View Content #19023

Shannon Sauro is an associate professor in the department of Culture, Languages and Media at Malmö University in Sweden. Her research interests include task-based language teaching in computer-mediated contexts and the intersection of online media fandoms and language learning.

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is person-to-person communication that can take place over a range of different digital tools and modalities. These include asynchronous digital communication tools such as email and discussion boards as well as synchronous tools such as text-chat and voice- and video-conferencing. However, CMC also includes interpersonal communication that takes place in digital spaces that are of more recent interest to language educators and researchers such as gaming environments and social media. When setting up interpersonal interaction or language exchanges using a particular CMC tool, it is crucial for practitioners to keep in mind the ways in which communication technologies can transform how we interact, the language we use, and the relationships such computer-mediated interaction can foster (Kern, 2014).  What follows are four points for practitioners to consider when implementing CMC-based activities:

1. Different CMC tools lend themselves to certain types of interaction, tasks, and topics. This distinction is particularly apparent when looking at social media. Twitter's 140 character limit is an obvious example of how technology can constrain the amount and type of language used. However, providing learners with multiple modes of communication (e.g. bimodal voice-text chat, video-conferencing with a discussion board) may allow learners with different interactional styles greater options for communication and interaction (e.g. Sauro, 2009).
2. An important issue to consider when using social media to support interaction is students' prior familiarity and the kind of language and social relationships they have experienced in this digital context. This prior history can become an issue, for example, when asking students to use a social media platform for work or educational purposes that they may prefer to use primarily for social and non-school related interaction (e.g., Manca & Ranieri, 2013).
3. When selecting a CMC tool for interaction, consider also what other tasks will be competing with learners' attention. For instance, will learners be negotiating cross-cultural misunderstandings in a telecollaboration and therefore benefit from a CMC tool that supports either real-time or asynchronous written interaction? Or will learners be engaged in game play that requires the use of one or both hands, potentially making voice-chat a better tool for interaction than text-chat?
4. CMC tools are a staple for distance language teaching in which learners can access a variety of CMC tools and modes concurrently (e.g. text-chat, voice-chat, shared blackboard, etc.) during a real-time remote class. Understanding that students are likely to multi-task (e.g. Suzuki, 2013) with the different CMC modes and online and offline resources (or distractions) can guide teachers in the structuring of class time, selection of tools, or use of whole group or individual instruction.

References

Kern, R. (2014). Technology as Pharmakon: The promise and perils of the Internet for foreign language education. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 340-357.

Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2013). Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of the literature on Facebook as a technology-enhanced learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 487-504.

Sauro, S. (2009). Strategic use of modality during synchronous CMC. CALICO Journal, 27(1), 101-117.

Suzuzki, S. (2013). Private turns: A student's off-screen behaviors during synchronous online Japanese instruction. CALICO Journal, 30(3), 371-392.