Computer Mediated Communication: Theoretical Basis and Examples of its
Application in Japanese EFL Classrooms.
Introduction
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms need to include a diverse range of ideas
and material. Opportunities for students to have access to appropriate input are essential as too
occasions to use the material they have learnt in meaningful interactions. Organizing opportunities
for students from different cultural backgrounds to interact is difficult for teachers in an EFL
context but if they have acces to Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), opportunities abound
if the teacher is willing and able to look for them. Of course these must be integrated into a well
developed syllabus.
The networks of teachers that exist today are such that teachers can and do link with each
other. There are numerous examples already of teachers linking with their peers so that their
students can interact in a number of ways. Some examples will be outlined below. Ideally a
systematic, comprehensive, on-going, and balanced syllabus developed over time by the teachers
involved, should be a part of the course. Simply putting students in front of computers and telling
them to use them is not enough. Anything we do as teachers should be adding value to our students
language acquisition and education. Computers can assist us in doing this but aren't always
required. In fact, poor use of them can cause more harm than good! As technology is not a method
in itself, we should be basing anything we do with computers within the framework of
pedagogically sound Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theory.
Theoretical Basis of CALL
In the past CALL has often been thought of as the panacea for all language learners. It
would be the thing that would increase the speed in which students could learn a language. From
the 1960's to the late 1970's programs were developed that gave students ample opportunities to
practice the language they were learning. However, many of these were based on the behaviorist
models of SLA and were basically drill and practice exercises “dressed in fancy clothes”. With more
advances in technology, communication via computers became an option for a few and this became
popular as communicative methods of SLA also became widespread around that time. It was not
until the 1990's that multi media began to be used widely and the WWW became available. With
these new technologies came the ability to use Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)for
real communication and as a powerful tool to assist the EFL teacher. The term “tool” though is
important here. As mentioned already, CALL must be used within the framework of pedagogically
sound SLA theory to have any real affect on students' learning.
So where does technology now fit into the EFL classroom? CALL has a number of uses if
developed, propagated and physically distributed well. Students can have individualized learning
programs via CALL and it can be used as a beneficial means of review. When incorporating the
World Wide Web (WWW), CALL can also be a source of quality authentic input. With advances in
modern Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and Web 2.0 applications such as blogs, wikis and
social networks, CALL is also now a conduit for real communication in both synchronous and
asynchronous forms. These uses should be closely tied to SLA research. Modern SLA research
revolves around, amongst other things, input, interaction and output. There is still great debate on
how these forces interact and what is the optimal method. What follows is a very simple outline of
some of the main points.
Krashen's (1985) input hypothesis in its simplest form is just that, very simple. Without
input students will not be able to learn. This is obvious. However Krashen goes on to impress on
teachers the requirement of giving “comprehensible input”. This type of input is such that students
can grasp the meaning and context because the input is not too difficult. The idea also encourages
teachers to give students input that is of interest to them so that they want to interact with it. By
doing so, and through the different mediums that are used, teachers can carefully guide students to
notice what is happening within the language. This is sometimes called the “noticed input
hypothesis”. CALL can offer students an abundance of such input and is therefore a powerful tool at
the teacher's disposal.
Numerous studies have shown that interaction, even with non native speakers, is also useful
for SLA (Long, 1983; Gass & Varonis, 1985) to occur. Swain's (1985) output theory also encourages
students to produce language in order to learn it. Obviously face to face interaction is important but
in an EFL context this is problematic if you want such interaction to occur with other speakers of
English. There are now a number of studies that note CMC is a beneficial means of interaction
(Warschauer, 1997; Chun & Wade, 2003; Swaffar, 1998) and it is proposed here that this style of
communication could take the place of face to face communication in an EFL context. As
interaction involves negotiation of meaning, language learners, via interaction, can discover the
“holes” in their language knowledge and by doing so have access to “learning moments” where
what they need is supplied either by their interlocutor or the teacher. These “moments” are often
excellent means of retaining language. CALL, and in particular CMC, can therefore be used as a
tool to help teachers put into practice important aspects of SLA research.
Examples of the Application of CALL in the Japanese EFL Context
There are numerous ways of incorporating CALL into an EFL class. The following are a few
examples of these. As it is difficult to show synchronous methods in a report format like this, the
synchronous methods will simply be outlined in text format. Firstly, though, asynchronous methods
used include wikis, forum posts and messages. The most commonly used format was the forum.
Some background on the courses is required before explaining the formats.
Two courses will be showcased here. The first course is called “English A” in Japan. It
comprises two classes of 30 first year engineering students. They interacted with about 55 high
school students from California. Those students were studying Japanese. The second course is
called “English communication” in the Japanese university's handbook. In this course some 20
Japanese students interacted with 20 students from Vietnam, 25 students from Colombia, 5 students
from Korea and 20 other Japanese students studying in a different college in a different city.
English A was based on a “cooperative learning” setup where the native speakers helped the
second language (L2) learner. As this was two way, students could see that helping each other had
benefits. Weekly topics were set by the teachers and students had to use both their L1 and L2 to
participate in discussions. For example, the teachers would create a forum on food: one forum in
English and the other in Japanese. Students would post in their L2 to the appropriate forum then
reply to / correct the posts from the L2 learner in their native language. The forum posting would
continue throughout the week so that each student would be posting in both Japanese and English.
Students were encouraged to participate using audio posts. Some examples are shown:
In this first example, students had to simply introduce themselves in the first week. This was
a simple ice breaker type exercise. Though it was the first week the students participated actively as
can be seen by the number of replies to each post. The majority of students did more than the
minimum requisite stated by the teachers.
Here is just one of the examples of the posts from students. You can see from it that there is
real communication taking place. It actually goes on for a few more pages too. Though simple page
hits are not always a good indicator of
the amount of interaction occurring they
do give a basic idea of how much
language is being “consumed”. This
course in its first 4 weeks averages some
8,000 hits per week with a peak of
10,500 hits in one week. This is an
enormous amount for a course where the
students studying English are non
English majors who basically don't like
English. Other topics / notions that were
covered were, in chronological order:
“My daily schedule (present); golden
week / summer vacation (future);
getting to know you (perfect tenses);
food (countable/non countable); and
shopping.
Students from both countries
replied very positively in regard the
interaction. More than half the students
said they also contacted each other
personally via the Learning
Management System's (LMS) message
function which allows students and
teachers to send each other personalized
messages.
In the English Communication class similar interaction took place on forums but all
interaction occurred in English. Topics in chronological order were: introductions; introducing my
home town and a wonderful place in my country; milestones in my life – cultural aspects of life in
my country; cultural and social rules; health issues in my country; school life in my country; my
country's food; things you can do in my country / home town; guiding around my place; and
experiences I've had. There was also a project where students had to work together to design a
multicultural home. In this project students initially had to share ideas via a forum and then bring
those ideas together and create a wiki. The wiki project did not go as well as had hoped as
understanding the wiki technology seemed beyond the students from other countries. Ensuring there
is enough support for students and teachers to understand the technology and be able to use it is
essential. An online tutorial will be made to address this shortcoming in coming courses.
There was also an in-class Skype session where Japanese students talked one to one (or
sometimes two to one) with students in Viet Nam. Some set topics were used but there was also 10
minutes of time left for open dialogue. This synchronous form of interaction was appreciated by
many of the students but in feedback after the session, some students believed it was too difficult to
understand the accents of other countries' students. There was, however, general agreement that it
was beneficial to language acquisition as students realized it was a very real communicative event.
Communication between the teachers is an area that needs to be mentioned here too. The
communication between the teachers in English A was very positive and ongoing. Real cooperation
was a feature of the course. However in English Communication the teachers in the other countries
were not as communicative. The Vietnamese situation was such that the teachers were not really
participating at all – it was entirely up to the students to participate. The Colombian teacher was
positive but had technical problems and also struggled as his institution was using a different LMS
which led to students having to log in to numerous accounts. These, though seemingly small points,
when added up can cause problems for students and teachers alike.
Conclusion
Computers in the EFL classroom are not any special panacea. They are tools and it takes a
good tradesperson to ensure the tools they have are used well to produce a good product. On any
major project there are more than a few tradespeople working and they have to have the same plans
and the same understanding of the final outcome to ensure the project is carried out. In the same
way, teachers from numerous countries need to work together closely to ensure that computers are
used well if they are to be used at all. However, it is clear that there are many areas that computers
and the Internet can be used beneficially in the EFL classroom. The primary use is as a conduit for
communication between students from different cultural backgrounds to facilitate real
communication. This paper has outlined a number of these. The author would like to work toward
gathering data that will validate these statements.
Bibliography
Chun, D. M., & Wade, E. R. (2003). Collaborative Cultural Exchanges with Asynchronous CMC. in
L. Lomicka & J. Cooke Plagwitz (eds.), Teaching with technology (pp. 220-247). Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Gass, S. and E. Varonis. 1985. Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In
Input in Second Language Acquisition. Eds. S. Gass and C. Madden. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Krashen, S. (1985), The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, Longman
Long, M. (1983) Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation of
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4, pp. 126–41.
Swaffar, J.K. (ed.) et al (1998), Language Learning Online: Theory and Practice in the ESL and L2
Computer Classroom, Labyrinth Publications.
Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in Second
Language Acquisition, pp. 235-256. New York: Newbury House.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice. Modern
Language Journal, 81(3), pp. 470 - 481.