Making IT have meaning beyond novelty
Malcolm H Field
Mirai University, Hokkaido, Japan
marukomu@fun.ac.jp
Abstract
Much has been said about the use of ICT in language education, but the reality in Japan is
that most students’ participation wanes over time. This paper outlines a case study that
sought to examine a hypothesis, which suggested that certain conditions would favour
language transference from an ICT-based learning event to a face-to-face interaction. The
results were promising and there was evidence to show that validity and reliability variables
may be important in such transference.
Introduction
The interest of ICT in language education has moved from marginally intelligent (Isemonger, 2003)
simple-response CD-ROMs, Net-based systems, pronunciation tutors, [slightly] interactive HTML quizzes, to
cross-cultural real-time face-to-face discussions with target language (TL) speakers in video-conferencing; and
in more recent times, data-base systems that are user specific, adapting to the needs of individual learners
(defined by Isemonger as appropriately intelligent).
ICT is not the saviour for all Japanese educational woes, but it also is not an isolated phenomenon outside
education. Simply placing ICT into the curriculum does not equate to providing quality education: a computer in
every classroom is an ideal unrelated to education (Blair, 1996, Bannan-Ritland, Harvey and Milheim, 1998,
Selwyn, 1999, Field, 2002b) just as merely providing a pencil or building a library will not bring about learning
unless the student is shown (and encouraged) how it can do so. The likely scenario will be a continued tendency
to utilize previously learned methods and learning repertoire (Warschauer & Meskill, 2000, Field, 1999).
Although ICT can provide opportunities for empowerment, and life-long learning, the development and
pedagogical practice may have the reverse affect (Jungck, 1987) doing little to advance student critical enquiry,
analytical skills, understanding of learning or cross-cultural appreciation (Sakamoto, 1992, Van Dusen, 1997,
Warschauer, 1999, Field, 2003).
ICT-based education should be about synthesizing and manipulating
knowledge, skills and information: preparing effective and efficient critical learners for the 21st century. Using
ICT is about being an active member of a local and global community (Field, ibid.). ICT-based language
education is more than ‘grammar skills and drills’: it is about developing deeper cognitive skills not only in the
TL, but of the TL culture/s - providing new opportunities for students to extend everyday experience with other
learners in real-world discourse – and for the development of academic skills, such as critical inquiry, revision,
1
the consideration of alternative learning strategies, presentation (oral, textual and pictorial) skills, amongst others.
Whether all of these can be sufficiently addressed in any one course is difficult to ascertain.
The average Japanese student completes compulsory language units, which they generally find boring. Many do
not approach language learning with a purpose of communication and are not motivated, preferring to rote learn
material for satisfactory results on tests. Recent theoretical and pedagogical trends in second language
acquisition (SLA)1 favour sociocultural pedagogy over drilling, testing, and language appreciation activities that
once dominated. Technology is most beneficial when it provides opportunities that are not available in oral
communicative activities (Kasper, 1999). ICT can enable students to engage in new social ways; however, the
opportunity to manipulate language alone may not result in communicative proficiency in other events.
Student Use and Understanding
Field (2002b) outlined (a study of first year university students’ interaction in ICT-based SLA classes) that ‘there
was clear evidence of a gulf between student expectations about the CALL [Computer Assisted Language
Learning] class and its curriculum, pedagogy and objectives’ (p.7). He argued that a common theme expressed
by the students was the computer nature, as opposed to the language nature, of the CALL classes. He found that
students were confused about the purpose of the CALL class, believing it was a computer skills course, and
many wanted more speaking components built into the course. The students’ overall comments at the beginning
of the year were favourable to using ICT. During the semester, attitudes to ICT/ CALL remained unchanged.
Students that had a positive disposition toward ICT/CALL felt a degree of freedom through
computer-mediated-communication, which was primarily attributed to a sense of release from the Japanese
cultural (C1) obligations imposed on speech acts (ambiguity, honorific language, deferring to a senior, not
expressing
real
opinions,
etc).
Students
that
expressed
negativity
voiced
concern
about
the
‘computer-v-language’ dilemma. A small trend away from favouring the use of ICT was evident in attitudes at
the end of the study, one semester into the students’ second academic year: 36% favoured CALL, 55% favoured
no-CALL, the balance undecided or favoured both. Their preference was influenced by attitudes to the computer.
Although much can be concluded from this study, one interpretation is indicative of trends: the novelty value.
Often, teachers and students get ‘seduced by the bells and whistles, the power of technology’ (Murray, 1998),
which in itself, highlights the misunderstanding of ICT-based education. Education is becoming akin to a child
with a new toy: at first the child is totally absorbed and enjoys a honeymoon period. After an indefinite time, the
toy is neglected: students drift into previously learned patterns and criticisms about the efficiency and
effectiveness of educational processes are revived, including non-attendance and product-focused outcomes.
Field (2002) hypothesised that the degree and speed of any influence from an ICT-based interaction may be
related to, the ‘reliability’ and ‘validity’ students attribute to the event. He stated that ‘the degree of transference
1
The terms Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and Foreign Language Learning (FLL) are used synonymously for the
purpose of this discussion.
2
from ICT-based communication to a face-to-face event may depend on the extent the user attributes reliability
and validity to the ICT event’ (p.931). In other words, the more the learner perceives that the ICT-based text and
interaction is reliable and has some validity to their understanding and learning, the more the process will
influence language use in a face-to-face event (transference). Reliability refers, simply, to students believing that
the ICT-text is true and important for their learning; Validity refers to the ICT-text being believable and within a
student’s learning and understanding; that is, the language and concepts are not too hard or too easy, and students
are able to internalize the information. The author suspected that providing opportunities to use the TL in ICT
events that learners deemed reliable and valid to their learning would improve the waning of interest element.
In Field’s study, students were equally having negative and positive experiences encoding ICT-based text;
however, up to two-thirds were shown to have a negative experience when decoding text. The negative
experience was considered a lack of confidence in the reliability and validity of the ICT-text. Decoding the text
is argued to be influenced by various filters including; anonymity, communicating in a non face-to-face situation,
and the inability to trust the ‘other’ in the ICT communicative act. Therefore, it was hypothesized that when
encoding or decoding filters are negative, reliability and validity of the text is perceived as low. Reciprocally,
when encoding or decoding filters are positive, reliability and validity of the text will be perceived as high.
Diagram 1: Affects of ICT interaction and communication on C1 and L1 (Field, 2002)
+/+
Can express honne better
May
through ICT
Individual
ICT
interaction
C1/L1
Influences
Language Style Appropriate to Event
LOW
affect
f2f transfer
+/(False Reality)
-/+
Cannot express honne
No affect on
HIGH
better through ICT
f2f transfer
-/ICT – Information & Communication Technologies; L1 – First Language; C1 – First Culture2; f2f – face-to-face
2
From a sociolinguistic perspective, language and culture and linked in that to learn and master a language one must learn
and/or identify with the culture of the language being learnt. This is particularly the case with the Japanese language, which is
bound with cultural nuances and social obligations. C1 in this diagram refers to Japanese culture.
3
Any interaction may have any one of four outcomes: positive-positive, positive-negative, negative-positive, or
negative-negative. It was hypothesized that a positive-positive experience would potentially facilitate
transference to a face-to-face event more than a negative-negative or negative-positive engagement. A
false-reality is when learners have a perception of release from first language (L1) and C1 expectations in the
ICT-based interaction, but continue to communicate and interact in expected and learned strategies. A
false-reality has a low potential to affect face-to-face communication and interaction, and a negative-negative
experience may not promote transference to a face-to-face event. In other words, students need to be provided
with learning material in an environment that is applicable to their lives, to their learning situation, to their skill
and academic level, and they must believe that the transactions are more than ‘a game’, enabling students to
interact beyond the novelty facilitating greater transference in higher level face-to-face communication.
The Study
This study involved twelve students in an elective intermediate English course at Waseda University, in Tokyo.
All interactions were conducted as part of class activities and did not involve interaction with non-course
members. The course met twice a week: once in a non-computer classroom and once in a computer lab. Students
came from different faculties; one was Korean; one belonged to an English speaking club; two were in their first
year, five in second year, three in the third, and two in were in fourth year. Although the course was conducted
over one academic year, this data came from the final semester of the 2002 academic year. A Bulletin Board
(BBS) was established and all class members were registered. Access was available both within and outside the
University server and students were encouraged to post comments out-of-class as well as during in-class time.
The first three lab classes were designated to introducing the BBS to ensure that all members were able to log-in
and post messages. One female student found using the computer stressful having had only limited experience
previously in high school. All other students experienced little difficulty, though the all-English BBS was
daunting for some3, thus students were allowed to navigate the BBS in their preferred language, but were
required to post comments in English only. Whether students continued to navigate in Japanese outside of class
is unknown, although evidence (postings displayed for review in class) showed that students were using the
all-English BBS.
The initial use of the BBS included self-introductions and a tool to pass messages to the teacher or students.
Several students asked grammatical and/or social questions to the teacher using the BBS - akin to a face-to-face
discussion. Students considered issues that had arisen in their non-computer class in the next several classes.
Students were also given time in the lab after posting to discuss their comments with other students. The
postings highlighted that students did not completely utilize the opportunities to check texts for grammatical
oversights, and some students utilized code-switching strategies. The author assumes that students code-switched
between languages, for example by using the term ofuro (for bath), to emphasize things of cultural value as the
English words were not considered outside their personal lexicon. In previous studies by the author, evidence
suggested that the more synchronous the event was perceived by the student, and the more the student could not
3
Several students testified during the student evaluation process to this experience.
4
identify a word in the L2 that captured the nuances of the L1 lexicon, the more code-switching became evident
(between L1 and L2). In some classes, postings were evaluated by projecting them onto a large screen: firstly,
the student who wrote the posting self-corrected, and when s/he could not improve the text, other member of the
class provided alternatives, and as the last resort, was improved by the teacher. Interestingly, students recognised
the majority of their errors.
Various tasks were given to the students in other ICT classes; for example, discuss personality tests or develop a
town plan for a resort city in Japan faced with the dichotomy of attracting tourist money while retaining its
natural environmental attractiveness. In the final classes, students were encouraged to utilize the BBS to share
opinions around current topics. The culmination of the course was a formal discussion in the form of a debate4,
which was video recorded. Prior to allocating students into groups (members were selected by the teacher to
balance the groups in terms of conversation skill, argumentative ability, confidence, and gender), a general theme
to generate thoughts was posted to the BBS and students were asked to respond5: If we can solve the economic,
religious, ethnic and military differences between nations or peoples, then we will be able to live in peace. The
teacher also interacted on the BBS to stimulate further thought, but no attempt was made to correct grammar.
The purpose of the debate was: (i) to consider the impact of using ICT in SLA classes; (ii) to examine whether
concepts and language developed in ICT events would transfer to face-to-face encounters; (iii) to examine
cultural aspects of Field’s hypothesis; (iv) to solidify language, concepts, etc. that had been practiced and
developed; (v) to consider whether ICT-based discussion allows for cognitive and meta-cognitive development;
and (vi) to allow public speaking practice in the TL by providing opportunities to present and defend arguments,
which may not be held as personal values, allowing some objectivity and reducing the ‘loss-of-face’ fear. A
debate6 creates new oral responsibilities (competition, public speaking, preparation) that may or may not exist in
other face-to-face situations (face, status, purpose). Although it would be ideal to record each student’s
conversation throughout the course, this was impractical; therefore, as a means of considering whether language
and concepts used in an ICT-event would be transferred the author believes that the method was an effective tool.
The debate statement was: It is possible for America to live in the world without conflict and war. Most students
attempted to address the statement although two students did not post any comments in classes allocated to
develop ideas and strategies. The teacher interacted on the BBS helping to develop thoughts into more concrete
concepts. The students generally did not use the BBS to discuss debate strategies preferring to arrange meetings
through cell phone email.
4
Students were taken through the basic processes of a debate in their regular class and the structure was posted to the BBS.
The general discussion started from a current affairs event, namely the situation in Afghanistan.
6 The debate followed US-standards: an affirmative case, a negative case, affirmative rebuttal, negative rebuttal and
cross-examination between affirmative and negative cases. Each team had six members: two for each affirmative/negative
cases and one to assist (cross-examination); two each for rebuttals and one assistant in preparation of the rebuttal speeches.
Five minute preparation time was allowed for each team and could be used at any time. Each speaker was allotted five
minutes, and two minutes for each cross-examination.
5
5
Analysis and Discussion
An immediate difference between BBS postings, in-class preparation, and the debate, was the dearth of
references to religious issues. During the BBS interaction, students often referred to religious concepts,
especially (mis-)understandings about US-cultural nuances - equated as being ‘Christian’; however, in the debate,
there was almost no reference to such concepts. This may be related to the teacher’s posting that addressed the
religious discussion, and could reflect the power of the ‘teacher’s voice’ in directing thinking and discussion.
Students who had limited previous public speaking experience read their argument, and found it difficult to
defend during cross-examination. Conversely, other students that had actively participated on the BBS, found it
easier to elaborate during cross-examination. For students that had not interacted extensively on the BBS, when
challenged with a concept during cross-examination, which they had introduced previously, found it difficult to
explain or clarify. For example, YB attended most classes, but passively, both on the BBS and in non-computer
classes. His argument during the debate was weak utilizing shallow concepts, suggesting he had not given much
thought to either the language or the concepts, and during cross-examination, found it difficult to clarify his
argument. Students that utilized the in-class time to develop their debate strategies also were more adept in
handling the oral event. It is difficult to isolate whether it was the BBS interaction, regular class participation, or
a combination, that aided the students in this process. Only one student, who was Korean, and who did not
actively participate on the BBS, preferring face-to-face discussion with the teacher, was confident to present and
defend an argument. This may reflect a cultural trait that may not be natural within Japanese society.
Following the debate, students completed a reflective questionnaire7 about the use of the BBS for their SLA, in
the development of ideas, and as a tool to help them before a face-to-face discussion. Most students wrote that
the BBS was a tool to either convey information or to communicate with others. All students responded to using
the BBS for class work, but only four students stated that they used it for communication of non-class assigned
tasks. One student complained that it was troublesome (above mentioned first year student) and one was critical
of both the teacher and other students because she felt that they did not use the BBS sufficiently. On the other
hand, the Korean student argued that students needed to think more deeply about topics and this would benefit
their language development and understanding. Another female student criticized the BBS as being ad hoc and
was supported by another member who asked for the course schedule to be put on the BBS (it was in the
handbook). This feedback highlights the difficulties of providing courses that sufficiently cater to all needs;
however, the lack of uniform pre-requisite evaluation standards of student ability before registration for any
course – language proficiency and ICT competency – was also a factor.
The majority of students did not find it easier expressing real opinions through the BBS than in a face-to-face
event8. The reasons for not finding the BBS easier were not consistent: one student expressed concern that s/he
was known in class anyway, and therefore knew the ‘face’ of the other students personally; another expressed
7
8
The questionnaire is not attached due to word limitations, though the author is willing to discuss it with those interested.
A communication strategy that plays an important role in Japanese society.
6
that s/he did not know the other students enough to express such opinions and feelings; another argued that s/he
did not have the linguistic depth to convey text-based real opinions and feelings and therefore preferred
face-to-face events (an interesting response as the course sought to develop both linguistic and thinking ability).
This same student displayed the most improvement: comparing her linguistic and thinking strategies from her
initial BBS posting to both her final one and also during oral discussion. Students that found the BBS easier
argued that the act of writing allowed them time to develop their thinking and language before expressing it, and
because they did not have to face another person to express their real opinions.
Nine students (75%) did not express any negative feelings when encoding (composing) text (with reference to
reliability and validity); two students expressed a condition to their opinion, arguing that it depended on their
mood, the time available to interact, and their language ability. One student did not respond. The same student
did not respond to the reliability and validity of the other’s text. All other students (92%) responded that they did
not have a negative experience when decoding (reading) the text. Generally the students argued that “we don’t
lie in English”, “it was really what I thought”, “because I can get a deeper understanding of other students” and
“it gave me a chance to reconsider”. The level of participation is believed to be related to the degree of reliability
and validity attributed. In other words, overall, the students had both a positive encoding and decoding
experience. According to Field’s hypothesis, therefore, the likelihood of transference to a face-to-face event
should be higher than if the students had experienced a negative encoding-decoding encounter. During the
face-to-face event (debate) it was outlined that students who had interacted on the BBS were more able to clarify
their argument than students who had been passive members. This observation, in part, confirms the hypothesis
that a positive-positive encounter will more likely result in transference to a face-to-face event.
When students were asked to consider whether they were able to discuss the topics and concepts raised on the
BBS in face-to-face situations prior to communicating on the BBS, three students did not respond, two answered
that they were able to, and seven wrote that they were not able to. Therefore, only 17% were able to discuss the
topics in a face-to-face situation before interacting on the BBS. Only 25% (3) did not believe that the BBS
helped their language learning and use in other events: One of those students argued that the text-based language
was only used within the course; the other students believed that the BBS did not help because they had not used
it enough. 58% (7/12) believed that interacting on the BBS helped them learn and use language in other
situations (two students did not respond).
Conclusion
The use of the BBS in conjunction with regular non-ICT based SLA classes was found to be a useful supportive
tool that helped students generate thoughts, develop concepts, practice language, communicate with other
members of the class, and allowed them some degree of individual autonomy over the process. Some students
found that the difficulty level of the tasks was too high and that limited their ability to interact; thus highlighting
the need for a positive ‘valid’ engagement. Half the students felt that the BBS interaction was insufficient – need
for positive ‘reliable’ engagement. Although there were some indications that student interaction was waning,
7
providing students with learning material that is applicable to their lives, to their learning situation, to the skill
and academic level, and when they are provided with a supportive learning environment that encourages
personal development, students will interact beyond the fading of the novelty honeymoon, and ICT-based
interaction should facilitate greater transference in higher level face-to-face communicative events. Evidence
suggested that Field’s hypothesis may be a useful theory for developing ICT-based SLA education in Japan.
It is difficult in any applied educational research to claim that x caused y. The most that can be said with
confidence is that x was evidenced when y was used, but a, b, and c, which may have been unknown to the
researcher, may also have influenced the result. Notwithstanding, in an educational system that is struggling to
keep pace with current cultural requirements, and one which students claim as boring and outdated, especially
English language education, there is need to develop new paradigms that can address the issues and will provide
meaningful education and learning opportunities. Notwithstanding pedagogical and learning issues, student
comments highlighted the need to develop applicable ICT-based educational tasks that students find meaningful
for their learning. For the Japanese, ICT can be a useful tool supplementing part of the language education
curriculum, especially in task-based educational processes that require students to develop new ideas and
concepts in conjunction with language acquisition. Generally, the amount of L2 practice did not amount to more
than the student would have received in a non ICT-based class by the teacher; however, it is acknowledged that
the focus (or nature) of the practice may also have influenced the improvement as much as the ICT medium
facilitated it. There is still a long way to go to convince people of the need to be bilingual, but this study provides
one option for Japanese education that needs to be further developed, replicated (or rejected) in the process of
improving learning opportunities for students.
References
Bannan-Ritland, B., Harvey, D.M., Milheim, W.D. (1998). A General Framework for the Development of
Web-based Instruction, Educational Media International, 35/2:77-81
Blair, M. (1996). A Multitheoretical Analysis of the Impact of Information Technology on Higher Education.
Paper Presented at the Annual National Conference on Liberal Arts and the Education of Artists, 10th
Conference, New York: New York. October, 1996
Field, M.H. (1999) New Wine and Old Wineskins: Call and Language. In Paul Lewis (Ed.), CALLING ASIA: The
Proceedings of the 4th Annual JALT CALL SIG Conference, Kyoto, Japan, May 1999:149-152, JALT
Field, M.H. (2002). ICT in Japanese University Language Education: A case study. In proceedings Kinshuk, R.
Lewis, K. Akahori et al (Eds.), International conference on Computers in Education, Massey University,
Auckland: New Zealand, 929-933
Field, M.H. (2002b). Towards a CALL Pedagogy. In P. Lewis (Ed.), The Changing Face of CALL: A Japanese
Perspective, Lisse: Netherlands, Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers, 3-18
Field, M.H. (2003). Using IT: A reaITy check, Kiyo, No.58:75-110
Isemonger, I. (2003). Internet-based Language Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Past, Present and Future State,
IASTED Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, Rhodes Island - July 1-3.
8
Jungck, S. (1987). Computer literacy in practice: Curricula, contradictions, and context. In G. Spindler and L.
Spindler (Eds.), Interpretive ethnography in education: At home and abroad. Hillsdale: New Jersey,
Lawrence Erlbaum
Kasper, L. F. (1999). Sustained Content Study and the Internet: Developing Functional and Academic Literacies.
In M. Pally (Ed.), Sustained Content Teaching in Academic ESL/EFL: A Practical Approach, Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin, 54-73
Murray, D. (1998). Language and society in cyberspace. TESOL Matters, Vol.8 No.4:9 & 21, Aug/September
Sakamoto, T. (1992). Impact of informatics on school education systems: National strategies for the introduction
of Informatics into schools - Nonsystematic but still systematic, Education and Computing,
Vol.8:129-135
Selwyn, N. (1999). Technological Utopianism and the Future (In)Perfect: A Response to Fred Bennett,
Educational Technology & Society, 2/1,
http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/periodical/vol_1_99/nselwyn_short_article.html, sited Nov. 1999
Van Dusen, G.C. (1997). The Virtual Campus: Technology and Reform in Higher Education, ASHE-Eric Higher
Education Report, 25/5, Washington D.C.: The George Washington University
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic Literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah: New
Jersey, Erlbaum Associates and www.gse.uci.edu/markw/elec-intro.html, sited September 2000
Warschauer, M. & Meskill, C. (2000) Technology and second language learning. In J. Rosenthal (Ed.),
Handbook of undergraduate second language education. Mahwah: New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum,
303-318
9