Gruba argues the importance of multimedia usage in developing listening skills in the target language. The argument in this article is similar to the Jones article. If I had an authentic text for my students to read, I would supplement that activity through using videotext. I strongly believe that interacting visually with texts along with listening provides more comprehensible input than reading a text alone. The student has more control of that input, which will eventually result in more cultural and linguistic competence.
Interaction leads to a more "authentic" experience, especially for students who are looking to gain fluency (not necessarily academic students). The same piece of reading that might seem "boring" is made interesting by posting it on a screen and adding a few bells and whistles. Does this really reflect an authentic academic experience, where one is meant to read without hand-holding? No. But it's an important step toward fluency.
Several of my students in South Korea (grade school to high school) would always mention language exchanges they had in English while playing online RPGs. They would learn and remember words and collocations (sometimes very, very crude ones) that I would never teach them. Learning while under the impression of playing/having fun is a method that should not be underestimated. In many ways, they were practicing valuable skills that I could not authentically provide. The audio and textual negotiations, arguments, taunts, and making of plans/strategies that arise while going on quests with friends or trading a magic-imbued goblin's sword for someone's 500 gold and platinum vest of enchantment (or some such thing) are experiences I could not give them (nor would I even try). Even though RPGs and other such programs may be ridiculed and trivialized in some circles, they are serious social-networking tools for MILLIONS of people (for example, World of Warcraft has approximately 11.5 million subscribers). How could one incorporate something like an RPG into a language class? I am not exactly sure, but it is an interesting and entertaining concept to ponder...
CMC is a helpful tool that could easily be used in the classroom. For example, nearly everyone is familiar with email. Students can communicate with native speakers of the target language, which provides an excellent opportunity for students to use the target language. Videoconferencing is also a great idea for the entire classroom. To learn about another culture is a dynamic experience. It requires the student to examine her own culture, as well as the other's culture. Comparison of these cultures leads to cultural competence. Since language is tied to culture, it is important to provide live opportunities for students to learn from people from the target culture. Using task-based activities will target the goals of these computer mediated interactions, and lead to greater linguistic competence.
I feel that CMC can be a useful means of language learning. In Lomicka's article, a number of different methods were mentioned like email and chatting. Although, I have never really used either in the classroom, I have used chatting and email while conversing with friends who happened to be English-language learners. My experiences with chatting to EFL learners in Korea specifically allows real-time conversation and ample opportunity for negotiation of meaning. Often times, my friends would type a sentence utterance which would result in a break down of communication due to a number of factors including grammar and lexical issues. This break down resulted in opportunities for clarification, correction and recasting at times. I am not sure to what extent such corrections and recasts were internalized, but I think such CMC interactions may prove to be useful tool for language instruction...Especially in the context I described above, where students engage in real conversations with NNS. It adds an element of excitement to the language learning process by encouraging "live" interaction with NS besides their teacher and outside the EFL/ESL classroom. I was thinking that such activities could be presented as homework assignments where saved transcriptions of chat messages could be handed in as the assignment/proof of completion.
A lot of interesting comments above. I especially like Mango's comments about authenticity. CMC certainly has a big role to play in language development. No, it's not as "authentic" as face-to-face, live, in-person communication but a lot of our interaction these days is done via computers. And, of couse, adding a video element to instructional materials will certainly help to bring it to life. In reference to Gruba's article, I really like the imagery with the terms used. His clear and visual definitions of terms like "play" really helped me to get involved in what he was discussing.
Lomicka writes about intercultural exchange between second language learners across the globe via digital communication tools. The idea is that communication with natives will not only enhance language skills, but also provide cultural information to the non-native that might not be available to her otherwise. I agree with Lomicka. Using email, teleconferencing, etc.. is a great way to communicate and get first hand exposure to the language as used everyday, as well as learn how to interact with someone of a different culture. It is a positive experience to learn the differences and similarities between cultures, resulting in a better understanding and use of the language. I feel that Lomicka has provided great examples of how the different communications tools can be applied for intercultural communication, and I have to admit that I can only agree with some of her suggestions, but not really add to them. I will, though, question the implementation of these projects and the balance between intercultural communication vs. classroom learning. Expecting a student to have 10 email exchanges with a student in another country is reasonable, and easy to keep track of since the email can be forwarded to the instructor. Chat is a little more difficult to keep track of, unless, as Marc pointed out, the messages are printed out and handed in to the instructor. Having a website is a good idea, assuming everyone knows how to add to it and everyone has access to the tools to contribute equally. I appreciate Lomicka pointing out that having students communicate with each other will not always be successful due to motivation, or lack of, as well as unmet expectations (Lomicka, 220). Not all students are as equally motivated so some students might be getting more out of it than others. That might be a bit more difficult to control. As far as intercultural communication vs. classroom learning, I suppose it depends on the level of the class. My question is how does the instructor decide how important it is for the students to communicate with a native speaker and learn about the culture from a native against the importance of learning the language in the classroom? This question is in response to the Raison d'Etre project. All I kept thinking as I read about it was,"How did they have time to prepare for and participate in so many activities?". It seems that the whole language course was devoted to the project. Did the students get any class instruction? Perhaps if the class were at the advanced level, the students would benefit greatly from spending all of their class time communicating and learning about the target culture. But if it was not at an advanced level, how much more important is it to learn about the culture if there's still much to learn about the language? What kind of feedback were the students getting from their instructors? Overall, it is a benefit to have access to different forms of telecommunication. Making use of it is a great way to supplement classroom learning.
I appreciate the ways that CMC is being used in classroom instruction in both of the articles. I do agree with Iliana that classroom instruction is equally important, though. I think that learning (perhaps more natural) language can be facilitated in CMC, as well as approaching learning more independently (which are both great), and that these types of activities can be a refreshing change from textbook study or the like. I think it is really important, though, for instructors to have a role in these activities, even if they seem more like games at times. I think that negotiation of meaning has to be prompted by instructors to encourage students to do so on their own, and that there has to be some way to see what the students are doing and evaluate them. The idea of an e-conversation partner would be interesting as well. That way, the corrections/confirmation checks/negotiations of meaning would be more expected and NNS may be more motivated to notice errors.
As Abrams says, CMC has become an everyday aspect of most of the students’ communicative practices. As teachers, we should take advantage of this by creating meaningful task-based activities where students can use their L2 creatively and improve their interactional skills. The use of chatting in an EFL situation, for instance, may be the only opportunity for students to interact with a native speaker. A simple assignment would be to have students “interview” (through skype, for example) a native speaker about a particular topic and then share their experiences and findings in class.
I like the idea of using CMC in the classroom. I realize it's a different type of conversation than with oral, but I feel it could really help students become comfortable in a conversation environment. The fact that the student needs to type out the conversation means that they have a slightly longer time to respond and when they do type, they are visually looking at what they are typing and can compare what they produce with a quick accuracy check - thereby improving their final output. Conversing verbally does not allow for this type of accuracy check in a non-interrupting/non-repetitive context. In addition, I feel that by mastering CMC (like with online chat) it will help them acclimate to the flow of conversation.. thereby helping them in a verbal context as well. CMC is a wonderful solution for working on fluency and form at the same time.
Two concerns I have #1: Students need to be comfortable on computers and need to be comfortable typing (i.e. can type with a reasonable accuracy & speed). #2: The teacher needs to have a definite purpose for sending their students into a chatroom. Teachers need to have a goal for using CMC, versus just sending them in for fun and idle chat.
Lastly, I like the idea of using CMC in the classroom because its quickly becoming "a standard" in human communication. This is due to the massive growth of the internet and the use of computers. Classrooms need to reflect what's going on in real world and with generations (gen x and beyond), computers and CMC are becoming the norm.
I agree with Rosetta's concerns. Being able to chat idly in a foreign language is a useful skill but a task should obviously have some direction. I would also be concerned with students reverting to their L1, if that were a possibility, of course. These are issues that need to be dealt with as CMC is such an important aspect of communication and language learning.
Like Rosetta, I found in the Abram's article "Intracultural CMC in the L2 Classrooms" that there are endless concerns and benefits that arise from CMC use. First, I agree with the idea that before CMC is used teachers must build toward what students will eventually need by introducing input through videos, articles, and other activities. As the research reflects, a consequent step would be to realize that CMC works best when students engage in groups or pairs and have an established goal. Things like anxiety would be lowered through such approaches and student self-expression would increase. My concern is how exactly to monitor CMC participation. How to access student involvement and how to even set-up instructions. I think that goals would have to be extremely delineated and participants could be overwhelmed if they have no background with technology use. In terms of Lomicka’s article “Intercultural Exchange and CMC”, I found that indeed when Native-speakers and non-native speakers have the opportunity to communicate with each other they both gain perspectives that would’ve been impossible to develop from mere video exposure. I think this is a context in which Facebook would be a useful tool because it has cultural connections and interest groups one can join and participate in discussion boards, websites, and text chat. “It is important to remember that Native Speaker contacts and interaction can facilitate intercult education…but does not necessarily ensure cultural competence”. Students should do something with what they read or look at.
CMC can be a great tool for the classroom. As with anything, it will need specific guidelines, instructions and monitoring (which can be the hard part). But CMC tools provide information to be shared and exchanged outside of the normal classroom context with a text book and handouts. Although it is limited now, I love Voicethread and think it has a lot of potential in the future. I hope that the developers go beyond pictures and people can add word documents and other text. Imagine what you can do with the comments (audio, written and drawing) with a student's paper. It would be a great tool for peer review !
Most of you have mentioned advantages and disadvantages to incorporate CMC in our classrooms, and I will have to agree with most of you. I only disagreed with one comment, which says that having “a website is a good idea, assuming everyone knows how to add to it and access to the tools.” Well I’d accept the assumption about the tools but not the one that everyone knows how to use computers, the internet, or any other software. What I mean first of all is that there is always going to be a student who is in level 0 of computers, and also, if I was to implement CMC with high school students, they would know a few things, but I believe that everything I requires needs to be modeled before. Sarah mentions the usage of Voicethread, and I came up with an idea and I don’t know if it would be too complicated. If two classes from different countries were working together, each one could have their Voicethreads. As an assignment the NS could revise and give critical feedback. Their teacher would require their names and once he has seen that in fact, the feedback is accurate, and then it would be returned in an anonymous way to the FLL so that the NS wouldn’t feel guilty and would provide all the necessary comments.
As others have stated, two issues to consider when using CMC in the language classroom are authenticity of task and specific purpose (and how to monitor that that purpose is being adhered to). When possible, I think that face-to-face interaction is preferred. I liked the comment someone made in class that it would seem silly to have a classroom full of students who have their backs turned to each other but are communicating via a chat application.
One of the benefits of CMC, particularly with synchronous applications, is that language students have the opportunity to think through and edit or self-correct what they are saying before sending a message. This takes some of the pressure off of trying to form grammatically accurate statements.
Lomicka mentions that for various reasons having students communicate via CMC may break down at some point. This reminds me of the "Rob" incident in Dubreil's article and how Maria had to deal with Rob's not holding up his part of the conversation in the CMC assignment in which they were participating. CMC is useful tool, but there will always be such issues to be addressed.
Gruba argues the importance of multimedia usage in developing listening skills in the target language. The argument in this article is similar to the Jones article. If I had an authentic text for my students to read, I would supplement that activity through using videotext. I strongly believe that interacting visually with texts along with listening provides more comprehensible input than reading a text alone. The student has more control of that input, which will eventually result in more cultural and linguistic competence.
ReplyDeleteInteraction leads to a more "authentic" experience, especially for students who are looking to gain fluency (not necessarily academic students). The same piece of reading that might seem "boring" is made interesting by posting it on a screen and adding a few bells and whistles. Does this really reflect an authentic academic experience, where one is meant to read without hand-holding? No. But it's an important step toward fluency.
ReplyDelete-Jonathan Gourlay
Several of my students in South Korea (grade school to high school) would always mention language exchanges they had in English while playing online RPGs. They would learn and remember words and collocations (sometimes very, very crude ones) that I would never teach them. Learning while under the impression of playing/having fun is a method that should not be underestimated. In many ways, they were practicing valuable skills that I could not authentically provide. The audio and textual negotiations, arguments, taunts, and making of plans/strategies that arise while going on quests with friends or trading a magic-imbued goblin's sword for someone's 500 gold and platinum vest of enchantment (or some such thing) are experiences I could not give them (nor would I even try). Even though RPGs and other such programs may be ridiculed and trivialized in some circles, they are serious social-networking tools for MILLIONS of people (for example, World of Warcraft has approximately 11.5 million subscribers). How could one incorporate something like an RPG into a language class? I am not exactly sure, but it is an interesting and entertaining concept to ponder...
ReplyDeleteCMC is a helpful tool that could easily be used in the classroom. For example, nearly everyone is familiar with email. Students can communicate with native speakers of the target language, which provides an excellent opportunity for students to use the target language. Videoconferencing is also a great idea for the entire classroom. To learn about another culture is a dynamic experience. It requires the student to examine her own culture, as well as the other's culture. Comparison of these cultures leads to cultural competence. Since language is tied to culture, it is important to provide live opportunities for students to learn from people from the target culture. Using task-based activities will target the goals of these computer mediated interactions, and lead to greater linguistic competence.
ReplyDeleteI feel that CMC can be a useful means of language learning. In Lomicka's article, a number of different methods were mentioned like email and chatting. Although, I have never really used either in the classroom, I have used chatting and email while conversing with friends who happened to be English-language learners. My experiences with chatting to EFL learners in Korea specifically allows real-time conversation and ample opportunity for negotiation of meaning. Often times, my friends would type a sentence utterance which would result in a break down of communication due to a number of factors including grammar and lexical issues. This break down resulted in opportunities for clarification, correction and recasting at times. I am not sure to what extent such corrections and recasts were internalized, but I think such CMC interactions may prove to be useful tool for language instruction...Especially in the context I described above, where students engage in real conversations with NNS. It adds an element of excitement to the language learning process by encouraging "live" interaction with NS besides their teacher and outside the EFL/ESL classroom.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking that such activities could be presented as homework assignments where saved transcriptions of chat messages could be handed in as the assignment/proof of completion.
A lot of interesting comments above. I especially like Mango's comments about authenticity. CMC certainly has a big role to play in language development. No, it's not as "authentic" as face-to-face, live, in-person communication but a lot of our interaction these days is done via computers. And, of couse, adding a video element to instructional materials will certainly help to bring it to life. In reference to Gruba's article, I really like the imagery with the terms used. His clear and visual definitions of terms like "play" really helped me to get involved in what he was discussing.
ReplyDeleteLomicka writes about intercultural exchange between second language learners across the globe via digital communication tools. The idea is that communication with natives will not only enhance language skills, but also provide cultural information to the non-native that might not be available to her otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lomicka. Using email, teleconferencing, etc.. is a great way to communicate and get first hand exposure to the language as used everyday, as well as learn how to interact with someone of a different culture. It is a positive experience to learn the differences and similarities between cultures, resulting in a better understanding and use of the language.
I feel that Lomicka has provided great examples of how the different communications tools can be applied for intercultural communication, and I have to admit that I can only agree with some of her suggestions, but not really add to them. I will, though, question the implementation of these projects and the balance between intercultural communication vs. classroom learning.
Expecting a student to have 10 email exchanges with a student in another country is reasonable, and easy to keep track of since the email can be forwarded to the instructor. Chat is a little more difficult to keep track of, unless, as Marc pointed out, the messages are printed out and handed in to the instructor. Having a website is a good idea, assuming everyone knows how to add to it and everyone has access to the tools to contribute equally. I appreciate Lomicka pointing out that having students communicate with each other will not always be successful due to motivation, or lack of, as well as unmet expectations (Lomicka, 220). Not all students are as equally motivated so some students might be getting more out of it than others. That might be a bit more difficult to control.
As far as intercultural communication vs. classroom learning, I suppose it depends on the level of the class. My question is how does the instructor decide how important it is for the students to communicate with a native speaker and learn about the culture from a native against the importance of learning the language in the classroom? This question is in response to the Raison d'Etre project. All I kept thinking as I read about it was,"How did they have time to prepare for and participate in so many activities?". It seems that the whole language course was devoted to the project. Did the students get any class instruction? Perhaps if the class were at the advanced level, the students would benefit greatly from spending all of their class time communicating and learning about the target culture. But if it was not at an advanced level, how much more important is it to learn about the culture if there's still much to learn about the language? What kind of feedback were the students getting from their instructors?
Overall, it is a benefit to have access to different forms of telecommunication. Making use of it is a great way to supplement classroom learning.
I appreciate the ways that CMC is being used in classroom instruction in both of the articles. I do agree with Iliana that classroom instruction is equally important, though. I think that learning (perhaps more natural) language can be facilitated in CMC, as well as approaching learning more independently (which are both great), and that these types of activities can be a refreshing change from textbook study or the like. I think it is really important, though, for instructors to have a role in these activities, even if they seem more like games at times. I think that negotiation of meaning has to be prompted by instructors to encourage students to do so on their own, and that there has to be some way to see what the students are doing and evaluate them. The idea of an e-conversation partner would be interesting as well. That way, the corrections/confirmation checks/negotiations of meaning would be more expected and NNS may be more motivated to notice errors.
ReplyDeleteAs Abrams says, CMC has become an everyday aspect of most of the students’ communicative practices. As teachers, we should take advantage of this by creating meaningful task-based activities where students can use their L2 creatively and improve their interactional skills. The use of chatting in an EFL situation, for instance, may be the only opportunity for students to interact with a native speaker. A simple assignment would be to have students “interview” (through skype, for example) a native speaker about a particular topic and then share their experiences and findings in class.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of using CMC in the classroom. I realize it's a different type of conversation than with oral, but I feel it could really help students become comfortable in a conversation environment. The fact that the student needs to type out the conversation means that they have a slightly longer time to respond and when they do type, they are visually looking at what they are typing and can compare what they produce with a quick accuracy check - thereby improving their final output. Conversing verbally does not allow for this type of accuracy check in a non-interrupting/non-repetitive context. In addition, I feel that by mastering CMC (like with online chat) it will help them acclimate to the flow of conversation.. thereby helping them in a verbal context as well. CMC is a wonderful solution for working on fluency and form at the same time.
ReplyDeleteTwo concerns I have
#1: Students need to be comfortable on computers and need to be comfortable typing (i.e. can type with a reasonable accuracy & speed).
#2: The teacher needs to have a definite purpose for sending their students into a chatroom. Teachers need to have a goal for using CMC, versus just sending them in for fun and idle chat.
Lastly, I like the idea of using CMC in the classroom because its quickly becoming "a standard" in human communication. This is due to the massive growth of the internet and the use of computers. Classrooms need to reflect what's going on in real world and with generations (gen x and beyond), computers and CMC are becoming the norm.
I agree with Rosetta's concerns. Being able to chat idly in a foreign language is a useful skill but a task should obviously have some direction. I would also be concerned with students reverting to their L1, if that were a possibility, of course. These are issues that need to be dealt with as CMC is such an important aspect of communication and language learning.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike Rosetta, I found in the Abram's article "Intracultural CMC in the L2 Classrooms" that there are endless concerns and benefits that arise from CMC use. First, I agree with the idea that before CMC is used teachers must build toward what students will eventually need by introducing input through videos, articles, and other activities. As the research reflects, a consequent step would be to realize that CMC works best when students engage in groups or pairs and have an established goal. Things like anxiety would be lowered through such approaches and student self-expression would increase.
ReplyDeleteMy concern is how exactly to monitor CMC participation. How to access student involvement and how to even set-up instructions. I think that goals would have to be extremely delineated and participants could be overwhelmed if they have no background with technology use.
In terms of Lomicka’s article “Intercultural Exchange and CMC”, I found that indeed when Native-speakers and non-native speakers have the opportunity to communicate with each other they both gain perspectives that would’ve been impossible to develop from mere video exposure. I think this is a context in which Facebook would be a useful tool because it has cultural connections and interest groups one can join and participate in discussion boards, websites, and text chat.
“It is important to remember that Native Speaker contacts and interaction can facilitate intercult education…but does not necessarily ensure cultural competence”. Students should do something with what they read or look at.
CMC can be a great tool for the classroom. As with anything, it will need specific guidelines, instructions and monitoring (which can be the hard part). But CMC tools provide information to be shared and exchanged outside of the normal classroom context with a text book and handouts. Although it is limited now, I love Voicethread and think it has a lot of potential in the future. I hope that the developers go beyond pictures and people can add word documents and other text. Imagine what you can do with the comments (audio, written and drawing) with a student's paper. It would be a great tool for peer review !
ReplyDeleteMost of you have mentioned advantages and disadvantages to incorporate CMC in our classrooms, and I will have to agree with most of you. I only disagreed with one comment, which says that having “a website is a good idea, assuming everyone knows how to add to it and access to the tools.” Well I’d accept the assumption about the tools but not the one that everyone knows how to use computers, the internet, or any other software. What I mean first of all is that there is always going to be a student who is in level 0 of computers, and also, if I was to implement CMC with high school students, they would know a few things, but I believe that everything I requires needs to be modeled before.
ReplyDeleteSarah mentions the usage of Voicethread, and I came up with an idea and I don’t know if it would be too complicated. If two classes from different countries were working together, each one could have their Voicethreads. As an assignment the NS could revise and give critical feedback. Their teacher would require their names and once he has seen that in fact, the feedback is accurate, and then it would be returned in an anonymous way to the FLL so that the NS wouldn’t feel guilty and would provide all the necessary comments.
As others have stated, two issues to consider when using CMC in the language classroom are authenticity of task and specific purpose (and how to monitor that that purpose is being adhered to). When possible, I think that face-to-face interaction is preferred. I liked the comment someone made in class that it would seem silly to have a classroom full of students who have their backs turned to each other but are communicating via a chat application.
ReplyDeleteOne of the benefits of CMC, particularly with synchronous applications, is that language students have the opportunity to think through and edit or self-correct what they are saying before sending a message. This takes some of the pressure off of trying to form grammatically accurate statements.
Lomicka mentions that for various reasons having students communicate via CMC may break down at some point. This reminds me of the "Rob" incident in Dubreil's article and how Maria had to deal with Rob's not holding up his part of the conversation in the CMC assignment in which they were participating. CMC is useful tool, but there will always be such issues to be addressed.