Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:19:24.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences that make the difference: a study of functionalities in synchronous CMC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2010

Marie-Madeleine Kenning
Marie-Madeleine Kenning*
Affiliation:
School of Language, Linguistics and Translation Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper has a dual aim: to situate functionalities among the complex of factors that help shape online interactions and to explore the heterogeneity of audio conferencing and its implications. Following a critical discursive synthesis of the treatment of variables in the literature, attention focuses on the distinctive and diverse characteristics of synchronous audio environments. The existence of a synchronous-asynchronous dichotomy is questioned and the effects of a number of differences are highlighted. As a further illustration, the paper next undertakes a comparison of Lyceum and Wimba Voice Direct. The main features of the two environments are introduced and a detailed analysis of their text and voice chat facilities is carried out. In the last section the benefits of text-based CMC are revisited through the lens of voice chat technology. It is concluded that the benefits of CMC appear to have been overstated and that no general claims can be made about voice CMC, but that collectively, well documented studies could provide a useful source of information on the level of contingency of particular findings.

Keywords

Audio conferencingCMCfunctionalitylanguage learning environmentsvariablesvoice chat
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 3 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, N. (2007) Reducing foreign language apprehension with computer-mediated communication: a preliminary study. System, 35(4): 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bax, S. (2003) CALL – past, present and future. System, 31(1): 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1998) Conversations in slow motion: computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2): 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2002) Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1): 60–81.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000) Computer mediated communication: a window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1): 120–136.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2005) Bimodal CMC: the glue of language learning at a distance. CALICO Journal, 22(3): 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckingham Shum, S., Marshall, S., Brier, J.Evans, T. (2001) Lyceum: Internet Voice Groupware for Distance Learning. In: Proceedings of Euro-CSCL 2001: 1st European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Maastricht, The Netherlands http://www.ll.unimaas.nl/euro-cscl/Papers/24.pdfGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. M. (1994) Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1): 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciekanski, M.Chanier, T. (2008) Developing online multimodal verbal communication to enhance the writing process in an audio-graphic conferencing environment. ReCALL, 20(2): 162–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conole, G.Dyke, M. (2004) What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J, 12(2): 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. (2001) Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egbert, J. L. (2005) Conducting research on CALL. In: Egbert, J.L. and Petrie, G.M. (eds.), CALL research perspectives. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3–8.Google Scholar
Erben, T. (1999) Constructing learning in a virtual immersion bath: LOTE teacher education through audiographics. In: Debski, R. and Levy, M. (eds.), WORLDCALL: global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger, 229–248.Google Scholar
Felix, U. (2008) The unreasonable effectiveness of CALL: what have we learned in two decades of research? ReCALL, 20(2): 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-García, M.Martínez Arbelaiz, A. (2003) Learners’ interactions: a comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversation. ReCALL, 15(1): 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaver, W. W. (1991) Technology affordances. In: Proceedings of the CHI 1991 Conference. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, 79–84.Google Scholar
Hampel, R. (2003) Theoretical perspectives and new practices in audio-graphic conferencing for language learning. ReCALL, 15(1): 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampel, R. (2006) Rethinking task design for the digital age: a framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1): 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampel, R., Felix, U., Hauck, M.Coleman, J. (2005) Complexities of learning and teaching languages in a real-time audiographic environment. German as a Foreign Language, 3, http://www.gfl-journal.de/3-2005/hampel_felix_hauck_coleman.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hampel, R.Hauck, M. (2006) Computer-mediated language learning: making meaning in multimodal virtual learning spaces. JALT CALL Journal, 12(2): 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, X., Hauger, D., Nye, G.Smith, P. (2005) The use and effectiveness of synchronous audiographic conferencing in modern language teaching and learning (online language tuition): a systematic review of available research. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
Hauck, M. (2007) Critical success factors in a TRIDEM exchange. ReCALL, 19(2): 202–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauck, M.Hurd, S. (2005) Exploring the link between language anxiety and learner self-management in open language learning contexts. European Journal of Open Distance and E-Learning, http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2005/Mirjam_Hauck.htmGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, P. (2005) A review of subject characteristics in CALL research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(5): 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huh, K.Hu, W.-C. (2005) Criteria for Effective CALL Research. In: Egbert, J.L. and Petrie, G.M. (eds.), CALL Research Perspectives. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 9–21.Google Scholar
Jepson, K. (2005) Conversations – and negotiated interaction – in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning and Technology, 9(3): 79–98.Google Scholar
Kenning, M.-M. (2007) ICT and language learning: from print to the mobile phone. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R. G. (1995) Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4): 457–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R., Ware, P.Warschauer, M. (2004) Crossing frontiers: new directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24: 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitade, K. (2000) L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2): 146–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. (2003) Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G.Van Leeuwen, T. (2001) Multimodal discourse. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Lai, C.Zhao, Y. (2006) Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10(3): 102–120.Google Scholar
Lamy, M.-N. (2004) Oral conversations online: redefining oral competence in synchronous environments. ReCALL, 16(2): 520–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamy, M.-N.Hampel, R. (2007) Online communication in language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L. (2004) Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning and Technology, 8(1): 83–100.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, A., (ed.) (2003) Reusing online resources: a sustainable approach to e-learning. London: Kogan Page.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L.Lee, S. (2003) A look at the research on computer based technology use in second language learning: a review of the literature from 1990–2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3): 250–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Dowd, R.Ritter, M. (2006) Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO, 23(3): 623–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, W. J. (1982) Orality and literacy: the technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (1997) Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning and Technology, 1(1): 82–93.Google Scholar
Pea, R. D. (1993) Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In: Salomon, G. (ed.), Distributed cognitions – psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 47–87.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000) Negotiation in cyberspace: the role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In: Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (eds.), Network-based language teaching: concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponterotto, J. G. (2006) Brief notes on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept ‘thick description’. The Qualitative Report, 11(3): 538–549. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR11-3/ponterotto.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2007) Changing tutor roles in online tutorial support for open distance learning through audio-graphic SCMC. The JALT CALL Journal, 3(1–2): 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, R. (2006) A comparison of chatroom productivity: in-class versus out-of-class. CALICO Journal, 24(1): 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S. (2004) Cyberdiscursive tug-of-war: learner repositioning in a multimodal CMC environment. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19(2): 55–72.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: an expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87(1): 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2004) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3): 365–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetter, A. (2004) Les spécificités du tutorat à distance à l’ Open university: enseigner les langues avec Lyceum. ALSIC, 7: 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetter, A.Chanier, T. (2006) Supporting oral production for professional purposes in synchronous communication with heterogeneous learners. ReCALL, 18(1): 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y. (2004) Distance language learning: interactivity and fourth-generation Internet-based videoconferencing. CALICO Journal, 21(2): 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996) Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2/3): 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimba tools: http://www.wimba.com/support/docs/WVTM5_UserGuide.pdfGoogle Scholar
Yates, S. J. (2001) Gender, language and CMC for education. Learning and Instruction, 11: 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar