Computer-Mediated
Communication in South
Asian Language Instruction
SALRC Pedagogy Workshop
June 7, 2005
J. Scott Payne
Penn State University
[email protected]
Role of Output in SLA




"Noticing" - make learners aware of
gaps in their knowledge.
Test hypotheses, experiment with new
structures and forms.
Internalization of new forms and
increased control over previously
internalized forms.
Enhance fluency through practice.
Swain (1985); Swain & Lapkin (1995)
Comparing CMC Modalities &
Tools
Synchronous
 + communicative
urgency
 + presence
 - processing constraints
Asynchronous
 + distance/reflection
 + depth of engagement
 - volume issues
Tools:
 IRC-style chat
 Immediate display-style
chat (ICQ)
 Instant Messaging
Tools:
 Email/listservs
 Threaded discussion
 Weblogs
 Wikis
Chatroom Tasks & Pedagogy

Chatroom Task Types:



Structured - jigsaw task, role-play, info-gap
Unstructured - discussion of text, openended question, free topic
Pedagogical Issues:



Group size
Level
Activity Type
Chat Activity 1 - Liar, Liar

One person makes a statement such as “My
sister-in-law has eight children.” Other
members of the group must ask questions to
determine whether this statement is true or not
(e.g. “what are their names?”). The objective is
to formulate a question that would be difficult to
answer if the person is lying. Once you are
certain that the person is lying (though he/she
may be telling the truth), then you can accuse
them of lying.
Chat Activity 2
Respond to the following quote:
“All education is distance education, that is
until we learn how to fuse our brains
together.”
Gregory Farrington, Middlebury College, June 2000.
Characteristics of Chatroom
Discourse







Increased monitoring of language focus on accuracy
More monitoring of language output
and input
No turn-taking rules, hence more
output
Participation = attendance
Requires language for communication
Decreased speed of conversation
Non-ephemeral nature of chatroom
conversation.
Findings from CMC Research

Students tend to produce more
complex language in chatrooms than
in face-to-face conversational settings
(Warschauer, 1996; Kern, 1995).

Increase in social equity and learner
participation (Warschauer, 1996; Kern, 1995;
Chun, 1994; Cummins & Sayers, 1995).

Improved attitudes towards the target
language (Healy-Beauvois, 1992; Warschauer,
1996; Kern, 1995; Chun, 1994).

Increase in the total production of
language by students (Kern, 1995,
Warschauer, 1996)
Findings from CMC Research
Cont’

Restructuring of interlanguage over time

Expansion of authentic discourse options
available to learners (Kinginger 1998, 1999, 2000;
(Chun, 1994; Sotillo, 2000)
Thorne, 2000)


May assist the noticing of lexical gaps and
promote communicative output (Blake, 2001)
Increase affordances for cultural contact,
conflict, and development (Belz, 2001; Kramsch &
Thorne, 2001; Warschauer & Kern, 2000)

Indirectly improve oral proficiency
Whitney, 2002; Payne & Ross, to appear)
(Payne &
Conversation & Memory
Topic Knowledge
• Schema
• Socio-pragmatics
Conversation & Memory
Topic Knowledge
Lexical Knowledge
• Lexical access
• Phonological encoding
• Grammatical encoding
• Schema
• Socio-pragmatics
Conversation & Memory
LTM
Lexical Knowledge
• Lexical access
• Phonological encoding
• Grammatical encoding
Topic Knowledge
• Schema
• Socio-pragmatics
Conversation & Memory
LTM
Lexical Knowledge
• Lexical access
• Phonological encoding
• Grammatical encoding
Topic
Topic Knowledge
Knowledge
• Schema
• Socio-pragmatics
Discourse Record
Macro/Micro-level
planning
Conversation & Memory
LTM
Topic
Topic Knowledge
Knowledge
Lexical Knowledge
• Lexical access
• Phonological encoding
• Grammatical encoding
• Schema
• Socio-pragmatics
Discourse Record
Macro/Micro-level
planning
Memory
Resources
Communicative Behavior
Developing L2 Speaking Ability

Speaking ability is improved by practice
speaking – in a variety of situational
contexts and on a range of topics with
diverse socio-pragmatic requirements.
Study of Transfer from Chatting
to Speaking (Payne & Whitney, 2002)



Hypothesis: chatting will develop the same
cognitive mechanisms underlying L2 speech.
58, third-semester Spanish students
Quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest design





Control: four hours/week of classroom instruction
Experimental: 2 hours chat, 2 hours classroom
Curriculum was the same for both conditions.
Oral proficiency measured in weeks 2 and 15
Working memory measured in week 2
Results
Oral proficiency increased more for
experimental group.
 Role of working memory in oral
proficiency development.
 Conversational “bootstrapping” effect

Chatting and Speaking

How do speaking and chatting differ?






Speaking is faster
Speech is ephemeral
Oral/aural versus textual
Presence/Absence of paralinguistics
Enhanced monitoring of language input and
output (Kelm, 1992; Payne & Whitney, 2002)
Helps students chunk language better (Kelm, 1992)
Implications for L2 Oral
Proficiency Development
Teaching L2 speaking only via F2F
interaction may actually disadvantage a
significant portion of our students.
 Challenges for us as teachers:

design activities that reduce the cognitive
burden placed on students.
 Question our assumptions about L2
instruction.

Reducing Cognitive Demands
Pre-task planning
 Transform the cognitive constraints of
conversational exchange.
 Use technology in a principled fashion.

Integrating CMC into Language
Instruction
Coordinated use of Synchronous and
Asynchronous CMC (Payne, 2004).
 Curriculum sequence:

Asynchronous discussion followed by realtime discussion of the same topic.
 Real-time discussion can be f2f or in a
chatroom.

Configurations & Dynamics

Intra-class interaction: whole class and small
groups


Inter-class interaction: within or across
institutions


Similar level: + volume of L, classroom culture, modality shifts
Differing levels: + near peer role models, peer editing, projects
International interaction: FLL as x-cultural travel



Mark Twain: “I was greatly discouraged …”
Cost-efficient access to expert speakers
To embed FLL in development of meaningful relationships
Cultura Project
Uses word-association, asynchronous
discussion, and sentence-completion
exercises to illustrate cultural differences.
 http://web.mit.edu/french/culturaNEH/

Weblogs in FL Instruction

Weblog -- “blogs”: public journaling, personal
narrative and reporting, opinions, comment
feature




individually (or group) controlled
massive popular culture usage among youth
study abroad
Wiki: collaborative writing tool, universal writeaccess, distributed text production,

distributed expertise (wikipedia, collective fiction,
pooled resources)
References





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. Available online:
http://php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/j/s/jsp17/articles/calico2002/
Payne, J.S. (2004). Making the most of synchronous and asynchronous discussion
in foreign language instruction. In R. Terry, L. Lomicka, and J. Cooke-Plagwitz
(Eds.), Heinle Professional Series in Language Instruction: Teaching with
Technology, 1 (pp. 155-161). Boston: Heinle.
Kelm, O.R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language
instruction: A preliminary study. Foreign Language Annals, 25 (5), 441-454.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1993). Language use in normal speakers and its disorders. In G.
Blanken, J. Dittmann, H. Grimm, J. Marshall, & C. Wallesch (Eds.), Linguisitic
disorders and pathologies: An international handbook (pp. 1-15). Berlin: de Gruyter.