Patterns of Interaction Between Moderators and Learners during Synchronous Oral Discussions Online
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v30i0.66-91Keywords:
French, online, synchronous, CMC, virtual worlds, interactionAbstract
This paper describes research with French university graduate student moderators in a Master’s program on using technology to teach French as a foreign language and advanced undergraduate students learning French at an American university who used Second Life software and Moodle to carry out oral tasks synchronously. For fall 2011, the researchers designed five tasks (étapes) that paralleled the undergraduates’ course curriculum. Transcripts of two of the six groups of moderators and learners show that the unintended different styles of moderator behaviors influenced learner interactions with each other and with the moderators. The authors show that students were less able to engage with each other independently when faced with more rigid questioning behaviors by the moderators.
References
Audras, I., & Chanier, T. (2008). Observation de la construction d’une compétence inter-culturelle dans des groupes exolingues en ligne. Alsic, 11(1), 175-204.
Belz, J. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning and Technology, 6(1), 60-81.
Brown, B., & Bell, M. (2004). CSCW at play: ‘There’ as a collaborative virtual environ-ment. In CSCW ‘04 Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on computer sup-ported cooperative work (pp. 350-359). Chicago, Illinois.
Corder, D., & U, A. (2010). Integrating Second Life to enhance global intercultural col-laborative projects. ACM Inroads magazine, 1(3), 43-50.
Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtualenvironments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10-32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x.
Dickey, M. D. (2005). Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: Two case studies of Active Worlds as a medium for distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 439-451.
Diehl, W., & Prins, E. (2008). Unintended outcomes in Second Life: Intercultural literacy and cultural identity in a virtual world. Language and Intercultural Communica-tion, 8(2), 101-118.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A. & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189- 211). Oxford: Elsevier.
Feng, J., & Song, L. (2011). Teaching and learning in Second Life: A case study. In G. Vicenti & J. Braman (Eds.), Multi-user virtual environments for the classroom: Practicalapproaches to teaching in virtual worlds (pp. 206-218). Hershey, PA: Informa-tion Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-545-2.ch014
Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring stu-dents› behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 409-442. doi:10.1080/09588220701746013.
Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura Project. Language Learning and Technol-ogy, 5(1), 55-102.
Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and perfor-mance. Small Group Research, 26(4), 497-520. doi: 10.1177/1046496495264003.
Gronstedt, A. (2007, August). Second Life produces real training results: The 3-D web world is slowly becoming part of the training industry. Training and Develop-ment, 44-49.
Henderson, M., Huang, H., Grant, S. & Henderson, L. (2009). Language acquisition in Second Life: improving self-efficacy beliefs. In Proceedings Ascilite, Auckland 2009, 464-474.
Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtualcommunities in the service of learning (pp. 338-376). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive vir-tual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33-55. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x.
Howell-Richardson, C., & Mellar, H. (1996). A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within computer mediated communication courses. Instructional Science, 24(1), 47-69. doi:10.1007/BF00156003.
Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (Eds.) (2006). Teacher education in CALL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A. (2001) Effects of CMC on student participation patterns in a foreign language learning environment. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Seattle, Washington (pp. 263-264). ACM Press. Available at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/papers/conference/hudson-bruckman-chi01.pdf
Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., Mayrath, M., & Trivedi, A. (2009). Virtual world teaching, ex-periential learning, and assessment: An interdisciplinary communication course in Second Life. Computers & Education, 53, 169–182.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1995). Cooperative learning and indi-vidual student achievement in secondary schools. In J. E. Pedersen & A. D. Digby (Eds.), Secondary Schools and Cooperative Learning (pp. 3-54). New York: Garland.
Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, M. (2009). How can 3D virtual worlds be used to support collaborative learning? An analysis of cases from the literature. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 5(1), 149-158. http://je-lks.maieutiche.economia.unitn.it/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/viewFile/300/282.
Livingstone, D., & Kemp, J. (2006). Massively multi-learner: Recent advances in 3D so-cial environments. Computing and Information Systems Journal, 10(2), n.p.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Maywah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. (2001). ELAN [software]. Retrieved from http://www.lat-mpi.eu/tools/elan/
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Molka-Danielsen, J., Richardson, D., Deutschmann, D., Carter, B., (2007). Teaching lan-guages in a virtual world. Paper presented at the NOKOBIT Conference, Oslo. Available at http://home.himolde.no/~molka/Teaching-Languages-post-Noko-bit2007.pdf
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relationship between group cohesiveness and perfor-mance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210-227.
Musumei, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communi-cation at cross-purposes. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 286-325.
Paiva, V. L. M. O. (1999). CALL and online journals. In R. Debski & M. Levy (Eds.), WorldCALL: Themes for the new millennium (pp. 249-265). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 119-140.
Peachey, A., Gillen, J., Livingstone, D., & Smith-Robbins, S. (2010). Researching learning in virtual worlds. London: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-047-2.
Price, S., & Rogers, Y. (2004). Let’s get physical: The learning benefits of interacting in digitally augmented physical spaces. Computers and Education, 43, 137-151.
Roed, J. (2003) Language learner behaviour in a virtual environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(2), 155-172.
Schroeder, R. (2011). Being there together. Oxford University Press
Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2010). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language in-struction. Boston: Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. Brit-ish Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 414–426. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00952.x.
