Communicating and
interacting: An exploration of the changing roles of media in CALL/CMC
Dr Debra Hoven,
Abstract
The sites of learning and teaching using CALL are shifting from
CD-based, LAN-based or stand-alone programs to the internet. As this change
occurs, pedagogical approaches to using CALL are also shifting to forms which
better exploit the communication, collaboration and negotiation aspects of the
internet. Numerous teachers and designers have created multimedia applications
to help learners understand and make meaning from not just the aural and
written language of the target culture, but also some of the visual, social and
cultural nuances. Previous studies of the use of visual and multi-media in language learning have shown promising results.
However with a major shift to the internet as the site for learning, we need to
re-evaluate what constitutes communication and interactivity in this new
context, particularly with the introduction of newer technologies such as
WebCams as well as more ‘traditional’ media such as video, audio and still
images. This paper discusses the characteristics common to CALL and CMC
implementations, some of the distinguishing features of each and aspects of the
teaching and learning contexts in which we find each being used. Conclusions
are drawn that in order to make the most from the use of these new sites of
media interaction in language learning, we need to develop flexible and
adaptive learning environments which can incorporate more traditional forms of
Instructional CALL as well as the newer communication, collaboration and
exploration forms.
Keywords: multimedia, CMC,
learning environments, collaborative learning, exploratory learning
Introduction
As the
media we use to communicate in and teach languages matures, it is time we in
the profession took stock of what the current research literature is telling
us. What are we doing right and which areas do we still need to address and
refine? While
multimedia development was predominantly CD or LAN-based, the technology had
stabilised enough for us to investigate various aspects of the effectiveness
and usefulness to students of these media in language learning. However,
since we have been moving into web-based language learning incorporating
multimedia as and when this is possible or appropriate, the contexts have
changed. We can now, for example, add other channels such as audio and video to
computer mediated communication (CMC) for language learning which had
previously been restricted to the use of text only. In many cases, the
technology we use in these new contexts has not yet sufficiently stabilised for
us to design sufficiently well-structured investigations of what effects the
technology has on language learning. Communications technologies have multiple
applications in both our daily lives and teaching. Research into the nexus
between multimedia and language learning with CMC at the moment therefore,
seems in many cases to be more driven by the technology, the environment in which
it is used and the associated constraints than on pedagogical and learning
factors.
In this
paper I argue that the shape of multimedia applications was previously focused
in three major directions, but that with multimodal CMC for language learning,
these have changed or been replaced. By multimedia I am referring generally to
any combination of video, text and sound delivered by or through the use of
technology, though this will be refined later. Multimodal CMC includes the
media employed to communicate and the channels learners use to interact with
and within the media. Until the emergence of multimodal CMC, the following
three areas represented the major focus of the use of multimedia for language
learning:
1. the media
available or used (what could be done with it and activities based around it)
2. skill development (listening and viewing comprehension and the related sub-skills)
3. media
as illustration or enrichment – bringing authentic aspects of the real
world into the classroom to promote target cultural and language awareness.
However,
with the shift in mode of delivery and access to the internet, this earlier
focus has changed. The very distributed nature of the internet, the uses to
which we put it, and the purposes for which we use it in non-educational
settings have strongly influenced how we view the capacities of the
internet and the teaching and learning opportunities it can make available.
Point 3 above: media as illustration or enrichment has become the major
focus of our use of multimedia on the internet in language teaching and
learning. This shift in focus has, in turn, affected the educational approaches
to language teaching and learning that we employ using this medium. Thus we now
have greater emphasis on and use of the media for:
4. exploratory learning such as webquests, virtual tours, and task- or project-based approaches;
5. learning through
communication involving negotiation of meaning as exemplified in the
e-Tandem project and various keypal endeavours, discussion lists, forums and
chat groups around the world, in various languages, and using a variety of
text, audio and video media combinations;
6. collaborative and
negotiative learning, often problem-based, such as CMCL (computer mediated
collaborative learning) or WSCL (web supported collaborative learning) projects
which bridge geographic locations and time differences; as well as:
7. composite forms which are derived from or built on instructionally-oriented CALL, but now employ features of these three newer approaches (4-6).
While points 1 and 2 above are still, for the most part, actively used, they have now been conflated into one, which I will call here ‘instructed CALL’ (one form of Skehan’s ‘support software’; 2003: 408), whether this be CD-, Local Area Network (LAN)-, or web-based. In Skehan’s terms, such support software is used in conjunction with the exploratory, communication and collaborative learning tasks, to supplement areas identified or noticed by teachers or learners themselves as gaps in learning. Ideally this type of instructed CALL is used post-task and fulfils the dual purpose of providing effective pedagogic materials to support previous learning and helps learners keep a record of their progress in interlanguage development.
Background to the newer approaches
With the
changes in focus mentioned above, it is timely to refresh our understanding of
the findings of earlier research studies done on the uses and pitfalls of
multimedia in language teaching. These can then be incorporated into our
planning, teaching, and curriculum and instructional design decisions. Through
this process, it is hoped that we can make the best possible decisions about
what technologies to employ with which student populations. It is therefore
necessary for us to have, at the same time, very clear understandings of the
possibilities and constraints of the media in relation to pedagogy and learner
needs and remain flexible and creative in our view of what can and could
be done. Teachers have, after all, shown themselves to be perennially adaptive!
As Jonassen has commented:
Technologies do
not directly mediate learning. That is, people do not learn from computers,
books, videos, or the other devices that were developed to transmit
information. Rather, learning is mediated by thinking (mental processes).
Thinking is activated by learning activities, and learning activities are
mediated by instructional interventions, including technologies. Learning
requires thinking by the learner. In order to more directly affect the process,
therefore, we should concern ourselves less with the design of technologies of
transmission and more with how learners are required to think in completing
different tasks.
(Jonassen, 1992: 2)
So
whether students like it or not – and sometimes they don’t – teachers should
and do require them to think, even when using technology as the medium of
learning, including such personal communication technologies as e-mail and
video/voice enhanced chat.
The
nature of our use of technology changed with the adoption of internet tools in
our daily lives. Now, with the addition of multimodal capacities and the change
in emphasis to the use of technology to mediate communication in second
language learning, the roles of teachers and learners are also changing. Felix,
for example, makes the following observations in relation to internet use for
language learning and teaching:
One thing that it is essential to realise is that the most interesting
part of what is happening on the Web is not visible to the observer. What really
matters is what is taking place in the communication between users of the Web …
the critical difference … between content and connectivity.
A realistic
assessment of Web-based teaching is that it is not a time-saving approach, but
rather a time-shifting one. Teachers will save on the time they would otherwise
spend preparing elaborate materials, but they will also have to invest time in
assisting in the organization of tasks and projects, moderating communication,
and creating sound assessment strategies.
(Felix, 2002: 12)
As we
increase our reliance on electronic communications technologies in both the
personal and professional or educational spheres of our lives, we can therefore
expect changes to continue to unfold in the nature of the work we do as
teachers, the materials that constitute pedagogic tasks, and the roles teachers
and learners have in these new educational environments. In subsequent
sections, this paper will explore how our learners process and use the
information that they acquire and convey while using the newer technologies for
language learning and what this tells us about the range of pedagogical
approaches we can employ to achieve different goals. As mentioned earlier, this
entails a shift also in the range of pedagogical approaches we choose – a shift
in the very exciting direction of intentional, flexible, active, experiential,
learner-shaped pedagogy.
The Information/Knowledge Society
In
examining the concomitant changes in our daily lives and work that
communication technologies have brought, I approach the role of changing
pedagogy from the concern of previous authors in the area of the role of
information, knowledge and educational change. In his discussion of the
interaction between knowledge, education and technology, in the context of the
‘Information Society’ or the ‘Knowledge Society’, Chen (1992: pp. 161-2)
claimed that ‘the impact of information technologies on the social institutions
responsible for knowledge production and distribution such as universities and
schools is far less significant’ than on other social arenas such as industry,
business or international relationships. From his examination of the historic
timeframes and characteristics involved in the gradual Ontogenic and Exogenic
evolution of knowledge, Chen concluded that ‘information technology is mainly
involved in the social fabric concerned with the creation, accumulation,
preservation, and distribution of Exogenic (public) knowledge …’ (ibid
p. 166). That is, exogenci knowledge refers to ‘all public knowledge
accumulated by mankind since the beginning of civilization by complex social
processes’. On the other hand, for Chen, ontogenic knowledge is ‘the knowledge
that grows in the individual’ consisting of both innate and learned knowledge.
In fact,
it was not until individual or ontogenic technologies such as the internet,
e-mail and chat (see also
Media & multimedia literature
A survey
of the literature relating to media and multimedia reveals discussions of the
past and present uses of media, attempts to define terms and elucidate
characteristics, studies of effectiveness, exploration of the concept of
interactivity, as well as specific studies of features found only in CMC
environments. An analysis of publications relating to CALL in such major
journals as CALICO, System, CALL, Language Learning and
Technology and ReCALL over the
last five years, reveals a trend away from the uses and roles of
multimedia in the facilitation of second language learning and towards
the communication and interactive elements of CALL, commonly known as computer
mediated communication or CMC. Since the major issue under discussion in this
paper is the nature of changes in media use for language learning being brought
about through technological advances, the argument as to whether or not CMC
actually should be incorporated into the field known as CALL,
will be put aside for another time. However, there remains the question of whether
multimedia is still important in CALL, or indeed, in language learning in
general. An essential adjunct to the discussion of multimodal CMC and
multimedia CALL is the concept of interactivity. CALL programs have always been
described as ‘interactive’. In the context of communicative pedagogy, why
otherwise would we want to use them? However, no clear explanatory definition
of this term has been forthcoming in recent years. In the absence of a clear
definition, it is difficult to make comparisons among different CALL
applications or uses of CMC – or indeed, between different methods of language
teaching and learning using technology. The concept of interactivity in the
CALL/CMC context is therefore also explored below.
Past and present multimedia applications
Multimedia
seems to have had its heyday in the 15 years between
1985-2000. However, towards the end of this period, our fascination with
‘real’ person-person communication seems to have overtaken our research,
reflection and practice with the use of multimedia to enhance our learners’
learning of language. At the same time, as has happened frequently in the past,
the technology has not yet reached the level of sophistication and transparency
that would make it easy and convenient for our learners to make use of the
(still embryonic) multimedia capacities of CMC. Very few examples are yet
available of internet-based multimedia language learning or teaching resources,
and the resources or language programs that are being studied are either
LAN-based programs that have been converted and modified for web-based access
(Hoven, 2003), hybrid models involving sometimes quite radical changes to our
earlier approaches to language teaching and learning, (Kötter et
al., 1999; Hogan-Brun & Lauz, 2001; Liontas, 2002; Khine &
Lourdusamy 2003; Parks, et al.,
2003), or purpose-built web-based language learning materials (Shawback &
Terhune, 2002; Weinberg, 2002).
In order
to find specific academic discussion of the changes in forms, roles and
applications of multimedia and language these days, we need to examine
literature in the fields of instructional design, New Media and communication
studies. The focus of studies involving multimedia applications has changed
from whether and to what extent multimedia enhances learning (Brett, 1995), to
techniques and approaches for maximising the learning (Hoven, 1997; 2003;
Gibson, 2002; Love, 2002; Kabata & Yang, 2002), and the perennial dilemma
of how to find common ground for making meaning between the technical or
instructional design experts and the teachers of a subject or content area
(Keppel, 2001; Sinclair, Aldred & Smith, 2002). This
latter remains a problem as teachers work towards creating the more flexible
environments their learners expect, often requiring the provision of CD- or
DVD-based multimedia learning materials, which are quite technical to create.
The re-directed focus on pedagogy has also meant a move away from the language
interactionist approaches to instructed CALL research originating in the second
language acquisition research area of Chapelle (1998) among others.
Definition
of multimedia and its characteristics
Hartman and colleagues in 1992 (p. 176)
defined interactive multimedia as a ‘synthesis of computers, video, text, and sound’ and as
combining ‘the best parts of multimedia – the integration of various
forms of information – and hypermedia – the non-linear linking of
information to create applications that both stimulate and respond to the
individual’. Others, such as Ashworth (1996: 81), have preferred to separate
multimedia from hypermedia by defining hypermedia as multimedia with links.
However, for the sake of simplicity the term multimedia will be used here in
the form its use takes on the internet; that is, to include linked hypermedia
(see also Hoven, 1997, section 1.3.2). Obviously, when we begin to look at the
range of media that are found within multimedia and hypermedia, some discussion
is then necessary of how learners use these media: which learning styles are
more compatible with which media and what are the features of different media
currently available under the rubric ‘multimedia’? When these media are
employed for language learning, the features of each need to be taken into
consideration, as well as the effects these might have on learners with
different learning style preferences. In addition, teachers also need to be
aware of their own preferred teaching and learning styles in order to be able
to select learning resources and communication technologies for learners that cover
a range of styles, not necessarily just looking for the best fit between
the technology and preferred styles (Hoven, 1997, Chap. 3). As Summerville
(1999), for example, found in her study of cognitive style and hypermedia,
‘support does not always correlate with structure’ and, regardless of cognitive
style, learners want or prefer to interact with an instructor. Her study also
showed that, regardless of cognitive style, learners achieved better when more
resources (channels and suggestions for instructional paths) were provided. As
Bickerton has commented:
The multi-modal
aspects of cognition have long been documented in cognitive science and there
is good experimental evidence for considering that learning processes vary with
the mode of communication (visual graphics, visual reading, sound).
The specificity of multi-modality in language learning is less well researched,
in particular the degree to which links between the modes must be planned and
executed in order to maximise pedagogical benefit.
Bickerton (1999: 75).
In the
next section, therefore we review the literature on the relationship between
the presentation and exploration of learning material in different modalities
as employed in CALL and online, and the strategies learners and teachers use to
structure and make meaning of such material. This review aims to summarise what
we have found over the last several years about the interaction of learners
with multimedia materials, to shed light on what features to highlight in our
development of such materials, and to discover which cognitive and learning
strategies are useful in helping learners take best advantage of these
materials. This information will then inform our discussion of the shape and
characteristics of the learning environments which can enhance second language
learning using multimedia.
Effects of multimedia or hypermedia on language learning
A
recurring theme running through the studies undertaken in the area of CALL and
multimedia is the various effects of including media of different kinds in
language learning materials, in the development of skills such as reading.
Plass and colleagues, for example, examined the effects of individual
differences on the ability of learners to integrate verbal and visual learning
using specific characteristics of multimedia. They found that students
remembered individual word translations better when they had selected both
visual and verbal annotations during the learning phase (1998). Similarly, Baltova (1994) and Raphan, (1996) found that learners who
were highly visual in preferred sensory mode of perception may comprehend a
reading passage more readily if video or multimedia were used to set the scene.
However, when Plass
and colleagues went on to investigate the relationship between specific
learning preferences and word recall (2003), they found that the visual
annotations were the least effective for all learners and that the visual
annotations also disadvantaged low-verbal and low-spatial ability learners. In
his study based on Slatin’s (1990) user-browser distinction, Ganderton (1999)
noted the strong influence of learning styles and the use of online reading
strategies, including information classification and activating background
knowledge for inferencing. He also observed, however, that learners often
focused on finding and following hyperlinks before – or indeed rather than,
engaging in paragraphs or longer passages of text when reading online. These
findings, together with student comments about focus on subordinate features of
a topic without the superordinate big picture also indicate that online reading
of hypermedia may actually disadvantage holistic, top-down learners.
Also in
the area of learners’ actions using hypertext, Son (2003) studied the attitudes
and perceptions of a group of Korean as a Foreign Language (KFL) learners
working on three different text formats: paper-based (PF), non-hypertext
computer-based (NHF), and computer-based hypertext (HF). Overall, learners
found the HF and NHF modes to be the most and least helpful respectively while
the technical clumsiness of having to move between screens in the NHF modes
seemed to have a negative effect on their responses on all measures. Their
reactions to PF on the other hand were more positive in many cases, because of
their stated familiarity with that format. This effect may, of course, change
in a few years as computer screens are increasingly used as the site to find
and read information. Son also noted that individual learning preferences
influenced some learners’ attitudes towards the usefulness of the audio and
visual modes, with some in fact deciding not to use the alternative modes at
all. In his conclusions, Son pointed out the importance of training learners to
take full advantage of the additional features offered by hypertext
environments (see also Hoven, 2003) and that the ability to search for
information in hypertext multimedia environments and structure it effectively
for learning will soon become essential skills.
Working
memory, cognitive load and familiarity with the field also play critical roles
in determining the usefulness of information presented in different modes. As
Kalyuga (2000: 170) found, ‘concurrent duplication of the same information
using different modes of presentation increases the risk of overloading working
memory capacity and might have a negative effect on learning’. In conclusion,
Kalyuga offers three suggestions for improving the efficiency of the use of
multi-modal materials. These include: presenting explanations aurally rather
than in writing, delaying written explanations until after the aural
explanation is complete, and providing more
experienced learners with the facility to turn off or skip textual explanations
when auditory or visual material is already available.
As
Oliver and Herrington (1995) describe it, the effectiveness of hypermedia
learning materials depends on the nature of the material (focus on higher order
skills or knowledge acquisition), content presentation, and learner
characteristics (Hoven, 1997). As several researchers have found, learner
perceptions of the value of their learning experience using technology and
multimedia also depends on the transparency and robustness of the technology
(see also Downes, 2000). In other words, if the technology frequently breaks
down, takes too long to load or change between programs, or programs crash,
learners will become dissatisfied and lose the interest and motivation
necessary to continue learning using these media (Herrington & Oliver,
1997; Felix, 2003; Hoven, 2003).
In
addition, the research literature on learner interactions with hypermedia,
on-line texts employing a range of media and the use of the World Wide Web for
language learning, in general points to the changes in literacy needs and the
sites of literacy that are occurring with the broadening possibilities that
increasingly fast and sophisticated technology is offering us (Constanzo, 1992;
Selfe & Hilligoss, 1994; Tuman, 1996; Murphy-Judy, 1997; Murray, 2000). One
of the critical aspects of literacy in these contexts is the more active role
that learners play in interpreting what they read, see and hear. Essential to
an understanding of the mediating role that technology plays between learners
and language is the concept of interactivity that is commonly cited as an intrinsic
feature of CMC and contemporary multimedia CALL. In the next section we will
examine this construct of interactivity.
Interactivity and CALL
As
mentioned earlier, interactivity is a critical feature of the use of CALL in
general and multimedia in particular. Numerous software and web-based
applications cite interactivity as one of the important features of those
applications, but very little investigation or examination has taken place into
what exactly the term ‘interactive’ refers to in the context of
technology-mediated language learning, including the use of multimedia. Some
explication of the term therefore seems necessary. In addition, as several
researchers in New Media in information technology (Kiousis, 2002),
instructional design (Sims, 2000), and general applications of ICT in education
(Rose, 1999) have recognised, in order to be able to evaluate the effectiveness
of the use of interaction in software applications it is necessary to have some
way of operationalising the terms ‘interactive’ and ‘interactivity’ such that
they can be investigated. That is, for informed academic discussion and
investigation of a feature or group of features to take place, researchers need
to know that they are using common terms of reference. On this topic, Sims (2000:
45) poses the question: can (or should) computer-based applications attempt to
replicate a level of communication equivalent to real life learner-learner or
teacher-learner communication? Clearly this question is much less an issue with
uses of CMC, particularly audio and video-enhanced CMC; but what of other
multimedia applications? Sims identifies the following dimensions as
characteristic of interactivity in learning theory:
·
Learners – the who
of the learning process
·
Content – the what
of the learning process
·
Pedagogy – the how
of the learning process
·
Context – the when
and where of the learning process
(Sims, 2000: 47)
While
concluding that ‘computer based interactivity is not a promise unfulfilled, but
rather a promise not yet realised’, Sims seems to imply that interactivity is a
construct deriving more from our pedagogical viewpoints and interpretations of
learning theory than any constructs manifest by or through the technology we
use. Certainly if we review his dimensions of interactivity above in light of
the work of Jonassen (1992), Hartman and colleagues (1992) and Felix (2002)
mentioned earlier, uses of technology would seem to fit best within both
pedagogy and context, though feasibly also playing a role within the content.
We can assume, therefore, that in the field of CALL, the extent to which the
term ‘interactivity’ can be applied to a computer mediated activity depends at
least on the pedagogical approach, the content and the context, as well as the
learners, with various slippages and exchanges occurring within these
dimensions. We could imagine, for example, a traditional gap-fill discrete item
grammar activity on the Web (not particularly interactive), designed by a
teacher to fit into a series of activities involving pre-task individual
inductive work (either face-to-face or computer mediated), and post-activity
discussion of correct and incorrect answers, with learners articulating their
conclusions about how the rules for that point actually work, in their
experience of working through the previous two activities. As Hoven (1997: 11)
has defined it, interactivity ‘can also be taken to mean the capacity the
package [CALL/CMC] provides for the learner to interact with, interpret,
negotiate, and make meaning from the texts
available, whether these are orthographic, audio, audiovisual, or visual
texts’.
Kiousis
(2002) takes the explication of interactivity further in the direction of
learner or user perceptions in his definition as it occurs in CMC contexts
below.
[Interactivity] … can be
defined as the degree to which a communication technology can create a mediated
environment in which participants can communicate (one-to-one, one-to-many, and
many-to-many) both synchronously and asynchronously and participate in
reciprocal message exchanges […]. With regard to human users, it additionally
refers to the ability of users to perceive the experience to be a
simulation of interpersonal communication and increase their awareness of
telepresence.
(Kiousis, 2002: 379 – italics in original)
This
relationship between the various aspects of the components of interactivity in
communication mediated by technology, namely: structure of technology,
communication context, and user perception is represented diagrammatically as
follows:
Figure 2: Interactivity (Kiousis, 2002: 378)
 |
While
some research work in CALL has included investigation of aspects of the
Structure of technology above, studies in our field have focused have been
principally in the areas of Communication context and User perception. With
increasing moves in CALL towards internet-based siting of language learning and
the shift further towards exploratory and communicative uses of the internet,
we are moving away from instructed CALL. We now seem to be at a point in the
evolution of CALL, and CMC implementations of CALL to posit the claim that,
depending on the pedagogy employed, the term interaction is more
appropriate to these communicative uses of CMC than is the term interactivity.
Since interaction occurs in human-human communication via the mediation of
technology, we therefore no longer require the term interactivity to
apply to CMC in language learning.
In light
of the discussion above about aspects of interactivity, it is important now to
look at the interdependencies between interactivity and the environment from
which it derives, including elicitation of learner perceptions and
investigation of the pedagogy creating or surrounding it. An emerging approach
to this kind of investigation into dynamic interdependencies is found in the
ecological paradigms advocated by researchers such as Freeman (1998), van Lier
(2000) and Tudor (2003). Such qualitative paradigms may be the most appropriate
approaches currently available to us for investigating the learning environment
as a whole. When numerous studies have been completed in different
environments, it should then be possible to identify those aspects of the
communicative context (among learners, among learners and teachers and among
learners, teachers and the mediating technology), and learner perceptions that
represent the essential or desirable features of effective technology-mediated
learning environments.
As
discussed above, CALL-inclined language teachers are increasing their use of
communications technologies in the teaching and learning of language, whether
these technologies be synchronous, ‘delayed synchronous’ or asynchronous. We
now turn, therefore, to an examination of how learners are using these
technologies to communicate in their second languages and what differences are
emerging among these different modes of human-human and human–computer
interaction. The following section also aims to further our understanding of
the changing areas to investigate in learning environments incorporating the
use of CMC.
CMC modes, means and manifestations
Generally
descriptions of these electronic means of communication are divided for
simplicity into synchronous (‘real-time’) such as chat, moos and some Virtual Reality (VR)
environments and asynchronous (subject to a time delay while the sender
waits for the receiver to access the message or some other mediation or
moderation of the message takes place) such as in forums, bulletin boards and
e-mail. However, in spite of the term synchronous, a delay is still
experienced by users since the message must first be typed in and then sent
using the Enter key on the keyboard. In addition, now that many students and
classes, in industrialised countries at least, have access to broadband
connections, more direct communication involving more media is possible.
Because of the rapid advances in technology coinciding with this wider
availability of broadband telecommunications producing some of the newer
incarnations of CMC now in active use, I suggest that the term synchronous
should now be restricted to communication through these newer forms, while
keyboard-based communication delayed by the Enter key be
termed delayed synchronous. The term asynchronous can still be
maintained as the classifier for those forms of electronic communication such
as e-mail which are constrained by time delays due to moderation, response
times or time-zones differences.
Synchronous CMC using multimedia
As
mentioned above, this use of communications media is still an emerging
technology. Examples of this media include 1-to-1, 1-to-many, or many-to-many
communication using webcams, headphones, and microphones as well as text and
images through keyboards and computer monitors, as found in environments such
as Webheads, or TappedIn. In the Webheads environment, for example,
participants can choose to use an audio-supported webcam (which would fall into
the synchronous category) or limit their participation to keyboard-only input,
audio-only input or combinations of any 2 or 3 of these media. While the
keyboard input is still dependent on hitting the Enter key for transmission,
the audio and video channels, once activated, are not. Participants
login to a pre-publicised session at a particular time and can exchange ideas,
information (and of course jokes) with other participants in real time,
with audio and video (see also Stevens, 2002; 2004). The teacher perspectives
or technology-oriented reflective testimonials associated with TappedIn are
very informative with regard to the view that seems to prevail among these
(now-converted) technology-using teachers. Most prominent among these views,
which reinforce our own experiences and intuitions, is the principle that the
technology is a resource or a tool to be used and that the pedagogy remains paramount.
An early
model of audio-only ‘hybrid multimedia CMC’ is also described by Kötter et
al. (1999) in which a combination of audio and email in a distance learning
program was used for French and German languages. In this study, learners’
initial approaches to use of the technology were slow, particularly in
determining turns and taking risks. However, after some familiarity and
practice within the environment, and written electronic communication and task
activity in e-mail, learners appreciated the opportunity to discuss in real
time, using an audio channel, some of the issues arising from the e-mail
communications and tasks.
Delayed
synchronous and asynchronous forms of CMC
Numerous
language teachers and projects around the world have been using e-mail as the
means for intercultural communication and second language learning for many
years. The fact that such organizations as the E-Tandem Project exist is
evidence of the usefulness and popularity of this use of CMC technology (http://www.slf.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/
). Through such partnering arrangements, teachers are able not just to
provide target language speakers with whom their learners can interact, but
also to enrich the language learning environment by providing the opportunity
to participate in the formation and maintenance of learning communities.
Another
form of predominantly text-based CMC that has become popular with language
learners and teachers for its immediacy, fostering of a sense of community, and
level of interaction and creativity possible is the MOO application, derived
from Multi-user domain (MUD) Object Oriented. Over several years, many
different manifestations of this application have been created for the purposes
of learning and practicing language in real time, as well as practising
creative thinking and writing. The MOO was one of the first collaboratively
constructed environments for this purpose and one of the longest running MOO is
for ESL/EFL called SchMOOze.
At the
site of SchMOOzeU itself, apart from information on the history of MOOs and how
to use them, there are several links to useful ‘classroom’ activities – whether
the classroom is real or virtual. From the LinguaMOO site, through the EnCore
MOOs portfolio is a range of MOOs around the world in different fields that are
operating at the moment. For an excellent discussion of the uses of text-only
MOOs, including some of the drawbacks, see Backer (2001). Research into the
uses and efficacy of MOOs for language teaching and learning seem to indicate
that learners must be involved in the design of learning environments and that
they need to be made aware of and trained in the use of learning strategies
appropriate to a self-directed or autonomous learning environment, particularly
the metacognitive strategies of planning, monitoring and reflection
(Schwienhorst 2003). In addition to these, Shield and colleagues (2000)
emphasise the capacity for MOOs to break down barriers among learners and
between learners and teachers, thereby promoting more collaborative
problem-solving. Further findings relating to discourse show
that, while there are medium-specific features of MOO discourse in both L1 and
L2 exchanges (augmentation of written medium by various means), participation
in MOO interactions can promote L2 oral production, in spite of the
written/oral production differences (Weininger & Shield 2003). This
finding has also been supported in a larger-scale study of L2 oral development
through participation in electronic chatroom discussions (Payne & Whitney,
2002). Both these latter studies have also shown the advantage over
face-to-face (f2f) communication that CMC offers learners, for some reflection
time during interaction, which improves the quality of their language output.
In their
recent study of the extent to which the quality of communicative exchange is
affected by the use of CMC rather than f2f negotiation in collaborative
decision-making tasks Cornelius and Boos (2003) found that only with specific
training could users approximate their performance in f2f conditions. This
training has to aim to raise users’ competencies to high levels in both the
communication and media areas. More specifically, this training needs to
include:
- explicit references to
topics of other group members (directly addressing key words: coherence)
- establishing communication
sequence by asking and answering questions
- direct use of partners’
names and
- grounding processes
established through the preceding training
However,
while cautioning us on the preliminary nature of this untangling of the threads
of conversational coherence, mutual understanding and convergence in this
study, Cornelius and Boos also mention that ‘mutual understanding based on
conversational coherence does not foster the frequency of consensus’
but that ‘coherence can readily be substituted by interpersonal attraction’ (ibid.
p. 173). In other words, when participants like each other, they can overcome
the lack of coherence of the computer-mediated conversation to reach consensus.
Clearly inter-personal factors other than those examined in the study are in
play here. These findings of ‘rogue factors’ are also supported by tandem
e-mail studies showing the importance of first establishing personal
relationships between tandem partners before pedagogic tasks can be
successfully undertaken (Appel & Gilabert, 2002). Haythornthwaite (1999)
and Söntgens (1999) have both found that personal relationships and the more
private 1-1 communication media (telephone and e-mail) facilitate information
sharing and are more frequently preferred by more successful learners. Some
explanatory power could also be derived from the personal nature of the
original uses of these media as discussed earlier.
In her
2001 study of the range of social roles learners adopt in synchronous CMC
compared to pencil-and-paper group journal writing, Abrams found that in CMC,
learners not only adopted ‘a larger variety of participant roles during CMC
than in group journals’ but that ‘these roles were also more interactively
negotiated in the CMC environment’ (Abrams, 2001, 489). This evidence forms a
compelling argument for further studies of the social aspects of language
learners using CMC. However, in order for a fuller picture to emerge of the
opportunities and constraints of learning environments incorporating or relying
on CMC, much more work needs to be done in the area of the strategies that
effective learners use in different CMC contexts, whether these strategies are
linguistic, paralinguistic, social, or some other kind. It would also be
informative to improve our understandings of how learners help each other in
these contexts (negotiation of meaning and scaffolding), and the roles of
teachers in the interactions, including the effects of these roles on language
learning.
Learners and teachers as social beings: some cautions
A theme
that seems to be emerging from many of these studies then, is the importance of
the social dimensions. However, with this social dimension of CMC also come the
complications (for language teachers) or opportunities of other aspects of our
lives as social beings, mostly prominently the political. These can range from
the disruptions to on-line class communities produced by flame wars among
online learners, to the destruction of the careers of unwary on-line teachers
(Hailey et al., 2001). As can be seen from the proliferation of
listservs and newsgroups in developing countries, a history already exists of
people using the internet and CMC to voice their opinions and concerns, to find
others with similar concerns, and to form themselves into politically-motivated
groups, thereby raising solidarity. More recently, Rheingold predicts more
pervasive political waves to emanate from the uses of these technologies –
waves affecting our societies as a whole. He makes the assertion, for example,
that:
‘(o)nline social networks are human activities
that ride on technical communications infrastructures of wires and chips. When
social communication via the internet became widespread, people formed support
groups and political coalitions online. The new social forms of the last decade
of the twentieth century grew from the Internet’s capability for many-to-many
social communication. The new social forms of the early twenty-first century
will greatly enhance the power of social networks.
[…] …citizens will discover new ways to band together to resist
powerful institutions. A new kind of digital divide ten years from now will
separate those who know how to use new media to band together from those who
don’t.
Rheingold, 2003
xviii-xix.
From a
rather different perspective, Reeves and Nass (1996) have produced quite
persuasive evidence from a range of studies to show the extent to which we now
treat computers and New Media like real people and places. They set out to
apply the same research methods used in human-human and human-environment
studies in the social sciences to studies of human-computer and human-media
interactions. Instead of using all human subjects, their groups of subjects
were studied with computer partners or using different features of media
delivered by means of computers. On a range of social reaction measures from
politeness to interpersonal distance, flattery, praise and criticism, from
personality judgements and simulations, to emotions, social roles, gender, and
voice, they found that ‘people’s responses to media are fundamentally social
and natural’ (ibid. 251).
In the educational context, Davies et al (1998) have pointed out that ‘(t)eachers must be concerned with what the students are doing with themselves rather than with the language, which is the students' concern’. One role of teachers using CMC for language learning then becomes to help learners navigate between their social and educational goals in such a way that their learning aims are achieved while not compromising their personal or social selves. Finding the appropriate path is often a balancing act between discovering and allowing for different personalities, learning styles and preferences, and accommodating strategies for interacting and dealing with negative encounters, which inevitably occur. And all of this must occur through the medium of technology which will often be unfamiliar to many learners. As discussed earlier, much of the CMC interaction to date has been through the medium of text, with audio and visual modes only recently becoming available. For some years, however, there have been some forums where graphical user interfaces (GUI) and have been implemented. These developments will be outlined in the section below.
Graphical and visual manifestations of CMC
Originally
created by science fiction writers and computer engineers to create
personalities or characters to interact in virtual worlds and electronic
roleplay games, avatars can be described as the wrapping of a form of
human personality around an electronic presence. Avatars have been adopted
enthusiastically by certain language learners – typically those whose learning
style is predominantly visual and those for whom having a different persona behind
which to operate gives them the necessary confidence and impetus to express
their ideas and opinions. In this respect, the use of avatars and electronic
communicative or social roleplay interactions provide shyer, less-vocal
learners with an opportunity to participate at a level of (inter-)activity
which they would otherwise find difficult to envisage. Users of avatars in such
spaces as
In terms
of multimedia and learning styles, these graphical characters provide more
visual learners with the necessary stimulus to make the otherwise very
text-based medium more user-friendly. However, unless teachers or learners
create their own ‘palace’ or chat space, these
graphical chatrooms can be a little overwhelming for L2 learners. Some creative
and hard-working language teachers have created graphical simulations to
provide a supportive and appropriate environment for language learners,
particularly those whose learning styles are more visually oriented to participate
in realistic interactions (Coleman & Kessler, 2004). However, since this
sort of development requires considerable programming and design skills, such
projects are very rare, slow to develop, and often language- or
culture-specific.
Multimedia, multimodal learning environments
Having
examined the various aspects of contemporary uses of media in CALL and CMC, it
is time to return to the pedagogic shifts outlined at the beginning of this
paper to see if a clearer picture now emerges of the current roles of media in
language learning mediated through the use of technology. Specifically, we now
look at some of the features of language learning environments that foster
learning through exploration, communication and collaboration presented in
points 4-7 at the beginning of this paper.
A learning environment comprises not just a physical space, in which the human resources such as teachers, learners and other resources, including technology come together. However, while these are essential features, it is also much more than this. A learning environment is rather the essentially intangible conflux of teachers, their pedagogy, beliefs, and roles, their prepared materials and resource lists; also of learners, with their needs-driven goals, competencies, learning styles and strategies, as well as the physical resources, technology, libraries, and the virtual or ‘soft’ technology represented by software, internet facilities and resources and the networks among all of these in which learning takes place (see Figure 3 below).
One example of ‘soft’ technology to supplement a learning environment is found at The Learning Place http://education.qld.gov.au/learningplace/ ) created by Education Queensland. This resource comprises ready-made courses, tools for teachers and learners to create their own materials, on-line communities, various communication tools, re-useable learning objects, useful links, and on-line as well as f2f workshop activities. Although this site is not specifically designed for language learning, since it has been created with flexible use in mind, the task of using or repurposing the resources is quite feasible.
Figure 3
A learning
environment model
Another kind of exploratory learning environment is found at On the line:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/coolplanet/ontheline/explore/expindex.htm .This site forms the starting point from which a range of visual resources is provided for teachers to create their own tasks for learners to explore on their own, in groups, or with guidance. This kind of site (of which there are many) represents a resource which can be used to combine exploratory, collaborative and instructional CALL. Enchanted Learning is a resource-rich site for teachers and younger language learners:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/Home.html . Using these resources, learners and teachers can explore individually, work collaboratively as class groups, or work collaboratively with individuals located in other parts of the country or the world.
An excellent example of an on-line learning environment for a single subject area (Modern Greek) which incorporates exploration, collaboration and communication as well as instructional CALL is Hellas Alive ©. Within this environment, learners can access Playspaces which include specific language activities (form-focussed as well as interactions) and culture and language learning exploratory activities. This environment also provides some visually rich environments which the designers have named a Virtual Interactive Cityscape and a Virtual Classroom. These spaces also provide the common support features of dictionary facility and chatrooms.
Conclusion
As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, it is only when the technology becomes stable that we are able to conduct sufficiently rigorous investigations of the effectiveness, usefulness and appropriateness of the use of that technology in improving the learning experience of our learners. Therefore, while the technology continues to develop, change and expand its uses so unpredictably fast, teachers employing technology to mediate teaching and their learners’ learning, need to work on developing a flexible and adaptive pedagogy that suits their teaching philosophies and fits with the teaching and learning environments within which they work. As part of this flexibility and adaptability, we need to examine and reflect on the new personal and learning strategies that both learners and teachers themselves need to develop.
As we move towards offering an increasing range and variety of on-line, technology-mediated, and self-access language learning materials, it is important to remember and consider the needs of learners in actually utilising these materials. In particular, learners’ awareness of their own learning styles and strategies and how appropriately they can apply them are critical to their success in using CALL/CMC materials for language learning. This entails a strong need for informed pedagogy in the design of learning environments incorporating technology (on-line, LAN-based and stand-alone) and the importance of developing learners’ language learning strategies, particularly on the metalinguistic and metacognitive side, to assist them in maximising their use of this technology.
From a pedagogical perspective in the field of CALL, we, as teacher-authors, are faced with great heterogeneity among their learners, and in the teaching environments in which we will find ourselves at any one point in time, and during our careers. Within these contexts of variable platforms, environments and learners, we are constantly trying to implement the best possible programs, while operating under curriculum, institutional, financial, time, technical, and skill constraints. Teachers using CALL/CMC or planning to use some form of on-line provision of language learning materials, therefore need to be able to find, evaluate, and use whatever resources and programs are available. At the same time, however, it is important to heed the findings of past experience in the area of media, particularly multimedia-related CALL.
References
Abrams, Z. (2001). Computer-mediated
communication and group journals: expanding the repertoire of participant
roles. System, 29, 489-503.
Appel, C. &
Gilabert, R. (2002). Motivation and task performance in a task-based
web-based tandem project. ReCALL, 14 (1), 16-31.
Ashworth,
D. (1996). Hypermedia and CALL. In Pennington, M. C.
(Ed.) The Power of CALL.
Backer, J.
(2001). Using a modular approach to schMOOze with ESL/EFL students.
In The Internet TESL Journal, VII, (5), May 2001. URL:
http://iteslj.org/Lessons/Backer-SchMOOze.html
(accessed
Baltova,
Bickerton, D. (1999). Authoring and the academic linguist: The challenge of multimedia CALL. In Cameron, K. (Ed.) Media, design and applications. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, pp. 59-79.
Brett, P. (1995). Multimedia for listening comprehension: the design of a multimedia-based resource for developing listening skills. System 23, 1, 77-85.
Chapelle,
C. (1998). Multimedia CALL: lessons to be learned from research on instructed
Chen,
P. (1992). An epistemic analysis of the interaction between
knowledge, education, and technology. In E. Barrett (Ed.) Sociomedia:
Multimedia, hypermedia, and the social construction of knowledge.
Coleman, D. & Kessler, G. (2004). The Langland Project. Presentation
at the CALICO Symposium, June 8-12, CALL: Focusing on the
learner.
http://coarts_faculty.utoledo.edu/dcoleman/Langland/
Cornelius, C. & Boos, M. (2003). Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computer-mediated
communication by training. Communication Research, 30 (2),
147-177.
Costanzo, W. (1992).
Davies, L.B.,
Shield, L. & Weininger, M.J. (1998). ReTOOling MOOs. Teaching
in the Community Colleges (Electronic) Journal, 3, Spring.
URL:
http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcon98/paper/davies.html
(accessed
Downes,
S. (2000). Nine rules for good technology. New Media
http://www.newstrolls.com/news/dev/downes/column000307.htm
(accessed
e-Tandem Project: http://www.slf.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/
Felix,
U. (2001). Beyond
Felix, U. (2002). The web as a vehicle for constructivist approaches in language learning. ReCALL, 14 (1), 2-15.
Felix,
U. (2003). Teaching languages online: Deconstructing the myths. Australian
Journal of Educational Technology, 19 (1), 118-138. URL (accessed
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19.felix.html
Freeman,
D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding.
Ganderton, R. (1999). Interactivity in L2 web-based reading. In Debski, R. & Levy, M. (Eds.) WORLDCALL: global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, pp. 49-66.
Gibson, S. E. (2002). Using a problem based multimedia enhanced approach in learning about teaching. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 18, (3), 394-409. URL:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet.html
Demo URL:
http://www2.atl.ualberta.ca/project/detail.cfm?id=58
(accessed
Hailey,
D., Grant-Davie, K. & Hult, C. (2001). Online education horror
stories worthy of Halloween: A short list of problems and solutions in online
instruction. Computers and Composition, 18, 387-397.
Hartman, A., Diem, J. D. & Quagliana, M.
(1992). The many faces of multimedia: How new
technologies might change the nature of the academic endeavour. In E. Barrett
(Ed.) Sociomedia: Multimedia, hypermedia, and the social construction of
knowledge.
Haythornthwaite, C. (1999). Networks of
information sharing among computer-supported distance learners. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
Conference 1999 (CSCL 1999),
http://sll.stanford.edu/projects/CSCL99/papers/monday/Caroline_HaythornthwaitA79.pdf
(accessed
Hellas
Alive ©: http://www.hau.gr/hau/en/edu_hellasalive.html
Herrington, J.
& Oliver, O. (1997). Multimedia, magic and the way students respond to a situated learning
environment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 13 (2),
127-143. URL:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet13/herrington.html
(accessed
Hoadley, C. M.
& Enyedy, N. (1999). Between Information and Communication: Middle Spaces in Computer Media
for Learning. Paper presented at the Computer
Supported Collaborative Learning Conference 1999 (CSCL 1999),
http://sll.stanford.edu/projects/CSCL99/papers/monday/Chris_Hoadley_242.pdf
Hogan-Brun, G. & Laux, H. (2001). Specialist gateways through chaos: a changing learning environment. System, 29, 253-265.
Hoven,
D. (1997). Improving the management of flow of control in
computer-assisted listening comprehension tasks for second and foreign language
learners.
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/cryptsoft/dlh/thesis/
(accessed
Hoven, D. (2003). Strategic uses of CALL:
What learners use and how they react. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics, Series S No. 17, ‘Asian Languages and Computers’, 125-147.
Kabata, K.
& Yang, X. J. (2002). Developing multimedia lesson modules for intermediate
Japanese. CALICO Journal 19 (3), 563-570.
Kalyuga, S.
(2000). When using sound with a text or picture is not beneficial for
learning. Australian
Journal of Educational Technology, 16 (2), 161-172. URL:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/kalyuga.html
(accessed
Khine, M. S. & Lourdusamy, A. (2003). Using Conversant Media as a collaborative learning tool in teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19 (2), 260-274. URL:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/khine.html
Kiousis, S. (2003). Interactivity: a concept
explication. New Media & Society, 4 (3), 355-383.
Kötter,
M., Shield, L. & Stevens, A. (1999). Real-time audio and email for fluency:
Promoting distance language learners’ oral and aural skills via the Internet. ReCALL
11 (2), 55-60.
LinguaMOO: http://lingua.utdallas.edu/
Liontas, J. I. (2002). CALLmedia Digital technology: Whither in the new millennium? CALICO Journal 19 (2), 315-330.
Murphy-Judy,
K. (1997). Literacies for foreign language learners in the
information age. In Murphy-Judy, K. (Ed.) NEXUS: The convergence of language teaching and research
using technology.
Murray, D. (2000). Changing technologies, changing literacy communities? Language Learning and Technology 4 (2), 43-58.
Oliver, R. &
Herrington, J. (1995). Developing effective hypermedia
instructional materials. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (2), 8-22.
URL:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet11/oliver.html
(accessed
Parks, S.,
Huot, D., Hamers, J. & H.-Lemonnier, F. (2003). Crossing boundaries: Multimedia technology and
pedagogical innovation in a high school class. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (1), 28-45. URL:
http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/parks/default.html
Payne, J. S.
& Whitney, P. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous
CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO
Journal, 20 (1), 7-32.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in
cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (Eds.) Network-based language teaching: concepts and practice.
Plass, J.,
Chun, D., Mayer, R., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and
verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning
environment. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90 (1), 25-36.
Plass, J.,
Chun, D., Mayer, R., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading
a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and
spatial abilities. Computers and
Human Behavior, 19, 221-243.
Raphan,
D. (1996). A Multimedia approach to Academic Listening. TESOL Journal 6 (2) 24-28.
Reeves, B.
& Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new
media like real people and places. CSLI
Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The
next social revolution.
SchMOOzeU: URL: http://schmooze.hunter.cuny.edu/
Selfe,
C. & Hilligoss, S. (Eds.). (1994). Literacy and Computers: The
complications of teaching and learning with technology.
Shawback, M.
& Terhune, N. (2002). Online interactive courseware: Using movies to promote cultural
understanding in a CALL environment. ReCALL, 14 (1), 85-95.
Shield L., Davies, L.B. & Weininger, M.J.
(2000). Fostering (pro)active language learning
through MOO. ReCALL, 12 (1), 35-48.
Sims, R. (2000). An interactive conundrum:
Constructs of interactivity and learning theory. Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 16 (1), 45-57.
Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, tasks, and
technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16 (5), 391-411.
Smith, B. (2003). The use
of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System,
31 (1), 29-53.
Son, J-B. (2003). A
hypertext approach to foreign language reading: Student attitudes and
perceptions. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S No. 17,
‘Asian Languages and Computers’, 91-110.
Söntgens, K. (1999). Language Learning via E-mail –
Autonomy Through Collaboration. Paper presented at the
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
Conference 1999 (CSCL 1999),
http://sll.stanford.edu/projects/CSCL99/papers/wednesday/Kirsten_Sontgens_567.pdf
(accessed
Stevens, V.
2002. A day in the life of an online language educator. TESL-EJ, 6 (3). URL accessed
http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej23/int.html
Stevens, V.
2004. The
skill of communication: Technology brought to bear on the art of language
learning. TESL-EJ, 7 (4). URL Accessed
http://cwp60.berkeley.edu:16080/TESL-EJ/ej28/int.html
Summerville, J. (1999). Role
of awareness of cognitive style in hypermedia. International
Journal of Educational Technology, 1 (1). URL: (accessed
http://www.ao.uiuc.edu/ijet/v1n1/summerville/index.html
TappedIn:
URL: http://ti2.sri.com/tappedin/
Tudor,
Tuman, M.
(1996). Literacy online. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
16, 26-45.
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to
affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.) Sociocultural
theory and second language learning.
Webheads: URL:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/4631/papers/evonline2002/webheads.htm
Weinberg, A. (2002). Virtual misadventures:
Technical problems and student satisfaction when implementing multimedia in an
advanced French listening comprehension course. CALICO
Journal 19 (2), 331-357.
Weininger, M.J. & Shield, L. (2003). Promoting oral production in a written channel: An investigation of learner language in MOO. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16 (4), 329-349.
Biostatement
Debra Hoven has taught German, Japanese, Indonesian and EFL from kindergarten to tertiary in various countries. Her research interests include computer-enhanced listening and viewing, the practical applications of multimedia technology, computer mediated communications, and learning styles and strategies, particularly as they relate to teaching and learning programs using flexible delivery and new media. She currently teaches graduate programs in technology related language learning and applied linguistics. Her doctoral dissertation on the pedagogy and instructional design for computer-enhanced, learner-centred listening and viewing is available on the web at: http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/cryptsoft/dlh/thesis/
