This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 18 November 2014, At: 00:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Innovation in Language Learning andTeachingPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rill20

What's in a question? The case ofstudents' enactments in the SecondLife virtual worldCaroline M.L. Ho aa Department of English Language and Literature, NationalInstitute of Education , Nanyang Technological University , 1Nanyang Walk, 637616, SingaporePublished online: 06 May 2010.

To cite this article: Caroline M.L. Ho (2010) What's in a question? The case of students' enactmentsin the Second Life virtual world, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4:2, 151-176, DOI:10.1080/17501221003725397

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17501221003725397

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

What’s in a question? The case of students’ enactments in the SecondLife virtual world

Caroline M.L. Ho*

Department of English Language and Literature, National Institute of Education, NanyangTechnological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616

(Received 22 April 2009; final version received 21 February 2010)

This paper draws on a study of a larger investigation involving 17�18-year-oldstudents engaged in enactive role play in the Second Life virtual world. The studyis set in the context of a subject, General Paper, offered at the pre-tertiary level inSingapore to promote critical thinking and argumentation. Central to the studyare the questioning types adopted by students in a simulated negotiation based onthe context of globalisation and its implications on an international level.Students enact the roles of lead negotiators for parties in a dispute concerning afictitious group of islands, which aimed to join the community of regional andinternational democracies after decades of totalitarian governmental rule. Thefindings based on an in-depth examination of a focused group of participantsindicate a range of questioning types in evoking participant response with varyinglevels of assertion. Direct and rhetorical questions occur more frequentlycompared to those which require further work in internal processing andstrategising in the use of particular discourse features such as reformulation,internal scaffolding, indirect and mirror-effect questioning types. The examina-tion also extends to the role of questions in extended question�response sequencechains of virtual dialoguing. The pedagogical implications of enactive role playfor developing students’ questioning skills are discussed.

Keywords: questioning; virtual worlds; enactive role play; Second Life

Introduction

Rapid technological advancements have led to the emergence of virtual worlds such

as Active Worlds and Second Life (SL), designed to facilitate real-time interaction

among participants in immersive, three-dimensional (3D), multi-user virtual

environments (MUVEs; Singhal and Zyda 1999). The potential of using virtual

worlds in education to foster constructivist learning (Dede 1995; Jonassen 1991,

1994) which challenges students to collaboratively co-construct knowledge through

active learning and social negotiation (Jonassen 1994) has been widely acknowledged

(Benford et al. 2001; Bronack, Riedl, and Tashner 2006; Webster and Sudweeks

2006). Indeed, virtual environments have been recognised as dynamic cyberspaces

that can encourage the design of innovative pedagogic practices (Bailey and Moar

2002) to ultimately change the delivery of traditional curriculum (Hobbs, Brown, and

Gordon 2006).

*Email: caroline.ho@nie.edu.sg

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2010, 151�176

ISSN 1750-1229 print/ISSN 1750-1237 online

# 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/17501221003725397

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Virtual worlds, compared to other synchronous modes of computer-mediated

communication, have the potential for enhancing the learning process in a dynamic

manner, given the ‘perceptual features of the virtual environment’ (Robertson and

Good 2003, 9) in the 3D images and avatar-based interaction within the spatial

environment. Participants can construct their own personalised characters and

worlds (Pfaffenberger 2001) through concrete, visual representation of avatars, props

and buildings in specific scenarios and ‘experience all sorts of things which are

impossible in real life’ (Robertson and Good 2003, 9). Participant interaction with

the virtual learning environment through engaging in different learning tasks

provides a vicarious experience through a ‘manipulative virtual space’ (Yamashiro

2003) whereby senses are aroused, and emotions by setting, objects and the spatial

dimension in the environment are evoked. Textualising the non-verbal through

paralinguistic means of communication (Ho and Ong 2009) legitimises the power of

non-textual communication and multi-sensory interaction, and sharpens participant

agency and involvement or engagement. Enactive role play in virtual reality through

the dynamic, embodied act of being and becoming and doing can develop a strongersense of participants’ presence (Ho, 2011, in press) through evoking reaction and

engenders, ‘a feeling of immersion, a perceptual and psychological sense of being in

the digital environment presented to the senses’ (McLellan 1996, 471). It is

acknowledged that the sense of presence is a key feature distinguishing virtual

reality from other forms of computer applications (McLellan 1996, 471).

This study was motivated by the belief that concretising the complex skills of

critical thinking and questioning in the language classroom can be realised in an

engaging manner by designing innovative, technologically mediated learning

environments for students to role play their given characters in specific contexts.

After all, it is widely acknowledged that, ‘at all levels of education, critical thinking

and logical argumentation are arguably more challenging for students than any other

basic skills’ (Ho 2007, 31). This paper draws on a larger research study (Ho 2009) of

the SL immersive learning environment for enactive role play in the context of the

General Paper (GP), a subject offered at the pre-university level (Grade 12) in

Singapore, which stresses argumentation and critical thinking. Enactive role playessentially involves ‘knowing by doing’ (Bruner 1966, 1968), that is, knowledge

comes through action. Gee (2000, 188) further reinforces the notion of enactive work

as an attempt to organise activities, and accord them value and meaning in ‘affinity

spaces’ (Gee 2005) in the virtual worlds of cyberspace (Lankshear and Bigum 1999,

457). What is regarded as ‘real’ enactive work involves ‘creating and sustaining the

configurations’ (Gee 2000, 189) through the embodied and situated approach

(Varela, Thompson, and Rosch 1991) to learning.

In the traditional classroom context, students were acknowledged to generally

answer teachers’ questions in class and, as Wells (1993) observes, socialised to

interact with the instructor rather than their peers. Students would not wish to

appear foolish and would avoid giving a negative impression by asking ‘stupid’

questions in the presence of their peers in class (Brain 1998, Section 8; Leary and

Kowalski 1997, 175). This study, in providing students the opportunity to think in

role and play out specific characters assigned in the virtual world without teacher

intervention, seeks to encourage students to generate their own questions and

responses as they engage with each other in the virtual enactments.The examination in this paper focuses primarily on participants’ questioning

types in relation to their purpose and role in the dialogic process of virtual enactment

152 C.M.L. Ho

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

as it was observed that participants employed a range of questioning types in their

virtual dialoguing. The paper begins by considering the dialogic process of learning

and engagement, and, in particular, the place of questioning in relation to

argumentation, which provides the theoretical thrust to the study. A review of

studies in the field then follows, after which background context to the study and the

research focus are provided. The design of the SL learning environment and

methodology are then presented, followed by findings and discussion of the study.

The pedagogical implications of the findings are discussed at the close of the paper.

Dialogic learning and questioning in argumentation

A situated, dialogic perspective of learning informs the investigation in this study.

Situated learning is recognised as the process of knowledge construction through

dialectic conversations among students who hold various perspectives (Brown,

Collins, and Duguid 1989; Lave and Wenger 1991; Pilkington 2004; Wilson and

Myers 1999). Dialogic learning involves ‘learning through the interweaving ofseparate reasoning minds in verbal interaction’ (Baker 1993, 4) where the emphasis is

on ‘reasoning in dialogue’. This draws on Bakhtin’s (1981) notion of ‘dialogic

imagination’ with arguments arising out of the play of a multiplicity of voices.

Argument, when viewed as dialogic, provides for: ‘the possibility of agreement as well

as dissension, to recognize that one’s argument develops through engaging with and

negotiating others’ views, and . . . acknowledging and representing another’s view-

point as well as one’s own’ (Morgan and Beaumont 2003, 150).

The role of questions in driving the dialogic process of thinking and discussion isacknowledged to be critical (Elder and Paul 1998; Wang 2005). Questions are

recognised as essentially ‘expressed request[s] for information’ (Blanchette 2001,

Section 2). Hunkins (1995, 114) specifically identified questions as ‘complex

linguistic structures designed to engage individuals cognitively and affectively in

processing particular contents’. Different types of questions demand different levels

of cognitive processing and learning (Grabowski 1996). Wu (2006, 347) noted that

‘strategic uses of questions can also serve ideational and text-organizing functions’ as

they convey both ‘rhetorical and evaluative meanings in context’. Question could beused ‘to create dialogic space’ (Wu and Allison 2005, 125). Further, questions’ forms

‘orientate [readers] in a certain way to the arguments presented’ (Hyland 2002, 532),

and work to ‘establish a particular relationship, draw readers into an argument and

manage their understanding of an issue’ (Hyland 2002, 554). This study examines the

role of questioning types in students’ enactive role play with a focus on the type and

range used to evoke a particular response or exert a targeted influence on others

through the SL immersive learning environment in the context of the GP.

The interest in the investigation centres on students’ questioning in real time inrelation to the dialogic nature and process of virtual enactments as students engage

in the exchange of different perspectives. There is an increasing recognition of the

significance of strategic questioning in the social and dialogic process of reasoning

(Tindale 1999; Walton 1998). The approach to this study is influenced by a

sociocultural view of language (Wells 1999) with language as a ‘cognitive and cultural

tool used in dialogue to support the construction of shared knowledge’ (Coffin,

Painter, and Hewings 2006, 466). Viewed from a constructivist approach which

emphasises interactive tasks (Jonassen 1991, 1994), the focus of engaging studentsthrough their virtual enactments is on ‘creating real-world environments for problem

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

solving’ (Cox, Carr, and Hall 2004, 184). The SL virtual learning environment

designed for this study is a valuable platform for investigating how students learn

through the interactive process of a simulated negotiation to develop a better

understanding of the real-world problem of globalisation with its associated

political, economic and social implications on an international level.

Review of studies in the field

The review begins with studies on questioning before attention turns to virtual

worlds as learning environments.

Studies on questioning

Research literature revealed that studies on questioning types were observed to

revolve largely around classroom instruction, predominantly from the teacher’s point

of view in traditional classroom roles. Early studies investigated the balance betweenreferential (information seeking which the questioner does not know) and display

(Long and Sato 1983) questions (where the questioner knows the answer before-

hand), with findings resonating with Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975) secondary

classroom context in the 1970s. Information-seeking questions generally registered

lower scores: ‘a mere 14% of questions asked by teachers’ (Long and Sato 1983, 280).

In foreign-language learning contexts, David’s (2007) study of Nigerian English

as a Second Language (ESL) teachers’ use of display and referential questions on

teacher�pupil interaction at the secondary level showed that display questions wereused more (85%) than referential questions (15%) with the latter creating less

classroom interaction than the former (87.6%:24.4%). Similarly, Shomoossi’s (2004)

investigation of the effect of Tehran university teachers’ questions on EFL students’

achievement indicated that display questions were used more frequently than

referential questions, and that not all referential questions could create enough

interaction. Hussin’s (2006) work on questioning in the Malaysian context revealed a

majority of low-level, factual questions, which did not encourage critical thinking.

National curriculum requirements in critical thinking were mismatched with howteachers actually taught in terms of posing questions. Brock’s (1986) examination of

the effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse highlighted the role

of such questions in getting learners to produce language and to create discourse

which facilitated a student-to-teacher information flow.

Studies have also distinguished low-level thinking questions such as literal with

obvious intent and where answers can be lifted directly from text (Cruickshank,

Bainer, and Metcalf 1995; Muijs and Reynolds 2001) and convergent which are fact-

based and deal with data (Moore 1995; Ornstein 1995) from high-level questionssuch as divergent (Kauchak and Eggen 1998; Moore 1995; Ornstein 1995) and

inferential (Frazee and Rudnitski 1995). Studies on teachers’ questioning in language

classrooms have also drawn on Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom et al. 1956). A UK case

study (ITT Key Stage 3 resources; Department for Children, Schools and Families,

UK 1997�2009) of teachers’ questioning of teenaged students revealed that boys

were twice as likely to be asked questions as girls, and four times more likely to be

asked open, explorative and analytical questions than girls who, in contrast, were

asked closed questions which predominantly tested lower-order, less complex recallskills. The study underlined the need for questioning to be kept central to the

154 C.M.L. Ho

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

learning process and for teachers’ specific questions to be built into their short-term

plans with questions escalating to facilitate higher-order thinking based on Bloom’s

taxonomy (Bloom et al. 1956).

While other categories of teachers’ questions focused on individual questions as

in open and closed (Blosser 1973; Carr 1998), productive (Elstgeest 1985),

operational (Alfke 1974) and questions based on mental operations (Koufetta-

Menicou and Scaife 2000), these were predominantly in the Sciences domain. In

these content-based contexts, attention was also focused on the need to scaffold

student thinking and help students construct content knowledge (Chin 2007).

Frameworks designed aimed to show how questions are ‘related via strategic

discourse moves that work purposefully towards the teachers’ ultimate teaching

goals’ (Chin 2007, 839) and included questioning approaches comprising Socratic

questioning, verbal jigsaw, semantic tapestry and framing (Chin 2007, 815).

Many of these available studies centred primarily on the teachers’ role. Otherstudies sought to question the conventional teacher/questioner and learner/respon-

der demarcation (Lynch 1991) with a call for a reversal of these roles with more

question types to which answers may not be known. Indeed, it was acknowledged

that ‘if classroom input is to become optimally comprehensible, it should no longer

be the teacher’s sole prerogative to ask questions’ since the ‘scope and purpose of

questions should extend beyond mere student display and teacher evaluation’ (Pica,

Young, and Doughty 1987, 754), with greater initiation and participation from

learners. This was also where studies on technologically mediated argumentation

with a focus on stimulating questioning among learners showed attempts to develop

students’ skills in generating questions.

Most available question-generation systems (Brown, Frishkoff, and Eskenazi

2005; Rus, Cai, and Graesser 2007), in developing automated computer-mediated

tutoring, focused primarily on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom

et al. 1956) in moving from the lowest level of cognition (thinking) to the highest

level of cognition (or from the least complex to the most complex). Nielsen et al.’s(2008) taxonomy of questions based on human tutoring dialogues in six disciplines

for the development of an intelligent tutoring system adapted taxonomies from

Bloom et al. (1956), Collins (1985), Graesser and Person (1994) and Lehnert (1978),

for content instruction in eliciting understanding of the topic and procedure

involved. The question types comprised method, explanation, comparison, rationale

and description.

Other studies on questioning skills in technologically mediated environments

recognised the significant role of questioning in facilitating the dialogic process of

learning. One such study by Wang (2005) in examining questioning skills to facilitate

online synchronous discussions showed the impact of skilful questioning on

students’ intellectual ability in the process of knowledge construction in online

discussions. This included increased student participation, development of multiple

perspectives and student engagement in higher-order thinking (Wang 2005, 303).

Morgan and Beaumont’s (2003) work in investigating chat rooms using a dialogic

approach to argumentation showed qualitative gains in students’ argumentation in

terms of justification of reasons, logic in argumentation, focus and detail in quantityand quality. It was observed that students’ ‘questioning and group discussion . . . led

to the shaping of their opinions, and their exposure to the arguments and

justifications of others’ (Morgan and Beaumont 2003, 155). Blanchette’s (2001)

investigation of questioning skills in computer conferencing in an asynchronous

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

learning environment indicated that participants exhibited higher levels of cognition,

which stimulated more interaction. Callahan, Clark, and Kellough’s (1995) study at

the middle and secondary levels in schools reinforced the significance of questions

during discussion, noting that the most distinctive feature was that questions posed

were ‘open for discussion rather than closed for answer’ (Wang 2005, 305).

Although these earlier studies pointed to the potential of technologically

mediated environments for developing students’ questioning skills in relation to

the process of argumentation, they remained predominantly within the textual modeof the traditional realm of computer-mediated environments, namely, online forums,

email lists, bulletin boards and electronic conferences.

Virtual worlds as learning environments

The potential of virtual worlds as viable platforms for learning has attracted

much interest. Yamashiro’s (2003) case study of students’ virtual role play of a Maui

legend showed their interaction with the environment and with each other as theyrecreated the legend based on their interpretation, knowledge, imagination,

creativity, and reflection of the culture. Interactive role play in virtual reality

engaged the students in active and integrative learning, extending beyond declarative

knowledge to higher-order thinking. Robertson and Good (2003) examined the

effects of a virtual role-play environment, Ghostwriter, on characterisation in

children’s imaginative writing. The gains for students included a positive effect on

characterisation in stories in terms of relationships, particularly through dialogue

(26), and at a greater degree compared to traditional writing (13). Qualitative gainswere noted in descriptions of the moods of the characters, relationships between

characters and portrayal of characters’ personalities (13), indicating a certain level of

engagement with the writing activity. Brown’s (2009) scenarios in online role play in a

web-based virtual school provided students the opportunity to engage in deeper

levels of critical dialogue.

The Straits Times (2009, B5) reported of virtual worlds gaining in popularity

with schools in Singapore with teachers recognising their interactive nature enabling

greater class involvement and participation, and shyer students ‘opening up morethan usual . . . because they are more comfortable’ compared to speaking up in class.

Virtual role play was ‘not limited to a few minutes of class, but rather . . . prolonged

over time for really getting into the part’ (Edwards, Dominguez, and Rico 2008, 3).

This carried the potential ‘of heightening student motivation levels through intensive,

all-encompassing simulation exercises’ as it ‘pushes far beyond traditional uses and

takes on dimensions of simulating reality from a holistic perspective’ with

participants ‘acting and reacting to multiple forms of situational context with other

avatar learners’ (Edwards, Dominguez, and Rico 2008, 3). This process built uplearner responsibility as ‘students become actively involved in the formative process

which personalizes their learning needs and wants’ (Edwards, Dominguez, and Rico

2008, 6).

Virtual worlds were realised as ‘persistent, avatar-based social spaces’ that

enabled participants to engage in ‘long-term, joint coordinated action’ where

‘cultures and meanings emerge from a complex set of interactions among the

participants’ with an ‘intense degree of coordinated action and co-presence among

players’ (Thomas and Brown 2009, 2). The idea of a ‘network of imagination’ tiedtogether notions of community, technologically mediated collective action and

156 C.M.L. Ho

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

imagination, when players begin to act through joint investment in the pursuit of

common ground. This collective action required that ‘problems be thought of as

group problems and that the goals of all actions and practices are to move the group

forward’ (Thomas and Brown 2009, 4).

Not all available studies were tied to a contextualised topical focus as with the

simulation revolving around the theme of globalisation in this study in order to fulfil

curricular goals. Indeed, the focus on topic-related discussion (Im and Lee 2004;

Knowlton and Knowlton 2001) as examined in this study had been acknowledged tobe of value for more productive and effective use of synchronous discussion for

instructional purposes. There is room for further investigation into the specific role

of questioning skills in the dialogic process of learning, particularly in new dynamic

learning environments as with virtual worlds designed for educational contexts with

an explicit thematic focus. Overall, existing studies surfaced the characteristic

features of virtual worlds as dynamic platforms for learning over computer-mediated

chats that went beyond merely the novelty of participation in the interactive, digital

spaces. Indeed, as will be unpacked in this study, virtual dialoguing in SL stimulatedstudents’ questioning skills through the focused and sustained engagement in

enactive role play.

Background

This study involved pre-university students in enactive role play in the SL virtual

environment to identify and solve conflicts related to the issue of globalisation in the

context of the GP. The study was set within the regular college GP curriculum with a

focus on argumentation and critical-thinking skills. The GP was classified a

Knowledge Skills subject at Higher 1 (H1) level for broadening purposes for

university-level studies (Ministry of Education [MOE] and University of Cambridge

Local Examinations Syndicate [UCLES] 2005). It played a critical role in the pre-tertiary curriculum with a pass in the subject mandatory to secure a full Advanced

(A) Level certificate. Students were required to ‘convey a sustained and well thought�out argument’ (Ho 2006, 3) and to show awareness of current issues on local and

global levels. For students in multi-ethnic Singapore, this challenge was even greater,

given that English was not necessarily the dominant home language for many.

Official records showed that English was the home language for 37% of Chinese

children, 44% of Indian children, 9% of Malay children and 10% of the remaining

ethnic group (Others) between the ages of 5 and 14 (Singapore Department ofStatistics 2005, 28). A student’s GP performance reflected not only the candidate’s

language ability but also, more significantly, the individual’s level of readiness for

tertiary study as it involved critical skills of logical and intellectual argument

demanded at higher education.

Research focus

This paper sought to determine the specific questioning types of students as they

engaged with each other in the SL virtual environment. Specifically, the paper aimed

to identify the different questioning types adopted by participants and the purposes

they fulfilled in specific contexts. The interest was in uncovering the range of

questioning types used to evoke participant response and the types which were usedmore frequently compared to others which were less evident. The investigation also

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

extended to examining the role of questioning in an extended question�response

sequence chain in the virtual dialogic space. These areas of investigation would offer

pedagogical implications of enactive role play for developing students’ questioning

skills.

Second Life (SL) virtual environment

SL is an immersive virtual environment developed by Linden Lab (Linden Research

Inc. 2008) for enactive role play. It comprises an online virtual world for its

‘residents’ to create their own personas through customised avatars and to interact

with each other in cyberspace. The rich interactive digital environment provides

specially developed tools for designing a virtual world for participants to construct

artefacts and buildings, and to explore and engage in individual and group activities.

A virtual private island was acquired by the researchers and a monthly maintenance

fee paid for the island for staff and students of the participating school to gain accessto the virtual world.

For this study, a ‘YouTopia’ private island (Figure 1) was developed within the

teen grid of SL for 13�17-year-old teenagers. ‘YouTopia’ suggested to students that a

perfect or ideal society could be created by them. The outcome in their world rested

in their power to enact how they wanted things to be, based on their own perspectives

and beliefs.

Within YouTopia, a context was developed for virtual enactment through a series

of scenarios (Ho 2007). Each scenario carried a distinct conflict which was playedout in the enactments. The various stakeholders had their own individual agendas

regarding the problem at hand. Students analysed each complication in terms of the

stakeholders’ personal interests, and examined the concerns raised by the relevant

parties affected by the particular situation. The goal of negotiation was to reconcile

the differing stakeholders’ interests equitably, given the constraints of each context.

The scenarios based on the context of globalisation involved students in groups of

four or five members representing five interest groups (sample role card, Appendix 1)

of a fictitious group of islands, the Waga Waga Islands (WWI). These interest groupscomprised the WW native peasants, women’s peasants, International Monetary Fund

(IMF), a non-governmental organisation (NGO) and a multi-national corporation

(MNC). The newly democratic WWI, after decades of totalitarian government,

Figure 1. Screen shot of YouTopia Island.

158 C.M.L. Ho

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

proposed to join the community of regional and international democracies.

A conference by the World Trade Organisation would be organised to decide on

the parameters that should be imposed in the process of embracing globalisation in

order to address the needs and interests of various groups on WWI and to ensure

sustainable development of the country’s economy.Students participated in two rounds of enactive role-play sessions over the six-

week intervention. This paper focuses on the first round of a 70-minute enactment

where members from the five different parties worked to forge an alliance and raised

questions about resolutions offered by other alliances. This was the first exposure for

students to the topic of globalisation which would involve these novice participants

in the SL enactments (Figure 2).

The second round of enactment required the students’ drafted resolution to be

submitted for members of opposing alliance(s) to question or critique, after which

the original resolution was amended.

Subjects

The subjects comprised two classes of 45 17�18-year-old final-year pre-university

male and female students from the Arts and Science streams in one pre-university

college with average to low ability in the GP subject (mean of standardised test scores

was 51%). The majority of the students were from families with a predominantly

middle- to low-income background residing in a typical public housing neighbour-

hood in Singapore. The college, a ‘Lead ICT’ institution, identified by the Ministry

of Education to spearhead ICT-mediated pedagogic initiatives, had agreed to

participate in the study with all classes informed of the project focus on enhancing

GP students’ skills in argumentation and critical thinking though technological

mediation in immersive virtual environments. Class response to the open invitation

was obtained through a voluntary polling system. The two classes were selected

based on the highest numbers of students who opted in. Parents and students

provided informed written consent for participation. The study adhered to the

Figure 2. Screen shot of SL enactive role-play session.

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

research ethics guidelines of the university. Students had no prior experience with SL.

Neither were they prepared beforehand for a focus specifically on questioning skills

in the enactments. The selected group of four students identified in this paper was

based on their contribution across the targeted scenarios in terms of the range of

questioning types and the linguistic features exemplified, and, for consistency, their

virtual roles enacted. Students’ extracts from virtual enactments cited in this paper

were quoted verbatim. The first name of each participant was the student’s chosen

name (names changed to preserve anonymity) followed by the second name,

YouTopia, which is common to all participants, hence, Khan YouTopia.

Methodology

Logged transcripts of participants’ interactions were saved in text format using the

SL feature (Figure 3) and Open Source Camstudio was used for all screen activity

recordings of the enactive role-play sessions.

The researchers began first with an examination of the questioning types which

were adopted by students in their virtual role playing. The focus was on identifying

the range of questioning types for various purposes and contexts, and in categorising

the types identified. The categorisation of questioning types was carried out

independently first by the researchers who then cross-checked with each other for

uniformity in classification. Frequency counts of specific questioning types were

recorded in raw and percentage figures. Exemplification of the various categories was

examined with an elaboration of the role of the questioning type in the specific

context. Questioning types were realised linguistically in different ways. Attention

also focused on specific discourse features which captured the various questioning

types. These were highlighted and noted by the researchers. Underlining of specific

features in the transcripts was to draw attention to the targeted forms and by the

author, not the students. An examination was also carried out of the role of

questioning types from an extract of an extended question�response chain or

sequence in the virtual dialoguing. The data-driven approach to research taken in

this study with a more grounded (Glaser and Strauss 1967) orientation to the tagging

of the data was advantageous in this investigation over the adoption of a fixated,

existing or available analytical framework. Given the new media environment of this

study within which the researchers and participants were working, the inductive and

interpretive approach allowed for a ‘growing understanding (to) develop in such a

way that it is driven by the data’ (Dick 2000) collected, and provided ‘some

protection against the biases and preconceptions which researchers and others

inevitably bring to the research situation’ (Dick 2000). The focus essentially centred

on what was directly generated and emerging from a specific learning context of

Twill YouTopia: may i ask if the IMF wishes to form alliances with any other organizations? Khan YouTopia: we would also be trying to ally with the women's peasants association Khan YouTopia: this is because we also seek for equal gender rights Twill YouTopia: ok great Twill YouTopia: we wish to work with them too Khan YouTopia: we propose to do this by creating more jobs for women in those customer service, or light office work

Figure 3. Extract of logged text from SL enactive role play.

160 C.M.L. Ho

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

participants in real-time interaction which evolved over time, rather than from a pre-

defined selected set of features from the data.

Questioning types in enactive role play

Specific questioning types employed by students in their virtual enactments for

different purposes were identified. These were elaborated as follows.

Direct (general and specific)

Direct questions were literal, factual or information-seeking elicitations. Figure 4

showed that they ranked highest in terms of frequency of occurrence. Twenty one

percent of the overall questioning types were Direct Specific, that is, they were

pointed in eliciting particular information on points raised, as with the MNC

delegate question cited here, who had earlier promised the WWI natives ‘i am here to

help u all out of poverty’:

Ned YouTopia: what resources does your country have, excluding agricultural product?

to which the WWI native responded:

Guan YouTopia: people are our resource; we have a huge labour force who are cheapand hardworking.

The MNC delegate required specific information in order to assess the situation of

the WWI for appropriate plans to be executed which would indeed attempt to pull

the natives out of poverty.

Figure 4. Overall questioning types in enactive role play.

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

In the next example, the Direct Specific question on subsidies posed by the MNC

delegate . . .

Vale YouTopia: and what subsidies can IMF provide?

. . .was triggered by the IMF officer’s earlier assurance that ‘Please do not worry, the

taxes will not be high’ for the company.This further prompted the IMF officer to provide a specific response in explicitly

stating the nature of the subsidies:

Jave YouTopia: alright, IMF will provide subsidies for your MNC to train the labor.

This is critical to forwarding the ultimate goal of the IMF, that is, ‘we are opening up

Waga Waga island economy’.

Information which was deemed to be critical to facilitate decision-making and in

influencing outcomes was zeroed in on specifically by participants through Direct

(Specific) questioning. This was a specific type of direct, pointed questioning which

elicited information specifics and content detail on particular aspects. Specificity in

detail and explicit information required as in eliciting particular content information

for decision-making in order to form alliances or confirm proposed resolutions

accounted for the use of Direct Specific questioning in the virtual enactments.

Direct General questions, at 18% (second highest), were broad and open-ended in

initiating discussion. The WW female peasant in the following example posed an

open question to the MNC right at the outset of their dialogue:

Guanleng YouTopia: how can you all help us in any way?

The WW female peasant required information from the collective group (‘you all’) of

the entire MNC on the plans which the MNC proposed for her natives. The nature of

the help was also not narrowed down to any specific domain but kept open-ended

with the all-encompassing phrase ‘in any way’. This was a trigger for information

from the MNC which would enable her to assess the intentions of the foreign

company with respect to her people’s needs and situation.

In the next example, the MNC delegate initiated dialogue with the IMF officer by

posing the following question with the lexical item ‘anything’, eliciting information

from the IMF on their intent, without limiting the question in specific ways to obtain

the information desired:

Ned YouTopia: is there anything your association hopes to have from us?

The use of open-ended lexical items such as ‘you all’; ‘any’ as in ‘anything’; also in

‘any way’, ‘any problem’, aimed at generating response and information freely

without being constrained within specific boundaries. This appeared to be a

characteristic common to such question types.

Direct General questioning types also typically took on Wh-question formats as in:

what are your plans?, what do you have to offer? what can we do abt it?

which were raised by various participants in their roles as MNC or IMF officers

seeking information on individuals’ concerns and programmes proposed. They did

not pre-empt any particular information from specific respondents only but

162 C.M.L. Ho

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

maintained an openness in welcoming information from all the participants. These

broad, open-ended questions opened up the floor for discussion through a

broadening of the dialogic space for information to be provided in.

Rhetorical

Rhetorical questions (third highest at 17%) carried an implicit function of exerting a

particular effect or directing a targeted impact on other participants. They had a

specific purpose other than elicitation for pure information from other participants.

Rhetorical questions used by students in this study implied their own answer as a wayof making a point. Zoe, the NGO representative here, had earlier tried to persuade

the WW female peasants to consider working for the sake of their families, in

addition to having their husbands work:

2 people earning the same amt of money will bring more benefits to the children, familyand their own agriculture.

This led to the WW female peasant’s disapproval, given the patriarchical line of

tradition in WW culture,

That would mean that men would lose their power over female, and i don’t think thatthey would agree to that

which culminated in the NGO representative’s rhetorical retort:

Zoe YouTopia: what’s the point of men being in power if they are still not earningenough to support their own family?

In the next, Jason the MNC delegate tried to convince an NGO representative of the

obvious benefits arising from the expansion of his company: ‘When our company

expands, we will bring in thousands of jobs for the locals’. This was followed by the

rhetorical question below in an attempt to convince the NGO representative of thegood for the economy:

Jason YouTopia: Isn’t that creating growth for the economy?

Further, the MNC delegate, Ned, in the following was eager to seal the agreement

with the WW female peasants (represented by Guanleng) who acknowledged

themselves as a ‘huge labour force who are cheap and hardworking’. This led to

the prospect of more jobs for the WW female peasants, particularly with the

proposal of foreign sporting companies setting up base in WWI and attracting

investment, which culminated in the MNC delegate’s rhetorical question seekingaffirmation for the agreement:

Ned YouTopia: we could probably have NIKE in Waga Waga Island

Guanleng YouTopia: nike? you mean the brand that sponsor kobe bryant????

Guanleng YouTopia: oh my god!!

Guanleng YouTopia: YES!

Ned YouTopia: yes

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ned YouTopia: or ADIDAS IN WAGA WAGA

Ned YouTopia: when your economy has expanded, other companies will be attracted toinvest in you all

Ned YouTopia: So i suppose we have reached an agreement already?

Rhetorical questions in this study reinforced Blanchette’s (2001) findings in her

earlier work where they were used to persuade and indirectly challenge other

participants. Rhetorical questions were opportunities for writers to evoke a targeted

response. Such questions made their point in implying their own, desired answer.

When used by participants, they appeared as influencing participants’ line of

thinking and carried a distinctive strength and assertive force in themselves.

Closed

Closed questions (10%) did not open up possibilities for any further, extended

responses; typically favouring one word, ‘either or’ alternatives as in ‘Yes’ or ‘No’

answers.The MNC delegate sought a clear response (to vote or not) from the IMF officer

with regard to the resolution proposed after spelling out explicitly the specifics in a

proposed plan:

Jason YouTopia: so will you vote for our resolution?

The IMF officer here issued a direct question to the WW peasant with the

expectation of an explicit answer giving his agreement or otherwise with the earlier

proposals offered:

Jake YouTopia: Yes, peasant, do you agree with IMF and NGO resolutions?

This questioning type in eliciting essentially one word, ‘either or’ responses did not

offer students the option of exploring alternative possibilities, and, in effect, limitedor constricted the dialogic space of participants. They were typically realised in

structures such as ‘will you’ or ‘do you’, eliciting essentially one-word responses with

an assertive force of their own.

Recast/reformulation

Recast or reformulation questions (9%) involved a reformulation of key content

words in the form of specific lexical items evident in a sequence of moves. In the

following, the idea of the peasants’ protest march was foregrounded. The WW

peasant, Alex, reiterated that the WW peasants’ league aimed for a protest march.

This was immediately picked up by Guanleng, the WW female peasant, who

questioned with the replication ‘a march?’, followed by a reformulation of the march

as a non-adversarial form of protest in the question: ‘is’nt it peaceful protest?’. Thisform of double questioning in succession within the same move � as in a self-reply �was strategic in provoking a response. The idea of the ‘peaceful’ form of protest was

then quickly self-renounced and, instead, recast as a healthy form of exercise:

‘walking is a form of exercise’, leading to the concession whereby the WW peasant,

Alex, had to concede that it was a sort of a protest ‘if you want to put it that way’:

164 C.M.L. Ho

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Alex YouTopia: not really my league stated that they only wanted to do a march

Guanleng YouTopia: a march? is’nt it peaceful protest?

Guanleng YouTopia: nope . . .walking is a form of exercise

Alex YouTopia: well it is sort of a protest if you want to put it that way

Reformulation questioning types, as seen, served the function of clarifying issues and

strategically evoked a particular response. They pointed to participants thinking

through and internally processing an elicitation through reframing or recasting a

request for information.

Indirect

Indirect question types were so termed in that they were realised in the form of a

declarative statement but fulfilled an interrogative function. Indirect: Statements

(7%; italicised) were often followed by the specific question which elicited the

targeted information required of participants. Vale, the MNC delegate, sought to

clarify from the IMF officer the stand regarding the setting up of companies on

WWI:

Vale YouTopia: There’s one thing i need to clarify.

Vale YouTopia: So what is your stand from your company?

Next, Zul the WW peasant aimed to elicit more specific information from the MNC

officer with regard to what peasants stood to gain were they to comply with the

MNC job conditions and requirements:

Zul YouTopia: I would like to ask for your opinion on our request.

Zul YouTopia: What about the pay and welfare?

Indirect statements prepared the ground and paved the way for eliciting information,

as in clarifying specific issues in order to secure a response from their intended

respondents. Participants prefaced their direct elicitation with preceding declarative

statements which then led to the actual posing of the questions in the interrogative

form.

Indirect question types were also realised in the form of one-word prompts (9%).Huileng, the WW female peasant, had earlier sought Derek the NGO representa-

tive’s opinion on the peasants’ proposal, which the latter had misinterpreted as

seeking his vote of confidence for the proposal. This was quickly clarified by the WW

female peasant as pertaining to how both groups could help each other; a point to

which the NGO representative objected. The WW female peasant hence resorted to

the one-word prompt ‘then?’ in seeking further clarification. The NGO representa-

tive remained adamant in pursuing his earlier line of questioning, that is, whether his

approval for the peasants’ proposal was the real issue:

Derek YouTopia: i have read through your proposal

Huileng YouTopia: what do you think about it?

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 165

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Derek YouTopia: why u think your

Derek YouTopia: vote for your proposal you mean

Huileng YouTopia: no, i mean how can we help each other.

Derek YouTopia: nono

Huileng YouTopia: then?

Derek YouTopia: can you please answer my question first

In the next, Guanleng the WW female peasant’s ‘really?’ prompt was targeted at Alex

the WW peasant’s declaration that he was a representative from the WW women

peasant’s league. This surprise prompt was not out of place, given the situation here

of a deliberate instance of gender play where a male student had been specifically

assigned a female peasant role which the research team built into the enactments at

various points to study the impact of gender play (Ho 2008) on identity formation:

Guanleng YouTopia: you are from the peasant league right?

Alex YouTopia: i am from the female peasants league

Guanleng YouTopia: really?

Indirect one-word prompts exerted an assertive force in themselves as they succinctly

evoked a response from participants. They reflected a distinct attitudinal stance as

participants sought to directly challenge and/or evoke a response from others in

offering a pointed, targeted focus through prompt words such as ‘then?, really?, so?,

meaning? however?’, used in specific contexts of the enactments.

Internal scaffolding

Questions which displayed internal scaffolding (8%) indicated self-explication and

elaboration on the part of the questioner as he or she unpacked what was meant by

building up the questioning through a series of successive questions in an attempt to

elicit a response. An MNC delegate had expressed interest in investing in WWI. Zela,

the WW peasant here, aimed in two successive questions to elicit more specific input

from the MNC delegate on their resolution, particularly on ways to improve the

resolution to benefit the MNC more:

Zela YouTopia: So what is your view on our resolution?

Zela YouTopia: How can we improve the resolution to benefit your company more?

Next, Guanleng, the WW female peasant, challenged a WW peasant over the latter’s

earlier proposal for the Long Peasant March as an explicit show of protest to any

intervention by MNCs:

Guanleng YouTopia: so you think that will work?

Guanleng YouTopia: if the government allow the MNCs in, do you think they will listento your protest?

166 C.M.L. Ho

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

She built on her earlier first question as to whether the idea of the protest march

would work by elaborating on the conditional, namely that of the government

allowing entry of the MNCs into WWI, and if that would be enough for them to take

no heed of the voice of the peasants in their protest. In internal scaffolding, questions

built up on each other in succession, enabling students to pursue a particular line of

thinking as they stayed on course with a topic even as they sought a response from

participants. Such a questioning type reinforced the notion of question ‘pumping’

(Hogan and Pressley 1997) in the pursuit for more information and putting the ‘onus

on the student to provide more information’ (Chin 2007, 824). The focus was on

unpacking participants’ elicitation through deliberately elaborating or expanding on

their earlier questions.

Mirror effect

Mirror-effect types involved a reflection of similar lexical items in a particular order

within a phrase or sentence. They were often followed up with a recast of what the

‘mirrored’ terms meant. They were not common in the virtual enactments, forming

the smallest percentage at 1% of questioning types. Huileng, the WW female peasant,

attempted to explain to Derek, the NGO officer, the peasants’ intention (‘we

wanted’) of having MNC investment in WWI, given the positive gains to the

peasants which were elaborated. This led to the NGO representative jumping at

the tense used in her response, namely past, which he mirrored in the questioning

‘we wanted?’. This was immediately followed by his reformulating what he thought

the WW female peasant meant, that is, abolition of the very idea of MNC investment

� a point for which he sought clarification.

Huileng YouTopia: we wanted to have MNCs investing in Waga Waga Islands.

Huileng YouTopia: MNCs could increase job opportunities as well as increasing thehousehold income.

Derek YouTopia: we wanted? meaning you guys have abolished this idea?

This attested to students exhibiting an assertive confidence as they challenged each

other through employing mirror-effect moves through their deliberate duplication.

The role of questioning types in an extended question�answer sequence chain

Participants’ questioning through virtual dialoguing with each other can expand the

dialogic space through opening up or widening the parameters for discussion.

Specific questioning types along particular lines of thinking evoke targeted responses

and require participants to give close attention to specificity in information and

detail in the process of argumentation. To examine how these are realised in students’

dialoguing, attention now turns to examining a question�answer sequence or chain

which involves a build-up of a series of questions posed by participants in driving the

virtual dialoguing over a sustained stretch of enactment. To illustrate the significance

of questioning in enactive role play, the following extract is used to represent an

extended sequence of virtual dialoguing comprising a series of questioning types (see

Figure 5).

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The IMF officer, Debbie, interrupted the MNC staff, Jason, with a retort in the

deliberate replication of his ‘However?’ as a one-word prompt to seek further

clarification. This led to the MNC staff correcting himself and changing his own tack

with the additive discourse marker ‘In addition’, in furthering his earlier line of

argument as he elaborated on the perceived negative impression others have of all

MNCs. Further on, the IMF officer’s declarative ‘however i have a question’

(Indirect: Statement) paved the way for her rhetorical ‘are you sure that 40 hours a

week for the workers is enough for a developing country?’, implicating the limitation

of work hours proposed. This, in turn, led to the MNC staff countering with his

rhetorical question: ‘However, it does not mean that if we are profit-orientated then

we are exploiters, right?’, after admitting their goal of profit making. This was

quickly followed by further specific questioning in the form of internal scaffolding

which built one question from the other in seeking particular details as to the exact

work hours proposed: ‘Can you be more specific? 40 hours a week, yes, but how

many hours per day?’. Further, the IMF officer challenged the MNC delegate with

the pointed, direct question ‘yes and what changed your mind?’ when the latter

explained their original intention ‘to extend this rather lucrative offer (in the

provision of machinery) to the male peasants’. He then elaborated that this had been

turned down ‘arrogantly’ by the WW peasants, which was to their disadvantage. This

Jason YouTopia: However... Debbie YouTopia: however?Jason YouTopia: No i should say in additionJason YouTopia: I have come across some individual, who dismissed all MNCs as bad companies, exploiting workersJason YouTopia: These people often think there are intelligent in having such thoughts, but in actual fact, it is sheer foolishnessDebbie YouTopia: yes and that is why the NGO is here to assure the workers that they will not be exploited Debbie YouTopia: however i have a question Debbie YouTopia: are you su re that 40 hours a week for the workers is enough for a developing country? Jason YouTopia: Honestly, I will not deny that we are here to make profitsJason YouTopia: However, it does not mean that if we are profit -orientated then we are exploiters, Jason YouTopia: right? Jason YouTopia: Can you be more specific Jason YouTopia: 40 hours a week, yes, but how many hours per day? Jason YouTopia: All in all, we would not be ill-treating the peasants Debbie YouTopia: because i read from your resolution that work ers only have to work 40 hours a week Debbie YouTopia: for the females Jason YouTopia: I see, yes Jason YouTopia: We have machinery to ensure the desired output Jason YouTopia: Originally, we intend to extend this rather lucrative offer to the male peasants Debbie YouTopia: yes and what changed your mind? Jason YouTopia: However, they have arrogantly declined our kind offer, to their disadvantage of course Debbie YouTopia: i see Jason YouTopia: What do you mean?

Figure 5. Extract of questioning types in extended question�response chain.

168 C.M.L. Ho

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

led to the IMF officer’s reactive ‘i see’, which was immediately taken up by the MNC

delegate with the clarifying, specific questioning ‘What do you mean?’.

The occurrence, type and range of a series of strategically posed questions in a

stretch of virtual dialoguing demanded attention to content specifics and informa-

tion detail elicited for clarifying queries, confirming points and challenging or

dismissing arguments made. Participants drew on prior discourse moves of their

peers in the uptake of each other’s responses as they formulated questions and raised

further clarifications based on what was posed. This facilitated the co-constructionof a thread of discussion among participants which was sustained for a specific

stretch of discourse and took the discussion forward based on the exchange of

specific issues and viewpoints.

Pedagogical implications

The findings presented in this study provided insights into students’ questioning

types within the dialogic space of the SL environment with a focus on their range,purpose and linguistic realisation for the exchange of different points of view and

perspectives. Participants’ questioning types drew on the contexts designed,

stimulating discussion on specific issues raised. Questioning types elicited informa-

tion, challenged points raised and provoked responses from participants through

various linguistic resources. They were recognised as significant in the specific

contexts for participants to make informed decisions or come to a reasoned

conclusion about the viability of plans, programmes and proposals put forth by

the respective interest groups.The examination reflected students’ resourcefulness in generating specific

questioning types to elicit information with differing levels of assertion in relation

to an ensuing discussion. While some were direct and open-ended in their form of

elicitation and were favoured by most students, others required attention to content

specifics raised, as in reformulation and other less direct realisations. Rhetorical

questions served as strategic devices in empowering participants to further their

stance on an argument by provoking a desired response. Closed questioning types

played a specific role in demanding an explicit response � yes/no, agree/disagree � inrelation to a decision to be taken. Likewise, Indirect: one-word prompts which

carried an explicit attitudinal stance functioned in cajoling a response from

participants with a distinctive force of their own. The questioning types which

demanded more from students with regard to what was generally regarded as

effective questioning did not register higher incidence as they required a show of

participants’ mastery and control over the dialoguing and how it was unpacked in

real time. These included questioning that called for focus of attention to specific

content (reformulation), internal processing (internal scaffolding), skilful manoeuvr-ing (indirect question) and strategising in resourceful ways (mirror effect) to secure

targeted responses. These questioning types elevated students’ thinking (Hussin 2006;

Ornstein 1995) in motivating them to craft different ways of eliciting information

through various resources. Indeed, the SL virtual experience provided the platform

for students to learn to develop skilful questioning, which according to Wang (2005,

303) helped to increase students’ ‘intellectual moves that, in turn, facilitate the

process of knowledge construction’ and allowed for multiple perspectives to be

exchanged ‘simultaneously without worrying about interrupting the flow of aconversation that had moved on’ (Wang 2005, 303). The virtual interaction placed

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 169

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

specific cognitive demands on the students involved in the focus and attention given

to sustaining particular threads of argumentation, and in provoking participant

response to push the trajectory of dialectical discussion forward. There is clearly

room for more work in developing students’ ability to be resourceful in constructing

these intellectual moves for more challenging questioning types. Although this was a

small scale study and more demanding questioning moves were not widely evident

across every student’s enactments, there were emergent signs that students were

developing in this direction.

The specific nature of the pedagogical environment offered by the SL enactive

role play added value to developing the types of student-generated questions arising

from the enactments. Compared to the traditional teacher-dominated classroom of

the GP, the SL virtual world enactments provided the opportunity for student-

generated questions without any teacher intervention. For passive, less confident

students, this facilitated engagement with their peers in questioning and challenging

viewpoints raised. Students in this study were generally not known to voice opinionsfreely, let alone question perspectives, on their own. The inquiry-based nature of the

scenarios, however, put students directly in concrete situations where participants’

questioning strategies demanded responses which were critical to furthering a course

of action or decision, as in forging allegiances or verifying proposals and plans. It is

not merely the virtual world itself that is prompting the students’ questioning. The

dynamic nature of the scenarios promoted, in the spirit of inquiry-based learning, the

development of higher-order intellectual and argumentation skills through active-

role identification and participant engagement. The vicarious experiencing, through

the enacted roles of the complexity of the imagined situation with the attendant

implications and repercussions on a global scale, was a powerful means of critical

and creative engagement in the predominantly student-directed, problem-solving

mode of inquiry. The students were no longer themselves as teenage students but

playing out adult roles of lead negotiators in an international arena so that their own

personal inhibitions might be lost in the dynamics of enactive role play.

Further, unlike face-to-face classroom discussions, the construction of self-generated perspectives and observations was carried out in the non-threatening SL

environment without the fear of students ‘losing face’ in the presence of their

teachers. This reinforced an earlier observation of students being empowered in

synchronous learning environments � ‘a questioner to each other instead of a passive

listener or an answerer’ (Wang 2005, 311) to teachers or researchers. There was a

spontaneity and immediacy in the synchronous rapid exchange of responses as it

unfolded in real time for students before their very eyes in the virtual environment.

This built up a heightened sense of awareness and involvement (Wang 2005, 304) in

the learning environment with participants driven to offer their perspectives on issues

raised and to respond to challenges posed by their peers. Unlike offline learning

environments which may encourage prepared questions and answers prior to the

activity, the real-time enactive role play here demanded focus and concentration on

the onscreen questioning and immediate responses over a sustained period of time.

The learning environment provided for by SL also offered the opportunity for quick

review, follow-up and comparison of students’ individual moves in terms of

impactful questioning or otherwise from the logged transcripts of enactments.

Compared to the classroom context, this was a boon to teachers, given that students’questioning moves would be lost unless face-to-face classroom interactions were

video recorded for teachers to later play back for class input.

170 C.M.L. Ho

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

In this study, teachers were not actively involved in the process of virtual

dialoguing with students. There was a place for appropriate scaffolding and careful

structuring with modelling from instructors to promote effective questioning that

would enhance students’ overall virtual dialoguing. Increased awareness of the

linguistic realisation of the various questioning types would help students to craft

their questions in a more informed way for targeted effects to be conveyed. Explicit

instruction in strategising specific moves that built on each other in a stretch of

extended discourse to steer and maintain a line of discussion or to impact anindividual’s viewpoint on an issue would be invaluable. This reinforces observations

from earlier studies where researchers noted that synchronous online environments

may not necessarily lead to productive learning without appropriate structuring of

strategies (Schultz 2003). Further, there was room for widening students’ repertoires

of questioning strategies, including subtle and less obvious ways of influencing

participants’ thinking.

Conclusion

This study explored immersive virtual spaces as providing an experiential form of

learning for developing students’ questioning skills in the process of virtual

dialoguing with each other in SL in a dynamic and concrete way. The findings

showed that the more frequently occurring types were direct and rhetorical questions.

Questions that were less frequent required further work in thinking through and

strategising in the use of particular discourse features such as reformulation, internal

scaffolding, indirect types and mirror effect. The art of skilful questioning wasacknowledged to be critical for meaningful discussion as appropriate questions, at

the right place and at the right time, could open up the pathway for effective

argumentation to further sustain discussion and influence participants’ thinking.

This paper does not claim to be exhaustive in its investigation of students’

questioning types in an immersive virtual environment, given the relatively limited

data set involving a selected group of participants in a specific learning context.

What it has attempted to offer is an unpacking of the range in type and purpose of

questioning evident in novice student participants’ virtual enactments. More workcould be carried out in following up on specific individuals’ questioning types across

scenarios in order to track particular pathways taken among a larger group of

participants. This would be invaluable to determining what it is more engaged

students were doing which their less engaged peers were unable to. Further work

could also be carried out on students’ virtual enactments in different contexts to

determine other contributing factors which could affect the virtual dialoguing

process.

There is currently much interest in the pedagogical opportunities offered byvirtual worlds. This paper was a contribution to the field by exploring how such

environments could provide valuable opportunities for real-time virtual simulations

and role plays, which could stimulate particular types of questioning, and, through

these, dynamic processes of learning. The SL learning environment was an innovative

technologically mediated intervention for students to learn to develop specific

questioning skills to promote dialogic interaction through enactive role play in the

context of the GP. As we are reminded, ‘a good question-asking environment is a

fragile and delicate thing’ (Brain 1998, Section 15). The virtual world offeredstudents a concrete platform for the construction of questions as they played out

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

their roles in real time through the interplay of question�response sequences. Indeed,

Dillon (1988) notes that when students do not ask questions, both teaching and

learning suffer. After all, what is education if it is not to empower students with a

voice of their own, to build their own world, to develop their own space, indeed, to

shape and construct their very own YouTopia?

Acknowledgements

The work reported in this paper is supported by the Learning Sciences Laboratory, NationalInstitute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore under research GrantR59801118 and funded by the Ministry of Education, Singapore. The author is grateful for thecontribution of Amilyn Ong, teacher collaborators Natasha Tang, Baey Shi Chen and DanielYip and all students who were involved in the study. The Ministry of Education isacknowledged for the Lenovo Innovation Award (Merit) to the participating school forinnovative ICT-mediated pedagogy.

References

Alfke, D. 1974. Asking operational questions. Science and Children 11: 18�9.Bailey, F., and M. Moar. 2002. The Vertex project: Exploring the creative use of shared 3D

virtual worlds in the primary (K-12) classroom. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2002 (San Antonio)conference abstracts and applications, ed. S.N. Spencer, 52�4. New York: Springer-Verlag.http://www.vertex.mdx.ac.uk/PDFs/vertex.pdf (accessed May 1, 2008).

Baker, M.J. 1993. Dialogic learning: Negotiation and argumentation as mediating mechan-isms. Paper presented at the world conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education,August 23�27, in Edinburgh, UK.

Bakhtin, M.M. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin,TX: University of Texas Press.

Benford, S., C. Greenhalgh, T. Rodden, and J. Pycock. 2001. Collaborative virtualenvironments. Communications of the ACM 44, no. 7: 79�85.

Blanchette, J. 2001. Questions in the online learning environment. Journal of DistanceEducation 16, no. 2: 37�57.

Bloom, B.S., M.B. Englehart, E.H. Furst, W.H. Hill, and D.R. Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy ofeducational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitivedomain. New York: Longmans Green.

Blosser, P.E. 1973. Handbook of effective questioning techniques. Worthington, OH: EducationAssociates.

Brain, M. 1998. Emphasis on teaching: The importance of questions. Newsletter. http://www.bygpub.com/eot/eot2.htm (accessed March 2, 2009).

Brock, C.A. 1986. The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOLQuarterly 20, no. 1: 47�59.

Bronack, S., R. Riedl, and T. Tashner. 2006. Learning in the zone: A social constructivistframework for distance education in a 3-dimensional virtual world. Interactive LearningEnvironments 14, no. 3: 219�32.

Brown, J.S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Research 18, no. 1: 32�42.

Brown, J., G.A. Frishkoff, and M. Eskenazi. 2005. Automatic question generation forvocabulary assessment. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference onEmpirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP), October 6�8, inVancouver, ed. C. Brew, L-F. Chien, and K. Kirchhoff, 819�26. ACL Associationfor Computational Linguistics Anthology. A digital archive of research papers incomputational linguistics. http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/H/H05/ (accessed August 2, 2009).

Brown, M. 2009. Learning can be fun: Combining low-tech teaching methods with high-techelearning to promote critical reflection. Proceedings of the M-2009, International Councilfor Distance Education (ICDE) conference, June 7�10, in Maastricht, The Netherlands.

172 C.M.L. Ho

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bruner, J. 1966. Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of HarvardUniversity Press.

Bruner, J. 1968. Processes of cognitive growth: Infancy. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.Callahan, J., L. Clark, and R. Kellough. 1995. Teaching in the middle and secondary schools.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Carr, D. 1998. The art of asking questions in the teaching of science. School Science Review 79,

no. 289: 47�50.Chin, C. 2007. Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate

productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44, no. 6: 815�43.Coffin, C., C. Painter, and A. Hewings. 2006. Patterns of debate in tertiary level asynchronous

text-based conferencing. International Journal of Educational Research 43, nos. 7�8:464�80.

Collins, A. 1985. Teaching reasoning skills. In Thinking and learning skills: Current researchand open questions. 2 vols., ed. S. Chipman, J. Segal, and R. Glaser, 579�86. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Cox, G., T. Carr, and M. Hall. 2004. Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in twoblended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, no. 3: 183�93.

Cruickshank, D.R., D.L. Bainer, and K.K. Metcalf. 1995. The act of teaching. New York:McGraw-Hill.

David, O.F. 2007. Teachers’ questioning behavior and ESL classroom interaction pattern.Humanity and Social Sciences Journal 2, no. 2: 127�31.

Dede, C. 1995. The evolution of constructivist learning environments: Immersion indistributed virtual worlds. Educational Technology 35, no. 5: 46�52.

Department for Children, Schools and Families, UK. 1997�2009. Case study: Talk, genderand teachers’ questioning in English lessons. ITT Key Stage 3 resources, Crown. http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/keystage3/ (accessed August 2, 2009).

Dick, B. 2000. Data-driven action research. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/datadriv.html (accessed April 24, 2009).

Dillon, J.T. 1988. Questioning and teaching: A manual of practice. New York: Teachers CollegeColumbia University.

Edwards, P., E. Dominguez, and M. Rico. 2008. A second look at Second Life: Virtual role-play as a motivational factor in higher education. In Proceedings of Society for InformationTechnology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008, ed. K. McFerrin, R.Weber, R. Carlsen, and D.A. Willis, 2566�71. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Elder, L., and R. Paul. 1998. Critical thinking: Developing intellectual traits. Journal ofDevelopmental Education 21, no. 3: 34�5.

Elstgeest, J. 1985. The right question at the right time. In Primary science: Taking the plunge,ed. W. Harlen, 36�46. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Frazee, B., and R.A. Rudnitski. 1995. Integrated teaching methods. Albany, NY: Delmar.Gee, J.P. 2000. The new literacy studies and the social turn. In Situated literacies: Reading and

writing in context, ed. D. Barton, M. Hamilton, and R. Ivanic, 180�96. London:Routledge.

Gee, J.P. 2005. Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology totoday’s schools. In Beyond communities of practice: Language, power, and social context, ed.D. Barton and K. Tusting, 214�32. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Glaser, B.G., and A.L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies forqualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Grabowski, B.L. 1996. Generative learning: Past, present, and future. In Handbook of researchfor educational communications and technology, ed. D.H. Jonassen, 897�913. New York:Simon and Schuster Macmillan.

Graesser, A.C., and N.K. Person. 1994. Question asking during tutoring. AmericanEducational Research Journal 31, no. 1: 104�37.

Ho, C. 2006. Introduction. In Teaching the general paper: Strategies that work, ed. C. Ho, P.Teo, and M.Y. Tay, 1�4. Singapore: Pearson Longman.

Ho, C. 2007. Globalization in the language classroom: The case of the Waga Waga Islands.Modern English Teacher 16, no. 3: 29�35.

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ho, M.L.C. (2011, in press). Unpacking strong versus weak presence in Second Life. In Virtualimmersive and 3D learning spaces: Emerging technologies and trends, ed. H.J. Shalin.Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Ho, M.L.C., and M.H.A. Ong. 2009. Towards evaluative meaning-making through enactiverole play: The case of pre-tertiary students in Second Life. Journal of Applied Linguistics 4,no. 2: 171�94.

Ho, M.L.C., M.H.A. Ong, and Y.S. Chee. 2009. Exploring gender play in the Second Lifevirtual world. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on English in Southeast Asia,Englishes & Literatures-in-English in a Globalized World, ed. L.J. Zhang, R. Rubdy, andL. Alsagoff, 293�313. Singapore: English Language and Literature Academic Group,National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.

Ho, M.L.C., N.A. Rappa, and Y.S. Chee. 2009. Designing and implementing virtual enactiverole-play and structured argumentation: Promises and pitfalls. Computer AssistedLanguage Learning 22, no. 5: 323�50.

Hobbs, M., E. Brown, and M. Gordon. 2006. Using a virtual world for transferable skills ingaming education. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and ComputerSciences 5, no. 3: 42�55.

Hogan, K., and M. Pressley. 1997. Scaffolding student learning. Cambridge, MA: BrooklineBooks.

Hunkins, F. 1995. Teaching thinking through effective questioning. Norwood, MA: ChristopherGordon.

Hussin, H. 2006. Dimensions of questioning: A qualitative study of current classroom practicein Malaysia. TESL-EJ 10, no. 2. http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESl-EJ/ej38/a3.html(accessed July 12, 2009).

Hyland, K. 2002. What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text 22, no. 4: 259�557.Im, Y., and O. Lee. 2004. Pedagogical implications of online discussion for preservice teacher

training. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 36, no. 2: 155�70.Jonassen, D. 1991. Evaluating constructivist learning. Educational Technology 31, no. 9:

28�32.Jonassen, D. 1994. Thinking technology. Educational Technology 34, no. 4: 34�7.Kauchak, D.P., and P.D. Eggen. 1998. Learning and teaching: Research-based methods. Boston,

MA: Allyn and Bacon.Knowlton, D.S., and H.M. Knowlton. 2001. The context and content of online discussions:

Making cyber-discussion viable for the secondary school curriculum. American SecondaryEducation 29, no. 4: 38�52.

Koufetta-Menicou, C., and J. Scaife. 2000. Teachers’ questions: Types and significance inscience education. School Science Review 81, no. 296: 79�84.

Lankshear, C., and C. Bigum. 1999. Literacies and new technologies in school settings.Pedagogy, Culture and Society 7, no. 3: 445�65.

Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Leary, M.R., and R.M. Kowalski. 1997. Social anxiety. New York: Guilford Press.Lehnert, W.G. 1978. The process of question-answering. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Linden Research Inc. 2008. Second Life. http://secondlife.com/ (accessed January 2, 2006).Long, M.H., and C.J. Sato. 1983. Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions

of teachers’ questions. In Classroom-oriented research on second language acquisition, ed.H. Helinger and M. Long, 268�85. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Lynch, T. 1991. Questioning roles in the classroom. ELT Journal 45, no. 3: 201�10.McLellan, H. 1996. Virtual realities. In Handbook of research for educational communications

and technology, ed. D.H. Jonassen, 457�87. New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan.Ministry of Education (MOE) and University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate

(UCLES). 2005. General paper 8005 GCE ‘AO’ level (2005) examination syllabus. http://www.seab.gov.sg/GCE%20A/GCE%20A.htm (accessed March 14, 2005).

Moore, K.D. 1995. Classroom teaching skills. New York: McGraw-Hill.Morgan, W., and G. Beaumont. 2003. A dialogic approach to argumentation: Using a chat

room to develop early adolescent students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Adolescentand Adult Literacy 47, no. 2: 146�57.

174 C.M.L. Ho

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Muijs, D., and D. Reynolds. 2001. Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. London: PaulChapman.

Nielsen, R.D., J. Buckingham, G. Knoll, B. Marsh, and L. Palsen. 2008. A taxonomy ofquestions for question generation. In Proceedings of the workshop on the questiongeneration shared task and evaluation challenge, September 25�26, in Arlington, Virginia,ed. V. Rus and A. Graesser, 4�6. Memphis: Institute for Intelligent Systems, University ofMemphis. http://www.questiongeneration.org/ (accessed August 2, 2009).

Ornstein, A.C. 1995. Strategies for effective teaching. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.Pfaffenberger, B. 2001. Webster’s new world computer dictionary. New York: Hungry Minds.Pica, T., R. Young, and C. Doughty. 1987. The impact of interaction on comprehension.

TESOL Quarterly 21, no. 4: 737�58.Pilkington, R. 2004. Developing discussion for learning. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning 20, no. 3: 161�4.Robertson, J., and J. Good. 2003. Using a collaborative virtual role-play environment to foster

characterization in stories. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 14, no. 1: 5�29.Rus, V., Z. Cai, and A.C. Graesser. 2007. Experiments on generating questions about facts. In

Proceedings of 8th international conference on computational linguistics and intelligent textprocessing (CICLing 2007), February, in Mexico City, Mexico, ed. A. Gelbukh, 444�55.Berlin: Springer.

Schultz, R.A. 2003. The effectiveness of online synchronous discussion. In Proceedingsof the informing science and information technology joint education conference, June24�27, in Finland, ed. A. Gelbukh, 547�58. Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Institute.http://proceedings.informingscience.org/IS2003Proceedings/docs/077Schul.pdf (accessedFebruary 2, 2008).

Shomoossi, N. 2004. The effect of teachers’ questioning behavior on EFL classroominteraction: A classroom research study. The Reading Matrix 4, no. 2: 96�104.

Sinclair, J.McH., and M.R. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse: The Englishused by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

Singapore Department of Statistics. 2005. General household survey 2005 statistical release 1 �socio-demographic and economic characteristics. Singapore: Singapore Department ofStatistics.

Singhal, S., and M. Zyda. 1999. Networked virtual environments: Design and implementation.Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

The Straits Times. 2009. Virtual worlds used to teach real life to kids. May 21.Thomas, D., and J.S. Brown. 2009. Why virtual worlds can matter. International Journal of

Media and Learning 1, no. 1: 1�20.Tindale, C.W. 1999. Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.Varela, F., E. Thompson, and E. Rosch. 1991. The embodied mind: Cognitive science and

human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Walton, D.N. 1998. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, ON:

University of Toronto Press.Wang, C-H. 2005. Questioning skills facilitate online synchronous discussions. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning 21, no. 4: 303�13.Webster, R., and F. Sudweeks. 2006. Enabling effective collaborative learning in networked

virtual environments. In Current developments in technology-assisted education, ed.A. Mendez-Vilas, A. Solano Martın, J.A. Mesa Gonzalez, and J. Mesa Gonzalez, 1437�40. Badajoz, Spain: FORMATEX.

Wells, G. 1999. Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, R. 1993. The use of computer-mediated communication in distance education: Progress,problems and trends. In Teleteaching: Proceedings of the IFIP TC3 third teleteachingconference. Teleteaching 93, Trondheim, Norway, ed. G. Davies and B. Samways, 20�5.IFIP Transactions A-29. North-Holland: Elsevier Science.

Wilson, B.B., and K.M. Myers. 1999. Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context.In Theoretical foundations of learning environments, ed. D. Jonassen and S. Land, 57�88.

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. http://ceo.cudenver.edu/_brent_wilson/SitCog.html(accessed November 9, 2002).

Wu, S.M. 2006. Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy ofproblematization in students’ argumentation. RELC Journal 37, no. 3: 329�53.

Wu, S.M., and D. Allison. 2005. Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments: Aspects ofappraisal in assigned English language essays. Journal of Applied Linguistics 2, no. 1:105�27.

Yamashiro, K.A. 2003. Role-playing a legend in virtual reality. Academic Exchange Quarterly7, no. 2: 257�61. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Role-playing+a+legend+in+virtual+reality-a0107489418 (accessed July 9, 2009).

Appendix 1. Sample role card

Glow international � a multi-national corporation (MNC)You aim to diversify your markets in the next 5�10 years. You seek to maximise profits fromyour already successful investment in the developed world and aim to carve out niche areas ina few identified markets in Asia.

You walk the tight rope in seeking to balance expansion in the developed world and at thesame time addressing the needs of developing countries such as WWI. To this end, you strive,at the same time, to encourage the European and American governments to phase out or atleast reduce the total amount of export subsidies. You believe that this will address the currentdistortions in world agricultural markets, given that the bulk of exports from developingcountries such as WWI are agricultural products. You also aim to be seen to support theefforts of WWI and other developing countries to contribute meaningfully to sustainedeconomic development, and the fight against hunger and poverty. This is particularly criticalgiven the long-term goals of your company, Glow International, to make inroads into themarkets of countries such as WWI.

You have quietly agreed to provide funding to the NGO United People’s Alliance providedthey support your aim of removing Waga Waga Island’s agricultural trade barriers (Ho 2007, 32).

176 C.M.L. Ho

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:07

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14