|
| [ ASCILITE ]
[ 2004 Proceedings Contents ] |
The difficulty of catering for the development of oral production skills has long been deplored in distance language teaching (Abrioux, 1991; Williams & Sharma 1988), and not much has changed since these observations were made. Oral activities are still conspicuously absent from online offerings, and students' complaints about this usually head the list of disadvantages associated with Web-based language learning (Felix, 2001). However, during the last few years practitioners have begun to incorporate sophisticated applications in the form of voiced bulletin boards (Wimba), voiced chats (Traveler) and audiographics (Lyceum). This paper discusses what these applications have to offer in the context of creating meaningful constructivist activities in distance education and their potential role in addressing the fundamental problem of performance anxiety in language learning.
A question of interest in online teaching is whether anonymous environments might improve this situation by making students feel less anxious. Since there is no specific research on this topic as yet, it is useful to look at other environments where synchronous and asynchronous communications have been used in educational settings, albeit in written form.
...some types of trainees who do not do well in spontaneous spoken interaction (e.g. students who are shy, reflective and more comfortable with emotional distance) find that asynchronous, text-based communication better fits their learning style. For this person informal written communication via computer conferencing is often more authentic than face-to-face verbal exchange...(Dede, 1996:17)A striking example of the benefits of anonymity on an otherwise reticent and anxious student was reported by Freeman & Capper (1999). In this postgraduate business course, in which students chose an alias to conduct class business exclusively online, a very shy female student of Muslim background transformed herself into a powerful contributor to the group under the pseudonym of the Australian Prime Minister. Although an extreme example, it suggests that the simultaneous freedom of making mistakes in a safe environment and the pseudo authenticity of the task may well have a salutary effect, a speculation supported by Roberts, Smith & Pollock (1996), Collins & Berge (1996) and Drake et al (2000). It has been noted, though, that learners participating in these environments may also display negative disinhibitions in the form of 'flaming', hurling insults they would never use face-to-face (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991, quoted in Dede, 1996:27). This highlights the need for clear guidelines about possible consequences of inappropriate communications, outlined in Kollock & Smith (1996).
Benefits specifically related to language learning of computer assisted classroom discussions (CACD), as repeatedly singled out in the literature, are listed in an excellent article by Ortega (1997:83):
While the above refers to asynchronous communications which tend to foster writing and reading skills, synchronous chat applications have been upheld as contributing to the development of oral language skills. Sotillo (2000) and Smith (2003) point out that interactional modifications in chat discourse are similar to those in face-to-face settings, and Negretti (1999) claims that the conversational features displayed in text chat communications help with the acquisition of oral language skills. Tudini (2004), who investigated the impact of chat communications on language acquisition in a beginners' Italian class concluded that while chatting cannot replace the physical aspects of oral discourse such as pronunciation and other non-verbal features, it appeared to offer an optimal learning environment, mainly because of the learners' noticing of errors, negotiations and modified output. Advantages similar to those observed by Ortega above have been reported by Kern (1995) and Pellettieri (2000) who emphasise the salutary effect of viewing the language while it is produced and reviewing chat logs after sessions.
In this context can we speculate that adding audio facilities to such resources might have similar or even greater benefits? In the absence of rigorous research we cannot make any claims here, but what is clearly the case is that the conditions for reading and writing hold. Whether the addition of speaking and listening interferes or enhances aspects of language acquisition remains to be tested.
The purpose of this paper is to introduce three innovative resources which allow speaking online in attractive virtual settings and under user-friendly conditions. Our aim is to demonstrate the potential of these for setting up constructivist activities in a non-threatening environment in which students might be less inhibited to express themselves orally than in traditional face-to-face settings.
Figure 1: Customized version of Wimba in a German course
An excellent aspect of Wimba is that it also contains a facility for sending voiced emails, which offers opportunities for private communications between teacher and students and between the students themselves. Students, therefore, can be given various options for oral communication: publicly or anonymously via the bulletin board, or via email, or through any chosen combination. The fact that voices might be recognised may be a slight obstacle to real anonymity, but it is not too hard to disguise a voice somewhat, especially if one's chosen identity is bear or magician, and the possible benefits of simply adopting an alias has long been observed in experimental language classes in face-to-face settings (Felix, 1989). Benefits of private communications in the context of monitoring proficiency and providing corrections are discussed in Hauck & Hampel (2004).
The greatest strength of Wimba is its simplicity of use. All that students need is a sound card in their computer, a microphone and minimal instructions on how to use the facility which can be run from the Wimba server or installed on a dedicated local server. Sound quality varies according to the sophistication of both, but in general a fairly recent PC with a relatively good microphone seems to suffice. It is important to point out, though, that sound quality does not match the quality of RealAudio; it uses the same compression format as mobile phones. Still, the flexibility of the resource for creative activities more than compensates for the difference.
While we have not yet carried out rigorous tests on the impact of this resource on students oral production skills, our extensive observations of students of all ages using Wimba confirm that they feel at ease and confident in attempting quite complicated oral activities. They appear particularly impressed with the email facility which allows them to speak and write to friends and peers in a familiar environment (all had used email before).
Figure 2: Traveler avatar
Figure 3: Traveler environment
Synchronous resources represent very challenging learning environments, of course. While they offer learners the possibility of anonymity and the opportunity to make mistakes in an unthreatening and entertaining environment, they pose several serious problems that need to be addressed by teachers before embarking on activities. First of all, there is the claim that synchronous communications can restrict students (Berge, 1999). This is especially true with learners of another language at lower levels of proficiency. While the environment may well be anonymous, it does not allow for the luxury of careful composing, reflection and multiple re-recording of the asynchronous Wimba. Rather than throwing students into such an environment at the deep end, a clear need for its use has to be established. The advantage that Traveler offers over Wimba is that it provides authenticity both of task and setting. While Wimba lends itself well to structured learning activities, Traveler offers opportunities for risk-taking and unplanned communication with native speakers under real-life speaking conditions, dealing with authentic information gaps. The price to pay for this authenticity, however, can sometimes be inappropriate and unwanted communications generated by dubious anonymous characters, seriously compromising Kollok & Smith's (1996) proviso of a clearly defined group boundary in successful management of collective resources. While adults may cope with such intrusions easily enough, in school environments negotiation of a private channel may be advisable. This will reduce authenticity but allow for well planned, small group interaction around a set task, say a debate or a short play, to which native speakers might be invited as contributors, monitors or arbitrators. An idea for using both applications for different purposes would be to produce an interactive story or play on Wimba and then act it out in Traveler.
Naturally the role of the tutor needs careful consideration in these environments. While much has been written on the tutor becoming a facilitator rather than a transmitter of information, the teaching of oral language skills presents unique challenges for online tutors. Finding the right balance between allowing students to make errors in a safe and unthreatening setting and attending to reducing these errors has been the subject of much debate (Shield & Hewer, 1999, Felix, 2002; Shield & Hassan, 2003; Hauck & Hampel, 2004). In each learning event it is important to establish the goal to be achieved, and participating students should ideally participate in the negotiation of this. Using an environment like Traveler hardly lends itself to the achievement of accuracy - constant corrections of grammar or pronunciation would not only seriously interrupt communication and fluency but also compromise the positive aspects of authenticity and anonymity. While we have seen mature-aged distance students complain about the absence of a focus on form in an online collaborative project (Shield & Hassan, 2003), this author is inclined to agree with Shneiderman (1994) who believes that the majority of students prefer to create, communicate, build, explore, discover and collaborate than engage in drill and practice, acquiring facts or accessing information. The biggest challenge for language teachers, of course, is how to assess students' achievement in these endeavours, a problem beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that at the very least the nature of the assessment has to match the nature of the task and that in collaborative project work assessment needs to be continuous and cover processes as well as outcomes (see Felix 2003 for a more detailed discussion).
Lyceum has a very user-friendly and attractive interface (see Figures 4 and 5), through which students in various locations can communicate synchronously both orally and through text and graphical material. It is generally used for tutorial purposes in a variety of subjects and lends itself perfectly to project-based and collaborative work. The resource includes a text chat, a whiteboard, a browser, a document module and a collaborative concept map, by means of which users can discuss concepts and indicate links between them. This facility can be used for brainstorming, listing themes and important points related to a particular topic being discussed or clarifying difficult material.
Figure 4: Lyceum (concept map) in use in a German tutorial
Figure 5: Lyceum (whiteboard) in use in a German tutorial
We are currently using Lyceum in an ARC-funded international linkage project in collaboration with colleagues at the British Open University (see Appendix and http://fels-arc.open.ac.uk/index.htm for evolving details). In this 12 week project students enrolled in advanced German at Monash and at the British Open University are assigned to groups of three to four, each containing at least one native speaker informant based in Germany. The students work collaboratively on the topic of Identities in Contemporary Germany, with the goal of producing a joint final piece of work in the shape of their own choice posted on a Website. Although students receive a set task to complete every two weeks, they have a great deal of freedom to interpret the outcome of that task. Groups are encouraged to use all the tools available in Lyceum, i.e. post ideas, photos or graphics on the document module, exchange views using the concept map and look at Web-based sound and video materials together through the browser function. They are also encouraged to meet as often as they wish outside the scheduled tutor facilitated 2-weekly sessions.
What has been observed in the trials so far is that the multimodal nature of this versatile resource appeals to students a great deal. In contrast to face-to-face tutorials or traditional distance learning, they have the freedom of choice to move from speaking to writing, to listening, to reading, to multi-tasking as and when they see fit. It is interesting to observe the different approaches different students take according to their own learning style and strategy preferences. In one of our training sessions this author noticed two of her own students starting up a sophisticated written exchange in the text chat while the newer participants familiarised themselves with the speaking function and some of the tools. An impressive feature of their multi-tasking was that both of them actually helped demonstrate the use of these tools to the rest of the trainees, all the while continuing their own chat about a recent film they saw. The fact that they were able to speak, write, listen and take note of what was posted on the various document tools demonstrates that a seemingly chaotic environment such as this can indeed be used most constructively.
However, it is important to remember that metacognitive skills and knowledge cannot be assumed in all students working with these resources, an observation supported by Benson & Voller (1997), Chan (2001) and Hauck (2003). It is often necessary to train participants in learning how to learn in such challenging environments and it is interesting to observe that the students themselves tend to help each other. In a previous project this author observed mature aged students teaching their younger partners appropriate learning skills while the latter helped the older students with IT skills. Hauck (2003) suggests the integration of systematic training in metacognitive skills in collaborative online project work.
...participants in synthetic environments often feel as if the machine-based agents they encounter are real human beings, an illustration of the general principle that users tend to anthropomorphize information technologies (Weitzenbaum, 1976). As a complement to responding to knowbots as if they were human, participants in a virtual world interacting via avatars tend to treat each other as imaginary beings. (Dede, 1996:26)Naturally in all these endeavours it is important that the technology does not dominate the learning experience but remains in the background in the shape of one of many tools at the disposal of both teachers and students, used for the unique potential it offers in different settings and in catering for different learning needs. The goal must not be to replicate or simulate what can be done in the natural classroom but to maximise the potential for student engagement in a non-threatening climate. We have here only begun to explore the role of voiced synchronous and asynchronous applications for reducing performance anxiety in oral language acquisition but hope to have provided an impetus for systematic research in this important but hitherto unexplored field.
See also http://fels-arc.open.ac.uk/index.htm
Benson, P. & Voller, P. (Eds.). (1997). Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.
Berge, Z. L. (1999). Interaction in Post-Secondary Web-Based Learning. [27 May 2004, verified 7 Nov 2004] http://www.saskschools.ca/~parkland/interaction.htm
Chan, V. (2001). Readiness for learner autonomy: What do our learners tell us? Teaching in Higher Education, 6(4), 504-518.
Collins, M. & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. Paper presented at the FSU/AECT Distance Education Conference, Tallahassee, FL.
Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education emerging technologies and distributed learning. The American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4-36.
Drake, B., Yuthas, K. & Dillard, J. (2000). It's only words: Impacts of information technology on moral dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(1), 41-59.
Felix, U. (1989). An Investigation of the Effects of Music, Relaxation and Suggestion in Second Language Acquisition in Schools. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Felix, U. (2001). Beyond Babel: Language Learning Online. Melbourne: Language Australia Ltd.
Felix, U. (2002). The web as vehicle for constructivist approaches in language teaching. ReCALL, 14(1), 16-31.
Felix, U. (2003). Pedagogy on the line: identifying and closing the missing links. In U. Felix (Ed.), Language Learning Online: Towards Best Practice (pp. 147-171). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Felix, U. (2004). A multivariate analysis of secondary students' experience of web-based language learning. ReCALL, 16(1), 129-141.
Freeman, M. A. & Capper, J. (1999). Exploiting the web for education: An anonymous asynchronous role simulation. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 95-116. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet15/freeman.html
Hampel, R. & Baber, E. (2003). Using Internet-based audio-graphic and video conferencing for language teaching and learning. In U. Felix (Ed.), Language Learning Online: Towards Best Practice. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Hauck, M. (2003). Exploring the link between metacognitive knowledge, efficient strategy use and learner autonomy in collaborative virtual language learning environments. Paper presented at the EUROCALL Conference, Limerick.
Hauck, M. & Hampel, R. (2004). The challenges of implementing online tuition in distance language courses: Task design and tutor role. In B. Holmberg, M. Shelley & C. White (Eds), Distance Education and Languages: Evolution and Change. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.
Horwitz, E. & Young, D. J. (Eds) (1991). Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
Kleinmann, H. H. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 27, 93-107.
Kollock, P. & Smith, M. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In S. C. Herring (Ed), Computer mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross cultural perspectives (pp. 109-128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Negretti, R. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A conversational analysis research approach. Language Learning & Technology, 3(1), 75-87. [verified 24 Nov 2004] http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/negretti/index.html
Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 82-93. [verified 7 Nov 2004] http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/ortega/default.html
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds), Networked-based language teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, L. D., Smith, L. M. & Pollock, C. (1996). Social Interaction in MOOs: Constraints and Opportunities of a Text-Based Virtual Environment for Interpersonal Communication. [27 May 2004, abstract only] http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/VID/VIDpap.html
Shield, L. & Hassan, X. (2003). Virtual worlds, simulation globale, construction and community: Beyond the 'four skills'. Paper presented at the EUROCALL Conference, Limerick.
Shield, L. & Hewer, S. (1999). A sychnronous learning environment to support distance language learners. In K. Cameron (Ed.), Call and the learning community. Proceedings of Exeter CALL Conference (pp. 379-391).
Shneiderman, B. (1994). Education by Engagement and Construction: Can Distance Learning be Better than Face-to-Face? [27 May 2004] http://www.hitl.washington.edu/scivw/EVE/distance.html
Sinclair, K. E. (1971). The influence of anxiety on several measures of performance. In E. Gaudry & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Anxiety and Educational Achievement (pp. 95-106). Sydney: Wiley & Sons.
Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31(1), 29-53.
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communications. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119.
Sproull, S. & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Steinberg, F. S. & Horwitz, E. K. (1986). The effect of induced anxiety on the denotative and interpretative content of second language speech. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 131-136.
Tudini, V. (in press). Chatlines for beginners: Negotiating conversation at a distance. In B. Holmberg, M. Shelley & C. White (Eds), Distance Education and Languages: Evolution and Change. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.
Weitzenbaum, J. (1976). Computer Power and Human Reason. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Williams, S. & Sharma, P. (1988). Language acquisition by distance education: An Australian survey. Distance Education, 9, 127-146.
| Author: Uschi Felix is the Director, Research Centre for New Media in Second Language Acquisition, School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, Monash University, Clayton Vic 3800, Melbourne.
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ufelix/index.htm Email: Uschi.Felix@arts.monash.edu.au
Please cite as: Felix, U. (2004). Performing beyond the comfort zone: Giving a voice to online communication. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 284-293). Perth, 5-8 December. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/felix.html |
© 2004 Uschi Felix
The author assigns to ASCILITE and educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The author also grants a non-exclusive licence to ASCILITE to publish this document on the ASCILITE web site (including any mirror or archival sites that may be developed) and in printed form within the ASCILITE 2004 Conference Proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author.