Session 6 CMC

8/3/2019 Session 6 CMC

1/27


2/27

Types of CMC

Time to reflect?

Written Oral

Synchronous IM, chat rooms Skype

Asynchronous Email, blog,

discussion board,

(wiki?)

Voiceboard, Voice

Presentation,

Voxopop,

Voicethread

podcast


3/27

Theoretical assumptions:

Output Hypothesis (Swain 1986):

Noticing function: Learners encounter gaps between what they want

to say and what they are able to say and so they notice what they do

not know or only know partially in this language.

Hypothesis-testing function: When learners say something there is

always a hypothesis underlying e.g. about grammar. By uttering sth.

the learners test this hypothesis and receive feedback from an

interlocutor. This feedback enables them, if necessary, to reprocess

their hypothesis.

Metalinguistic function: Learners reflect about the language theylearn and hereby the output enables them to control and internalize

linguistic knowledge.


4/27

Theoretical assumptions:

Interaction Hypothesis (Long 1996): Especially

negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by

the Native Speaker or more competent interlocutor,

facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internallearner capacities, particularly selective attention, and

output in productive ways.

Gass 2006:

Input as a model (strong focus on semantic processing)

Output: push syntactic processing

Interaction: negative evidence and feedback


5/27

Theoretical assumptions

Sociocognitive theory:

Zone ofproximal development:


6/27

CMC: negative evidence and feedbackHow?

Does it happen naturally?

Studies show: not muchcan it be taught as a skill?

Print out CMC transcripts and engage in error correction

Amount of negotiation may depend on task/genre

What about oral CMC?


7/27

CMC tools are . But how?` Learner-centered:

` If learners drive the content (how much?; authentic opinion

exchange); establish social relationships

` Learning content?

` Enhance motivation to participate` Real and relevant exchange of information (example: Why study

German discussion board)

` Have a real audience (entire class)

` Integrate multimedia: pics, videos,--what is the advantage?

` Reduce anxiety

` (reduce inhibition; language use), speed of typing, typos


8/27

CMC tools are . But how?

` Increased opportunities for learning

` Outside of class, increase potential for negotiation of meaning

` Expand use of genresfocus on genre specific features not just chat

` Use chat speak or not?

` Oral summary ofplot, movie review,

` Dynamic, resembling oral interaction

` Pedagogical tool

` Effect of time to prepare: authenticity? (synchronous vs

asynchronous)` How to prevent hijacking of task for mere social purposes?

` CMC (blogs) vs essay writing

` Focus on meaning and Focus on Form


9/27

Abrams suggests:

Linguistic and content support: how?

How can one integrate the content from CMC tasks in

class? In other online activities?


10/27


11/27

IM as CMC Tasks 1 and 3 from Palletieri What will students say/write?

Which vocabulary and grammar will they need?


12/27

Issues` Synchronous IM:` Meaningful? How manypeople can chat at a time?

` Waiting for response (but self repair Smith 2009)

` Accurate language use?

` What could be the function of IM?

` Fluency (not so much accuracy)

` Clear structure ofpedagogical info exchange task (fill in a

chart, identify a picture)

` Negotiation about vocabulary but not grammar (Smith)

` ? Task-essential grammar? (Loschkey&Bley-Vroman)

`


13/27

Pellettieri

Written chat resembles oral interaction; does it have the

same benefit for the development of grammatical

competence as FtoF interaction? (negotiation of meaning)

Def. Grammatical Competence (Canale & Swain, 1980):

Syntax, lexicon and semantics.

Y-talk: one can see interlocutor typing real time (not waituntil the message is finished)


14/27

Pellettieri RQs: Does negotiation occur in CMC? Does negotiation lead to mutual comprehension?

Meaning and form-focused modifications?

Corrective feedback and subsequent use of target-like

form? Participants: 20 learners of Spanish worked in pairs

Treatment: 5 communication tasks (Table 1, p. 66: look)

Qualitative analysis of negotiations: triggers of

negotiation, signals of nonunderstanding, reaction to theresponse (p. 68)


15/27

Findings


16/27

Pellettieri` Findings:` RQ 1: Does negotiation occur in CMC? Yes (Table 2, p.

71) Lexical>Content>syntactic

` Most Syntactic Negotiation: task 2 and 5 (form-focused --writing)

` Signals: resulted in responses: repetition, paraphrase,lexical elaboration, morphosyntactic elaboration (But howmany errors resulted in signals?)

` 93% of responses resulted in indication of

comprehension (resolved negotiation)` Quantity of negotiations: Task 2: closed and difficult

` ?? All pairs/ each student engages in negotiations? (NoSD) ?? 2-4 negotiations per task/pair in 20 min


17/27

Findings ?? All pairs/ each student engages in negotiations?(No SD) ?? 2-4 negotiations per task/pair in 20 min


18/27


19/27


20/27

Pellettieri RQ 2: Do the negotiations facilitate mutual comprehension?

apparently

RQ 3:Do the negotiations push learners tooutput modificationsthat are both meaning- and form-focused? lexical > grammatical

modifications

RQ 4:Do the negotiated interactions foster the provision ofcorrective feedback and the incorporation of target-like forms forsubsequent turns? Modified output: explicit and implicit correctivefeedback; 6/31 resulted in non-target like forms; target like feedback

was integrated (70-75%) (BUT overall very little feedback!)

Teaching: How can we encourage negotiation? Task has an impact onquantity of negotiations: lexical and grammatical.


21/27

Voice blogs and voice discussion boards` Which kind of assignments result in a real discussion? Or

at least motivate students to listen to each others

responses and respond to each other?

` Voice blogs (voxopop, voicethread) or written blogs

` Which types of assignments lend themselves for blogs?

` Journals?

` Cooperating on a topic (each student reviews a different

source)

` Collection of reviews: books, movies, tv program,

` Reflection on reading, video, audio


22/27

Sun` RQs:

` Learning process and strategies in voice blogs?

` Student perception of voice blog as learning tool?

`

Instruments: survey on student attitude and retrospectiveinterviews (6): Appendix p. 100 look

` Participants: 46 EFL students advanced

` Materials: one class blog (to increase interaction): 30

entries + 10 responses to classmates

` No instructions on how to participate, no expectations

` Examples voice blogs: p. 91/92


23/27

Sun findings RQ 1: (how do these match

the RQ?) Time spent on creating blog: p. 94: 5-30 min

Blogging stages: table p. 94: idealbased on?

Conceptualizing stage: 71% difficult to come up with

content (comments p. 94: need to provide clearassignment that learners can complete)

47% write script (is that the purpose?)

55% rehearsed before recording

56% listen to file before uploading F on F but how many?


24/27

Sun findings RQ2:

Interest in blogging: p. 96 mostly neutral

Usefulness: 55% enhance communication skills,

information exchange neutral (blog topic!)

Time management: complete assignment before finals (awkward, annoying, too much)

Issues: self-reported usefulness

What do analyses tell us? % not always reported


25/27

Sun Clear assignment that students can complete (had input), meaningful and of interest to othersinteresting topic or

assignment, need to do something with the content (get o

know your classmates pick up this information in class)

Clear structure: length or recording, how long it shouldtake, expectations; take notes, write script,

Language toolkit?

Vary the genre and provide examples: summarize a

movie, describe a good restaurant, etc.


26/27


27/27

Documents

Session 6 CMC