Potential and pitfalls of speechbased CMC

1
Potential and pitfalls of speech-based CMC

• Eurocall 2005 Cracow
• Sake Jager
• University of Groningen

2
Introduction

• 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 PhD research on implementation of CALL in
  blended learning environment

3
Modes of interaction (Garrison and Anderson)
From Garrison, D. R. Anderson, T. (2003).
E-learning in the 21st century A framework for
research and practice, p. 43. London
RoutledgeFalmer.
4
Garrison and Anderson (contd)

• Six forms of interaction teacher-student
  student-student, student-content,
  teacher-content, teacher-teacher,
  content-content.
• Interaction bi-directional, applicable to any
  type of learning
• Interaction should contribute to Cognitive
  presence, social presence, teaching presence

5
Language learning setting

• 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
  RoutledgeFalmer).

6
Horizon Wimba

• 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.

7
Wimba Pilot

• 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-student interaction (Garrison and
  Anderson)
• Uses different than expected
• Teachers keen on using Wimba

8
Examples Wimba applications

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

9
Preliminary findings

• Primarily voiceboards
• Recordings of single contributions
• Alternating speakers sharing a microphone in a
  singel thread
• Devices for storing and playback of recorded
  speech.
• Not many applications for discussion
• 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
• Away from class
• Students not removed from each other (even NS on
  campus)
• Organisational and logistical advantages
• Not always teaching innovation
• Time-saving for teachers
• Ease of recording

10
Types of interaction used

• 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)

11
Conclusion

• 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
• Status spoken vs written announcements
• Text can be scanned and ignored at will sound is
  linear, requires explicit opening and listening
  to
• Speech-based CMC in classroom causes
  interference, delays in transmission, etc. (no
  problem with text-based CMC)

12
Further information

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