Crossing
Frontiers
(Kerns et al, 2004) is a metastudy/analysis of the impact of online
learning—and specifically, language negotiations—on second language
acquisition. Through the scope of
increasingly distance-based CMC (computer-mediated communication) learning
environments, the authors look into research that examined negotiation of
meaning and metalinguistic awareness.
Brace
yourselves: I’m about to venture into copy’n’paste mode, but it’s for good
reason. Here’s a snapshop of four of the
more interesting studies/ideas that Kerns et al highlight:
- “Together,
these studies suggest that CMC has increasingly complexified and
problematized current notions of meaning negotiation… the
increasing number of online learner interactions that cross geographical,
linguistic, cultural, social, and institutional lines strong calls for
more detailed investigation into what Toyoda and Harrison (2002)
characterize as the ‘discourse’ level of negotiation of meaning” (Kern at
al, p. 246).
- “Online
chatting does not necessarily lead to more complex second language writing
either. In her study that ferreted out differences between language use in
asynchronous and synchronous modes of interaction, Sotillo (2000) compared
the discourse functions and syntactic complexity of 25 ESL students’
writing. She found that synchronous discussions elicited conversation that
was more similar to face-to- face communication in terms of discourse
functions: requests, apologies, complaints, and responses. Asynchronous
writing promoted more sustained interactions and greater syntactic
complexity” (p. 247).
- “Through
the interactive exchange of viewpoints and perspectives, students using Cultura
are not “receiving culture” but are involved in a reciprocal
construction of one another’s cultures. The cultural literacy that Cultura
aims to develop is therefore not transmitted (as in an E. D. Hirsch
‘list’ variety), but rather created and problematized through
juxtapositions of materials, interpretations, and responses to
interpretations. This marks a key
pedagogical change: The teacher shifts out of the ‘omniscient informant’
role and focuses on structuring, juxtaposing, interpreting, and reflecting
on intercultural experiences” (249).
- “Kramsch and
Thorne (2002) question the assumption that the type of communication
students engage in over global networks (which tends to favor phatic
contact and positive presentation of self) naturally supports the
development of cross-cultural understanding. Reinterpreting a
French–American e-mail exchange (Kern, 2000), they argue that it was not
linguistic misunderstandings but a clash in cultural frames and
communicative genres that hindered students’ ability to develop common
ground for cross-cultural understanding. Specifically, what needed to be
negotiated ‘was not only the connotations of words . . . but the stylistic
conventions of the genre (formal/informal, edited/unedited, literate/orate),
and more importantly the whole discourse system to which that genre
belonged’ (p. 98). They argue that demands on communicative competence and
negotiation may be quite different on the Internet (Blake, 2000; Kötter,
2003; Pellettieri, 2000 explore some of these differences), and they call
for a reassessment of what these terms mean in globalized communication”
(pp. 251-252).
Each of those pseudo-abstract
blurbs held my interest, but I think that #3 was the most relevant for the
purposes of teaching and learning. The
teacher-as-“omniscient informant,” from my perspective, ought to be a dying
breed. Sure, the instructor is the
expert/professional, but if you’re going to ask how can I get students engaged?—which every teacher should—then you
can’t blah blah blah blah blah them
to death.
Students need to be put front and
center. They need to be the ones talking. They need to be the ones writing. They
need to be the ones
thinking. They need to be the ones doing.
If teachers—especially in language-based
contexts—structure their courses, units, and lessons with this in mind,
students will reap more “output time.”
And that’s key for negotiating meaning, whether it’s for the purposes of
learning a foreign language or learning the language of academic discourse (which
can seem like a foreign language in and of itself).
