Michael Fellows, computer scientist,
CALL as Action
•
University of Victoria, British Columbia, 1997) “When I put a child in front of a computer, what am I subtexting to the child? Please go hide…I have something more important to do. I have something more important than you!” (Clifford Stoll, astronomer, writer, leading authority on computer security, in a lecture at the Buffalo Arts Center, 1996)
A Google search, using the same string above, but replacing book with computer, produced only 26 hits for “computer is a friend,” as compared to the 26.2 million for “book is a friend.” Out of these 26 occurrences, only one put the computer in a clear positive light: For me, computer is a friend who helps me do my work easily, gets me connected with my friends around the world, helps me plan the daily memo, guides in my son’s school projects and what not!1 Considering that we are used to attributing human qualities to animals and objects, including books and computers, the question that begs answering here is why we act one way when we refer to books and a different way when we refer to computers. When we say that a book is a friend ready to teach us, we are treating the book not as an artifact but as a teacherand that is totally acceptable. On the other hand, if we treat a computer as a teacher, not as an artifact, that is usually seen as undesirable. We see it as commendable if books are metaphorically treated as human beings, replacing the teacher, and we encourage students to read books, which is as solitary as playing with a computer. As far as anti-social behavior is concerned, there is more solitude in front of a book than in front of a computer screen. There are certainly many explanations for treating books and computers so differently, although they are both cultural artifacts. One important difference is that a book is a static,
physically inanimate object. We can attribute human qualities to it, but they are not really there; they are only in our minds. The black marks on the page mean nothing by themselves, unless we give them meaning. When we say that a book is a teacher, we are speaking metaphorically. Computers, on the other hand, are dynamic, physically animate objects. They react to input, analyze the data we enter, and can provide different answers to similar questions, generated by a random seed working within certain parameters. When we say that a computer is a teacher, we may be speaking not only metaphorically but also literally. When we interact with a book, the interaction is not really with the book but with a representation of the book that we have built inside ourselves; the book remains untouched as a physical reality. It does not interact back. When we interact with a computer, the computer changes physically, as a result of our interaction; it may add new information to a data bank inside the unit, for example, and then capitalize on this information for the next user, literally becoming a different computer. Unlike a book, the computer interacts back. This ability to interact is not well understood yet and may generate fear, which in turn may lead to resistance. Some people believe that artificial intelligence will turn computers into amazing thinking machines that will eventually replace human beings (Shneidermann, 2002). Computers are interactive machines that can be programmed to simulate some human actions, using algorithms that compare the data entered by the user with the data stored in their random access memories, thus providing automatic feedback based on these comparisons. It may be striking to some people that computers can simulate rather long conversations with human beings, playing different roles. One of the earliest programs, exploiting this side of artificial intelligence, for example, was ELIZA (Weizenbaum, 1966), in the role of a psychiatrist. The excerpt2 below reproduces a possible dialogue with the machine:
CALL as Action
ELIZA: How do you do? Please state your problem. Person: I spend too much time with computers. ELIZA: Why do you mention computers? Person: You are one. ELIZA: Does it please you to believe I am one? Person: Yes. ELIZA: You seem to be quite positive. Person: I suppose I am. Although the idea of artificial intelligence as a replacement for human action has generally been seen with skepticism (Shneidermann, 2002), the fear still remains in some quarters. It may be difficult, for example, to separate the metaphoric from the literal in the ELIZA excerpt above, when we interact with the program on a computer screen and receive immediate answers to the questions we pose. Consequently, what should be seen as a simple preprogrammed algorithm in the machine may be seen as intelligence. When fear is associated with the difficulty that people meet in trying to use the new tools, the result is usually resistance to their use. People who feel that they are excluded from the community of successful users will tend to play down the role of a given tool in that community. Sometimes, however, resistance may be found in the initiated themselves. Plato’s criticism against the use of writing for its undesirable effects on memory is a famous historical example: …your invention [writing] will produce forgetfulness in the souls of those who have learned it, through lack of practice at using their memory, as through reliance on writing they are reminded from outside by alien marks, not from inside themselves by themselves: you have discovered an elixir not of memory but of reminding. To your students you give an appearance of wisdom, not the reality of it; having heard much, in the absence of teaching, they will appear to know much when for the most part they know nothing, and they will be difficult to get along with, because they have acquired the
appearance of wisdom instead of wisdom itself. (Plato, trans. Rowe, 1986, pp. 275a-b) What Plato said of writing in 400 BC is very similar to what Postman, a well-known cultural critic, said of computers in 1992: “It is important to remember what can be done without computers, and it is also important to remind ourselves of what may be lost when we do use them” (Postman, 1992, p. 120). One possible explanation for why we are ready to accept the metaphor of books as teachers is because we are not afraid of books and know how to use them; books have already been naturalized, “normalized” in Bax’s terms. We talk about books as we talk about the objects we use everyday. Centuries of contact with books in our civilization, the years we spend in school learning how to read them, the way we see them displayed in bookstore windows, buy and borrow them, exchange and discuss them, all this has contributed to naturalize books as part of our daily lives. We are so used to books that it causes us no discomfort at all to refer to them as our friends or teachers. On the other hand, when we see how computers are used, either in fiction or in real life, we realize immediately that they are different from booksthey interact directly with the user, answering questions, providing feedback, and so forth, with no apparent human intervention. Some authors have defined this human-machine exchange as interactivity, as opposed to interaction, which is human to human (Wagner, 1994). The computer moves from a simple bearer of messages (e-mails, academic texts, encyclopedias, etc.), to a data processing machine (word processors, presentation programs, design applications, music making software), and reaches subjectivization, simulating human actions. “A computer is a medium in which a variety of methods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be implemented” (Garrett, 1991, p. 75).
CALL as Action
We live in a world where the border between subject and object seems to have become movable, making it difficult to decide whether we are receding towards ourselves, relinquishing the human in us to the objects that surround us, or expanding our humanity and incorporating these same objects. When we wear contact lenses, for example, it is difficult to decide whether our eyes end before the lenses or continue beyond them, creating what Kuuti (1996) referred to as functional unit. The point is that it probably does not matter: we do not interact with our lenses; we interact through them. They are artifacts like telephones, books, and computers. Likewise we do not interact with these artifacts, but through them, no matter how sophisticated they may be. We may talk to computers as we talk to other objects: metaphorically. But we may also talk to computers as we talk to people, that is, literally. A computer is both a book and a teacher; sometimes it acts as a book (just bearing text, for example), but sometimes it also acts as a teacher (providing individualized feedback, evaluating tasks, etc.). Either as book or as teacher, a computer can always be seen as a mediating tool. A good student does not study for the teacher but uses the teacher as a means for reaching a given objective, the same way a home builder uses an architect to design a house or a sick person uses a doctor to get well. A computer, either as a teacher or as an artifact, can always be seen as a mediating tool. A tool does not exist by itself; it was created for some purpose, empowering people in a community to attain a given objective more efficiently. It is apparently obvious that people, including both the individual and the community, should be on the foreground. But this may not always be so. When we do research on how people learn, for example, it may be more productive to put people in the background, so that the tools they use can be brought to the foreground. If we want to teach a child to ride a bicycle, having a bicycle is essential for the child to acquire the skills of riding. We have to sit the child on the bicycle and
do some amount of practice. The child’s behavior will be shaped by the use of the bicycle, to the point that it becomes an extension of her legs and arms and she will be able to ride by herself, without any help. Learning to read or speak a foreign language may require the acquisition of different skills, but they can only be done with the mediation of some kind of tool. Tools are important because it is only through them that we can change the individual, the community, and the world. “Neither hand or mind alone suffice; the tools and devices they employ finally shape them” (Francis Bacon, as quoted by Brunner, 1987). We do not need surgery to change anybody’s hand; we can change the hand by changing the gesture made by the hand. In the same vein, we do not need surgery to change people’s brain; we can change it by changing their mind. And this is done with the mediation of tools. Mediated action has received a lot of attention lately, as part of the Activity Theory paradigm in education. Vygotsky and Leontiev are the main historical references here, complemented by contemporary authors such as Kuuti (1996), Engeström (1999), Wertsch (1998), and Cole (2003). For them, learning is mediated by tools (both psychological such as language, strategy use, etc., or technical ones such as books and computers). The subject who uses these tools is not an isolated individual but a member of a given community (EFL classroom, language lab, etc.). The members in the community (teachers, administrators, etc.) all share the same objective (learning a foreign language). For the community to subsist, a set of rules must be created, dividing responsibilities between its members. When a new tool is introduced (podcasts, RPG, iPods, etc.), it must be mastered by all members in the community, according to the role played by each member (a teacher’s knowledge of an authoring system, for example, may need to be different from the student’s). Any action, any task in the community only makes sense if viewed from a holistic perspective and cannot be separated
CALL as Action
from its final objective (shared by everybody in the community). There seems to be a considerable difference between what is actually done in CALL and what could be done. The reasons for this difference are many, including restrictions from the technology itself and human resistance to its use. In terms of technology, we are still working with an emergent system, lacking in fundamental aspects such as interoperability, standard compliance, and hardware interconnectivity. In terms of human resistance, we tend to compare the computer to the teacher and then rejoice on what it cannot do. Adopting a new technology implies a new way of working and thinking. Producing a learning object to be used on the computer is not necessarily more difficult than preparing an activity to be used with paper and pencil, but it is certainly more complex. A computer program is not a replacement for either the book or the teacher. It has resources of its own, including higher interactivity and connectivity, which have to be adequately exploited. In a socio-cultural perspective, CALL should be seen as a cultural artifact that integrates with the other components in the learning community, including other artifacts and other members (teachers, students, etc.). From this collective perspective, teaching and learning become a unified activity, distributed not only among the community members but also on the artifacts available in the environment. Introducing a new tool is always a challenge, subject to more or less resistance from the members in the community. It usually means acquiring new skills, from the operational (more automatic) stages to higher intentional levels, with the result that by doing different things, we end up thinking differently. When any new artifact (pencil, television, computer, or CALL) is introduced in a community, not only the whole body is involved, but the environment as well and everybody in it.
FuturE trEnds Looking ahead is a general pastime in the area of computer-mediated communication and learning, as can be seen in popular books such as Gates’ (1995) The Road Ahead, Negroponte’s (1995) Being Digital, and Shneiderman’s (2002) Leonardo’s Laptop. In CALL, even components of some current models are sometimes projected into the future, as is the case with Bax (2003), for example, who described his Integrative CALL as something that “does not yet exist to any significant degree, but represents instead an aim towards which we should be working” (p. 22). The future is a challenge because the more unpredictable it is, the more the need to predict it. In terms of CALL, and in the line of reasoning defended here, the trend is towards the idea that computers will be instrumental in the formation of different kinds of communities. Learning to speak a foreign language is acquiring admittance into the community of the speakers of that language, which can be done with computers, through local, regional, and global networks. In the early days of CALL, the emphasis was on the individual and consequently on individualized learning. Later, with the introduction of the Internet and the socio-cultural perspective on education, the emphasis moved to the community and collaborative learning. Considering that computers are instrumental in connecting individuals and communities, the trend, in terms of research and teaching, is to move beyond the individual and the community and focus on what has the potential of introducing the individual into society and society into the individual, along Morin’s (1990) hologrammatical principle. This principle states that not only the whole contains the part, but that the part also contains the whole. Thus, for a language student to be part of a foreign language community, this student must appropriate the language and the values that constitute this community. The community, on
CALL as Action
the other hand, to be ecologically competent to allow for interaction between individuals, needs to develop some cultural artifacts that function as messaging tools for individuals and communities to talk to each other, incorporating the parts into the whole. There is a big difference between CALL as is and CALL as it can be. CALL as is still confines itself to the individual-vs.-society dichotomy, favoring the part in detriment of the whole. CALL as it can be focuses on what links individual to society, accounting for both the part, which contains the whole, and the whole, which contains the part. The trend is clearly towards CALL as it can be.
concLusion Summarizing, the idea put forward in this chapter is that CALL is not aimed at replacing either the teacher or the book. The idea that computers should act like human beings, the humanoids in science fiction, or the agents in some versions of artificial intelligence research may be interesting as entertainment or research projects, but not very useful in practice and is being discarded (Shneiderman, 2002). The basic idea is that we need tools to help us, not humanoids to replicate our actions. CALL has often been described in terms of dichotomies: tutor vs. tool or individual vs. community. These dichotomies can be referred to as the “or” approach, where either the individual or the community is excluded, which is a logical impossibility, since one cannot exist without the other. Another possibility is to go the other way around and emphasize both the individual and the community, reasoning that we may refer to it as the “and” approach. Again, this is problematic because nothing is left out and would probably result in redundancy and duplication of effort. What we propose here is that neither the individual nor the community should be emphasized, but the point where they intersect. For the individual to
0
interact with the community, he or she must do something (action) through some kind of mediation (tool). This can be referred to as the “action” approach, in which the emphasis is neither on the individual nor on the community, but on the relation between them.
rEFErEncEs Barasch, R.M., & James, C.V. (1994). Beyond the monitor model: Comments on the current theory and practice in SLA. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Bax S. (2003). CALLPast, present and future. System, 31(1), 13-28. Bruner, J. (1987). Prologue to the English edition. In L.S. Vygotsky (Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (vol. 1). New York: Plenum. Cole, M. (2003). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gates, W. (1995). The road ahead. New York: Penguin Books. Higgins, J. (1983). Can computers teach? CALICO Journal, 1(2), 4-6. Higgins, J. (1988). Language, learners and computers: Human intelligence and artificial unintelligence. Singapore: Longman. Hubard, P., & Siskin, C.B. (2003, May). Another look at tutorial CALL. Proceedings of WorldCall 2003, Banff, Canada. Kincheloe, J.L., & Berry, K.S. (2004). Rigour and complexity in educational research: Conceptualizing the bricolage. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
CALL as Action
Kuhn T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuuti, K. (1996). Activity Theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity Theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Morin, E. (1990). Introduction à la pensée complexe. Paris: ESF. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Alfred A. Kopf. Plato. (1986). Phaedrus (trans. and commentary by C. J. Rowe). Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Random House. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: University Press. Shneiderman, B. (2002). Leonardo’s laptop: Human needs and the new computer technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wagner, E.D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-26. Warschauer M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3-20). Tokyo: Logos International. Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZAA computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 9, 6-45.
Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
kEY tErMs Activity: Minimal unit of investigation in socio-cultural theories, involving a subject, an object, mediational tools, and the community with its rules and division of labor. Activity Theory: Socio-cultural theory initiated by Vygotsky and his colleagues, based on the idea that human activity is situated in social context and mediated by psychological and physical instruments such as language, dancing, books, or computers. Cultural Artifact: Mediational object used by a member of a community to interact with other members. Examples of cultural artifacts are pencils, books, iPods, computer operating systems, and so forth. Distributed Cognition: Cognitive theory emphasizing the idea that cognition expands from the individual to the community and its artifacts. Distributed Learning: Decentralized instructional model in which teachers, students, and the resources are located in different places. Sometimes a synonym for distance learning. Learning Community: Group of people who share common educational goals and typically work in a collaborative, non-hierarchical fashion to achieve these goals. Learning Object: Reusable learning unit, usually digital, that can be combined into a bigger unit. Mediated Action: Use of cultural artifacts (pencil and paper, data projector, computer programs, etc.) for the purpose of attaining a given objective such as demonstrating a theorem or learning a foreign language.
CALL as Action
Orkut: An Internet social network created by Google, in which users display their profiles, receive and send messages, post testimonials, and create communities.
EndnotEs 1
2
http://www.indusladies.com/forums/technology-for-you-and-me/2914-computersmere-machine-mans-best.html http://jerz.setonhill.edu/if/canon/eliza.htm
Chapter IV
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment1 Vera Lucia Menezes de Oliveira e Paiva Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais/CNPq/FAPEMIG, Brazil Adail Sebastiao Rodrigues-Junior Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Brazil
abstract This pedagogical and methodological chapter aims at contributing to increasing Web teachers’awareness of the different ways teachers and students can make themselves “visible” in the virtual environment by describing three categories of footing in online educational forums, namely, social footing, teaching footing, and cognitive footing. The categories are explained in line with the definition of footing, originally presented by Goffman (1981) and extended to online environments by Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2004, 2007). The data stems from a 60-hour online reading and writing course for undergraduate students of English as a Foreign Language in Brazil and was selected having in mind the categories discussed throughout the chapter, with special emphasis on the role played by the teacher and her students during the course. The analysis has shown that footing can be clearly perceived as an interactive category for online environments by means of textual analysis, with special focus on the transitivity model developed by Halliday (2004) and the social, teaching, and cognitive presences investigated by Garrison (2006) and his colleagues.
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
introduction Face-to-face interaction has been investigated for a long time, with a main emphasis on speech acts (Austin, 1962), talk-in-interaction (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977), and conversation (Grice, 1975). Another seminal work in this research field is Forms of Talk by Goffman (1981), especially his work on footing, which he defines as “participant’s alignment, or set, or stance, or posture, or projected self.” Goffman advocates that changes in footing are marked by shifts in tone, pitch, volume, rhythm, stress, tonal quality, and code switching. He says that “change in footing is very commonly language linked; if not that, then at least one can claim that the paralinguistic markers of language will figure” (Goffman, 1981, p. 128), in which gaze shift and facial expression play a part. Online interaction, on the other hand, differs from face-to-face encounters because it lacks prosodic segments and the paralinguistic resources often found in talk-in-context. Although we defend that footing is a phenomenon which can also be studied in online interaction, we contend that new categories are needed in order to understand how it works in this new environment. Online education has been using different kinds of online conferencing, such as messenger, e-mail, chat, and forum. What most interests this educational field is the kind of context where students and teachers interact in simultaneous modes (one to one, one to many, and many to many) at anytime, anywhere. Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2004, 2007) have investigated which roles the footings of participants play while they are interacting with their peers in online academic forums. According to them, “within online interaction, interpretive resources usually present in a given context are transferred to utterances produced by interlocutors in virtual interaction” (Paiva & Rodrigues-Junior, 2004, p. 175, our translation). We can take, as an example, the use of capital letters when virtual
interactants intend to emphasize specific feelings. Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2007, p. 156) offer an example of this transference, when one of the students of an online course writes “Subject: HELP!!!!!!!!!!!” The capital letters and the exclamation marks point to the emphasis the student gave to her problem, as if she were crying for help in any difficult situation. Moreover, nearly all paralinguistic features easily identified in casual talk (due mostly to the cues immediate contexts provide) become linguistic and discursive elements often used by interlocutors when they are virtually communicating with their peers, like, for instance, emoticons, interjections, punctuation, capital letters, and so forth. Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2007) have also given close attention to the generic structures of online forums and to which extent these generic features influence interlocutors’ alignments and their positioning in virtual interaction. One of the main findings Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2004, 2007) have presented is the fact that online forums comprise a myriad of hybridized generic elements frequently perceived in the linguistic and discursive choices their users make. On this basis, this pedagogical as well as methodological chapter deals with the way interlocutors in online academic forums build knowledge as they negotiate meanings while exchanging information with each other. We posit that this meaning negotiation becomes easier to grasp if interlocutors make their footings visible and explicit to their peers, by utilizing linguistic and discursive elements that necessarily lead to this explicitness. We also intend to explore furtherbuilding on the work of Garrison (2006) and Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001)the interactive elements often held by interlocutors and the discursive resources they bring to interaction as a means of overcoming the absence of contextual features within this sort of online communication. The chapter, thus, seeks to be a step forward in the analysis of online academic forums and their important roles to knowledge
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
construction, whose interconnected parts are split into five sections: 1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
The introduction, in which we present the aims of the chapter and its structure; Theoretical background, in which we discuss and extend the notion of footing (Goffman, 1981) and the original and in-depth discussion we have held around this issue (Paiva & Rodrigues-Junior, 2004, 2007); Method, in which we present how data was collected and the context from which it stems; Analysis and discussion, in which we present some strips of online interaction and the roles footing play to the understanding of this kind of virtual interaction; and Final remarks, in which we present the conclusions we arrived at for the moment.
Footing In his seminal paper entitled Footing, Goffman (1981) introduced the concept of footing into the social sciences, opening up interesting possibilities of looking at social encounters and their interactants. Footing is more commonly related to participants’ alignments, their social projection, and the way they represent themselves while taking a role in a social encounter. Duranti (1997, p. 296) also posits: “Footing, in other words, is another way of talking about indexing…the process whereby we link utterances to particular moments, places, or personae, including our own self at a different time or with a different spirit (e.g., emotional vs. distant, convinced vs., skeptical, literal vs. ironic).” Duranti (1997) goes on providing general applications of the concept onto contextual features. Interestingly, however, is the fact that footing is naturally related to language, or “languagelinked” (Goffman, 1981, p. 128), with special emphasis on phonemic clauses. Duranti affirms
as well, as we could have noticed, that footing is a kind of interactive process whereby utterances represent the constitution of the social encounter in line with major contextual forces that undoubtedly play a part. Still, when we pay close attention to online interaction, utterances as well as other semiotic elementsfor instance, emoticons, capital letters, sounds, and so forthare the only discursive signs capable of capturing the effects of interactants’ communicative intentions. Whenever there is intention, footing appears as the “process whereby we link utterances to particular moments” (Duranti, 1997, p. 296). Bearing this in mind, Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2004, 2007) attempted to develop a methodology to analyze footing in online educational forums, with particular interest in how students responded to each other’s claims as the activity unfolded. In general, Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2004, 2007), by focusing on discussions about online educational forums, found out that: 1.
2.
3.
4.
Epithets, adverbs, pronouns of treatment, capital letters, abbreviated words, and so forth, play a part for the establishment of footing as a significant element in online interaction. Given its dialogical constitution, online educational forums naturally demand from its interactants the construction of discursive structures that necessarily lead to the manifestation of their communicative intentions, as the interaction unfolds. A discursive topic is usually presented as the point of departure for the interaction, which in fact determines the subject of discussion and the interactants’ responses to it. An online educational forum is a hybrid genre, since its formation encompasses a range of generic features from academic articles, essays, e-mails, and chats. This generic feature is an example of the complexities usually encountered in online
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
5.
educational forums, because the whole interaction will be subjected to the limits as well as possibilities this mixture of genres raises. Finally, lexico-gramaticalization, more specifically the transitivity system, as presented by Halliday (2004) in the continuum or cline of lexico-grammar, plays a significant role in the identification of footing in online educational forums, and its active participation influences the construction of footings in the ongoing interaction. Contrary to this position, Goffman (1981, p. 128) considers that “sentence grammar won’t help us all that much” to the investigation of linguistic
aspects of footing. Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2004, 2007), on the other hand, have shown that lexico-grammar helps identify the linguistic hints that signal interactants’ footings in virtual interaction. Halliday (2004, p. 170) explains that “[t]he transitivity system construes the world of experience into a manageable set of PROCESS TYPES.” The transitivity model is formed by six interconnected process types, defined in Table 1. Another point that merits closer examination is the power relations commonly achieved when footing is under thorough scrutiny. In his paper, Goffman (1981) touches very slightly on
Table 1. The transitivity model
Types of Processes (verbs)
Description
Examples of processes (verbs)
Material Processes
They construe “a quantum of change in the flow of events as taking place through some input of energy” (Halliday, 2004, p. 179), with mostly an action performed by a subject onto someone or something.
appear, emerge, develop, cut, modernize, brush, sweep, open, close, leave
Mental Processes
They construe “a quantum of change in the flow of events taking place in our own consciousness” (Halliday, 2004, p. 197).
see, notice, believe, expect, wish, hope, like, hate, perceive, think
Relational Processes
They “serve to characterize and to identify” (Halliday, 2004, p. 210) general nouns, be they human or inanimate subjects.
be, become, remain, taste (like), turn into, represent, constitute, express, signify, stand for
Behavioral Processes
They “are processes of (typically human) physiological and psychological behavior” (Halliday, 2004, p. 248), regarded as a mixture of material and mental processes.
smile, cry, laugh, listen, dream, breathe, sing, dance, faint, talk
Verbal Processes
They “are clauses of saying” (Halliday, 2004, p. 252), usually contributing to the creation of narratives by setting up distinctive dialogues and reported speech.
praise, insult, say, speak, report, announce, question, inquiry, ask, criticize
Existential Processes
They only represent “that something exists or happens” (Halliday, 2004, p. 256).
exist, remain, stand, lie, emerge, grow, erupt, prevail, flourish, ensue
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
this issue by discussing hierarchical relations between interlocutors. In this chapter, however, power relations will become all too visible when students interact with the teacher in the forum, since the teacher plays the role of moderator and consequently filters the interaction in order for it to serve the course’s aims. In this case, it is rather important for the teacher to be a “sage on the side,” as Warschauer and Whittaker (2002, p. 371) put it, and not a “sage on the stage.” It is true that students are eager to learn, but for this to happen they should be brimming with confidence and self-esteem. In what follows, these points will be viewed with critical eyes, principally because learning in online educational forums derives from the collaborative interaction between teacher and students. As a consequence, footing is the element that clearly shows how learning is taking place and how interaction unfolds while interactants are contributing to meaning construction.
cognitiVE, sociaL, and tEaching prEsEncEs For the purpose of exploring further the notion of footing and its relevance to educational contexts, let us now consider the categories developed by Garrison et al. (2001). The authors state that in online education there are three essential elements, which they define as cognitive, social, and teaching presences. In our view, these presences could be interpreted as stances of footing, given their role to the construction of meaning in interaction when interactants are discursively construing the social encounter where meaning negotiation is taking place. Garrison (2006), inspired by the work of Dewey (1933) on reflective teaching, defines cognitive presence as “the exploration, resolution and confirmation of understanding through collaboration and reflection in a community of inquiry” (p. 4). In another text, Garrison (2006b, p. 4) explains that “cognitive presence is the process of collab-
oratively constructing meaning and confirming understanding in a sustainable community of inquiry,” highlighting the importance of facilitation to maintain the construction of knowledge and interaction by means of discourse production. He adds that “facilitation focuses and guides the progression of the discourse as well as providing timely input and information, and summarizing development.” We can identify cognitive presence when students exchange information, connect or apply ideas, counter argument, collaborate, monitor, reflect, and so forth. Cognitive presence can also be identified as a kind of footing, that is, the ability to project one’s self as a thinker, one who reflects upon what is being learned. In this case, mental processes play an important role to the identification of cognitive presence as a type of footing. An example extracted from our corpus clearly shows mental processes working as textual elements that ‘translate’ a cognitive footing: “I’m sorry I see [mental process] that I misunderstood the task’s purpose.” The mental process “see” translates into text a feeling of sorrow of one of the students attending the course. According to Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer (2001, p. 51), “social presence is the ability of learners to project their personal characteristics into the community of inquiry, thereby presenting themselves as ‘real people’.” Later on, Garrison (2006, p. 2) describes social presence “as the ability to project one’s self and establish personal and purposeful relationships.” We prefer the latter definition because the former gives much attention to the learner without, in fact, taking into account the essential role teachers play in the process of learning. Moreover, Garrison et al. (2000, p. 89) explain that social presence comprises three categories: emotional expression, open communication (e.g., risk-free expression), and group cohesion (e.g., collaboration encouragement). The authors (2001, p. 58) divide them into three categories: affective (emotions, sense of humor, and self-disclosure); interactive (reply-
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
ing, referring, asking questions, complimenting, expressing agreement, and expressing appreciation); and cohesive (vocatives, inclusive pronouns, phatics, and salutation). As we will demonstrate in the analysis, these categories may be textually represented by mental, verbal, material, and relational processes. One example from our data clearly shows this representation: Hi John, it was [relational process] nice to read [material process] your message. It was [relational process] touching because it is [relational process] authentic. Brief but straight to the point. I hope [mental process] you manage [material process] to see [mental process] them soon. Bye...John. The student expresses her various footings toward her ‘classmate’ by employing different kinds of processes, like, for instance, affection (It was touching), cognition (I hope, I see), and actions (read, manage). These processes also point to softening strategies commonly used in online forums, through which interactants construct their discourses by means of modalization and politeness. In our opinion, the categories Garrison et al. (2000) and Rourke et al. (2001) present can shed light on the notion of footing, since any (virtual) social encounter abounds with moments of collaborative talk, encouragement, and affective expressions, mostly represented by politeness strategies and lexico-grammatical elements, such as verbs (processes), epithets, prepositional phrases, and the like. Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and Archer (2001, p. 8) define “teaching presence as the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes.” According to them, teaching presence is markedly present since the beginning of the course preparation, and “continues during the course, as the instructor facilitates the discourse and provides direct instruction when required” (2001, p. 8). Taking these authors as reference we can say that teaching presence has
three categories: design (setting curriculum and methods), facilitation (sharing personal meanings), and direct instruction (focusing discussion, establishing time parameters, utilizing medium effectively, and establishing netiquette). We would like to emphasize as well that teaching presence is clearly perceived in educational environments, mainly in classroom settings, due to the influence exerted by curricula, evaluation, teaching methods, personal meanings, and focused discussions on the construction of meaning negotiations in any educational context, and virtual education is no exception. Material processes, or processes of doing, seem to often appear in this kind of footing, since the teacher is expected to provide general instructions and give support to her students. Outstanding features of this kind of footing are represented by “disguised imperatives,” which commonly appear in declarative sentences and are generally constructed by material processes, as we may see in the following example: “Each one is supposed to select [material process] one of the suggestions for [the] next task.”
thE rEsEarch contEXt Our corpus comes from a 60-hour online course on reading and writing in English that was taught at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil, over 15 weeks during 2006. The objective of the course was to offer authentic input and non-artificial opportunities for students to practice the English language. Those students were prospective English teachers, and it is usually difficult for them to find opportunities to use the language outside the classroom, so the Internet was a useful tool to bridge that gap. To promote online interaction among students, the syllabus was designed to integrate technological and communicative functions to the maximum extent possible. The activities (introducing, giving advice, writing and reading different genres, etc.)
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
can be found on the course homepage at http:// www.veramenezes.com/rw.htm. The course was organized around a discussion list where all the interaction among the virtual communitystudents and teachertook place. The discussion list was hosted on the Yahoo!Groups site (http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/readwrite/) at no cost, but with the proviso that advertisements would come together with the messages. All the messages exchanged during the course were filed away on a page created by the software. Figure 1 shows the appearance of the course homepage and Figure 2 the discussion list homepage as generated by Yahoo!Groups. Students were assigned weekly tasks, and attendance to the course was only registered if each task had been posted until Wednesday. As the objective was to produce meaning, feedback focused on the content and not on the form of the task output. It does not mean, however, that the form was not important, but the university program offers the students different kinds of courses in which they have the opportunities to study the form in-depth. Students were told to keep a copy of each task and choose, at the end of the term, five of their
best tasks to be graded by the teacher (20 points each). They were told to keep in mind that it was the process rather than the product which would be analyzed for assessment and that there was no reason to be afraid of making mistakes as they could edit their tasks as many times as they felt necessary. The theoretical basis for the course is anchored in the sociocultural theory and in the strong version of the communicative approach as described by Howatt (1985, p. 279): “The ‘strong’ version of communicative teaching…advances the claim that language is acquired through communication, so that it is not merely a question of activating an existing but inert knowledge of the language, but of stimulating the development of the language system itself.” For Howatt, the weak version could be described as “learn to use English” vs. the strong version’s “using English to learn it.” In choosing the strong version, that is, using the language to acquire language per se, one must emphasize the following aspects: student-centered teaching, with the teacher as mediator; focus on the content with an emphasis on interaction; the concept of language as an instrument of communication and
Figure 1. Reading and writing course homepage
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
Figure 2. Reading and writing discussion list homepage
not as a formal system; use of authentic material; and total tolerance for errors. Interaction through discussion groups encourages participants to work in a cooperative way and at the same time allows students to preserve their individuality. As Littlewood (1981, p. 93) says: “The development of communicative skills can only take place if learners have motivation and opportunity to express their own identity and to relate with the people around them. It therefore requires a learning atmosphere which gives them a sense of security and value as individuals.” The sociocultural theory was of paramount importance to the design of the course. First, because it sees learning as a cultural phenomenon, and second, because of the notion of a zone of proximal development, which Vygotsky (1978, p. 86) defines as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through the problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration
0
with more capable peers.” Although the concept was developed to describe how children learn, it has been applied to adult learning as well (see Lantolf, 2000). We would like to add to Vygotsky’s ideas the notion of collaboration developed by Freire (1970), in which this theoretician presents dialogue as the basis for his pedagogical proposal. Albeit Freire also takes into consideration the role leadership plays in the construction of knowledge; he clearly sees dialogue as the effective means by which educational actors furnish the collaborative transformation of the world.
thE corpus Our corpus comprises 1,241 electronic messages exchanged among students and the teacher from August to November 2006. In order to select some excerpts which can exemplify the different kinds of footing, we used two different strategies: we read various messages and selected some of them
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
to illustrate our discussion, and we also used the search mechanism available in the discussion list when we had in mind some keywords, such as processes, epithets, and nouns, which worked as discourse markers for footing.
anaLYsis Our analysis will identify the kinds of footings that display the three different, but interconnected virtual presences as proposed by Garrison et al. (2001): social, cognitive, and teaching. In general we can see that the students’ footings oscillate mainly from a cognitive footing (ask for help, share doubts, justify mistakes or absences) to a teaching one (give information, clarify others’ doubts, give feedback, express sympathy), since the course is not teacher centered in order to promote collaboration among the students. Social footing overlaps the other two, mainly when the students address the participants.
(Good Morning teacher and “classmates”; Hello Professor Vera and Classmates!; Hi Professor Vera and colleagues!!!; Dear Vera and classmates; Hi, Vera and classmates!) The teacher, on the other hand, keeps her identity of a teacher by consistently starting her messages with Dear students, unless she is addressing a specific student. Self-disclosure is another way to project personal identity. One of the tasks was named “Message in a bottle,” in which the students were supposed to write a message to be thrown into the ocean. Most of them wrote poetic or philosophical messages addressed to anyone who would find the hypothetical bottle. Nevertheless, one of them decided to review his own dramatwo daughters living away from him in Japanby writing the following message: (1)
social presence
I still hope that you decide to come back to Brazil someday…before I die. I still bring inside of me the hope of seeing you again. If you happen to read this message, please, get in touch. I love you and I never forget you!!!!
Social presence is manifested in the virtual environment by means of different kinds of footing. When we read the messages, the first example of social footing we noticed was identity footing, which was generally perceived when students used either their student or their classmate identities.
This message was a starting point for several other messages directed to this specific student, who was held in deep affection by his classmates. This action of publicly demonstrated warm affection worked as a trigger for another kind of social presence, which is called affective footing.
Identity Footing
Affective Footing
Students display different identities when greeting the participants in the online community. The different greeting forms are hints for one’s identity footing. Students identify themselves as members of an online community (Dear all; Hello everyone!; Hi everyone!); or as students by addressing the teacher (Hi Professor Vera); as classmates (Dear peers; Hey mates; Hi + name of a classmate); or as both student and classmate
As soon as his classmates got the message, they showed sympathy by sending messages as the ones in (2), (3), and (4): (2) Hi, John1! Your “message in a bottle” is very touching! I hope your daughters “find it” and decide to come to Brazil! Cheers, Mary
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
(3) Hi John, I didn’t expect to read this kind of message!! I was so touched that I cried!! I hope they come back at least to see you!!!! Best, Mary… (4) Hi John, it was nice to read your message. It was touching because it is authentic. Brief but straight to the point. I hope you manage to see them soon. Bye…John. It was interesting to observe that most of the affective messages were from female students and that male students were more economical in showing their feelings. In (4), for instance, one can see that the writer evaluates the message as a piece of writing, as if he were not touched by the classmate’s drama. However, in the last line he makes a wish giving support to the student. These characteristics are translated into text by means of transitivity, more precisely by the use of relational (“I was so touched”) and mental processes (I didn’t expect). The transitivity system, therefore, works as a means of textualization of footings, since online interaction uses primarily texts to represent emotions, feelings, and wishes. Students express different kinds of emotions and they show the change of footing by using capitalization, repetition of characters, emotions, and punctuation. Capital letters work as a device for calling careful attention, as presented in (5), or for expressing prosodic features and intonation, like, for instance, “THAAAT” in (6). Repetition of punctuation and emoticons display feelings, as shown in example (7), where one may recognize whether or not the sender is happy for having received compliments from John. This example is interesting because capital letters indicate rising intonation, and the repetition of the letter “A” indicates vowel elongation:
(5) P.S.: I’M SO SORRY BUT I COULD NOT JUST POST IT SINCE THE PICTURES WOULD NOT APPEAR. AS I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO IT, I SEND IT AS AN ATTACHED FILE. DO NOT WORRY BECAUSE IT HAS NO VIRUSES. (6) I recognize I’m not THAAAT poet, you know… (hahah), but I…can I say I really tried to touch your hearts. (7) Good morning, John!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you again for all your compliments!!! :-)
Interactive Footing Interactive footing examples can be found either in the teacher’s or in the students’ messages. However, given that the course is a collaborative one, many examples can be taken from the students’ postings, like compliments (examples (8) and (9)) made, respectively, by a student and by the teacher, as well as agreements, as shown in example (10). By the same token, the act of quoting others’ messages, like in examples (11) and (12), are common interactive footings in our forum: (8) Hi John! I found very interesting what you pointed out, that knowing how to scan and skim is very important for us as internet users : ) (9) I must say I am really impressed by the quality of the texts you have been producing. Several aspects have called my attention: creativity, rich
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
vocabulary, accuracy and literary quality. It is a privilege to work with such a good group.
Code switching appeared in an interaction among two students in (14):
(10)
(14)
I agree with you that they exaggerated in the effects in some parts of the movie.
Sure John! And, u r welcome! ;) See ya! Ni hao! :) haha
(11) John, I think we have to produce the graphics ourselves…As you said in you message, the sites just show you the models. (12) As Professor Vera said, your summary shows how motivated you are! Cheers, Mary. In examples (9) and (12), the use of verbal processes, respectively, “I must say” and “As Professor Vera said,” indicates that the teacher gave rise to her feelings (“impressed”) by using reported speech, which shows that changes of footing are discursive-dependent as well. In the same way, examples (11) and (12) reproduce the words of another participant, expressing somebody else’s opinion. According to Goffman (1981, p. 151), “when we shift from saying something ourselves to reporting what someone else said, we are changing our footing.” Another change in footing is done with code switching. The teacher in our forum sometimes switches from English into Portuguese in order to force the students to pay attention to the course rules, as we can see in example (13): (13) Por favor, lembre-se de que quarta-feira é o último dia para enviar suas tarefas. (Please, remember that Wednesday is the deadline for the tasks.)
Example (14) is particularly interesting because the author changes his usual footing in the forum by using typical abbreviations often used in informal contexts on the Internet. This somehow individualizes the interaction between the two students and keeps the teacher away from the interaction. At the same time, the student closes his message with a Japanese greeting, an index for his peer about the experience he had in Japan, by adding emoticons and a paralinguistic representation, both representing smiles. In other words, both forms of code switching project a footing of intimacy between the participants and help to build their social presence in the educational forum.
teaching presence The most expected alignment or footing of a teacher is that of the one who gives instructions, as can be perceived in instance (15). This “instruction-like footing” serves as an attempt for the teacher to project herself as someone who has the obligation to help the students, to assess the efficacy of the process, like in example (16), to help students to utilize the media effectively, clearly seen in example 17, as well as to set curriculum, as noticed in example (18): (15) Mary, Welcome to our online course. All our tasks can be found on our homepage: http://www.veramenezes. com/rw.htm
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
Just click at tasks. Do not forget to read our instructions. Any doubt, just get in touch. Cheers, Vera Menezes
Mary, We have received four identical messages. Please, do not send it again. Vera Menezes
afraid that, I am sorry are used by the teacher to assess the students’ tasks and tell them that they have not accomplished the tasks as previously expected. By the same token, modalization serves as warnings to the students, principally when they are not observing the time parameters, as readily observed in examples (20) and (21). As far as we are concerned, by choosing these markers the teacher displays a friendly and polite footing, projecting a positive image of herself:
(17)
(19)
John, If your classmates’ tips did not help you, try another free server for blogs.
I think your first choice is too small to be called a scientific article. What about finding another good text to send to your classmates?
(16)
(18) (20) Each student is supposed to select one of the suggestions for the next task. When we analyze the examples from the data, it is reasonable to assume that the teacher, besides giving support and detailed instructions to her students, exerts her power by constructing her discourse using imperatives. Although power relations are present in her discourse, the teacher also softens her imperatives by means of modalization, as we can notice when she utilizes polite expressions like “Any doubt, just get in touch” in example (15) and “Please” in example (16). Even utilizing softeners to filter the force of her arguments, the teacher provides prime examples of her power over the students, which leads us to figure out that teacher footing is closely interconnected with power relations. Consequently, teacher and students express and negotiate their inter-subjective footings in the virtual environment through modalization. Those markers show how the participants in that online community try to protect their faces when they modalize their utterances. Modalization is recurrent in teaching presence. Discourse markers such as I believe, I think, I am
I am afraid you are not reading our e-mails because last Tuesday morning I sent a message reminding the group about the deadline. (21) I am so sorry, but the deadline for the task was Wednesday (yesterday). You should have sent your doubts before. Please, do your tasks earlier in order to avoid problems. Using her power as a teacher, sometimes she does not modalize and changes her friendly footing into a more authoritative one and makes straight assertions, as we can see in example (22), an interaction between the teacher and Mary: (22) Teacher says: (a) Mary, This is not an article, but a book review. Mary sends another text and writes in her message:
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
(b) I believe this one is an article, right Professor Vera? The teacher confirms: (c)Yes, now it is an article.
cognitive presence Modalizing also appears in footings which project cognitive presence. As we can see, in example (22) the student also modalizes (“I believe” in (c)), but it seems that, due to the power relation differences, the student’s footing is different. When the teacher uses “I believe,” her option is to project a polite self, which did not happen in her interaction with Mary. But, when students choose to modalize their utterances, using “I believe,” “I am sorry,” “I am afraid,” it seems that their footings work as markers of humbleness or insecurity, as noticed in examples (23) and (24): (23) I’m sorry I see that I misunderstood the task’s purpose. (24) As to my second question, I’m afraid I did not make myself clear regarding my request on the words “skimming” and “scanning.” What I would really like to know is if there is a specific word in Portuguese for each counterpart in English. Nevertheless, when the interaction happens between two students, the footing displayed by modalization is again of politeness, as we can see in John’s reply to Mary in example (25): (25) Mary, Thank you very much for your feedback! But I’m afraid that if we plant a tree for every mistake we make in our lives, suddenly there won’t be any space at all for us to live in this…
Cognitive presence can also be identified in footings which project one’s self as a thinker, one who reflects upon what is being learned, who wants to learn and collaborate. It is interesting to notice that cognitive footings are generally translated into text by means of grammaticalization, mainly by the use of mental processes, like, for instance, “I’m sorry” and “I’m afraid.” In contrast to what Goffman (1981) has negatively stated about the role grammar plays in footing identification, transitivity serves as a means of textual basis in the emergence of several types of footing in online discourse, mainly social, teaching, and cognitive footings.
concLusion The analyses undertaken have clearly demonstrated that footing is a social and discursive category that is only easily identified in online forums if textual analysis takes into account the presence of other elements within this category. The elements we refer to stemmed from Garrison’s (2006) work on social, cognitive, and teaching presences. However, these elements per se seemed to be insufficient to demonstrate how footing is present in online discourse, which made us draw on grammaticalization, with special emphasis on the transitivity model developed by Halliday (2004), in a bid to pinpoint in our data the prime examples of footing. The data have shown that three different but interconnected types of footing are usually found in online educational forums, that is, social, teaching, and cognitive footings, each of them playing specific roles to the construction of knowledge within this virtual environment. As we could have perceived, the most common footing in our data is social footing, since students were concerned with ways of providing feedback and support to each other, irrespective of the teacher’s support. By the same token, students were able to adopt and improve “corporate”
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
identities, that is, a shared sense of mutual support and confidence. Teacher footing was also present in our data, mainly noticed on the instructions and information given by the teacher. This kind of footing is of particular interest when one is attentive to power relations within online educational environments, which in fact leads to the role teachers play while performing their footing of instructors. Some special textual elements are common to this type of footing, principally modalizers and polite expressions, in order to soften the force of some words used in this footing modality. Lastly, cognitive footing was identified in our corpus as a means of softening the force of some arguments made by the students throughout their interaction primarily with the teacher. In this modality saving face strategies were employed to secure students against possible “harms” during the course of the interaction. This is also true when students interacted with each other, since their aim was to maintain complete harmony among them and to provide a warm environment for holding their discussion. This chapter, therefore, is expected to be a step forward in the investigation of footing in online contexts, which points to the need of future research on this issue. Besides, some other aspects such as gender and age differences might also be compared as far as footing is concerned. Course design might also be another influential factor in the elicitation of different virtual presences in an online educational forum. We are still learning how to behave in online educational forums, and research can show us what is underlying this online environment.
acknoWLEdgMEnt We would like to thank our colleague Rita de Cassia Augusto
