Reading Prompt #8

*Levy – Ch. 4 Computer Mediated Communication
*BLACKBOARD – Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback and the Development of L2 Grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120.

What are some of the technologies used for CMC? What are some of the promising features of CMC for language learning. Comment on any of your uses of these technologies, in particular if you have used any of them for language learning or practice purposes. Finally, comment on the findings of Dr. Sauro's research, and what the implications may be for future practice.

Levy lists the following types of CMC: email/SMS, chat, audio/video conferencing, mailing lists and bulletin board systems (BBS), and MOOs, virtual environments in which participants can interact with each other and the environment. These different technologies allow for synchronous or asynchronous communication and are varied in their range of interaction. This versatility makes CMC conducive to language learning.

Email, an asynchronous communication tool, is one of the most common means to connect learners with authentic language and the target culture. An advantage of the asynchronous nature of email is that it provides learners with more time to process input as well as formulate their own language output. This may be an advantage to low-proficiency students, but equally helpful to advanced learners. Also, unlike synchronous forms of CMC, learners don’t have to be online at the same time. This makes it easier for students communicating across time zones.

An advantage to synchronous communication, such as text-chat, is that it somewhat resembles face-to-face communication. It doesn’t have the prolonged time delay of email, but it does allow for additional processing time over spoken conversation in that turn-taking is slower. Another key difference is that unlike a face-to-face conversation, which unfolds in real-time, text-chat provides learners with complete sentences at one time. The visual record kept in the chat window also provides additional support to learners. Coincidentally, Dr. Sauro’s class this week was online, using the Virtual Classroom chat feature on Blackboard. I’ve never used any of the CMC technologies in my own language learning and it had been a long time since using chat, so it was interesting. I think this experience has given me a better understanding of the benefits and drawbacks in SCMC, particularly the time delay in turn-taking. My chat discussion was with four classmates and the group dynamics made the conversation feel disjointed. A one-on-one chat would probably be more constructive and diminish some of the confusion.

Research in the field of SLA cites advantages of corrective feedback in face-to-face conversations. However, outcome-based studies for corrective feedback in CMC were limited. Dr. Sauro compared two types of corrective feedback (recasts and metalinguistic feedback) in a text-chat context to determine if one would be more effective in immediate or sustained gains in L2 target form. This study demonstrated no significant differences between feedback groups, but both types of feedback did appear helpful to learners as each group showed greater gains with repeated items than the control. This study also revealed some helpful insights to factors that may have influenced the effectiveness and limitations of recasts and metalinguistic feedback in SCMC. This knowledge will undoubtedly assist future research and affect pedagogical practice.