Asynchronous computer-mediated communication vs



Erica Parrett

Carolina Gutiérrez-Rivas

FOL 6326

Prof. Gillian Lord

Asynchronous computer-mediated communication

vs.

face-to-face communication in ESL question formation

I. Introduction

The use of technology in the foreign language classroom is a subject that has been gaining attention in recent years for several reasons; a few of these being the usefulness of technology in the classroom, the growing availability of technology making accessibility less of an issue, and the fact that more and more students are trained in technological tools that instructors want to use. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has spread in the computer friendly population. Asynchronous CMC or “chatting” has been said to be much like spontaneous conversation (as will be discussed later). This similarity leaves us wondering, is asynchronous CMC as effective as face-to-face interaction?

Before looking at how we can test and possibly determine whether the answer to the question above is “yes”, let us consider why this subject is of interest to the foreign language instructor. In the foreign language classroom it is often hard for students to produce much of the target language. At times it is due to student personality, embarrassment, or lack of confidence, other times it could be due to the lack of time or the classroom size. If asynchronous CMC were to be proved an affective tool in the aspect of language development, instructors would have an extra tool they could use in trying to find a solution to these problems. Asynchronous CMC activities can be assigned as work to be done outside of the classroom and at the same time give the students a chance to interact with someone else. Asynchronous CMC would also help students that were embarrassed or too shy to participate in face-to-face discussions.

The interaction hypothesis, as explained in Long (1996), claims that interaction in the target language helps acquisition because the negotiations and linguistic modifications that occur in discourse provide the learners with the input necessary for them to develop the second language. As it will be seen later in detail, in the review of Mackey (1999), interaction did help learners in the development of their question formation skills. The study we will propose in this paper will be used to determine if interaction through synchronous CMC is as effective as face-to-face interaction.

Research Questions

The research questions that this proposed study will try to answer are as follows:

1. Is synchronous CMC as effective as face-to-face interaction in the facilitation of second language development?

2. Is synchronous CMC effective in the development of question formation skills in ESL?

Literature Review and Analysis

In order to answer the research questions stated in section II three points must be analyzed. (a) The basic ideas of the interaction hypothesis, (b) the effectiveness of asynchronous CMC in foreign language learning, (c) is the use of chat in the classroom a feasible mean for students and is it reasonable to assume access and availability.

Mackey (1999) analyzes the difference in language development based on different types of discourse and SLA. The main question in this study was: “Can conversational interaction facilitate second language development?” (Mackey 1999). Mackey wanted to test the interaction hypothesis in relation to grammatical development, specifically question formation in ESL. The author of the study explained that he chose question formation because it was shown in previous studies (Mackey, 1994a, 1995; Spada & Lightbown, 1993) that questions “were readily elicited and that different question forms were present at all stages of learning, and because question forms fall into the category of complex structures”, a structure that is thought to be affected by interaction (Mackey, 1999).

Mackey’s study included 34 subjects, 17 men and 17 women. Seven of the subjects were at the beginning level and the rest at a lower-intermediate level. All the subjects at the lower-intermediate level were divided into four groups, three treatment groups and one control group, the 7 subjects at the beginning level were placed into a group called “interactor unreadies” because at the beginning of the study they did not have the skills to interact well in the target language. The other four groups consisted of the interactors, where the NNS interacted with a NS and the conversation was entirely spontaneous, the scriptends, where the NS had a script and there was hardly ever a breakdown in communication needing negotiation, and the observers, who only observed the interactor’s groups. The tasks used to elicit the question formation were story completion, picture sequencing, picture differences and picture drawing.

Mackey (1999) used the developmental sequence of question formation in ESL created by Pienemann and Johnston (1987). The study required the subject to produce at least two different questions at the higher level in at least two posttests. Analyzing the data, Mackey (1999) discovered that the interactors sustained a much higher percentage in stage increase than the scriptends, observers, or the control group that received no treatment.

Freiermuth (2001) examines the interaction of NS of English and NNS together in both: face-to-face conversation and online chatroom settings. The purpose of his study was to analyze the dialogue of non-native and native speaking university students, produced in a culturally mixed group.

According to him, the objective of teachers of a second language (specifically English for him) is to provide students with opportunities to interact in the target language. However, he remarks, that communication can be affected by cultural and social differences, or insecurity from part of the students, in which case, a good alternative is to use methods that engage computer-mediated communication (CMC). In his study he found that “this synchronous mode of communication allows the possibility of whole class electronic discussions, replete with vibrant and dynamic interaction” (p. 176). It is well known that in a classroom there are always students who are shy or reserved and tend not to participate as much. With the online discussion Freiermuth implemented in his class, all of the subjects contributed instead of the typically dominant ones.

To prove that online chatting provides NNSs a more comfortable social and cultural setting than regular conversation-based cross-cultural groupwork, Freiermuth enrolled 12 American students, from an undergraduate English composition class, and 12 international subjects from an undergraduate ESL composition class. He formed groups randomly, consistent of two Americans and two international students, for a total of six groups (three control and three treatment). The task was to consider opening a business in a major city.

In his results, he found out that NNS’s contributions for all the online groups constituted at least half of the output and it ‘eclipsed’ the output of the dominant contributor –American students. According to this author “online groups offered NNSs more opportunity to participate” (p. 186), even if he points out the fact that he had a very small group and he can’t offer ‘authoritative’ conclusions from his data. When he compares face-to-face communication and CMC, he found that with the latter “participants can focus on the task, and not the messenger (…)” (p.190), and that “online chatting allows more time to edit, so learners’ pressures are naturally lessened (…) and [they] can focus attention to what language they can produce, rather than allowing apprehension to keep them from participating” (p.190).

Warschauer, Turbee and Roberts (1996) also agree with the fact that asynchronous conferencing and CMC tasks in general facilitate cross-cultural exchanges such as pen pal writing, long distance interviews, shared research projects, joint student publication and multi-class stimulations. Other advantages of engaging in CMC activities are that students don’t need to wait for the instructor’s permission to talk, and they have more control over what topics to raise and when: “several studies by foreign language teachers using synchronous conferencing have also reported a shift in authority from teacher to student” (p. 4). All these factors give students the opportunity to use the foreign or second language for genuine communication with their peers or with NS. Besides, students can have more control over the content of the course, and this result in “greater student enthusiasm, initiative, and personal commitment” (Paramskas, 1993, quoted in Warschauer, Turbee and Roberts, 1996, p. 4).

For a variety of reasons, according to the authors, CMC tasks have what they’ve called a “democratizing effect”, because it reduces the chances of unequal participation due to issues with race, gender, status, etc., in other types of interaction; it reduces contexts cues like hesitating, which can intimidate people by reminding them they are being evaluated; and finally it neutralizes the effect of classroom dynamics, which favor the students who speak the most.

Finally, Warschauer, Turbee and Roberts (1996) agree with studies that have being carried out on the effect on CMC, because they show that: (1) Electronic discussion groups of people of different status showed twice as much equality; (2) In discussions held electronically, women made the first proposal as often as men (in face to face discussions men made the first proposal five times more often); (3) proposal by higher status people (grad students compared to undergrads) were invariably favored in face to face discussion groups whereas in electronic discussion groups proposals by lower status people were selected equally as often.

Lee (2002) focuses on the use of modification devices during synchronous online exchanges. Modification devices are defined by the author as: “communication strategies or tactics that learners employ to adjust incomprehensible messages” (p. 277). The purpose of the study was to determine what types of modification devices learners use during the negotiation process. Even in the practice of question formation modification devices would be used in a chat session.

The study included 34 students from two third-year university level Spanish students. Many of these students did not have the opportunity to use Spanish outside the classroom. The students were divided into groups of two or three and were told to chat with their peers outside of the classroom for about 50 minutes a week. Open ended questions were provided for the topic of discussion during the chat sessions.

The results showed the most common types of modification devices used were “ask for help”, “clarification check”, and “self-correction”. The author comments that “in spite of several linguistic errors, negotiated modifications did improve learners’ understanding of the messages” (p. 281). The author continues her analysis by explaining that the chat sessions were highly interactive and collaborative like face-to-face converstation. The author points out however that many errors were found in the interactions and that it is hard at times to determine whether it was the learnrs’ typing skills or his or her language proficiency.

Lee (2002) states that “the data confirmed that participants used communication devices similar to those used during face-to-face interaction” (p. 286). This study helps highlight the similarity between synchronous online exchanges and face-to-face communication.

In Williams (2004) the author proposes three topics that he believes should be covered before a classroom is set up to do a chat-based activity. Williams states that “understanding chat etiquette, lexical and discursive variation, and using available resources to extend learning opportunities beyond classroom-based experiences” are aspects of chat that should be considered as a way to pre-chat preparation (p. 163).

Chat and Net etiquette are obviously aspects to chat that students should be introduced to before they begin chatting. The author explains that all participants should be able to chat without being harassed. This could be clear for a group of people that are of the same culture, but when different cultures are added to the situation students might have extra things to consider. The fact that students are not face-to-face and that people cannot see their facial expressions or hear their intonation should also be taken into account.

Williams explains that lexical and discursive variation can be a problem for foreign language students if they are not exposed to it before hand. The author suggests having students review transcripts of chat sessions in order to give them

the time to decipher and appreciate [that] lexical variation is especially important

for language learners since they are not only dealing with the often rapid pace of

chat sessions, but also with social, cultural, linguistic, and technological factors

quite unfamiliar to them (p. 164)

According to the author having students review transcripts to get an idea of what they can expect in a chat session is very helpful.

When training students on how to use chat the author suggests that introducing additional chat resources could promote the students’ use of chat outside the classroom. Williams suggests that helping and training students in navigating through sites in the target language will help them develop the skills they need to pursue chat sessions with native speakers outside of the classroom.

IV. Methodology

Participants

The participants will include two classes, one of Spanish and one of English as a second language of the intermediate level. The students will be grouped into pairs. Half of the groups will follow the online chat exchange task, while the other groups will work on the tasks in a face-to-face discussion. The sessions will take place in a language lab where the face-to-face discussions can be recorded and the students who must use a chat program will have access to it.

Procedure

Each of the groups will have to perform a task three different times, with a separation of a week between each of the tasks. The tasks will consist of each partner having a picture with several differences from that of their partner. The students will have to ask each other questions to try and figure out what the differences are. The students working face-to-face will have a picture in front of them while the students working on through chat will have the picture available on their computer. In each of the three tasks a different picture will be provided. (see attachment A for example of pictures)

Evaluation

If a student produces two different usages of two different structures based on one level of the developmental sequence of question formation in ESL created by Pienemann and Johnston (1987) (see table below) the subject will be considered to be at that particular level.

|Stage |Description of stage |

|2 |SVO. Canonical word order with question intonation |

|3 |Fronting: Wh/Do/Q-word. Direct questions with main verbs and some form of fronting |

|4 |Pseudo Inversion: Y/N, Copula. In yes/no questions and auxiliary or modal is in sentence-initial position. In |

| |wh-questions the copula and the subject change positions. |

|5 |Do/Aux-second. Q-word>Aux/modal> subj(main verb, etc). |

| |Auxiliary verbs and modals are placed in second position to wh-questions (and Q-words) and before subject (applies only |

| |in main clauses/direct questions). |

|6 |Cancel Inv., Neg Q, Tag Q (Canc Inv) Can you see what the time is? |

| |Cancel Inv: Wh-question inversions are not present in relative clauses. |

| |Neg Q: A negated form of do/Aux is placed before the subject. |

| |Tag Q |

A statistical analysis will be done after the tasks have been completed to determine if the groups who performed the chat based tasks had the same or different results from the groups that performed the tasks face-to-face.

Conclusion

As far as the research questions that were proposed we do expect to find that synchronous CMC is as effective as face-to-face interaction in the facilitation of second language development. As discussed in the review of Mackey (1999) we know that the development of question formation skills is a good marker for the study of language development.

If synchronous CMC is proved to be as effective as face-to-face communication this could enable foreign language teachers to have an extra tool to help develop their students target language skills. Synchronous CMC would not only be a helpful tool in the classroom if proven to be effective, but it could also give the opportunity to students to continue the learning process outside of the classroom.

References

Freiermuth, M. 2001. Native speakers or non-native speakers: who has the floor? Online and

face-to-face interaction in culturally mixed small groups. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14, 169-199.

Lawrence, W. 2004. Preparing students to use real-time chat in a language learning

environment. Teaching with Technology, Eds. Lara Lomicka and Jessamine Cooke-Plagwitz. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Pp.162-170.

Lee, L. 2002. Synchronous online exchanges: a study of modification devices on non-native

discourse. System, 30, 275-288.

Mackey, A. 1999 Input, interaction and social and second language development: an empirical

study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.

Paramskas, D. 1993. Computer-assisted language learning (CALL): Increasingly into an ever

more electronic world. Can Mod Lang Rev, 50, 124-143.

Pienemann, M. 1987. Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. Applying

Second Language Acquisition Research, Eds.D. Nunan. Pp. 45-141.

Warschauer, M., Lonnie Turbee and Bruce Roberts. Computer learning networks and student

empowement. System, 24, 1-14.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download