In his work, Interaction, Negotiation, and Computer-Mediated Learning, Warschauer (1998) discusses the cross-section of language learning theory and Computer-Mediated Learning (CML or CMC) practice. Similar to Blake (2008), Warschauer proves the validity of using technology in the classroom based on the language learning theories of input, output and socio-cultural perspectives.
Background
According to Krashen (1981; 1985; 1987), comprehensible input is an imperative part of the language learning process, as is the negotiation of meaning: “Negotiations may come in the form of repetitions, confirmations, reformulations, comprehension checks, recasts, confirmation checks and clarification requests” (Long, 1996). Regarding said negotiations, one can infer that CML may provide opportunity for receiving comprehensible input. For example, online written discussions, as opposed to f2f, give time for the re-reading of sentences and asking of questions to make input comprehensible. Shared, closed and difficult tasks encourage more negotiations, as does the general target of mutual understanding (Warschauer, 1998). A perception of more time in CM interaction, and being able to view written language, enables students to monitor their own work, autocorrect and peer correct, also known as noticing and learning (Long, 1991).
A focus on output in language learning, assists both fluency and accuracy. In this way, it can be said that as CML creates a less threatening environment than f2f, this allows students to take more risks. More risks encourages more complex language use, due to more planning time (but not necessarily more accurate use). It also allows for post-hoc analysis and real-time non-obtrusive focus on form (Warschauer 1998).
Socio-cultural perspectives of language learning focuses on human interactions. Through social interactions, learners determine when and how to speak, how to use speech to solve problems and how to develop through interaction with peers. As follows, CML gives learners the opportunity for ‘excessive’ talk and self-regulation. They have time to think and compose messages freely without interrupting others. And they can learn from NS or higher level NNS by noticing the difference between own and partners usage. “Networked exchanges seem to help all individuals in language classes engage more frequently, with greater confidence, and with greater enthusiasm in the communicative process than is characteristic for similar students in oral classrooms” (Swaffar (1998, 1).
My Reflections on CML from a Voice-Based perspective
I think that an online telephony tool like Skype gives language learners plenty of opportunity to interact and negotiate, the pre-requisites for deepening and extending language proficiency presented by Warschaeur. However, it is important to note that the potential for success of voice based tools lies in the skill of the organiser/teacher to select appropriate tasks which provide comprehensible input (Krashen) for pairs or groups of students, and to match learners according to level type (Blake, 2008).
Communicating online in real time throws up certain positive obstacles. For example, if the video function is turned off, this may force users to negotiate meaning through asking and answering questions, and thus provides the opportunity for noticing gaps of linguistic knowledge. Conversely, turning the video function on may not necessarily make understanding ‘easier’, as the viewer is then forced to interpret physical behaviour and voice messages, both at the same time.
Voice based CMC, provides students the opportunity to talk as well as listen, and thus exposure to peer ‘speak’ may have an immediate effect on the student’s own fluency and accuracy. Whereas with written CMC students have more time to analyse and reflect on texts, it seems the pressure is on to be more alert when using voice based CMC. However, it is true that as each student takes turns to express their point of view, whether verbally or in written form, there is still time for each student to prepare his ideas and focus on form.
Recommendations
Related to my own language learning, I have set up an experiment to help practice and improve my Chinese skills through the use of email exchange. It is my hope that through this ‘interaction as apprenticeship’ exchange that I will be exposed to native turns of speech and slowly absorb them into my own written expression, in the first instance, and then use them in oral expression, in the future.
Warschauer M. (1998) Interaction, Negotiation, and Computer-Mediated Learning. Available at www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/interaction.pdf
Chapter 1 of Blake (2008) Ch 1 Brave new digital classroom: technology and foreign language learning. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, [electronic resource]
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press
Swaffar