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

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

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

Garrison and Anderson (cont’d) 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

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).

Horizon Wimba Voice Recorded 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 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

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

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

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)

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)

Further information Contact: 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.