Course description:

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has been gaining momentum for almost two decades now in various business and educational contexts. It has been heralded as an equalizing tool: participants who dare not speak in a language course, for example, contribute enthusiastically via this medium. CMC also flies under the flag of raising positive learning attitudes among foreign language (L2) learners, providing opportunities for cross-cultural exchanges, as well as improving language and discourse skills. However, many serious questions remain unanswered: What are the most effective uses of CMC in the foreign language classroom? What tasks optimize the benefits of CMC? How can we measure language learning improvements as a result of using CMC in the L2 classroom? Participants in this class will familiarize themselves with CMC’s pedagogical genesis and history in L2 education as well as with its current application for L2 teaching and research. Participants will also develop skills for evaluating the claims (many of which have been wildly accepted despite being grounded in weakly designed studies) and research design of CMC studies.

Readings:

The articles and chapters can be downloaded from the course’s Blackboard Homepage (you can log in from http://courses.utexas.edu)

Course requirements and grading:

1. in-class participation (leading 2-3 discussions) 30%

2. 2 article reviews (1.5-2 pages long each) 20%

3. term-paper (abstract, annotated bibliography, draft, final draft) 40%

4. in-class presentation of term-paper 15%

in-class participation

a) This course draws much of the interpretive power from students’ own contributions. You are expected to interact with your peers and instructor actively on a regular basis.

b) In addition, two-three times during the semester (depending on number of students), you will have to lead the discussion on the assigned chapters or articles with a peer. This practice gives you an opportunity to prepare for moderating (chairing) conference panels, for example. In class you can bring up related studies you have read, and moderate the discussion of the rest of the class. It is helpful to bring a handout to class with some discussion topics or questions.

c) Your contributions to the course’s synchronous (SCMC) and asynchronous (ACMC) chats will also constitute a part of your overall course grade. Comments that help synthesize, evaluate and interpret the readings, a peer’s research or help put personal experience into a theoretical framework will be of the highest value.

2 article reviews

During the first few weeks of the course, you will have to review any two articles we read for class: outline the research questions, review and critique the research design and findings. A guide to analyzing articles in applied linguistics will be provided in class. Writing these papers will allow you and me to negotiate the type of analysis expected on the term-paper. These article reviews are based on individual work.

Term-paper

The term paper has two possible levels. Students working towards their MA degrees may turn in a review of literature pertaining to a particular sub-topic within CMC research (e.g., attitude and CMC; cross-cultural development; task-choice and CMC; Web-Quests, etc.) and discuss the pedagogical implications of this research. Students at the doctoral level must conduct a mini-study (can and should be used as the pilot study for your dissertation).

For MA students, the first 10 pages of the paper must critically review the studies that pertain to your selected CMC subtopic, offering a coherent line of argumentation for the use of CMC for a particular pedagogical purpose. The remaining 3-5 pages should address actual teaching practices that would benefit from the use of CMC (e.g., if your purpose for using CMC is to help your students learn tools for cross-cultural interaction, what tasks would you incorporate into your teaching?). For PhD students, the first 5-6 pages of paper must present your main thesis and review the relevant literature for your CMC sub-topic. The next 3-4 has to present your research design (research questions, hypotheses, the data you must collect and how you will collect and analyze them). The remaining 5-6 pages should clearly present the results of your study, your findings, your interpretation of these findings (what you think your data means, how it fits into the framework of existing research – how it supports of refutes these findings, etc.), the limitations of your study and suggestions for pedagogy and further research.

The final version of this paper should incorporate appropriate comments you receive from your peers both in-class and over synchronous & asynchronous chats, and it should be of publishable quality. So far, three students who have completed this class last time have presented at conferences and even published preliminary reports in Language Learning and Technology Online and CALICO, both excellent quality and very professional journals, based on their final papers. Before you begin the writing process, have a journal in mind to which you might want to submit such an article, so your paper reflects the appropriate audience and focus.

Grading is based on completing all the sub-components (see below), critical review of enough and relevant sources from the professional literature, cohesion of writing, presence of original ideas (I want to learn something new from your paper), strength of argumentation (persuade me that your point of view is appropriate), writing style and mechanics (spelling, syntax, well-formulated sentences, etc.). Collaborative work is very much encouraged, since co-authored articles are typical in applied linguistics.

For this term-paper you have to turn in the following subcomponents:

a) an abstract of about 150 words that explains your topic and places your research focus in the context of the previous literature on CMC (due week 6)

b) an annotated bibliography of 15 articles/book chapters (a complete bibliographic reference & a 3-4 sentence description of what each article is about) (due week 9)

c) a revised, proof-read draft of 10-12 pages minimum (due week 12)

d) a final version of your 14-16 page paper (due during finals’ week)

In-class presentation of the term-paper

During weeks 13 - 15, you will present your paper to the class. The allotted time for the presentation will depend on the number of students (25 – 35 mins / presentation). PowerPoint presentations are very much encouraged, as are professionally prepared handouts for your audience. Your in-class presentation is a useful trial run at a subsequent conference presentation.

WEEKLY SCHEDULE DOES NOT REFLECT UPDATED READINGS FOR SPRING 2006 YET

Weekly Schedule --------

(dates may change upon mutual agreement between the instructor and the students)

Week	Date	Schedule of Topics	Reading assignments (to be read before class)
1	Aug. 28	Context, Intros, relevant professional journals
2	Sept. 2	Theoretical foundations II. – Applied Linguistics Rod Ellis (Interaction Hypothesis)	Robert Blake. 2000. Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 1, 120-136. PLUS ONE of the following articles/chapters: Rod Ellis. 1999. Theoretical perspectives on interaction and language learning. In Rod Ellis (Ed.) Learning a second language through interaction. pp. 3-31. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Teresa Pica. 1987. Second-language acquisition, social interaction and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 1, 3-21
2	Sept. 4	Intro to CMC: meet with Joe Sanchez
3	Sept. 9	Theoretical Foundations – Sociocultural Theory, Vygotsky	James P. Lantolf. 2000. Introducing sociocultural theory. In Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. pp. 1-26. New York: Oxford UP. PLUS ONE of the following articles and chapters: Merrill Swain. 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialog. In Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. pp. 97-114. Oxford UP. Leo Van Lier. 2000. From input to affordance: Social- interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. pp. 245-259. New York: Oxford UP.
3	Sept. 11	Early history (Bruce et al.) – deaf education, ESL, business	ANY ONE chapter from: Bertram Bruce, Joy Kreeft Peyton and Trent Batson. (Eds.) 1993. Network-based Classroom: Promises and Realities. New York: Cambridge UP. (this book is on reserve at the PCL)
4	Sept. 16	General applied linguistics findings in CMC (vocabulary, lexical & syntactic complexity)	ANY TWO of the following: Margaret Healey Beauvois. 1998. Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 2, 198-217. Richard G. Kern 1995. Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 4, 457-476. Glenn Stockwell and Michael Harrington. 2003. The incidental development of L2 proficiency in NS-NNS E-mail interactions. CALICO,20,2, 337-59. Mark Warschauer 1997. Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 4, 470-481.
4	Sept. 18	Due: article review paper #1 General applied linguistics findings in CMC (reading, writing, listening & speaking)	ANY TWO of the following: Jack Burston. 2001. Computer-mediated feedback in composition correction. CALICO, 19, 1, 37-50. Nancy Sullivan 1998. Developing critical reading and writing skills: Empowering minority students in a networked computer classroom. In Swaffar et al. Language Learning Online. (pp. 41-56). Nancy Sullivan & Ellen Pratt. 1996. A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24, 4, 491-501. Janet Swaffar. 1998. Assessing development in writing: A proposal for strategy coding. In J. Swaffar, Susan Romano, Phillip Markley and Katherine Arens (Eds.) Language Learning Online. 155-179. Austin: Labyrinth.
5	Sept. 23	General applied linguistics findings in CMC: Oral development	ANY TWO of the following: Zsuzsanna I. Abrams. 2003. The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. MLJ, 87, 2, 157-167. Margaret Healey Beauvois. 1998. Write to speak: The effects of electronic communication on the oral achievement of fourth semester French Students. In Judith A. Muyskens (Ed.) New Ways of Learning and Teaching: Focus on Technology and Foreign Language Education. pp. 93-116. Boston: Heinle. J. Scott Payne and Paul J. Whitney. 2002. Developing oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO, 20, 1, 7-32. Mark Warschauer. 1996. Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO, 13, 2&3, 7 – 26.
5	Sept. 25	Due: article review paper # 2 Discourse analysis w/ CMC (discuss journal requirements for abstract length and content)	ANY TWO of the following: Dorothy M. Chun. 1994. Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 1, 17-31. Mark Darhower. 2002. Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO, 20, 3, 249-277. Celeste Kinginger. 2000. Learning the pragmatics of solidarity in the networked foreign language classroom. In Joan K Hall and Lorrie Stoops Verplaetse (eds.) Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction. pp. 23-46. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6	Sept. 30		CMC: applicability of CMC research to teaching / learning experience (whole class CMC) & provide feedback on abstracts (groups of 3 CMC)
6	Oct. 2	Due: term-paper abstract Attitudes, motivation & anxiety research w/CMC	Read ANY TWO of the following: Margaret Healey Beauvois. 1995. E-Talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion. Computers and the Humanities, 28, 177-190. Christophe Jaeglin. 1998. Learners’ and instructors’ attitudes towards computer-assisted class discussion. In Swaffar et al. pp. 121-138. Alison Lewis and Stephan Atzert. 2000. Dealing with computer-related anxiety in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 4-5, 377-395. Lydie E. Meunier. 1998. Personality and motivational factors in computer- mediated foreign language communication (CMLFC). In Muyskens (Ed.) pp. 145-198.
7	Oct. 7	General social issues	Read ANY TWO of the following: Phillip Markley. 1998. Empowering students: The diverse roles of Asians and women in the ESL computer classroom. In Swaffar et al pp. 81-96. Tom Postmes, Russel Spears and Martin Lea. 1998. Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-Effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 6, 689-715. Mark Warschauer, Lonnie Turbee and Bruce Roberts. 1996. Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24, 1, 1-14.
7	Oct. 9	Cross-cultural learning via CMC	Read ANY ONE of the following: Elizabeth Bernhardt and Michael Kamil. 1998. Enhancing foreign culture learning through electronic discussion. In Muyskens (Ed.) pp. 39-56. Gilberte Furstenberg, Sabine Levet, Kathryn English and Katherine Maillet. 2001. Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The CULTURA project. Language Learning & Technology, 5,1, 55-102. Christine Leahy. 2001. Bilingual negotiation via E-mail: An international project. System, 14,1, 15-42. Meei-Ling Liaw & Robert J. Johnson. 2001. E-mail writing as a cross-cultural learning experience. System, 29, 2, 235-251. Jeffrey Schneider & Silke von der Emde. 2000. Brave new (virtual) world: Transforming language learning into cultural studies through online learning environments (MOOs). ADFL Bulletin, 32, 1, 18-26.
8	Oct. 14	Discuss papers in-class with	OPEN TOPIC: pick any relevant scholarly article from the last 2 years
8	Oct. 16	CMC: Continue discussing culture & CMC; Differences between synchronous & asynchronous CMC; teaching languages with other orthographies
9	Oct. 21	Due: annotated bibliography Pedagogical Implications & Limitations of CMC Begin ACMC : term-papers	ANY TWO chapters from: Mark Warschauer & Richard Kern. 2000. Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. New York, NY: Cambridge UP. (this book is available on reserve at thePCL)
9	Oct 23	Continue: teaching with CMC	ANY ONE of the following: Catherine C. Fraser. 1999. Report: Goethe gossips with Grass: Using computer chatting software in an introductory literature course. Unterrichtspraxis, 32,1, 66-74. Orlando R. Kelm. 1998. The use of electronic mail in foreign language classes. In Swaffar et al. (Eds.) Language Learning Online. pp. 141-153. Shu-Ching Yang. 2001. Integrating computer-mediated tools into the language curriculum. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 85-93.
10	T. Oct 28	Research Design – General (qualitative & quantitative) – ‘re’-discuss articles from perspective of research design (focus on awareness of HOW TO WRITE UP CMC RESEARCH DESIGN: Questions, hypotheses, and methods)	Donna M. Mertens. 1997. Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. (Chapter 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. PLUS EITHER of the following: Lourdes Ortega. 1997. Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology Vol. 1, No. 1, July 1997, pp 82-93. http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/ortega/default.html Janet Swaffar. 1998. Towards the future: Suggestions for research and the classroom. In Swaffar et al. (Eds.) Language Learning Online. 179-189.
10	Oct 30	Discuss own research w/ entire class
11	Nov. 4	Discuss own research in class with peer group	– specific questions & approaches; group / pair work for peer review of own research: discuss presentations
11	Nov. 6	Bring working draft of term-paper Discuss own research w/ peer group (3-4, face-to-face)	– specific questions & approaches; group / pair work for peer review of own research: discuss presentations
12	Nov. 11	CMC: Appropriate & effective CMC research design, suggestions for improvement; CMC and teaching
12	Nov. 13	Due: Draft of term-paper	Individual conference meetings with instructor
13	Nov. 18	The absolute latest in CMC research & pedagogy	OPEN TOPIC: Pick any relevant article from the most current journals on FL pedagogy that relates to CMC
13	Nov. 20	In-class presentations of research papers
14	Nov 25	In-class presentations of research papers
14	Nov. 27	Thanksgiving Break	NO CLASS
15	Dec. 2	In-class presentations of research papers
15	Dec. 4	In-class presentations of research papers
TUESDAY, December 9			*Paper Due in EPS 3.102 by 4:45 p.m.*

Recommended additional readings

Relevant SLA theories & Pedagogical issues (non-CMC contexts):

Rod Ellis. 1999. Learning a Second Language Through Interaction. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Pauline Foster. 1998. A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1, 1-23.

Susan Gass & Evangeline Marlos Varonis. 1994. Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 16, 283-302.

Marta Anton.  1999.  The Discourse of a Learner-Centered Classroom: Sociocultural Perspectives on Teacher-Learner

     Interaction in the Second-Language Classroom  The Modern Language Journal, 83, 3, 303-318

Douglas Altamiro Consolo. 2000. Teachers’ action and student oral participation in classroom oral interaction. In Joan K Hall

and Lorrie Stoops Verplaetse (eds.) Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction. pp. 91-107.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Joan Kelly Hall. 2000. Classroom interaction and additional language learning: Implications for teaching and research. In Joan

K Hall and Lorrie Stoops Verplaetse (eds.) 2000. Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction

(chapter 14: 287-298.)

Michael H. Long. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In William C. Ritchie & Tej K.

Bhatia (Eds.) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Michael H. Long & Patricia A. Porter. Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly,

19, 2, 207-228.

June K. Phillips and Robert M. Terry (Eds.). Foreign Language Standards: Linking Research, Theories and Practices.

Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Teresa Pica, Lloyd Holliday, Nora Lewis and Lynelle Morgenthaler. 1989. Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic

demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63-90.

Regina F Roebuck. 2001. Teaching Composition in the College Level Foreign Language Class: Insights and Activities from

Sociocultural Theory. FL Annals, 34, 3, 206-215

Sandra J. Savignon. 1997. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice.

Overview studies:

Min Liu, Zena Moore, Leah Graham, and Shinwoong Lee. 2003. A look at the research on computer-based technology use in

second language learning: A review of the literature from 1990-2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34,

3, 250-273.

Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler. 1991. Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. Boston, MA:

Cambridge UP.

Linguistic Aspects of CMC:

Naomi S. Baron. 1984. Computer mediated communication as a force in language change. Visible Language, XVIII, 2, 118-41.

Susan C. Herring (Ed.). 1996. Computer-mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives.

Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Thelma J. Peres. 2002.  Promoting the "Output" Hypothesis. CTJ Journal, 40,33-38

Pedagogy:

Zsuzsanna Abrams. 2003. Flaming in CMC: Prometheus’ Fire or Inferno’s? CALICO, 20, 2, 245-260.

-----. 2001.  Computer-mediated communication and group journals: Expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29,

     4, 489-503.

-----. 2002. Surfing to cross-cultural awareness: Using internet-mediated projects to explore cultural stereotypes. Foreign

Language Annals, 35, 2, 141-160.

Richard Kern. 1998. Technology, social interaction, and FL literacy. In Judith A. Muyskens (Ed.) New Ways of Learning and

     Teaching: Focus on Technology and Foreign Language Education (pp. 57-92). Boston, MA: Heinle&Heinle.

Andreas Müller-Harmann. 2000. The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks.

Language Learning & Technology, 4, 2, 129-147.

Computer-Mediated Communication & Foreign Language Pedagogy

WEEKLY SCHEDULE DOES NOT REFLECT UPDATED READINGS FOR SPRING 2006 YET

Weekly Schedule --------

Thanksgiving Break

NO CLASS