Potential and pitfalls of speechbased CMC Eurocall 2005

Potential and pitfalls of speech-based CMC Eurocall 2005 Cracow Sake Jager University of Groningen

Introduction l l Potential of speech-based CMC for language learning Project in 3 Dutch HE institutions involving use of Horizon Wimba speech tools Analysis of applications developed, consultation teachers, questionnaire (not yet completed) Part of Ph. D research on implementation of CALL in ‘blended’ learning environment

Modes of interaction (Garrison and Anderson) Student-student Student-content Student-teacher Deep and meaningful learning Teacher Content Teacher-content Content-content Teacher-teacher From: Garrison, D. R. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21 st century: A framework for research and practice, p. 43. London: Routledge. Falmer.

Garrison and Anderson (cont’d) l l l Six forms of interaction: teacher-student-student, student-content, teacher-teacher, content-content. Interaction: bi-directional, applicable to any type of learning Interaction should contribute to: Cognitive presence, social presence, teaching presence

Language learning setting l l University of Groningen, University of Tilburg, Hanze University Groningen Use of computers together with classroom-based learning and teaching: ‘blended’ language learning environment VLE: Blackboard Technology provides extra flexibility, increases the range of choices for teaching and learning (cf. Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible Learning in a Digital World. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Falmer).

Horizon Wimba l l l Voice email: Recorded email messages to one or more recipients. Written text possible. Voiceboard: Asynchronous discussion boards for spoken messages. New threads for new topics. Access restriction possible. Voice conferences: Synchronous chatting based on speech; Text support possible; one person at a time; virtual hand-raising mechanism. Voice announcements: Announcements in speech rather than writing. Voice authoring: Pre-recorded speech to describe objects, processes, etc.

Wimba Pilot l l l Provide more speech in text-based VLE (enhance ‘language experience’) Announcements and instructions in speech CMC-based language learning tasks (building on examples from text-based CMC, cf. Warschauer and Kern (2000)) Primarily intended for teacher-student and student interaction (Garrison and Anderson) Uses different than expected Teachers keen on using Wimba

Examples Wimba applications l l l Hanze University: International Business and Languages, Spanish: l Voiceboards l Students presentations, Group reports, Discussion, Interviews l Open and closed activities University of Groningen: Dept of German, Oral proficiency l Voiceboards l Summaries of presentations in class l Teacher feedback University of Groningen: Dept of English, Oral proficiency l Voiceboards l Reading out text for pronunciation l Referral to web sites where pronunciation of words and phrases can be found

Preliminary findings l Primarily voiceboards l l Not many applications for discussion l l l Unidirectional communication; of students to teacher or of students to peers. Communication often prepared, scripted by teachers or students Range from pronunciation exercises to semi-open tasks. Stimulus-response type exercises, though not strictly behavouristic Different notion of distance l l l Recordings of single contributions Alternating speakers sharing a microphone in a singel thread Devices for storing and playback of recorded speech. Away from class Students not removed from each other (even NS on campus) Organisational and logistical advantages l l l Not always teaching innovation Time-saving for teachers Ease of recording

Types of interaction used l l Student-teacher and student-student interaction to elicit feedback Interaction offline, recorded and submitted online Student-content interaction by individual students with content prepared in advance by teachers Focus on providing cognitive presence, less on social presence, no use for teaching presence (no announcements)

Conclusion l l Social presence established in the classroom Negotiation of meaning not much in evidence online; likely to have occurred in offline (classroom or on campus) Uses of speech-based CMC are different in classroom-based vs distance-based environment Qualitative differences between sound and written text also important: l Status spoken vs written announcements l Text can be scanned and ignored at will; sound is linear, requires explicit opening and listening to l Speech-based CMC in classroom causes interference, delays in transmission, etc. (no problem with text-based CMC)

Further information l l Contact: s. jager@rug. nl, +31 50 363 59 21 References: l l l Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible Learning in a Digital World. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Falmer. Garrison, D. R. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21 st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge. Falmer. Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.