enhancing motivation with cultural narratives in computer-mediated communication

17
This article was downloaded by: [Linnaeus University] On: 11 October 2014, At: 06:03 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Computer Assisted Language Learning Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20 Enhancing motivation with cultural narratives in computer-mediated communication Jane Vinther a a Department of English Studies , University of Southern Denmark , Kolding Campus, Denmark Published online: 21 Jun 2011. To cite this article: Jane Vinther (2011) Enhancing motivation with cultural narratives in computer-mediated communication, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24:4, 337-352, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2011.572898 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.572898 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Upload: jane

Post on 17-Feb-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

This article was downloaded by: [Linnaeus University]On: 11 October 2014, At: 06:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computer Assisted Language LearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Enhancing motivation with culturalnarratives in computer-mediatedcommunicationJane Vinther aa Department of English Studies , University of SouthernDenmark , Kolding Campus, DenmarkPublished online: 21 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Jane Vinther (2011) Enhancing motivation with cultural narratives incomputer-mediated communication, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24:4, 337-352, DOI:10.1080/09588221.2011.572898

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.572898

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Enhancing motivation with cultural narratives in computer-mediated

communication

Jane Vinther*

Department of English Studies, University of Southern Denmark, Kolding Campus, Denmark

The framework of this study is cooperation between students of English at aChinese university and their counterparts at a Danish university, i.e. neithergroup of students are native speakers of English. The theoretical framework forthe study is Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach combined with the work by anumber of researchers on the link between motivation and autonomy. The stud-ents were focussing on meaning as well as form in conjunction with the culturalcontent in a social interactional email-based exchange. The goal of the study wasto investigate whether the social connection between the students and the mutualgoal of acquainting themselves with each other and each other’s culture wouldenhance their motivation in language learning and in developing desires toexpress themselves in increasingly comprehensible language at a higher level ofcorrectness.

Keywords: computer-mediated communication; motivation; autonomy; culturalnarrative; metalanguage

Introduction

The present qualitative study came out of a contact-establishing project betweenChina and Denmark financed by the Danish Agency for Science and Technology.The project offered as one of its spin-offs the opportunity to establish computer-mediated communication (CMC) between two sets of English students, one set ofDanish learners of English, one set of Chinese learners of English. Both groups weresecond year university students of English at advanced level.

The initial level of proficiency of the two groups respectively was not measured ortested; the equilibrium was in their status as second year university students and thenumber of years they had received instruction in English. From the profounddifference between their first languages (L1s) and the differential position of theseL1s in the family tree of languages, it would be natural to expect a difference inperformance between the two groups as Danish is much closer to English thanChinese is. In addition, two other factors need to be considered: one is the amount ofprevious exposure outside the classroom and the previous focus on the formalaspects of the English language.

*Email: [email protected]

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Vol. 24, No. 4, October 2011, 337–352

ISSN 0958-8221 print/ISSN 1744-3210 online

� 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2011.572898

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

The students were given the opportunity to correspond with their partners as partof a written language production class. The Chinese students as well as the Danishstudents were focussing on the exchange of cultural information as their primarygoal, but were instructed to pay attention to the language as a means of helping eachother become more accurate and better in the expression of their ideas. The Danishstudents were assigned a task of a metalinguistic nature, whereas the task of theChinese students was of a more narrative nature. The objective in using CMC was toallow the students a high degree of autonomy in their interaction as a motivationalfactor to advance language awareness. This article focuses on the outcome as far asthe task of motivating the students to engage in metalinguistic activities is concerned.That activity was the specific assignment of the Danish students involved in theexperiment, but the results depicted in this article are inclusive of the performance ofthe Chinese students in their interactional role with their Danish partners as far as itpertains to the content and outcome within that framework of the experiment.

Background: motivation, autonomy, linguistic awareness and CMC

In foreign and second language learning, motivation is fundamental. The constructhas been investigated, described and discussed from a variety of perspectives andsituations, some of which are now being reinterpreted in the light of globalisationand its impact on the status of language learning and culture. Especially the learningof English as a second or foreign language has been affected by this change due tothe current status of English as an international language and its role as a linguafranca (Mufwene, 2010).

Brown (1980) defined two kinds of motivation: (1) instrumental and (2)integrative.1 Gardner (1985, p. 146) has previously discussed the issue, and in amore recent publication, he cites this elaboration on the importance of integrativemotivation,

. . .the relative degree of success will be influenced to some extent by the individual’sattitudes toward the other community or to other communities in general as well as bythe beliefs in the community which are relevant to the language learning process.(Gardner, Masgoret, Tennant, & Mihic, 2004, p. 5–6)

Dornyei (2006) and Norton (1997) discuss the problems involved in theglobalised world of identifying a ‘community’ or culture that can be seen as having‘ownership’ of English and which can serve as object of identification for thelanguage learners as such. Dornyei (2006) is in support of the notion created byNorton (2001, p. 2008) of an ‘imagined’ community; however, he sees a role forcombining integrative motivation with the notion of what he calls ‘The L2Motivational Self System’. The key strands here are ‘the Ideal L2 Self’, ‘the Ought-toL2 Self’ and ‘the L2 Learning Experience’, thus comprising the pre-actional as wellas the actional stages of language learning. Hiromori (2009) investigated motivationamong 148 intermediate-level university students of English from a process modelapproach, and in his conclusion, he points out that there may be a gap between theambition or desire of the L2 learner to the actually engagement in learning activities.

It seems to be a fact that many learners have an ideal ‘‘I want to’’ type of internalstatement (e.g. ‘‘I want to be a fluent speaker of English’’ and ‘‘I want to watch foreignmovies without subtitles’’), but the bulk of these statements will not be realized.(Hiromori, 2009, p. 320)

338 J. Vinther

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

As is evident from these findings, the actual L2 learning experience comes to play amajor role in the success and motivation of the learner to which the notion of mem-bership of a globalised community and the positioning of the L2 self in this communitycontext may contribute towards the embracing of diverse strands of motivation.

Another important factor in motivational research has been the link toautonomy. That there is an interface between autonomy and motivation nowappears to be well-established through research that has demonstrated the beneficialeffects of autonomy on language learning results (cf. Benson, 2006; Dam, 2001;Dickinson, 1995; Ushioda, 2009). Also Spratt, Humphreys, and Chan (2002, p. 263)connect autonomy and motivation and advise: ‘In a learning context thatnecessitates life-long learning and increasingly calls for distance learning, autonomymust surely remain an important aim’.

The present study is trying to combine autonomy and the creation of a computer-based autonomous learning environment with tasks based on metalinguisticawareness raising. The literature on the importance of language awareness inlanguage acquisition abound with research results from numerous studies thatunderpin the role of awareness and noticing (Anderson & Vandergrift, 1996; Cain,2007; Ellis,1995; Hinkel, 2006; Jimenez, 2003; Leow, 1997; Long & Robinson, 1998;Ranta & Lyster, 2007; Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 1995; Sharwood Smith, 1981, 2005;van Lier, 1991, 1999). According to Andrews (2003), there is a central link betweenknowledge about the language and knowledge of the language. For languageteachers and teacher trainers especially, this metalinguistic level of knowledge andcognition appears to be essential not only in the development of their own languagebut also in their professional development in so far as it underlies pedagogicaldeliberations in guiding others in their progression towards greater proficiency.

The positive effect of computer-based interactional exchanges in collaborativework of a linguistic nature has found support in research by Levy and Stockwell(2006), who report that some studies found good results for improvements inaccuracy and refer to Stockwell and Harrington (2003) as one such study: ‘learnersinvolved in email interactions demonstrated increases in both the accuracy and thecomplexity of the language produced’ (Levy & Stockwell, 2006, p. 104). On the otherhand, Abrams (2003) for instance could find no support for improvement inlanguage produced, but it must be said that this study focussed on transferringeffects from written to oral modes of language production. Skehan (2003, p. 394) inhis evaluation of the importance of interactional tasks concludes that ‘interactivetasks produce markedly more accuracy and complexity, [. . .]’. In other words, thereare mixed results, but the tendency is that interactional exchanges produce positiveoutcomes with regard to improvements in learner performance.

Teaching traditions and philosophies

The traditions and philosophies of teaching vary between cultures and can be anadded difficulty in intercultural teaching and learning. There is no do doubt that thewestern European emphasis on critical thinking and active participation is notvalued to the same degree in all cultures and traditions. However, globalisation ofeducation and the transnational movements of students have changed – is changing –the expectations of both students and educators. The rapid speed of the flows ofinformation due to the new digital media, CMC among them, has transformedexpectancies of young people around the world leaving educational institutions no

Computer Assisted Language Learning 339

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

choice but to embrace internationalism in this competitive market. This said, there isstill an abundance of cultural differences in the perception of the best practices inteaching and learning. Some of these are founded in ideas and philosophies outsidelearning and education per se, but they are influential in the behaviour of students aswell as educators, ‘schools and universities are the crucible in which the private, thepublic and the national are mixed strategically’ (Slethaug, 2007, p. 178).

The difference in cultural and social practices from Asian to Western educationalsystems finds a manifestation in teacher and student roles. ‘Confucianism is thedominant interpersonal communication norm’ (Peng, 2007, p. 215). The attention toharmonious relations canmean that students find it difficult to air independent views orthey keep silent in class; alternatively they may stick to notes or memorisation ofteacher view points. Peng quotes a student expressing doubts about the communicativeapproach in the language classroom ‘Such communicative classes seem quiteinteresting, but I feel I gained little after the class’ (Peng, 2007, p. 257). The institutionalestablishment as represented by teachers will therefore always be a silent partner inteacher centred instruction and the respect and deference that students pay to teachersin Confucian influenced cultures have tended to collide with practices in Westernclassrooms, and the received notion of second language instructional practices.

Communication, culture and negotiation

Different cultures use different contextualisation cues to signal the various speech actsand their meaning (Gumperz, 1989). In Crosstalk, an episode in a 1979 BBC series,2

Gumperz pointed to intonation as one of the cues that differed across cultures, andwhich was the cause of misinterpretation. Classical communication models (e.g.Shannon & Weaver, 1949) were founded on the idea that communication wastransmission of messages and according to these models, interference or ‘noise’ mightprevent the content of the message in reaching the receiver in its entirety; equally themessage might not be understood or actually misunderstood. More recent perceptionsof communication see communication as a cooperative effort between participants in asharing of information. Unlike transmission models, which are linear, interactionalmodels (Askehave, 2006) function more like a loop in which there is continual feedbackand adjustment between interlocutors who co-construct content and meaning. Thismeans that the culture component in communication comes into active interplay withthe context, the learners and their individual qualifications and identities (Block, 2007).

The interactional construct, which embraces the above outlined idea ofcommunication, has a well-tried and well-researched theoretical foundation startingwith Long’s (1983) initial research (also Long, 1996), and has since then been thebackdrop of many influential studies in second language learning (Chapelle &Hegelheimer, 2000; Gass, 1997). The interaction through text-based CMC entails thepossibility of employing metacognitive strategies (Vinther, 2005) such as time forplanning, monitoring and evaluation, and thus counteracts or compensates for thelack of non-verbal cues or messages transmitted in the course of face-to-faceinteraction. One of the culturally dependent factors that caused misinterpretation inthe communication in Gumperz’s work was intonation (rising versus fallingintonation patterns, for instance). The risk of intonation playing a negative role inthe intercultural exchange has, given the written medium, been eliminated in thepresent study. On the other hand, the conduciveness and additional cues easing face-to-face communication are absent (Kern, 1995; Salaberry, 2001).

340 J. Vinther

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Previous studies in which the communication was between native speakers andnon-native speakers (Chapelle, 2009; Fernandez-Garcia & Martınez-Arbelaiz, 2003)have rendered mixed results albeit that there may also have been other explanationsfor this, such as the nature of the tasks. In her discussion of computer-assistedlanguage learning technologies and tasks, Chapelle (2009) finds that many of thestudies involving native/non-native speaker interactions are often close-ended in thetasks involved or comparatory. Building on Vygotsky’s (1934/1982) ideas, recentstudies in an interactional and sociocultural framework tend to be more open-endedthus resulting in improved outcomes. Chapelle points out that there seems to befewer break-downs of communication and negotiation in such cases.

The setting of the present study

Participants

The students involved in this qualitative study were all non-native speakers ofEnglish. The study comprised five Danish students and 10 Chinese students in fivetriads. Each triad comprised two Chinese students and one Danish student; however,the communication took place in a one-to-one asynchronous exchange of emails.The students were all university students of English studying at advanced level; thatis to say their backgrounds were an average of seven years of English.

Student instruction and tasks

The two groups of participating students were engaged in the email exchange witheach other over a period of four weeks,3 while sharing cultural accounts andnarratives based in culture. The students were told that they could exchange storiesand narratives on national culture, regional culture, local culture, student culture,youth culture, family culture, food culture, consumer culture, etc., in other words thedefinition of culture was very broad ranging from ‘high culture’ to local customs.The common means of communication, the English language and its inherent culturecomponent, added a third layer that the students had to navigate. Attempting toexpress a cultural notion to a receiver from another culture in the language of a thirdculture can be a daunting experience, especially through a medium that excludes themediating features of facial expressions, body language, intonation and empathicgestures. Misunderstandings, misconceptions and errors will be a factor, and thiswas a premise that from the outset was incorporated in the tasks. Both groups ofstudents had their focus on writing in English; the Chinese students because theywere taking a course in creative non-fiction writing. They had to produce narrativesin correct English, but did not have to pay special attention to metalinguistics as partof their task. The Danish students, on the other hand, had been given a task withparticular metalinguistic focus and in particular they were required to discusslanguage errors and grammar with their interlocutors in the context of theproduction of texts in their exchange of cultural narratives.

Aims and objectives

The framework of the study was an aspiration to use cultural narrative as a vehicle ofinterest and motivation in sustaining the communication between the two groups ofparticipants. In further support of the motivational factor, the students were given a

Computer Assisted Language Learning 341

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

high degree of autonomy in their communicative exchanges. This allowed for tasksto be open-ended in line with recommendations of previous studies and thesociocultural framework.

In the light of the mixed results of previous studies in which the communicationwas between native speakers and non-native speakers (Chapelle, 2009; Fernandez-Garcia & Martınez-Arbelaiz, 2003), the set-up of the present study aimed to bypassthe above-mentioned problematic issues by focussing the interactive communicationin a student-to-student forum in which autonomy and extensive freedom of choicewould make genuine participation and collaboration possible, there being nopreconceived expectations as to the outcome, nor spelled out lists of desiredachievements other than the focus on the engagement in a metalinguistic discourse.

The study objective was not to measure any actual learning of specific languagestructures or metalinguistic knowledge, although both the former and the latter werethe objectives of the eventual outcome of the course in which the study wasembedded. The use of the language for communication in a CMC mode ofinteraction, hopefully, would lead to improved mastery as a result of the languageproduced. Equally, it was hoped that the meta-talk about the language would bedriven forward by motivation offset by the desire to get to know individuals from anunfamiliar culture that would not be salient to the participants in advance of theexperiment. The belief was that the students would become aware of the usefulnessof grammatical rules of the English language and consequently be motivated toimprove themselves and their language skills if they could be brought to see theusefulness of the metalanguage in which they found ways of expressing theircollaborative efforts towards greater pertinence in form-meaning connections. Thecultural narrative, it was thought, could serve as a motivation for an enhancedinterest in and awareness of the formal aspects of language learning and increaseawareness of the connection between form and content.

The auspices of autonomy

Schwienhorst discusses the concept and (mis)conceptions of learner autonomy, butsums it up in the following way:

In general, it refers to a learner’s capacity for critical self-evaluation and self-determination, an ability to take control over and responsibility for her learning. Inlanguage learning, these reflective processes are supported by the exclusive use of thetarget language for interaction in the classroom. (Schwienhorst, 2003, p. 428)

One aspect in which the present study is radically different from theSchwienhorst definition is that the communication exchanged between the studentsin this study was not something that took place inside the confines of the classroomnor did it take place at designated times or in measured quantities; yet, theinstitutional and cultural limitations in the form of educational demands andassignments did constitute an inescapable reality. The initiation and causal contextwere the demands to meet the requirements of an assignment, albeit an assignmentwith a high degree of personal choice.

The autonomous choices pertained to the specific topics of exchange, thefrequency, length, volume and trajectories of exchanges. The open learning spacewas judged to be essential for the aims of the study, which were to study the impact

342 J. Vinther

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

on motivation and learner behaviour of the autonomy afforded by having thecultural narrative as a driving force. It is true that from the perspective oforganisational neatness, it makes efforts of benchmarking and systematicity morecomplex and spangled. Thus, the absence of specific linguistic instructions withregard to specific pedagogical grammar rules, or other pre-established structures oflearning, resulted in few instances of a given structure which in combination with therandom treatment of linguistic issues made it difficult to assess progress. However,these drawbacks were considered acceptable in relation to the higher objective ofmotivation enhancement and ensuing communication with production of free andspontaneous language production in an intercultural setting.

Results

No prior learning objectives had been set with regard to particular linguisticstructures, nor lexical or pragmatic features. Consequently, the outcome of theinteractional learning experience could not be meaningfully measured in a testing(e.g. pre/post) framework, and therefore the findings of the experiment had to bedescriptive and interpretative in nature.

The written communication data of the participating students were investigatedfor traces of established or developing language awareness and how this wasemployed in the process of self-correction and correction of others in a collaborativeeffort towards greater accuracy.

The pattern of student behaviour showed an interesting difference between theDanish group and the Chinese group in that the Danish students were very directand systematic in their pointing out errors and giving feedback. When the Chinesestudents pointed out errors to their Danish counterparts, they often concluded by aback-channeling move such as ‘what do you think?’ All the Chinese interactantsagreed that it was wonderful and a good idea to collaborate on error correction, butsome Chinese students were basically recipients while the Danish students wereactive discussants at a metalinguistic level. The two sides of the correspondingstudent started out by agreeing that the idea of commenting on each others’ languagewould be beneficial to them both. The most eloquent example of the initial stages isas follows:

We are supposed to exchange e-mails to achieve a small number of goals; these rangefrom learning more about you, your culture as well as hopefully improve both of ourskills within the English language. I don’t know whether you have been informed ofwhat is expected of me, but I would like to inform you that it mainly centers on mescanning whatever you write for any flaws and help you correct them. Similarly, I hopeyou will point out any flaws I write if you stumble upon a mistake.

All the Danish students wrote something to that effect to their partners and inreturn got responses similar to this one:

Thank you for helping me correct the mistakes. I think it’s a great idea to find andcorrect the mistakes we make. We can progress together then.

A typical pattern of exchange would be to have separate sections in thecommunication for the cultural and personal content followed by a sectionconcentrating on the meta-talk involving error correction. With a few exceptions,the Chinese students give comments back, which are limited to style or formality

Computer Assisted Language Learning 343

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

more than explicit error, for instance, suggesting ‘my boyfriend and I’ instead of ‘myboyfriend and me’. There are instances of true negotiation in which form/meaningrelations are discussed such as the one concerning the sentence ‘otherwise I havebeen to many European countries such as France, Germany or Hungary’. TheChinese student finds:

There is a confusion here. Do you mean you would like to have been there, if so, hereyou should use subjunctive mood – ‘I would have been to many European countries’ if umean you have been there, I think the word ‘otherwise’ is not appropriate here.

This quote is one of the few instances in which a Chinese student applies ametalinguistic term. The scope of the study leaves the motivation for thisundisclosed, and any hypothesis on this would be pure speculation, so whether itmight be related to culturally determined strategies such as politeness and face(Slethaug, 2007) or be due to the fact that the Chinese students had a different focusof attention in their course is uncertain. However, there are signs that it could berelated to the student’s confidence in his or her own linguistic capacity.

Both groups of students were, indeed, considerate of each other when engaging inexchanges/negotiations concerning topic, content and form in this asynchronouscommunicative situation. Seen from an interactional perspective, the communicativeopenings and invitations have a resemblance to turn-taking moves and back-channelsignals (Gumperz, 1989). The variability in language learners’ performance (Ellis,1987; Scholfield, 1991; Tarone, 1995, 2002) has been documented as variations inlearners’ interlanguage related to context and interpersonal relations. The compre-hensive autonomy extended to the students participating in the present study wasintended to create a learning environment that would allow the learners to feeluninhibited in their use of structures and expression some of which would be familiar,but some of which might also stretch their abilities. When interacting outside theclassroom with interlocutors with whom one feels comfortable, the tendency to dareventure into using new- and less-established elements of the target language is morepronounced as described by Tarone (1995). It appears that autonomy, CMC and asecure learning environment have a common trait in that they are conducive ofincreased productivity in quantity as well as in complexity (Absalom&Marden, 2004;Fiori, 2005; Tarone, 1995; Warschauer, 1997). Hinkel has pointed out theshortcoming of students’ correctness levels even at advanced levels of attainment(Hinkel, 2003); the same issues are dealt within Xu and Bull’s (2010) computer-basedapproach. It is therefore a point of importance in this study to observe and describethe reaction to feedback as given and received in this collaborative environment.

A major difference between this study and that of Xu and Bull is that in theirstudy, the Chinese participants were communicating with native speakers. Thebehaviour observed in the present study of the non-native to non-nativecommunication does not indicate any less development in use of linguistic structuresnor in the development of complexity and awareness (cf. Table 1).

Since the aims of the two sides were different, the Chinese students were notobliged to comment on the errors made by the Danish students; they were, however,invited to do so by the Danish students, and of the five Danish participants, three didreceive comments on their errors. The communication pertaining to the meta-level oflinguistic issues are exemplified in Table 2.

The cooperation of the Danish students with their Chinese counterparts could,due to the greater number of Chinese students, not be a simple one-to-one basis; it

344 J. Vinther

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 1. Discrete problematic linguistic features in student text production.

FeatureIllustrative examples from the

Chinese learnersIllustrative examplesfrom Danish learners

Article use (1) We eat dumplings on the newyear’s eve

(2) I don’t know how people in __ citycelebrate the Spring Festival

(3) you can see what dumpling is and..(4) when I was __ child(5) we don’t have __ heater here

Modal verbs (1) I like to introduce them all to you(2) Now you may know something

about my culture and me(3) I may won’t say much

Concord (1) The city that are more than 100 kmaway

(1) Only the last three weeks has seenthe snow thawing

(2) I agree that Danish pastries arepretty good, but it isn’thealthy, however

(3) something that appeal to me(4) my favourite TV series is Doctor

House, very thrilling butcontain a lot of humanistic issues

Tense/aspect (1) I will do and say many things thatyou never have anticipated I do

(2) whose pet fish were later ate by him(3) it locates in Southern China(4) till recently many of my classmates

are having the same problems(5) I’m sorry I keep you waiting(6) I have wrote to you(7) I had a brother who is one year and

a half younger than me. He is inSenior Three now.

(1) But I’ve been accustomed to itby now

(2) I just moved

Syntax (1) I’m curious about how do you planyour timetable for the job andyour study

(2) you can see [. . .] how does luckymoney bag look like

(3) how you pick your English name?(3) is it sounds like Mary?

(1) Though it is not as bad as Imake it sound, though it canget a little dull in the end, but..

(2) the mere thought of a youngautistic girl can beat 15–20guys is something..

Vocabulary (1) The second is impossible for meeither

(2) I love shopping either(3) I’m a very, very unexpected person(4) ..because it is a symbol of lucky(5) I replied you..(6) I will reply you quickly(7) sometimes things can get ugly if

‘unbelievable parents’ are involved

(1) These are far from the mostextravagant jobs you cancome across

(2) we are on friendly turn with ourteachers

(3) here in Denmark we don’t takeit so highly with names

Morphology (1) Two reply(2) one of our favourite food during the

holiday is the Chinese dumpling(3) high school students don’t have

part time job

(1) By removing ‘the’ it makes thesentence more grammaticalcorrect

(2) this is the fourth time I havemoved flat

(continued)

Computer Assisted Language Learning 345

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

was necessary for each of the Danish students to have exchanges with two Chineseinterlocutors, but the two Chinese interlocutors did not become party to thecommunication of the other Chinese participant with the Danish partner.

Interpretation and discussion

Given the autonomous open learning environment that left the students withfreedom in their choice of items on which to contemplate and comment, it was

Table 2. Illustrative examples of inter-student communication relating to the task.

Initiator Opening Concluding

Danish students (1) I really hate to correct otherpeoples mistakes, especiallypeople I don’t know so well yet.I you want you can alwayscorrect mine as revenge. I reallysuck at grammar myself.

(2) Although I understand what youare saying in these sentences,they are not 100 percentcorrect. To correct thesentences you need to addauxiliary verbs.

(3) Now on to the grammatical part:(4) It’s good to know I haven’t scared

you away yet.

(1) Man I hated that part. Goesagainst my nature in everyway. . .Now I can be myselfagain.

(2) You were right about the flaw inwhat I had written. It happensto me occasionally that I tinkerso much with a sentence thatsome parts of it becomecomplete gibberish.

Chinese students (1)Here are my comments and I hopeit can do some help.

(2)AsEnglish is not my first language,don’t be surprise to see anyawkward expressions in myletter

(3) Honestly, I’m not good atgrammar. Here’s my correctionon your mail. [. . .] What do youthink?

(1) Thank you for your correction andit is really kind of you to checkmy mistakes with greatpatience. I’m still on my way tobecome a better writer. Moreoften than not, I write‘Chinglish sentences’.

(2) I think it is a good idea to correctmy mistakes directly in mayemail. It’s very convenient forme to see the mistakes, too. Ilike this way.

Note: Errors were retained in the original throughout.

Table 1. (Continued).

FeatureIllustrative examples from the

Chinese learnersIllustrative examplesfrom Danish learners

Motleycategory

(1) I won’t be a teacher like othersexpect me to do

(2) much more classes than lastsemester

(3) ..they mainly focus on study(4) now I am grown-up and the

inexplicable exciting is gone

Note: Bold indicates problematic structures.

346 J. Vinther

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

uncertain whether the chosen items and comments would be valid, substantial andcould be said to bring either group of students forward. As it were, the trajectoryproved to be quite consistent from observation, comment and correction, and thelinguistic awareness demonstrated comprised a satisfactory scope. Furthermore, itwas possible to organise the observation into categories that could be said torepresent consistent patterns (cf. Table 1).

It is difficult to discern a general difference in the approach to giving feedbacktaken by the two groups. It appears to be individually determined. Some of theChinese participants did not give linguistic feedback at all, but of those who did,individuals gave more feedback than some of the Danish students – the maximumbeing 27 linguistic comments in one email (and in response to one received email).Thus, the Chinese participants did not shy away from pointing out the mistakes oftheir interlocutors. The cultural issues in this study are complex in that this is not aninteraction between native and non-native speakers, and the cultural issues in thelink between the target language and its culture is indirect. Gardner et al. (2004) talkabout how language learning is different form any other subjects taught in that itinvolves the acquisition of the culture of the target language and that the degree ofsuccess in the language in question is related to the attitude of the learner towardsthat culture and its community. The learners in this experiment interact in thetriangle of Danish, Chinese and English cultures. Both groups of learners have tonegotiate two cultures at a minimum in order for the communication to besuccessful, but the cultural component is not in this case an object of learning, ratherit is a silent partner and motivator (see Figure 1).

Warden (2000), in his description of the results from an experiments with Chinesestudents, points out that the effect of outright error correction was better than moreprocess oriented feedback. Warden’s comment is that an emphasis on standardrequirements seems to be more in tune with Chinese culture and practices, andtherefore a more motivating approach for these students. This present study does notcontradict that finding. The outright error correction, which the participatingDanish students found so hard (and harsh), was seen as the Chinese students as away to improve the performance and grow better (cf. Table 2).

The approach adopted in leaving uncontrolled, or unmeasured, the developmentin linguistic progress was considered acceptable in consideration of the higherobjective of motivation enhancement and ensuing communication with productionof free and spontaneous language output in an intercultural setting. Boxer (2008) in areference to Hatch (1978) synthesises:

Figure 1. Illustration of communication channels by nationalities of interlocutors.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 347

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

. . .out of discourse comes syntax; that is to say, the ability to use native-like strings ofwords into sentences emanates from participation in discourse in the target language.(Boxer, 2008, p. 306; see also Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-Ventura, & Wa-mbaleka, 2006)

It is conceivable to have some form of testing or assessment intertwined with anexperiment like this, but it was not the objective of the study, nor was it verypractical as the study consisted of two halves, one in the hands of the Danish side,and one in the hands of the Chinese side, with disparate aims and objectives. Themutual agreement was to use CMC and the cultural narrative as a motivating factor.

The students in this study were from the on-set capable of constructingsyntactically correct and varied sentences, which in principle should only enhancetheir susceptibility to new and less-tried expressions with the possibility of increasingtheir pragmatic knowledge of the English language in interaction and collaborationwith their interlocutors. As an indication of the interest in having a conversationwith each other, the transcripts reveal that the communications contain anoverwhelming number of topics on which the interlocutors exchange views oranecdotes. They share life stories, past and present, give each other details on theirinterests, their families, their countries, their lives as students, university life, theirhopes and aspirations. They do so in complex English sentences, not alwayscompletely correct, but it appears that they are venturing to try out new structuresand using vocabulary of which they are still somewhat uncertain.

The interesting thing is that the students in the two groups of participants makedifferent types of errors, which to some degree is also illustrated in Table 1. TheChinese students have a concentration of errors in the way they apply, or not apply,modal verbs, articles and syntax (question formation in particular). The errors madeby the Danish students proliferate in areas such as concord and syntax (not questionformation). The difference in error type is not unimportant as a motivating factor.Not only is this difference an incentive in the communication, it is also an importantinstigator of interest in the English language system and the learning of languages.The students in one communication actually ask each other questions about howthey go about learning a foreign language, thus raising the discussion beyond thenarrow item level. Furthermore, it is encouraging to observe how both groups ofparticipants are able to, and strain to, explain deep cultural and societal differencesin intuitionally related structure that the opposite number does not understand, butwhich the speakers are able to find a way of giving expression so that the receiver getsa notion of what it is and how it works. One of the most difficult tasks inintercultural communication is indeed to convey unknown culturally based conceptsinto comprehensible notions in a language, which may not contain the concisevocabulary to express it.

Conclusion

What effects did the cultural narrative have on the communication, the negotiationsof meaning and form, and motivation in this open-endedness of task in combinationwith the high degree of autonomy in the process? It seemed to confirm results fromprevious studies that in open-ended tasks communication is less likely to breakdownthan in close-ended task. In all of the transcripts, there was no instance of completebreakdown of communication. There was negotiation of meaning, but not clear-cutlexical meaning. Rather, the negotiations were either culturally based or they werefusions of form and meaning.

348 J. Vinther

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

The interesting discovery was that the level of proficiency of both the Chinese andthe Danish group of students was so high that it was difficult to separate meaning-focussed and form-focussed negotiations. Consequently, negations were reallyfocussed on form that might lead to ambiguous meaning. One example is, ‘I loveshopping, either’. The potential for misunderstanding (the opposing positives/negatives) due to the failing mastery of appropriate use of an adverbial is present inthe situation. However, the context-rich environment never allows any misunder-standing to take place, and the interlocutor is perfectly aware that the intendedmeaning is ‘I love shopping, too’. Therefore, the error is simply pointed out, and thereceiver is well enough versed in grammar to understand and accept the correctionwithout further discussion and explanation. What became apparent from thetranscripts was that the negotiation central to the communication was negotiationfor topic. The negotiation of form and meaning was there, but the dominant positionwas negotiation for topic. Statements like ‘I would like to talk more about it if you’reinterested’, or similar statements to that effect, are characteristic of the communication.

Another interesting result is the fact that due to the difference in the two L1sinvolved, the errors made by the two groups of students varied. It was therefore atruly cooperative effort to detect and correct errors; neither group was at adisadvantage and no asymmetry in the negotiation was discernable. Thus the presentstudy appears to support the results reported by Levy and Stockwell (2006).However, it is difficult to say whether the transcripts could be said to express a linkbetween motivation and autonomy, briefly defined as in control of own learning, butit is evident that the sheer enthusiasm and the volume of produced writtencommunication point in that direction. Furthermore, a concluding oral evaluation,involving only the Danish students, the general view was that one importantoutcome of the study was that the Danish students had come to view the formalaspects of language learning in a more positive light. They expressed a newunderstanding of the usefulness of having a metalanguage in which to discuss andcorrect errors (see also Berry, 2004). Indeed, they had come to realise the generalusefulness of grammar, and they had found gratification in being able to apply someof the knowledge that they previously had not thought particularly relevant, due totheir own L1 and English being similar in many respects. It is a sign of success for thestudents, if not for the study, that they asked each other if they could continue tocommunicate after the period of the study. The open-ended task of focussing onmeaning and form while collaborating on error correction was met satisfactorilywith the cultural element in the communication serving as propeller towardsproduction of a great deal of written narration, enhancing interest and motivation inpromoting one’s own and one’s interlocutor’s language learning processes.

Notes

1. Brown gave these definitions of the two types of motivation:

Instrumental motivation refers to the motivation to acquire a language as a means forattaining instrumental goals: furthering a career, reading technical material, translation,and so forth. An integrative motive is employed when a learner wishes to integratehimself within a culture of the second language group, to identify himself with andbecome a part of that society. (1980:114)

2. http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Anthro/gumperz/gumptalk.html.3. This is the period during which the data material was collected. The actual exchange

between students may have continued after this period.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 349

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Notes on contributor

Jane Vinther, PhD is associate professor and head of English Studies at the University ofSouthern Denmark, Campus Kolding. She teaches courses in English grammar and secondlanguage acquisition. Her research interest lies in international teaching and learning,intercultural communication, computer assisted language learning, computer-mediatedcommunication, processes of learning, and motivation.

References

Abrams, Z.I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performancein German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157–167.

Absalom, M., & Marden, M.P. (2004). Email communication and language learning atuniversity: An Australian case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(3–4), 403–440.

Anderson, N.J., & Vandergrift, L. (1996). Increasing metacognitive awareness in the L2classroom by using think-aloud protocols and other verbal report formats. In R.L. Oxford(Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 3–19).Manoa: University of Hawai’i.

Andrews, S. (2003). Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge base of theL2 teacher. Language Awareness, 12(2), 81–95.

Askehave, I. (2006). Communication: Transmitting messages or fusing horizons? In I. Askehave& B. Norlyk (Eds.), Meanings and messages (pp. 33–60). Copenhagen: Academica.

Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21–40.Berry, R. (2004). Awareness of metalanguage. Language Awareness, 13(1), 1–16.Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.Boxer, D. (2008). Discourse and second language learning. In J. Cenoz & N.H. Hornberger

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 3). Springer.Brown, H.D. (1980). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.Cain, K. (2007). Syntactic awareness and reading ability: Is there any evidence for a special

relationship? Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 679–694.Chapelle, C.A. (2009). Computer-assisted teaching and testing. In M.H. Long & C.J. Doughty

(Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 628–644). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Chapelle, C.A., & Hegelheimer, V. (2000). Methodological issues in research on learner

computer interactions in CALL. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 41–59.Dam, L. (Ed.). (2001). Learner autonomy: New insights (Vol. 15). AILA.Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation: A literary review. System, 23(2), 165–174.Dornyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19,

42–68.Ellis, R. (1987). Contextual variability in second language acquisition and the relevance of

language teaching. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Second language acquisition in context. London:Prentice Hall International.

Ellis, R. (1995). Uptake as language awareness. Language Awareness, 4(3), 147–160.Fernandez-Garcia, M., & Martınez-Arbelaiz, A. (2003). Learners’ interactions: A comparison

of oral and computer-assisted written conversation. ReCall, 15(1), 113–136.Fiori, M.L. (2005). The development of grammatical competence through synchronous

computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 567–602.Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and

motivation. London: Edward Arnold.Gardner, R.C., Masgoret, A.-M., Tennant, J., & Mihic, L. (2004). Integrative motivation:

Changes during a year-long intermediate-level language course. Language Learning, 54(1),1–34.

Gass, S.M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Gumperz, J.J. (1989). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hatch, E. (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic

texts. TESOL Quaterly, 37(2), 275–302.

350 J. Vinther

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quaterly, 40(1),109–131.

Hiromori, T. (2009). A process model of L2 learners’ motivation: From the perspectives ofgeneral tendency and individual differences. System, 37, 313–321.

Jimenez, L. (2003). Intention, attention, and consciousness in probabilistic learning. In L.Jimenez (Ed.), Attention and implicit learning (pp. 43–68). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.

Keck, C.M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating theempirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J.M.Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–129). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Kern, R.G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects onquantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79,457–476.

Leow, R.P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning,47(3), 467–505.

Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer assistedlanguage learning. London and New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Long, M.H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation ofcomprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.

Long, M.H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C.Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). NewYork: Academic Press.

Long, M.H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C.Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mufwene, S. (2010). Globalization and the spread of English: What does it mean to beAnglophone? English Today, 101, 26(1), 57–59.

Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quaterly, 31(3),409–429.

Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. InM.P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research.Harlow: Longman.

Norton, B. (2008). Identity, language learning, and critical pedagogies. In J. Cenoz & N.H.Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 45–57). Springer.

Peng, J.E. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the Chinese EFL classroom: A culturalperspective. English language teaching in China (pp. 250–284). London: Continuum.

Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ orallanguage abilities: The Awareness-Practice-Feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.),Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitivepsychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P. (1995). Aptitude, awareness, and the fundamental similarity of implicit andexplicit second language learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreignlanguage learning (Vol. Technical Report #9, pp. 305–357). Honolulu, Hawai’i: SecondLanguage Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Salaberry, R.M. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: Aretrospective. The Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 39–56.

Schmidt, R. (Ed.). (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Vol. TechnicalReport #9). Honolulu, Hawai’i: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Scholfield, P. (1991). Language awareness and the computer. In C. James & P. Garrett (Eds.),Language awareness in the classroom (pp. 227–241). London, New York: Longman.

Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Learner autonomy and tandem learning: Putting principles intopractice in synchronous and asynchronous telecommunications environments. ComputerAssisted Language Learning, 16(5), 427–443.

Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical model of communication. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. AppliedLinguistics, 2, 159–168.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 351

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Sharwood Smith, M. (2005). More on the meta mode: In search of deeper explanations for therole of consciousness in second language learning. In A. Psaltou-Joycey & M.Mattheoudakis (Eds.), Selected papers on theoretical and applied linguistics, 11–13 April,2003 (pp. 28–42). Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.

Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14.Slethaug, G. (2007). Teaching abroad. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which comes

first? Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 245–266.Stockwell, G.R., & Harrington, M.W. (2003). The incidental development of L2 proficiency in

NS-NNS e-mail interaction. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 337–359.Tarone, E.E. (1995). A variationist framework for SLA research: Examples and pedagogical

insights. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Rutkowski (Eds.), Secondlanguage theory and pedagogy (pp. 255–269). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tarone, E.E. (2002). Frequency effects, noticing, and creativity: Factors in a variationistinterlanguage framework. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 287–296.

Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self andidentity. In Z. Dornyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self.Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

van Lier, L. (1991). Language awareness: The common ground between linguist and languageteacher. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art (pp. 528–546). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

van Lier, L. (1999). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy andauthenticity. London, New York: Longman.

Vinther, J. (2005). Cognitive processes at work in CALL. Computer Assisted LanguageLearning, 18(4), 251–271.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1934/1982). Thought and language. Cambridge (MA) and London (UK): MITPress.

Warden, C.A. (2000). EFL business writing behaviors in differing feedback environments.Language Learning, 50, 573–616.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. TheModern Language Journal, 81, 470–481.

Xu, J., & Bull, S. (2010). Encouraging advanced second language speakers to recognise theirlanguage difficulties: A personalised computer-based approach. Computer AssistedLanguage Learning, 23(2), 111–127.

352 J. Vinther

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

03 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014