![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
: Week 6. More on using chats in the classroom
Dear students, Here is a review of some papers on using chats in language teachings. Unfortunately, most of the articles mentioned are not available online, but I hope you will find this digest useful.
* * *
Tools supporting writing and speaking through writing. Chats and instant messaging
The technologies we discussed earlier, supported asynchronous communication, when participants were not required to be online simultaneously. Let us now take a look at the tools for synchronous text interaction. Although instant messaging services such as ICQ or Yahoo! Messenger appeared as tools for one-to-one real-time communication, their recent versions are configured to allow conversation among three and more people, thus making them similar to chat services like web chatrooms that have always been multi-user tools. Perhaps, the only essential difference between them is that by default web-based chats were open for anyone while one can join an ongoing IM conversation by invitation only. This difference, however, does not seem to influence linguistic peculiarities of the interaction, so in this section the word “chat” will be applied to any form of synchronous textual communication.
It was noticed above that, being written by form, chat has certain features bringing it closer to spoken language. Some scholars suggest that writing competence of this kind might be transferable to oral competence. Chun (1994) made this suggestion based on high frequency of cohesive linguistic references and expressions in chat that are typical for spoken conversation. Discussing the advantages of chat compared to face-to-face class communication he finds that in chat, learners interact directly with each other as opposed to dominating student-teacher interaction in a traditional classroom. During online sessions, students are more active in starting a conversation, expanding on topics as well as demonstrating sociolinguistic competence in greeting, leave taking, apologizing, etc.
Kern (1995) agrees with Chun about larger language output produced by students in chat than in usual oral discussion. Comparing the characteristics of discourse produced by two groups of French learners during online chats and oral discussions on the same topics, he found that in chats students made twice as many turns and two to four times as many sentences than in spoken conversations. During online interactions they also used a greater variety of discourse functions and morphosyntactic features, thus showing a higher level of language sophistication. Kern’s thesis is supported by Payne and Whitney (2002) reporting on the study of a group of Spanish learners who, after participating in a hybrid course in which half of the class time was spent in online synchronous discussions, showed higher oral proficiency than the control group that received only face-to-face instruction.
Tudini (2003) investigated the effects of involving learners into chat sessions with L1 speakers. Intermediate students of Italian participated in dyadic communications with native Italian interlocutors without any teacher support or intervention. Analysis of chat transcripts revealed that native speakers offered students some conversation practice that included an important component, namely, negotiation of meaning. Statistically, negotiation of meaning occurred in 9 per cent of turns. Chat sessions also promoted greater attention to errors and form, and modification of language. Research findings led Tudini to the conclusion that chat environment is likely to be conductive to SLA by distance learners (p. 157).
Kern (1995) and Tudini (2003) agree in that in spite of certain advantages, online chat cannot substitute for normal classroom discussions. Kern (1995) points out that grammatical accuracy suffers due to the fast pace of communication, leading to reading “defective” language. Therefore, discussions about effectiveness of chats should be put into the context of teaching goals. It is not likely that chat can be a good tool to develop formal accuracy, style, or global coherence. Still it can be a means to support student initiative and responsiveness as well as status equalization.
References
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
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.
Payne, J. & Witney, P. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7-32.
Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 141-159.
Dear students, Here is a review of some papers on using chats in language teachings. Unfortunately, most of the articles mentioned are not available online, but I hope you will find this digest useful.
* * *
Tools supporting writing and speaking through writing. Chats and instant messaging
The technologies we discussed earlier, supported asynchronous communication, when participants were not required to be online simultaneously. Let us now take a look at the tools for synchronous text interaction. Although instant messaging services such as ICQ or Yahoo! Messenger appeared as tools for one-to-one real-time communication, their recent versions are configured to allow conversation among three and more people, thus making them similar to chat services like web chatrooms that have always been multi-user tools. Perhaps, the only essential difference between them is that by default web-based chats were open for anyone while one can join an ongoing IM conversation by invitation only. This difference, however, does not seem to influence linguistic peculiarities of the interaction, so in this section the word “chat” will be applied to any form of synchronous textual communication.
It was noticed above that, being written by form, chat has certain features bringing it closer to spoken language. Some scholars suggest that writing competence of this kind might be transferable to oral competence. Chun (1994) made this suggestion based on high frequency of cohesive linguistic references and expressions in chat that are typical for spoken conversation. Discussing the advantages of chat compared to face-to-face class communication he finds that in chat, learners interact directly with each other as opposed to dominating student-teacher interaction in a traditional classroom. During online sessions, students are more active in starting a conversation, expanding on topics as well as demonstrating sociolinguistic competence in greeting, leave taking, apologizing, etc.
Kern (1995) agrees with Chun about larger language output produced by students in chat than in usual oral discussion. Comparing the characteristics of discourse produced by two groups of French learners during online chats and oral discussions on the same topics, he found that in chats students made twice as many turns and two to four times as many sentences than in spoken conversations. During online interactions they also used a greater variety of discourse functions and morphosyntactic features, thus showing a higher level of language sophistication. Kern’s thesis is supported by Payne and Whitney (2002) reporting on the study of a group of Spanish learners who, after participating in a hybrid course in which half of the class time was spent in online synchronous discussions, showed higher oral proficiency than the control group that received only face-to-face instruction.
Tudini (2003) investigated the effects of involving learners into chat sessions with L1 speakers. Intermediate students of Italian participated in dyadic communications with native Italian interlocutors without any teacher support or intervention. Analysis of chat transcripts revealed that native speakers offered students some conversation practice that included an important component, namely, negotiation of meaning. Statistically, negotiation of meaning occurred in 9 per cent of turns. Chat sessions also promoted greater attention to errors and form, and modification of language. Research findings led Tudini to the conclusion that chat environment is likely to be conductive to SLA by distance learners (p. 157).
Kern (1995) and Tudini (2003) agree in that in spite of certain advantages, online chat cannot substitute for normal classroom discussions. Kern (1995) points out that grammatical accuracy suffers due to the fast pace of communication, leading to reading “defective” language. Therefore, discussions about effectiveness of chats should be put into the context of teaching goals. It is not likely that chat can be a good tool to develop formal accuracy, style, or global coherence. Still it can be a means to support student initiative and responsiveness as well as status equalization.
References
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
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.
Payne, J. & Witney, P. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7-32.
Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 141-159.