This study investigates undergraduate students’ linguistic performance through synchronous and asynchronous CMC, their perceptions of using CMC for class discussion, and the effect of CMC on essay writing. Specifically, textual features and the process of both electronic discussions are examined. In this chapter, the results of analyses are summarized and the pedagogical implications and contribution are presented. Moreover, the limitations of this study and suggestions for future research are indicated.
Summary of Results and Pedagogical Implications
Email and MSN discussions seem to have similar effects on the amount of EFL students’ word production and the range of vocabulary use. However, email discussion enables learners to use more academic words while MSN discussion enables the use of more high-frequency words. The result implies that these two discussion modes may serve different purposes of vocabulary learning and practice.
Learners produce more complex sentences in asynchronous CMC while more simple sentences in synchronous CMC. It is probably because the slow interaction of asynchronous CMC facilitates learners to organize their ideas with syntactically more complex structures, while the rapid interaction of synchronous CMC accelerates turn taking, which may lead to the use of simple words and repetition of some words frequently. In light of syntactic complexity, asynchronous CMC may be more suitable for writing practice to improve language sophistication.
As for topic development, the expanding move has a greater proportion in MSN
discussion while the challenging move occurs more often in email discussion. This result suggests that off-topic discussion is more unlikely to occur in synchronous CMC compared with asynchronous CMC. In one sense, synchronous CMC can facilitate peer collaboration to complete the task. The total percentage of initiating, expanding, and challenging moves in email discussion is higher than that in MSN discussion, so it shows that asynchronous CMC may benefit more complete topic development in discussion. Moreover, students in email discussion create three forms to refer to previous messages in order to direct their interlocutors to specific issues that have been discussed; namely, explicit reference, paraphrase, and expansion.
Based on the results, asynchronous CMC may help learners develop discourse competence in terms of topic development and the use of discourse strategy.
In electronic discussions, a variety of communicative functions are observed.
Three out of seven communicative purposes are common in convincing interlocutors of one’s own ideas; namely, secluding and inviting affirmation from others, emphasizing one’s ideas, and making a concession to others at first but indeed persuading others to accept one’s own ideas. In addition, showing caution occurs most frequently in both modes of CMC. This implies that learners tend to take a mild, neutral position when expressing their opinions. In other words, learners try to reach a balance between idea expression and harmony maintenance. The result implies that using CMC for class discussion is practicable for college students seeing that hostile language may not occur so that task progression and interaction can go smoothly.
Turn-taking and meaning negotiation are recurrent in MSN discussion. This is probably due to the turn-by-turn allocation in MSN discussion and the use of simple syntactic structures and the fledgling topic development. Moreover, conversational expressions, vocalization and paralinguistic cues, and emoticons occur frequently in MSN discussion. Structural simplicity and reduction are two salient features of the
conversational expressions. The high frequency of vocalization may be related to meaning negotiation because learners tend to use vocalizing words to show their puzzlement and imply the need for clarification. Paralinguistic cues and emoticons can help learners better express their feelings and emotions.
A lot of ideas generated in CMC-based discussion (61 %) are used in the essay writing, so CMC-based discussion has an effect on learners’ language output.
Additionally, the EFL college students widely hold that using English in discussion is difficult and they have some ideas unexpressed in electronic discussions. The number of students who like and the number who dislike CMC-based discussion are equal. It is discovered that preference for electronic discussions or for face-to-face discussions depends on the nature of the tasks. The more complicated issues are suggested to be discussed face-to-face, while electronic discussion can be used for easy tasks. The present study also discovers that these intermediate-level college students feel it difficult to discuss an issue in English and in-depth; regarding this, teacher guidance becomes important to help students engage in the online discussion tasks. The guidance can include provision of topic-related information, linguistic expressions, and English language searching tools or corpora.
Limitations of the Study
The study has three limitations. One is the small sample size. Only 47 undergraduate students took part in the online discussion tasks and in the collection of essay writing samples, the researcher only received seven essays. The reason is that the essay writing task is an after-class exercise. Another limitation is that the participants’ background is homogeneous, all majoring in science and technology. The background may affect their attitudes towards CMC. In other words, the results cannot be generalized to students in other fields. The other limitation is that the two
discussion sessions were conducted in a sequence, so the second electronic discussion might still be affected by the first one, even though the discussion questions provided were different.
Significance and Suggestions for Future Research
Although the study has limitations, they do not outshine its significance. The electronic discussions can be recorded by computers, helping teachers analyze learners’ language performance and interaction. This study, with the help of the recorded electronic discussions, provides teachers a deeper understanding of students’
language use and ways of interaction and idea expression. Therefore, language teachers can take advantage of the findings of the study for course design in order to facilitate language learning. Moreover, students’ perceptions of CMC-based discussion as revealed from the survey offer useful information to more student-centered activity design.
Since the study contours a primitive profile of EFL college students’ language use in and attitudes towards CMC, it is suggested that future research can compare the differences between native students and non-native students in vocabulary use, textual features, and attitudes towards CMC, which can show the directions to help learners improve their English language skills.
REFERENCES
Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-169.
Batson, T. (1988). The ENFI project: A networked classroom approach to wiring instruction. Academic Computing, 2(5), 32-33.
Beauviois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 455-463.
Belmore, N. & Collot, M. (1996). Electronic language: A new variety of English. In S.
C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (13-27). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamin.
Berge, Z. & Collin, M. (1995). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom in distance learning. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11(1). 1-34.
Black, S. D., Levin, J. A., Mehan, H., & Quinn, C. N. (1983). Real and non-real time interaction: Unraveling multiple threads of discourse. Discourse Processes, 6(1), 59-75.
Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Bump, J. (1990). Radical changes in class discussion using networked computers.
Computers and the Humanities, 24(1), 49-65.
Canal, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative pedagogy. In
J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (2-27).
London: Longman.
Carson, J. G. & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.
Chafe, W. & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of Spoken and Written Language. In W. Chafe & J. Danielewicsz, (Eds.), Comprehending Oral and Written Language. New York: Academic Press.
Chao, C., Egbert, J, & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). Computer-enhanced language learning environments: An overview. In E. Hanson-Smith & J. Egbert (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (1-13). Alexandria:
Teacher of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s “Verbal behavior.” Language, 35(1), 26-58.
Chomsky, N. (1980) Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
Conrad, S. M. & Goldstein, L. M. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3), 443-460.
Coulthard, M. (1977). Conversational analysis. In C. M (Ed.), An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238.
Crook, C. (1991). Computers in the classroom. In O. Boyd-Barret & E. Scanlon (Eds.), Computers and Learning. Addison-Wesly Publishing.
Crystal, D. (2001) Language and Internet. Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. & Sayers, D. (1990). Education 2001: Learning networks and educational reform. Computers in the Schools, 7(1), 1-29.
Cummins, J. & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural illiteracy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Davis, B & Thiede, R. (2000). Writing into change: Style shifting in asynchronous electronic discourse. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Networked-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (87-120). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Faigley, L. (1990). Subverting the electronic workbook: Teaching writing using networked computers. In D. Baker & M. Monenberg (Eds.), The writing teacher as researcher: essays in the theory and practice of class-based research.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fraser, C. C. (1999). Report: Goethe gossips with Grass: Using computer chatting software in an introductory literature course. Unterrichtspaxis, 32(1), 66-74.
Freiere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury.
Gains, J. (1999). Electronic mail—a new style of communication or just a new medium?: An investigation into the text features of E-mail. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 81-101.
Gallupe, R. B., Bastianutti, L. M., & Cooper, W. H. (1991). Unblocking brainstorms.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 137-142.
Garrison, D. R. & Baynton, M. (1987). Beyond independence in distance education:
The concept of control. Am J Distance Ed, 1(3), 3-15.
Gay, G. & M. Grosz-Ngate (1994). Collaborative design in networked multimedia environment: Emerging communication patterns. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(1), 418-432.
Gonzalez-Bueno, Manuela. (1998). The effects of electronic mail on Spanish L2
discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 55-70.
Grimes, J. E. (1975). The thread of discourse. The Hauge: Mouton & Co.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. London: Cambridge University Press.
Herrings, S. C. (1996a). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hiltz, S. R. & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Howard, T. (1997). A rhetoric of electronic communities. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Hyland, K. (2003). New technologies in writing instruction. In J. C. Richards & K.
Hyland (Eds.), Second language writing (143-176). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D. C.S., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 1-23.
Kelm O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 441-454.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers:
Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. New York: Longman.
Kroonenberg, N. (1995). Developing communicative and thinking skills via electronic
mail. TESOL Journal, 4(2), 24-27.
Leech, G (2000). Grammars of spoken English: new outcomes of corpus-oriented research. Language Learning, 50(4), 675-724
Leeson, R. (1975). Fluency and language teaching. London: Longman.
Liu, J. & Sadler, W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227.
Lotman, Y. M. (1988). Text within a text. Soviet Psychology, 26(3), 32-51.
Lozanov, G. (1978). Suggestology and outlines of suggestopedy. New York: Gordon &
Breach.
Mahan, H. (1985). The structure of classroom discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (120-131). London: Academic.
Mann, W. C., Moore, J. A., & Levin, J.A. (1977). A comprehension model for human dialogue. Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T.
Mendonca, C. O. & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-769.
Moran, C. (1991). We write, but do we read? Computers and Composition, 8(3), 51-61.
Muns, R. (1995). Online scholarly discussion groups. In Z. Berge & M. Collins (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and the online classroom in distance learning (151-164). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Murray, D. E. (1988). The context of oral and written language: A framework for mode and medium switching. Language and Society, 17(3), 351-373.
Murray, D. E. (1998). Computer-mediated communication: Implications for ESP.
English for Specific Purposes, 7(1), 3-18.
Murray, D. E. (2000). Protean communication: The language of computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 397-421.
Murray, J. (1991). Anatomy of a new medium: Literary and pedagogical uses of advanced linguistic computer structures. Computers and the Humanities, 25(1), 1-14.
Norman, D. A. & Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1), 44-64.
Palmer, P. (1990). Good teaching: A matter of living the mystery. Change, 22(1), 11-16.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York:
Basic Books.
Pennington, M. C. (2003). The impact of the computer in second language writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (287-310).UK: Cambridge University Press.
Peyton, J. K. (1999). Theory and research: Interaction via computers. In E.
Hanson-Smith & J. Egbert (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (17-26). Alexandria: Teacher of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.
Pilkington, R. (2004). Developing discussion for learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 161-164.
Santoro, G (1995). What is computer mediated communication? In Z. Berge & M.
Collins (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and the online classroom in distance learning. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Sara, T (1997) Mastering advanced English language. London: Macmillan
Sarraberry, M. R. (1996). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 14(1), 5-34.
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice.
Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315-342.
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 82-119.
Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Steelman, J. D. (1994). Revision strategies employed by middle level students using computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11(2), 141-152.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. (235-253). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
The writing center. (2007, March 20). ﹝ Online ﹞ . Available: 2007, 3, 28.
http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/sntstrct.html
Thorne, S. (1997). Mastering advanced English Language. Palgrave: NY: New York.
Underwood, J. (1989). On the edge: Intelligent CALL in the 1990s. Computers and Humanities, 23(1), 71-84.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., & Roberts, B. (1996). Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24(1), 1-14.
Warschauer, M. (1996a). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the
second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(3), 7-26.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481.
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies :language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (2000). Introduction: Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Networked-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (1-19). UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Well, G. & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing Knowledge together. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Werry, C. C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In S.
C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (47-63). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wertsch, J. & Bivens, J. A. (1992). The social origins of individual mental functioning:
Alternatives and perspectives. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 14(2), 35-44.
Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing. In S.
C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (29-46). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.
Zellermayer, M., Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Givon, H. (1991). Enhancing writing related metacognitions through a computerized writing partner. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 372-392.
APPENDIXES
Appendix A The Adapted Questionnaire in English QUESTIONNAIRE
Part A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. How comfortable were you using the
electronic discussion?
1=very uncomfortable, 7=very comfortable 2. How easy did you feel to express ideas through electronic discussion?
1= not easy at all, 7= very easy
3. How easy did you feel to understand the ideas your partner expressed through electronic discussion?
1= not easy at all, 7= very easy
4. How easy did you feel to negotiate meaning during electronic discussion?
1= not easy at all, 7= very easy
5. How easy did you feel to discuss a question in depth through electronic discussion?
1= not easy at all, 7= very easy
6. How easy did you feel to discuss an issue in English through electronic discussion?
1= not easy at all, 7= very easy
7. Did you feel you had sufficient opportunity to express your ideas during electronic discussion?
1=very little opportunity, 7=ample opportunity 8. Did you feel you had more ideas not expressed yet in electronic discussions because of using English?
1=strong disagree, 7=strong agree Part B
Open-ended questions:
1. Have you ever discussed homework through electronic discussions? If you have, what kind of media did you use?
2. Did you like discussing homework by this way? Why?
3. What did you like most about electronic discussion? Why?
4. What did you like least about electronic discussion? Why?
5. Two kinds of in-class discussions: face-to-face discussions and electronic discussions. What are your perceptions of and attitudes towards these kinds of discussions?
Appendix B The Adapted Questionnaire in Chinese