Columns Reviews Volume 9, Number 3 September 2005 Special

Transcription

Columns
From the Editors
News From LLT
by Dorothy Chun & Irene Thompson
p. 1
From the Special Issue Editors
by David Nunan
p. 2-3
On the Net
First, You Have to Hear It! ESL Oral Language
Practice
by Jean W. LeLoup & Robert Ponterio
pp. 4-8
Emerging Technologies
Skype and Podcasting: Disruptive Technologies
for Language Learning
by Bob Godwin-Jones
pp. 9-12
Announcements
News from Sponsoring Organizations
pp. 13-16
Reviews
Edited by Rafael Salaberry
SEER 2.0
Word Magic Software, Inc.
Reviewed by Corinne Bossé
pp. 17-21
TextStat 2.5, AntConc 3.0, and Compleat
Lexical Tutor 4.0
Reviewed by Luciana Diniz
pp. 22-27
Russian Language Instructional Sites on the
Web
Author
Reviewed by Richard Robin
pp. 28-34
Volume 9, Number 3
September 2005
Special Issue on Technology and Oral
Development
Synchronous CMC, Working Memory, and L2
Oral Proficiency Development
Scott Payne and Brenda Ross
The Pennsylvania State University
pp. 35-54
Told Like It Is! An Evaluation of an Integrated
Oral Development Pilot Project
David Barr, Jonathan Leakey, and Alexandre
Ranchoux
University of Ulter, Northern Ireland
pp. 55-78
Conversations -- and Negotiated Interaction -- in
Text and Voice Chat Rooms
Kevin Jepson
Monterey Institute of International Studies
pp. 79-98
Establishing a Methodology for Benchmarking
Speech Synthesis for Computer-Assisted Language
Learning (CALL)
Zöe Handley
The University of Manchester, UK
Marie-Josée Hamel
Dalhousie University, Canada
pp. 99-119
Oral Interaction Around Computers in the
Project-Oriented CALL Classroom
Gumock Jeon-Ellis, Robert Debski, and Gillian
Wigglesworth
University of Melbourne, Australia
pp. 120-144
Contact: Editors or Managing Editor
Copyright © 2005 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.
Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.
Analyzing Oral Skills in Voice E-Mail and Online
Interviews
Lisa M. Volle
Central Texas College
pp. 145-162
Call for Papers
Theme: Technology and Learning to Read
p. 163
Contact: Editors or Managing Editor
About Language Learning & Technology
Language Learning & Technology is a refereed journal which began publication in July 1997. The journal
seeks to disseminate research to foreign and second language educators in the US and around the world
on issues related to technology and language education.
•
Language Learning & Technology is sponsored and funded by the University of Hawai'i National
Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) and the Michigan State University Center for
Language Education And Research (CLEAR), and is co-sponsored by the Center for Applied
Linguistics (CAL).
•
Language Learning & Technology is a fully refereed journal with an editorial board of scholars in
the fields of second language acquisition and computer-assisted language learning. The focus of
the publication is not technology per se, but rather issues related to language learning and
language teaching, and how they are affected or enhanced by the use of technologies.
•
Language Learning & Technology is published exclusively on the World Wide Web. In this way,
the journal seeks to (a) reach a broad audience in a timely manner, (b) provide a multimedia
format which can more fully illustrate the technologies under discussion, and (c) provide
hypermedia links to related background information.
•
Beginning with Volume 7, Number 1, Language Learning & Technology is indexed in the
exclusive Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), ISI
Alerting Services, Social Scisearch, and Current Contents/Social and Behavioral Sciences.
•
Language Learning & Technology is currently published three times per year (January, May,
September).
Sponsors, Board, Editors, and Designers
Volume 9, Number 3
Sponsors
University of Hawaiì National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC)
Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR)
Co-Sponsor
Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)
Advisory and Editorial Boards
Advisory Board
Susan Gass
Richard Schmidt
Michigan State University
University of Hawaiì
[email protected]
[email protected]
University of Hawaiì at Manoa
Université de Franche-Comte
Iowa State University
University of Hawaiì at Manoa
University of Melbourne
Virginia Commonwealth Univ.
Univ. of MD, University College
Stanford University
George Mason University
University of South Carolina
University of Queensland
San Diego State University
Georgetown University
SUNY-Albany
San Jose State University
University of San Francisco
University of Texas at El Paso
Northern Arizona University
CA State Univ., San Marcos
Center for Applied Linguistics,
Washington, DC
University of Cal., Berkeley
Montclair State University
Monterey Institute of
International Studies
Univ. of California, Irvine
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Editorial Board
James D. Brown
Thierry Chanier
Carol Chapelle
Graham Crookes
Robert Debski
Robert Godwin-Jones
Lucinda Hart-González
Philip Hubbard
Jennifer Leeman
Lara Lomicka
Allan Luke
Mary Ann Lyman-Hager
Alison Mackey
Carla Meskill
Denise Murray
Noriko Nagata
David G. Novick
Lourdes Ortega
Jill Pellettieri
Joy Kreeft Peyton
Maggie Sokolik
Susana Sotillo
Leo van Lier
Mark Warschauer
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Editorial Staff
Editors
Dorothy Chun
[email protected]
Richard Kern
Batia Laufer
Pamela DaGrossa
University of CA, Santa
Barbara
The George Washington
University (Emerita)
Univ. of CA, Berkeley
University of Haifa
Hunter Hatfield
[email protected]
Carol Wilson-Duffy
[email protected]
Rafael Salaberry
Michigan State
University
Rice University
Sigrun BiesenbachLucas
George Washington
University
[email protected]
Jean W. LeLoup
Robert Ponterio
Robert Godwin-Jones
SUNY at Cortland
SUNY at Cortland
Virginia Commonwealth
University
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Irene Thompson
Associate Editors
Managing Editor
(outgoing)
Editorial Assistant
(incoming)
Web Production
Editor
Book & Software
Review Editor
(outgoing)
Book & Multimedia
Review Editor
(incoming)
On the Net Editors
Emerging
Technologies Editor
Copy Editors
Tim Denny
Brad Horn
Kooi Cheng Lee
Tony Silva
Northern Arizona Univ.
National University of
Singapore
Kapi‘olani Community
College
thompson@roadstarinternet.
net
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
The contents of this publication were developed under a grant from the Department of Education (CFDA 84.229,
P229A60012-96 and P229A6007). However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department
of Education, and one should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
Information for Contributors
Language Learning & Technology is seeking submissions of previously unpublished manuscripts on any
topic related to the area of language learning and technology. Articles should be written so that they are
accessible to a broad audience of language educators, including those individuals who may not be familiar
with the particular subject matter addressed in the article. General guidelines are available for reporting
on both quantitative and qualitative research.
Manuscripts are being solicited in the following categories:
Articles | Commentaries | Reviews
Articles
Articles should report on original research or present an original framework that links previous research,
educational theory, and language teaching practices that utilize technology. Articles containing only
descriptions of software, classroom procedures, or those presenting results of attitude surveys without
discussing data on actual language learning outcomes will not be considered. Full-length articles should
be no more than 8,500 words in length, including references, and should include an abstract of no more
than 200 words. Appendices should be limited to no more than 1,500 words. We encourage articles that
take advantage of the electronic format by including hypermedia links to multimedia material both within
and outside the article.
All article manuscripts submitted to Language Learning & Technology go through a two-step review
process.
Step 1: Internal Review. The editors of the journal first review each manuscript to see if it meets the basic
requirements for articles published in the journal (i.e., that it reports on original research or presents an
original framework linking previous research, educational theory, and teaching practices), and that it is of
sufficient quality to merit external review. Manuscripts which do not meet these requirements or are
principally descriptions of classroom practices or software are not sent out for further review, and authors
of these manuscripts are encouraged to submit their work elsewhere. This internal review takes about 1-2
weeks. Following the internal review, authors are notified by e-mail as to whether their manuscript has
been sent out for external review or, if not, why.
Step 2: External Review. Submissions which meet the basic requirements are then sent out for blind peer
review from 2-3 experts in the field, either from the journal's editorial board or from our larger list of
reviewers. This second review process takes 2-3 months. Following the external review, the authors are
sent copies of the external reviewers' comments and are notified as to the decision (accept as is, accept
pending changes, revise and resubmit, or reject.
Titles should be concise (preferably fewer than 10 words) and adequately descriptive of the content of the
article. Some good examples are
•
•
•
Social Dimensions of Telecollaborative Foreign Language Study
"Reflective Conversation" in the Virtual Language Classroom
Teaching German Modal Particles: A Corpus-Based Approach
Commentaries
Commentaries are short articles, usually no more than 2,000 words, discussing material previously
published in Language Learning & Technology or otherwise offering interesting opinions on theoretical
and research issues related to language learning and technology. Commentaries which comment on
previous articles should do so in a constructive fashion. Hypermedia links to additional information may
be included. Commentaries go through the same two-step review process as for articles described above.
Submission Guidelines for Articles and Commentaries
Please list the names, institutions, e-mail addresses, and if applicable, World Wide Web addresses
(URLs), of all authors. Also include a brief biographical statement (maximum 50 words, in sentence
format) for each author. (This information will be temporarily removed when the articles are distributed
for blind review.)
Articles and commentaries can be transmitted in either of the following ways:
1. By electronic mail, send the main document and any accompanying files (images, etc.) to
[email protected]
2. By mail, send the material on a Macintosh or IBM diskette to
LLT
NFLRC
University of Hawai'i at Manoa
1859 East-West Road, #106
Honolulu, HI 96822
USA
Please check the General Policies below for additional guidelines.
Reviews
Language Learning & Technology publishes reviews of professional books, classroom texts, and
technological resources related to the use of technology in language learning, teaching, and testing.
Reviews should normally include references to published theory and research in SLA, CALL, pedagogy,
or other relevant disciplines. Reviewers are encouraged to incorporate images (e.g., screen shots or book
covers) and hypermedia links that provide additional information, as well as specific ideas for classroom
or research-oriented implementations.
Reviews of individual books or software are generally 1,200-1,600 words long, while comparative
reviews of multiple products may be 2,000 words or longer. They can be submitted in ASCII, Rich Text
Format, Word, or HTML. Accompanying images should be sent separately as jpeg or gif files. Reviews
should include the name, institutional affiliation, e-mail address, URL (if applicable), and a short
biographical statement (maximum 50 words) of the reviewer(s). In addition, the following information
should be included in a table at the beginning of the review:
Books
Author(s)
Title
Series (if applicable)
Publisher
City and country
Software
Title (including previous titles, if applicable) and
version number
Platform
Minimum hardware requirements
Publisher (with contact information)
Support offered
Year of publication
Number of pages
Price
ISBN
Target language
Target audience (type of user, level, etc.)
Price
ISBN (if applicable)
LLT does not accept unsolicited reviews. Contact Rafael Salaberry if you are interested in having material
reviewed or in serving as a reviewer ([email protected]).
Rafael Salaberry
Hispanic Studies MS-34
Rice University
6100 Main St.
Houston, TX 77251-1892
General Policies
The following policies apply to all articles, reviews, and commentaries:
All submissions should conform to the requirements of the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (4th edition). Authors are responsible for the accuracy of references and
citations, which must be in APA format.
Manuscripts that have already been published elsewhere or are being considered for publication
elsewhere are not eligible to be considered for publication in Language Learning & Technology. It is the
responsibility of the author to inform the editor of any similar work that is already published or under
consideration for publication elsewhere.
Authors of accepted manuscripts will assign to Language Learning & Technology the permanent right to
electronically distribute their article, but authors will retain copyright and, after the article has appeared in
Language Learning & Technology, authors may republish their text (in print and/or electronic form) as
long as they clearly acknowledge Language Learning & Technology as the original publisher.
The editors of Language Learning & Technology reserve the right to make editorial changes in any
manuscript accepted for publication for the sake of style or clarity. Authors will be consulted only if the
changes are major.
Authors of published articles, commentaries, and reviews will receive 10 free hard-copy offprints of their
articles upon publication.
Articles and reviews may be submitted in the following formats:
HTML files
Microsoft Word documents
RTF documents
ASCII text
If a different format is required in order to better handle foreign language fonts, please consult with the
editors.
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/editors/
September 2005, Volume 9, Number 3
p. 1
FROM THE EDITORS
Welcome to the third issue of 2005. LLT is entering its 9th year of publication and
continues to receive increasing numbers of submissions and experience a growing
readership. In 2004, we received a record number of 100 submissions from 26 countries,
and registered readers residing in over 145 countries. If you are not already subscribed,
please take a moment to fill out your free subscription.
This is a special issue on Technology and Oral Language Development. We thank David
Nunan, our Guest Editor, for the six excellent articles in this issue. Please see the From
the Special Issue Editor column for a description of the content of the issue.
We are pleased that our faithful column editors, Jean LeLoup, Robert Ponterio, and
Robert Godwin-Jones have again brought us two exciting columns related to special
issue topic. In "On the Net," LeLoup and Ponterio examine two Web sites that provide
comprehensible input for English language learners and also provide for subsequent
two-way exchanges that allow learners to practice their oral output. In "Emerging
Technologies," Godwin-Jones describes some new network options for oral language
practice, specifically, Skype, a software product that allows a personal computer to act
like a telephone, and podcasting, which refers to the automatic downloading of MP3
audio files to a computer or MP3 player, allowing language learners to download and
listen to podcasts in the target language.
In addition, this issue includes three reviews. Corinne Bossé reviews SEER (Spanish
English Education Resources), a software that offers bilingual language learning
resources for English-Spanish translation. Luciana Diniz provides a comparative review
of three corpus linguistics programs that are all available at not charge over the Internet.
Finally, Richard Robin reviews some of the best Russian language instructional Web
sites.
Please note the Call for Papers for an upcoming special issue on Technology and
Reading Comprehension, to be guest edited by Marlise Horst.
Lastly, we are currently undergoing two staff changes. With this issue, Rafael Salaberry
will be stepping down as Reviews Editor. We thank him for his support of the journal
during the past 3 years. We welcome Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas of American University
who will take over as the Reviews Editor, beginning with the January 2006 issue. Sigrun
has been a faithful reviewer and contributor, and we are happy to have her join our team.
It is with great regret that we announce that Pamela DaGrossa, our Managing Editor for
the past 6 1/2 years, will be leaving the journal effective August 31, 2005, having
accepted a teaching position at Windward Community College, on the windward side of
O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Pamela has done an outstanding job of running the journal's day-to-day
operations and has left an indelible mark on the journal. Her invaluable service to
Language Learning and Technology is truly appreciated. We wish her the very best in
her new position.
Sincerely,
Irene Thompson and Dorothy Chun
Editors
Copyright © 2005, ISSN 1094-3501
1
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/speced.html
pp. 2-3
FROM THE SPECIAL ISSUE EDITORS
In the last few years, technology has consolidated its place as an important resource in
the planning, implementation and evaluation of language programs. Use of technology
for both content delivery and learning management is now widespread. In terms of
content delivery, technology can do as well, if not better than, face-to-face instruction in
the areas of reading, listening, grammar, and vocabulary development. However, one
area that remains both problematic and contentious is that of oral language development.
In this special issue of Language Learning and Technology, six studies are presented
that look at various aspects of technology and oral language development. In the first
study, Payne and Ross investigate the effect of working memory on language output.
Twenty-four students of Spanish as a foreign language took part in the study. Oral
proficiency was measured through an elicited 5-minute speech sample from each
subject. Working memory was measured through a nonword repetition task and a
reading span test. Data for analysis came from 150 topic-driven chatroom transcripts.
Linguistic phenomena investigated include repetition, relexicalization, and the average
number of words, utterances, and turns per chat session. According to the researchers,
results suggest that chatrooms may provide a unique form of support for L2 oral
proficiency development.
The second study in the issue, by Barr, Leakey, and Ranchoux, reports on a project with
French undergraduate students. Students were involved in a program delivered through a
blend of collaborative and individual learning through a combination of CALL
programs, online instruction, and traditional face-to-face conversation classes. Through
pre- and posttests and questionnaires, the researchers compared technology augmented
instruction with traditional conversation classes. Results indicated that while both the
treatment and control groups made progress, the non-technology group made the greater
gains. The researchers concluded that CALL based teaching needs to go beyond
rehearsal activities to achieve message-oriented communication.
In the third paper of the issue, Jepson compares patterns of repair moves in non-native
speaker text chat and voice chat rooms on the Internet. Repair moves made in five text
chat and five voice chat sessions were documented and analyzed using chi-square. In
keeping with previous research, Jepson found the number of repair moves in the voice
chat rooms was significantly higher than in the text chat rooms. Qualitative analysis
indicated that repair moves in the voice chat rooms was often pronunciation driven. The
study suggests that although text chat is more widely available, and more frequently
studied, voice chat provides a potentially rich environment for pronunciation work.
Handley and Hamel set out to establish a methodology for benchmarking speech
synthesis for computer-assisted language learning. The paper reports on a case study
aimed at identifying the criteria for determining the adequacy of output from speech
synthesis systems in relation to three potential roles: as a reading machine, as a
pronunciation model, and as a conversational partner. The study involved 12 native
speaking teachers of French as a second/foreign language who evaluated reading,
pronunciation, and conversational corpora for appropriateness, acceptability, and
comprehensibility. Although very much a preliminary study, the research suggests
several promising directions for future work.
2
From the Special Issue Editor
Set within a Vygotskian framework, Jeon-Ellis, Debski, and Wigglesworth investigate
the oral interaction that takes place in the course of a project-oriented CALL course.
Eight monolingual speakers of English enrolled in a first-year university course of
French worked in small groups to complete a computer mediated project. Groups were
videorecorded as they worked at the computer, and their cursor and keyboard operations
were also recorded. Videorecordings were supplemented with interviews. Interactions
and interviews were transcribed and analyzed qualitatively. The researchers found that
the relationships that developed between the students had a major impact on generating
learning opportunities for the students.
The final paper in the issue, by Volle, investigates the acquisition of speaking skills in an
online distance education course by 19 first semester Spanish learners. Data were
collected through audio e-mail messages and Internet-mediated conversations with the
instructor. Three types of analysis were performed: articulation, accuracy, and
proficiency. Only proficiency yielded a significant result.
The six studies in this special issue foreground key aspects of technology and oral
language development. Research in this area is in its infancy, as is clear from the caution
with which the researchers present and interpret their results. Despite this, all of the
studies are of interest, both substantively and methodologically.
As guest editor, I would like to thank all those reviewers who evaluated these and other
papers submitted for the special issue. Heartfelt thanks are also due to Pamela DaGrossa
and Dorothy Chun. I would also like to acknowledge the secretarial and administrative
support of Crystal Chan of the English Centre at the University of Hong Kong. Without
their help the special issue would not have seen the light of day.
David Nunan
Special Issue Editor
3
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/net/
pp. 4-8
ON THE NET
First, You Have to Hear It! ESL Oral Language Practice
Jean W. LeLoup
SUNY Cortland
Robert Ponterio
SUNY Cortland
There is no question that the development of oral language skills in second (as well as first) language
learners is of prime importance. Language learners must focus on oral language proficiency because it is
eventually the skill they will most use. Indeed, "...oral language interactions account for the bulk of our
day-to-day communications, remaining the primary mode of discourse through out the world" (Peregoy &
Boyle, 2005, p. 119). But oracy in second language learners does not develop in a vacuum. It is
inextricably intertwined with the other language skills (reading, writing, and listening). In addition, by the
time students are studying a second language, they have begun learning literacy skills that we also wish to
develop in the target language. The National Standards for Foreign Language Learning clearly support the
notion of integration of skill areas with the goal area of Communication. The first standard in this goal
area is 1.1: Students engage in conversations, provide and obtain information, express feelings and
emotions, and exchange opinions (National Standards, 1999). This interpersonal communication standard
implies two-way communication in which aural and oral language both play a key role.
Oral language development needs two essential elements in order to be maximally realized:
comprehensible input (CI) and social interaction (Peregoy & Boyle, 2005). The language learning
environment, be it a classroom or other venue, should be structured to include CI as well as encourage the
aforementioned two-way communication qua social interaction. In this column, we examine two sites that
provide CI for English language learners and also make provision for subsequent two-way interchanges
that allow learners to practice their oral output.
Randall's ESL Cyber Listening Lab provides the English language learner with many audio files that
offer language sound bites on numerous topics. These sound files are graded "easy," "medium," and
"difficult" as a guide for the instructor and/or self-motivated learner. According to the creator of the site,
Randall Davis,
"the main goal has been to try to combine pedagogically-sound content while making use of
Internet technology to deliver it .... to create listening activities with pre-, listening, and postlistening activities to build content schemata, help check students' understanding while
introducing new vocabulary, and then encourage speaking activities to expand on language
students have learned." (personal communication, July 14, 2005)
To that end, each audio file is supported by several components that enable the language learner to
prepare for, negotiate, and master the CI. The example below, "Camping under the Stars," shows the
information available to the learner who selects this audio clip and its concomitant activities. This
particular clip is graded "medium." It is a conversation between a man and a woman, and lasts 1:17
minutes.
4
Jean W. LeLoup and Robert Ponterio
On the Net: First You Have to Hear It! ESL Oral Language Practice
As shown above, the language learner initially encounters pre-listening exercises: generally topical
questions that serve as advance organizers (see Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1978; Hadley, 2001) for the
listener. Next come listening exercises. The student presses a button on the screen to listen to the audio.
While listening, the student can click on radio buttons for each question to make multiple choice
responses. After finishing the quiz, the learner can click another button to see the score and correct
responses.
The learner also has access to the audio script on
another page, complete with glossed vocabulary.
Some of the RealPlayer audio clips include
scrolling captions for reading the script while
listening -- for instance, the College Life audio.
In addition, the learner may take a text completion quiz with a modified cloze format and word bank.
Again, the learner can click to see the score and correct responses. Finally, post-listening exercises lead
the learner to and through the social interaction phase, suggesting topics for further expansion and
discussion, organizing paired dialogs, or recomending group activities for learners.
On the Self-Study Guide page, the listening activities and audio files have been organized into topics.
Generalized language functions are also indicated. The 15 topics listed are broad enough to be included in
most any language course, from introductory to advanced levels: Introductions, Education and Work,
Living Arrangments, Shopping and Money, Family Life and Relationships, Daily Schedules, Directions,
On the Phone, Travel, Food and Dining Out, Descriptions, Sports and Recreation, Entertainment, Health,
The World.
5
Mr. Davis has chosen to concentrate on listening and conversation activities, rather than try to be all
things to all people. He does, nevertheless, offer several helpful ancillaries in addition to the main pages
outlined above.
Instructors as well as language learners will appreciate his detailed instructions
about working with the audio files in "Help with audio." The sound files are not
complicated, all are either .wav or RealAudio files, though the student may need
to download and install the RealPlayer software. "First-time users" offers a
guide to navegate the site for those just discovering the cyber lab. Also provided
are "Free handouts" that enable learners to keep track of their progress and
understand completely how the site works. The "FAQs" are also helpful for all,
and the "Tips for teachers" provide special assistance to this group of users. The
site was mainly designed for self-access and individual learning, but clearly the
creator welcomes any pedagogical support.
6
Breaking News English is a more modest site also dedicated to providing good comprehensible input
(CI) for ESL and EFL learners. As is the case for Randall's ESL Cyber Listening Lab, this site is the
product of one person, Sean Banville. Each day a new listening file and accompanying lesson is added.
The material comes from "breaking news" stories, hence the title of the site. The author's idea is that
students can listen to and subsequently discuss CI containing information about topics they would
generally be discussing in their first language (personal communication, July 14, 2005). The home page
gives a general explanation of the materials provided on the site:
The lessons and associated listening files are graded "easier" and "harder." These designations reflect the
speed of the news broadcast, the vocabulary and idioms involved in the news story, and the difficulty of
the related activities. In many cases, a wide variety of activities are presented, allowing students or
teachers to select those that they prefer. Each lesson begins with suggested "Warm-ups," followed by
"Before reading/listening" activities, a "While reading/listening" section, an "After reading/listening"
section, and a "Discussion" portion with guiding questions for partner practice. Other activities included
in many lessons are cloze exercises, charts, and tables that students complete and then use as a basis for
conversation practice, matching tasks, and true/false comprehension checks.
As demonstrated here,
each lesson is headed by
the date of the news, the
level of difficulty,
download options for the
activities and audio, and
the length of the audio
file. Information on
using Podcast software
for using Breaking News
English audio files with a
computer or MP3 player
is clearly presented as
well.
7
Archived materials go back to November 1, 2004; the audio archives go back to April 11, 2005. Links to
approximately 2 weeks' worth of lessons are presented on the home page. There is a link to older archived
lessons on each page that takes the learner back successively a month at a time. The news stories are
composites taken from a variety of sources, including the BBC World Service radio, the BBC and CNN
television news, press releases posted on the Internet, and Internet news sites. Mr. Banville researches the
information and topics from these sources and then writes the articles used in the lessons. Several
different sources are used for each story in order to corroborate its veracity. This approach enables him to
include and/or focus on particular vocabulary items and idiomatic expressions, as he can word the stories
accordingly. The author views the concentration on lexical items (and the parallel dearth of attention on
structure and/or grammar) as a means to emphasize communication.
CONCLUSION
The relationships among the four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing are complex and
intertwined, suggesting a scaffolding of mutual support. A focus on and practice in any one skill area
contributes to overall movement along the interlanguage continuum, making knowledge available for
application to the other skill areas (Peregoy & Boyle, 2005). Oral language development is clearly a key
skill for second language learners, but it does not stand alone. As we see in these sites, audio-based
second language learning activities can also integrate written components and serve as a jumping off
place for interactive conversation practice as well. Listening to natural speech can be daunting for many
language learners. Embedding the audio in a conext with pedagogically sound pre- and post-listening
activities and focusing the listener's attention through activities that help motivate the listener to try to
understand all help make the audio more comprehensible. Delivery of a wide variety of meaningful and
interesting CI is facilitated by Internet technology, giving students easier access to the tools that can help
them develop their language skills either in the context of a class or on an independent basis as lifelong
learners.
REFERENCES
Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle.
Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2005). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL. Boston: Pearson Education.
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. (1999). Standards for foreign language
learning in the 21st century. Lawrence, KS: Allen.
8
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/emerging/
pp. 9-12
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
Skype and Podcasting: Disruptive Technologies for Language Learning
Robert Godwin-Jones
Virginia Comonwealth University
New technologies, or new uses of existing technologies, continue to provide unique opportunities for
language learning. This is in particular the case for several new network options for oral language
practice. Both Skype and podcasting can be considered "disruptive technologies" in that they allow for
new and different ways of doing familiar tasks, and in the process, may threaten traditional industries.
Skype, the "people's telephone," is a free, Internet-based alternative to commercial phone service, while
podcasting, the "radio for the people," provides a "narrowcasting" version of broadcast media. Both have
sparked intense interest and have large numbers of users, although it is too soon to toll the bell for
telephone companies and the radio industry. Skype and podcasting have had a political aspect to their
embrace by early adopters -- a way of democratizing institutions -- but as they reach the mainstream, that
is likely to become less important than the low cost and convenience the technologies offer. Both
technologies offer intriguing opportunities for language professionals and learners, as they provide
additional channels for oral communication.
Skype and Internet Telephony
Skype is a software product which provides telephone service through VoIP (Voice over IP), allowing
your personal computer to act like a telephone. A microphone attached to the computer is necessary and
headphones are desirable (to prevent echoes of the voice of your conversation partner). It is not the only
such tool, nor the first, but because it provides good quality (through highly efficient compression) and is
free, it has become widely used. The software is based on peer-to-peer networking (from the creators of
the file sharing program Kazaa) and runs on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, or PocketPC. Normally, calls
are from computer to computer and are free. It is also possible to use Skype to call a land-based phone
(rather than another Skype user), but that requires a fee (using a service called SkypeOut). Skype
generally works well, even through firewalls. The sound quality is dependent on the network and is very
good with a broadband connection. It is possible to link up to five people through Skype for conference
calls. One member of the group acts as the convener and enters the Skype ids of call participants. The
current version of the software does not allow users to join subsequently Skype conference calls. The
sound quality of Skype with multiple participants in the same conversation tends to degrade somewhat.
It is possible to configure an existing phone (including cordless phones) to work with Skype using a USB
to RJ11 connector in the US or similar converters for other phone systems. Special handsets are also
available which sport both a USB and an ordinary phone connection, allowing switching between Skype
and a traditional phone line. Skype has initiated a new service called SkypeIn, which allows Skype users
to purchase a phone number (available only in selected countries), allowing them to receive calls from
non-Skype users calling on a regular telephone. It is possible to send instant messages from a GSM
mobile phone to Skype users, using a free service. A software answering machine service (SAM) is also
available for Skype. Skype calls can be recorded (using a dedicated program such as HotRecorder or
other audio software). Some bloggers are recording interviews or conference calls with Skype, saving the
files as MP3s and then posting them to their blogs (SkypeCasting).
Skype offers a good alternative to voice chat programs such as Paltalk. The quality is generally better and
software incompatibilities are less of an issue. Given the low cost, conferencing capabilities, and
recording option, there are any number of possibilities for using Skype in language learning. The most
obvious is to connect users in distant locations for free conversational practice. A group of ESL
instructors has been using Skype in class-to-class exchanges and there are several sites (such as The
9
Robert Godwin-Jones
Emerging Technologies: Skype and Podcasting
Mixxer) for integrating Skype and Moodle, the popular freeware learning management system. Because
Skype requires a reasonably fast Internet connection, not all users or schools will be able to use it, but for
those who can, it offers a low-cost alternative for real-time communication. Skype has recently added
video conferencing (through a third-party add-on, Video4Skype), which offers even more possibilities.
From Audioblogs to Podcasting
Podcasting refers to the automatic downloading of MP3 audio files to a computer and, in most cases,
subsequently to a mobile MP3 player. It has experienced phenomenal growth in the past year, although
the basic enabling technologies have been in place for some time. In recent years some bloggers have
been linking recorded audio files to their blogs, a process known as audioblogging. As in text-based
entries, audioblogs are cataloged according to time and date and given a title and brief description, with
the actual content being the linked audio file. It is possible to post entries to a blog from a mobile device
(cell phone or PDA), a process know as moblogging. This can involve sharing not only audio, but photos
as well. A number of sites, such as Text America or GoBlogGo are dedicated to moblogging. Another
variation on media blogging is the vlog or videoblog, which adds video to the mix. What's new about
podcasting as a form of audioblogging is the ability to subscribe to a site for automatic downloads of new
MP 3 files. If the computer users owns an MP3 player, the new files are loaded onto the player the next
time it is synched with the computer, using a program such as iTunes or MusicMatch. However, the MP3
files can also be played directly on the computer.
Part of what accounts for the sudden interest in podcasting is the fact that so many consumers have
purchased MP3 players, especially the Apple iPod (from which podcasting gets its name), which
integrates seamlessly with Apple's music software, iTunes, allowing for easy syncing of iPods with a
Windows or Macintosh computer. Originally, podcasting was of interest to a small audience of Mac
enthusiasts, an esoteric activity by computer geeks for other computer geeks. In fact, the process
originally was complex and required scripts that ran only on a Mac. But the past 6 months have
demonstrated an incredible appetite on the part of mainstream consumers for podcasts, to the extent that a
recent Pew study shows that a third of those who own a portable MP3 player have downloaded podcasts.
Although there are still plenty of podcasts of interest only to computer programmers, Internet junkies, and
underground music aficionados, today many mainstream media (such as the BBC or BusinessWeek)
make podcasts available, as do schools and even churches. There are a number of directories of podcasts
(such as iPodder, Digital Podcast, Podcastalley or audio.weblogs) which sort them in categories.
Originally a U.S. phenomenon, podcasts have gone international, with podcasts available in many
different languages and sites dedicated to podcasts in different languages, such as German or French.
Once a user finds a podcasting site of interest, there will typically be an orange subscription button
marked XML or RSS (short for "Rich Site Summary" or "Really Simple Syndication," depending on the
version used). Clicking on that button "subscribes" to that podcast (or other news feed) on that site. That
assumes one is using a Web browser with built-in support for RSS (such as Firefox of Safari) or has
installed a so-called "news aggregator" or news feed reader such as NetNewsWire or SharpReader.
Whichever RSS reader one uses, it can be set up to monitor a remote site and check periodically for new
files and then download the files at a scheduled time, perhaps during the night when the network is not
being used. Another version of XML that one might encounter is OPML (Outline Processor Markup
Language), most often used to exchange RSS feeds between aggregators.
In order to create your own podcast, several steps are required. The first is to have something of interest
to say or to share (a requirement not universally fulfilled), then to record your voice, usually using an
audio editor (such as the free Audacity) on your computer, saving the file in MP3 format. Next you will
need to create a snippet of XML code, pointing to the MP3 file. Mostly commonly, that XML file will be
in RSS 2.0 format, although there are other standards as well, notably Atom. Sample code in RSS 2.0 for
a single podcasting item would look something like the following:
10
Robert Godwin-Jones
<?xml version="1.0" ?> <rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>This
is an RSS feed</title>
<link>http://www.myWebSite.com</link>
<description>This is a demo of creating an RSS feed for a
podcast...</description>
<item>
<title>My Podcast</title>
<link>http://www.myWebSite.com/my_podcast.html</link>
<description>This is a podcast about something</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:30:47 GMT</pubDate>
<enclosure
url="http://mwww.myWebSite.com/my_podcast.mp3" length="20000"
type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
</channel> </rss>
In the early RSS days, such files would be written by hand, but that is rarely the case today. Podcasting
often goes hand in hand with blogging and the same software used to maintain a blog (such as Blogger)
can generally be used to create automatically the XML/RSS. You fill in the title, description, and so forth,
and the XML is generated automatically. Finally you publish the link to that file on your Web site or blog
(also an automated process in most blogging software) and wait for the world to beat a path to you.
Most podcasts are voice recordings, but some include music as well. Obviously, the inclusion of
copyrighted material such as commercial music recordings can be problematic. In contrast to purchased
music from on-line services such as iTunes or Rhapsody, podcasts do not as yet incorporate any kind of
digital rights management (DRM). The quality of the podcasts depends on the recording settings used.
Most podcasts are under 30 minutes and MP3 compression creates relatively small sized files. However,
some podcasts are made available in several different formats, to allow for faster downloads for dial-up
users. Another option open to bloggers interested in podcasting is to use a text-to-speech program such as
Talkr or Feedpod to create a synthesized voice version of text blogs. Services are also available to allow
bloggers to "phone it in," to record their voices through a phone service, which records the call, converts
it to MP3, and adds it a blog.
Podcasting has just begun to be used in language learning. The popularity of MP3 players among students
means that students could easily download podcasts in the target language (e.g., from a newspaper site,
blog, radio program) for listening on the go. Several schools have made podcasts available for language
students. The PIECasts from Scotland are intended for a variety of uses including vocabulary revision,
listening exercises, and interviewing with native speakers. J. van Rose's "Really Learn Spanish" blog
includes podcasts. The Bob and Rob Show offers "weekly English lessons from a Yankee and a Brit."
Middlebury College has announced support for podcasts in the upcoming version of its StudyDB
software, called Crescendo. The University of Missouri's white paper on podcasting highlights language
learning as well as many other potential education uses for podcasting. In a recent discussion on Slashdot,
prompted by a question about best ways to learn another language, using podcasts was one of the very
first suggestions made. As support for podcasts grows and new tools streamline production, their use in
language learning will surely increase. One option might be to use the Notes Reader built into iPods to
send short texts along with audio. As mobile music players support other media (as is now the case with
photos in all new iPods), including images or even video may be possible. Apple's version 4.9 of iTunes
has support for podcasting, which should serve to increase even more its popularity, and to make it easier
to find, use, and create podcasts.
RESOURCE LIST
Skype
•
•
•
•
•
Skype free Internet telephone software
Skype Tips from Michael Gough
Skype and class-to-class voice exchange Eric Hagley describes his use of Skype in ESL
Skype and Moodle about integrating the two tools
Linking Language Students with Skype (in moodle) from Eric Hagley
11
Robert Godwin-Jones
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
HotRecorder allows recording of Skype calls
SkypeCasting podcasting of Skype recordings
Skypecasting, the new trend in peer-to-peer file sharing
Your Network of Skype Users: Language Learning site to connect language learners using Skype
The Mixxer language partners through Skype
Find a Language Exchange Partner from mylanguageexchange.com (using Skype or similar tools)
Russian lessons via Skype from training-classes.com
Learn Languages by Phone site and tools for professionals
Audioblogs and Podcasting
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Text America portal for moblogging
GoBlogGo site for posting images
Audioblogger audio blogging service for Blogger software
Audioblog.com podcast and videoblog publishing service
Audioblogging in Chinese as a Second Language by Alaric Radosh
Podcasts in French from podcast.net
pieCast podcasts from the Partners in Excellence Project (Scotland)
mgsOnline: Weblog, AudioBlog and Podcasting Development from the creator of the pieCast
project
Hopes for legal music podcasts rise from news.com
mgsPodcast podcasts for language learning from Musselburgh Grammar School (UK)
Report: podcast popularity to skyrocket from iPodNN
Language learning podcasts from the National Centre for Languages (UK)
ELF Practices from A. P. Campbell, includes ideas on using audioblogs
Setting up a High-Tech Language School discussion on Slashdot
The everyday creation of media by everyday people from edugadget
The concept of making media as a basic life skill from Eric Rice
Really Learn Spanish podcasts from Johan van Rooyen
The Promis of Podcasting (PDF) by Susan Manning
The Bob and Rob Show podcasts for English learners
RSS Readers software for "synidcated" podcasts
Third of US iPod owners now podcasting report on a survey from the Pew Internet and American
Life Project
Mozilla says Thunderbird podcasting is on its way from silicon.com
Podcasting with Your iPod Photo how to sync images in podcasting
Podsites using iPod's Note Reader with podcasting
TextPODcasting with iPod Notes how to guide
Turn Your iPod into an Ebook Reader ideas for using note reader on iPods for education
Autocasting from wikipedia, on using text-to-speech for podcasting
Talkr converts text-only blogs for podcasting
Feedpod text-to-speech newsfeed reader
Audacity free, cross-platform sound editor
12
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/news/
pp. 13-16
NEWS FROM SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS
Sponsors
University of Hawaiì National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC)
Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR)
Co-Sponsor
Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)
University of Hawai'i National Foreign Language Resource
Center (NFLRC)
The University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center engages in research and materials
development projects and conducts Summer Institutes for language professionals among its many
activities.
CALICO 2006 IN HAWAI‘I!
The University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) is proud to be hosting
the 2006 Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO) Annual Symposium on May
16-20 in Honolulu. CALICO 2006 will feature uses of cutting edge technologies in foreign language
teaching and learning with a focus on collaboration. Workshops, presentations, and courseware showcase
demonstrations will all present information of vital importance to anyone interested in the field of
computer-assisted language learning. This year’s theme, appropriately, will be "Online Learning: Come
Ride The Wave." For more information about CALICO and its annual Symposium, visit
http://www.calico.org/
NEW NFLRC PUBLICATIONS
Las voces de las mujeres de Xelajú by Tess Lane
Women’s voices are infrequently heard in the male-dominated, Spanish-speaking world. Yet, the women
interviewed in this DVD have much to share regarding their values and choices.
Students of intermediate to advanced Spanish improve listening comprehension while they learn about
Guatemalan culture by watching twenty Guatemalan women each answer the same seven questions. The
repetition reinforces vocabulary and grammatical structures in a meaningful context. As students compare
the women's answers and formulate their own responses, they develop critical thinking and writing skills.
Students can work independently, in groups, or as a class. View a sample clip at the Voces Website
(http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/voces).
Song and music in language learning by Tim Murphey
Tim Murphey returned to Hawai‘i in September to videotape the sixth in his series of popular teaching
technique presentations. With this taping, NFLRC is instituting a new format for Tim Murphey
presentations. This latest presentation will soon be available through our Website as part of a fourpresentation collection on DVD.
ONLINE JOURNALS SOLICIT SUBMISSIONS
Reading in a Foreign Language is a refereed online journal, jointly sponsored by the University of
Hawai‘i NFLRC and the Department of Second Language Studies. RFL serves as an excellent source for
the latest developments in the field, both theoretical and pedagogic, including improving standards for
foreign language reading. For more information on submission guidelines, visit the RFL Web site.
Copyright © 2005, ISBN 1094-3501
13
News From Our Sponsors
Language Learning & Technology is a refereed online journal, jointly sponsored by the University of
Hawai‘i NFLRC and the Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research
(CLEAR). LLT focuses on issues related to technology and language education. For more information on
submission guidelines, visit the LLT Web site.
Michigan State University Center for Language Education
and Research (CLEAR)
CLEAR's mission is to promote the teaching and learning of foreign languages in the United States.
Projects focus on materials development, professional development training, & foreign language research.
CONFERENCES
CLEAR exhibits at local and national conferences year-round. We hope to see you at ACTFL, CALICO,
MFLA, Central States, and other conferences.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Onsite Workshops
CLEAR offers foreign language teachers at K-13+ institutions around the country the opportunity to host
a CLEAR workshop. These 1-3 day workshops are led by CLEAR's professional development staff
members. For more information, visit http://clear.msu.edu/training/onsite/about.html.
Summer Workshops
Each summer, CLEAR hosts professional development workshops for foreign language teachers. For
more information on future summer workshops, go to http://clear.msu.edu/training/index.html. We hope
to see you in East Lansing in 2006!
MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT
Coming Soon!
•
•
Introductory Business German (CD-ROM)
French Pronunciation and Phonetics (CD-ROM)
Products
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NEW! Language Learning Materials for Russian: A Content-Based Course Pack (learning
modules)
NEW! MIMEA: Multimedia Interactive Modules for Education and Assessment (German,
Chinese, Arabic, Vietnamese; online video clips and activities)
NEW! The Internet Sourcebook for Business Korean (Web links)
NEW! SMILE (tool for creating interactive online exercises)
The Internet Sourcebook for Business Japanese (Web links)
The Internet Sourcebook for Business French (Web links)
The Internet Sourcebook for Business German (Web links)
The Internet Sourcebook for Business Spanish (Web links)
Business Language Packets for High School Classrooms (French, German, & Spanish; PDF files)
Modules for Assessing Socio-Cultural Competence: German (CD-ROM)
Modules for Assessing Socio-Cultural Competence: Russian (CD-ROM)
Business Chinese (CD-ROM)
Pronunciación y Fonética (CD-ROM)
African Language Small Group Instruction Guide (guide and video)
Thai Small Group Instruction Guide (guide)
Hindi Small Group Instruction Guide (guide)
14
•
•
•
Foreign Languages: Doors to Opportunity (video and discussion guide)
Task-based Communicative Grammar Activities for Japanese and Thai (workbook)
Test Development (workbook and video)
Newsletter
CLEAR News is a biyearly publication covering FL teaching techniques, research, and materials. Contact
the CLEAR office to join the mailing list, or check it out on the Web at http://clear.msu.edu/newsletter/.
We welcome your submissions!
The Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)
The Center for Applied Linguistics is a private, nonprofit organization that promotes and improves the
teaching and learning of languages, identifies and solves problems related to language and culture, and
serves as a resource for information about language and culture. CAL carries out a wide range of
activities in the fields of English as a second language, foreign languages, cultural education, and
linguistics. These activities include research, teacher education, information dissemination, instructional
design, conference planning, technical assistance, program evaluation, and policy analysis. Publications
include books on language education, online databases of language programs and assessments, curricula,
research reports, teacher training materials, and print and online newsletters.
Major CAL projects include the following:
•
•
•
The Center for Adult English Language Acquisition
The Cultural Orientation Resource Center
Pre-K-12 School Services
CAL collaborates with other language education organizations on the following projects:
•
•
•
•
Improving Foreign Languages in the Schools Project of the Northeast and Island Regional
Laboratory at Brown University
The National Capital Language Resource Center
National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center
National Network for Early Language Learning
News from CAL
The Center for Adult English Language Acquisition (CAELA) was established in October 2004 with
funding from the Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE), U.S. Department of Education. The
primary mission of CAELA is to assist states that have emerging ESL populations. CAELA staff will help
states build their capacity to promote the English language learning and academic acievement of adults
learning English. Resources available on its Web site include the Practitioner Toolkit: Working with
Adult English Language Learners developed with the National Center for Family Literacy. It provides
needed support and resources to adult education and family literacy instructors who are new to serving
adults and families learning English. Also available are a new series of briefs, beginning with one on
reading, and a newsletter, CAELA Currents, which includes information on how to subscribe.
The Cultural Orientation Resource (COR) Center continues to provide materials that inform refugee
service providers about refugee cultures and help newcomers understand fundamental aspects of life in
the U.S. Culture Profiles provide short introductions to the cultural background of refugee populations.
The latest Culture Profiles include Liberians, The Hmong, and Muslim Refugees. Also, a new edition of
Welcome to the United States: A Guidebook for Refugees is now available as well as the Welcome to the
United States: Refugee Guide to Resettlement Orientation Video, which reinforces key points from the
guidebook.
15
CAL is pleased to support 2005: The Year of Languages in the United States. We will provide updates on
our Web site with helpful information and news about activities throughout the year. Please visit
www.cal.org/yol for more information.
New Publications From CAL
•
•
•
•
Literacy and Language Diversity in the United States, 2nd Edition
Creating Access: Language and Academic Programs for Secondary School Newcomers
Language by Video: An Overview of Foreign Language Instructional Videos for Children
What’s Different About Teaching Reading to Students Learning English?
16
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/review1/
pp. 17-21
REVIEW OF SEER 2.0: SPANISH ENGLISH EDUCATION RESOURCES
Title
SEER 2.0
Platforms
PC or compatible; Windows 98SE, NT 4, 2000, or XP
System requirements
Microsoft Windows 98SE, NT 4, 2000, or XP, and Tablet XP; A
minimum of 128 MB RAM and 60 MB of free hard disk space is
required; speakers are needed for audio; CD drive and Internet access
recommended
Publisher
Word Magic Software Inc.
12220 Beechnut PMB 2026
Houston, Texas 77072-4832
USA
http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/education.shtml
Support offered
Tel: (281) 564-3022 or 1 (866) 566-3022
E-mail:[email protected]
Target language
Spanish-English
Target audience
Beginner-intermediate level
Price
Complete SEER product: US$ 279.00, individually. Can be purchased
online at http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/buynow.shtml#seer
Review by Corinne Bossé, Athabasca University
OVERVIEW
SEER (Spanish English Education Resources) version 2.0 is a software that offers bilingual language
learning resources for English-Spanish translation. The product can be downloaded from the Word Magic
company site (http://wordmagicsoft.com/education) and it is also available on a CD-Rom format.
According to the user's manual, SEER is an integrated reference resource for use in English and Spanish
language learning and education environments, and for assisting with immediate bilingual communication
needs. The intended audience consists of individual users from various educational settings (formal or
informal), business professionals, and self-directed learners.
The Spanish-English language learning software is organized around five key linguistic components:
SEER Dictionary, Synonyms, Verbs, Expressions, and the SEER Translator. It also includes Instant
Access modules which provide shortcuts that allow users to quickly access the dictionary, translations,
synonyms, and conjugations from a word processor, Web browser, or e-mail system by clicking on a
given word.
DESCRIPTION
The main menu of SEER allows access to the purchased modules of the product.
17
Reviewed by Corinne Bosse
Review of SEER 2.0
The "map" button allows the user to select either English or Spanish as the preferred language interface
for all displayed texts. By clicking on this button the user can switch language at anytime from the main
menu or within a selected module. Once a word is entered in the Current Word field, the user can gain
various types of grammatical information by selecting one of the five linguistic modules.
Dictionary and Synonyms
In these modules, users have access to numerous bilingual learning resources offered by SEER's digital
dictionary. They can specify their defaults for the dictionary by opting for a Normal or Tree view, for
Translations or Synonyms display, and for using English or Spanish Meanings. The Synonyms option
includes displaying root expressions and related expressions for the selected word. These options can be
changed within module during a given session. Colour coding is used to identify parts of speech. This
graphical element can help language learners notice grammatical characteristics and functions of the word
that they selected during a session. There are also sound icons
that enable users to listen to the Spanish
or English pronunciation of their selected terms. These multimedia features are recurrent throughout other
SEER's modules.
18
Review of SEER 2.0
Verbs
SEER's Verbs section contains numerous English and Spanish verb conjugations that allow the user to
display the language equivalent of the verb conjugation. Users can also enter any word in its conjugated
verb form in English or Spanish and get the root verb, tense and person. The Negative, Interrogative,
and Formal options enable users to be exposed and to notice various reiterations of their selected verb
format. They can also specify the default conjugation to be displayed.
Expressions
SEER's Expressions module contains multiple search features that allow the user to quickly find many
different uses and connotations of the given word or phrase. Users can enter a word and specify whether
they want expressions that start with the word, end with it or contain it. They can also specify the part of
speech they desire for the given word and other options such as use of Plural, Synonyms, and the
maximum number of words the displayed phrases should contain..
19
Review of SEER 2.0
Translator
Users can specify translation default settings, such as, formal/informal address (tú or usted),
masculine/feminine gender, and singular/plural author number. They can also select advanced translation
options such as activating Literal Proper Nouns for the automated translation of a textual passage. The
configuration of the translation settings reflects a bias toward Latin American context without necessarily
taking into consideration the use of Spanish in the Iberic peninsular context.
EVALUATION
The overall consistency of SEER's interface design facilitates the navigation of the linguistic software.
The simplicity of the graphical aspects of the interface design as well as the similar pull down menu bar
functions of each module makes it easier for users to concentrate on the five main linguistic components
of the software. One technical weakness is the quality of the given vocabulary pronunciation, which can
be choppy or robotic at times. Another area that needs to be improved in future versions of SEER will be
the inclusion of better gender representation across its pronunciation sections.
A review of CALL (computer-assisted language learning) literature of the past decade suggests that use of
visual media support vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension (Liu, Moore, Graham, & Lee,
2003). From that evaluation standpoint, SEER's multimodal presentations across its five main linguistic
components allow users to access and acquire vocabulary in a flexible manner. The multimedia features
of SEER can also reinforce the acquisition of lexical item by supporting users' mental representation of all
its grammatical nature which include its orthophonic, phonemic, morphological, syntactic, and semantic
and stylistic/use characteristics (Van de Poel & Swanepoel, 2003). Therefore, the added redundancy in
the interface design of SEER might allow language learners to receive help in comprehending semantic
and syntactic aspects of linguistic input (Chapelle, 1998).
One of SEER's strongest features consists in providing users with both definitional and contextual
information about words. This is considered to be one of the main principles that appear to underlie
effective vocabulary teaching (Coady, 1997; Grace, 1998; Van de Poel & Swanepoel, 2003). The multiple
exposures to words included across SEER's five linguistic sections is another step toward strengthening
language vocabulary acquisition by enabling learners to process information about words at a deeper level
(Coady, 1997;Van de Poel & Swanepoel, 2003).
From a cognitivist perspective, the design of SEER user interface supports a limited range of cognitive
processes involved in the development of linguistic and pragmatic skills and competencies in SLA
(Chapelle, 1998; Plass, 1998). It mostly facilitates the process of decoding the linguistic surface structure
of the vocabulary item (Plass) by providing textual and auditory bilingual language learning resources.
However, recent CALL literature in effective lexical support highlights that word comprehension does not
predict correct use of a word (Van de Poel & Swanepoel, 2003). Therefore a potential weakness of using
SEER is that it might encourage passive/receptive knowledge of vocabulary which does not tend to
translate in long-term retention.
A potential cognitive benefit is the fact that SEER bi-directional translation resources can assist learners
with verification of meaning when learning L2 vocabulary in the use of L1 translations which might
facilitate greater retention of the correct word meanings (Grace, 1998). Moreover, SEER provides
automatic lexical access to an extensive Spanish-English digital thesaurus and database of idiomatic
expressions that help users derive cultural meaning of some terms. It would be useful to include idiomatic
expressions that reflect to a greater extent the rich socio-cultural linguistic diversity of the Hispanic
community.
Sentence level translation is provided and works relatively well for basic understanding of the target
language. There is an attempt in SEER to go beyond literal translation by enabling users to select some
20
Review of SEER 2.0
advanced translation options, but it can be a laborious process for beginners. In addition, the automated
translation of a textual passage that contains various idiomatic expressions and/or complex syntactical
constructions can produce awkward results at a semantic level. In that regard, the quality of translation of
SEER 2.0 corresponds to inherent limitations of current electronic translation software with respect to
advanced and complex semantic characteristics.
SUMMARY
SEER's bi-directional multimedia software provides definitional and contextual information about
Spanish-English lexical items that can be used stand-alone or as part of vocabulary instruction to
complement L2 instruction. It can be particularly helpful to assist beginner and intermediate language
learners in reinforcing vocabulary on their own time by accommodating their individual needs despite
some limitations. Through its modular approach to translation, SEER's user-friendly design provides a
"just-in-time" linguistic reference tool that makes it valuable in various educational and professional
settings.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Corinne Bossé has an MA in Educational Technology from Concordia University (Montreal, Canada).
She is an Instructional Web Designer within the Department of Educational Media Development at
Athabasca University-Canada's Open University. Her current projects involve the use of ICT in distance
education language teaching.
E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Chapelle, C. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA.
Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22-34. Retrieved October 28, 2004, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article1/
Coady, J. (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language
vocabulary acquisition (pp. x-x). New York: Cambridge University Press. ***
Grace, C. A. (1998). Retention of word meanings inferred from context and sentence-level translations:
Implications for the design of beginning-level CALL software. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 533544.
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee, S. (2003). A look at the research on computer-based technology
use in second language learning: A review of the literature from 1990-2000. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 34(3), 250-273.
Plass, J. (1998). Design and evaluation of the user Interface of foreign language multimedia software: A
cognitive approach language. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1) 34-45. Retrieved October 7, 2004,
from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article2/
Van de Poel, K., & Swanepoel, P. (2003). Theoretical and methodological pluralism in designing
effective lexical support for CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(2/3), 173-211.
21
pp. 22-27
COMPARATIVE REVIEW:
TEXTSTAT 2.5, ANTCONC 3.0, and COMPLEAT LEXICAL TUTOR 4.0
Title
TextSTAT 2.5
AntConc 3.0
Compleat Lexical Tutor 4.0
Platform
PC and Macintosh
PC
PC
Access
Downloadable
Downloadable
Used from the Web site
Minimum
hardware
requirements
Windows
(95/98/NT/2000/XP),
Linux, and Mac OS-X
Windows (version 3.0) and
Linux (version 2.2)
Windows or Linux
Publisher
Mattias Huning
Lawrence Anthony
Tom Cobb
http://www.niederlandistik. http://www.antlab.sci.wased http://www.lextutor.ca/
fu-berlin.de/textstat/
a.ac.jp/antconc_index.html
software-en.html
Support
offered
No online manual or help;
brief explanations and a
few screenshots are
provided in the software's
Web site
Very brief manual is
provided in the software's
Web site
Directions are provided in
each screen; contact:
http://www.lextutor.ca/
mailer/
Target
language
English and Dutch
(interface)
English
English and French
Target
audience
Beginning to advanced
users
Beginning to advanced users Beginning to advanced
users
Price
Free
Free
Free
Review by Luciana Diniz, Georgia State University
INTRODUCTION
With the advance of corpus linguistics research in the past few decades, there has been a proliferation of
corpus software. Due to the high cost of most software products, however, having access to minimally
sophisticated types of software is sometimes not possible. For this reason, this review will focus on three
corpus linguistics programs that are available at no charge over the Internet: TextSTAT 2.5, AntConc 3.0,
and Compleat Lexical Tutor 4.0. It should be noted that Compleat Lexical Tutor is not a single program,
but a varied collection of tools for students, teachers, and researchers. Only the researcher's section of this
application will be reviewed in this article.
COMPARATIVE REVIEW
Apart from being free of charge, the most important feature these three programs share is that they allow
users to upload their own corpus. They also contain basic tools to analyze texts. This review will highlight
each program's strengths and weaknesses and how they can be useful for both researchers and language
teachers.
All three programs have a user-friendly interface. AntConc and Compleat Lexical Tutor provide
explanations on the screen for each feature that the user clicks on. Even though TextSTAT does not offer
this same type of support, all the options in this program are also straightforward and transparent. Both
22
Comparative Review: TextSTAT, AntConc, and Compleat Lexical Tutor
TextSTAT and AntConc have to be downloaded and installed in a computer, while Compleat Lexical Tutor
is used directly from a browser with connection to the Internet. Although all three programs allow users to
upload their own corpus, Compleat Lexical Tutor only permits the users to upload one file at a time. In
the other two programs, on the other hand, users can upload numerous files. Compleat Lexical Tutor,
however, contains several sample corpora that are available within the program, such as the Brown
Corpus, the BNC (British National Corpus), and American TV talk, among others, in case users want to
verify or compare information by using a general corpus.
Another aspect that differentiates the three programs is their compatibility with multiple extension files.
Compleat Lexical Tutor, for example, is compatible only with text (.txt) files, while TextSTAT also reads
Word files (.doc). Both AntConc and TextSTAT are compatible with Internet files (.html), but AntConc
only accepts HTML files saved on disk. A useful and innovative feature of TextSTAT is that it contains a
Web spider that captures the text directly from the Internet. The users can type the Web address and
choose the number of pages they want the Web spider to include in the corpus.
Figure 1. TextSTAT screen capturing 10 pages from the CNN Web site and including them in the corpus
At the same time that this element can be helpful, users have to be cautious because the Web spider is not
selective on the information it collects from the Web pages, as it retains not only the relevant text, but
also advertisements, tables, and any other types of texts. For this reason, it is safer to copy the content and
paste it into a text file (or even a Word file if users are working with TextSTAT) and then upload this file
to the software.
All three programs provide concordance lines (i.e., list of sentences containing a certain word in its
contexts) based on the uploaded texts. For instance, both TextSTAT and AntConc allow users to sort the
concordance lines in several forms (e.g., alphabetically by the node word and by the left side and right
side of the node word). TextSTAT also contains a feature named "query editor," which permits the
localization of collocates (i.e., two words that have a high likelihood of occurring together in the same
sentence). TextSTAT and AntConc provide access to the expanded context from the concordance lines. In
23
TextSTAT, by double clicking on the node word, the users can visualize the expanded context in the
Citation Mode, while AntCont shows the context on the View File mode.
Figure 2. TextSTAT screen showing the expanded context of a selected node word
TextSTAT and AntConc provide word lists, sorting by frequency, alphabetically, and retrograde. This last
feature sorts the word list alphabetically, but backwards. This can be helpful for teachers and students
when they are learning poetry, for example, because it provides easy access to rhyming words in a text.
Both TextSTAT and AntConc also run frequency lists either by pre-establishing the minimum and the
maximum number of appearances in the corpus or by searching for a specific word.
In both TextSTAT and AntConc, the users can save the output into separate files. In TextSTAT, word lists
can be saved in CSV (comma-separated values format) or Excel files and concordances on text or word
files. AntConc saves all the output in text files only. However, this program contains a helpful feature of
allowing individual results to be displayed on separate windows, so that several sources of information
can be compared on the screen. In Compleat Lexical Tutor, the user has to copy and paste the output into
a different file, which sometimes can break the alignment of the results.
24
Figure 3. Three mini-screens containing concordance lines are displayed in AntConc; the user has access
to several types of information on the computer screen
AntConc and Compleat Lexical Tutors allow users to look for word clusters. Compleat Lexical Tutor, for
example, contains a session called n-gram, in which users can upload only one small text at a time and
search for word chunks. This program also has one feature that allows users to merge a maximum of 10
files into one. However, the user still has to manually copy and paste the output into a text file before
using it. AntConc apparently holds a great amount of texts. This program permits the search for different
sizes and types of clusters.
Even though Compleat Lexical Tutor does not offer the same conventional types of text searches as the
other two programs, it contains unique features which can be useful for both researchers and teachers. For
example, in the Vocabulary Profile feature, users can upload their texts (one at a time) and compare their
texts to the most-frequent-words-in-English word list and to the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000).
This element compares all the words from the uploaded text to those lists and generates an output
containing all the words from the uploaded text that are included in the lists. This component can be
helpful for teachers to analyze their students' texts and check the variety of words that students are using
in their own texts. Moreover, this feature can help teachers and researchers to analyze the complexity of
different texts, by looking at how many frequent and academic words the texts contain.
25
Figure 4. The Compleat Lexical Tutor Vocabulary Profile divides the uploaded text into word lists; blue
list words are included in the 1000 most frequent words in English, yellow ones are included in the
Academic Word List
Along the same lines, AntConc has a KeyWord feature that allows users to choose the list of words to
which they want to compare their texts. However, AntConc does not have embedded word lists as does
the Compleat Lexical Tutor. Another resource provided by AntConc is the possibility of changing the font
color, font size, background color, and so forth. This feature can be valuable when teachers are preparing
concordance lines to hand out to students. Apart from that, AntConc can display the distribution of preselected words or word clusters along the text. This feature can provide researchers with insights about
the structure of the text.
CONCLUSION
One drawback of all three programs is that they do not provide any type of statistical analysis. Compleat
Lexical Tutor provides some statistical information, but only about pre-established corpora, not the
corpora uploaded by the user. Another drawback is that, apparently, none of the programs works with
tagged texts.
As this review has shown, all three programs provide basic text analysis features and can work with
uploaded corpora. All three programs are user-friendly and straightforward, but they have limitations,
especially for research purposes. The best program to use depends on the researcher's and teacher's needs.
Because TextSTAT, Compleat Lexical Tutor, and AntConc are free of charge, they are accessible to
researchers and teachers and can even be used simultaneously, depending on the project's purpose.
26
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Luciana Diniz is a PhD student at Georgia State University. She has worked as an EFL/ESL teacher for 6
years.
REFERENCE
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238.
27
pp. 28-34
REVIEW OF RUSSIAN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONAL SITES
ON THE WEB (BASED ON SHER'S RUSSIAN INDEX)
Sites reviewed
Russian language instructional sites on the Web (based on Sher's
Russian index)
Platform
all
Minimum hardware
requirements
IE 6.0, Safari, Mozilla Foxfire 1.0 with Cyrillic encodings: Unicode,
Windows Cyrillic (1251), KOI8r
Support offered
none
Target language
Russian
Target audience
Beginning, intermediate
Price
Free
Reviewed by Richard Robin, George Washington University
You are your institution's Web guru on less commonly taught languages. The part-time teacher of
Russian, relatively unschooled in second language acquisition (SLA), whose Web skills end at ordering a
book from Amazon, asks you for recommendations on sites for students of the language. You can Google
your way to a cumbersome list or check a comprehensive megalist of Russian sites, such as Sher's
Russian Index. But will you find anything worthwhile? The answer is a cautious and very limited yes, as
this review shows. But first, let's establish some ground rules.
1) All the sites mentioned come from Sher's Index, probably the most comprehensive of the Russian
megasites. They are all free.
2) Sites tightly based on individual textbooks or school syllabi are not scrutinized. This frees the
reviewer of a number of conflicts of interest. It also takes in all potential users, regardless of
whether they are enrolled in intensive instruction or engaged in casual independent study.
3) Sites are examined in terms of methodological direction, learner strategies, interactivity and
feedback, ease of use, and, where applicable, audibility. On all of the sites reviewed, successful
feedback is programmed mostly through Javascripts. The more sophisticated RusNet site uses
php. The most primitive type of feedback substitutes the right answer for a wrong one, or invites
the user to try again. None of the sites add a significant second layer designed to trap nonsense
responses, warn of repetitive errors, or provide information on what part of the answer might
have been right. Such an additional layer requires a few additional lines of script for each
validation.
4) This review excludes "raw" or "authentic" sites (i.e., those not specifically created for Russian
language instruction). This leaves out the plethora of sites with multimedia content that constitute
the most precious resources for learners approaching the ACTFL (American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages) Advanced threshold in the receptive skills, especially in
listening comprehension. .
5) Finally, I have left out my own independent contributions through the National Capital Language
Resource Center (NCLRC).
28
Reviewof Russian Language Instructional Sites on the Web
EARLY GRAMMAR-BASED SITES
With the rules set out, let's answer the question at the top of the screen: "What will a reliable connection
bring you?" The quick answer is that learners will not master Russian from scratch or even make
significant progress from looking at available computer screens. Why should this be, given the Web's
enormous potential for the delivery of language materials? To begin with, few sites pass Ushi Felix's
(2003) "best practice" test, namely, they are mostly not "the most appropriate tools to their best potential
to achieve sound pedagogical processes and outcomes" (p. 8-9). This means that most sites set good
goals, but exhibit wrong practices. Even fewer sites map instructional delivery practices to legitimate
goals.
Still, learners will, even at the ACTFL Intermediate level, find occasional instructional materials of some
value, especially in the receptive skills (after they make their way past the links leading through the great
Cyberian graveyard dotted with the tombstones of projects from the halcyon days of the 1990s when
technologists experimented with their brand new toys). The fact that things worked at all (you clicked on
a link and saw something in Cyrillic!) produced such a sense of giddiness that methodological
considerations received short shrift. However, the field owes a debt to some of the older pages of the
earliest Russian language Web warriors (e.g., Mitrevski's Russian Web Tutor, and Beard's Russian Online Interactive Reference Grammar. Their simple Javascripts provided templates for others. In addition
to writing on-line tutorials, they provided copious notes on the writing of Javascripts for Russianlanguage instruction, which laid the basis for more sophisticated pages that were developed later on.
However, as instructional materials, the early tutorial pages are limited to grammar-based expositions
with minimal interactivity. In many cases, the grammar instruction is more linguistic description than
pedagogy. In short, such sites feature end-of-the-millennium technology wedded to 1970s pedagogy. For
example, Beard's coverage of verbs is based on a dumbed-down generative analysis, which has at long
last fallen out of favor. Sher, Beard, and Mitrevski each take a stab at explaining Russian verbal aspect.
All three try to present a linguistically accurate picture rather than rely on short-cut generalizations that
produce the least number of errors on the part of learners.
Most symptomatic of the linguistic approach to Web-based language pedagogy comes in the tried-andfailed theoretical coverage of transitive verbs of motion. It assumes that mastery of the non-prefixed verbs
of motion must precede coverage of the prefixed verbs. This leads to exercises with near-nonsense
sentences such as "Молодой человек несёт девушку на пляж" (The young man is carrying his
girlfriend to the beach), with the learner being asked whether this scene is repetitive or continual.
29
The Cornell Russian page is another "tombstone" site featuring broken links, non-functioning Cold
Fusion scripts, Lora's dialogs, nonsensical and poorly recorded snatches of Russian, and theoretically
bound explications of the grammar, unsuitable for beginning learners.
A great many other sites are non-interactive descriptions of the language (e.g., Pacheco's Grammar
review, a PowerPoint demo; an audio-supported Friends and Partners alphabet site, limited to the names
of the letters, to name a few).
Of some interest is Zumbach's puzzle site, which offers a series of gif images of Russian crossword
puzzles and other word games meant for beginners. A Google search turns up scores of authentic
crossword puzzles for the advanced learner.
Looking beyond the Cyberian graveyard, we find three sites that are active, fully interactive, and largely
pedagogically correct.
RUSSIAN LANGUAGE MENTOR
Bogdan Sagatov's Russian Language Mentor is, in the author's words, "a different kind of website … a
self-paced Language Maintenance and Development Curriculum intended for intermediate to advanced
Russian linguists" [reviewer's emphasis -- this usually is the U.S. government's word for foreign language
learners and/or users]. The site's strength is its proficiency-based exercises based on authentic written
texts and audio scripts. The audio recordings, all taken from late 1990s SCOLA materials, while not
crystal clear, are acoustically accurate for over-the-air reception with cheap analog receivers. The
exercises are modest: They consist of a vocabulary preview plus scanning-type comprehension questions.
30
The setup for reading is similar. Users look through the vocabulary, read the passage, and then answer
comprehension questions. A more logical progression would be to place the questions up front and
explain what to look/listen for. The material could also use some notes to the learner on other receptive
skills strategies, such as prediction and contextualization. That said, the materials presented, especially in
audio, are selected carefully, and dedicated users can legitimately hope that diligent practice (a point
emphasized on the site) will lead them from ACTFL Intermediate to Advanced.
The site features a concise grammar review plus exercises. The exercise feedback loop rejects attempts to
get at the answer without trying ("Write something") but does not distinguish between nonsense answers
and real attempts.
A separate page gives users a grammar mailbag that covers some of the more esoteric topics of Russian,
such as the use of quotation marks. Some of the coverage (e.g., verb aspect) is too much invested in
linguistic precision, but the lively prose, a relief from the overly cautious scholarly style on most other
sites, goes a long way in mitigating too much reliance on theory.
The site also includes some static print-out games and puzzles, and the Boris and Gleb Tea Room,
containing fun tidbits, and a section, in lively English, on cultural literacy.
RUSSNET
American Councils' RussNet provides a wealth of interactive material for Novice, Intermediate, and
Advanced levels, grouped in three categories: (1) a Cultural Map of Russia; (2) Modules for the High
School to College Articulation Project; and (3) Business Russian. Registration (anonymously) is required
so that users can keep track of their scores over a number of sessions.
The Cultural Map of Russia provides texts, minimal vocabulary support, and modest post-text exercises.
A separate page provides video clips, mostly from Soviet-era shorts. They make nice postcards, but the
accompanying soundtrack is unscaffolded and often cut off in mid-sentence.
The Business site has a more complete set of exercises on all three levels, in multiple choice, direct text
entry, matching, and ordering formats, and with a greater variety of feedback, including persistence of
31
partially correct errors up until the first mistake. So an incorrect answer ма ма for correct ма му appears
as "wrong" but persists as ма м_.
The Intermediate portion of the site contains six listening texts, all accompanied by cloze dictation.
Unfortunately, there is only one voice, and some of the recordings suffer from clipping and popping p's.
The greatest riches on the site are in the high school to college section, meant to serve as part of American
Council's Advanced Placement packet. Here learners will find a wide range of modules covering history
and literature. Each topic is based on both reading texts and video clips, mostly at the ACTFL Advanced
level. Both scripts and texts are well scaffolded with massive amounts of pre- and posttext activities. This
is the one site of those reviewed where receptive skills strategies are built into the surrounding materials.
The care with which this material has been assembled and deployed suggests massive amounts of grant
dollars well spent.
32
RussNet has a few glitches, mostly in the way of occasional dead links, including one to the site map.
However, the main lacking of the site is cosmetic. Users must download and use ER-Universal, one of the
ugliest Cyrillic fonts available. The non-standard encoding loosely follows Russian-English transliteration
and was obviously an attempt to get around Mac-related problems with Cyrillic, especially in earlier OSs.
But any computer bought within the last 3 years should easily handle any of the existent encodings, thus
ending the need for in-house fonts. In addition, students who have mastered the native Russian keyboard
will be frustrated at having to remember differences in keyboard layout. This might seem like a small
inconvenience, but in fact, for the Business part of the site, it represents a hole in the pedagogical
framework. Anyone with pretensions of operating in the business world in Russia must learn the native
Russian keyboard. RussNet business site should at the very least not hamper attempts at mastering it.
RUSSIAN LANGUAGE LEARNING ON THE WEB
Russian Language Learning on the Web is a joint project of Sussex University and the University of
London School of Economics. This unique site presents texts and audio on Russian classical authors, such
as Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, and Blok. The literary texts are scaffolded with comprehension questions.
Grammar exercises are provided for issues that come up in the texts themselves. Quite a bit of material
addresses the prevalent system of participles and verbal adverbs. The site authors add critical commentary
in English as background. Smaller texts are accompanied by fairly good audio (http-based Real media).
33
An unusual feature of the site is the supplementary video clips. There are two clips for each author: Level
1 (Intermediate) and Level 2 (Advanced). The clips feature young people talking about the works treated
on the site in interview format. The camera work is somewhat shaky, but the speech is clear and natural
and the compression rate low enough to provide a rather sharp, if demanding picture (320x240 at 15 fps
and, as per my calculation, about 840 kbps). Unfortunately, the video, by far the most dynamic feature of
the site, lacks the required scaffolding.
In short, users in the Intermediate range are likely to find some useful materials in the receptive skills.
Advanced readers and listeners should know enough about language learning to go directly into the raw
Russian Internet (Runet). And the great killer site has yet to be assembled.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Richard Robin is Associate Professor, Russian Program Director, and Language Technology Specialist at
the George Washington University. He holds a University of Michigan Ph.D. in Slavic linguistics. His
textbook projects include Golosa, a leading introductory program, and he coordinates many Russianlanguage Web projects. He serves as senior researcher at the National Capital Language Resource Center.
REFERENCES
34
Felix, U. (2003). Language learning online: Towards best practice. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and
Zeitlinger.
35
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/payne/
pp. 35-54
SYNCHRONOUS CMC, WORKING MEMORY,
AND L2 ORAL PROFICIENCY DEVELOPMENT
J. Scott Payne & Brenda M. Ross
The Pennsylvania State University
ABSTRACT
Recently a number of quasi-experimental studies have investigated the potential of a crossmodality transfer of second language competency between real-time, conversational exchange via
text and speech (Abrams, 2003; Beauvious, 1998; Kost, 2004; Payne & Whitney, 2002). Payne
and Whitney employed Levelt's (1989) model of language production and concepts from working
memory as a rationale for a hypothesized connection between synchronous computer-mediated
communication (SCMC) and second language (L2) speech and as a basis for predicting the
differential contributions of SCMC to the L2 oral proficiency development.
This study extends the psycholinguistic framework reported in Payne and Whitney (2002) with
discourse and corpus analytic techniques to explore how individual differences in working
memory capacity may affect the frequency of repetition and other patterns of language use in
chatroom discourse. Working memory capacity was measured by a reading span and nonword
repetition test. Oral proficiency was measured with a speaking task that solicited a 5-minute
speech sample and was scored based on a holistic scale. The data collected from 20 chat sessions
were analyzed for occurrences of repetition and relexicalization, as well as language output
measures. Findings suggest a connection between working memory and language output as
measured in this study.
INTRODUCTION
Expressing oneself effectively and appropriately during oral conversational exchange with native or
expert speakers of a target language represents for many learners and teachers the ultimate goal of
language instruction. As a result, second language acquisition researchers have grappled with
understanding, operationalizing, and testing oral proficiency (Hagen, 1990; Lantolf & Frawley, 1985;
1988; 1992; Kenyon & Malabonga, 2001; Liskin-Gasparro, 1984; Norris, 2001; Omaggio, 1983) while
language teachers, either in accordance with national initiatives (i.e., American Council of Teachers of
Foreign Languages [ACTFL] Proficiency Guidelines) or independently, have worked to develop
pedagogical approaches and instructional activities that promote L2 speaking ability. The tacit assumption
underlying these efforts has been that speaking is improved by practice speaking -- in a variety of
situational contexts and on a range of topics with diverse socio-pragmatic requirements. However,
emerging evidence from synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) research suggests that
real-time, conversational exchange via text may indirectly develop L2 speaking ability (Abrams, 2003;
Beauvois, 1997; Payne & Whitney, 2002) and more importantly, may provide an extra benefit to learners
with specific memory capacity limitations (Payne & Whitney). The present study builds upon this
previous work with the goal of better understanding the characteristics of SCMC discourse and how they
may facilitate a cross-modality transfer of language skill from SCMC to speech.
In the early 1990s, reports of the application of a new computer-mediated communication (CMC)
technology enabling individuals to exchange text messages over a computer network in real-time, known
as chatting, began to emerge in the second language research and teaching literature (Beauvois, 1992;
Chun, 1994; Cononelos & Oliva, 1993; Kelm, 1992; Nicholas & Toporski, 1993). While none of these
early accounts examined the transfer of skill from chatting to speaking directly, the strong resemblance
35
J. Scott Payne and Brenda M. Ross
Chatrooms as Conversation Simulators...
between the types of utterances generated in a chatroom and what would be said in a spoken conversation
(Chun, p. 29), prompted researchers to speculate about a possible transfer of language skill from the realtime production of text to conversational L2 speech (Beauvois, 1992; Chun, 1994; Kelm, 1992). It was
not until later, however, that the question of cross-modality transfer of language skill was addressed
experimentally.
Researchers have compared SCMC and face-to-face discussion on a number of dimensions, including the
investigation of the effectiveness of SCMC as a preparatory activity for face-to-face (F2F) discussion.
These studies have been cross-sectional in nature, frequently comparing the quantity and nature of
linguistic output during one chat session as compared with F2F discussion. Findings from these studies
suggest that (a) students often produce more language in a chatroom than F2F settings (Abrams, 2003;
Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996); (b) students tend to produce more complex language when chatting
(Bölke, 2003; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996) including more accurate usage of past-tense morphological
markers (Salaberry, 2000); (c) there is greater equity in participation among students in a chatroom
(Chun, 1994; Freiermuth, 1998, 2001; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996); and (d) students exhibit improved
attitudes towards foreign language learning as a result of chatting (Beauvois, 1992; Chun, 1994; Kern,
1995; Warschauer, 1996). Only a few studies to date have been more longitudinal in nature (one semester
in length) and examined oral proficiency development as the result of numerous chat sessions during a
semester. In the next section, we will review these investigations.
LONGITUDINAL STUDIES OF SCMC AND L2 ORAL PROFICIENCY
Beauvois' (1997) examined the difference in average oral exam scores of 83 participants randomly
assigned to four sections of third-semester French (two sections in the experimental condition and two
sections in the control condition). Based on French in Action (Capretz, Abetti, & Wylie, 1987) and a
selection of short stories from Les récrés du Petit Nicolas (Sempé & Goscinny, 1997) all groups received
3 hours of instruction per week consisting of (a) a weekly quiz followed by a presentation of the next
chapter's video teleplay (Day 1), (b) exploitation of the video material using the textbook's content and
personal questions (Day 2), and (c) the pedagogical part of the video and workbook exercises (Day 3).
The focus of the study was on student achievement in oral skills as result of the communicative activities
associated with Day 2 in the sequence. Of the three instructors involved in the study, the first instructor
taught one experimental and one control section, the second instructor taught one experimental section,
and the third instructor taught one control section. The participants took three oral exams, one each in
February, March, and May of 1995, and were evaluated by the instructors using a 20-point, holistic scale.
Chat sessions for the experimental condition were conducted with the Interchange, the Daedalus LAN
communication module. Results from a t test (t = 2.20, p = .03) suggested a greater improvement in oral
skills for participants in the chat condition. While results from this study were favorable, there were also
some limitations to the design. First, it is not possible to rule out a "teacher effect" or instrumentation
threat to internal validity since only one of the three instructors taught both an experimental and control
section. A second concern relates to the scoring procedure for the oral exams. Since the instructors
evaluated their own students as opposed to employing independent raters, it was not possible, as a part of
this design, to establish inter-rater reliability among raters.
An investigation by Abrams (2003) examined the effects of synchronous and asynchronous CMC and a
control condition (no CMC) on student oral performance during three class discussions in a large-group
discussion format. In this quasi-experimental design, performance was measured in terms of the number
of words and communication units (c-units), lexical richness, lexical density, and the syntactic complexity
of language generated during both synchronous and asynchronous CMC sessions and class discussions.
Findings from this study indicate that synchronous CMC is a more effective preparatory activity for
whole-class discussion than either asynchronous discussion or small-group and pair-work activities in a
F2F classroom based on gain scores in the number of c-units (F = 5.59, p = .005) and words (F = 10.02, p
36
= .000) produced. For lexical richness, lexical density, and syntactic complexity no significant differences
were found between the groups.
Kost (2004) conducted a quasi-experiment, where participants in the experimental condition engaged in
12 chat sessions during a 15-week semester. Oral and written proficiency were measured at the beginning
and end of the semester. The oral proficiency test consisted of a 5-10 minute interview that was audio
taped and scored with an analytic scale developed by the researcher. The oral posttest was counted as an
oral exam. A timed (10 minutes), in-class writing sample was collected at the beginning and end of the
semester as a measure of written proficiency with slightly different topics for the pre- and posttest. The
treatment was a two-stage activity: Participants conducted a Web research activity followed by a roleplay. In the control condition, the role-play was performed F2F in the classroom, whereas role-plays for
participants in the experimental condition were performed in a chatroom. No significant differences were
found between groups with respect to oral or written proficiency development.
It is important to note that in the context of such comparisons, finding no significant differences is not a
"non-result" from a pedagogical perspective. Achieving equivalent development in oral skills with
reduced F2F oral interaction should be considered a positive result. In light of the previously mentioned
assumed superiority of F2F interaction for the development of oral proficiency, any comparison to other
methods, at least conceptually, constitutes a directional hypothesis in favor of the face-to-face condition.
Following this rationale, the finding of "no significant differences" could be posited as a rejection of the
hypothesis that face-to-face is superior. Alternatively, such findings could be reformulated as "oral
proficiency development was the same for the experimental condition with reduced face-to-face oral
practice."
A study conducted by Payne and Whitney (2002) tested the hypothesis that the spontaneous production of
text in a chatroom would develop the same cognitive mechanisms underlying L2 speech. The participants
were 58 volunteers from four sections of fourth semester Spanish. In a pretest, posttest quasiexperimental design, participants in the experimental condition interacted in a chatroom two out of the 4
days of instruction per week over a 15-week semester for a total of 20 chat sessions. Participants in the
control condition received the customary 4 days per week of F2F classroom instruction. Oral proficiency
was measured using a 50-point holistic scale administered by independent raters with the pretest
occurring during the third and fourth weeks of the semester (inter-rater reliability was .86) and the
posttest during the final week (inter-rater reliability was .94). The curriculum was the same for all groups
with participants engaging in the same activities on the same days across conditions. The only difference
was that the activities for participants in the experimental condition took place in a chatroom 2 days per
week. In order to statistically control for a possible "teacher effect," two instructors were involved in the
study, each teaching one control and one experimental section. Findings from an ANCOVA with pretest
as a covariate showed greater gains in oral proficiency for participants in the experimental condition (F =
3.96, p = .05).
Two important differences that exist between Payne & Whitney (2002) and other comparative studies of
F2F and chatroom conversation are: (a) the use of Levelt's (1989) model of language production as a basis
for making principled predictions about the cross-modality transfer of language skill between chatting and
speaking and (b) the inclusion of concepts from working memory theory to account for individual
differences in oral proficiency development. Since the psycholinguistics of language production are not
the subject of the study reported in this paper, an extensive discussion of Levelt's and other models of
language production is not warranted; however, a brief review of its potential for explaining the chat-tospeech connection may provide some useful background.
With Levelt's (1989) model of language production, utterances begin as pre-verbal thought in the
conceptualizer. Once the communicative intention is generated, it emerges as a preverbal message and
enters the formulator where lexical access and grammatical and phonological encoding occurs. After the
37
formulator is finished with the utterance-to-be, there are two options: either the message enters the
articulator triggering speech-motor functions to produce the utterance, or it is monitored internally for
accuracy and appropriateness by cycling back through the speech comprehension system as sub-vocalized
internal speech. Based on Levelt's model, Payne and Whitney (2002) argued for the psycholinguistic
near-equivalency of chatting and speaking with the only substantial cognitive difference being in the
involvement of the speech-motor system (articulator).
The second difference was the application of working memory theory to second language SCMC
research. Payne and Whitney (2002) found that the oral proficiency gains of the participants with lower
phonological working memory capacity (PWMC), as measured by nonword repetition, boosted the mean
for the experimental group to the point that it exceeded the control group. Based on this finding, the
authors concluded that the chatroom had provided low-span individuals with a means of compensating for
limitations in working memory and assisted them in staying engaged in the conversation, which had
resulted in increased practice and the ultimate transfer of language skill. In recent years, SLA researchers
have become increasing interested in studying the effects of individual differences in working memory
capacity on second language learning processes. In the next section, we review findings from this
growing body of research.
WORKING MEMORY AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
Basic language processes such as lexical access and syntactic processing require conscious attention,
especially for beginning and intermediate foreign language learners. While attending to these processes,
activated information needed for further processing must be maintained in memory. The system or
mechanism supporting the temporary maintenance of information during the performance of complex
cognitive tasks, such as second language comprehension and production, is known as working memory
(Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). Two of the most frequent measures of working
memory are the reading span, originally developed by Daneman and Carpenter, and the nonword
repetition test. The reading span is a measure of an individual's ability to process and temporarily store
information in memory and has provided the empirical underpinnings of Just and Carpenter's (1992)
constrained capacity theory of working memory. This theory posits a unitary pool of attentional resources
that are allocated to both processing and storage. This theory differs from Baddeley's (1986, 2000) theory
that depicts working memory as a multi-component system. In Baddeley's model there are four
components: phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad, central executive, and episodic buffer. Most
relevant to the present study are the phonological loop and the central executive. The phonological loop
(PL) stores sound information in memory and maintains these memory traces via sub-vocal rehearsal. The
PL is a slave system of the central executive, the attentional control system. Some researchers consider
the reading span as a measure of central executive capacity (Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999; Baddeley,
2003). The nonword repetition task is the most popular measure of the phonological loop or phonological
working memory.1
In studies of first language, working memory capacity has been shown to account for individual
differences in text comprehension (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) and the ability to resolve syntactic
ambiguity (Just & Carpenter, 1992; MacDonald, Just, & Carpenter, 1992). In both of these instances,
individuals with higher memory span are superior at comprehending text and are able to maintain
multiple interpretations of a text, resulting in better ambiguity resolution. Processing syntactically
complex sentences (object-relative vs. subject-relative) is also more difficult for low-span readers and
negatively impacts their comprehension (King & Just, 1991). Working memory capacity has also been
correlated with verbal fluency (Daneman, 1991) and the ability of individuals to utilize contextual clues in
text for learning novel words (Daneman & Green, 1986).
In studies of second language learning, Harrington and Sawyer (1992) and Geva and Ryan (1993) found
that L2 reading skill is highly correlated with L2 working memory span. Abu-Rabia (2003) found
38
significant correlations between working memory span and L2 writing proficiency as measured by the
Test of Written Language. Fortkamp (1999) found significant correlations between the speaking and
reading span tasks and measures of L2 fluency.
Research on the role of the phonological loop in language learning indicates that PWMC is related to
foreign language vocabulary learning in laboratory (Papagno, Valentine, & Baddelely, 1991; Papagno &
Vallar, 1995) and classroom settings (Cheung, 1996; Service, 1992; Service & Kohonen, 1995) with
high-span learners acquiring foreign-sounding words more easily than learners with more limited
capacity. Ellis (1996) has argued that acquiring "chunks" forms the basis of language acquisition and that
PWMC is instrumental in this process. Ellis and Schmidt (1997) found not only that short-term memory
for utterances predicts later long-term memory for the same utterances; they also demonstrated that shortterm memory representations of utterances is important for learning syntax. In a further study examining
the role of repetition in vocabulary learning, Ellis and Sinclair (1996) required native-speakers of English
learning Welsh as a second language to produce the Welsh equivalents of English words after a learning
phase, where subjects had learned the English translations of Welsh utterances. There were three
treatment conditions in this experiment. In the first experimental condition, subjects were instructed to
repeat aloud the Welsh utterance after hearing it. In condition two, subjects were instructed to learn the
Welsh items under articulatory suppression (subjects were required to repeat a number sequence aloud
with the goal of blocking access to the PL). In the control condition, subjects were not given any specific
instructions. Results demonstrated superior performance by subjects in the repetition condition, followed
by the control condition and finally the articulatory suppression condition.
Based on the work of Ellis and colleagues showing the importance of repetition and PWMC in
vocabulary acquisition, a productive next step would be to examine how repetition in conversational
contexts impacts language development. Due to similarities between L2 chatroom discourse and
conversational speech, chat transcripts may provide a valuable source of data for this inquiry. One
phenomenon of repetition in conversational language use has received empirical attention from a number
of theoretical and methodological orientations. The next section reviews some of this work.
REPETITION IN CONVERSATIONAL LANGUAGE USE
The coordinated act of conversation requires interlocutors to balance and negotiate topic and lexical
knowledge together with the flow of discourse to produce a successful communicative interaction. A
common characteristic of conversational discourse is the reuse of linguistic materials from prior talk in
current talk (Schenkein, 1980). This act of recycling one's own language or the language of
conversational partners has been the object of study among sociolinguists, psycholinguists, and corpus
linguists.
Levelt and Kelter (1982) conducted a series of six experiments to examine the influence of a question's
surface form on the format of an interlocutor's response from a psycholinguistic perspective. The notion
underlying this investigation was that "previous talk sets up a more or less abstract frame in the mind of
an interlocutor, which is then used in the formulation of the next turn" (p. 79). In the first experiment,
they demonstrated that when interlocutors are presented with a question phrase in either of two equivalent
forms, based on the absence or presence of a preposition in Dutch, they most frequently choose to
formulate their responses using the same format as the question. The authors refer to this phenomenon as
the "correspondence effect." Experiments 2-5 manipulated the question formats to include distracting
information in the form of multiple questions under more everyday circumstances by employing Clark's
(1979) telephone technique to determine whether memory was involved in this effect. Findings indicated
that relevant information pertaining to the format of the question was maintained in working memory
during the preparation of the answer. While question formats were controlled for "naturalness," they were
not controlled for frequency of use. Furthermore, working memory span was not measured and included
as an independent variable.
39
Accounts of repetition and a related linguistic phenomenon, relexicalization, have been documented in
corpus linguistic studies. McCarthy (1998) argues that repetition often occurs in discourse when
interlocutors attempt to agree on a topic. According to McCarthy, exact repetition often suggests a desire
to deliberately stall the topic progression and can be interpreted as a refusal to communicatively
accommodate. However, when repetition is accompanied by relexicalization (the re-casting of content
with near-synonymous words), convergence is achieved.
Both of these studies examined repetition in the conversational speech of native or expert speakers. The
extent to which these documented linguistic phenomena may manifest themselves in the conversational
speech of L2 learners as well as serving other purposes is unknown. Specifically, do repetition and
relexicalization play a role in interlanguage development and does their use relate to conversational and
topical context or possibly even the working memory profile of the learners?
The research reviewed above posits the importance of working memory in second language vocabulary
learning; the acquisition of syntax, text comprehension, and production; and the development of speaking
skills. Other studies have examined the role of repetition and relexicalization in first language (L1)
conversational language use. To date, no study has examined repetition in L2 chatroom discourse in an
effort to shed light on the communicative functions of repetition in L2 learner language. Of further
interest is whether individual differences in working memory capacity may affect the frequency of
repetition and other patterns of language use. The purpose of the present study is to examine these
linguistic data for the lexical, morphosyntactic, and pragmatic choices interlocutors made when coconstructing conversational discourse in the chatroom with special attention to the role that individual
differences in working memory capacity may play in explaining patterns of language use. Based on
previous psycholinguistic and corpus linguistic research, analyses will focus on the repetition of single
lexical items and multi-word sequences by interlocutors and the use of relexicalization, as well as
language output measures.
RESEARCH PURPOSE
In Payne and Whitney (2002), the chatroom was employed as a training mechanism to promote the
automatizing of the cognitive processes underlying spontaneous L2 language production (e.g., lexical
access, grammatical and phonological encoding) with the hypothesis that this practice, and resultant
development, would transfer across modalities to speaking. Since the language generated in the chat
sessions was not the subject of analysis in the first study, the focus of the present investigation is to
examine the patterns of language use as evidenced in the chat transcripts (experimental group only) with
the goal of better understanding the interplay between individual differences in working memory
capacity, SCMC, and cross-modality transfer of skill from chatting to oral proficiency development.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Does the frequency of repetition and relexicalization in L2 SCMC change over the course of the
semester?
2. Do individual differences in working memory capacity (phonological and executive function) play a
role in the frequency of repetition and relexicalization in L2 SCMC?
3. Do individual differences in working memory capacity (phonological and executive function)
modulate language output as measured by the average number or words, utterances, and turns
generated per chat session?
4. What is the relationship between individual differences in working memory and oral proficiency
development?
40
METHODS
Participants
The participants consisted of 24 volunteers (2 males and 22 females ranging in age from 18-26) from two
sections of third-semester Spanish at a medium-sized university in the western United States. Students
received extra-credit points equivalent to one-third of a letter grade for participating in the study. Those
students who did not wish to participate in the study had the option of writing a one thousand-word essay
on the cultural topic of their choice to receive the extra-credit points.
Instructional Treatment
Both sections of third-semester Spanish received 4 hours of hybrid or blended instruction per week (2
days online in the chatroom, 2 days in the classroom). Instruction had a communicative orientation, based
on the textbook Nuevos Destinos (Medina, 1997) and its accompanying video series. The curriculum was
uniform across both sections with students engaging in the same activities on the same days. The
chatroom activities included small-group discussion, role-plays, discussions of assigned texts and video
content, as well as information gap activities. Each class engaged in 20 different 50-minute chat sessions
over the course of the 15-week semester with 3-4 separate chatrooms per course for a total of 150
chatroom transcripts.
Most discussions were based on questions given to the students by their instructors (both sections were
given the same set of questions to discuss). These questions mostly elicited language taken out of texts,
especially during the first third of the chat data sets. However, with time, students seemed to become
more confident and began moving more and more away from their texts. The instructors also used jigsaw
reading activities as triggers for discussion on two occasions. During these activities students rarely
strayed from the language of the readings they were dealing with. These two activities took place near the
end of the first half of the semester. Topics covered were as follows:
First half of the semester
• Daily routines
• Places of interest
• Occupations
• Family relationships in
American and Hispanic
families
• Bilingualism and bilingual
education
• Obesity and food
• Childhood memories
Second half of the semester
• Means of transportation
• Gender differences
• Shopping
• Plans for the future
• Legends
• Vacations
Both halves of the semester
• Discussion of a didactic
videotape that students viewed
every week
• Diverse grammatical points
• Culture and traditions of
Hispanic countries and of the
US
Overall, the topics selected by the instructors were all conducive to good discussion. However, two topics
seemed to be especially popular: talking about childhood memories (end of first half of the semester) and
talking about plans for the future (end of second half of the semester). It must be noted, however, that
both sections suffered technical difficulties during the beginning and end of the semester, which may have
affected the quantity of production during chat times.
Materials and Procedures
Oral proficiency was measured with a task requiring participants to select one of four envelopes
containing instructions for a speaking task written in English. Participants were required to read the
instructions and then speak in Spanish for approximately 5 minutes. If participants ran out of things to say
on a particular topic, they selected a new task and began again. The objective was to obtain a 5-minute
speech sample. The role of the examiner was to listen but not to interview the speaker. Two examiners
41
(one native speaker and one non-native speaker; both were female) administered the speaking tests. The
examiners were told to think of someone they know who is a very fluent non-native speaker of Spanish
and consider that individual's language ability as a perfect score (the 50 point maximum).
Two working memory measures were included in this study: (a) nonword repetition task, as a measure of
phonological working memory and (b) reading span, a measure of executive function or what Baddelely
(1986) refers to as the central executive. The nonword repetition task developed for this study differed
from conventional versions in that it was recognition-based and administered online. In this test,
participants listened to an audio file of eight pseudo-words read with a one-second interval between
words. After listening to the audio file, participants clicked on a button to view a screen containing 16
pseudo-words, 8 of which were articulated in the audio file. Students selected the eight words they
believed to have heard by clicking on the checkbox next to each word. The participants could take as
much time as they needed to make their eight selections. After clicking the submit button, the next audio
clip would load, ready to be played. The nonword repetition task consisted of three sets of eight pseudowords with a total possible score of 24.
The second working memory test administered was a reading span test. This measures an individual's
ability to simultaneously process and store information from one's immediate environment in memory. In
the recognition- and Web-based version of the reading span administered in this study, participants
viewed 15 sets of sentences with a total of 60 sentences. For each set, one sentence was displayed after
another in 7-second intervals until all of the sentences in a set had been viewed. While reading each of the
sentences, participants had two tasks: (a) they had to decide whether the sentence made sense or not by
selecting the radio button corresponding to their estimate of the sentence's sensibility, and (b) they had to
remember the final word of each sentence. After all sentences in the set had been viewed, participants
clicked on a button to receive a screen of words with adjacent checkboxes that contained both targets and
distractors. For each to-be-remembered word there were two distractors (e.g., for sets containing five
sentences there was a total of 15 words). Distractors were of two types: (a) same semantic category (e.g.,
if the target word was "girl", the distractor could be "woman"), or (b) final words from sentences in
previous sets. Participants simply selected the words they identified as being final words by clicking the
checkbox next to the word. One point was awarded for each final word recalled for which a correct
sensibility judgment was made. The reading span score was a raw score with 60 points possible. All
working memory tests were recognition- and Web-based with a database back-end, enabling automatic
scoring and calculating of the results.
The reading span and nonword repetition tests were administered in a computer laboratory during the
second week of the 15-week semester. The speaking pretest was administered during week three with the
posttest occurring during the fifteenth week of the study. The instructional treatment that is the focus of
this study consisted of 20 chat sessions where participants engaged in a variety of structured and openended tasks ranging from personal themes, role-plays, and discussions of textbook readings to the
negotiation and co-construction of understanding of video content. Instructors participated in the chat
discussions, posing questions to reinvigorate dialog when necessary and occasionally providing corrective
feedback.
Data Analysis
A median split was performed to divide participants into high- and low-span groups for both the reading
span and the nonword repetition tests, making working memory span an independent variable. Individuals
whose score fell on the median were assigned to either the high or low group depending on which side of
the mean their score fell. This resulted fortuitously in an even split with 12 participants in each of the span
groups for both working memory measures. The changes in oral proficiency based on working memory
span group for both working memory measures were calculated with an ANCOVA using the oral pretest
score as a covariate to factor out pre-existing proficiency differences from the posttest score.
42
The chatroom data were divided into two periods representing the first and second halves of the semester
in order to measure potential developmental changes in language use. Frequencies were tabulated for
average number of words, utterances, and turns generated per chat session per participant, as well as
repetition and relexicalization (all dependent variables are defined later). Since only one of the
researchers is knowledgeable in Spanish, this researcher carried out all coding of data. Reliability in
coding procedures was established by discussing representative candidate instances of each code to
control for threats to interpretive validity. The Wilcox Signed Ranks and Mann-Whitney U tests, the nonparametric equivalents to the t test, were calculated to compare groups based on dependent measures for
language output, repetition, and relexicalization, with span for the individual working memory measures
as the independent variable. The Kruskal-Wallis, the non-parametric equivalent to the one-way ANOVA,
was calculated to compare groups for the secondary analysis of interaction between working memory
measures. Since non-parametric tests for group comparisons do not permit the use of covariates, gain
scores formed the basis of the developmental comparison between the first and second halves of the
semester. The alpha level for all group comparisons was set at .05.
Definition of Terms
The chat data was analyzed mainly with the intention of looking at the role of repetition and
relexicalization in the production of language during interactions. Other artifacts of language use,
including corrections and the use of "Spanglish" and of invented words, were prominent in the chatting of
some students, but are not analyzed for the present study.
For this paper we have defined repetition as the repetition of a single word or phrase from an earlier turn
by a peer or by the instructor. For example, one student may have brought up a new word, which was
subsequently repeated in a later turn by another student, as in Example 1.
Example 1
A:
B:
¿Tienes muchas admiradores Chad?
Do you have many admirers Chad?
…
Si, especialmente admiradores que estan chicas bonitas.
Yes, especially admirers that are pretty girls.
In Example 2, student B repeated the phrase "el programa es muy mal" (the program is very bad) with
inversion of the subject and verb for question formation.
Example 2
A:
B:
Sí hay una programa de deucación bilingüe donde yo vivo pero la programa es muy mal.
Yes there is a bilingual program where I live, but it is very bad.
¿Por qué es el programa muy mal?
Why is the program very bad?
Relexicalization is similar to repetition in that a similar idea is repeated, but the structure and/or one or
more of the main grammatical words or phrases (nouns or verbs) are different. For example, in Example
3, the students were both talking about the weather in Chile, but the subject of the second sentence is no
longer "the weather," but Chile; the structure of the sentence has been changed.
Example 3
A:
B:
Yo quiero ir a Chili ahora porgue el tiempo de Chili es calor.
I want to go to Chile because the weather in Chile is hot.
Es verdad que en Chile hace calor, pero en las montañas hace mucho frío.
It is true that in Chile it is hot, but in the mountains it is cold.
43
Example 4
A:
B:
Tienen que crear un diálogo entre las personas de una familia latina.
You have to create a dialogue between the members of a Latin family.
Necisitamos crear un diálogo de una familia latina y estadounidense.
We need to create a dialogue of one Latin family and an American [one].
Example 4 is a case of a sentence that is both a repetition of an earlier turn and a relexicalization of it.
Student B has repeated the instructor's (in this case, "A") instructions, but has changed the main verb from
"have to" to "need," thus effectively keeping the main idea, but changing the structure enough for the
sentence to be novel.
RESULTS
Changes in the Frequency of Repetition and Relexicalization
To address research question one, first the descriptive statistics were calculated for the ratio of total
repetitions and relexicalizations by total chat turns occurring in the first and second halves of the semester
(see Table 1). Next the repetition and relexicalization ratios for the first and second half of the semester
were compared using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (see Table 2).
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Repetition and Relexicalization
Repetition - 1st half
Repetition - 2nd half
Relexicalization - 1st half
Relexicalization - 2nd half
N
24
24
24
24
Mean
.214
.084
.045
.024
SD
.123
.052
.040
.019
Table 2. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks for Repetition and Relexicalization
nd
Rep. 2 half -Rep. 1st half
Negative Ranks
Positive Ranks
Ties
Total
N
24
0
0
24
Rel. 2nd half -Rel. 1st half
Negative Ranks
Positive Ranks
Ties
Total
18
5
1
24
Mean Rank
12.50
0.00
13.06
8.20
Sum of Ranks
300.00
0.00
235.00
41.00
Results from the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test indicate that there was a significant difference between the
first and second halves of the semester in terms of the frequency of repetition (Z = -4.286, Asymp. Sig. =
.000) and relexicalization (Z = -2.950, Asymp. Sig. = .003) with participants more frequently recycling
single- and multi-word elements of their interlocutors' language in their own chat discourse, as well as in
the form of phrasal transformation known as relexicalization, during the first half of the semester.
Working Memory and the Frequency of Repetition and Relexicalization
As an initial step in addressing research question 2, descriptive statistics were generated for the gain
scores for repetition and relexicalization from period 1 to period 2 (period 1 mean frequency/chat turn
ratio was subtracted from the period 2 frequency/turn ratio) with a breakdown based on low- and highspan groups for both the reading span and nonword repetition tests (see Table 3). The comparison of
mean frequencies from the first half to the second half of the semester shows a consistent decline in the
use of repetition and relexicalization for all groups.
44
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Frequencies of Repetition and Relexicaliation
Repetition
Relexicalization
Reading Span
Low
High
-.145
-.115
.117
.057
12
12
-.021
-.020
.055
.017
12
12
Mean
SD
N
Mean
SD
N
Nonword Repetition
Low
High
-.102
-.158
.046
.117
12
12
-.012
-.030
.025
.050
12
12
Mann-Whitney U tests for each of the working memory measures were calculated to determine if there
were differences between the groups based on span. No significant differences between high- and lowspans were found for both the reading span and nonword repetition with respect to changes in the
frequency of repetition or relexicalization employed in the chatroom from the first to second half of the
semester. These results suggest that the frequency of repetition and relexicalization in L2 chatroom
discourse cannot be explained by working memory capacity limitations.
Working Memory and Language Output Measures
The descriptive statistics were calculated for the differences in frequencies between the first and second
halves of the semester for the average number of words, utterances, and turns generated per chat session
based on span group for the reading span and nonword repetition tests (Table 4).
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Gain Score Frequency Ratios on Language Output Measures
Words
Utterances
Turns
Mean
SD
N
Mean
SD
N
Mean
SD
N
Reading Span
Low
High
38.45
104.30
78.23
64.24
12
12
6.15
16.15
7.31
11.53
12
12
2.82
9.41
6.22
5.29
12
12
Nonword Repetition
Low
High
104.20
38.56
64.53
78.09
12
12
13.77
8.52
12.79
7.88
12
12
7.33
4.50
4.88
7.80
12
12
Mann-Whitney U tests were calculated to compare the change in mean frequency per chat session of the
language output measures based on working memory capacity (see Table 5). For phonological working
memory (nonword repetition) significant differences were found between low- and high-spans (Z =
-2.309, Asymp. Sig. = .021) with lower phonological working memory capacity students producing a
greater number of words on average per chat session than high-span students. No significant differences
were found between phonological working memory groups for mean utterances or turns generated per
chat session. This finding suggests that students with low phonological working memory span exhibited a
distinct chat style with longer utterances (sentences), but not more of them on average per turn. The
implications of this behavior will be pursued further in the discussion section.
For the comparison of reading span groups, the findings reveal significant differences between low- and
high-span participants on the average number of words generated per chat (Z = -2.194, Asymp. Sig. =
.028), as well as the average number of utterances (Z = -2.714, Asymp. Sig. = .007) and turns (Z = -2.309,
Asymp. Sig. = .021) contributed to a chat session.
45
Table 5. Mann-Whitney U Test for Language Output Measures
Mann-Whitney U
Z
Asymp. Sig.
Avg. Words/Chat
Reading
Nonword
Span
Repetition
34
32
-2.194
-2.309
.028
.021
Avg. Utterances/Chat
Reading
Nonword
Span
Repetition
25
52
-2.714
-1.155
.007
.248
Avg. Turns/Chat
Reading Nonword
Span
Repetition
32
52
-2.309
-1.155
.021
.248
Based on the descriptive statistics in Table 4, there appears to be an inverse relationship between capacity
and working memory measure with high-spans on the reading span generating more language than the
low-spans and results for the nonword repetition test depicting the reverse scenario. Since all participants
took both working memory tests and not all participants scored either low or high on both measures, a
secondary analysis was undertaken to determine if there was an interaction between working memory test
and span level. This was accomplished by dividing the 24 participants into four groups: (a) nonword
repetition-low and reading span-low, (b) nonword repetition-low and reading span-high, (c) nonword
repetition-high and reading span-low, and d) nonword repetition-high and reading span-high. The
descriptive statistics for language output gain score frequencies are reported in Table 6.
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for Language Output Gain Score Frequencies
Words
Utterances
Turns
Mean
SD
N
Mean
SD
N
Mean
SD
N
Low-Low
85
79.52
6
7.81
8.13
6
4.94
4.84
6
Low-high
123.39
44.22
6
19.73
14.45
6
10.53
3.19
6
High-low
-8.10
44.06
6
4.48
6.69
6
.71
7.04
6
High-high
85.22
79.05
6
12.57
7.26
6
8.29
6.96
6
The groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test with alpha level set at .05 (see Tables 7 and 8).
Results indicate a significant difference between the groups for the mean number of words and utterances
generated from the first half to the second half of the semester and a non-significant trend for frequency
of turns. Pair-wise post-hoc comparisons found group three (nonword repetition high -- reading span low)
to be significantly lower than the other groups in average total words generated per chat session. The pairwise comparisons based on average utterances produced per chat session found differences between
groups two and three, but no other differences between groups emerged.
46
Table 7. Ranks for Language Output Gain Scores by Working Memory Span Group
Span Group
1
2
3
4
Total
N
6
6
6
6
24
Mean Rank
13.50
18.17
5.17
13.17
Utterances
1
2
3
4
Total
6
6
6
6
24
10.33
18.00
6.83
14.83
Turns
1
2
3
4
Total
6
6
6
6
24
11.17
17.17
7.17
14.50
Words
Group 1 = low nonword rep. - low reading span
Group 2 = low nonword rep. - high reading span
Group 3 = high nonword rep. - low reading span
Group 4 = high nonword rep. - high reading span
Table 8. Kruskal-Wallis Test for Language Output Gain Score Frequencies
Chi-Square
df
Asymp. Sig.
Words
10.480
3
.015
Utterances
8.700
3
.034
Turns
6.720
3
.081
Working Memory and Language Proficiency Development
The fourth research question examines a hypothesized relationship between working memory capacity
and the development of L2 speaking ability. In the previous study (Payne & Whitney, 2002) the
comparison was made between a control condition and the experimental chatroom condition. The present
study seeks to investigate this hypothesized relationship further in an effort to determine if individual
differences in working memory capacity may further explicate development in oral proficiency among
students interacting in a chatroom for half of their instruction time. To address this question, two
ANCOVAs were calculated: one with phonological working memory as the independent variable with
two levels (high- and low-span) and the other with executive function (measured by reading span) also
with two levels (high- and low-span). The dependent variable for both statistical procedures was the oral
proficiency posttest score with the pretest score as a covariate with the alpha level set at .05.
Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for Oral Proficiency Scores by WM Test
Group
Nonword - low
Nonword - high
Reading Span - low
Reading Span - high
Pretest Mean
20.63
20.79
19.75
21.67
Pretest SD
6.71
7.11
5.60
7.88
N
12
12
12
12
Posttest Mean
30.50
34.79
30.71
34.58
Posttest SD
5.08
6.33
5.89
5.74
47
For nonword repetition, the results from the ANCOVA suggest that the oral proficiency of students with
greater PWMC improved more over the course of the semester than for their low-span counterparts (F =
4.325, p = .050). Results for the comparison based on reading span indicate no significant differences
between the groups with respect to oral proficiency development (F = 2.059, p = .166).
To control for possible interaction effects between the two working memory measures (some individuals
where high-spans in one measure and low-spans in the other), a secondary analysis was conducted using
the same procedure as in research question three. The ANCOVA was calculated with working memory
span group as the independent variable with four levels, oral proficiency posttest score as the dependent
measure, and the oral pretest score as the covariate with the alpha level set at .05. Results indicate that
there is no significant difference between the four working memory span groups in oral proficiency
development.
DISCUSSION
The present study is an initial investigation into the relationships between individual differences in
working memory capacity, patterns in L2 chatroom language use, and oral proficiency development.
Several results emerged from this study that warrant further discussion. First, the use of repetition and
relexicalization by third-semester Spanish learners as a strategy to facilitate communication in L2
chatroom discourse declined in frequency over time, an effect that was unrelated to working memory
capacity. One plausible interpretation for this trend is that the frequency of repetition and relexicalization
is inversely related to proficiency. In other words, as learners expand their lexicon and become more
proficient in producing language spontaneously as required for conversational exchange, they reduce their
reliance on repetition as a strategy for maintaining continuity in discourse. Pretest-posttest changes in oral
proficiency and repetition/relexicalization frequencies were correlated in an effort to test this deduction
(Kendall's τ = -.166 for repetition and -.044 for relexicalization). The weak relationship between gains in
oral ability and frequency of repetition/relexicalization does not lend support to the notion of a
proficiency-repetition connection in this study.
Another possibility is that these phenomena of language use in L2 chat are topic-related. During the first
half of the semester, a number of the chatroom discussions were based on texts introducing topics for
which students may not have had much background knowledge (e.g., bilingualism and bilingual
education, obesity and food, relationships in American and Hispanic families). A lack of background
knowledge coupled with a more focused discussion topic could have resulted in greater repetition and
relexicalization as students endeavored to move the discussion forward and orient their comments to the
assigned text and discussion questions. These conclusions suggest that L2 learners may use repetition for
very different reasons than has been documented in L1 corpus linguistic research (e.g., McCarthy, 1998).
Contrary to L1 evidence suggesting that repetition is employed in discourse to stall topic development,
the L2 learners in this study may have used repetition to promote continuity and focus the discussion. In
the second half of the semester, topics were more familiar and discussion questions were less guided. As a
result, students generated more language and were possibly less inclined to employ repetition to
encourage discussion.
A second finding of interest is the apparent difference in the chatting style of the low phonological
working memory students. The low-span chat style was characterized by a greater number of words per
utterance on average than was exhibited by high-span students. While L2 chat discourse has been
characterized by longer, more elaborate constructions in comparison to F2F conversation (e.g., Kern,
1995; Warschauer, 1996), the use of longer, multi-sentence comments can also be an indicator that users
are inexperienced in the SCMC communicative modality. For the low-span (PWMC) students
participating in this study, this is not likely the case, due to the persistence of this behavior throughout the
semester. Another interpretation consistent with the posited conversational "bootstrapping effect" of the
chatroom, is that the low-span students were taking advantage of the reduced cognitive burden introduced
48
by the chatroom to produce more extensive and elaborate constructions; something they may have found
difficult in a F2F setting. A more fine-grained syntactic analysis of the chat comments would be required
to verify this interpretation.
A third finding comes from the secondary analysis of language output measures in research question two,
examining a potential interaction between working memory measures. The results from this analysis
revealed an interaction between executive function and phonological working memory that makes the
interpretation of the role of working memory in L2 SCMC potentially more complex. The language
output frequencies for Group 2 (low nonword repetition and high reading span) and Group 3 (high
nonword repetition and low reading span) are of greatest interest since they represent a crossover in levels
between the two tests. Based on the means for the average number of words, utterances, and turns per
chat session, Group 2 exceeded all other groups; however this group was statistically different only from
Group 3. One could speculate that Group 2 exemplifies the "bootstrapping effect" posited by Payne and
Whitney (2002). Group 3, with the opposite working memory profile of Group 2, generated the least
amount of language output of all four groups. It is plausible that these higher PWMC individuals did not
benefit as much from the reduced cognitive processing burden of the chatroom and preferred the
classroom environment for conversational activities. In any case, these findings suggest a potentially
interesting interaction between the reading span and nonword repetition as measures of working memory
capacity and their impact on performance in non-laboratory settings. Since no research to date has
examined the combined effect, this may be a productive line of future research.
An additional candidate for further discussion is the role of individual differences in working memory in
L2 oral proficiency gains. While all groups, based on the median split for each working memory measure,
realized gains in their oral proficiency over the semester, significant differences were found only for
phonological working memory with the high-span group out-performing the low-span group. This result
is not surprising in light of the hypothesized role of PWMC in SLA. When considered together with the
finding that low-span students produced considerably more language in the chatroom, the relationship
between working memory and oral proficiency development lends further credence to the idea that lowspan learners are using the chatroom as a compensatory mechanism.
LIMITATIONS
There are a couple of limitations in this study that should be mentioned. First, the ability to find
differences between groups (power) was reduced by the small sample size. It is likely that the analyses
examining the interaction between working memory measures especially suffered from this limitation. A
further complication introduced by smaller samples is the overbearing effect that outliers can have on
group mean scores. This can be a particular challenge when data are collected in a more naturalistic
setting without the controls of a laboratory. The measures of language output, repetition, and
relexicalization consisted of frequency counts in naturally-occurring L2 chatroom language use. Due to
the nature of this data, a wide range of variability was evident by the large standard deviations reported in
the descriptive statistics. This effect can work two ways: uncharacteristically low scores can mask
potential effects whereas exceeding high scores can result in Type 1 errors (finding effects that do not
exist). A larger sample size would increase power and ameliorate the effects of outliers on group means.
CONCLUSION
This study represents an initial attempt at using working memory as a lens for interpreting patterns of
language use as learners co-construct discourse in a chatroom and their relation to L2 oral proficiency
development. The language patterns that were the focus of this inquiry included repetition and
relexicalization, as well as the average number of words, utterances, and turns per chat session. While
individual differences in working memory could not be found to account for the drop in the frequency of
repetition and relexicalization from the first to second half of the semester, a role for working memory
49
capacity was supported in language output. The findings of this study lend further support to the notion
that the chatroom may provide a unique form of support to certain types of learners in developing L2 oral
proficiency. Evidence for this "bootstrapping effect" was found in greater language output measures of
students with lower PWMC. While these results suggest a relationship between working memory and
chatroom language use, more extensive research with larger samples is needed. As a final observation it is
important to consider these findings evidence that language learners will use the tools at their disposal to
maximize their learning outcomes. Historically, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) as a field
has focused on how software applications can improve vocabulary knowledge (explicitly and implicitly),
listening and reading comprehension ability, and writing skills; analyze and correct pronunciation; and
provide speaking practice. While the present investigation has addressed the question of learning
outcomes, of equal importance is the proposal that technology-mediated language learning transforms the
cognitive processing constraints of tasks in a manner that has direct benefit to certain types of learners
(see Robinson, 2001, for further discussion). Continued research in this area stands to make a substantial
contribution to our understanding of SLA processes as well as to second and foreign language pedagogy.
FUTURE RESEARCH
With respect to the L2 SCMC corpus data analyzed for this study, a number of subsequent analyses of
other patterns in L2 SCMC language use (e.g., correction, Spanglish, invented words) and their
relationship to individual differences in working memory capacity are in order. Further research is clearly
needed to better understand the role of repetiton and relexicalization in L2 conversational language use in
F2F and SCMC settings. As previously mentioned, performed syntactic analyses of the chat contributions
based on phonological working memory span could shed additional light on the distinct "chat style" of
low phonological working memory foreign language learners.
An emerging area of SLA research is the role that formulaic sequences play in interlanguage
development. Wray and Perkins (2000) and Wray (2002) proposed a conceptual model, based on Locke
(1993, 1995, 1997), for how formulae may function in L2 acquisition. In this model, early stages of
acquisition are characterized by the learning of unanalyzed, formulaic sequences also known as "chunks."
At the second phase of the model, once learners have amassed a database of chunks and as the stochastic
patterns of those chunks in use become salient, learners begin to analyze and identify the constituent
structure of these formulae. This results in the emergence of the grammatical system. As the focus shifts
to analyzing chunks and learning to substitute constituents to create novel utterances, the acquisition of
formulaic sequences drops. Exploring the use of formulaic sequences based on this model may be a very
fruitful avenue for SCMC research with the added dimension of comparing chatroom and F2F
conversational discourse for the appropriation and use of formulae.
A final promising possibility in SCMC research would be the use of time-series statistics for measuring
change over time with the hope that change in frequency reflects interlanguage development. This
technique would offer the benefits of numerous observation points and the ability to compare learner
trajectories as opposed to mean frequencies based on arbitrary divisions of the data into time periods. This
approach to analysis may be particularly well suited to SLA research where development is often
characterized by U- or Omega-shaped curves instead of the linear relationships at the core of parametric
statistics (see Norris & Ortega, 2003, for further discussion).
NOTE
1. In this article, we use phonological working memory capacity and phonological short-term memory
synonymously.
50
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
J. Scott Payne (PhD, Washington State University) is Assistant Director for Technology and Research at
the Center for Language Acquisition and Co-Director of the Technology Project under CALPER at The
Pennsylvania State University. His research focuses on the role of individual differences in working
memory and attention in CALL.
Brenda M. Ross is a doctoral student (ABD) at the Pennsylvania State University. She is currently a
Senior Lecturer in TESL at the University of Texas at Tyler. Her research interests include discourse
analysis, narratives, and identity, and the use of corpora for ESL instruction.
REFERENCES
Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German.
Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-167
Abu-Rabia, S. (2003). The influence of working memory on reading and creative writing processes in a
second language. Educational Psychology, 23(2), 209-222.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive
Science, 4(11), 417-423.
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication
Disorders, 36, 189-208.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Recent advances in
learning and motivation (Vol. VIII, pp. 47-89). New York: Academic Press.
Beauvois, M. (1992). Computer assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom:
Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 455-464.
Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Write to speak: The effects of electronic communication on the oral achievement
of fourth semester French students. In J. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Issues in
language program direction (pp. 93-115). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the
foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198-217.
Böhlke, O. (2003). A comparison of student participation levels by group size and language stages during
chatroom and face-to-face discussions in German. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 67-87.
Capretz, P., Abetti, B. & Wylie, L. (1987). French in action: A beginning course in language and culture.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cheung, H. (1996). Nonword span as a unique predictor of second-language vocabulary learning.
Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 867-873.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence.
System, 22(1), 17-31.
Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 430-477.
51
Conoelos, T., & Olivia, M. (1993). Using computer networks to enhance foreign language/culture
education. Foreign Language Annals, 26(4), 527-533.
Daneman, M. (1991). Working memory as a predictor of verbal fluency. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 20(6), 445-464.
Daneman M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 19, 450-466.
Daneman, M., & Green, I. (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in
context. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 1-18.
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91-126.
Ellis, N. C., & Schmidt, R. (1997). Morphology and longer distance dependencies: Laboratory research
illuminating the "A" in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 145–171.
Ellis, N. C., & Sinclair, S. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: Putting
language in good order. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 234–250.
Engle, R., Kane, M., & Tuholski, S. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what
they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In
A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and
executive control (pp. 102-134). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Fortkamp, M. B. M. (1999). Working memory capacity and aspects of L2 speech production.
Communication & Cognition, 32(3/4), 259-296.
Freiermuth, M. R. (1998). Using a chat program to promote group equity. CAELL Journal, 8(2), 16-24.
Freiermuth, M. R. (2001). Native speakers or non-native speakers: Who has the floor? Online and face-toface interaction in culturally mixed small groups. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14, 169-199
Geva, E., & Ryan, E. B. (1993). Linguistic and cognitive correlates of academic skills in first and second
languages. Language Learning, 43, 5-42.
Hagen, L. K. (1990). Logic, linguistics, and proficiency testing. ADFL Bulletin, 21(2), 46-51.
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 25-38.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in
working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A
preliminary study. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 441-454.
Kenyon, D. M., & Malabonga, V. (2001). Comparing examinee attitudes toward computer-assisted and
other oral proficiency assessments. Language Learning & Technology, 5(2), 60-83. Retrieved May 20,
2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num2/kenyon/
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quality and
characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working
memory. Journal of Memory Language, 30(5), 580-602.
52
Kost, C. (2004). An investigation of the effects of synchronous computer-mediated communication
(CMC) on interlanguage development in beginning learners of German: Accuracy, proficiency, and
communication strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.
Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W. (1985). Oral proficiency testing: A critical analysis. Modern Language
Journal, 69(4), 337-345.
Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W. (1988). Proficiency: Understanding the construct. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 10(2), 181-195.
Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W. (1992). Rejecting the OPI--again: A response to Hagen. ADFL Bulletin,
23(2), 34-37.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Levelt, W.J.M., & Kelter, S. (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive
Psychology, 14, 78-106.
Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (1984). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: Gateway to testing and curriculum.
Foreign Language Annals, 17(5), 475-489.
Locke, J. (1993). The child's path to spoken language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Locke, J. (1995). Development of the capacity for spoken language. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney
(Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 278-302). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Locke, J. (1997). A theory of neurolinguistic development. Brain and Language, 58, 265-326.
McCarthy, M. (1998). Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the
processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56-98.
Medina, C. B. (1997). Nuevos destinos. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Nicholas, M. A., & Toporski, N. (1993). Developing "The Critic's Corner": Computer assisted language
learning for upper-level Russian students. Foreign Language Annals, 26(4), 469-478.
Norris, J. M. (2001). Concerns with computerized adaptive oral proficiency assessment. Language
Learning & Technology, 5(2), pp. 99-105
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),
Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 717-761). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Omaggio, A. C. (1983). Methodology in transition: The new focus on proficiency. Modern Language
Journal, 67(4), 330-341.
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through sychronous CMC: Output,
working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7-32. Retrieved March 1,
2005, from http://php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/j/s/jsp17/articles/calico2002/
Papagno, C., Valentine, T., & Baddeley, A. D. (1991). Phonological short-term memory and foreignlanguage vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 331-347.
Papagno, C., Vallar, G. (1995). Verbal short-term memory and vocabulary learning in polyglots.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 98-107.
53
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for
examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction
(pp. 287-318). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Salaberry, R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer communication.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5-27.
Schenkein, J. (1980). A taxonomy for repeating action sequences in natural conversation. In B.
Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (Vol. 1, pp. 21-47). London: Academic Press.
Sempé, J., & Goscinny, R. (1997). Les récrés du Petit Nicolas [Young Nicholas' school breaks.] Paris:
Gallimard Jeunesse.
Service, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory, and foreign-language learning. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 45A(1), 21-50.
Service, E., & Kohonen, V. (1995). Is the relation between phonological memory and foreign language
learning accounted for by vocabulary acquisition? Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 155-172.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language
classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language
and Communication, 20(1), 1-28.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
54
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/barr/
pp. 55-78
TOLD LIKE IT IS! AN EVALUATION OF AN INTEGRATED
ORAL DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROJECT
David Barr, Jonathan Leakey, and Alexandre Ranchoux
University of Ulster, Northern Ireland.
ABSTRACT
Much established pedagogical and CALL (computer-assisted language learning) research
advocates an integrated constructivist approach to the use of technology in language learning.
This paper reports on a pilot project delivered to first year undergraduate French students. The
project aim was to deliver a blend of collaborative and individual learning through a combination
of CALL programs and online activities alongside traditional face-to-face conversation classes.
Using quantitative analysis of a pre- and posttest and a variety of questionnaires, this project
assessed student progress in developing oral skills across two groups, one (the treatment group)
using technology and the other (the comparison group) being a traditional conversation class.
Each group covered the same content and underwent the same assessment procedures. In
addition, through qualitative analysis measures, the project evaluated the role played by
additional variables in the learning process, as well as student and staff reactions to the two
approaches. The study concludes by showing that while progress was made by both groups, the
progress made by those not using technology was significantly greater than that made by students
using technology over a short-term study. It also highlights the need for developing pedagogy to
ensure that CALL-based teaching goes beyond rehearsal activity to achieve message-orientated
communication.
INTRODUCTION -- BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH
A glance through relevant literature since 2000 shows very little reference has been made to the role of
computer technology in oral language development.1 More frequently, the role of oral work is hinted at in
titles referring to content looking at "CMC" (computer-mediated communication), "multimedia," "elearning," or "online interaction." On closer inspection, however, these latter, more general, references
tend to deal with written communication forms such as tandem learning via e-mail, discussion forums, or
chat-rooms.
Levy's CALL survey of 1990 has two interesting findings in this respect. Of 17 categories of teaching
approaches, the "communicative" approach was the most popular, with the "oral" approach and "direct
method" coming in seventh and eighth, respectively (Levy, 1997, p. 123).
However, of 17 categories of CALL software development activity "Speaking" appears in the 15th
position, just ahead of "Vocabulary" and "Other," the top three items on this list being "Reading,"
"Writing," and "Gap-filling" (Levy, 1997, p. 143). Clearly, developmental work in those "early days"
lagged behind the pedagogically desirable and normal classroom practice.
Most CALL-based teaching and learning has tended to focus on non-oral activities such as software or
Web-based reading, writing, or gap-filling type activities. The conversation class, pair and group roleplays, and discussions have for the most part taken place in ordinary classrooms. Felix (2001) lists "lack
of speaking practice" first on the students' list of disadvantages of using Web-based programs for
language, along with "distraction," "no interaction with peers," "inadequate feedback," and "absence of
teacher" (p. 47). According to Boullier (2000),
55
TOLD Like It Is!
The combination of various media and techniques has always existed: oral practice did not
disappear with the advent of writing, the same applies for hand-written practice with printing,
newspapers with TV, post with telephone … each media and technique re-defined its sphere of
actions according to its specificity. (p. 145; author's translation)
The teaching of all the language skills has gone through just such a phase of re-definition in response to
the latest computer-based media; in the case of the oral skill, it is merely taking a little longer.
Technology and oral language development have been rare bedfellows and for one main obvious reason:
The technology for oral language development has posed the greatest challenge to both hardware and
software developers. More specifically, one of the main challenges has been to create speech recognition
software that is sensitive and accurate enough for language learning (Hincks, 2003). Speech recognition
software lends itself mainly to drill-type activities; further logistical and technological hurdles must be
crossed if one aims to get beyond purely text-based tandem exchanges and encourage real-time oral
communication across campuses or across national boundaries.
There have been experiments using telephone and video-phone link-ups where there are gains in
smoothness of data transfer but loss in terms of cost, which has usually been prohibitive. The main
hurdles in any attempt at Internet-based link-ups appear to be the challenge of overcoming time-zones and
timetabling differences, ensuring adequate bandwidth at both ends, and the cost of calls. Goodfellow,
Jeffreys, Miles, and Shirra (1996), in their study of a "video-conference try-out," draw several
conclusions that will still apply however good the technology becomes. They state that the "language
interaction [video-conferencing] supports is in many ways different from the 'face-to-face' equivalent"
and cite, amongst others, such aspects as the restrictions the video-conference imposes on the teacher's
moderation of group interaction, the distortion of the normal use of body language to manage interaction,
and problems of managing camera viewpoints as challenges imposed by the technological context (p. 16).
They conclude by saying that "we have to plan for it [i.e., videoconferencing] and adapt our teaching and
learning methodologies accordingly. That way we will be able to enhance, rather than merely repackage,
the educational service we offer" (p. 16). An overall pedagogy for successfully integrating technology
into oral work, be it in local or remote mode, still seems to be lacking along with a holistic approach to
technology-based assessment of oral development. The initial TOLD (Technology and Oral Language
Development) project at the University of Ulster has focussed on communication within the classroom/elab, but the aim in future realisations of TOLD is to explore a workable and cost-effective link-up with a
francophone university. Such a collaboration will aim to prepare students at both ends to work in a
structured way and to integrate the content of live exchanges with ongoing curriculum work.
Research at the University of Ulster has looked closely at the issues of student resistance (Gillespie &
McKee, 1999) and staff reluctance (Gillespie & Barr, 2002) with regard to CALL. From a psycholinguistic perspective it would seem likely that of all communication mediated by technology, using
technology for face-to-face speech would generate the greatest affective hurdles in the minds of teacher
and student since it is the skill that least needs technology. As Levy puts it, "Face-to-face speech is the
only technology-free mode of communication, aside from sign language" (2000, p. 184).
The TOLD Project has been designed to examine the value of technology-mediated oral communication
by piloting a blended learning approach making full use of a recently installed multimedia laboratory and
measuring student progress over three years. Perhaps the greatest challenge for the project was to ensure
the principle of the real need to communicate applied in our use of technology for oral communication.
By integrating technology into perhaps the most authentic and meaningful form of communication -- oral
conversation -- this project goes some way to addressing the criticism of Warschauer (1996), who
highlighted a weakness of much multimedia based language teaching: "Using multimedia may involve an
integration of skills (e.g., listening with reading), but it too seldom involves a more important type of
integration -- integrating meaningful and authentic communication into all aspects of the language
56
TOLD Like It Is!
learning curriculum" (p. 6). While this pilot project falls short of oral communication over the Internet or
by video conferencing, the aim is, in its next stages, to apply the lessons learned in-house and trial a
pedagogical approach to remote oral communication as well.
Our approach drew primarily on communicative and constructivist theories of second language
acquisition. In exploring these theories, we found that the following elements were particularly pertinent
to oral development. According to the communicative approach to language learning, activities are best
geared to flow in an ordered progression from rehearsal to meaningful performance. Carl Dodson (1978),
for example, advocates a two-staged training approach for communicative acts: the rehearsal stage and
the performance stage. Dodson emphasises the importance of allowing the student to pass from "mediumorientated communication" to "message-orientated communication" (p. 48).
According to constructivist theories, learning should be multi-modal, task-based, and content-based
(Warschauer & Healey, 1998). There should be a strong focus on learner-centredness, with the teacher
acting as a facilitator and the learner free to make his or her own interpretations. According to Driscoll
(1994), student ownership of learning should be fostered through reflection. Examples of this might
include learner logs and goal-setting, reflection, and monitoring of progress. Self-awareness of knowledge
construction should also be encouraged (Driscoll, 1994). Another aspect of constructivist learning is
Vygotsky's zone of proximal development (1978), which involves developing a scaffolding for
knowledge construction through student collaboration. All of these features were considered important in
underpinning the pedagogy behind the TOLD project.
In constructing a project looking at assessment and aiming also to measure progress, the TOLD Project
team was also mindful of past criticism levelled at weaknesses of much research involving quantitative
measurement of student progress using CALL. Due to various constraints (e.g., pressures of timetabling,
small class sizes, problems with the obtaining of comparison groups, unfamiliarity with statistical
analysis) it has often been difficult for language teachers to address charges of small sample sizes, faulty
statistical analysis, and inadequate length of treatment to measure educational outcomes (Reeves, 1993;
Schmitt, 1991;). Salaberry (1996) has called for a careful combination of qualitative and quantitative
analysis that addresses these various design problems and that is founded on a sound basis of pedagogical
theory.
This paper examines the following questions:
1) Does computer technology enhance significantly progress in students' oral language
development?
2) What factors may affect students' oral language development when using computers?
3) How do staff and students react to the use of computer technology for oral language
development?
Our null hypothesis is that a CALL environment makes no difference to learning gains in oral language
development. The alternative hypothesis (i.e., that it does make a significant difference, be it positive or
negative) will be gauged by a configuration of data collection methods (Levy, 2000, p. 180) including
quantitative analysis of learning gains.
With only one semester of a three-year quasi-experimental study2 completed, our sample size of 29 drops
just short of enabling us to assume normality and we have had to run appropriate analyses for small
samples (see the later description of the Mann-Whitney test, Wilcoxon's matched pairs test, and the
Spearman Rho test) alongside the usual parametric tests. Nevertheless, the project team aims to repeat the
study over the next six semesters with first year students so as to ensure a larger sample size and will also
follow their progress over the course of their degree programme, with the aim of obtaining increasingly
reliable data.
57
TOLD Like It Is!
METHODOLOGY
Context of Project
1) Hours -- 1 hour per week over a 12-week semester, the standard time allocated to French conversation
classes
2) Language groups -- The students were divided into four small conversation classes of between 5 and
11 students, along course lines. This was determined mainly by timetable considerations. Two foreign
language assistants each taught two classes.
3) Comparison groups -- Two of the four groups were "comparison" groups taught in the "traditional"
manner (i.e., usually in the classroom, sometimes also in the [analogue] language laboratory; never in
the multimedia lab). For the purpose of this paper we will refer to these two groups as one entity: "the
comparison group."
4) Treatment/test groups -- two of the four groups were "treatment" groups and were taught every week
in the multimedia laboratory. For the purpose of this paper we will refer to these two groups as a
single entity: "the treatment group."
5) The comparison groups were made up of Combined Arts students and the treatment groups made up
of Applied Languages students. Our analysis of student ability found broad comparability between
the two groups.
6) Resources available to the two treatment groups were
FLA;
digital multimedia laboratory; and
the software TellMeMore® (Version 5) by Auralog. This software includes speech
recognition technology with a variety of colourful interactive activities rehearsing all the four
main language skills and provides an interactive glossary and grammar.
Data Collection and Evaluation Methods3
•
•
•
1) Language Experience Questionnaire. This asked for data such as language qualifications, number of
foreign languages studied, amount of time spent in the country of the target language, and student
confidence and fluency levels across the range of language learning skills. An overall percentage
rating was obtained for each student. This was correlated with student progress (posttest percentage
less pretest percentage).
2) ICT-use survey. This collected information on student access to and use of a range of common ICT
(information and communications technology) applications, e-mail, and the Web for personal and
study purposes. It also gathered data on student use of mobile phones. An overall percentage rating
was obtained for each student. Again this was correlated with student progress. Both surveys support
the theory of Driscoll (1994), advocating self-awareness of knowledge construction.
3) Journals. Students were given a paper-based log at the start of the project and were asked to list their
goals for progress in their oral language development from a checklist of oral skills and then, for each
session, to record their impressions of the lesson. They were asked to comment on what they thought
had worked well and make suggestions as to how it could have been improved. This supports
Driscoll's theory about student ownership of learning.
4) Pre- and Posttest. All students sat the same pre- and posttest under the same conditions. The setting
for the tests was a traditional (analogue) language laboratory. There were five sections to the test: a
pronunciation task; some personal questions; a listening comprehension exercise presented initially
without transcript of the text and questions, and then with these, for which the students recorded oral
answers; and lastly, an oral résumé of an extract of a television documentary.
58
TOLD Like It Is!
PROJECT ENVIRONMENT, CONTENT, AND DELIVERY
The Environment
The Faculty of Arts at the University of Ulster is spread across multiple campuses. Our project utilized
the language resources available to us on the Coleraine campus. The facilities at hand include a
Multimedia lab computer-based and an audio-visual laboratory.
The multimedia classroom possesses a comprehensive video and audio switching system for the
management of the classroom. SmartClass® Plug and Play computer supervisory system enables the
teacher to maintain audio and visual contact with each student and the computer screen they are using.
The system has a teacher console and 16 workstations each networked and equipped with Robotel
technology, in particular the SmartClass® multimedia language-learning environment (see Figure 1). The
language tutor can monitor and communicate with individual students or the whole class, broadcast
material from and to any workstation in the network, or take control of any student's screen, keyboard or
mouse functions at any time.
Figure 1. Controlling the multimedia classroom: the SmartClass® visual interface
The hardware was used in conjunction with TellMeMore® (version 5, Auralog), including speech
recognition technology S.E.T.S. (spoken error tracking system) which automatically detects pronunciation
errors. The TellMeMore® software includes a variety of colourful interactive activities rehearsing all the
four main language skills as well as providing an interactive glossary and grammar.
Content
Our pedagogical approach was informed by a desire to draw on the effectiveness of both traditional
teaching and learning methods as well as the benefits of a technological environment. An effective
traditional method is the small group discussion with its emphasis on human interaction in a meaningful
context, which is difficult to replicate in a technological setting. One of our aims in this project was to
replicate this small group intimacy factor within the potentially impersonal e-lab. An example of an
effective technological method might be the use of CALL software for pronunciation drilling with
59
TOLD Like It Is!
individualised instant feedback. We felt it important to make the most of this feature in the e-lab, and for
the sake of comparability we introduced a pronunciation-drilling element into the comparison (Non-Tech)
group's routine. Thus, to a large extent our pedagogical approach was determined by our desire to keep
the content similar across the two groups.
Planning
Our lesson planning was informed by the desire to blend the best of both approaches. Activities were also
designed to flow in Dodson's (1978) progression from rehearsal to meaningful performance, allowing the
student to pass from "medium-orientated communication" to "message-orientated communication" (p.
48).
The design of the CALL software used (TellMeMore®) seemed to reflect an awareness of these stages
(e.g., start with pronunciation drilling and progress to simulated interactive role-plays). However, we
were conscious that the software gave no opportunity for face-to-face communication between the
students and they saw this too. For this reason, our lesson design included progression beyond the
software to the message-orientation phase of more traditional group discussion and presentation.
Planning and Content Features Common to Both Groups. Lesson plans shared a similar structure
involving progression from pre-communication to rehearsal, information retrieval, assimilation, and final
meaningful production in the target language. All groups shared the following 11 oral language
development skills targets:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
pronunciation
accent and intonation
fluency
one-to-one with a French person
one-to-one with an English speaker
responding spontaneously in a conversation
responding to visual or aural input (e.g., from TV/Radio)
taking an active part in a structured group discussion
taking an active part in an unstructured group discussion
giving a group presentation
giving a presentation on my own
These skills informed lesson planning and student goal setting and were integral to monitoring, feedback,
and students' reflection on their own learning. This was drawn from social constructivist theory, for
example Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (1978), which involves developing a scaffolding for
knowledge construction through collaboration.
Delivery
For the complete list of lesson plans and topics, please refer to http://www.arts.ulster.ac.uk/lanlit/french/
research/told/
Although classes for the treatment group took place in the multimedia teaching lab, while students in the
comparison group did not have these facilities at their disposition, the lesson topics, texts, comprehension
questions, and pronunciation drills remained common to both groups. Students in the treatment group
recorded their pronunciation of a passage or respond to a series of pre-recorded questions digitally, while
the comparison group recorded themselves using an analogue recorder. An example of a pronunciationcomprehension-oral production activity can be found in Appendix A.
Multimedia was a feature of all the oral classes for the treatment group, and not just an add-on. The only
time that students regularly broke from interaction with the computers was for the purpose of group
discussion or conversation. Given the restrictions of the software and hardware resources available to us
60
TOLD Like It Is!
and the fact that we were not using CMC (computer mediated communication) for this project we
concluded that the multimedia lab was best suited for the tutorial and rehearsal and assessment phases of
oral work. We found a strong case can be made for the use of technology for these phases of oral skills
teaching and learning.
Although our pedagogical approach reflects a combination of objectives and requirements set out a priori,
in practice, each tutor enjoyed a degree of flexibility in terms of his/her content delivery, presentation,
and style. Also, the original pedagogical plan evolved during the course of the semester, in light of
ongoing feedback from tutors, students, as well as research staff. The original goals given to the students
remained unchanged, as did the guiding principles of message-orientated communication via the process
of pre-communication, rehearsal, information retrieval, assimilation, and final meaningful production.
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Research Question 1: To evaluate the learning gains in oral language made by the treatment and
the comparison groups and test for significance
For an analysis of individual learning gains see Appendix B, which presents the collated raw data,
showing individual scores for the predictor (or independent) variables of attendance, language learning
experience, and ICT-use, and the individual scores for the outcome (or dependent) variables of the preand posttest, as well as the difference between the two. These are all expressed as percentages. What
follows below is primarily an analysis of the group mean scores taken from the raw data.
An Analysis of Group Learning Gains
Figure 2 and Table 1 show the mean improvement, or group learning gain, from the pre- to the posttest
for the treatment group (Tech) and the comparison group (Non-Tech). At this stage we are looking at
global mean scores, not the learning gains in each of the oral skills tested for.
Figure 2. Mean improvement from the pre- to the posttest for the treatment group (Tech) and the control
group (Non-Tech)
61
TOLD Like It Is!
Group Statistics for the Means of Pre-/ Post-Test Totals (see also Figure 2)
Table 1. Mean Improvement From the Pre- to the Posttest for the Treatment Group (Tech) and the
Comparison Group (Non-Tech)
Total %
Ptotal
Tech or Non-Tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
N
15
14
15
14
M
70.60
63.64
77.20
77.21
SD
13.222
15.184
7.408
10.519
Std. Error Mean
3.414
4.058
1.913
2.811
From Figure 2 and Table 1 we can see that over the course of the semester and between pre- and posttest,
both groups on average made progress, while the Non-Tech group made more progress than the Tech
group. This quantitative data raises several qualitative questions:
Why did the comparison group (those not exposed to technology), while starting from a lower
mean starting point (64%) make a 13% leap up to 77%, compared with the treatment group's 6%
rise from 71% to 77%?
• Was the technology a hindrance, and if so at what point and for how long? And would this hurdle
over a longer study period be reduced as the students got used to the technology?
• How much did the time spent coaching in how to use the multimedia lab and associated software,
and dealing with technical glitches, affect the progress of the treatment group?
• Can we triangulate data from the qualitative data (the student and staff logs and evaluations) that
would clarify the quantitative data?
• If we look closer at the individual tasks and skills do they reveal if the progress is being made in
some tasks and skills more than others?
• Are other variables (such as language learning experience, ICT-use, attendance) influencing the
data?
Having looked at the global group learning gains we can now compare progress in each of the different
tasks and skills tested for in the pre- and post-test. In Table 2, the first 11 rows cover the pre-test scores
for the five tasks and five skills assessed and the total (Total%); the next 11 rows cover the equivalent
scores for the post-test. (Note: Tasks 1 and 3 became unusable for the purposes of comparison because the
wrong text/procedure in the pre-test was mistakenly used in one of the pre-test sittings.)
•
The following explanations refer to the abbreviations we have used to denote different sections of the preand post-tests:
Task 1,2,3,4,5
ptask 1,2,3,4,5
Task 1 and ptask1
Task 2 and ptask2
Task 3 and ptask3
Task 4 and ptask4
Task 5 and ptask5
refers to the pre-test score
refers to the post-test score
Pronunciation task -- students read from a text selected to assess
command of a range of phonemes that typically pose a challenge to
anglophones, and are marked for Pronunciation, Accent/Intonation, and
Fluency.
Students answer questions (x5) about themselves (e.g., how long they've
been learning French/ where they come from/ describe their personality/
interests/ plans for the summer). They are marked for Pronunciation,
Accent/Intonation, Fluency, Content, and Grammar.
Students answer, orally, questions on a heard text (no transcript). They are
marked and graded by the teachers.
Students answer, orally, questions on the same text as above, but this time
seen as a transcript; the questions are also seen this time.
Students view a short (3 minute) video clip (from a documentary about
France 2) and give an oral résumé of the content (after 2 viewings).
62
Total and Ptotal
Pronunciation and
ppron, etc.
TOLD Like It Is!
Students were not given freedom to replay the video.
refer to the respective totals from the two tests
likewise refer to the respective (pre- and post-test) scores for each skill
assessed in the different tasks
Teachers conducted all marking after the tests were completed. All answers were recorded on audiocassette.
Table 2. Task-by-Task and Skill-by-Skill Comparison of Pre- and Posttest Scores for Both the Treatment
and Control Groups
Task 1%
Task 2% (PRE)
Task 3%
Task 4%
Task 5%
Pronunciation %
Accent/Intonation %
Fluency %
Content %
Grammar %
Total %
ptask1
ptask2 (POST)
ptask3
ptask4
ptask5
ppron
pAccInt
Tech or
Non-Tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
N
6
4
14
14
6
3
14
13
15
14
15
14
15
14
15
14
15
14
15
14
15
14
15
14
15
14
15
14
15
14
15
12
15
14
15
14
M
69.67
69.00
70.57
62.14
71.67
58.00
75.57
72.15
65.47
60.00
65.60
58.21
67.80
57.36
75.60
68.36
73.60
70.14
72.53
61.64
70.60
63.64
77.80
71.71
79.53
77.57
72.27
74.71
83.53
78.43
71.73
68.50
74.40
71.93
78.60
78.64
SD
11.639
5.477
14.053
22.017
13.110
12.288
15.820
16.411
17.900
14.655
13.087
10.504
12.531
10.135
14.966
18.333
15.099
18.691
15.514
18.612
13.222
15.184
7.103
10.730
9.219
11.863
10.720
20.435
8.383
20.114
10.899
11.180
7.405
10.269
10.642
15.653
Std. Error
Mean
4.752
2.739
3.756
5.884
5.352
7.095
4.228
4.551
4.622
3.917
3.379
2.807
3.236
2.709
3.864
4.900
3.898
4.995
4.006
4.974
3.414
4.058
1.834
2.868
2.380
3.170
2.768
5.462
2.164
5.376
2.814
3.227
1.912
2.745
2.748
4.183
63
pfluency
pcontent
pgrammar
PTotal
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
Tech
Non-tech
TOLD Like It Is!
15
14
15
14
15
14
15
14
81.60
81.50
80.33
82.29
74.93
72.43
77.20
77.21
9.132
13.178
7.247
12.356
9.830
10.471
7.408
10.519
2.358
3.522
1.871
3.302
2.538
2.799
1.913
2.811
In Table 2, the highlighted Task 2 boxes (in which students answered questions about themselves) show,
as an example, progress in both the treatment and the comparison groups. For this skill greater progress
was made by the comparison group.
In order to show whether there are any significant relationships between compared data, the following
comparisons were of interest:
1) Comparing the students' pre- and post test total scores for a broad gauge of progress over the
semester. Had progress been made by everyone irrespective of which group they were in?
2) Comparing the students' pre- and post-test scores by the independent variable of which teaching
group they were in. Here we were interested in comparing progress made across the two groups,
comparison and treatment, to see if significantly more or less progress was made by one or other.
The above comparisons were carried out for each of the five tasks in the test and for each of the five skills
under analysis (pronunciation, accent/intonation, fluency, content, and grammatical accuracy) to see if
more progress had been made in certain skills rather than others and whether there were any reasonable
assumptions possible as to the causes for this. Finally, in order to assess whether it was possible that
factors, other than which group they were in, were influencing students' progress, an analysis of the other
variables we had tested (attendance, language learning experience, ICT-use) was made.
The most useful tests for our project were those which
1) Compare the means in the pre- and posttests to see if there has been any general improvement
over the semester in the whole cohort ("within-subjects" analysis).
2) Compare the means of two or more independent samples (groups of individuals), in our case the
treatment group and the comparison group, to see if one group has made significantly more
progress than the other ("between-subjects" analysis).
For both of the above, an independent samples t-test (for parametric samples) was carried out, and its
non-parametric equivalent (Mann-Whitney Test). A parametric sample is one where the sample is
sufficiently large (30 or more records) for one to be able to make reasonably safe generalisations. Nonparametric analysis is required for small samples such as ours where normality, or safe generalisability,
cannot be assumed (i.e., the total sample size was N=29 and the independent samples were no larger than
N=15). Given that the results of the two types of analysis were very similar, for the interests of brevity we
have only included here the parametric data and tables for this and all remaining analyses.
Test Differences of the Mean From Two Sets of Observations From the Same Group of Individuals.
Here we were interested in comparing one group's performance under one set of conditions (i.e., the
pretest by overall totals, or by task and skill) with their performance under another set of conditions (i.e.,
the posttest, again looking at overall totals and separate tasks and skills).
Our null hypothesis is that exposure to technology in oral language development makes no difference. We
can accept the alternative hypothesis (i.e., that exposure to technology, even over the course of one
semester, does make a difference to progress in oral language development) if our p value in our
64
TOLD Like It Is!
compared means tests for pre- and posttest scores across the two groups is less than or equal to 0.05 (i.e.,
is at a 95% or higher level of confidence).
Test the Degrees of Relationship or Correlation Between Variables. This test was to see if there was a
positive or negative correlation between the variables attendance, language learning experience, and ICTuse, and to see how strong this correlation was. It is worth noting that correlation does not imply
causation. As with any correlation, there could be a third variable which explains the association between
the variables we measured. So in the case of the TOLD project, even if we showed that there was a strong
positive correlation, say, between ICT-use score and progress in the Tech group, a third variable such as
"positive exposure to something new" (the so-called "Hawthorne effect") may be playing a significant
role, especially as these were undergraduates in their first weeks of experiencing a new multi-media lab.
For this analysis, a Pearson's Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (Pearson's r) Test was carried out
and its non-parametric equivalent (Spearman's Rho Test). Tables 3 and 4 confirm the above conclusions
by means of a paired t-test showing that improvement took place in both groups. This paired t-test shows,
by group, the differences in the compared means of the pre- and posttests. A minus sign before the figure
in the mean column actually denotes an increase (not a decrease) from pre- to posttest. A comparison of
the p-values (final column) shows that the confidence levels that improvement was not down to chance
are high for both groups, but highest for the Non-Tech (comparison) group. The significance values (p or
Sig.) are both less than 0.01 (i.e., above the 99% confidence level). We therefore reject the null
hypothesis (that in this case the sample means of the pre- and post-tests are equal across both groups) and
accept the alternative hypothesis that improvement did take place. However, we must conclude that
because the comparison group also made significant progress the improvements cannot be attributed to
technology.
Table 3. Paired t-Test Showing, by Group, the Differences in the Compared Means of the Pre- and
Posttest Totals for the Control Group (Non-Tech)
Pair 1
Total % = PTotal
M
SD
-13.571
8.925
Paired Differences
Std.
95% Confidence Interval
Error
of the Difference
Mean
Upper
Lower
2.385
-18.724
-8.419
t
df
Sig. (2tailed)
-5.690
13
.000
Table 4. Paired t-Test Showing, by Group, the Differences in the Compared Means of the Pre- and
Posttest Totals for the Treatment Group (Tech)
Pair 1
Total % = PTotal
M
SD
-6.600
8.069
Paired Differences
Std.
95% Confidence Interval
Error
of the Difference
Mean
Upper
Lower
2.083
-2.131
-11.069
t
df
Sig. (2tailed)
-3.168
14
.007
65
TOLD Like It Is!
Table 5. (Parametric) Independent Samples Test -- Comparing the Means of the Two Groups Against
Each Other
PTotal
Total %
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
Equal varliances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal varliances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
F
Sig
.331
.570
1.144
t-Test for Equality of Means
Mean
Differ
-ence
Std. Error
Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
t
df
Sig
(2tailed)
1.318
27
.198
6.957
5.277
-3.871
17.785
1.312
25.877
.201
6.957
5.303
-3.946
17.860
-.004
27
.997
-.014
3.360
-6.908
6.879
-.004
23.205
.997
-.014
3.400
-7.045
7.016
.294
In the parametric test described in Table 5 the p (Sig.) values highlighted for both the pre- and posttest
across the two groups are greater than 0.05, that is, falling below acceptable confidence levels for us to
infer a significant difference between the two groups sets of results. We, therefore, cannot accept the
alternative hypothesis (H1) that exposure to technology over the course of one semester makes a
significant difference to progress in oral language development.
We must now check, task by task and skill by skill, whether there are any exceptions to this inference that
might show that significant progress was made only in the treatment group. Tables 6 and 7 show the
results of submitting the data to a paired samples t-test in which mean progress in each task and skill in
the pre-post test is tested for significance. We were surprised to see that most results seemed to favour the
comparison group.
Table 6. Task-by-Task and Skill-by-Skill Paired Samples t-Test for the Treatment Group (Tech)
Pair 1
Pair 2
Pair 3
Pair 4
Pair 5
Pair 6
Pair 7
Pair 8
Pair 9
Total % - PTotal
Task 2% - ptask2
Task 4% - ptask4
Task 5% - ptask5
Pronunciation % ppron
Accent/Intonation %
- pAccInt
Fluency % - pfluency
Content % - pcontent
Grammar % pgrammar
M
-6.600
-8.429
-7.357
-6.267
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
Error
SD
Mean Lower
Upper
8.069
2.083 -11.069 -2.131
11.817 3.158 -15.252 -1.605
13.703 3.662 -15.269
.555
18.219 4.704 -16.356 3.823
t
-3.168
-2.669
-2.009
-1.332
df
14
13
13
14
Sig.
(2tailed)
.007
.019
.066
.204
-8.800
9.615
2.483
-14.125
-3.475
-3.545
14
.003
-10.800
10.930
2.822
-16.853
-4.747
-3.827
14
.002
-6.000
-6.733
11.458
13.128
2.958
3.390
-12.345
-14.004
.345
.537
-2.028
-1.986
14
14
.062
.067
-2.400
11.224
2.898
-8.615
3.815
-.828
14
.421
66
TOLD Like It Is!
Table 7. Task-by-Task and Skill-by-Skill Paired Samples t-Test for the Control Group (Non-Tech)
Pair 1
Pair 2
Pair 3
Pair 4
Pair 5
Pair 6
Pair 7
Pair 8
Pair 9
Total % - PTotal
Task 2% - ptask2
Task 4% - ptask4
Task 5% - ptask5
Pronunciation % ppron
Accent/Intonation %
- pAccInt
Fluency % - pfluency
Content % - pcontent
Grammar % pgrammar
M
-13.571
-15.429
-7.000
-7.917
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
Error
SD
Mean Lower
Upper
8.925
2.385 -18.724 -8.419
18.912 5.054 -26.348 -4.509
27.139 7.527 -23.400 9.400
14.311 4.131 -17.010 1.176
t
-5.690
-3.053
-.930
-1.916
df
13
13
2
11
Sig.
(2tailed)
.000
.009
.371
.082
-13.714
11.317
3.024
-20.248
-7.180
-4.534
13
.001
-21.286
14.824
3.962
-29.845
-12.726
-5.373
13
.000
-13.143
-12.143
13.132
12.347
3.510
3.300
-20.725
-19.272
-5.561
-5.014
-3.745
-3.680
13
13
.002
.003
-10.786
15.338
4.099
-19.642
-1.930
-2.631
13
.021
This data can also be displayed as bar charts (see Figures 3 and 4). Confidence levels are marked with
asterisks: * = confidence from p = 0.05 (i.e., at the 95% level) up to, but not including, p = 0.01 (i.e., at
the 99% level); ** = confidence from 99% to 100% confidence level, or p = 0.01 or less.
Figure 3. Progress for the Tech (treatment group) with significance values (*/**)
67
TOLD Like It Is!
Figure 4. Progress for the Non-Tech (comparison group) with significant values (*/**)
Research Question 2: What factors may affect students' oral language development when using
computers?
Tables 6 and 7 and Figure 3 and 4 reflect the progress made in both groups with the comparison group
actually showing more areas (overall total, one task, and all five skills) than the treatment group (overall
total, one task, and only two skills) of significant progress that cannot be attributable to chance. Neither of
the remaining tasks (Task 4, the hear-and- respond comprehension; and Task 5, the résumé of a video
extract) showed significant improvement for either group. Such results must be left to one side.
However, for the skills of fluency, content, and grammar, the comparison group did make significant
progress while the treatment group did not. What factors were at play here? One is not so surprised that
fluency and content improved more in the comparison group as more time was spent in this group on
meaningful communication. What is more surprising is the fact that the treatment group, which had access
to grammar drilling software with built-in feedback, did not progress more in the area of grammar. One
would expect, however, that a group with access to CALL grammar reference and drilling tools as well as
Web-based topic-based content would benefit in the longer term.
The one task that both groups had in common in terms of significant progress made was Task 2 (the five
personal questions) and the skills they had in common were pronunciation and accent/intonation. Progress
in Task 2, one could say, is not a surprising outcome given that students are likely to feel most
comfortable when talking about familiar topics such as themselves whatever the context (technology
based or not). This tends to be the area that FLAs use to start weekly conversation classes. From a skills
point of view, one would expect pronunciation and accent/intonation would be the skills that a
conversation class with a native speaker would develop the most, again regardless of the environment.
A configuration of our data sources might help to highlight those factors contributing to learning gains
and differences across the two groups. The student logs, for example, point to the human element or lack
of it as being a key factor influencing student (and to some extent staff) reactions. The qualitative analysis
68
TOLD Like It Is!
below will assess this. Further research including targeted questions in a Focus group might also have got
closer to the factors thrown up by the quantitative findings. A larger sample size would also have enabled
multivariate analysis which would have highlighted possible other factors involved.
SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
In answer to our first research question as to whether computer technology significantly enhances
students' progress in oral language development we have drawn the following conclusions:
1) The parametric and non-parametric results were very similar for all the tests analysed for this paper,
implying that the sample size for these tests (N=29) was sufficiently reliable data from which to make
inferences. Nevertheless, a larger sample size would be preferable from which to make generalizable
statements.
2) The language learning experience survey showed that both the treatment and the comparison groups
were, when viewed as a whole, starting from the same ability/experience benchmark. This went some
way towards countering the skewing effect that might have been caused by the fact that these groups
were not randomly selected but self-selecting according to course.
3) Given that our data showed that the CALL environment did lead to improvement we might have been
tempted initially to reject our null hypothesis (that the CALL context does not make a significant
difference to oral language development). However, in the light of the between-subjects comparison
(paired t-tests) we have seen that the difference/improvement cannot, over the short term in any case,
be attributable to a computer-based environment since both groups progressed, and if anything the
comparison group made more progress. We controlled as much as we could also for differences
attributable to teacher input, by ensuring that the two native-speaker tutors both taught in each context
and that the subject matter was similar.
4) While both groups were shown to have made significant progress over the semester, the comparison
group (Non-Tech) generally made more progress than the treatment (Tech) group. This can be seen
by comparing, skill by skill, the mean of each group's progress from pre to post-test (see Table 2).
This shows that the comparison group made significantly more progress than the treatment group,
which also made progress. The average percentage gain for the treatment group was 5.44, whereas
that of the comparison group was 15.64.
5) It is now clear that two alternative hypotheses will now need to be tested in greater depth: H1 = The
CALL environment does make a positive difference in certain aspects (skills or tasks) of oral
language development, such as accent and pronunciation/intonation; and H2 = The CALL
environment hinders certain aspects (skills or tasks) of oral language development.
In answer to our second research question which aimed at isolating the factors that may affect oral
language development, the following conclusions were drawn:
1) According to our statistical findings, it appears that the CALL environment inhibited progress in oral
language development more than the traditional non-CALL setting. While overall both groups
progressed, the comparison group showed significant progress in more oral skill areas than the
treatment group. Nevertheless, given the cohort size, it would be inappropriate to say conclusively
that the technology hindered performance. A more likely explanation would be that more of the
curriculum could be covered in the Non-Tech classes than in the Tech group because time did not
need to be spent adjusting to the technology and this ensured good linguistic progress could be made
by those students not using technology.
2) Factors that may have acted as inhibitors or brakes on progress may have been: the short length of the
study so far combined with the fact that the treatment group lost some time actually getting used to
69
TOLD Like It Is!
the computer-based environment and software, time which the other group were able to use on task;
also the fact that the students and the teaching staff were novices in the CALL environment, which
may have exacerbated resistance and reluctance on the part of some of them, just as much as for some
it may have had a positive (Hawthorne) effect. We did not in this study isolate quantitatively which
effect resulted in individual cases. However, it may be possible to map statements (positive or
negative) from the student logs with individual scores to see if there was a correlation. Focus groups
could have teased out the reasons on a skill by skill and task by task basis.
3) A negative correlation was found to exist between student improvement over the semester and their
language learning experience in both the treatment and comparison groups. In other words both
contexts most encouraged the weaker students. Given that we have shown that the ICT environment
did not contribute significantly to progress, we must look elsewhere for an explanation of this finding.
It might, for example, be due to the smaller group context (as opposed to the more threatening lecture/
large seminar environment) and the closer attention students received in the experimental situation,
which may have raised the confidence of the weaker students.
4) No significant correlation was found to exist between ICT-use scores and progress and attendance
and progress. The first variable (ICT-use) we attributed to the fact that this was a new ICT
environment for most, if not all, and that new ICT skills were therefore being learned by all. The
second variable (attendance) we felt was not significant given the short-term nature of the study. Both
variables may well play a larger role in results over a longer-term study.
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
Even though the statistical evidence showed that the pedagogical benefit of using technology for oral
work was unclear (thereby answering the first of our research questions), all the same, the effect of
computer technology is not just measured in these terms. The views of students and staff towards the use
of technology in oral language development also merit consideration to allow us to gauge the reaction of
both groups to the technology and help us answer the third of our research questions. The qualitative
evidence has been drawn from student and staff logs and reports as well as classroom observations.
Acceptance by Learner
The reaction of students towards the use of technology also helps us to consider some of the factors that
may affect their oral development and therefore help us address the second of our research questions. In
the treatment group, the initial weeks of the semester were spent learning how to use the multimedia lab
technology. In the first few weeks, there were problems using the digital voice recorder. That said,
however, what one student considers problematic, another student may find advantageous. This was the
case with the use of headphones to record answers to a video comprehension. One student considered the
headphones difficult to use, while another student welcomed using them as it meant answers to questions
could be recorded without other students hearing what was said, which was less intimidating for the
student. In addition, the information provided on the logs from students in the technology group made
very little reference to problems using the technology and certainly the number of students who described
these problems as affecting the efficacy of the classes was limited (one student). One possible explanation
for this is that students saw beyond the shortcomings of the technology and felt it was making a
difference in their learning because of the opportunities for practice through pronunciation exercises. This
supports the findings of Burnage (2001), who discovered that the most popular CALL package among
students at the University of Cambridge was a difficult-to-use DOS-based program, because students
appreciated its pedagogical value (p. 169).
The statistical data have shown that students made progress in oral development in both treatment and
comparison groups and that this cannot easily be attributed to the use of technology. These findings are
supported by the results of the student logs, which showed that every student (in both the comparison and
70
TOLD Like It Is!
treatment group) who took the time to complete a log felt that progress in oral work was made in several
of the areas listed in the oral skills checklist outlined earlier in this paper. The fact that the use of
technology in this experiment did not add anything significant to the learning process calls into question
the need for using it -- an issue that was not lost on the teaching colleagues in their assessment of the
project. It also highlights a wider issue in the area of CALL and ICT -- whether perceived pedagogical
benefit of technology corresponds to the actual benefit derived. Students in the treatment group were
willing to use technology and generally were very upbeat about its use. In fact, in some cases the use of
computer technology was cited as the most positive aspect of the classes, making classes more interesting.
This supports a widely held view in CALL research that technology motivates students: even critics of
CALL technology concede this point (Ross, 1991, p. 65). That said, however, improving motivation on its
own does not mean that CALL is an effective pedagogical tool. In the case of this project, CALL software
and resources were used to maximise the learning opportunities for students; however students in the
comparison group were exposed to similar learning opportunities in more traditional surroundings. As a
result, the pedagogical impetus for using the technology was lessened.
Student logs also revealed that just under half the students in the treatment group (7 out of 15) described
the group discussions and debates as the best aspect of the oral development classes. These activities were
the least technological aspects of the oral development classes, although students in the treatment group
used the Web to conduct research for ideas before starting the group debate. One of the main reasons
given by students for this preference was that the debates allowed them to engage in meaningful and
relevant, "message-orientated" communication. This feedback highlights an important question regarding
the use of computer technology in oral development: Is message-orientated communication enhanced by
technology? The technology may help in the development and practice of oral skills through drill and
practice and pronunciation exercises (the rehearsal stage) but its role in the application of this practice
(the performance stage) is not as clear. This differs from other language skills where technology can be
used for both stages. Written skills, for example can be practised through CALL exercises, and it is
possible to put these skills into practice through e-mail or other forms of text-based electronic
communication.
Acceptance by Tutor
Discussions with the tutors showed that they were not opposed to the technology in itself, but felt it did
not always fit in with the aims of the oral classes. One colleague remarked that the use of headphones in
the multimedia lab created a gap between the students and her. The staff feedback in general pointed to a
dehumanisation of oral classes when technology is introduced, and this was supported from classroom
observations. In the early classes, computer technology was used for many aspects of student-staff oral
communication, even though everyone was situated in the same room: in those circumstances, technology
was creating an artificial barrier for all concerned. Such a barrier made it difficult for the tutors to
appreciate the potential of using computer technology -- a theory that is supported by Partee (1996, p. 79).
These views showed that unlike students, they had more reservations about using the technology because
it did not seem to contribute to the learning outcomes of the oral classes. As a result, we found the tutors
reaction to be one of pragmatism, in other words, only using the technology when it makes a difference to
the learning process, a view confirmed by Gillespie and Barr (2002, p. 131).
See Appendix C for a tabular comparison of the benefits of a CALL and non-CALL environment for oral
language development classes drawn up as a result of our experiences with the TOLD project.
71
TOLD Like It Is!
CONCLUSION
The results of this paper are inconclusive in proving whether computer technology makes a significant
difference in enhancing students' oral language development. Clearly, this study was limited by time,
which meant that the experiment was really only effective over a 10-week period. Conducting the
research over a longer period might reveal more definitive conclusions.
Despite the limitations of the project, our findings show that one main factor affected such development.
The content of the classes meant that the use of technology in this project was not always relevant in
achieving learning outcomes. This may also help us to explain why the students who did not use
technology seemed to perform better: the students and the tutor in the comparison group did not need to
spend valuable time in class to learn how to use the technology. The time taken up learning and using the
technology in the treatment group was used for valuable oral practice in the comparison group. Other
possible factors may be prior use and experience of ICT and attendance, although the results of this paper
do not demonstrate a significant correlation between student performance and these factors and more
evidence is required. Other factors, such as student learning styles may well be a significant variable and
this is being looked at as part of a longer-term study.
Despite the inconclusive findings of the paper, we have discovered that students in general welcome the
use of computer technology to enhance oral skills. In general, students saw the benefits of using computer
technology for drilling oral skills such as pronunciation, although when it came to using these skills for
meaningful communication, the traditional approach of class discussions and one to one conversations
without any technology proved more successful. These findings are broadly confirmed by the reaction of
the class tutors who believed that oral communication skills in a "real" context are best developed through
spontaneous contact with human tutors and classmates. Under the current arrangements, technology is
perhaps better kept out of free conversation and integrated more into pronunciation drilling and the
development of associated skills as well as opening up the possibilities for video and audio conferencing,
including tandem oral work with students from francophone universities. This would require a
redefinition of the format of free oral conversation classes at Ulster.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
After running the project for one semester, a number of lessons have been learned and the experiment will
be repeated subject to the following changes:
1) carry out the project over a longer period (one academic year as opposed to one semester and to
repeat the project with the following year's cohort of first year students);
2) re-visit the variables studied in the pilot project (ICT-use, language learning experience and
attendance) to see whether over the longer period of the study their correlation with progress is more
significant;
3) explore more comprehensively the influence of different variables such as gender and learning style;
4) develop individualized learning paths based on diagnostic surveys and tests, to cater for all levels of
student ability;
5) modify the pedagogy used in the pilot project to make the technology more relevant to the learning
experience (e.g., explore the possibilities of message-orientated communication locally, for example,
turning the multimedia lab into a newsroom, and remotely, including cross-campus and international
multimedia video conferencing); and
6) pay heed to a recent study by Hubbard (2004, p. 165) of over 90 research articles which sounds a note
of caution regarding the overdependence on using for research data what he calls "neophytes" to the
72
TOLD Like It Is!
CALL environment. He found that a high percentage of CALL research appears to have the following
characteristics:
•
•
•
Research subjects, whether students or teachers, are novices to CALL.
They are also novices to the task or application under study.
They are often studied exclusively during their initial experience.
APPENDIX A. Sample Lesson Plan With Follow-Up Activity
Activity -- Week 3
"Une loi contre les signes religieux ostensibles à l'école"
Première partie: Compréhension orale
2 écoutes successives du texte (écoute a froid, sans aucun support)
1ere écoute des questions (idem)
Re-écoute du texte
2ème écoute des questions
Ecoute découpée du texte
Deuxième partie: Production orale
3ème écoute des questions
Réponses des étudiants pour chacune des questions
1er travail sur la prononciation
Répétition de mots et d'expressions entendues
2ème travail sur la prononciation
Lecture du texte par les étudiants
Questions posées aux étudiants
1) A quelle date a été remis le rapport?
2) Qu'est-ce qui va être interdit à l'école?
3) A qui le rapport a-t-il été remis?
4) Combien y a-t-il de propositions dans le rapport?
5) Quel adjectif caractérise les signes qui vont être interdits dans les écoles?
6) De quelles religions sont les fêtes qui vont devenir jours fériés?
7) Quel code va être modifié?
8) A quelle date le Président de la République s'est-il prononcé sur le rapport?
9) Est-il favourable ou non à ce rapport?
10) Qu'en est-il du projet actuellement ?
Mots & expressions à répéter
La commission -- La commission Stasi sur la laïcité -- les signes religieux ostensibles -- le principe de
laicite -- une appartenance religieuse ou politique -- la santé publique -- les jours fériés -- le Code du
travail -- un jour de fête religieuse -- le credit de jours fériés -- favorable au projet -- entre les mains des
parlementaires.
French Oral Skills Checklist
•
•
•
•
•
Pronunciation
Accent and intonation
Fluency
One-to-one with a French person
One-to-one with an English speaker
√
√
√
√
73
•
•
•
•
•
•
Responding spontaneously in a conversation
Responding to visual or aural input (e.g., from TV/radio)
Taking an active part in a structured group discussion
Taking an active part in an unstructured group discussion
Giving a group presentation
Giving a presentation on my own
TOLD Like It Is!
√
Follow-up: Listen-Watch-Respond-Discuss Activity
In another class, students in both groups watched a video extract on the theme of "laïcité." This was a
news clip from a TV5 satellite broadcast, which had been recorded in analogue format (for the
comparison group) and then digitised for the treatment group. Each class was divided into two groups
(one group for and one group against) in order to prepare answers to these questions and to lead into a
discussion of the topic of wearing of Islamic head-dress in French educational establishments.
APPENDIX B. Descriptive Statistics -- The Collated Raw Data
The following is an analysis of individual learning gains.
Here we present the collated raw data showing, individual scores for the predictor (or independent)
variables of attendance, language learning experience, and ICT-use, and the individual scores for the
outcome (or dependent) variables of the pre- and posttest, as well as the difference between the two.
These are all expressed as percentages.
In the following table, N=30 (10 males, 20 females; however 1 female in the non-tech group was absent
for the post-test, reducing N to 29 for most comparisons). Also,
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
Columns 4 & 5
Column 6
Column 7
Column 8
1 = Tech group (the treatment or test group) = 15;
2 = Non-Tech group (the comparison group) = 15
1 = male student; 2 = female student
Attendance score; maximum possible was 12 hours out of 12
Percentage scores for the identical pre- and posttests
Denotes the difference between students' pre- and post-test scores
The language learning experience survey score. This score represents a
combination of objective measures (e.g., qualifications/ amount of time spent in
the foreign country) for which we devised our own scoring system, and subjective
measures (e.g., students' assessment of their own confidence and fluency levels in
their language skills) for which we asked them to give a score on a scale of 1-5.
The scores showed a measure of comparability between the groups in that the
mean of each group's survey was nearly identical: 58.2% for the Tech group and
58% for the Non-Tech group. Of course, comparability student to student would
be much more difficult to obtain.
The ICT-use survey. This percentage score summarises a range of student
responses covering their experience of using a range of applications (wordprocessing; spreadsheets; databases; WWW, etc.), their frequency of use of these
applications, their access to computers in university and at home, and also their
use of mobile phones. Most of these scores were given on a 1-5 scale.
74
TOLD Like It Is!
Spreadsheet of Collated Raw Data for Full Cohort (Tech and Non-Tech), Showing N=29 in Most Cases
(TOLD Project, Semester 2, April 2003)
Oral Group
Tech (1);
Non-Tech (2)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Gender
M (1);
F (2)
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
Attendance
% classes
(max =
12/12)
90
90
80
90
80
50
80
100
80
67
92
75
67
67
75
80
40
70
50
50
90
100
70
30
100
100
70
90
90
70
Pre-test
%
76
65
50
89
67
45
79
95
70
78
57
68
72
77
71
47
73
76
61
77
63
81
74
50
69
64
72
77
54
44
Post-test
%
78
69
71
86
74
64
87
86
86
78
68
71
81
80
79
62
absent
89
70
79
84
89
82
75
86
72
87
74
79
53
Post less Pre
%
2
4
21
-3
7
19
8
-9
16
0
11
3
9
3
8
15
13
9
2
21
8
8
25
17
8
15
-3
25
9
Language
learning
experience
survey %
69
51
39
58
53
49
76
73
57
57
60
58
62
57
44
59
60
69
64
77
44
53
60
65
54
67
50
58
spoiled
54
ICT-use
survey %
64
73
48
71
58
71
55
61
71
66
52
53
64
68
50
59
53
66
46
75
TOLD Like It Is!
APPENDIX C. Comparative Benefits of a CALL and Non-CALL Environment for Oral Language
Development Classes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Benefits of Computer Technology in Oral
Benefits of Technology-free Oral Language
Language Development
Development classes
Monitoring
Tutors can monitor and intervene unobtrusively
• Monitoring and intervention is less discreet in
in students' activities in a number of ways that
traditional classroom context.
are not available in analogue language lab facility
or traditional classroom context (keyboard,
screen and mouse control).
Pronunciation
Students can listen repeatedly to the recording of • Sometimes a student can go through a whole
their own efforts against the standard of the
class without having spoken more than seconds/
native speaker
a few minutes of French
Students have individual access to resources on
• Students cannot hear their own voice played back
the Web, which give coaching in pronunciation,
to compare against the native speaker or after
extending the boundaries of the classroom.
correction
• The tolerance threshold of the teacher is variable
and can be more flexible than CALL packages.
Responding spontaneously in a conversation
Possibility for distance learning through
• Traditional class lends itself better to this form of
computer-mediated video conferencing software,
interaction
with target language institutions
Development of banks of role plays that are
accessible on demand
Responding to visual or aural input (eg. From TV/Radio)
A digital lab with streamed digital video/audio
• The traditional approach with one teacher and
providing individual access and control of
access to just one TV/Video/DVD player does
PLAY/PAUSE/ REWIND functions and the
not allow for individual control -- the advantage
recording of student responses to stimuli or
of this is that the teacher may not always want
questions. Teacher can also take control of
the students to have control.
student consoles
Taking an active part in a group discussion
Possibility for distance learning through
• Traditional classroom is better suited to this
computer-mediated video conferencing software,
activity in the same room.
with target language institutions
Giving a presentation
Advantage of a multimedia lab would mainly be
• More suitable where audience are in passive
for those presentations where the presenters wish
mode and where the presenters wish their faces to
for the audience to take an active part in looking
be seen by audience
at/hearing and responding to material on line
Best advantage at a distance
76
TOLD Like It Is!
NOTES
1. For example, an analysis of the titles of all of the articles that appeared in one of the leading CALL
journals, ReCALL, between 2000 and 2004 reveals that the word "oral" appeared only twice.
2. A quasi-experimental study is different from an experimental study in that, while both have pre- and
posttests and treatment and control groups, in the former there is no random assignment of subjects (see
Nunan, 1992, p. 41). For this reason, too, we have used the term "comparison" group (rather than
"control" group), as in our case the division into groups was not random but determined by the course and
timetabling/teaching group considerations.
3. Project documentation such as the pre- and posttests, the surveys, and some lesson plans are available
online at http://www.arts.ulster.ac.uk/lanlit/french/research/told/
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
David Barr teaches French at the University of Ulster. He completed his PhD in the area of computerbased language-learning environments and has published articles and a book in this area. He is a member
of IALLT and EUROCALL and is the UK's national representative for the EUROCALL organisation.
Email: [email protected]
Jonathan Leakey is a Lecturer in French and German in the School of Languages and Literature at the
University of Ulster, Northern Ireland. His principal research interest is computer-assisted language
learning. He is currently undertaking doctoral research in the area of quantitative measurement of student
progress in CALL.
Alexandre Ranchoux is currently a full-time PhD student at the University of Ulster, researching the area
of pedagogy in CALL.
REFERENCES
TellMeMore (Version 5) [Computer software]. Tempe, AZ: Auralog. Information is available at
http://www.auralog.com/en/tellmemore.html
Boullier, D. (2000). La loi du support: Leçons de trois ans d'enseignement numérique à distance [The
golden rules of pedagogical support: lessons learned from 3 years of distance digital teaching]. Les
cahiers numériques, 1(2), 145.
Burnage, G. (2001). Approaches to university network-based language learning. ReCALL, 13(2), 167-178.
Dodson, C. J. (1978). Bilingual education in Wales. Schools Council Committee for Wales, pp. 5-11.
Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Felix, U. (2001). The Web's potential for language learning: The student's perspective. ReCALL, 13(1),
47-58.
Gillespie, J. H., & Barr, J. D. (2002). Resistance, reluctance and radicalism: A study of staff reaction to
the adoption of CALL/C&IT in modern languages departments. ReCALL, 14(1), 120-132.
77
TOLD Like It Is!
Gillespie, J. H., & McKee, J. (1999). Resistance to CALL: Degrees of student reluctance to use CALL
and ICT. ReCALL, 11(1), 38-46.
Goodfellow, R., Jeffreys, I., Miles, T., & Shirra, T. (1996). Face-to-face language learning at a distance?
A study of a videoconference try-out. ReCALL, 8(2), 5-16.
Hincks, R. (2003). Speech technologies for pronunciation feedback and evaluation. ReCALL, 15(1), 3-20.
Hubbard, P. (2004, September). Some subject, treatment and data collection trends in current CALL
research. In 11th International CALL Conference on CALL & Research Methodologies -- Proceedings.
Antwerp, University of Antwerp, 165-166.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Levy, M. (2000). Scope, goals and methods in CALL research: Wuestions of coherence and autonomy.
ReCALL, 12(2), 170 – 195.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Partee, M. (1996). Using e-mail, Web sites & newsgroups to enhance traditional classroom instruction.
T.H.E. Journal, 23(11), 79 – 82.
Reeves, T. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer based instruction: The case of learner control research.
Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 20(2), 39-46.
Ross, M. (1991). The CHILL factor (or computer hindered language learning). Language Learning
Journal, 4, 65-66.
Salaberry, M. R. (1996). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer
mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 14(1), 5-36.
Schmitt, R. (1991). Methodological weaknesses with CAI research. Journal of Computer Based
Instruction, 18(1), 75 – 76.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.),
Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3-20). Tokyo: Logos International.
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language
Teaching, 31, 57-71.
78
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/jepson/
pp. 79-98
CONVERSATIONS -- AND NEGOTIATED INTERACTION -IN TEXT AND VOICE CHAT ROOMS
Kevin Jepson
Monterey Institute of International Studies
ABSTRACT
Despite the expanded use of the Internet for language learning and practice, little attention if any
has been given to the quality of interaction among English L2 speakers in conversational text or
voice chat rooms. This study explored the patterns of repair moves in synchronous non-native
speaker (NNS) text chat rooms in comparison to voice chat rooms on the Internet. The following
questions were posed: (a) Which types of repair moves occur in text and voice chats; and (b) what
are the differences, if any, between the repair moves in text chats and voice chats when time is
held constant? Repair moves made by anonymous NNSs in 10, 5-minute, synchronous chat room
sessions (5 text-chat sessions, 5 voice-chat sessions) were counted and analyzed using chi-square
with alpha set at .05. Significant differences were found between the higher number of total repair
moves made in voice chats and the smaller number in text chats. Qualitative data analysis showed
that repair work in voice chats was often pronunciation-related. The study includes discussion
that may affect teachers' and learners' considerations of the value of NNS chat room interaction
for second language development.
LANGUAGE LEARNING VIA INTERACTION AND REPAIR MOVES
Social interaction is essential to language learning, according to the arguments presented by studies based
in the communicative approach to language teaching (see, e.g., Hall & Verplaetse, 2000; Lantolf, 2000;
Long, 1983, 1996; Pica, 1994). Empirical evidence suggests that social interaction is a wellspring for
negotiation of meaning, a communicative exchange that sustains and repairs conversations (Long 1983,
1996; Pica, 1994). Negotiation of meaning is a cognitive process that speakers use to better understand
one another, that is, to increase the comprehensibility of language input. Furthermore, negotiation of
meaning may result in modified interaction (Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamazaki, 1994; Pica, 1994; Smith, 2004),
which ostensibly optimizes second language acquisition (SLA; Ellis et al., Gass, 1997). Modified
interaction, as defined by Long (1983), is partly accomplished through the conversational repair moves of
negotiation of meaning, including utterances such as clarification requests, comprehension checks, and
incorporations in learners' speech.
In addition to increasing the comprehensibility of input, negotiation of meaning may also raise speakers'
awareness of target language forms. Speakers may be alerted that their speech is inaccurate when
interlocutors make the repair moves of negative feedback, such as the recasts and explicit corrections
interlocutors make to inform speakers of grammatical inaccuracies (Ellis, 1995; Gass, 1997; Long, 1996;
Mackey, 1999; Spada, 1997). As a result, if the speaker recognizes the various types of negative feedback
provided by interlocutors, the speaker may attempt to self-correct (Long, 1996).
The repair moves related to negotiation of meaning and negative feedback may do more than increase the
potential for accuracy and comprehensible input. Swain (1985) emphasized that repair moves force
learners subsequently to generate modified output, or self-correction. Swain argued that when speakers
seek comprehension using only the receptive modalities of listening, they may not pay attention to their
syntactic development. However, when speakers engage their productive modalities by speaking, they
may be pushed to pay attention and change their syntactic output in order to communicate effectively. In
the same vein of research, Pica (1994) established that non-native speakers (NNS) modify their language
79
Kevin Jepson
Conversation -- and Negotiated Interaction...
output lexically, syntactically, and phonologically in order to make their messages clearer. Lyster (1998)
posited that NNSs pay attention and modify grammatical form and proceduralize their language
competence during modified negotiation. Swain (1995) concluded that output may enhance language
accuracy in the following four ways: Output may provide learners with opportunities to (a) notice gaps
between their language and the target language; (b) test their hypotheses about appropriate target
language use; and (c) apply metalinguistic knowledge during the process of noticing gaps and confirming
hypotheses. Thus, a speaker's output may lend to second language development by increasing language
accuracy, intelligibility, and appropriacy (Lyster, 1998; Pica, 1994; Shehadeh, 1999; Swain, 1995).
In particular, certain conversational repair moves may be more conducive than others to generating
modified output (Pica, Holliday, Lewis, & Morgenthaler, 1989) and increased accuracy (Nobuyoshi &
Ellis, 1993). Indeed, Pica et al. noticed that the types of repair moves affected the amount of modified
output more than the type of tasks in which speakers engaged. Subsequent studies showed that
clarification requests in particular pushed speakers to produce modified output that was more accurate
both in regards to tense and syntax (Linnell, 1995; Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993). Shehadeh (2001) found that
self-initiated modified output is important to consider along with other-initiated modified output. Finally,
from a pedagogical perspective, the interactionist principles outlined here, including negotiation of
meaning and modified output as well as negative feedback, are advocated by many coursebooks,
including those by Ellis (1999), Gass and Selinker (2001), Hall and Verplaetse (2000), and Richards
(1998), and recently for the computer-mediated communication (CMC) environment by Doughty and
Long (2003) as part of their Language Teaching Methodological Principles for CALL (computer-assisted
language learning).
Non-Native Speakers Negotiating With Non-Native Speakers
Research on exclusively non-native speaker interaction has most often focused on repair moves made
while performing set tasks (see, e.g., Iwashita, 2001; Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos, & Linnell, 1996;
Shehadeh, 1999). Iwashita conducted an empirical study of how differences in Japanese NNSs' language
proficiency impacted repair moves and modified output in three task types, concluding that groups of
learners of either similar or different proficiency levels may derive valuable interactional benefits. In
English NNS-NNS task-based interaction, Shehadeh found a greater amount of negotiation stemming
from NNS-NNS interactions than from NNS-NS interactions. One study found that the modified
interaction and feedback in Japanese NNSs of English was comparable in regards to quality and quantity
as NS-NNS interactions (Pica et al., 1996).
At the same time, the benefits of NNS face-to-face "spontaneous" conversational interaction with other
non-native speakers have been reported (Ellis et al., 1994; Gass, 1997; Mackey, 1999; Pica, 1994).
Varonis and Gass (1985) discovered a greater degree of repair work in conversations between NNSs of
diverse backgrounds and English language proficiency, as compared to conversations held by control
groups of NS-NNS and NS-NS. Van Lier and Matsuo (2000) corroborated similar findings in three NNS
conversations, and both studies found that in conversations between NNSs of similar proficiency and
backgrounds, repair moves were used less often. In the text and voice chat environment, NNS dyads were
found to produce more negotiation moves than NS-NNS dyads, according to Sauro (2001).
Online Language Learning and Interaction
In the past decade, opportunities for language learning have evolved beyond the limits of time and place
that are inherent to face-to-face interaction (Blake, 2000). Electronic wide-area networks, spread across
the World Wide Web, connect speakers from a wide range of backgrounds and enable expanded
opportunities for social interaction and language learning (Bonk & Kim, 1998). Indeed, the online
language learning environment has greatly impacted the cognitive and social aspects of language learning.
Interaction patterns sway -- and are swayed by -- the unique social activity of the electronic context. Over
their computers and the Internet, early-morning risers from Japan may chat with Brazilian night owls;
80
Kevin Jepson
English teachers in Florida can teach a multicultural group of students across the globe. Typed messages
are used to interact in real-time text chats. These messages have evolved as a new hybrid of spoken,
written, and electronic chat discourse (Blake, 2000; Muniandy, 2002; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer,
1996; Werry, 1996). For example, Muniandy and Werry both found that text chat participants used more
short forms and contractions than in other written forms. Warschauer and Ortega (1999) found that the
discourse of text chats was more complex and formal than face-to-face interaction, yet revealed fewer of
the elements of negotiation of meaning and negative feedback.
Likewise, sociocultural patterns have emerged from the anonymous nature of the online environment,
where students can participate with nicknames, "faceless." Some participants use Internet chat rooms to
play out their fantasy selves, for example (Turkle, 1995). Socioeconomic and gender roles may be
reversed (Huff & King, 1988; McGuire, Kiesler, & Siegel, 1987): McGuire et al. found that in networked
decision-making experiments, female executives were just as likely as male executives to be the first to
suggest proposals, whereas in face-to-face discussions, men were five times as likely to be the first to put
forth proposals. Both learning environment and sociocultural patterns are important considerations in
language learning, because they certainly influence language development (Lantolf, 2000; Spolsky,
1989). Furthermore, Internet chats may facilitate the conditions for optimal language learning
environments (Egbert, Chao, & Hanson-Smith, 1999). Thus, teachers, learners, and researchers alike may
have much to gain from the growing distance-learning environment.
Synchronous Text and Voice Chat for Language Learning
The popularity and significance of the synchronous chat room for language learning is increasing;
therefore, it is presumably imperative to investigate aspects of language development that may result
(Doughty & Long, 2003; Ortega, 1997; Smith, 2003; Warschauer & Kern, 2000). Synchronous chat
environments are conducive to investigations of interactionist theory (Blake, 2000; Smith, 2004). In text
chat rooms, language learners converse in real-time using personal computers and the Internet to send
typed messages, which appear within seconds on their interlocutors' computer screens. Each textual turn
appears in the same format in which it was sent, containing the learner's language and typographical
errors.
Because of its real-time nature, text chat is lauded for resembling face-to-face interaction, and thus may
carry many of the same language development benefits such as negotiation for meaning and repair moves
(Smith, 2003; Warschauer, 1996). For example, Sotillo (2000) found that participants in synchronous text
chat sessions used interactional modifications similar to those used in face-to-face sessions. A number of
studies have noted that NNSs pay more attention to their lexical development than their grammatical
development while negotiating for meaning in both networked and face-to-face environments (Blake,
2000; Pellettieri, 2000; Smith, 2003).
Of course, not all aspects of the text chat and face-to-face environments are similar. In text chat, it is
possible for several participants to send messages simultaneously and regarding unrelated and previously
abandoned topics, thus creating a discourse sequence that is different from face-to-face, where
participants often speak in turn on a single topic thread (Doughty & Long, 2003; Negretti, 1999). As a
result, the text chat environment may promote more of a need for repair moves due to breakdowns in
communication related to topic incoherence (Herring, 1999; Werry, 1996). Furthermore, negotiation
routines in task-based synchronous chat may differ slightly from face-to-face interaction, due to features
such as potential delay in repair after a communication breakdown and continued negotiation well after an
initial repair or piece of negative feedback (Smith, 2003). These features are largely due to the fact that
participants in text chat often do not adhere to turn adjacency conventions that face-to-face speakers
follow (Smith; Werry).
Even though text chat withstands comparison to face-to-face interaction, it may be that voice chat
negotiation routines are an even closer hybrid of face-to-face interaction. In voice chats, learners orally
81
Kevin Jepson
converse in real-time using personal computers, the Internet, microphones, and earphones or speakers.
Each spoken turn is transmitted within seconds, and is broadcast with varying degrees of clarity over the
interlocutor's headphones or speakers. Whereas text chat participants in this study did not practice face-toface turn-adjacency conventions or adhere to discourse coherence structures, voice chat participants did.
Unlike face-to-face interaction, however, voice chat speakers cannot see one another or one another's
environment, gestures, or facial expressions.
Unlike text chat, there is a meager quantity of published research concerning second languages and voice
chat at the time of this writing. The only published study found reported on how two NNSs of English
shifted positions of power in task-based interaction depending on which of the two chat room modes they
used, either text or voice, and the modality they used, either written or oral (Sauro, 2004). Sauro's
findings, however, would not seem to directly contribute to the present study, which investigated
cognitive aspects of conversational repair.
Chat, Sociocultural Theory, and Cognitive Processes
Sociocultural corollaries of Internet text chat interaction have been detailed. Various accounts suggest
that, as compared to face-to-face interaction, computer-mediated communication (CMC) has an
equalizing effect on the quantity and quality of participation across gender, socioeconomic status, and
age, because participants feel less anxious or shy (Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995; Sullivan &
Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996, 2000). Consequently, students may also be more willing to experiment
with linguistic forms (Kelm, 1996; Kern; Turbee, 1996, 1999). Warschauer (2000) reported that
participants felt a resultant empowerment from discussing topics important to their identities and from
increased electronic literacy.
Conversely, an English e-mail discussion list was the basis for learner frustration due to the considerable
control teachers brandished during the electronic interaction (Warschauer & LePeintre, 1997). In addition,
Sauro (2004) questioned the idea that electronic chat rooms necessarily engender democratic
relationships, discovering a shifting power relationship between the same two speakers in text and voice
chat rooms. Even so, text chat seems to enable participants from varying levels of expertise to assist one
another in co-constructing social activity (Ortega, 1997; St. John & Cash, 1995; Schultz, 1996; Warner,
2004).
Research on sociocultural corollaries of text chat has been complemented by investigations into cognitive
processes and resulting modified interaction (Pellettieri 1996, 2000; Iwasaki & Oliver, 2003; Smith, 2003,
2004), which are more closely related to purposes of the present study. In the electronic realm, repair
moves in English NS-NNS electronic text conversations have been confirmed (Rodriguez, 1998; Smith,
2004). Smith (2003) discovered in a study of task-based (teacher-set or teacher-led) chat that about one
third of the total turns taken by English learners were related to negotiation. In a study of NNSs and
teachers in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes, chat tools were used in set tasks between NNSs
and teachers as well as exclusively amongst NNSs to negotiate meaning regarding both language and
content (Chen, Belkada, & Okamoto, 2004). Similarly, Smith (2004) found that task-based text chat
engendered negotiation of meaning as well as short-term SLA amongst NNSs of English, especially
surrounding attempts to resolve confusion over lexical items.
In research on languages other than English, Pellettieri (1996, 2000) suggested that electronic, task-based,
synchronous text discussions between Spanish NNS university students triggered a higher degree of
repair work than did face-to-face interaction. In addition, the task-based chats facilitated negotiation of
meaning that was meaning- and form-related. In a separate study of task-based text chat, Spanish L2
participants who were part of an experimental group of teacher-led chat and classroom interaction
demonstrated gains in their oral proficiency that were greater than their counterparts in the control group
of teacher-led classroom interaction (Payne & Whitney, 2002). Meanwhile, a study of negative feedback
given by Japanese NSs to their NNS partners found that the NNSs were able to use negative feedback as a
82
Kevin Jepson
means to modify their output in task-based chat room interaction (Iwasaki & Oliver, 2003). The authors
concluded that NNSs used more than a quarter of NS negative feedback in their subsequent production, a
figure which was considered useful but lower than in previous face-to-face studies.
Tudini's (2003) research is more closely related to the conversational variable of the present study, in that
the research explored open-ended conversations regarding a set topic between Italian NSs and NNSs in
text chats. Tudini discovered that speakers engaged in modified interaction, triggered mainly by lexical
confusion, which could facilitate SLA. When investigating open-ended text chat conversations between
Japanese NSs and NNSs, Toyoda and Harrison (2002) also discovered several triggers for repair moves
and recommended that teachers attend to those triggers in task-based interaction. In light of these studies,
the conversational mode of chat interaction is possibly significant to interactionist theories of second
language development: Language learners may benefit from the opportunity to negotiate meaning in
entirely authentic target language settings. Furthermore, authentic, conversational settings, which are
typical of many online text and voice chat rooms, are often the most practical and accessible for people
across the globe who are attempting to learn English.
Sauro's (2001) unpublished work with text and voice chat and negotiation of meaning, which was set in
task-based interactions, found that voice chat technology generated more challenging tasks for learners.
However, as relates to the present study, published research concerning conversational repair moves
between English NNSs in text and voice chats seems to be nonexistent at the time of this writing, which,
along with the substantial amount of NNS interaction in text and voice chat rooms across the Web,
implies that this study may be essential. As related to voice chat, the absence of research may be
explained by the fact that voice-based chat technology is relatively new to online language schools. In any
case, substantive research has emphasized the value of NNS conversations for language development
(Nakahama, Tyler, & van Lier, 2001; Schwartz, 1980; van Lier & Matsuo, 2000; Varonis & Gass, 1985).
Nakahama et al. (2001) acknowledged that conversational repair moves, as one facet of face-to-face
conversation, may contribute to second language development. Hence, because of the potential value of
NNS-NNS interaction for SLA, its practicality for language learners, and the increasing availability of
chat rooms for conversation-based language learning, NNS-NNS conversational repair moves in both text
and voice synchronous chat rooms deserve further investigation.
Repair Moves in Text and Voice Chats
The purpose of the exploratory research reported here was to investigate the differences in the repair
moves used by NNSs during conversations in synchronous Internet chat rooms when (a) the chat was
text-based and (b) the chat was voice-based. Because I am unaware of previous research conducted for
this purpose, alpha level was set at .05 under a nondirectional (two-tailed) hypothesis. The research
design is best described as mixed methods (Creswell, 2003), thus contrasting with the dominant
experimental paradigm. Hypotheses were posed and tested in order to reveal any significant differences
between the two pre-existing groups (text and chat); therefore, in the experimental tradition, the design is
closest to ex post facto criterion groups (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991; Shavelson, 1981). Naturalistic inquiry
was used in the data collection process, with no attempt to influence the composition of the groups or the
data produced (Nunan, 1992). At the same time, the data were categorized in the tradition of discourse
analysis (Nunan). In addition, the data analysis bears interpretive discussion, often associated with
interaction analysis (Nunan). The design is exploratory-quantitative-statistical (Grotjahn, 1987), and falls
under the non-interventionist, structured "measuring" category, according to van Lier (1988).
This study addressed the following questions: (a) Which types of repair moves occur in text and voice
chats; and (b) What are the differences, if any, in the repair moves in text chats and the repair moves in
voice chats when time is held constant? This investigation was justified by (a) previous research
supporting the benefits of NNS-NNS interaction and the absence of parallel research in conversational
chat rooms, and (b) questions surrounding the potential value, as measured by various repair moves, of
83
Kevin Jepson
both text and voice conversational chat rooms in providing opportunities for authentic target language
interaction that is presumed to be conducive to second language development.
METHOD
The study was conducted in November 2002 by comparing repair moves performed by NNSs in five 5minute sessions of text chat interaction and, concurrently, in five 5-minute sessions of voice chat. Data
were collected concurrently from the two environments.
Participants
The participants seemed to be NNSs of English at e-English,1 the world's largest private, online English
language school, according to the company's Web site. The school ostensibly serves teenagers and adult
learners and offers business, test preparation, industry-specific, travel, and general English courses. The
number of participants in this study was set by the number of NNSs who actively participated in the
random chat sessions sampled -- averaging six in the text chats and three in the voice chats. An active
participant was defined as one who sent at least one message or spoke at least once during the 5 minutes.
Although it was not possible to select sessions with the same number of participants, sessions occurring at
the exact same time of day were selected in an attempt to control for possible shifts in energy levels,
lifestyles, and other variables that might consequently affect participation.
Participants were anonymous and used nicknames. They presumably logged in to the chat room willingly.
Because of the inherent anonymity of the environment, participants rarely explicitly revealed personal
background regarding gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age, education, or native language. The
gender of the participant was often identifiable due to the sound quality of the participant's voice;
however, the participant's gender could not be verified simply by voice quality. Thus, the focus on
physical and personal characteristics was largely absent from both text and voice chats, and aural cues
were absent from the text chat as well. Anonymity and the electronic environment presented an
opportunity for language, specifically chat room language, to be emphasized.
The participants may have logged-in to the chat rooms for a multitude of reasons, including English
language practice. All participants used English as the main language of communication. At the same
time, many participants seemed to be bilingual or multilingual, and code switched frequently. In addition,
participants seemed to belong to a group of people distinguished by multiple literacies, including varying
degrees of reading, writing, and electronic literacies, and access to the Internet. There was session-tosession variation in participants, that is, the set of participants who were active on a Saturday at 8:54 a.m.
weren't the same set of participants active on a Monday at 9:51 a.m. Thus, there was no way to influence
participant selection or to determine initial differences in participants. Certainly, the nature of the chat
environment defied certain measures of research control due to some of the same factors that also made
chat a unique opportunity for exploration.
On the other hand, the environment inherently supported research control as well. For example, it could
be argued that participant assignment was naturally random. Internal threats to validity posed by people
issues, such as the Hawthorne effect (Mayo, 1933), the halo effect, or participant expectancy were
minimized because participants did not know they were being observed (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991; Smith,
2003): I did not identify myself or participate (a "loitering" approach, which is acceptable chat room
protocol). Participants were anonymous and their identities remained disguised in this research, thus
meeting ethical guidelines set by the American Psychological Association (2002).2
Equipment and Materials
A personal desktop computer running Windows 98 on a local-area network, cable modem connection to
the Internet was used to log-in to text chats at e-English. Simultaneously, a personal electronic notebook
computer running Windows XP with a local-area network, cable modem connection to the Internet was
84
Kevin Jepson
used to log-in to voice chats at e-English. e-English makes five chat rooms available for each of the text
and voice chats: Time to Meet, Re: English, Business, Hobbies, and Global Village. The name of the chat
room seemed to have minimal, if any, effect on the data. Observations revealed that Hobbies and Global
Village were rarely used, and that the chat conversation topics never seemed to be related to the name of
the chat room. For example, participants seemed to introduce themselves, and then speak about their
native countries and the languages they speak regardless of the name of the chat room.
Text chats use e-English Java applet technology to facilitate instant messaging between participants.
Voice chats use a proprietary Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephony3 called HearMe, owned by
PalTalk.4 Messages in the text sessions, which automatically appear on the computer screen, were copied
and pasted into a Microsoft Word document and used as transcriptions for analysis. Due to the nature of
the chat technology and the equipment used, it was not possible to observe if participants edited their own
messages before they sent them. Therefore, some self-correction repair moves may not have been
measurable (personal communication, LLT blind peer-review, October 19, 2004). Further research using
equipment that records keystrokes might reveal information about additional, hidden self-correction
moves by text-chat participants (LLT blind peer-review). Such research might help contribute to measures
of self-correction and internal processing in the SLA field at large. Indeed, SLA research has not yet
established what degree of self-correction occurs in face-to-face interaction as part of speakers' quiet or
silent inner speech (Long & Robinson; 1998; Ohta, 2000).
The voice sessions, for which transcripts were not automatically generated, were recorded live using
Microsoft's digital Sound Recorder and then manually transcribed using word processing software.
Because the participants most likely logged-in from different computer stations, it was impossible to
control for environmental factors such as computer operating system, peripherals, including microphone
and earphone, and Internet connection bandwidth. Variations in these environmental factors may have
affected each participant's quantity and quality of participation.
Procedures
The study consisted of 10 groups (NNSs in 5 conversational text chat sessions and NNSs in 5
conversational voice chat sessions), observed for 5 minutes during five different sessions on five different
days. I signed up for an e-English user nickname (kjepson_kevin) and logged-in, without any unusual
access or procedures. I observed the participants conversing in both the text and voice chats. I
electronically copied and pasted the text messages regularly, as the technology only allowed for a
maximum number of lines before the oldest messages disappeared from the screen. The messages were
saved in a Microsoft Word document for later analysis.
At the same time that I copied the messages from the text chat, I recorded the conversation in the voice
chat room. The recorded digital audio file was then saved for transcription and analysis. I recorded at least
5 minutes in order to provide a cushion against long periods of silence or disruption. After at least 5
minutes of copying and recording, I logged-off of both the text and voice chats. Again, the environmental
conditions were not controlled, save for consistent use by all participants of some form of computer with
Internet access.
Voice chat turn-taking was transcribed, revealing long periods of silence (pauses) between turns. Pauses
sometimes lasted about one minute. VoIP technology has yet to be perfected, often resulting in lapses
between the real-time utterances of interlocutors. I am unaware of previous research that has documented
the length of pauses and the role of pauses in voice chats. For the present study, a pause of zero to six
seconds between turns was established as a norm in voice chat conversation; all pauses beyond six
seconds were noted. Care was taken to examine 5 minutes worth of actual oral data. Further research
might illuminate conventions for pauses in voice chat, whether they are related to the technology or to
language proficiency, and how they affect the social and cognitive factors of language development.
85
Kevin Jepson
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Measures of Repair Moves
Repair moves were operationalized and counted according to two categories, Negotiation of Meaning
(NOM) and Negative Feedback (NF) as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Codes and Operationalizations for Repair Moves in Text and Voice Chat Sessions
Interlocutors
(responding to text or
speech initiated by
another speaker)
Negotiation of Meaning
(NOM; Long, 1983)
CR: clarification requests
e.g., What do you mean by X?
CC: confirmation checks
e.g., Did you mean/say X?
Speakers
(initiating text or
speech)
COMP C: comprehension checks
e.g., Do you understand?
SR/P: self-repetition or paraphrase
e.g., Which / pli:s / uh, / pli:s /, uh which
landmark can I visit
I: incorporations (speaker repairs
utterance based on interlocutor cues; Lin
& Hedgcock, 1996)
e.g., in response to a clarification request,
Yes, I mean X.
Negative Feedback
(NF, Long, 1996)
R: recasts (the interlocutor corrects the
speaker's word or utterance by repeating
it in its correct form)
e.g., This city is beautiful in response to
speaker's This city beautiful.
EC: explicit correction (the interlocutor
tells the speaker of his/her mistake)
e.g., You should say, this city is beautiful.
Q: questions (the interlocutor asks a
question in order to prompt the speaker to
make a correction)
e.g., Can you try that again?
I/F: incorporations (speaker repairs
utterance based on interlocutor feedback;
Lin & Hedgcock, 1996)
e.g., in response to a correction, Sorry,
this city is beautiful.
SC: self-corrections (the speaker initiates
adjustments to her or his own previous
errors without assistance from the
interlocutor)
e.g., This has beeb, I mean been, great.
After the data were collected (and transcribed from voice chats or copied from text chats), repair moves
were coded with the acronyms shown in boldface type as in Table 1. The data were coded from the
perspective that an interlocutor is the person making a repair move, and the speaker is the person making
an utterance that triggers an interlocutor's repair move. In order to establish inter-coder agreement, two
coders normed according to the preceding framework coded 20% of the data. First, the coders coded two
half-sessions each of text and voice chat (four half-sections), discussing discrepancies as they coded.
Then, the two coders independently coded another two half-sessions each of text and voice chat
(Chaudron, 1988). Coders agreed on 89% of their coding, suggesting that the data were coded with strong
consistency.
Quantitative Methods
The data analysis determined that both voice and text chats contain repair moves, namely clarification
requests, confirmation checks, self-repetitions, incorporations, recasts, and explicit corrections. However,
the data analysis showed no evidence of certain types of repair moves, namely comprehension checks,
questions, and self-corrections. Quantitative methods were used to test null and alternative hypotheses:
86
Kevin Jepson
Null hypothesis: The observed distributions of frequencies of the repair moves in text chats and
the repair moves in voice chats equals the expected distributions of frequencies when time is held
constant.
Alternative hypothesis: The observed distributions of frequencies of the repair moves in text
chats and the repair moves in voice chats does not equal the expected distributions of frequencies
when time is held constant.
Significant differences in the number of repair moves were investigated with one-way chi-square (and
Yates' correction for continuity) or Fisher's exact test (Shavelson, 1981; Siegel, 1956). (In instances where
expected frequency levels fell below 10 in two-way chi-square designs, Fisher's exact test was used
instead of chi-square, as suggested by Shavelson). All chi-square calculations showing significant
differences (applicable in this data to df =1 only) were also calculated with phi (φ) for strength of
association, which attempts to minimize the effect of sample size and degrees of freedom on the chisquare statistic (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991).
Chi-square assumptions were met for this analysis because
1) the repair move (dependent) and chat type (independent) variables were nominal;
2) the repair moves were represented by frequency counts;
3) each repair move was counted in only one level of a variable, so that the data were independent -no entries were double-coded; and
4) df = 1, so all expected frequencies will be greater than or equal to 10 (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991;
Shavelson, 1981).
Because there was no previous empirical evidence for relationships or directionality of these counts of
repair moves in conversational chat rooms, the null hypothesis of equal distribution was adopted. Because
this is exploratory research, alpha was set at .05. When the observed chi-square was greater than the
critical value, or when Fisher's exact probability was less than the set probability level of .05, the null
hypothesis was rejected. Thus, it was assumed that the probability was less than 5% that the differences
were due to chance (Shavelson, 1981).
Each instance in each category for each participant was counted. The data were then analyzed from five
different angles, in five steps:
Step 1: significant differences in repair moves produced in text versus voice chat
Step 2a: significant differences of NOM repair moves produced in text versus voice chat
Step 2b: significant differences of NF repair moves produced in text versus voice chat
Step 3: significant differences of NOM repair moves versus NF repair moves produced in
combined chats
Step 4: significant differences of clarification requests versus other types of NOM repair moves
produced in combined chats
Repair Moves in Text Versus Voice Chat
In Step 1, all of the instances of repair moves that each participant produced in each 5-minute session for
both types of chat room were totaled. This analysis produced an overall picture of repair moves (see Table
2).
87
Kevin Jepson
Table 2. Step 1: Frequency of Participant Repair Moves in Text and Voice Chat Sessions
Repair Moves
Text (5 sessions)
8
2
χ = 19.14
Voice (5 sessions)
39
Reject null hypothesis
Total (N)
47
φ =. 64
Chi-square results (x2 = 19.14, p = .05) show that voice chat generated a number of repair moves that was
significantly higher than the number in text chat. In addition, the phi coefficient (φ =. 64) shows that the
association between the repair moves and chat type variables is strong.
Negotiation of Meaning in Text Versus Voice Chat
In Steps 2a and 2b, a close-up analysis of frequencies of NOM and NF repair moves was attempted. Table
3 shows the contingency table for Step 2a:
Table 3. Step 2a: Frequency of Participant Negotiation of Meaning Repair Moves in Text and Voice Chat
Sessions
Negotiation of
Meaning
Text (5 sessions)
6
2
χ = 20.02
Voice (5 sessions)
36
Total (N)
42
φ = .69
Chi-square results (χ2 = 20.02, p = .05) show that voice chat generated a number of negotiation of
meaning repair moves that was significantly greater than the number in text chat. In addition, the phi
coefficient (φ =. 69) shows that the association between the NOM repair moves and chat type is strong.
Negative Feedback in Text Versus Voice Chat
Table 4 shows the frequency of NF moves in text and voice chat, revealing that expected frequencies fell
below ten. Because the chat sessions were classified on one dimension only (negative feedback), Fisher's
exact test was not an appropriate test for significant differences. Furthermore, the cells could not be
collapsed to accommodate the insufficient expected frequencies. Therefore, NF will be addressed further
in qualitative analysis.
Table 4. Step 2b: Frequency of Participant Negative Feedback Repair Moves in Text and Voice Chat
Sessions
Negative Feedback
Text (5 sessions)
2
FE = 2.5
Voice (5 sessions)
Total (N)
3
5
does not meet assumptions for statistical analysis
Negotiation of Meaning Versus Negative Feedback in Combined Chats
Table 5 provides a wide-angle lens, showing both NOM and NF in text chats combined with voice chats
and an analysis via one-way chi-square. Table 5 shows that NF types of repair moves were used
significantly less frequently (χ2 = 27.58, p = .05) than NOM types of repair moves.
Table 5. Step 3: Frequency of Total Participant Negotiation of Meaning Versus Negative Feedback
Repair Moves
Text (5 sessions)
Text & Voice Chat
42
χ2 obs = 27.58, χ2 crit = 3.84, p = .05
Voice (5 sessions)
5
Total (N)
47
φ = .77
The phi coefficient (φ =. 77) shows there is a strong association between electronic chat and the type of
repair moves used.
88
Kevin Jepson
Clarification Requests Versus other NOM Repair Moves
Additionally, clarification requests were used more often than other negotiation of meaning repair move
types in the chats, although the observed frequencies were not significantly different than the frequencies
of other repair moves, as shown in Table 6:
Table 6. Step 4: Frequency of Negotiation of Meaning Repair Move Types in Combined Chats
Clarification
Requests
Confirmation
Checks
Comprehension
Checks
SelfRepetition
Incorporations
Total
(N)
18
9
0
8
7
42
Text &
Voice Chat
χ2 obs = 7.33, χ2 crit = 7.82, p = .05 Accept null hypothesis
Qualitative Procedures
Comprehension Checks, Questions, and Self-Correction
To complement this discussion of statistical differences, it is interesting to examine the data from a
qualitative perspective. As discussed earlier, clarification request, confirmation check, self-repetition,
recast, explicit correction, and incorporation repair moves were found in the chats. Comprehension
checks, questions, and self-correction repair moves were not used. Perhaps comprehension checks and
questions are primarily pedagogical by nature (Long & Sato, 1983), and are thus scarce in NNS electronic
conversation. Self-corrections may be rare because speakers do not notice their errors, and thus would not
see the need to correct them. Additionally, self-correction is largely dependent on the social context, and
it may be that NNS electronic chats are not fora conducive to self-correction (Kormos, 1999). Learners
may not see the need for accuracy, for example, or may perceive self-correction as face threatening.
Perhaps the same reasoning can explain why negative feedback repair moves were used significantly less
than negotiation of meaning repair moves: Participants may simply feel uncomfortable giving negative
feedback or they may be unable to provide negative feedback.
Clarification Requests
Clarification requests were the most prominent repair move in both chat types, a finding that is paralleled
by NS-NNS face-to-face conversation research (Long & Sato, 1983). In this study, an exchange between
"M.M." and "Helena" (Example 1) demonstrated how clarification requests followed by confirmation
checks not only allow the interlocutor ("Helena") to check previous utterances, but also encourage the
speaker ("M.M.") to elaborate on and sustain the conversation:
Example 1
M.M.
uh, Helena, Helena, if I go to Taiwan, which (place) /pli:s/, which /pli:siz/ can I visit
Taiwan, Helena?
Helena
I beg your pardon me, I didn't catch you …
M.M.
I go to Taiwan, uh, wha uh what /pli:s/ can I visit?
Helena
Oh, you mean, sightseeing?
M.M.
Uh, what landmarks what landmarks … can I visit in Taiwan?
Clarification requests have been found to be valuable in prompting speakers to modify their output
(Lyster, 1998; Pica et al., 1989) and produce language that is more accurate (Linnell, 1995; Nobuyoshi &
Ellis, 1993). Expanded research could reveal the reasons for the popularity, functionality, and
effectiveness of clarification requests in both types of electronic conversations.
89
Kevin Jepson
Success of Repair in Voice Chats
Speakers in voice chat seemed to repair their utterances more often than speakers in text chat, resulting in
greater incorporation of negotiation of meaning repair moves. It seems, then, that the repair cycles were
more often successfully completed in voice chat, with speakers more frequently repairing utterances
based on their interlocutors' cues. When speakers repair their utterances, thus incorporating interlocutor
repair moves and producing comprehensible, modified output, interlanguage development may be
promoted (Wesche, 1994). For example, "Junko" successfully repaired a pronunciation error after "Moosoon's" clarification request in Example 2:
Example 2
Moo-soon
I'm sorry, you are what? You are /wIk/?
Junko
Not /wIk/, but weak.
One reason for the higher number of incorporation repair moves in voice chats may be the conversational
pace, which is inherently slower than in text chats. Text chat messages were usually delivered within a
period of seconds; voice chat participants sometimes waited up to about one minute between turns, thus
perhaps allowing more time for incorporation repair moves. Additionally, there were always fewer
participants in voice chats than in text chats, thus perhaps enabling voice chat participants to contribute
more often. In other words, the odds for incorporation repair moves were greater in voice chats. Further
research might reveal why voice chat creates longer pauses -- perhaps the voice chat technology did not
always allow for instant delivery. Explanations as to why voice chat may draw fewer participants should
also be pursued – perhaps the voice chat technology is harder to access and harder to use.
Self-Repetition in Voice Chats
Self-repetition was used fairly often in voice chats, but not at all in text chats. The absence of selfrepetition in text chats could be explained by the fact that text chat interlocutors can review one another's
previous entries on the computer screen while they are chatting, thus reducing or eliminating the need for
self-repetition. Additionally, the voice chat exchange between "M.M." and "Helena" provided above
suggests that "M.M." used the self-repetition/ paraphrase repair move four times in four turns in an effort
to repair a pronunciation-related breakdown (successfully, in the end). "M.M." repeatedly used the repair
move, perhaps revealing that "M.M." was determined to make use of strategic competence, but also
possibly because "M.M." has a limited range of strategies for repairing conversation breakdowns.
Pronunciation Repair as a Benefit of Voice Chat
A qualitative analysis also reveals that voice chats may be unique: Speakers used a significantly higher
number of repair moves in voice chats, a finding corroborated by Sauro (2001), although Sauro did not
count negotiation routines related to inaudibility or technical problems. This study also found evidence of
pronunciation repair moves, though speakers seldom incorporated pronunciation repair. As would be
expected, text chats did not engender pronunciation repair. Furthermore, pronunciation-related repair
moves constituted the bulk of all of the repair work in voice chats, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Frequency of Pronunciation-Related Repair Across Categories of Repair Moves
Pronunciation- Related (%)
Clarification
Requests
33
Confirmation
Checks
32
SelfRepetition
52
Explicit
Correction
56
More than half of the self-repetition and explicit correction repair moves, and a third of the clarification
requests and confirmation checks made across the 10 sessions were directed at pronunciation repair in the
voice chats, suggesting that conversation breakdowns were often pronunciation-related. Further research
90
Kevin Jepson
into voice chat repair moves could potentially produce a wellspring of findings on pronunciation work
and its impact on modified output. Further research might also address the relative importance and
proportion of repair moves as compared to other conversational features, such as moves that sustain
conversation. Finally, significant sociocultural themes, such as the use of humor and flirting in building
the chat communities, were noted in the data. Further research based on sociocultural theory would likely
unearth a plethora of data from conversational chat rooms with NNS participants.
CONCLUSION
The present study focused on an area not yet highlighted by language research: conversations among
English L2 speakers in Internet text and voice chat rooms. This study reported on the types of repair
moves that occurred in text and voice chats, noted significant differences, and qualitatively explored data
patterns.
Limitations
A possible threat to internal validity was that participants were not randomly sampled. Because the
participants were anonymous and seldom revealed personal profile data, participants could not be
randomly sampled. For example, cultural differences in the acceptability of making repair moves could
not be addressed, a variable which in turn may represent a threat to the external validity of the results. The
threat was minimized, however, since the study observed random participants in five separate sessions.
Nevertheless, the findings may not be generalizable to the population.
Other variables may influence the number of repair moves as well. For example, participants operating at
equal levels of proficiency may often have clearly understood one another due to other types of
conversational features, such as choosing appropriate topics or discourse markers (van Lier & Matsuo,
2000), thus eliminating the need for repair moves. Hence, the greater number of repair moves (including
pronunciation-related moves) in the voice chat context may be a result of confounding variables, such as
poor reception due to technological problems. Additionally, Long's (1983) perspective on negotiation of
meaning as an indicator of successful conversation has been challenged by van Lier and Matsuo, who
expressed negotiation of meaning as a series of repair moves that signal a failure in communication and
only a speaker's subsequent attempt to address conversation problems. In fact, van Lier and Matsuo
questioned the very value of repair moves as a primary indicator of language acquisition, saying that
"…frequent repair indicates conversational trouble, and more conversational trouble can mean less
conversational success…" (p. 267).
Strengths
This study contributes to the discussion of repair move interaction by discussing the benefits of
conversational, synchronous chat between English L2 speakers, and seemed to be completely free from
the effects of observer's paradox (Labov, 1972). The study examined qualities that naturally and uniquely
occurred in the anonymous, synchronous chat room environment -- the focus on written and spoken
language devoid of the gestures, expressions, and additional tools inherent to other environments, for
example. Reliability was strengthened by observing numerous chat rooms with similar profiles, thus
minimizing extraneous factors. By providing qualitative as well as quantitative data analyses, concurrent
triangulation was employed to address weaknesses (or possible negative results) inherent to a singularly
quantitative or qualitative approach (Creswell, 2003).
Teachers and learners may want to consider the potential language learning opportunities created by
repair negotiation between NNSs in text or voice chat room conversations. For example, chat room
conversation is, for many, an easily accessible environment for language practice, especially for learners
who do not live in target language-speaking areas (Blake, 2000; Doughty & Long, 2003). In addition, chat
is often a free format in which to practice a language. Teachers may therefore want to direct learners to
91
Kevin Jepson
text and voice chat environments to provide out-of-class language and negotiation work. Although more
research is needed, this study found that conversational chat rooms do facilitate repair moves, which are
thought to be beneficial to second language development. Teachers may wish to systematically include
out-of-class chat room practice as part of course syllabi. Learners might thus benefit from the kind of
target language practice that may be more closely matched to their real-world needs. Furthermore, using
simple and widely-available materials and equipment, learners may print chat logs or record chat
interactions and then conduct further analysis in the classroom.
Whereas many types of repair moves were found -- specifically, clarification requests, confirmation
checks, self-repetitions, recasts, explicit corrections, and incorporation repair moves -- clarification
requests were used most often. Participants used the repair moves of negative feedback significantly less
frequently than negotiation of meaning repair moves. Therefore, it is possible that NNS conversational
chat may not engender the type of repair move that is thought to force learners to focus on grammatical
accuracy through their output. Further research on NNS conversations in chat rooms could expand on
hypotheses related to grammar-oriented modified output.
This study suggests that although text chat is the more widely available and most studied form of chat,
voice chat offers an environment in which learners are more apt to negotiate for meaning. Voice chats in
this study generated a number of repair moves, specifically negotiation of meaning-type repair moves,
which was significantly higher than the number in text chat. Conversations in voice chat rooms would
thus seem to benefit learners in the repair move aspects of language development, especially in
pronunciation repair and in the incorporation of repair moves. Indeed, the data provided evidence that
many of the repair moves were made in efforts to attend to pronunciation breakdowns in particular.
Because of the inherent absence of non-verbal communication and the focus that current voice chat
technology places on pronunciation, voice chat may be an optimal environment for pronunciation work.
Additionally, with the increasing availability and affordability of online chat technology, including the
growth of Internet protocol telephony, voice chats may become increasingly popular. Therefore, teachers
and learners may wish to consider the voice chat environment not only to assess, discuss and practice
phonology, but as a potentially rich venue for NNS conversations and language development.
NOTES
1. The names of the online English school, the school's course names, and all of the school's students,
who were participants in this study, have been changed to protect the students' records and identities.
2. Sections 4.07 and 8.03 of the APA Ethics Code Draft 7 state:
4.07 Use of Confidential Information for Didactic or Other Purposes. Psychologists do not
disclose in their writings, lectures, or other public media, confidential, personally identifiable
information concerning their clients/patients, students, research participants, organizational
clients, or other recipients of their services that they obtained during the course of their work,
unless (1) they take reasonable steps to disguise the person or organization, (2) the person or
organization has consented in writing, or (3) there is legal authorization for doing so.
8.03 Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research. Psychologists obtain
informed consent from research participants prior to recording their voices or images for data
collection unless (1) the research consists solely of naturalistic observations in public places, and
it is not anticipated that the recording will be used in a manner that could cause personal
identification or harm.
3. The voice chat technology used in this study is a type of Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP). With
VoIP, phone connections are assigned to computer addresses, similar to the way in which network
92
Kevin Jepson
printers are assigned to computer addresses. Instead of using a VoIP telephone (as many VoIP users do),
participants in this study used a VoIP-connected computer, a microphone, and speakers to participate in
audio sessions.
4. HearMe produced software enabling voice conferencing (VoIP) until October 2001 when the company
ceased operations. In December 2001, New York-based Paltalk acquired assets of HearMe. PalTalk
provides video conferencing, instant messaging, voice e-mail, and video e-mail over the Internet in
addition to the HearMe VOIP conferencing technology.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kevin Jepson specializes in ESL curriculum development, assessment, and technology-enhanced, situated
learning. He is an ESL editor at CTB/McGraw Hill and has worked for the Monterey Institute of
International Studies (MIIS), Heinle, and GlobalEnglish. He graduated with distinction from MIIS with
an MA-TESOL and CALL Certificate in 2002.
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethics Code Draft 7. Retrieved July 25, 2005, from
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom:
Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455-464.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage.
Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/
vol4num1/blake/
Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K. A. (1998). Extending sociocultural theory to adult learning. In M. C. Smith & T.
Pourchot (Eds.), Adult learning and development: Perspectives from educational psychology (pp. 67-88).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, J., Belkada, S., & Okamoto, T. (2004). How a Web-based course facilitates acquisition of English
for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 33-49. Retrieved November 21, 2004,
from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/chen/
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign
language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50-80. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/doughty/
Egbert, J., Chao, C., & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). Computer-enhanced language learning environments:
An overview. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and
critical issues (pp. 1-13). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
93
Kevin Jepson
Ellis, N. (1995). Consciousness in second language acquisition: A review of field studies and laboratory
experiments. Language Awareness, 4, 123-146.
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition
of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449-491.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Grotjahn, R. (1987). On the methodological basis of introspective methods. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper
(Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 59-60). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Hall, J. K., & Verplaetse, L. S. (2000). Second and foreign language learning through classroom
interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics.
Boston: Heinle.
Herring, S. (1999). Coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved
January 12, 2005, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/herring.html
Huff C., & King, R. (1988). An experiment in electronic collaboration. In J. D. Goodchilds (Chair)
Interacting by computer: Effects on small group style and structure. Symposium conducted at the meeting
of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in
nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29, 267-287.
Iwasaki, J., & Oliver, R. (2003). Chatline interaction and negative feedback. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics, 17, 60-73.
Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A
preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441-545.
Kelm, O. R. (1996). Applications of computer networking in foreign language education: Focusing on
principles of second language acquisition. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language
learning (pp. 19-28). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of
Hawai'i at Manoa.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with network computers: Effects on quantity and
characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
Kormos, J. (1999). The timing of self-repairs in second language speech production. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 22, 145-167.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lantolf, J. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Lin, Y., & Hedgcock, J. (1996). Negative feedback incorporation among high-proficiency and lowproficiency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish. Language Learning, 46, 567-611.
Linnell, J. (1995). Can negotiation provide a context for learning syntax in a second language? Working
Papers in Educational Linguistics, 11, 83-103.
94
Kevin Jepson
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie
& T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (pp. 413-469). New York:
Academic Press.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 15-41). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers'
questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second languages (pp.
268-285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and
learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question
formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: MacMillan.
McGuire, T., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk
decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917-930.
Muniandy, A.V.A. (2002). Electronic-discourse (E-discourse): Spoken, written or a new hybrid?
Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 17, 45-68.
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and
information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 377-404.
Negretti, R. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A conversation analysis research approach. Language
Learning & Technology, 3(1), 75-87. Retrieved October 22, 2002 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/
negretti/
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks. English Language Teaching Journal,
47, 203-210.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the
Japanese language classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language
learning through classroom interaction (pp. 47-71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Retrieved October 22, 2002 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/ortega/
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 21, 109-148.
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through sychronous CMC: Output,
working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7-32.
Pellettieri, J. (1996). Network-based computer interaction and the negotiation of meaning in the virtual
foreign language classroom. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Davis.
95
Kevin Jepson
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical
competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kerns (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and
practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T. (1994). Review article -- Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language
learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527.
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of
linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63-90.
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learner interaction: How does it
address the input, output, and feedback needs of second language learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59-84.
Richards, J. C. (1998). Teaching in action: Case studies from second language classrooms. Alexandria,
VA: TESOL.
Rodriguez, J. (1998). Investigating CALL use. Unpublished manuscript, Iowa State University.
Sauro, S. (2001). The success of task type in facilitating oral language production in online computer
mediated collaborative projects. Unpublished master's thesis, Iowa State University, Ames.
Sauro, S. (2004). Cyberdiscursive tug-of-war: Learner repositioning in a multimodal CMC environment.
Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19, 55-72.
Schultz, J. (1996). Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language curriculum. Unpublished
manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.
Schwartz, J. (1980). The negotiation for meaning: Repair in conversations between second language
learners of English. In D. Larsen-Freeman, (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research
(pp.138-153). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Shavelson, R. J. (1981). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non-native speakers' production of modified comprehensible output and second
language learning. Language Learning, 49, 627-675.
Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL
Quarterly, 35, 433-454.
Siegel, S. (1956). Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language
Journal, 87, 38-54.
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous
communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Retrieved November 10, 2001, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and
laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 1-15.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning: Introduction to a general theory. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
St. John, E., & Cash, D. (1995). Language learning via e-mail: Demonstrable success with German. In M.
Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners
(pp. 191-197). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i.
96
Kevin Jepson
Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computerassisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29, 491-501.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible
output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235253). Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer
(Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and
native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 82-99. Retrieved December 12,
2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/TOYODA/
Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 141-159.
Retrieved December 12, 2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/tudini/
Turbee, L. (1996). MOOing in a foreign language: How, why and who? Paper presented at the
Information Technology Education Connection's International Virtual Conference/Exhibition on
Schooling and the Information Superhighway. Retrieved September 22, 2002, from http://web.syr.edu/
~lmturbee/itechtm.html
Turbee, L. (1999). Classroom practice: MOO, WOO, and more -- Language learning in virtual
environments. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and
critical issues (pp. 346-361). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
van Lier, L., & Matsuo, N. (2000). Varieties of conversational experience: Looking for learning
opportunities. Applied Language Learning, 11, 265-287.
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Nonnative/nonnative conversations: A model for negotiation of
meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71-90.
Warner, C. N. (2004). It's just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning
& Technology, 8(2), 69-87. Retrieved December 12, 2004 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/warner/
classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7-26.
Warschauer, M. (2000). On-line learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic study. In M.
Warschauer & R. Kerns (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 41-58).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Warschauer, M., & Lepeintre, S. (1997). Freire's dream or Foucault's nightmare: Teacher-student
relations on an international computer network. In R. Debski, J. Gassin, & M. Smith (Eds.), Language
learning through social computing (pp. 67-89). Parkville, Australia: Applied Linguistics Association of
Australia.
Werry, C. C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet relay chat. In Herring, S. (Ed.),
Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47-63).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: J. Benjamins.
97
Kevin Jepson
Wesche, M. (1994). Input and interaction in second language acquisition. In C. Gallaway & B. J.
Richards (Eds.), Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp. 219-249). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
98
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/handley/
pp. 99-120
ESTABLISHING A METHODOLOGY
FOR BENCHMARKING SPEECH SYNTHESIS
FOR COMPUTER-ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING (CALL)
Zöe Handley
The University of Manchester, UK
Marie-Josée Hamel
Dalhousie University, Canada
ABSTRACT
Despite the new possibilities that speech synthesis brings about, few Computer-Assisted
Language Learning (CALL) applications integrating speech synthesis have found their way onto
the market. One potential reason is that the suitability and benefits of the use of speech synthesis
in CALL have not been proven. One way to do this is through evaluation. Yet, very few formal
evaluations of speech synthesis for CALL purposes have been conducted. One possible reason for
the neglect of evaluation in this context is the fact that it is expensive in terms of time and
resources. An important concern given that there are several levels of evaluation from which such
applications would benefit. Benchmarking, the comparison of the score obtained by a system with
that obtained by one which is known, to guarantee user satisfaction in a standard task or set of
tasks, is introduced as a potential solution to this problem. In this article, we report on our
progress towards the development of one of these benchmarks, namely a benchmark for
determining the adequacy of speech synthesis systems for use in CALL. We do so by presenting
the results of a case study which aimed to identify the criteria which determine the adequacy of
the output of speech synthesis systems for use in its various roles in CALL with a view to the
selection of benchmark tests which will address these criteria. These roles (reading machine,
pronunciation model, and conversational partner) are also discussed here. An agenda for further
research and evaluation is proposed in the conclusion.
INTRODUCTION
In very simple terms, speech synthesis is the process of making the computer talk. Unlike other methods
of providing the computer with a voice, such as the digital recording of human speakers, Text-to-Speech
(TTS) synthesis systems, which generate speech from text input, have the unique ability to generate
speech models, which can be exploited for the provision of talking text facilities (Hamel, 2003a), the
generation of feedback (Sherwood, 1981) and conversational turns (Egan & LaRocca, 2000) to
unanticipated learner interactions, and the automated generation of exercises with spoken language
support (de Pijper, 1997). Yet, the use of TTS in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) is not very
widely accepted (Egan & LaRocca, 2000; Sobkowiack, 1998) and the number of commercial applications
which integrate TTS is quite limited.1
One possible reason for this is the fact that the suitability and benefits of the use of TTS in CALL have
not been proven. One way in which this can be achieved is through evaluation. Ideally, CALL
applications integrating TTS would benefit from six stages of evaluation. The objects of these six stages
of evaluation are:
1) the viability and potential benefits of the use of TTS in CALL,
2) the adequacy of TTS for use in CALL,
99
Zöe Handley and Marie-Josée Hamel
Establishing a Methodology for Benchmarking Speech Synthesis...
3) the potential of the CALL program to provide (ideal) conditions for Second Language
Acquisition (SLA),
4) the potential of the teacher-planned CALL-based activity to provide (ideal) conditions for SLA,
5) learners' performance in the CALL activity, and
6) the success of the funding program.
However, as we shall see, TTS has been only partially evaluated for use in CALL applications. Moreover,
the majority of the evaluations that have been conducted are out-of-date given the advances in TTS of the
last few years.
One possible reason for the neglect of evaluation in this context, as in many others, is the fact that it is
costly in terms of both time and resources, which could otherwise be devoted to further development
(Hirschman & Thompson, 1996). In order to achieve a balance between development and evaluation,
benchmarking -- testing a system in a standard task (or set of tasks) in order to determine whether it is
suitable for use in a given application in terms of both performance and/or usability -- is commonly used
in software evaluation in general (Ralston, Reilly, & Hemmdinger, 2000), and in the evaluation of speech
and language technologies (SALTs; Sparck Jones & Galliers, 1996) more specifically.
In this paper, we argue for the use of benchmarking in the evaluation of TTS for CALL purposes as a
solution to this limitation as well as a means to achieve consistency and comparability of evaluation
(Sparck Jones & Galliers, 1996). Having introduced the notion of benchmarking, presented the benefits
and limitations of benchmarking, and given concrete examples of what such benchmarks might look like
in this context, we report on our progress towards the development of a benchmark for determining the
adequacy of speech synthesis for use in CALL. More specifically, we report the results of a literature
review and an experiment aimed at the identification of the criteria which determine the adequacy of
speech synthesis for use in CALL with a view to the selection of benchmark tests which will address
these criteria. We focus on criteria relating to the quality of the speech and are particularly interested in
determining whether the different functions/roles impose different requirements on the quality of the
output.
In relation to the last point, it is noted, in the literature on the evaluation of SALTs, that different 'setups',
operational contexts (the overall purpose of the application, and the function of the technology within the
application, other tools which are available to end users, and the end users) often impose different
requirements and therefore different criteria and methods of evaluation (Sparck Jones & Galliers, 1996).
The first stage in the evaluation process should therefore be to understand speech synthesis, the goals of
CALL applications that integrate it, and its functions or roles within those applications.
SPEECH SYNTHESIS
There are two major classes of speech synthesis. Distinguished by the type of input supported, these are
concept-to-speech (CTS) and text-to-speech (TTS). CTS synthesis, also referred to as message-to-speech
synthesis, takes concepts, for example, information from a database on train travel, as its input and aims
not only to speak but also to generate the phrases to utter. TTS synthesis takes raw text as input and aims
to mimic the human process of reading. Potential and actual uses of these different forms of speech
synthesis in CALL are presented in the next section.
SPEECH SYNTHESIS IN CALL
CALL applications integrating speech technology have emerged from the general need in language
learning and teaching (LLT) for "self-paced interactive learning environments" which provide "controlled
interactive speaking practice outside the classroom" (Ehsani & Knodt, 1998, p. 45). Both forms of speech
100
synthesis presented in the previous section could contribute to the provision of such an environment. Of
the two forms of speech synthesis, it has been suggested that CTS might be more appropriate than TTS
for CALL because it permits the generation of less monotonous speech with more human-like prosody
(Thomas, Levinson, & Lessard, 2004). Yet, very few CALL systems (re-)use CTS synthesis. One
example of a CTS system developed for use in CALL is VINCI (Thomas, Levinson, & Lessard, 2004). It
is suggested that this system could be used to present dictations, pronunciation and auditory
discrimination exercises focusing on intonation, and as a tool for teaching phonetic transcription (Thomas
et al., 2004). Rather, most of the literature on the use of speech synthesis in CALL focuses on the (re-)use
of TTS systems.2 The use of TTS in CALL therefore merits further consideration. Applications of TTS in
CALL are presented next, followed by a review of the benefits TTS brings to CALL and an analysis of
the functions or roles that TTS may play within CALL applications.
Applications (Re-)Using TTS Synthesis
Talking Dictionaries
A talking dictionary is an electronic dictionary which integrates either digital recordings of human
speakers or speech synthesis for the oral presentation of dictionary entries. Due to the storage
requirements of digital speech, these usually provide only one pronunciation model per entry, typically
the headword. The unique ability of speech synthesis to permit the generation of models on demand from
text, with considerably lower storage requirements than digital recordings, makes it possible to provide
learners with models of all the inflectional forms of a word, its derivations, synonyms, and so forth, as
well as examples of usage and definitions. Automatic access to spoken output provides the learner with an
instant pronunciation model that can be imitated. This is recognized by Myers (2000) as a good form of
lexical reinforcement. Talking dictionaries are also used to develop a more conscious awareness of the
relationship between both the graphic and the phonic form of lexical items, a relationship which may not
be straightforward in a given language and/or for some learners. An example of a commercially available
talking dictionary integrating speech synthesis is the Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary on CD-ROM
(2003). This dictionary, which integrates the RealSpeak TTS synthesizer, contains 360,000 French words
and phrases. The learner can access pronunciations of words and phrases simply by clicking on them.
Opening the talking text facility (see Figure 1) gives the learner access to volume and speech rate
controls.
Figure 1. Interface of the talking text facility provided in the Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary on CDROM
101
Talking Texts
A talking text is a tool which will read aloud any section of text (a single word, a sentence, a paragraph,
etc.) typed or copied into it from either the CALL application or an external source such as a Web page. It
can be used by the learner to support his or her reading comprehension activities and/or to check the
pronunciation of individual words, expressions and/or full sentences (Hamel, 2003a). The OxfordHachette French Dictionary on CD-ROM also integrates such a facility as does FreeText (see Figure 2) a
CALL program for advanced learners of French (Hamel, 2003b) which reuses the TTS system FIPSvox
(Gaudinat & Werhli, 1997).
Figure 2. TTS in CALL program FreeText
Another use of talking texts in CALL programs is for the presentation of prompts (Gray, 1984). An
example of a CALL system that integrates speech synthesis specifically for the purpose of reading aloud
prompts and providing pronunciation models of sentences in grammar exercises in Dutch is the Appeal
("A pleasant personal environment for adaptive learning") system (de Pijper, 1997), which generates
grammar exercises "on the fly" in response to individual learner requirements "according to predefined
models" (p. 581). This is made possible by the unique feature of TTS to generate speech models on
demand.
Dictation
Dictation is a traditional writing activity in which the teacher reads aloud a text which the learner is asked
to transcribe. This activity, which focuses on the learner's perception, comprehension, and spelling (Ur,
1984), becomes quick and simple for the teacher to create when TTS is used. Exercises can be created
simply by typing in the text or copying and pasting it from another electronic source. DICTOR (SantiagoOriola, 1999) and Ordictée (Mercier, Guyomard, Siroux, Bramoullé, Gourmelon, Guillou, & Lavannant,
2000) are examples of CALL applications dedicated to dictation. Both of these systems integrate
automatic error detection systems. In addition, Ordictée is unique in that it adapts the rate of presentation
102
of the dictation, that is, the speech rate, to the rate at which the learner types in his/her transcription of the
text.
Pronunciation Training
Speech synthesis can be exploited for pronunciation training at both the segmental (practice of individual
and combined phonemes) and supra-segmental (practice of intonation and prosody) levels.
Practice of Individual and Combined Phonemes. At the segmental level, it is typically used to present
individual and combined sounds to the learner, sounds which are retrieved from a database in which they
are stored in textual format. The experimental pronunciation tutor SAFexo, a module of the CALL system
SAFRAN (Système d'Apprentissage du FRANçais; see Figure 3; Hamel, 1998, 2003a), which also reuses
the TTS system FIPSvox (Gaudinat & Wehrli, 1997), focuses on this kind of practice. Three main types
of activities are proposed by SAFexo: auditory discrimination, repetition, and phoneme/segment
manipulation. In all three cases, the speech synthesizer is used as a model to imitate and a model with
which a learner can compare his or her own pronunciation.
Figure 3. TTS in the experimental pronunciation tutor SAFexo
Practice of Intonation and Prosody. An example of a CALL application that uses TTS in the teaching
of prosody is Mercier et al.'s (2000) prosodic tutor for Breton. The use of TTS enables teachers to create
pronunciation exercises simply by typing in the orthographic transcription of the pronunciation models to
be presented.
103
According to Skrelin and Volskaya (1998), "the generalized [prosodic] contours free from additional
emotional colouring are used as models" (p. 24) typical of TTS make it particularly suitable for CALL
because they allow the learner to focus on prosody without the distraction of emotional coloring. The
utility of synthetic speech for teaching pronunciation was in fact demonstrated much earlier by Feldman
(1977) described in Knoerr (2000). In an experiment in which he compared learners' ability to
discriminate among intonation patterns produced by a speech synthesis system with their ability to
discriminate among the same intonation patterns produced by a native speaker, he found that learners
found it easier to discriminate between simplified examples produced with speech synthesis compared
with examples produced by native speakers (Knoerr, 2000).
Dialogue Partner
Since responses in dialogues are unpredictable and may be infinite in number, it is difficult to both predict
and store all possible responses in the form of digitally recorded human speech to learner utterances. The
dialogues proposed in systems use digital recordings of human speakers whether presented as open -"learners have to come up with a response entirely on their own" (Ehsani & Knodt, 1998, p. 55) -- or
closed -- learners select responses from a pre-defined list, dialogues are closed in the sense that the range
of possible responses that the system can recognize and respond to are predetermined and hence limited
(Ehsani & Knodt). Speech synthesis with its unique ability to generate spoken utterances from text on
demand provides part of the solution to this problem. Examples of spoken dialogue systems which
integrate speech synthesis that are currently being developed for use in language learning include the Let's
Go Spoken Dialogue System (SDS) (Raux & Eskenazi, 2004) and SCILL (Spoken Conversational
Interaction for Language Learning) system (Seneff, Wang, & Zhang, 2004).
Advantages of Using TTS in CALL
Through the presentation of the potential uses of TTS in CALL, several of the benefits of the use of TTS
in this context have been presented:
•
•
•
•
the low storage requirements of TTS,
the ability of TTS to generate speech models on demand,
the ease of creation/modification of exercises, and
the suitability of the generalized prosodic contours characteristic of TTS for teaching
pronunciation.
Most of the applications described are in fact already provided in CALL programs through the integration
of digital recordings of human speakers. The use of TTS brings improvement to the provision of these
activities. Improvement is of course interesting. But, what is really interesting is the value that a
technology such as TTS can add to CALL, that is, the new possibilities that a technology can bring about.
The new possibility that TTS brings to CALL is the ability to generate speech models on demand. In
addition to improving dialogue simulation, by permitting the provision of more open dialogues (Egan &
LaRocca, 2000), this unique feature of TTS makes it possible to produce oral feedback on demand to
unanticipated learner responses in computer-assisted pronunciation training (CAPT; Sherwood, 1981) and
other exercises, and to generate speech output for any text on demand, thus the provision of talking text
facilities (Hamel, 2003a, 2003b), and the automation of the creation of grammar exercises and so forth
with spoken language support (de Pijper, 1997).
Roles of TTS in CALL
Different setups or operational contexts often impose different requirements and therefore require
different methods of evaluation (Sparck Jones & Galliers, 1996). TTS is used in three different roles
within CALL applications. In talking dictionaries, talking texts and dictation systems it is used as a
reading machine. In CAPT systems it is used to provide pronunciation models both at the segmental and
suprasegmental level. And, in dialogue systems, it is used to provide the voice of a conversational
104
partner. Of these roles, the most common role that TTS assumes outside the CALL context is that of a
reading machine. Examples of applications in which it assumes this role include reading machines for the
blind, screen readers for people with visual impairments and learning disabilities such as dyslexia and
aphasia, and talking word processors. Although the use of TTS as a reading machine outside CALL is
already widely accepted, the CALL setup differs from these operational contexts, the most important
difference being that the main users of CALL are learners, that is non-native speakers of the language
being spoken by the TTS synthesizer. It is therefore not right to assume that TTS is suitable for use in
CALL as a reading machine without evaluation of the TTS in that specific operational context. Nor
should we assume that, if TTS is suitable for use as a reading machine in CALL, it is also suitable as a
pronunciation model and as the voice of a conversational partner in that context. Evaluation of TTS in
these specific operational contexts is therefore also necessary. In the following section, evaluations of
TTS for CALL purposes are reviewed.
EVALUATING SPEECH SYNTHESIS FOR CALL PURPOSES
An Infrastructure for the Evaluation of Speech Synthesis for CALL Purposes
According to Chapelle (2001a, 2001b), CALL software would benefit from three stages of evaluation. In
the first stage, she recommends the judgmental evaluation of the CALL application for its potential to
provide (ideal) conditions that promote SLA. These conditions are presented later in the paper when we
look at the requirements of TTS for CALL. Then, in the second stage, she recommends that a similar
evaluation of the activities that teachers plan around the CALL software be carried out. And, finally, in
her third stage of evaluation, she recommends that learners' performance in those activities be empirically
evaluated. There are two aspects to this level of evaluation: assessment of learning outcomes and
assessment of the interactional processes in which learners engage.
Regarding the evaluation of SALTs, such as TTS, several different types of infrastructure for evaluation
have been proposed (ELSE, 1999; Hirschman & Thompson, 1996; Sparck Jones & Galliers, 1996). The
most comprehensive of these infrastructures is the ELSE (Evaluation in Language and Speech
Engineering) infrastructure (ELSE), which consists in five stages of evaluation:
•
•
•
•
•
Basic research evaluation determines whether a new technology, or an improvement on an
existing technology, is worth pursuing, that is, whether it is viable and whether it will bring
significant improvement on existing solutions.
Technology evaluation determines whether a system meets its objectives, and is typically
achieved through measurement of the performance of the system in a control task.
Usage evaluation determines whether a system fulfils its function in a given operational context,
determines whether end-users find the system useful and easy to use, and whether the system
meets its objectives.
Impact evaluation assesses the effects of the system beyond its primary function, such as the
socio-economic effects of its use.
Program evaluation determines whether a funding program was worthwhile, that is, whether the
investment resulted in progress.
Of these levels of evaluation (near) equivalents to both technology evaluation and usage evaluation are
found in the other infrastructures.3 Basic research evaluation, impact evaluation, and program evaluation
are unique to the ELSE infrastructure. Two further levels of evaluation mentioned in the other
infrastructures are adequacy evaluation and formative evaluation. The goal of adequacy evaluation is to
determine whether a system meets user requirements (Hirschman & Thompson, 1996). And, the goal of
formative evaluation is to guide system design through the identification of where a system needs
improvement in order to meet user requirements, that is, where a system fails to meet user requirements
(Hirschman & Thompson). Adequacy evaluation and formative evaluation are therefore near equivalents.
105
Both are achieved through a combination of diagnostic evaluation, the identification of the successes and
limitations of a system with respect to a taxonimization of possible inputs, that is the production of a
profile of a system's performance, and technology evaluation (Hirschman & Thompson).
When a new technology, such as TTS, is being considered for integration into CALL software, we
suggest that Chapelle's (2001a, 2001b) framework for the evaluation of CALL software should be
extended to include two further stages of evaluation, namely basic research evaluation and adequacy
evaluation, used here to refer to the combination of adequacy evaluation and formative evaluation.
Generally, when a funding program has been involved in the development of the software, program
evaluation should also be conducted. Regarding impact evaluation, as we shall present later in the paper,
positive impact is one of the ideal conditions for SLA identified by Chapelle, which should be addressed
at each stage of evaluation. A separate stage of impact evaluation is therefore superfluous.
PURPOSES
Evaluation of TTS for CALL: State of the Art
Our review of the literature reveals that very few "formal" evaluations have been conducted.
Identification of the potential benefits TTS could bring to CALL could be considered to fulfill the
function of basic research evaluation. One report of an evaluation of the adequacy of TTS for use in
CALL was found in the literature. In this evaluation, the quality of the output of a Spanish TTS
synthesizer was evaluated to determine whether it was suitable for use as a reading machine for the
presentation of grammar exercises in a language laboratory setting (Stratil, Weston, & Burkhardt, 1987).
In addition, several evaluations of learners' performance in CALL activities have been conducted. Two of
these evaluations focused on learning outcomes. The first compared learners' performance in French
dictation exercises presented by the dictation system DICTOR integrating the TTS synthesizer TELEVOX
with their performance in the same exercises presented by the same system but integrating digitized
speech (Santiago-Oriola, 1999). And, the second measured the effectiveness of the use of the KTH
(Kungliga Tekniska högskolan, Royal Institute of Technology) Swedish TTS synthesizer in conjunction
with the speech editor WaveSurfer in the teaching of the lexical stress of English to speakers of Swedish
(Hincks, 2002). One evaluation focused on the learning processes which child learners of French as a
foreign language engaged in when working with the CALL program Composition, a program which
allows learners to produce pictures by selecting words from a pre-programmed list and provides facilities
for them to subsequently write stories about those pictures and receive "vocal" feedback on those
productions (Cohen, 1993). And two final studies focused on reactions to CALL programs that integrate
speech synthesis. The first evaluated user, teacher and learner, reactions to the use of the aforementioned
Spanish TTS system for the presentation of grammar exercises in a language laboratory setting (Stratil,
Burkhardt, Jarratt, & Yandle, 1987). And, the second assessed learners' reactions to aforementioned
dictation training program, DICTOR, and compared their reactions to the output of the TTS system
TELEVOX with those to the output of the digital audio system ECHOVOX (Santiago-Oriola).
In summary, not all levels of evaluation have been addressed. And, regarding adequacy and usage
evaluation, evaluations have been conducted in only a few operational contexts, and only a few TTS
systems have been evaluated. Moreover, the evaluations are out of date given recent progress in speech
synthesis.
Yet, every speech synthesizer intended for use in CALL would benefit from all six levels of evaluation
for each role in which it is to be used: The quality of the output of different speech synthesizers differs
greatly (Huang, Acero, & Hon, 2001); and, as said, different operational contexts may impose different
requirements.
106
Benchmarking TTS for CALL
In order to achieve a balance between development and evaluation, benchmarking, is commonly used in
software evaluation in general (Grace, 1996; Lindgaard, 1994; Ralston et al., 2000), and the evaluation of
SALTs (Sparck Jones & Galliers, 1996; van Bezooijen & van Heuven, 1997) more specifically.
Originating in the field of surveying where "A benchmark is a surveyor's mark, used as a reference for
determining further heights and distances" (Codling, 1998, p. 7), benchmarking has a long history and
today is used in a wide range of fields including surveying, management, economics, education, and
computing. Regarding the evaluation of computer systems of which CALL systems are an example,
benchmarking was first used for the comparative evaluation of the adequacy of the processing speed of
computers. In this context, a benchmark was a computer program used to measure processing speed,
which typically produced a single numerical score for the system being tested. Using these programs,
developers compared the scores obtained by their systems with those obtained by their competitors, and
potential end-users compared the scores obtained by systems that they were considering acquiring (Grace,
1996). Since then, benchmarking has been applied to other features of the performance of computer
hardware including the access time of memory systems, I/O bus traffic, bandwidth, and so forth, as well
as to the performance (Cai, Nerurkar, & Wu,1998) and usability (ease of use) of computer software
(Lindgaard, 1994). Benchmarking the usability of computer software commonly involves measuring the
performance of end-users in the completion of a number of "typical" tasks with the aid of the software.
Today, benchmarking is also used to refer to an activity in which a group of organizations gets together to
identify the "best-in-class," through the use of a common test, with the goal of identifying what it is
possible to achieve, areas for improvement, and realistic targets (Hetzel, 1993). Through the sharing of
information about best solutions and increased communication within the research community, this
approach often leads to rapid technological progress (Sim, Easterbrook, & Holt, 1998). While TTS
systems for use in CALL would benefit from this form of benchmarking, this is not the type of
benchmarking that we are proposing here.
CALL developers often find themselves working in the situation that we found ourselves working in the
FreeText project (Hamel, 2003b), that is working in collaboration with a developer of SALTs towards the
development of CALL applications. In this situation, what the CALL developer wants to know is whether
the TTS system, or any other SALT for that matter, offered by their partner organization is ready for use
in the CALL applications that they wish to develop. They therefore need a test or set of tests that can tell
them whether the system meets user requirements. In other words, they need a benchmark of the type
described by van Bezooijen and van Heuven (1997):
By a benchmark test we mean an efficient, easily administered test, or set of tests, that can be
used to express the performance of a speech output system (or some module thereof) in numerical
terms. The benchmark itself is the value that characterizes some reference system, against which
a newly developed system is (implicitly) set off. The benchmark is preferably chosen such that it
guarantees user satisfaction. Consequently, if the performance of a new product exceeds the
benchmark, its designer or prospective buyer is assured of at least a satisfactory product, and
probably even better. (p. 497)
As pointed out by van Bezooijen and van Heuven (1997), benchmarking "is more efficient than pairwise
or multiple testing of competing products" (p. 497) and therefore more cost-effective. Consequently, it
overcomes one of the major limitations of evaluation. A further advantage of benchmarking is the ease of
interpretation of the results. In most cases, benchmark scores are expressed as single numbers (Grace,
1996; Ralston et al., 2000). In addition, other advantages are brought about by the fact that benchmarking
involves evaluation in a common task. Specifically, evaluation in a common task leads to comparability
and consistency of results across evaluations (Sparck Jones & Galliers, 1996). Benchmarking could
therefore provide a good solution to the neglect of the evaluation of TTS for CALL purposes.
107
TOWARD BENCHMARKS FOR THE EVALUATION OF TTS FOR CALL
In this section, we present our progress towards the development of a benchmark for the evaluation of
TTS for CALL. Specifically, we present our work towards the development of a benchmark for the
evaluation of French TTS for use in CALL programs for learners of French as a foreign language.
The Evaluation Process
According to the EAGLES guidelines for the evaluation of SALTs (EAGLES, 1999), the first stage in the
evaluation process consists in identifying the object and purpose, that is, basic research evaluation,
adequacy evaluation, and so forth, of the evaluation. The next stage consists in the analysis of the
requirements of the application and the identification of attributes of the system that can be reported in
order to get at those requirements. And, the following stage consists in the selection of metrics (i.e.,
methods and scales for the measurement of the reportable attributes). Once metrics have been selected, it
is necessary to define what constitutes a desirable, acceptable, and unacceptable score (i.e., to establish
rating levels). Finally, before the evaluation is conducted, an evaluation plan must be drawn up (i.e., a
description of the evaluation methods and schedule of the evaluation).
Here the object of evaluation is French TTS, and the purpose is to determine whether it is adequate for
use in the different CALL contexts, that is as a reading machine, a pronunciation model, and the voice of
a conversational partner.
Requirements Analysis
According to Chapelle (1998), the goal of CALL applications should be to provide "ideal" conditions for
SLA. These ideal conditions are therefore the requirements of CALL.
While Chapelle's (2001a, 2001b) literature review focused on ideal conditions for the acquisition of
grammar, a review of experiments in the field of spoken language acquisition (Colotte, Laprie, &
Bonneau, 2001; Protopapas & Calhoun, 2000), research on teacher talk (Ellis, 1994) and best practice in
LLT (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996; LeBel, 1990; Pennington, 1996) suggests that the same
conditions are desirable for the acquisition of pronunciation and spoken language in general.
Of Chapelle's (2001a, 2001b) criteria, language learning potential was identified as the first requirement
of CALL. Language learning potential concerns whether features of the target language can actually be
learned from a CALL activity as it is designed, and whether the activity provides plenty of opportunities
to focus on linguistic form. Regarding the use of TTS in CALL, in order to match this first criterion, the
quality of the output should be such that it is as comprehensible, natural, and accurate as possible.
Comprehensibility, the ease with which a listener can understand a speaker's intended message (Francis &
Nusbaum, 1999), is a central requirement of the quality of the pronunciation of speech synthesizers for
use in CALL, because for the majority of learners the goal of language learning is to produce speech that
is comfortably comprehensible (Kenworthy, 1987).
Naturalness, the ability to sound native-like, and accuracy, error-free speech, are additional requirements.
Naturalness and accuracy are the goals of specific groups of learners such as those conducting business on
equal terms with natives, and those who wish to become teachers of the foreign language (Kenworthy,
1987).
Regarding focus on linguistic form, one way in which focus on form can be achieved is through
interactional modification (Chapelle, 2001a, 2001b). A TTS system for use in CALL should therefore
also provide the means to achieve a certain level of interactional modification. Interactional can be
achieved through flexibility, that is the possibility to manipulate features of the speech output including,
and not restricted to, the voice, the style, the speech rate, and the pitch. The flexibility and quality of the
output of TTS systems are tested in different ways. The case study presented here focuses on the latter.
108
Case Study
The object of the case study presented here is to compare the levels of appropriateness and acceptability
found when the TTS synthesizer FIPSvox (Gaudinat & Wehrli, 1997) is used as (a) a reading machine,
(b) a pronunciation model, and (c) the voice of a conversational partner for the teaching/learning of
French as a foreign language with a view to determining whether these different roles impose different
requirements on the quality of the output. It also looks at the comprehensibility and the accuracy of the
output of the speech synthesizer. Specifically, it looks at the relationship between these features of the
output of the speech synthesizer and the appropriateness and acceptability levels of the output for use in
CALL with the objective of determining whether they are good indicators of the appropriateness and
acceptability of the output of speech synthesizers for use in CALL applications.
Although not the goal of this case study, ratings of appropriateness and acceptability also give us an
indication of the readiness of the particular speech synthesizer evaluated in this case study for use in the
three different roles in CALL applications.
Method. Twelve French native speakers all involved in the teaching of French as a foreign/second
language at university level and/or in CALL research were recruited to participate in the case study.
Participants were run individually.4
Sixty utterances, 20 representative of each of the three roles that speech synthesis might assume in a
CALL application, were synthesized using the research speech synthesizer FIPSvox (Gaudinat & Wehrli
1997). The output of the speech synthesizer was collected for presentation to participants as pre-recorded
utterances by means of an MS Power Point presentation. The corpus of utterances was selected from
existing CALL software and one LLT exercise manual. For the reading machine corpus, 20 sentences
from the text Les voleurs d'écriture (Begag, 1990) exploited in FreeText (Hamel, 2003b) were used. For
the pronunciation corpus, 20 utterances, each focusing on a different aspect of the pronunciation of
French, were selected from La Portée des Sons (Garant-Viau, 1994). For the conversation corpus, 20
consecutive turns were selected from one of the simulated dialogues in the ASR-based (Automatic Speech
Recognition) CALL program Talk to Me French: The Conversation Method by Auralog.
The utterances were presented one per slide and blocked by role, the order of presentation of which was
randomized in order to overcome order effects including fatigue and familiarization with the voice of the
speech synthesizer. Reflecting CALL principles, the case study was self-paced; participants could move
on to the next utterance precisely when they were ready, and could also return to a previous utterance if
desired.
In a first pass, participants were asked to rate the comprehensibility and the acceptability of the output for
each utterance with respect to its use in the role indicated. Comprehensibility was to be rated on a scale of
+3 (very easy to understand) to -3 (very difficult to understand), and acceptability rated on a scale +3
(entirely acceptable) to -3 (not at all acceptable). At the end of each block, participants were also asked
whether the output of the speech synthesizer was appropriate for use in the role indicated, and to rate its
appropriateness on a scale of +3 (yes, very appropriate) to -3 (no, not at all appropriate). When the
participants had completed this first pass for all three roles, they were then asked to indicate for which if
any of the roles the speech synthesis was most suitable, and for which if any the speech synthesis was
least suitable.
On a second pass, participants were asked to highlight any local errors and underline any global errors in
the output that they believed affected its suitability for use in the function indicated. At the end of each
block, they were asked to indicate the types and frequency level of errors highlighted and underlined
previously and to rate the seriousness of those classes of error with respect to the use of speech synthesis
in that role in CALL applications. Participants were provided with a list of pre-defined error classes to
which they were invited to add any additional classes of error which they had come across. The frequency
109
of the different classes of error was rated on the scale very frequent, quite frequent, and hardly frequent,
and their seriousness was rated on the scale +3 (very serious) to –3 (not at all serious). Finally,
participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire on their familiarity with speech synthesis in general and
in CALL.
Results. Regarding acceptability and comprehensibility, overall ratings of acceptability and
comprehensibility of utterances in each function were calculated for each subject by taking the mean of
their ratings of each utterance across each corpus.5 The results are presented in Table 1. Figures 4 and 5
present the rating scales used.
Table 1. Mean ratings of overall appropriateness, acceptability, comprehensibility (n = 12)
Reading
0.17
0.82
1.21
Appropriateness
Acceptability
Comprehensibility
Yes, very appropriate +3
+2
Figure 4. Appropriateness rating scale
Pronunciation
–1.50
0.06
0.91
+1
0
Conversation
0.50
1.49
2.07
-1
-2
-3
No, not at all appropriate
Very acceptable +3
+2
+1
0
-1
Very easy to understand +3
+2
+1
0
-1
Figure 5. Acceptability and comprehension rating scales
-2
-2
-3
-3
Not very acceptable
Very difficult to understand
Regarding accuracy, we based our measure on the participants' ratings of the frequency and seriousness of
the different classes of errors observed by the participants in the three corpora. It was calculated as
follows: First, ratings of the frequency of each type of error were converted to a numerical scale (not
present = 0, hardly frequent = 1, quite frequent = 2, very frequent = 3); then the ratings of the seriousness
of each type of error were converted from a scale of +3 (very serious) to –3 (not at all serious) to a scale
of 1 (not at all serious) to 7 (very serious); and finally, accuracy for each individual role was calculated
by taking the mean of the sum of the product of the ratings of the frequency and seriousness of each type
of error on these scales across participants. The results are presented in Table 2. Figure 6 presents the
rating scales used.
Table 2. Mean ratings of overall accuracy (n = 12)
Reading
95.00
Appropriateness
Pronunciation
89.83
Conversation
76.42
Hardly frequent
Class
Inappropriate rhythm
Figure 6. Accuracy rating scales
Quite frequent
Very frequent
Tick if present
Frequency of
error
Seriousness of error
Very
serious
+3
+2
+1
0
-1
-2
-3
Not at
all
serious
The total number of times each role was rated to be most appropriate and least appropriate was also
calculated across the 12 participants. These results are presented in Table 3. As said in the method,
participants could select none, one or more than one role.
110
Table 3. Most and Least Appropriate Uses of Speech Synthesis in CALL (n = 12)
Reading
4
3
Most Appropriate
Least Appropriate
Pronunciation
1
8
Conversation
5
3
None
2
0
In order to determine whether a relationship existed between comprehensibility and acceptability, and if
so, to determine the nature of that relationship, each participant's overall rating of comprehensibility, the
speech was plotted against their overall rating of the acceptability of the speech for each role (Figures 7,
8, and 9).
3
Mean overall acceptability
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Mean overall comprehensibility
Figure 7. Scatter graph of ratings of comprehensibility against acceptability for the use of TTS as a
reading machine
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Figure 8. Scatter graph of ratings of comprehensibility against acceptability for the use of TTS as a
pronunciation model
111
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Figure 9. Scatter graph of ratings of comprehensibility against acceptability for the use of TTS as the
voice of a conversational partner
Since the measures of accuracy and appropriateness were comparable, an analysis of this relationship was
carried out. That is, each participant's rating of the accuracy the speech was plotted against their rating of
the appropriateness of the speech for each role (Figures 10, 11, and 12).
3
Mean overall appropriateness
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Mean accuracy
Figure 10. Scatter graph of ratings of accuracy against appropriateness for the use of TTS as a reading
machine
112
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Mean accuracy
Figure 11. Scatter graph of ratings of accuracy against appropriateness for the use of TTS as a
pronunciation model
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Mean accuracy
Figure 12. Scatter graph of ratings of accuracy against appropriateness for the use of TTS as the voice of a
conversational partner
Discussion. Ratings of appropriateness and acceptability differ for the three different roles. In particular,
the speech was found to be most appropriate and acceptable for use in the role of the voice of a
conversational partner, and least comprehensible in the role of a pronunciation model. More specifically,
the ratings of the appropriateness and the acceptability of the output of the speech synthesizer for use as a
pronunciation model differ more from those of the appropriateness and the acceptability of the output for
113
use as both a reading machine and the voice of a conversational partner, than those of the appropriateness
and the acceptability of the output for use as both a reading machine and the voice of a conversational
partner do from one another. Similarly, while the use of speech synthesis as a pronunciation model is
rated the least appropriate use by participants, the use of speech synthesis as a reading machine and as the
voice of a conversational partner are rated similarly, the former was rated by 4 participants to be the most
appropriate use of speech synthesis in CALL, and the latter by 5 participants, and both were rated by 3
participants to be the least appropriate use of speech synthesis in CALL. This all suggests that, as
hypothesized, the different functions of speech synthesis in CALL have different requirements and the
technology is more suitable and ready for use in some functions than in others.
Regarding comprehensibility, ratings also differed across the three roles. Just as the speech was found to
be most appropriate and acceptable for use in the role of the voice of a conversational partner, and least
comprehensible in the role of a pronunciation model, so too the utterances in the conversation corpus
were found to be the most comprehensible and those in the pronunciation corpus to be the least
comprehensible. We would suggest that this is due to the fact that the utterances in the conversation
corpus are in general shorter and less syntactically complex than those in the reading corpus and more
predictable than those in the pronunciation corpus.
Regarding the contribution of comprehensibility to appropriateness and acceptability, as said due to
missing data, it was only possible to analyze the relationship between comprehensibility and
acceptability. As predicted, in Figure 7 a positive correlation can be seen between ratings of
comprehensibility and acceptability for the use of the speech synthesizer as a reading machine. Contrary
to our hypothesis, such a correlation is, however, not evident for the use of the speech synthesizer either
as a pronunciation model (see Figure 8) or as the voice of a conversational partner (see Figure 9). We are
therefore led to question whether comprehensibility has a role to play in determining the acceptability of
speech synthesis for use as a pronunciation model and as the voice of a conversational partner. If it does
not, we would have further evidence to support our other hypothesis, the hypothesis that the different
functions of speech synthesis in CALL will have different requirements and consequently that the
technology will be more suitable and ready for use in some functions than in others.
As said, a measure of the accuracy of the output was also obtained from the participants' ratings of the
frequency and seriousness of the errors that they observed in the three corpora. Before we continue with
our analysis of the results, we should remind ourselves that the higher this measure, the lower the
accuracy of the output. Looking at the results we find that accuracy differs across the three roles.
Specifically, the output was found to be most accurate for the conversation corpus, and least accurate for
the reading corpus, with the reading and pronunciation corpora scoring similarly on average. One
explanation for these results could be that the utterances to be synthesized were longest and most complex
(with respect to syntax) in the reading corpus, and shortest and least complex in the conversation corpus.
Regarding the contribution of accuracy to appropriateness and acceptability, as said, due to missing data,
it was only possible to investigate the relationship between accuracy and appropriateness. Contrary to our
hypothesis, no correlations are evident between the ratings of accuracy and appropriateness for any of the
roles (see Figures 10, 11, and 12). We are therefore led to question whether accuracy plays a role in
determining the appropriateness of speech synthesis for use in CALL.
Conclusion. In order to be in a position to draw firmer conclusions about the tendencies observed in our
case study, further investigation of the requirements is necessary involving several different speech
synthesizers, a larger sample size and greater contextualization. Regarding contextualization, the purpose
of adequacy evaluation is to avoid wasting time and resources integrating a technology into an application
for which it is not suitable. We should therefore be careful not to confuse contextualization with
integration. Contextualization will therefore be a challenge for further requirements analysis. Greater
contextualization could be achieved through an explanation of TTS, its potential applications in CALL
114
including mock screen shots of those applications, and the potential benefits of its use in those
applications.
SUMMARY AND FURTHER WORK
In this article we presented our preliminary work towards the development of a benchmark for the
evaluation of the adequacy of French TTS for use in CALL applications for teaching French as a foreign
language. Specifically, the results of a case study designed to investigate the requirements of TTS for use
in CALL was presented. The results of this study, which compared the acceptability and appropriateness
of a research TTS system for use in CALL in the roles of reading machine, pronunciation model, and
conversational partner, provided some preliminary evidence to suggest that these roles imposed different
requirements on the quality of speech produced by the TTS system: The acceptability and appropriateness
of the TTS system differed for the three roles.
Regarding the nature of the requirements that these different roles impose on the quality of the output of
the TTS system, comprehensibility was found to correlate with acceptability for when the speech
synthesizer was used as a reading machine, but not when it was used as either a pronunciation model or as
a conversational partner. And, no correlations were found between the ratings of accuracy and
appropriateness for any of the roles. We are therefore led to question whether the features identified in the
literature do in fact determine the acceptability and appropriateness of TTS for use in CALL.
It was not, however, possible to draw any meaningful conclusions from this study due to the small sample
size and the fact that only one speech synthesizer was evaluated. As said, further investigation of the
requirements is necessary involving more speech synthesizers, a larger sample size and greater
contextualization. Once the requirements have been identified, the next stage in the evaluation process
will consist in identifying metrics that could be used to get at these requirements, that is the identification
of benchmark tests.
We are currently in the process of conducting such an analysis of the requirements and hope to be able to
provide suggestions for the selection of benchmark tests in another paper in the near future. Once
selected, these tests will need to be conducted with large groups of participants in order to establish
benchmark scores. As said, CALL also imposes requirements on the flexibility of TTS systems.
Investigation of this requirement should also be carried out in order to permit the selection of benchmark
tests and the establishment of benchmark scores for its evaluation. A benchmark for the evaluation of the
adequacy TTS synthesis systems for use in CALL is therefore still a long way off. And, the field would
benefit from the development of benchmarks for the evaluation of the potential of the CALL program to
provide ideal conditions for SLA; the potential of the teacher-planned CALL activity to provide ideal
conditions for SLA; and, the learner's performance in the CALL activity.
APPENDIX A
CALL Programs Integrating Speech Synthesis
Talking Dictionaries
Etaco Partner from Etaco (various languages), http://translatingtheworld.com/ectaco/ectacoau/html/
Budget_c44.html
Spanish for Business Professionals by L. Kirk Hagen of the University of Houston-Downtown,
http://www.dt.uh.edu/research/sbp/HOME.html
Net Dictionary from the Virtual Learning Centre (VLC), http://www.edict.com.hk/lexiconindex/
Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary on CD-ROM, Version 2.0, http://www.oup.com/
115
APPENDIX B
Online TTS Demonstrations
Research Systems
Festival from CMU (multilingual), http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/festival_demos/
Fipsvox from Latl, Geneva (English and French), http://www.latl.unige.ch/french/projets/Synthetizer/
synthetizer.html
KALI from the University of Caen (French), http://elsap1.unicaen.fr/KaliDemo.html
Commercial Systems
AT&T (multilingual), http://www.naturalvoices.att.com/demos/
Elan Sayso (English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish), http://sayso.elan.fr/interactive_vf.asp
Microsoft (English, French and German), http://www.microsoft.com/reader/downloads/tts.asp
Realspeak from Scansoft (multilingual), http://www.scansoft.com/realspeak/demo/
Rhetorical Systems (English [various accents], German, Greek, and Spanish),
http://www.rhetoricalsystems.com/
NOTES
1. A list of CALL programmes that integrate speech synthesis is provided in Appendix A.
2. A list of on-line interactive TTS synthesis demonstrations is provided in Appendix B.
3. What ELSE refer to as technology evaluation is also known as intrinsic evaluation (Sparck Jones &
Galliers, 1996), performance evaluation (Hirschman & Thompson, 1996), and summative evaluation
(Hirschman & Thompson, 1996). And, what ELSE refer to as usage evaluation is also known as extrinsic
evaluation (Sparck Jones & Galliers, 1996).
4. The Web platform WebCT was used for the distribution of the experiment protocol and the various
experiment materials (PowerPoint presentation, .wav sound files, and MSWord response sheet). At the
end of the experiment, participants submitted their response sheets by uploading them to the WebCT
platform. Some participants did not have access to the Web and others were not familiar with WebCT.
Hard copies of the experiment materials were posted to these participants who also returned their
response sheets by post.
5. Three utterances in each sub-corpus were eliminated due to missing data (i.e., overall ratings of
acceptability and comprehensibility for each role were calculated over 17 utterances).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Professor H. Somers for his valuable input and all the CALL researchers and
French teachers who kindly participated in our case study.
116
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Zöe Handley is a PhD student previously in the Centre for Computational Linguistics, UMIST, UK, now
in the School of Informatics, The University of Manchester, UK. She is interested in the use speech
technologies in CALL. Her research is focused on the evaluation of speech synthesis for use in CALL,
specifically establishing a methodology for benchmarking speech synthesizers for use in CALL.
Marie-Josée Hamel has been involved in CALL teaching, research and development since 1994. At the
time of this case study, she was at the Centre for Computational Linguistics, UMIST, UK. She is now
associate professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Dalhousie, Nova Scotia, Canada. Her
interests are in the reuse of Natural Language Processing (NLP) technologies in CALL and in the
contribution of second language acquisition theories to CALL.
REFERENCES
Anderson, A. (2000, April). Spanish for business professionals. The CALICO Review. Retrieved January
31, 2005, from http://calico.org/CALICO_Review/review/sbp.htm
Begag, A. (1990). Les voleurs d'écriture [The stolen writings]. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Cai, J.-Y., Nerurkar, A., & Wu, M.-Y. (1998). Making benchmarks uncheatable. Proceedings of the IEEE
International Computer Performance and Dependability Symposium (IPDS '98; pp. 216-226). Durham,
NC: IEEE Computer Society.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). Teaching pronunciation: A reference for
teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from instructed SLA. Language
Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22-34. Retrieved January 31, 2005, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article1/
Chapelle, C. (2001a). Innovative language learning: Achieving the vision. ReCALL, 23(10), 3-14
Chapelle, C. (2001b). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching
testing and research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Codling, S. (1998). Benchmarking. Aldershot, England: Gower.
Cohen, R. (1993). The use of voice synthesizer in the discovery of the written language by young
children. Computers in Educations, 21(1/2), 25-30.
Colotte, V., Laprie, Y., & Bonneau, A. (2001). Perceptual experiments on enhanced and slowed down
speech sentences for second language acquisition. Proceedings of the European Conference on Speech
Communication and Technology (pp. 469-473). Bonn: ISCA.
de Pijper, J. R. (1997). High-quality message-to-speech generation in a practical application. In J. P. H.
van Santen, R. W. Sproat, J. P. Olive, & J. Hirschberg (Eds.), Progress in speech synthesis (pp. 575-586).
New York: Springer Verlag.
EAGLES (Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards). (1999). EAGLES evaluation of
natural language processing systems. Final Report. EAGLES Document EAG-II-EWG-PR.1.
Copenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi.
117
Egan, B. K., & LaRocca, S. A. (2000). Speech recognition in language learning: A must. In proceedings
of InSTIL 2000 (pp. 4-9). Dundee, England: University of Abertay Dundee.
Ehsani, F., & Knodt, E. (1998). Speech technology in computer-aided language learning: Strengths and
limitations of a new CALL paradigm. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 45-60. Retrieved January
31, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article3/
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
ELSE (Evaluation in Language and Speech Engineering). (1999, June). A blueprint for a general
infrastructure for natural language processing systems evaluation using semi-automatic quantitative
black box approach in a multilingual environment. (Report no. D1.1). Retrieved January 31, 2005, from
http://m17.limsi.fr/TLP/ELSE/
Feldman, D. M. (1977). Measuring auditory discrimination of suprasegmental features of Spanish. IRAL,
11, 195-209.
Francis, A. L., & Nusbaum, H. C. (1999). Evaluating the quality of synthetic speech. In D. GardnerBonneau (Ed.), Human factors and voice interactive systems (pp. 63-97). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Garant-Viau, C. (1994). La portée des sons [The significance/importance of sounds]. Québec: Université
Laval.
Gaudinat, G., & Wehrli, E. (1997). Analyse syntaxique et synthèse de la parole: le projet FIPSvox
[Syntactic analysis and speech synthesis: The FIPSvox project]. TAL, 38(1), 121-134
Grace, R. (1996). The benchmark book. London: Prentice Hall.
Gray, T. (1984). Talking computers in the classroom. In G. Bristow (Ed.), Electronic speech synthesis
(pp. 234-259). London: McGraw-Hill.
Hamel, M.-J. (1998). Les outils de TALN dans SAFRAN [NLP tools in SAFRAN]. ReCALL Journal,
10(1), 79-85
Hamel, M.-J. (2003a). Re-using natural language processing tools in CALL: The experience of SAFRAN.
Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK.
Hamel, M.-J. (2003b). FreeText: A "Smart" multimedia Web-based computer assisted language learning
environment for learners of French. In Proceedings of m-ICTE2003, volume III (pp. 1661-1665),
Badajoz, Spain.
Hetzel, B. (1993). Making software measurement work: Building an effective measurement program.
Boston: QED Publishing Group.
Hincks, R. (2002). Speech synthesis for teaching lexical stress. TMH-QPSR, 44, 153-165
Hirschman, L., & Thompson, H. S. (1996). Overview of evaluation in speech and natural language
processing. In R. A. Cole, J. Mariani, H. Uszkoreit, A. Zaenen, & V. Zue (Eds.), Survey of the state of the
art in human language technology (pp. 175-181). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
http://cslu.cse.ogi.edu/HLTsurvey/
Huang, X, Acero, X., & Hon, H.-W. (2001). Spoken language processing: A guide to theory, algorithm,
and system development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kenworthy, J. (1987). Teaching English pronunciation. London: Longman.
Knoerr, H. (2000). Pratique intonative et utilisation d'un logiciel de visualisation dans un cours de
prononciation en Français langue seconde: Une etude descriptive [Intonation training using visualisation
118
software in a pronunciation class for learners of French as a second language: A case study]. Revue
Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée, 3(1-2), 123-140
LeBel, J.-G. (1990). Traité de correction phonétique ponctuelle [Treatise of ad hoc phonetic correction].
Laval, Canada: Les Editions de la Faculté des Lettres, Université Laval.
Lindgaard, G. (1994). Usability testing and system evaluation: A guide for designing useful computer
systems. London: Chapman & Hall
Mercier, G., Guyomard, M., Siroux, J., Bramoullé, A., Gourmelon, H., Guillou, A., & Lavannant, P.
(2000). Courseware for Breton spelling pronunciation and intonation learning. In Proceedings of InSTIL
2000 (pp. 145-148). Dundee, England: University of Abertay Dundee.
Myers, M. J. (2000). Voice recognition software used to learn pronunciation. In Proceedings of InSTIL
2000 (pp. 98-101). Dundee, England: University of Abertay, Dundee.
Oxford-Hachette. (2003). Oxford-Hachet French Dictionary on CD-ROM (Verions 2.0). Oxford,
Pennington, M. C. (1996). Phonology in English language teaching: An international approach. London:
Longman.
Protopapas, A., & Calhoun, B. (2000). Adaptive phonetic training for second-language learners. In
Proceedings of InSTIL 2000 (pp. 31-38). Edinburgh, Scotland.
Raux, A., & Eskenazi, M. (2004). Using task-oriented spoken dialogues for language learning: Potential,
practical application and challenges. In R. Delmonte, P. Delcloque, & S. Tonelli (Eds.), Proceedings of
the InSTIL/ICALL 2004 Symposium (pp. 147-150). Venice, Italy.
Ralston, A., Reilly, E. D., & Hemmdinger, D. (Eds.). (2000). Encyclopedia of computer science. London:
Nature Publishing Group.
Santiago-Oriola, C. (1999). Vocal synthesis in a computerized dictation exercise. In Proceedings of
EUROSPEECH'99 (Vol. 1, pp. 191-194), Budapest.
Seneff, S., Wang, C., & Zhang, J. (2004). Spoken conversation interaction for language learning. In R.
Delmonte, P. Delcloque, & S. Tonelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the InSTIL/ICALL 2004 Symposium (pp.
151-154), Venice, Italy.
Sherwood, B. (1981). Speech synthesis applied to language teaching. Studies in Language Learning, 3,
175-181.
Sim, S. E., Easterbrook, S., & Holt, R. C. (1998). Using benchmakring to advance research: A challenge
to software engineering. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering
(pp. 74-83), Portland, OR.
Skrelin, P., & Volskaya, N. (1998). Application of new technologies in the development of education
programs. In S. Jager, J. Nerbonne, & A. van Essen (Eds.), Language Teaching and Language
Technology (pp. 21-24). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Sobkowiack, W. (1998). Speech in EFL CALL. In K. Cameron (Ed.), Multimedia CALL: Theory and
practice (pp. 23-34). Exeter, England: Elm Bank.
Sparck Jones, K., & Galliers, J. R. (1996). Evaluating natural language processing systems: An analysis
and review. London: Springer.
Stratil, M., Burkhardt, D., Jarratt, P., & Yandle, J. (1987) Computer-aided language learning with speech
synthesis: User reactions. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 24(4), 309-316.
119
Stratil, M., Weston, G., & Burkhardt, D. (1987). Exploration of foreign language speech synthesis.
Literary and Linguistic Computing, 2(2), 116-119.
Talk to Me French: The Conversation Method (Version 3.5) from Auralog http://www.auralog.fr
Thomas, C., Levinson, M., & Lessard, G. (2004). Experiments in prosody for the oral generation of
French. In R. Delmonte, P. Delcloque, & S. Tonelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the InSTIL/ICALL 2004
symposium (pp. 123-126), Venice, Italy.
Ur, P. (1984). Teaching listening comprehension. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
van Bezooijen, R., & van Heuven, V. J. (1997). Assesment of synthesis systems. In D. Gibbon, R. Moore,
& R. Winski (Eds.), Handbook of standards and resources for spoken language systems (Vol. 3, pp. 481563). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
120
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/jeon/
pp. 121-145
ORAL INTERACTION AROUND COMPUTERS
IN THE PROJECT-ORIENTED CALL CLASSROOM
Gumock Jeon-Ellis, Robert Debski, & Gillian Wigglesworth
University of Melbourne
ABSTRACT
Language teachers need to provide students with a context for genuine communication (Sullivan,
2000). Project-oriented computer-assisted language learning (PrOCALL) attempts to achieve this
by orienting learners towards tasks, which encourages them to communicate in the target
language while working towards completion of a project (Debski, 2000). The study investigates
the oral interaction that takes place in this context.
According to Vygotsky, social interaction mediates cognitive development. Swain's (2000)
application of this concept to language learning suggests that collaborative dialogues mirror the
moments of language development. Using this framework, the present study identifies "language
related episodes" (Swain & Lapkin, 1998) and describes the characteristics of the oral interaction
generated by two small groups of French learners working towards the completion of Web pages
in a major Australian university. The study also describes instances of "triadic interaction" (van
Lier, 2002) involving learners' interactions with each other and with the computer screen.
In sum, the analysis suggests that the PrOCALL context can provide students with opportunities
for collaborative dialogues, through which language learning occurs. However, the social context
of these interactions is mediated by personal relationships, preferences, and motivations.
INTRODUCTION
The foremost goal of CALL activity is to provide language learners with an environment facilitating
communicative situations where they are encouraged to engage in linguistic interactions (Chapelle, 1997).
In attempting to achieve this goal, language teachers have increasingly turned to developing collaborative
tasks and projects. Project-oriented CALL (PrOCALL) can be seen as a holistic learning approach aimed
at employing modern technology to trigger students' ability to act with words and create social realities in
and out of the classroom, and thus to facilitate learning. The specific implementation of PrOCALL at the
University of Melbourne analysed in the present paper was based on the expectation that the goal-oriented
activity of creating Web-based multimodal presentations may promote the need to communicate among
students, thereby facilitating language development (Debski, Gassin, & Smith, 1997; Debski, 2000).
In second language (L2) learning and teaching, project-oriented learning is best positioned as a
curriculum design within the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) framework. Its emergence can
be linked to critiques of the objectivist curriculum and an increasing emphasis on the negotiated
curriculum and the social reality of the L2 classroom (Breen & Candlin, 1980). For some time now, a
number of shifts have occurred in CLT in the direction proposed by Breen and Candlin. The "learning
task" has become the central focus of many second language classrooms (Candlin & Murphy, 1987; Ellis,
2003; Prabhu, 1987), and learners are recognized as active and creative language users. Learners are also
seen as members of a social group involved in managing the learning process (Allwright, 1984), making
contributions to the curriculum (Nunan, 1988) and becoming aware of their own personalities and social
roles (Candlin, 1987). Legutke and Thomas (1991) considered the role of learning tasks within projectoriented language learning and developed a framework, which served as a guideline for the pedagogical
setting of the present research (Debski, 2000).
121
Oral Interaction Around Computers...
A number of studies have explored the types of oral communications that students engage in during
project-oriented classes that utilize computers. There is evidence that interaction in such classes creates
unique learning opportunities and that the language produced in them is linguistically different from the
language of more traditional classrooms. Applying discourse research methods, Ewing (2000) found out
that PrOCALL classrooms produced a more varied flow of rhetorical relations and students had more
control over the linguistic means they used to express themselves. He concluded that PrOCALL classes
provided students with opportunities to develop linguistics skills unavailable in traditional L2 classrooms.
Mueller-Hartmann (2000) found that project-oriented learning allowed learners to develop and express
their views and made meaningful communication possible. Gu (2002) reported that PrOCALL classes in
an EFL tertiary setting in China have provided students with authentic interaction with a variety of
audiences, increased their levels of input and output, and enhanced motivation, engagement, and
willingness to learn collaboratively. Toyoda and Harrison (2002) found that difficulties in understanding
each other in a project-oriented classroom triggered negotiation of meaning between learners of Japanese
and Japanese native speakers. However, anecdotal evidence also suggests that project-orientation and
high levels of motivation to accomplish goals not directly related to language learning may discourage
students from using the target language in the classroom, as does the use of technology in the case of
students with poor computer skills (Debski, 2000).
The present study investigates the oral interactions of two groups of French language learners occurring
in a PrOCALL classroom over a semester. Importantly, the research locates the students' interactions in
the social context, thus investigating the oral interaction and students' collaborative relationships as
socially embedded activity. The social space in which interactions occur also involves computer screens
where students perform actions with words and learn through "perception-in-action" (van Lier, 2002, p.
147). Another emphasis of the research is, therefore, on the impact of the computer on creating learning
opportunities.
ACTIVITY AND ORAL INTERACTION: DESCRIBING L2 LEARNING AS EMBEDDED IN
ACTIVITY
Second language research has valued learner-centered collaborative approaches for some time. It is now
almost axiomatic to say that language learning is a co-constructed process of communication skills
(Meskill, 1999). Second language learning takes place while students interact with each other, or with the
teacher, through participating in task-based collaborative activities in the classroom. These activities are
important because they provide meaningful contexts for L2 development. Meskill highlights this point:
The oral/aural negotiational aspect of teacher and task supported student-student configurations is
seen as a powerful venue for second language acquisition to occur. Such configurations, in
combination with well-designed and orchestrated language learning tasks, represent opportunities
for learners to manipulate interdependent chunks of the target language in complex ways that see
immediate, contextual affect. (p. 143)
The emphasis on collaborative language learning is not new and many of the concepts and issues in L2
research have emerged from the study of interaction in collaborative learning environments. Thus, our
awareness of the importance of input, negotiation of meaning, noticing, modification, and output is a
result of investigating the value and nature of collaboration between learners, between native speakers
and non-native speakers, and between L2 learners and their teachers (see Chapelle, 1997; Hall &
Verplaetse, 2000, for an overview on interaction studies). The studies have provided important insights
into the interactive and negotiation strategies that learners use and the grammatical aspects of languages
that L2 learners employ during their interactions (Donato, 1994).
A persisting concern in L2 research has thus been its inclination to focus on the psychological and
cognitive at the expense of the social dimensions of language learning, despite widespread recognition of
122
the importance of the social contexts of learning as one of the major forces of L2 development (e.g.,
Atkinson, 2002; Donato, 1994; Long, 1997; Rogoff, 1990). This increasing recognition of the importance
of the social context of learning has developed in response to approaches positing language learning as a
process isolated from the surrounding social factors. Atkinson (2002) conjures up the image of "a cactus
in the desert" to describe such approaches in L2 research and argues that progress in language learning
depends on success in the efforts made by students to participate in social activities that are carried out in
the target language. This implies that, in the case of collaborative classroom situations, L2 learning relies
on whether learners become successfully integrated into either a group or the class, or into any implicitly
or explicitly existing social relationships within the classroom.
The L2 classroom is a social context to which learners bring themselves and their past experiences, and in
which they establish certain relationships and attempt to participate and engage in tasks in ways that best
fit their social needs. Thus, describing their activities in relation to the other learners as social beings is an
important part of the description of their L2 learning. Extracting production alone for analysis and
ignoring the questions how this is achieved and in what environment, can only be part of the equation,
because language learning cannot be separated from the activities for which the language is being utilized
as a tool (Atkinson, 2002, p. 536). Coughlan and Duff (1994), who investigated the ways students'
implemented ESL tasks, suggest this as a strong direction for L2 research:
We stand to learn a lot about what goes on in the minds and experiences of individual language
learners by looking at the activity that emerges from interactive second language situations.
Perhaps, through this kind of discourse-based investigation, we will discover that variation in
second language acquisition is not entirely intrapersonal -- rather, some answers must reside in
the interpersonal relationships among participants engaged in second language activities, and in
subject-task relationships. (p. 190; emphasis in original)
Thus, the description of L2 learning has recently expanded its scope to include "contexts of use" (Meskill,
2005), including perspectives on collaborative relationships, interaction with tasks, and interaction with
other tools the learners might utilize.
This inseparable connection of learning with social activity and the social setting in which it is embedded
is also acknowledged in CALL research. A number of recent studies have attempted to describe L2
learning in computer-mediated environments from a broader perspective by incorporating a sociocultural
approach (e.g., Belz, 2002; Goodfellow & Lamy, 1999; Lee, 2004; Thorne, 2003; Warschauer, 2000).
Investigations of social interaction or "conversational spin-off" (Piper, 1986) around computers has also
received increasing attention. Recently, van Lier (2002) proposed an ecological-semiotic perspective in
which language is learned in social spaces, and which includes considerations of the relationships
between people as well as between people and objects such as computers. For example, he noticed a great
deal of indicational work occurring in the context of collaborative work in front of a screen. From this
perspective, language learning opportunities may arise in "triadic interaction" when reference is made to
objects and actions and through meaningful action afforded by the situation. Work at the computer
provides unique learning opportunities for meaningful language use and for learning through "perceptionin-action" (van Lier, 2002, p. 147). Similarly, Leahy (2004) referred to interaction involving L2 learners
and the computer screen as "triangular relationship" (p. 133). She noticed that the triangular relationship
led the students to produce a form of shorthand, including incomplete sentences, due to student oral
production being intertwined with language on the computer screen. She expressed concern that such low
accuracy in interlanguage could be counterproductive for language learning. However, such interactions
mediated by gestures and objects could lead to language development if they were accompanied by a
transition from using indexical to more symbolic modes of expression over time. Meskill (2005)
examined the interactions the teacher orchestrates with children around computers and identified "triadic
scaffolds" where the teacher uses the computer screen to motivate and capture learner attention.
123
Another recent area of research investigation has been on the role of the first language in the second
language classroom, and the potential roles it may play. A variety of studies conducted particularly within
a sociocultural framework have argued that "the learner uses the L1 as a cognitive tool to help 'scaffold'
his/her learning" (Turnbull & Arnett, 2002, p. 206). In particular, it has been found that this can be used
in peer-to-peer interaction and that where such assistance is used, it serves a number of different
functions:
By means of the L1 the students enlist each other's interest in the task throughout its performance,
or develop strategies for making the task manageable, maintain their focus on the goal of the task,
foreground important elements of the task, discuss what needs to be done to solve specific
problems, and explicate and build on each others partial solutions to specific problems throughout
the task. (Anton & Di Camilla, 1998, p. 321)
Second language learning needs to be explained within the context of the learners' activities, where
learners utilize language as well as other tools, and the given conditions of the classroom, to achieve
particular goals that are driven by their motivations and intentions. This allows a description of language
learning that is "embedded in, and emerging from, the experiences of others in the present (social), the
experiences of others from the past (culture), and the immediate experiences of the individual with these
others and with the artifacts they constructed" (Lantolf, 2002, p. 104). Ohta (2001) highlights the
importance of describing the broader context in the description of oral interaction:
Because learner's oral participation is embedded in context, and produced in collaboration with
other persons and with artifacts of the classroom setting, learner utterances are intimately
dependent on these factors. Other persons include the classmates and the classroom teacher with
whom the learner interacts during learning activities, as well as those seated around the learner in
the classroom, whose utterances and interactions the learner can overhear and appropriate.
Artifacts of the classroom setting include the teacher's jottings on the blackboard, overhead
transparencies, worksheets and other handouts, and textbook pages. In this view language is not a
unique product of just the learner's individual brain, but of a mind that actively draws on the
interactive environment of the setting in which language is used. (p. 4)
The present study describes two groups of L2 learners' oral interactions in the context of a PrOCALL
classroom where they were required to produce Web-based hypertext as part of a semester-long project.
The specific aim of the research was to determine what impact the social setting, including the computer,
had on creating learning opportunities for students. The following research questions guided the
exploration:
1) What impact has work on projects at the computer had on collaborative relationships between
students?
2) What impact have collaborative relationships had on the individual student's use of L2 in oral
interactions?
3) What has been the impact of the computer on collaborative relationships and oral interactions?
METHODOLOGY
Setting and Participants
The participants were eight monolingual speakers of English enrolled in a first-year elective unit of
French and francophone cultures, and their teacher. The main objective of the course was to develop oral
and written communication skills in French through group work on multimedia projects related to the
cultural interests of the students. The students formed two groups of three and one group of two and
worked on Web pages on topics relating to French and francophone cultures: "The beautiful period [Belle
124
Epoche] in Montmartre," "Brittany," and "New Wave French Cinema." This was a mini-option that
represented one of five contact hours and contributed 10% of the total marks of the subject. The class was
based on a set of guidelines proposed by Debski (2000):
1) Web-based projects created by students in the target language are central in the classroom.
2) Students select projects that are personally meaningful and motivating.
3) In order to accomplish class objectives, students collaborate in the classroom and outside the
classroom using computer-mediated communication.
4) The target language is used pervasively as a vehicle for negotiation of tasks and collaboration.
5) The teaching of form is not scheduled but is driven by student needs, with direct reference to
learning tasks.
6) Students share the responsibility for the learning outcomes with their teacher.
The specific tasks designed by the teacher included, for example, evaluation of existing Web sites,
brainstorming topics, compiling of keywords to be used to search the Internet, searching for Internet
resources, reporting on resources found, designing Web sites, elaborating criteria to be used for a peer
review of sites, and presenting sites to students from other groups. The students received a group mark for
their Web site, and individual marks for a portfolio, which included their individual contributions to the
Web site, a review of another group's site, other work as negotiated with the coordinator (e.g., e-mail
correspondence with a partner in France), and participation based on class work and e-mail
correspondence with the coordinator.
Two groups, A and B, are the focus of the present study. To provide background information, the students
were asked to rate their French skills and experience in hypertext writing using a 5-point Likert scale
(excellent, very good, good, fair, poor). Their self-evaluations are report in Table 1:
Table 1. Participant Background
Group
A
B
C
Self-rated French skills
General
Writing
Experience in
hypertext writing1
v. good
excellent
good
excellent
good
good-fair3
fair
discontinued
v. good
v. good
good
good
good
good-fair
fair
yes, but in English
no experience
no experience
no experience
no experience
no experience
no experience
Participants
Alice
Kelly
Cathy
Elisa
Ruth
Biddy
Karen
Darren
Self-rated hyper-text
writing skills2
fair
fair
fair
good
good
poor
good
Procedure
The data were collected over a one-semester period from July to November, 2002. The students met for 1
hour per week and worked consistently in the same groups developing a Web site. Data sources included
video and audio recording of the class talk, and of the computer screen, interviews, questionnaires, as well
as participant observation. Outcomes of the students' activities (e.g., drafts, Web pages) and a record of
the on-line subject Web site were also collected for analysis.
Each group was recorded in each class with a separate video camera, and the computer screen and
students' cursor movement and keyboard operation, were recorded simultaneously. This is illustrated in
Figure 1:
125
Figure 1. Classroom recording system
In addition to the video recordings, students were interviewed individually during the semester or at the
end of the semester using a method that fits comfortably with the concept of "qualitative interviewing"
(Mason, 1996). The interviews were designed to obtain in-depth information about the students' hypertext
writing processes and were semi-structured and conversational in style. Prior to the interviews being
conducted, participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire. This was used to obtain general background
information about the participants and also functioned as a warm-up activity through which the
participants were "tuned" in discussion about the topics in the interviews. In addition, author Jeon-Ellis
was a participant observer in the classroom, acting as the teacher's assistant. In situations where a
technical problem occurred, the teacher would approach the researcher and ask for help to resolve the
problem; at other times she helped the students directly, or arranged for other technicians to come. Being
part of the learning situation with a specific role allowed the establishment of a relationship between the
researcher and the students.
Data Analysis
The video/audio recordings were transcribed and the parts spoken in French were translated into English.
The interviews were also transcribed. The analysis was qualitative and used the inductive strategies of
grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). As the analysis proceeded, themes related to the research
questions were modified to reflect categories emerging from the data, for example, those related to
collaborative relationships or the role of technology in producing learning opportunities. In order to
achieve a deeper level of analysis, relationships between the emergent themes were examined. Careful
attention was also given to any modifications of emergent themes so that an iterative process was
established. The analysis was never linear or straightforward and involved repetition of reviewing and
search for counter-evidence or alternative explanation.
The qualitative data analysis program Nudist (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and
Theory-building) was used to assist the processes described above. Qualitative data analysis software can
be a useful tool for managing and organizing the different types of unstructured data, for mapping the
126
relationships between codes, and also for aiding as a prompt search of certain words and text units
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The focus of our analysis is on the behaviours and interactions of two groups (A and B) engaged in
composing hypertext in French. Several themes related to the impact of collaborative relationships on
generating learning opportunities for students and the role of computers in creating learning opportunities
emerged from the data set and they are discussed in this article.
Collaboration at the Computer
Group A consisted of Alice, Kelly, and Cathy. These three students appeared relatively well matched in
terms of their skills (see Table 1). Alice and Kelly, two of the three members of this group, used French in
their conversation more than the other students throughout the semester. Even when they spoke in
English, their interests were often concerned with linguistic problems related to the target language. In the
transcripts of their conversations, there are numerous examples of what Swain and Lapkin (1998) term as
"language related episodes" (LREs). In example 1, in which Alice, Kelly, and Cathy are browsing French
Web sites, and Kelly corrects Alice's pronunciation:
Example 14 (Group A, week 4)
1
Kelly
I'm sure that there's… [inaudible] … he's quite famous … is there a songwriter?
2
Alice
Yes, ….It's [spelling] B, R,…
3
Kelly
[spelling] U, A, N, T
4
Alice
[spelling] U, A, N, T … What?
5
Kelly
It's not easy to say, "Bruant"
6
Alice
Bru-ant
7
Kelly
Bruant
8
Alice
Bruant
9
Kelly
Not "bruyant" (meaning "noisy"), it's a bit like [inaudible] adjectif [inaudible]
10
Alice
Ah, yes, yes.
When Kelly notices that Alice's pronunciation is incorrect, she explains with a counter example (example
1, line 9). Kelly adopts this teaching role spontaneously, and it is well-received by Alice (example 1, line
10). A similar example follows:
1
Alice
"le profil" [profile] and "l'eouvre" [works: mispronounced]
2
Kelly
"l'oeuvre" [correcting pronunciation]
3
Alice
"l'oeuvre," sorry, yep. Sorry.
There are numerous cases in the collaborative dialogues between Kelly and Alice where Kelly appears to
take on a teaching role: That is, Alice asks a question about a linguistic problem, and Kelly provides an
answer.
127
1
Kelly
I wanted to make a gap so you could … I want to make a picture there of a cat.
2
Alice
Yeah.
3
Kelly
Cause the next bit's about a cat.
4
Alice
Oh, very interesting. What's "un chat se chauffant au soleil"?
5
Kelly
Sunning, warming itself in the sun.
6
Alice
Oh, that's so cool.
Similarly, Kelly often draws Alice's attention to uses of the French language. In the following dialogue,
although Kelly and Alice were talking mainly in English, notice how Alice's attention was drawn to the
word select used in French by Kelly:
1
Kelly
Yes, musician. Come back here, ok.
2
Alice
What? What are you doing?
3
Kelly
Well, I need to get the musician one in front … okay, alright. Select, then…
4
Alice
Click.
5
Kelly
Click?
6
Alice
Try click. Yep. It's selected.
7
Kelly
Is it selected?
8
Alice
It's selected.
As Lantolf (2003) argues, this kind of interaction is a reflection of learning in which imitation is not
merely a replication of someone else's utterance, but a reflection of paying attention to certain linguistic
features. Here, the distinction between imitation and repetition is important. Repetition is significantly
different from imitation in the sense that it does not entail intentionality or agency. Imitations carry
constructive and creative intentions of learning as reflected in Alice's imitation (example 4, line 6) which
is not a mere replication of what Kelly said in line 3. Alice's verbalization is embedded in a collaborative
dialogue triggered by interaction with, or reaction to, the changing states of the computer screen, and
consequently, because Kelly responds to this verbalization, Alice's internal effort becomes a shared
process. In other words, Alice's internal processes have been mediated through the oral interaction.
Example 5 is another occasion when Alice's internal thought processes become part of a collaborative
dialogue and a learning opportunity.
1
Kelly
There we go.
2
Alice
That's it?
3
Kelly
Yes. So, close everything and then open.
4
Alice
Okay, okay, have we done everything?
5
Kelly
I think so.
6
Alice
I hope so…so, home, open, open, opened [ouvrir, ouvert]
128
7
Kelly
Open [ouvrez]?
8
Alice
Open [ouvre], I open [j'ouvre], you open [tu ouvres], so, open [ouvre].
9
Kelly
There we go. Let's preview it.
In example 5, Kelly and Alice are trying to see whether they have been able to save the page they have
been working on so they need to reopen the pages. In doing so, Alice produces speech that is clearly
private in its purpose (example 5, line 6). That is, she retrieves her knowledge about conjugations of the
verb open and recites them. Alice neither addresses Kelly, nor anticipates any response from her, but
engages verbally in the process of conjugating the verb in an effort to internalize its usage. Alice's
verbalization prompts Kelly to assist the effort by suggesting alternative form of the word, "ouvrez?"
(example 5, line 7), to which Alice responds by overtly illustrating what she is trying to do, thus linking
the newly acquired form to activity on the screen.
From these examples, we may reasonably infer that Kelly and Alice interpret the classroom situation as a
context for language learning. They are constantly directing each other's attention to linguistic points in
each other's utterances, and as a result, create language-learning contexts. Example 6 illustrates Alice's
ability to turn even a trivial incident to a language learning moment:
1
Alice
(Sneezes) Excuse me.
2
Kelly
Bless you.
3
Alice
What do I say when I sneeze?
4
Alice
Bless you.
5
Kelly
No, me.
6
Alice
Oh, you. Excuse me.
7
Alice
Excuse me.
In summary, the collaborative dialogues described so far suggest that, while working at the computer,
Alice and Kelly were engaged in a relationship in which the roles of teaching and learning were tacitly
agreed and accepted. Alice's internal effort at language learning became merged into the interaction and
her internal learning processes are mediated through their verbalisation.
Throughout the description of Alice and Kelly's dialogues, Kelly usually takes the role of peer-expert. She
corrects the mistakes that Alice makes in her utterances, draws Alice's attention to linguistic features, and
responds to Alice's language queries. She helps her focus on the correct form in her vocalizations and to
link language use to activity performed on the computer, thus facilitating learning through "perception-inaction" (van Lier, 2002, p. 147). However, as we will see below, their roles (Kelly as expert, Alice as
novice) become less clearly delineated when computer technology itself becomes the object of their
dialogues.
Computer as a Trigger Changing Collaborative Relationships
When complex technological matters become the objects of their dialogues, Kelly and Alice often resort
to speaking English, and Kelly is no longer the peer-expert -- in fact, in example 7, where the teacher is
explaining how to save images on the Internet onto individual files, Alice adopts this role:
129
1
Teacher
One silly thing…sometimes when you've looked for pictures on the Web and you
put the
2
pictures in your webpages, it's very important to ensure that you've saved the
picture's
3
file in the same fold as your text, because if you don't, when you move the text,
the
4
picture won't appear. So you have to save everything in a folder. And it's good
to have a
5
folder within your folder called IMG with your pictures.
6
Alice
Quite clear…
7
Kelly
How do I do it?
8
Alice
Go down…click and hold an image…there it is…[inaudible], pictures.
9
Kelly
Downloading it…
10
Alice
Okay, now we need to put it in a good place…yes. This is, damn it. This is not
14.
11
Cause, remember how we had to save it?
12
Kelly
Oh…
13
Alice
It's alright. It doesn't matter…we can open our own folder…Montmartre?
14
Kelly
Yep.
15
Alice
Create…
16
Kelly
[inaudible] sounds good to me.
Not only has Alice's role changed to become a more expert one, but she and Kelly stopped speaking
French, even though the teacher's instructions were in French. Thus while there was a strong tendency to
speak French among students in the class, this does not appear to be the case when they are engaged in
solving technological problems. Leahy (2004) also found that problems with technology acted as triggers
for switching to the L1 in a classroom where the use of L2 otherwise prevailed for communication around
computers. In example 8, notice Alice's switch to English in line 6.
1
Alice
It's a cabaret bar, more like a café.
2
Elise
Like Brunswick Street.
3
Alice
Yeah, but much cooler.
4
Elisa
It's really good.
5
Kelly
Good bye.
6
Alice
See you later…What were we looking for?
7
Kelly
We were looking for how to copy the whole folder onto the disk.
130
8
Alice
How do we do that ?
9
Kelly
We can do it. Can we go in there and do it. We need, like, "my computer."
10
Alice
I know…stop it, you stupid. Oh, I know, I know. No, I don't. What am I doing
… and then
11
we go to this, and…
12
Kelly
And copy.
13
Alice
Move! Do not [inaudible]
14
Kelly
No, go "edit," "copy," and then go into "untitled."
15
Alice
There is no "untitled"
16
Kelly
Is it in "desktop" or something
17
Alice
Oh, yeah, it's always desktop.
18
Kelly
I think we're in "documents" at the moment. We need to get out of "documents"
19
Alice
Oh, we aren't in…
20
Kelly
Applications or whatever, get out of that. No…
21
Alice
oops.
22
Kelly
Oh, can we just click on "untitled"?
23
Alice
Oh yes, we can.
24
Kelly
And then just paste in there?
25
Alice
We sure can.
26
Kelly
Paste.
27
Alice
Oh, it doesn't work. Show clipboard…yes. You, I want you to click, you, Oh
why can't I…
28
Kelly
Steven [the teacher], how can we put the folder on diskette?
29
Teacher
on the diskette?
In example 8, lines 1-6, Alice is talking to Elisa (group B) about her topic, speaking French. Then turning
back to the task at hand, she switches to English (example 8, line 6), focusing on the task of copying a
folder (example 8, line 7). This time, Kelly is guiding the activity, and in trying to complete this
technological task, both speak English, reverting to French as the teacher approaches.
The well-established context of language learning in Alice and Kelly's mutual collaboration is not stable
when they are engaged in unfamiliar technological problems. As a consequence, during these episodes,
opportunities for language learning become rather scarce.
However, this is not the only direction the student interaction takes when a technological problem occurs.
In the following talk, a linguistic problem is related to a technological one.
1
Kelly
what's a "champ de text" [text field]?
2
Alice
Like a text box? Maybe that's a text box.
131
3
Kelly
Oh, maybe … "une zone de texte"…
4
Alice
Okay, I know. We'll open two simultaneously so we can see what one means.
5
Kelly
Okay.
In example 9, neither of the two students is in a teaching or leading role. Rather, both are explorers with
equally low expertise, as they do not know what functions the program can perform. Furthermore, the
program is a French version, and they often encounter new French words or phrases in the menu bars of
the program. In this case, an object of learning emerges. In the talk above, the emerged object of learning
is a computer term, champ de text (example 9, line 1), which the students came across while exploring the
HTML authoring program. When Alice's answer is not convincing (example 9, line 2), Kelly wonders
about another similar term (example 9, line 3: une zone de texte? [Isn't it textbox?]). Alice does not know
the answer. However, she is able to suggest a way to find out the meanings of the terms, that is, to see the
two menu functions that the words "champ de text" and "une zone de texte" indicate respectively
(example 9, line 4).
Example 9 is different from those described earlier in the sense that the two students are dealing with dual
learning objectives: to learn the meaning of the words (which are computer specific terms) and to learn
how to use the functions of the program that the words are indicating. The role of the computer in this
case is twofold: It is both the source of the linguistic problems or "accidents" (Barson, 1997), and it
mediates Kelly and Alice's language learning by providing a tool to explore the language and to link
meaning to activity, another example of learning through "perception-in-action" (van Lier, 2002, p. 147).
In other words, the computer itself is both the object of learning, and a tool for learning language. In this
attempt to utilize the program both as a source and a tool for language learning, Alice and Kelly form a
relationship in which they have equal expertise as explorers. Example 10 is similar:
1
Alice
Okay, so we have to go to…
2
Kelly
"paste" … "addition"?
3
Alice
Oh, what's paste? "Coller" [Paste].
4
Kelly
Coller?
5
Alice
Cause "paste" is after "copy"
In example 10, Alice and Kelly need to find the French word for "paste" in the menu, which they find
through using the usual sequence on the menu bar of the program (where "paste" appears under "copy" in
the Edit menu).
We have seen that for Alice and Kelly, the PrOCALL classroom provides a range of opportunities for
learning and that this is clearly achieved through their collaborative interaction. We have also seen how
activity occurring on the computer screen changes relationships between learners, and affects the
language they use and the learning opportunities they experience. The third member of Group A, Cathy,
is less fortunate. As an outsider to the group, she has far fewer opportunities to participate in these kinds
of activities and to learn.
Exclusion in the PrOCALL Classroom
Overall, group A did not seem to encounter major conflicts in making decisions or concerning any other
issues related to the tasks. However, Kelly was explicit in her dissatisfaction with the group work and saw
Cathy as an impediment since she appeared less committed and was frequently absent.
132
Example 11 (Interview, October 11, 2002)
1
Kelly
The text that Alice and I have written … we put it into colors and divided up into
2
pages, and we've made some links between pages but we haven't got Cathy's
contribution.
3
Remember she hasn't been here for a while so we've been behind with that. […]
4
Int.
I see. How are you doing with working in the group?
5
Kelly
It's not too bad, but I find group work really difficult because… […] I'd like to
6
feel I have control, not like being bossy, but I like everything's organized. But
sometimes it
7
can be unpredictable. For example, when Alice and I planned to finish it off on
Wednesday
8
and then Cathy didn't turn up. We didn't … so, we couldn't finish. I just find it
very stressful
9
on the whole process […]
Notice Kelly's use of the pronoun we referring to herself and Alice, and her exclusion of Cathy in
example 11, lines 1, 2, 3, and 8 by referring to her as "Cathy" or "she." The transcripts reveal that in
general Cathy is not included in the talk, and her role is minimal:
1
Teacher
[explains about Website evaluation criteria] … there are ways to limit the
downloading
2
time, to simplify by reducing the definition of the image … and page layout …
what did
3
you say about the page layout? What's important? We're talking about pay
layout…
4
Kelly
Yes.
5
Alice
Um, it's good … on the home page to have all the introduction, and on the side
here,
6
there are all the links to the other pages … so it's easy to follow.
7
Kelly
And when the internal links stay on the side
8
Alice
Yes, all the time
9
Kelly
Yes, all the time
10
Teacher
In a frame.
11
Alice
Yes
12
Kelly
Yes
13
14
[…]
Teacher
Okay…um…what about color?
133
15
Alice
Lots of colors
16
Cathy
Yes
17
Teacher
So you like colors
18
Alice
Yes
19
Kelly
Yes
In the talk in example 12, Alice responds (example 12, lines 5-6) to the teacher's prompt (example 12,
lines 1-3) and then Kelly adds to Alice's answer (example 12, line 7). In fact, Kelly's comment is almost a
paraphrase of Alice's previous comment. Kelly and Alice agree throughout the interaction (e.g., example
12, lines 8-9, 11-12, 18-19). These contrast sharply with Cathy's minimal participation (example 12, line
16). Dismissal of Cathy's attempts to participate is well illustrated by example 13 which takes place while
Alice, Kelly, and Cathy are discussing ways to present texts on their Web page.
1
Kelly
Home, homepage…
2
Alice
Together or…?
3
Kelly
Yes.
4
Cathy
Separate.
5
Alice
Together.
6
Kelly
Together.
7
Cathy
Just one page for everything?
8
Kelly
And what will we have … a home page … are we going to have the title … or…?
9
Cathy
Is the home page just with…?
10
Alice
A windmill.
11
Kelly
A windmill.
12
Cathy
Yes.
13
Alice
Yes, but I think we need to have a bit of text too.
14
Cathy
From the era.
15
Alice
Not from the era but of our site.
16
Kelly
Yes, yes. And, yes, something that explains the aim of the site.
17
Alice
like the history of windmills and…
18
Kelly
Windmills that…
19
Alice
In that era. It's an era of prosperity because the, … I don't know … you know, all
the…
20
Cathy
Maybe…
21
Alice
Grain. And I don't know what else they produced.
134
22
Kelly
The grain!
23
Cathy
Maybe on the home page … the three paragraphs…
The agreement between Kelly and Alice (example 13, lines 5-6, 10-11, and 21-22) stands in stark contrast
to their rather negative reactions to Cathy's comments (e.g., lines 4-6, 14-16). Notice, also, how Cathy's
question at line 7 (repeated at line 9) is ignored by the other two, who move on to discuss another topic.
As Cathy becomes increasingly silent towards the end of the semester, there are few examples of any
interaction between Cathy, and Alice and Kelly.
Group interaction in the PrOCALL classroom is driven by a broad and naturalistic goal, and students
negotiate their participation in achieving it, rather than by micro-tasks, simulated interaction, and
scheduled responsibilities. In such a setting, personality and social skills are important factors
determining what learning opportunities will emerge for individual students. In this study, Cathy's
increasing isolation clearly results in fewer opportunities for her for language learning through
collaboration. Conversely, the transcripts of Alice and Kelly's collaborative discussions reveal a variety of
opportunities for resolving linguistic problems, practicing newly acquired knowledge, and therefore,
language learning.
Lack of Collaborative Dialogue
Group B consisted of Ruth and Elisa. In general, Elisa was eager to speak French, to discuss the group
topic, and to be engaged in the webpage writing activities. Ruth, on the other hand, had a rather negative
attitude and often digressed from the tasks. While physically they sat together and interacted verbally,
examination of their actual collaboration reveals that their Web page writing processes were independent
from each other, and that they spoke in English most of the time, thus not making use of potential
language learning opportunities.
Example 14 illustrates Ruth's ability to initiate a digression. The utterance in line 2 is the beginning of a
long digression in which the students constantly talk about "off-task" topics, and although they are
sharing a computer and playing with it, what they are doing is not congruent with what they are talking
about. Such digressions reduced the opportunities for linking language use to activity on the computer
screen.
Example 14 (Group B, week 7)
1
Teacher
2
Now what would be good would be to put that in an html document and
experiment with different fonts and backgrounds.
3
Ruth
Yeah, do you want to do, green? I think green's a good idea…So how have you
been?
4
Elisa
I've been good.
5
Ruth
How's the boy?
6
Elisa
Which one? No, the one here?
7
Ruth
Marcus?
8
Elisa
Oh, Marcus. No … good name though.
9
Ruth:
Hamish? Hamish?
10
Elisa
Yeah
135
11
Ruth
12
13
I think I was in love with a guy called Hamish once…He doesn't happen to play
violin
does he?
Elisa
No.
Of course, on rare occasions they do discuss the tasks, but note there is no attempt at any point to use
French, and notice how rapidly the digression emerges in the following example (example 15, lines 7-10):
1
Elisa:
This is html.
2
Ruth
Yeah. But how do we put it on the net?
3
Elisa
We haven't even done it yet.
3
Ruth
Yeah, but can't we put it on anyway, just for fun? Just to see what's happening?
No?
4
Elisa
No … you have to write your thing first.
5
Ruth
Oh, shit … I'm going to show you my high school Web site. I'm going back
tomorrow.
6
Um … we have this concert on once a year, in this chapel somewhere and we
have it with
7
the players, and we have to come back and play. Look, a virtual site … [talks
more about the school]
8
I'll show you my history teacher who I'm totally in love with … he's my
9
history teacher.
10
Elisa
This is html.
There is some evidence that Ruth is reluctant to speak French and is not confident about her abilities.
Ruth receives feedback from the teacher that is not entirely positive. She has done a draft of her Web site,
which is a chronological list of Brittany's historical events. The teacher's feedback (week 7) is as follows:
There are some good elements here, Ruth, but the quotes and the timeline take up too much room.
Develop the first paragraph and take a stance on the possible conflict between the two identities
… or, talk about your culinary experiences in Brittany… P [pass]
In Example 16, Ruth refuses to show Elisa the draft, which is required for the Web site:
1
Elisa
Okay, so let's see your text, mate.
2
Ruth
No, you are not seeing my text.
3
Elisa
But we have to put in onto the Web site.
4
Ruth
I'm not putting it on the Web site. I'm correcting it. [complaining about the way
the teacher wrote down the feedback]…
5
I knew it was shit.
136
6
[…]
7
Elisa
So what do you want to change about your thing?
8
Ruth
Everything.
9
Elisa
I'll show you what I've got.
10
Ruth
You can look at yours but you can't look at mine.
11
Elisa
Okay, so let's see your text, mate.
Although Ruth refuses to share her draft with Elisa, she explains the content of her draft:
1
Ruth
I knew it was rubbish.
2
Elisa
Because the first bit…
3
Ruth
Um, I was talking about how it was distinct geographically and culturally, and
4
Talking … and I sort of said, you know, some people think there's a bit of a
conflict between
5
their identity and the French identity. That was sort of alright. But then I just
sort of
6
wrote this boring history stuff because I couldn't really think of what to say.
And then
7
some crap about some crepes. So, I'll redo it. Oh, well. I just like, have to take
out the
8
boring stuff.
9
Elisa
What do you want to redo about?
10
Ruth
Oh well, it's not, you know, how ours is about … identity and I couldn't really
... I did it at
11
the last minute and I couldn't really think of anything like, how to talk about,
like, food
12
and talk about identity without sort of sounding like idiot.
13
Elisa
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
14
Ruth
So I think I'm going to get some documents in English as well.
Ruth acknowledges that the content of her draft is not interesting (example 17, lines. 6-7), saying she did
not know what to say about the group topic of identity in Brittany. She knows her draft needs revision,
but notice the decision Ruth makes to resolve the problem. She says she is going to find documents
written in English (example 17, line 14). This suggests that she is not well disposed toward learning
French; in other words she is not oriented to the goal of language learning. This is further supported by
the following extract in which Elisa offers to give Ruth some contact addresses of her French friends so
that Ruth can obtain more information on the topic (example 17, line 1-2). Ruth appears reluctant to speak
French (example 17, line 3), and although Elisa says that she may ask them in English (example 17, line
4), Ruth still refuses and chooses to work by herself by saying "I don't want to be asking stupid questions"
(example 17, line 6-7).
137
1
Elisa
2
But …[inaudible] do you want, do you want some email addresses of people,
like you
could write to and ask them questions if you've got questions?
3
Ruth
In French?
4
Elisa
Or you could ask them in English … Cause I've got like … there's some
amazing people that
5
6
I met over there who would be really happy to explain things to you and … you
know.
Ruth
7
I should probably still do some more backgroundy stuff. Like, I don't want to be
asking
stupid questions.
8
Elisa
Hey, I went over there not speaking French and I was asking questions the
whole time.
9
Ruth
Did you learn French when you were over there?
10
Elisa
Yeah.
11
Ruth
I don't know how you could do that.
Part of the problem appears to be that Ruth does not particularly enjoy working in a group, and would
rather work on her own:
Example 19 (interview, Ruth, November, 2002)
Int.
How do you feel about working with Elisa?
Ruth
I'd prefer work on my own. In university setting, it's harder than at high school
because people come and go at different times and they are not always around. Last
week was really tricky because Elisa didn't seem to work and it was ready to finish on
Wednesday. Then Elisa wasn't there. It was really hard. So in that sense, […] I don't
think it worked too well as it might have.
In a practical sense, Elisa and Ruth's official collaboration was realised only to the extent that their pages
were linked to the same introductory page at the end. They really engaged in parallel activities which
were independent of each other. This lack of collaboration stands in stark contrast to the collaborative
atmosphere created by Alice and Kelly (although to the exclusion of Cathy) and suggests that group and
pair work in language classes needs to be very carefully handled if it is intended to be used to enhance
oral interaction in the target language in the classroom.
Oral Interaction With the Teacher
As she did not have many opportunities to speak French with Ruth, Elisa's oral interaction in French was
between her and the teacher. These interactions are usually initiated by Elisa, and the topics that she
initiates are often related to the tasks. In the following talk, notice Elisa's enthusiasm for speaking French
with the teacher.
138
1
Elisa
Do you know there's a new film by Cédric…
2
Teacher
[says something but inaudible]
3
Elisa
L'auberge…
4
Teacher
I've seen it.
5
Elisa
You've seen it?
6
Teacher
Yes.
7
Elisa
All of my friends keep telling me "it's so good!"
8
Teacher
Yes, it's pretty good.
9
Elisa
With Audrey To … t … tou…
10
Teacher
Tautou
11
Elisa
Tauou
12
Teacher
And the … the boy who is in several of his films … I've forgotten his name.
13
Elisa
They've told me it's really great.
14
Teacher
But what's quite interesting in that film, in my opinion, is that … [talking about
the film]
When Elisa asks the teacher about a French film (example 20, line 1), the conversation begins. Elisa's
enthusiasm about speaking French stood in contrast to the other students' because, in fact, no other
student in the classroom would talk to the teacher for the purpose of just "chatting" as is seen in the
previous examples. She also did not seem to be afraid of making mistakes or being short of vocabulary.
(The class had been previously asked to find Web sites related to their group topics and submit a
bibliography to the teacher. Elisa is talking to the teacher concerning her bibliography.)
1
Elisa
Did you read any of the site that I put in on …?
2
Teacher
No
3
Elisa
It's really good. I put the page somewhere....
4
Teacher
In the bibliography.
5
Elisa
Yes, in the bibliography. He speaks a lot about what I'm doing, the importance
of
6
maintaining Briton. But there's sense of, a sense of "humeur" [wrong word
meaning "mood"],
7
is that what you say?
8
Teacher
Of humour [providing the right word for humour].
9
Elisa
A really good sense of humour. He's a bit satirical, a bit… He's a Briton, so he
can do it... [keeps talking about the Web site with the teacher]
139
In example 21, line 6, Elisa is aware that she may be using the wrong word humeur ("But there's sense of,
a sense of 'humeur'") and immediately asks, "is that what you say?" This is a spontaneous request for help
with this lexical choice problem. While the function of the request is to find out the correct word, the
utterance serves the additional function of ensuring continuation of communication at hand. Therefore, in
responding to the teacher's feedback, she produces the right word, not in isolation (i.e., merely mimicking
the teacher's feedback), but in the context of the communication (i.e., "a really good sense of humour";
example 21, line 9).
Elisa's dialogue with the teacher reveals an important characteristic that highlights her merit as a language
learner. First, she is enthusiastic about using the target language (even though she is not certain she has
the right word, she attempts to put the word into use), which allows her to learn from the teacher
(example 21, line 8), and, second, she skillfully uses the teacher's assistance. That is, she applies the word
given by the teacher immediately in her subsequent utterance (example 21, line 9). The following is a
similar example:
1
Elisa
2
If, at home … how do I say "the people that I live with"? It's not "concomitant,"
no…"flatmate" or "housemate"?
3
Teacher
"housemate" [collocataire]
4
Elisa
Is that it? Um, my housemate has Adobe Photoshop, so if I can use that … can I
save onto
5
disk with Adobe?
Elisa wants to say that her housemate has a program that might be useful for her Web page writing. In an
attempt to say it, she needs the French word for "housemate." She paraphrases the word as "the people
that I live with." She not only succeeds in asking for the word in French by paraphrasing, but also
suggests possible words: "'concomitant,' no…'flatmate' or 'housemate'?" (example 22, lines 1-2). Again,
she immediately puts the teacher's feedback into use (example 22, line 4). And again (as described for
Kelly and Alice's interaction), Lantolf's (2003) concept of imitation is applicable to highlight another
important characteristic of Elisa's language learning. Her imitation of the teacher's feedback is
constructive in the sense that she does not merely replicate what the teacher says, but transforms it and
uses it in context. Atkinson's (2002) account of language learning may be applied to a language learner
like Elisa, who takes opportunities to use the target language for communicative ends:
One acquires a language in order to act, and by acting,[emphasis added] in a world where
language is performative. This is exactly why and how children learn their first language, and it
accounts as well for most of the second/additional language learning going on in the world today.
(p. 537)
We have seen that good collaborative relationships between students in the project-oriented environment
can provide a range of opportunities for language learning. However, it cannot be taken for granted that
these are going to be used to their full advantage. Thus, some students may need to work harder than
others to ensure that they have adequate opportunity to use the language. Some students may be less
motivated to learn than others, or may be influenced by other affective factors. Personal relationships, as
well as ability and ability to interact with computers, may also limit or enhance their opportunities to
learn. It is also important that language students are oriented toward learning the language, and that they
take advantage of the opportunities for learning that come their way.
140
CONCLUSIONS
The present study has undertaken analysis of the oral interaction occurring between L2 learners working
on Web-based projects in small groups. We adopted a sociocultural perspective which acknowledges that
social spaces where collaborative dialogues (Swain, 2000) occur include physical objects such as
computers and associated electronic spaces which interact with social behaviour and hence with learning
itself (Leahy, 2004; Meskill, 2005; van Lier, 2002).
The research demonstrates that the relationships which developed between the students had a profound
impact on generating learning opportunities for the students and each individual's use of L2 in oral
interactions as has been found in earlier research on learner interactions in task-based pair work (Storch,
2002). Social exclusion in the PrOCALL classroom resulted in fewer "language-related episodes" (Swain
& Lapkin, 1998) and fewer learning opportunities, while smooth collaboration generated learning
opportunities through the resolution of linguistic problems and the provision of an arena for the practice
of newly acquired knowledge. The analysis provided examples of naturalistic interaction at the computer
where the learner does not merely repeat someone else's utterances, but reconstructs them and applies
them in a different context, thus displaying intensionality and agency (Lantolf, 2003), the sine-qua-non of
language use (Winograd & Flores, 1986). One direction of future research would be to explore what types
of goal-oriented learning tasks performed using computers are most likely to contribute to the
development of relationships between learners that are conducive to generating learning opportunities.
In the analyzed data, collaborative dialogues in the PrOCALL classroom were often linked to activity on
the computer screen and could be perceived as "triadic interaction" (van Lier, 2002) or "triadic scaffolds"
(Meskill, 2005). In example 10, the students decided to resolve the meaning of an item on the menu bar
by clicking on the bar and checking its function. Computer activity thus provided a link between an
unknown L2 language item and its function to illuminate meaning. The study has provided examples
where "triadic scaffolds" not only involved the student, the teacher, and the screen, as in Meskill (2005),
but also groups of students and the screen where one student assumed the role of a more capable peer.
The computer screen can be seen as a microcosm inviting interaction and extending the arena of the
classroom, limited by the physical state of objects it contains. The changing relationships between various
symbols systems on the screen provide ample opportunities for students to reflect, verbalize, and
negotiate. The transcripts for example revealed instances where students' private speech, in the form of
loud verbalizations, became part of collaborative dialogues and created learning opportunities.
Interestingly, the computer screen had the ability to trigger private speech, which then became a shared
effort between two students. In one instance, the computer screen set off a verbalization, which in turn
prompted another student, who had assumed the role of a more capable peer, to suggest an alternative
form of a word. Following this, the first student responded by overtly illustrating what she was trying to
do and by performing an activity on the screen, an example of learning through "perception-in-action"
(van Lier, 2002, p. 147).
Overall, technology turned out to be an important factor shaping the collaborative relationships observed
in the classroom and, consequently the learning opportunities available to students. The study has
revealed that technical problems often changed the established roles between learners. A student who
acted as the novice in language-related collaborative dialogues, often became the leader in situations
involving technological problems. This change was accompanied by switching to using English rather
than the target language. It is not entirely clear whether switching to English was triggered by the
technical problems (a new topic; see Leahy, 2004) or the role switching. Situations were also observed
when technological and language problems were linked together and none of the students was an obvious
expert or novice. In such situations, students attempted to utilize the computer both as a source and tool
for language learning and they formed a balanced relationship as explorers of technology and language.
141
More research is required on how social spaces interact with electronic spaces on the computer screen in
the project-oriented classroom. Pair and small-group work in such classes needs to be very carefully
handled if it is intended to enhance goal-oriented interaction in the target language and language learning.
Personality differences and problems with group dynamics must be addressed prior to project work
through "learning how to learn" and "learning how to collaborate." We need to know more about the role
of the teacher or more capable peer and the learning task in assisting learners with noticing and taking
advantage of the rich learning opportunities emerging from "triadic interaction" (van Lier, 2002) with the
computer screen.
NOTES
1. The question was "Have you ever done webpage writing before, particularly in French? If so, in what
context?"
2. The question was "How would you rate your computer skills, especially those skills that are required to
write webpage?"
3. Biddy's answer was "between good and fair."
4. In all transcripts, italics indicate that the original talk was in French and that this is a translation.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Gumock Jeon-Ellis has completed a PhD on the use of Web-based hypertext writing for second language
learning at the University of Melbourne. Her interests include computer assisted language learning,
second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, and Korean language teaching.
Robert Debski is Associate Professor and Director of the Horwood Language Centre, School of
Languages, University of Melbourne. His research interests include technology in minority language
maintenance and learning,
project-oriented CALL, and epistemology of CALL.
Gillian Wigglesworth is Associate Professor and Head of the School of Languages at the University of
Melbourne. She has a wide range of research interests which broadly include both first and second
language acquisition, language testing and assessment, and bilingualism and she has published widely in
these areas.
REFERENCES
Allright, R. L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics
5, 156-171.
Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2
classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 314-342.
Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern
Language Journal, 86(4), 525-545.
142
Barson, J. (1997). Space, time and form in the project-based foreign language classroom. In R. Debski, J.
Gassin, & M. Smith (Eds). Language learning through social computing (Occasional Papers 16; pp. 337). Parkville, Victoria: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.
Belz, J. A. (2002). The myth of the deficient communicator. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 59-82.
Breen, M., & Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching.
Applied Linguistics 1, 89-112.
Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds). Language
Learning Tasks (pp. 5-22). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Candlin, C., & Murphy, D. (1987). Language learning tasks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
International.
Chapelle, C. (1997). Call in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigm? Language Learning &
Technology, 1(1), 19-43. Retrieved April 23, 2003, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/chapelle/
Coughlan, P., & Duff. P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of SLA task from an activity
theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language
research (pp. 173-193). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Debski, R. (2000). Exploring the re-creation of a CALL innovation. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 13(4-5), 307-332.
Debski, R., Gassin, J., & Smith, M. (Eds.). (1997). Language learning through social computing
(Occasional Papers 16). Parkville, Victoria: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S (Eds.). (2000). The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Ewing, M. (2000). Conversations of Indonesian language students on computer-mediated projects:
Linguistic responsibility and control. Computer Assisted language Learning Journal, 13(4-5), 333-356.
Goodfellow, R., & Lamy, M-N. (1999). "Reflective conversation" in the virtual language classroom.
Language Learning and Technology, 2(2), 43-61. Retrieved November 5, 2004, http://llt.msu.edu/
vol2num2/article2/
Gu, P. (2002). Effects of project-based CALL on Chinese EFL learners. Asian Journal of English
Language Teaching 12, 195-210.
Hall, J. K., & Verplaetse, L. S.(2000). The development of second and foreign language through
classroom interaction. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning
through classroom interaction (pp.1-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lantolf, J. P. (2002). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 104-114). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2003). Intrapersonal communication and internalisation in the second language classroom.
In A. Kozulin, G. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural
context (pp. 349-370). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Leahy, C. (2004). Observations in the computer room: L2 output and learner behavior. ReCALL, 16(1), p.
124-144.
143
Lee, L. (2004). Learners' perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of
Spanish in the US. Language Learning and Technology, 8(1), 83-100. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/lee/
Legutke, M., & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the language classroom. New York:
Longman.
Long, M. H. (1997). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. Text from the McGraw-Hill
videoconference: Grammar in the communicative classroom. Retrieved June 15, 2004, from
http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/top.htm
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage Publications.
Meskill, C. (1999). Computers as tools for sociocollaborative language learning. In K. Cameron (Ed.),
Computer assisted language learning: Media, design and applications (pp. 141-162). Exton, PA: Swets
& Zeitlinger.
Meskill, C. (2005). Triadic scaffolds: Tools for teaching English language learners with computers.
Language Learners & Technology, 9(1), 46-59. Retrieved May 20, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/
vol9num1/meskill/
Mueller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning
networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 129-147. Retrieved November 6, 2004, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num2/muller/
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Piper, A. (1986). Conversation and the computer: A study of the conversational spin-off generated among
learners of English as a foreign language working in groups. System, 14(2), 187-198.
Prabhu (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Storch, N. (2002). Patters of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sullivan, P. (2000). Practicing safe visual rhetoric on the World Wide Web. Computers and composition
18, 103-121.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative
dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford,
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French
immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82, 320-337.
Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning &
Technology, 7(2), 38-67. Retrieved January 9, 2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and
native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 82-99. Retrieved November 6,
2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/TOYODA/
144
Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers' uses of the target and first language in second and foreign
language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 204-218.
van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C. Kramsch (Ed.),
Language acquisition and language socialization (pp. 140-164). New York: Continuum.
Warschauer, M. (2000). On-line learning in second language classrooms. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern
(Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 41-58). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
145
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/volle/
pp. 146-163
ANALYZING ORAL SKILLS
IN VOICE E-MAIL AND ONLINE INTERVIEWS
Lisa M. Volle
Central Texas College
ABSTRACT
This study investigated the acquisition of speaking skills in an online distance education course of
19 first semester Spanish learners. The possibility of oral development in a strictly online course
was examined based on students' pronunciation production in two types of recorded speaking
activities and in two real-time conversations. Students created two types of voiced audio e-mails
each week during the semester: read aloud passages and grammar-drill completions. In order to
determine whether students' pronunciation indeed improved over the course of the semester, their
performance on these two types of audio e-mails were compared at the beginning of the semester
and at the end of the semester. In addition, students participated in two Internet-mediated oral
conversations with their instructor using MSN messaging at the mid-term week and final week of
the semester. Three kinds of data were collected from the conversations: an articulation score
(articulation = pronunciation, stress, and intonation), an accuracy score, and a proficiency score.
Students' performance on these interviews provided further evidence regarding the development
of their oral skills. The findings suggest that only in the area of oral proficiency were there
significant gains in scores.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Distance Education courses in foreign languages (FL) must concern themselves with delivering
instruction that covers all aspects of language learning. This includes reading, vocabulary, grammar,
writing, listening, culture, and (frequently underreported in course design) speaking. Students often report
that their most important learning objective is speaking the target language (TL). There are functional
applicable uses for speaking Spanish that most students recognize in their jobs and with their extended
families.
While some institutions offer "distance" education foreign language classes, they often still require the
students to meet face-to-face (F2F) on a regular basis. These types of classes are often referred to as
technology enhanced or hybrid courses. To offer a true distance education course in a foreign language
and not provide computer-mediated communication oral production and spoken interactive opportunities,
now that simple technology can be used, may reduce the course to grammar study.
This research project focused on the oral development of Spanish for first semester learners in an online
distance education Spanish course without F2F meetings since the enrolled students (military personnel
and their family members) were located around the world. The aim was to capture and describe how
students progress in terms of their speaking skills including pronunciation and conversational ability
during one semester in an online learning environment.
Distance Education at Central Texas College began in the 1970s with correspondence courses and
telecourses. In 1995, conference courses were offered to different locations in real-time -- called V-Tel.
By 1997, the first Web-based distance education courses were developed and offered to military
personnel and their dependents at Central Texas College's U.S. continental campus sites and around the
world. Today, more than 150 distance education courses are offered. Fall 2003 was the first semester in
146
Lisa M. Volle
Capturing the Development of Foreign Language Oral Skills...
which an exclusively online foreign language course was offered. The current study investigates speaking
activities and measures for this first semester online Spanish course.
This article first presents the pertinent literature on Internet-based foreign language activities and
computer-mediated communication (CMC) addressing the lack of literature on online foreign language
classes. Next follows a review of the literature of second language speech development, after which I
introduce the research questions and study's methodology. The last section presents the findings and
analyses, concluding with implications for teaching and suggestions for future studies.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Internet and CMC in FL Learning
Most literature focuses on the Internet as an adjunct to the classroom and not as the focus of the meeting
classroom itself (Swaffar, Romano, Markley, & Arens, 1998; Warschauer, 1996). Students attend
laboratory sessions to complete activities independently from the regular flow of the classroom. To foster
communication in authentic ways, many propose the use of e-mail as a tool for use in foreign language
classes (Aitsiselmi, 1999; Gonzalez-Bueno, 1998; Leahy, 2001; Stockwell & Harrington, 2003; Van
Handle & Corl, 1998). Van Handle (1998) used e-mail with intermediate FL German students for learnerto-learner exchanges. It was found that the quality of messages was enhanced but not the accuracy.
Gonzalez-Bueno's (1998) study with third semester FL Spanish students found that there was no effect on
accuracy in the e-mailed journal entries. However, the quantity of words used in the entries increased as
compared to the notebook and pencil entries. Aitsiselmi (1999) used e-mail with first and second semester
FL French students in a non-native speaker (NNS) to native speaker (NS) exchange. He found that the email pattern of communication resembled oral F2F chats. Students perceived the activity as similar to
speech, reporting that the message was more important than grammatical accuracy.
Leahy (2001) conducted an international e-mail exchange between German students learning English and
British students learning German. They were paired based on language level abilities and alternated target
language use between e-mail exchanges. The FL German students gained in "content" and "language" use
and were able to transfer written e-mails to a more formalized written report as well as oral report.
Stockwell and Harrington's (2003) study of a 5-week email exchange between advanced learners of
Japanese and native speakers resulted in significant increases in syntax, lexicon, and proficiency.
Other researchers describe the features, outcomes, and uses of synchronous chat in networked classrooms
(Abrams, 2003; Beauvois, 1998; Blake, 2000; Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995; Kim, 1998; Payne & Whitney,
2002). Chun's seminal article suggested that written synchronous chat might produce a positive effect in
F2F oral production. Beauvois and Kim suggested that there is a link between written and oral production
in support of Chun's transferability of writing competence to speaking competence. Kern compared
synchronous chat with F2F oral discussion in a second semester French class and noted that there was a
larger quantity of language use in a CMC chat as apposed to the F2F oral discussion. He suggested that
networked-based chat should be used to facilitate classroom discussion, but not as a replacement to F2F
oral discussions.
In a study with FL German students, Abrams (2003) compared two CMC environments (networked-based
synchronous chat and asynchronous discussion boards) with F2F discussion. Abrams suggested that
training with synchronous chat can help students produce more idea-units than training with F2F
discussion and asynchronous discussion boards. Payne and Whitney (2002) looked at proficiency
development through synchronous CMC. Third-semester students of Spanish participated in one of two
conditions: F2F oral group meetings in class four times a week for traditional instruction and discussion
tasks and the experimental group that held F2F meetings twice a week for instruction with two online chat
room meetings. The findings suggested that by participating half of the time in a synchronous online
environment, oral proficiency development was higher than for those learners in the control group.
147
Lisa M. Volle
Blake (2000) discussed the type and kind of discourse produced in written chat under differing task
conditions, focusing primarily on lexical development. Learners of Spanish used synchronous networked
chat to complete activities with native speakers. He found that the native speakers maintained the
conversation pace and were more in control. He also found that for the learner, the focus of the
communication was much less of form, but on negotiating meaning to reach the task goal.
The above studies of language learning with e-mail, networked-based classroom activities, and computer
assisted language learning (CALL) activities are in addition to the F2F sessions that students attend. For
the online distance education language learner, these tasks are regular events.
Distance Education in FL Learning
Although there are many studies about distance education (DE) or distance learning, there are very few
that address foreign languages. Of two studies about languages in a DE context, one discussed general
achievement in terms of all skill areas except speaking between the DE and F2F instruction. Although the
attrition rate was high for the DE learners, there were no differences in achievement for completers of the
DE course (Despain, 2003). Despain mentioned that three voice samples were submitted: two readings
and one response to questions. No mention was made whether these voice submissions were made in a
synchronous or asynchronous context. Despain acknowledged that a more in-depth investigation into
proficiency development in this context is warranted.
The second report discussed supplementing audio conferencing with a text-based conferencing tool
(Kotter, Shield, & Stevens, 1999). It was predicted that the participants would develop greater fluency
rather than accuracy by participating in the study but a definitive conclusion was not formed. Emphasis in
the report was on the tasks as promoting language development in the target language. Included in the
report was a detailed description of how the media functioned for the participants. A relevent finding was
that in spite of students participating in an anonymous fashion in the synchronous chat, participants were
more "reserved" (p. 58) in comparison to written chat; students revealed that they were more aware of
mistakes and gaps by participating in this mode.
Speech Development in FL and L2 (Second Language)
SLA research in the area of speech has not come to a consensus on an approach to phonological
instruction (Chun, 1992; Moyer, 1999). Pronunciation studies appear to trail behind research on syntax
and discourse (Leather, 1999). Leather suggests "one reason for this is that for many learners
intelligibility in spontaneous speech is a sufficient goal" (p. 1). Even if "getting one's point across" is the
main goal in speaking a second language, at some point an "accent" interferes with comprehension
(Munro & Derwing, 1995). Moyer (1999) suggests that if students focus on the phonology early on, they
"may acquire a comfortable level of fluency, and subsequently focus primarily on morphosyntactic and
lexical accuracy, as well as pragmatic awareness" (p. 99).
There are not many studies in early FL speech production (e.g., Salaberry, 1999; Camps, 2000, 2002).
Camps (2002) looked at the aspectual distinctions of preterit and imperfect use in a F2F context. It is
worth mentioning a study (DeKeyser & Sokalski, 2001) that investigated the role of comprehension and
production practice of first-year Spanish students in a traditional F2F context. Students were divided into
a control group, an input group, and an output group for practicing material in different ways. The
interaction pattern by skill acquisition theory was found: Input practice is better for comprehension and
output practice for production.
The present study is designed to offer a look at the oral development of adult learners in a first semester
online Spanish course. As far as I am aware, no research has been done in the area of voiced e-mails in
FL studies in a DE environment at this time. This study seeks to investigate the nature of this
development as well as accuracy and proficiency in real-time online conversations.
148
Lisa M. Volle
THE PRESENT STUDY
Research Questions
1) Can distance education FL students demonstrate improvement in terms of articulation during one
semester of study?
2) Do different voiced audio file tasks reveal differences in terms of articulation?
3) What do synchronous online oral conversations reveal in terms of articulation, accuracy, and
proficiency (based on the curriculum criteria) from the mid-term and final conversations?
Participants
This study analyzes the oral production of 19 first-semester learners of Spanish at the university level (18
female and 1 male).1 All were native speakers of English and had completed other coursework online.
The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 40. Sixteen are employed at least part-time, and 18 are fulltime students. Seventeen live with children and 4 are living as single parents. Two of the single parents
have husbands deployed in Iraq. All participants report that the course is a requirement for their degree
plan. Two students identify themselves as "heritage" speakers and 3 had never studied a foreign language
before.2
The Course Materials and Tools
Student learning materials for the semester of elementary Spanish come from three sources: a textbook
bundle, an electronic workbook Web site, and a course Web site. The textbook bundle consists of a
traditional textbook that included one audio CD to correspond to textbook activities, two interactive CDROMs for learning activities and tutorials, one DVD program, and a student key code to access the online
electronic workbook (see Figure 1)
Figure 1. Screen shot of the interactive CD-ROM lesson display
In the Interactive CD-ROM, the Contextos section introduces the vocabulary with audio; and the
Fotonovela section is a smaller version of DVD program segments with dialog. In Fotonovela, students
have the ability to listen and read the words in Spanish, listen without the words, or listen and read the
English translation. The textbook has pictures of video scenes with a dialog transcript below.
Comprehension activities follow. The interactive CD Fotonovela is listening comprehension practice,
while the Fotonovela in the textbook is reading comprehension practice.
149
Lisa M. Volle
The electronic workbook, also called the student activity manual (Web SAM), is maintained on
www.quia.com (see Appendix A) This contains four types of activities: (a) written practice for
vocabulary, drill work, and open-ended writing; (b) reading comprehension containing culture and
authentic material; (c) listening practice for vocabulary, structures, narrations, and dialog; and (d) video
clips with various listening, culture, and writing activities (see Appendix B).
The main course Web site was housed on Prometheus.3 Like Blackboard, Prometheus has a place for
announcements, a syllabus, frequently asked questions, contact information, a communication area (to
include chat rooms), testing area, and lecture files (see Appendix C). MSN Messenger is a free chat room
program that was added during the sixth week of the course. In written synchronous chat, many
participants can communicate. Using, MSN Messenger with microphones limited participation to pair
work, but still allowed for written communication.
As a prerequisite for the course, all students were required to have their own or regular access to a multimedia computer, speakers, computer-based recorder (found in accessories in Windows-based operating
systems), a microphone, e-mail account, and regular Internet access. It was further suggested that the
student have prior experience in a distance education class.
Online Oral Training
The instructor/researcher advised students to approach a lesson beginning with the information presented
in the textbook and followed by a multimedia presentation in either the interactive CD-ROM, PowerPoint
presentation or a real media video file created by the instructor. I gave the students a list of explicit
assignments to complete so they could follow the suggested ordered plan or they were free to explore and
complete tasks out of order if they so wished.
Each lesson contained a pronunciation section accessible in the textbook with a corresponding audio
followed by repetition drills. The same lesson was repeated in the Web SAM lab manual with a different
set of repetition drills. The interactive CD-ROM contained the same pronunciation lesson with listen,
repeat and record drills. The student could listen to the native speaker and compare his or her own
recording. The activities moved from one word to phrase to sentence level (see Appendix D). In addition,
2 -3 minute real media video files were created by the instructor/researcher to correspond to
pronunciation topics. These videos were embedded in the lesson description on Prometheus.
In the assignments, the students created audio wav files (a format of audio file) of lesson readings and
drill exercises and sent these wav files to me via e-mail. There were a total of seven readings wav files
and 25 drill wav files per student.
Students made audio files by going to
All Programs > Accessories > Entertainment > Sound Recorder
A small box appears and with a microphone, and students record themselves and save the recordings in
wav files.
The wav files were very large and had to be recorded in 30-second intervals for the Distance Education
mailbox to open them. Some students sent drills in two or three WAV files because they needed more
time to complete responses.
Additional Output: Simulating Spoken Chat
In addition, other supporting exercises were required in written form and sent in e-mail as word file
attachments or were posted in discussion board folders. Students were encouraged to complete written
drills together online in chat rooms. If students worked in pairs or groups, only one person would have to
e-mail the responses. The only requirement was that a chat record be created to document the written
chat. If the chat was oral (via Instant Messenger) then a written summary to document the day, time, and
150
Lisa M. Volle
length of the session needed to accompany answers. After MSN Messenger was installed in student
computers (week 6), the amount of pair and group activity increased as evidenced by the number of
written transcripts that were preserved. Students reported that the ability to see the blue icon (online
signal) next to the student's name, made them feel comfortable to send a instant message.
Included in these collaborative homework assignments were conversational questions that corresponded
to the theme of the lesson and the syntactical structures. Students could write their own responses or work
out and exchange responses with other students. These questions formed the basis for the mid-term (week
8) and final (week 16) real-time synchronous conversations with the instructor. Students signed up for 30minute sessions to meet their instructor for the mid-term and final oral "interviews." The interview
session lasted 6-10 minutes, the remaining time was dedicated to equipment checks and other coursework
concerns.
The Data and Method of Analysis
In order to evaluate students' oral production during the semester, two types of voice e-mails were
collected: read aloud passages and grammar-drill completions. An articulation comparison between lesson
1 (week 3) and lesson 7 (week 15-16) reading passages was made. An articulation score is based on three
components: pronunciation, stress, and intonation (Koren, 1995). This idea is derived from Tarone (1983,
cited in Koren) becasue it was found that speech output varied as a result of the task type. In addition, a
second articulation score comparison was made between grammar drills in week 4 and week 15.
Students participated in two Internet-mediated oral conversations with the instructor using MSN
messaging in week 8 and week 16; these conversations were recorded. Three kinds of data were collected
from the conversations: an articulation score, an accuracy score, and a proficiency score. The accuracy
score is adapted from Weir's Communicative Language Testing (1990). The proficiency evaluation is
adapted from ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (1983). The data from conversation one was compared to
the data from conversation two (see the score cards in Appendices E and F).
Two raters were given tapes of oral reading 1, drill exercise 1, and conversation 1 and were instructed to
rate each based on the scales described above. Both raters are native Spanish speakers; the male rater is
originally from Argentina, the female rater from Puerto Rico. Both raters teach Spanish and are
accustomed to working with adult learners of Spanish. The raters spent about 1 hour receiving rating
instruction and scoring examples from five drills, five readings, and five conversations. These samples
came from students’ work that had withdrawn from the course and the study. Afterwards, the raters were
given tapes of the 19 participants to rate the read aloud tasks, drill completion tasks, and the two studentinstructor conversations.
A Pearson's product-moment correlation was performed to determine the coefficient (Pearson r) for
measuring interrater agreement. These two raters positively correlated (r = .9932). I, as
researcher/instructor, also rated the data set. A week later, intra-rater reliability was performed between
the first set of rater scores and my scores. The correlation between the scores of the NS raters and the
NNS instructor was r = .9966. For both correlations, a significance level of .05 was adopted. For this data
set, there appears to be no effect on scoring based on whether the rater is NS or NNS.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
An SPSS package was used to run the five sets of paired t tests on the mean scores. This compares the
average score at the beginning of the semester to the average score at the end of the semester in five
measures: articulation in three tasks (read aloud, drill, and conversation) and accuracy and proficiency in
conversation. Being equally interested in outcomes at either tail distribution, the 2-tailed t test was
preferred (see Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4).
151
Lisa M. Volle
Table 1. Articulation Scores for Reading, Drill, and Conversation 1
Articulation Scores
Reading 1
Drill 1
Conversation 1
M
3.36
3.10
3.23
N
19
19
19
SD
1.02
1.05
1.02
SE
.23
.24
.23
Table 2. Articulation Scores for Reading, Drill, and Conversation 2
Articulation Scores
Reading 2
Drill 2
Conversation 2
M
3.55
3.49
3.52
N
19
19
19
SD
.90
1.05
1.26
SE
.21
.24
.28
Table 3. Conversation Accuracy Scores for Week 8 and Week 16
Accuracy Scores
M
N
SD
SE
Conversation 1
1.98
19
1.12
.26
Conversation 2
1.97
19
.99
.23
For conversation accuracy 1 and 2 , t = 2.10 which was not significant at t(18) = .07, p<.05.
Table 4. Conversation Proficiency Scores for Week 8 and Week 16
Proficiency Scores
Conversation 1
Conversation 2
M
3.74
4.74
N
19
19
SD
1.56
1.63
SE
.36
.37
Paired sample correlations show that the first set of scores are similar to the second set of scores, and the
larger the number, the more benefit there is to the pairing (see Appendix G). The correlation between the
two repeated measures for reading articulation, drill articulation and conversation proficiency are .66, .66,
and .67, p >.05 respectively. The correlation between conversation articulation and conversation accuracy
are .69 and .68, p >.05. These scores are significant.
The statistical data show trends and are not generalizable. Even though four out of five mean score sets
increased from pretest to posttest, three changes were not large enough to be significant.
Research Question 1: Can distance education (online) students demonstrate improvement in terms
of articulation during one semester of study?
The results from these measures showed no significant difference in articulation in each compared
measure. Even though this model of scoring was adopted for the ease of scoring, averaging the subscores
in pronunciation, accent, and intonation may have washed any subtle changes in articulation. Perhaps one
semester is not enough time to demonstrate improvement when there are so many competing aspects of
language learning.
Another reason that scores may not reflect significant improvement is that as the lessons progress,
readings and drill exercises increase in level of difficulty. Students who scored high on initial wav files
may not have scored as high on subsequent wav files. The opposite may also be true. Students with
native-like and near-native-like articulation scores in the beginning of the semester scored the maximum
on the scale, and therefore, could not demonstrate improvement.
A final reason that scores may not reflect a significant gain in articulation is due to the influence of the
raters. Anderson-Hsieh and Koehler (1988) reported that raters assigned higher comprehension scores to
taped speech for two types of speakers: for those who were native speakers and for those (both NS and
NNS) whose rate of speech was slower. In this study, reading and drill audio wav files were submitted
primarily in 30-second intervals which may have affected the scores assigned to the student.
152
Lisa M. Volle
Major, Fitsmaurice, Bunta, and Balasubramanian (2002) investigated the comprehensibility of NN speech
in an ESL context and found that native and nonnative listeners scored significantly lower scores when
listening to nonnative speakers. Although, the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability was established in this
study, Major's findings suggest that the raters are influenced by nonnative-like speech.
Research Question 2: Do different voiced audio wav file tasks reveal differences in terms of
articulation?
Although the mean scores for the three tasks all improved, the improvement was not significant. It is
interesting to note the pattern between the different articulation scores (see Figure 2). In both charts, the
first bar represents the mean articulation score for read aloud passages. The second bar represents the
mean articulation score of a drill activity. The articulation means in both charts from reading to drill
exercises drops.
Articulation Means in Three Speaking Tasks
Articulation Means in Three Speaking Tasks
End of Semester - Online First Semester Spanish
Online First Semester Spanish
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.5
3.2
3.4
Mean
Mean
3.1
3.3
3.0
RDGMART1
DRLART1
CONV1ART
RDG2ART2
DRLART2
CONV2ART
Figure 2. Three articulation means -- beginning of semester (left) and end of semester (right)
Koren (1995) described this in terms of "rising degree of care in pronunciation" (p. 391). The students'
attention is more focused when the task involves reading: making sense of the letters and producing the
sound. In answering drill exercises described as "slightly attended," pronunciation was predicted to fall as
it did.
The third bar represents the mean articulation scores in conversations. The mean articulation scores of
drill articulation time 1 and conversation articulation time 1 show an increase. Similarly, the scores in
drill and conversation articulation increase at the end of the semester. Students participated in
synchronous written chat conversations with the instructor and with other students. I provided written
feedback to written conversational responses for each lesson. Perhaps, the students prepared written
responses to read aloud during the real-time oral conversations. Students reported great stress and anxiety
prior to and during each conversation time, but less stress and anxiety during the final conversation since
they experienced the process before. This initial stress may account for the articulation means in
conversation time 1 to be lower than reading 1. However, the reverse is true at the end of the semester.
The articulation mean is higher in conversation 2 than in reading articulation 2. Having reduced stress
may have allowed the students to better articulate in the final conversation.
In contrast, conversation articulation means from time 1 to time 2 increased. This is contrary to the
"careless" end of the continuum that Koren (1995) described. It was believed that if students focus their
153
Lisa M. Volle
attention on being understood then their attention is on word choice or grammar and not on phonology.
However, in this current study, the mean articulation score increased, but not significantly. The different
tasks appear to affect articulation.
Figure 3 summarizes the mean task score for each articulation measure. The lines allow the comparison
among the three sets of articulation mean scores. The point to the left is the first measurement, and the
point on the right is the last measurement. The colors represent the different tasks.
Time 1 Measure
Time 2 Measure
Legend
Green Line = Drill Articulation Mean
Blue Line = Conversation Articulation Mean
Red Line = Reading Articulation Mean
Figure 3. Articulation means of oral reading, drill, and conversation tasks
Research Question 3: What do synchronous online oral conversations reveal in terms of
articulation, accuracy, and proficiency (based on the curriculum criteria) from the mid-term and
final conversations?
In terms of articulation, there is not significant improvement between the mean scores of the first
conversation and the final conversation. Accuracy mean scores decreased from time 1 to time 2. This
decrease in mean accuracy score was not significant. Output accuracy appears secondary to
communication goals in real-time communication.
In terms of proficiency mean scores, there was significant improvement from conversation proficiency 1
to conversation proficiency 2. The conversations were designed to follow the flow of the interviewee. I
made every attempt to link themes and ideas from one speaking turn to another. All proficiency check
criteria were attempted, but if time ran out, some checks could not be made (see Appendix F).
154
Lisa M. Volle
One reasonably explanation for the significant improvement in proficiency was timing. Students were not
focused on some of the grammatical structures that were checked at the midterm. For instance, the past
tenses continued to be one criteria check most students (89%) could not perform at the midterm. By the
final conversation, the majority (84%) was able to communicate in the past tenses.
Another reason there was significant improvement was the scale of measurement. It might have been too
simplistic. Students could or could not communicate on topic X or in tense X.
The assigned work mimicked the type of personal questions that were tested in the conversation with the
instructor. These written chats (possibly spoken chats since students could use any mode available to
practice with partners online) may have helped script some of the responses and therefore, in some cases,
may have become reading exercises. Kotter et al. (1999) made this same observation.
With the voiced interviews conducted online, it was easy to notice the amount of English used in the
conversations as opposed to written chats. Sometimes, students thought aloud in English for two
purposes: to translate the question posed or as a strategy to respond -- talking out the rules and listing the
necessary vocabulary. With out an actually "body" to talk to, the students felt free to softly speak out their
thoughts before attempting the answer in Spanish. Several students verbally signaled they were finished
making remarks by using the phrase "Es todo" (that is all). The students self reported that they felt they
were improving their oral skills in Spanish with their audio files and individual conversations.
Study Limitations
There are several areas of limitation with this study: the number of participants, the level of control of
extraneous variables, the nature of communication without visual cues, and the issues with technology, to
mention a few. The study began with 38 participants and had an attrition rate of 50%. The sample
population of 19 weakened the study.
Several extraneous variables could not be controlled. Six students (42%) reported that they redid their
voice recordings if they were not satisfied. This may have provided some students with extra practice.
Other students said that they only recorded the speaking task one time. Having only 30 seconds to record
per file may have rushed students who could have benefited from having more time.
It was interesting to hear the interviews that were conducted via the computer. In some cases, the pages of
the book could be heard being turned when students wanted to look up a word or find a phrase. Paper
rustling could be heard behind obviously prepared responses, especially noticeable when the response had
nothing to do with the question asked. There were also competing interests during the interviews.
Children could be heard crying and yelling for attention; three conversations were put on hold in order to
deal with children. This is unnerving for the participant and may have affected performance.
It is difficult to control the atmosphere of the testing situation when it is in an online format, and students'
prepared notes raise serious questions about this assessment format's validity and reliability.
Another issue that arose was that without visual cues, the interviewer can be heard on the tape repeating
"sí" (yes) and "ah" over and over to signal she is listening and paying attention to what the student is
saying. This may have been distracting to the students. Several students verbally signaled they were
finished making remarks by using the phrase "Es todo" (that is all).
A final issue concerned the use of technology. The technology did not always work well. After attempting
to connect through MSN messenger three times, the conversation moved to a backup plan. The students
phoned in and the conversation was performed on speaker phone. This occurred five times in
conversation 1 and four times in conversation 2. Sometimes the connection was fine, but one student did
not have all her equipment. Another did not produce oral practice the entire semester and was not able to
participate in the study. Yet another student had very poor quality speakers/microphone, so an echo was
persistent and interruptive. Occasionally there was feedback noise that would require the repetition of the
155
Lisa M. Volle
question. In some cases, it was necessary to display a written message in Spanish during the conversation
because the echo became so intrusive.
Implications
Synchronous online oral tasks and online oral interviews are valuable experiences to the students and
provide permanent records of oral development. The reading and drill tasks were short and offered
frequent glimpses into students' interlanguage development. The 30-second files were quick and easy
tasks for the students to perform and the instructor to listen to. Students have the opportunity to check and
redo their file as many times as they want. Instead of choral responses or mimicking (lip-synching) a
response that may happen in F2F classes, each student has a true voice and cannot hide online.
Using desktop recorders and creating sound (wav) files is quick, easy, and inexpensive. Blackboard has
the ability to hold larger files in the digital drop box than in a mailbox system. At this time, I am unaware
of software that can be applied to evaluate all aspects of speech of the foreign language learner. Until that
software is created, FL students will continue to depend on the judgments of native and non-native
speakers to determine their comprehensibility level in terms of fluency, competency, and proficiency. The
language teacher will continue to play a major role in providing feedback to learners' oral performance.
Although no significant oral changes were documented, there were trends in the right direction, and these
electronic procedures allowed me to "capture" these trends.
Suggestions for Further Research
The technological capabilities in language learning are changing the dynamics and dimensions of online
learning. Since this study, the current online Spanish courses use desktop video conferencing tools for
tutoring, pair, and small group work. Adding the dimension of facial visuals to online synchronous oral
communication is changing not only the nature of the output, but also the students' socio-cultural, visual
and audio perception of the input. Comparing these oral tasks with F2F students would be the next step in
getting a fuller picture of oral development in these dynamic environments.
APPENDIX A. Screen Shot of Online Workbook, Student Sign-In Page
156
Lisa M. Volle
APPENDIX B. Screen Shot of QUIA, Lab Manual Listening Activity
APPENDIX C. Screen Shot of Prometheus Course Page (After Sign-In and Portal Pages)
157
Lisa M. Volle
APPENDIX D. Screen Shot of Interactive CD-ROM Pronunciation Practice
APPENDIX E. Articulation Score Card
SPAN 1411 Online: Voice-Mail Articulation Score Card
1 = very heavy non-native pronunciation
2 = poor
3 = reasonable
4 = close to native
5 = native-like
Task:________________________ Week:___________________
Participant
Pronunciation
Stress
Intonation
= Articulation
Adapted from: Koren, S. (1995). Foreign language pronunciation testing: A new approach. System, 22(3),
387- 400.
158
Lisa M. Volle
APPENDIX F. Conversation Score Card
Part I: Articulation
1 = No effort at all; often incomprehensible
2 = Meaning obscure by poor pronunciation; minimally comprehensible; very "American"
3 = Pronounced foreign accent requiring extra-sympathetic listening; comprehensible
4 = Tries to sound "native," mispronunciations but still clear
5 = Native-like
Score
Pronunciation
Stress
Intonation
1
Part II. Accuracy Check*
0
(Listening function) No understanding
comprehension of
questions posed
Appropriate
Unable to function
responses
2
5
2
Comprehended
most questions
3
Comprehended all
questions
Able to operate in
a very limited
capacity
Signs of
developing
attempts at
response but
misunderstandings
arise
Developing signs
of correct word
order
Developing signs
of control
Signs of
developing active
vocabulary
although
hesitations and
circumlocution
are frequent
Some errors, but
developing
control of major
patterns
Some errors
Almost no errors
in conventions:
error not
significant enough
to cause
misunderstanding
Correct word
order
Incorrect word
order
Minimal word
order usage
morphology
No words in
correct form
Totally inadequate
Minor control of
word form
Limited to that
necessary to
express simple
elementary needs
Grammatical
Unable to function Syntax is
Accuracy:
fragmentedcorrect use of
frequent grammar
tense(s)
errors
(4)correct use of
All erroneous
Mostly used
gustar
usage
erroneously
* Adapted from Weir, C. (1990). Communicative language testing.
4
1
Comprehended
few questions
Word order
Adequacy of
vocabulary for
purpose
3
Good control of
work form
Almost no
inadequacies or
inaccuracies in
vocabulary for the
task. Only rare
circumlocution
Almost no
grammatical
errors. Occasional
imperfect control
Almost no error in
usage
159
Lisa M. Volle
III. Proficiency** -- Student can or cannot… yes/no
1)
Greet someone, answer questions about how he feels, say good bye &
Describe where his is from and where he currently lives (personal data)
_____
2)
Answer questions about schedule (school – morning routine)
_____
3)
Identify and describe specific items (family, clothes, weather, etc.)
_____
4)
Describe what he likes (to do in his free time, etc.)
_____
5)
Talk about the past
_____
6)
Talk about the future
_____
**Adapted from ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (1983) and Course Objectives for First Semester Spanish
APPENDIX G. T-Test -- Paired Sample Tests
Paired Samples Statistics
Pair 1
Pair 2
Pair 3
Pair 4
Pair 5
RDGMART1
RDG2ART2
DRLART1
DRLART2
CONV1ART
CONV2ART
ACCONV1
ACCONV2
CNVPFC1
CNVPFC2
Mean
3.3553
3.4890
3.0965
3.3487
3.2281
3.5175
1.9812
1.9677
3.7368
4.7368
N
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
SD
1.01639
.89676
1.05162
1.05127
1.02018
1.25818
1.12230
.99130
1.55785
1.62761
SE
.23318
.20573
.24126
.24118
.23405
.28865
.25747
.22742
.35740
.37340
Paired Samples Correlations
Pair 1
Pair 2
Pair 3
Pair 4
Pair 5
RDGMART1 &
RDG2ART2
DRLART1 &
DRLART2
CONV1ART &
CONV2ART
ACCONV1 &
ACCONV2
CNVPFC1 &
CNVPFC2
N
Correlation
*Sig. p > .05
19
.656
.002*
19
.663
.002*
19
.692
.001*
19
.679
.001*
19
.672
.002*
160
Lisa M. Volle
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Pair
1
2
3
4
5
RDGMART1
RDG2ART2
DRLART1
DRLART2
CONV1ART
CONV2ART
ACCONV1
ACCONV2
CNVPFC1
CNVPFC2
Mean
SD
SE
Lower
Upper
t
df
*Sig.
(2tailed)
Alpha
level .05
-.1338
.80094
.18375
-.5198
.2523
-.728
18
.476
-.2522
.86318
.19803
-.6682
.1638
-1.274
18
.219
-.2895
.92102
.21130
-.7334
.1544
-1.370
18
.188
.0135
.85540
.19624
-.3988
.4258
.069
18
.946
-1.0000
1.2909
9
.29617
-1.6222
-.3778
-3.376
18
.003*
NOTES
1. Normally at the college, the gender distribution in a traditional classroom is 60% female and 40% male.
There are no numbers available to determine if this is also a normal gender ratio for online classes at this
institution. However, the 4th Infantry Division was deployed to Iraq at the time of this study and many
students began to withdraw from courses in February, 2003 and did not re-enroll for the Fall semester.
(Many students are directly associated with the U.S. Army as military dependents or retirees. The main
campus is located adjacent to Ft. Hood, Texas.) One semester is 16 weeks long (15 instructional weeks
and 1 examination week).
2. The term heritage speaker is used here in the broadest sense. It can refer to a person who speaks any
dialect of Spanish or a person who speaks no Spanish but is from a Spanish speaking family.
3. Prometheus is copyrighted to Georgetown University in Washington, DC. At some point during the
semester the function of the oral chat room ceased to operate and in week 6, we were able to perform oral
communication with MSN messenger.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Lisa Volle is a professor of Spanish and cultural anthropology at Central Texas College. She is a PhD
student in Foreign Language Education at The University of Texas at Austin. Her research interests are in
the evolving dynamics of language learning and teaching in distance education.
161
Lisa M. Volle
REFERENCES
Abrams, Z. (2003). The effect of synchronous and synchronous CMC on oral performance in German.
The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-167.
American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1983, revised 1985). ACTFL proficiency
guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL Materials Center. Retrieved June, 10, 2003, from
http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/LANGUAGELEARNING/OtherResources/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines/
ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines.htm
Aitsiselmi, F. (1999). Second language acquisition through email interaction. ReCALL, 11(2), 4-11.
Anderson-Hsieh, J., & Koehler, K. (1988). The effect of foreign accent and speaking rate on native
speaker comprehension. Language Learning, 38(4), 561-613.
Beauvois, M. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign
language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198-217.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language
Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136. Retrieved March 11, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/
blake/
Camps, J. (2000). Preterit and imperfect in Spanish: The early stages of development. In R. P. Lowe & C.
Sanz ( Eds.), Spanish applied linguistics at the turn of the millenium (pp. 1-19). Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press.
Camps, J. (2002). Aspectual distinctions in Spanish as a foreign language: The early stages of oral
production. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 179-210.
Chun, D. (1992). The state of the art in teaching pronunciation. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Linguistics and
language pedagogy: The state of the art. Georgetown University roundtable on languages and linguistics
(pp. 179-193). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence.
System, 22(1), 17-31.
DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (2001). The differential role of comprehension practice. Language
Learning, 51(supplement 1), 81-112.
Despain, J. S. (2003). Achievement and attrition rate differences between traditional and Internet-based
beginning Spanish courses. Foreign Language Annals, 36(2), 243-257.
Gonzalez-Bueno, M. (1998). The effects of electronic mail on Spanish L2 discourse. Language Learning
& Technology, 1(2), 55-70. Retrieved March 11, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/article3/
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and
characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
Kim, Y. S. (1998). The effect of a networked computer-mediated discussion on subsequent oral
discussion in the ESL classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas.
Koren, S. (1995). Foreign language pronunciation testing: A new approach. System, 23(3), 387-400.
Kotter, M., Shield, L., & Stevens, A. (1999). Real-time audio and email for fluency: Promoting distance
language learners' aural and oral skills via the Internet. ReCALL, 11(2), 55-60.
Leahy, C. (2001). Bilingual negotiation via e-mail: An international project. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 14, 15-42.
162
Lisa M. Volle
Leather, J. (1999). Second-language speech research: An introduction. Language Learning, 49(1), 1-56.
Major, R., Fitsmaurice, S. M., Bunta, F., & Balasubramanian, C. (2002). The effects of nonnative accents
on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 173-190.
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology. Studies in Second Language Learning, 21, 81108.
Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of
second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73-97.
Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (1999). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of
second language learners. Language Learning, 49(1), 285-310.
Payne, J. S, & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output,
working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7-32.
Salaberry, M. R. (1999). The development of past tense verbal morphology in classroom L2 Spanish.
Applied Linguistics, 20, 151-178.
Stockwell, G., & Harrington, M. (2003). The incidental development of L2 proficiency in NS-NNS email
interactions. CALICO Journal, 20, 337-359.
Swaffer, J., Romano, S., Markley, P., & Arens, K. (1998). Language learning online: Theory and
practice in the ESL and L2 computer classroom. Austin, TX: Labyrinth.
Tarone, E. E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), summer, 142164.
Van Handle, D. C., & Corl, K. A. (1998). Extending the dialogue: Using electronic mail and the Internet
to promote conversation and writing in intermediate level German language courses. CALICO Journal,
15(1-3), 129-143.
classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7-26.
Weir, C. (1990). Communicative language testing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
163
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/call.html
p. 164
Call for Papers for Special Issue of LLT
Theme: Technology and Learning to Read
Guest Editor: Marlise Horst
Recent developments in computer technology offer new options for facilitating the acquisition of L2
reading proficiency and mark an exciting era in L2 reading research. Multimedia programs -- both on and
off line -- now provide aids to text comprehension such as digital audio, graphics and video, and
vocabulary resources such as dictionaries, glosses, and concordancers. The Web also offers learners a
wide range of reading experiences, including exposure to an unprecedented selection of authentic texts,
and a variety of options for collaborative learning. Other developments include an expanded role for
computerized corpora in delineating the characteristics of text genres and an increased use of
computerized methods for assessing reading comprehension and its component skills. This special issue
of Language Learning & Technology aims to provide a variety of perspectives on these developments in
both research articles and theoretical discussions of technology-based reading, language acquisition, and
testing.
Possible submissions include, but are not limited to:
empirical studies that test the efficacy of using technology-based resources (e.g. concordancers,
dictionaries, or visuals) to support reading comprehension, skill development, and language
learning
• investigations of learner use of authentic reading materials on the Web including ways of using
technology to simplify or supplement authentic texts and the effects of these interventions on
language development
• descriptions and tests of corpus-based proposals for delineating text characteristics, designing L2
reading instruction, and evaluating language learning outcomes
• studies of computer-based instruments for assessing various aspects of reading proficiency
• overviews of research on the role of technology in developing reading proficiency
• overviews of theories or theoretical frameworks for the development of computer-assisted
reading
critical perspectives from supporters of paper media
• investigations related to screen reading and the generational divide
• studies with an equity perspective on reading development in zones where paper books are
unaffordable (reverse digital divide)
Please send an email of intent with a 250 word abstract by December 31, 2005, to [email protected].
•
164

Columns Reviews Volume 9, Number 3 September 2005 Special

Transcription

Similar documents

Never Another - Contact At Once

Ben Vaske – Unique approach of basic skills

View our Safety Solutions PDF - Acklands

Kelly Osbourne Hits Up NYFW After Weekend with Jeff Beacher The

Marketing MAX - Mirage Net Web Hosting

Kelly Press Release_v4_11.30.15

Glory Hole Spillway Repair - Knowles Industrial Services

casewv newsletter issue 1 july 2011

How to Write High-Quality Chat to Customers RitzCamera.com Live

User Manual