Vol. 11, No. 2 Summer 2008

Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning The Journal of the Korea Association of Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning

The Korea Association of Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning

This journal was published with the support of the Korea Research Foundation(KRF). This journal is enlisted on the Korea Research Foundation(KRF).

Officers & Executive Board (2008. 1 ~ 2009. 12) The Korea Association of Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning (KAMALL) Founded in 1997 for promoting the teaching/learning of foreign languages through multimedia

Board Executives President Vice Presidents

Inn-Chull Choi (Korea University) Chung-Hyun Lee (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) Jong-Im Han (Ewha Womans University) Jin-Kyong Ae (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation) Daejin Kim (Seoul National University of Technology) Duck-Gi Min (Chongju National University of Education) Ki-Wan Sung (Kyung Hee University)

Secretary Generals

Heyoung Kim (Chung-Ang University) Jungtae Kim ((Paichai University)

Treasurer International Affairs Officers

Sangmin Lee (Kyung Hee University) Ho Lee (Chung-Ang University) Dan Craig (Indiana University)

Public Relations Officer Auditor Editorial Board Members

Editorial Committee Members

Jae Kyung Kim (Paichai University) Hee-Jeong Ihm (Seoul National University of Education) Haedong Kim (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) Jie-Young Kim (Chung-Ang University) Namhee Kim (Hanyang Cyber University) Seo Young Yoon (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) Jeong A Lee (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) Yoonjung Cha (Sejong University) Tae-Young Jeong (The Korea Military Academy) Sujung Park (Keimyoung University) Tae-Eun Kim (Soongsil University) Hosung Choi (Gyeongin National University of Education) Richard Lynch (Korea University) Chung Ja Kwon (Sogang University) Daejin Kim (Seoul National University of Technology) Sung-Yeon Kim (Hanyang University) Youngwoo Kim (International Graduate School of English) Jin Seock Kim (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation) Heyoung Kim (Chung-Ang University) Ki-Wan Sung (Kyung Hee University)

Eunkyung Sung (Cyber Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) Dongkwang Shin (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation) Sangmin Lee (Kyung Hee University) Wonho Yoo (Sogang University) Hyun-Woo Lim (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) Sei-Kyung Cho (Kyung Hee University) Kyung-Whan Cha (Chung-Ang University) Seonghee Choi (Kyonggi Institute of Technology) Heekyong Choi (Gyeongin National University of Education) Hee-Jeong Ihm (Seoul National University of Education) Jong-Bai Hwang (Konkuk University) Jungtae Kim ((Paichai University) Duck-Gi Min (Cheongju National University of Education) Beom Yoo (Chungbuk National University) Chang-In Lee (Paichai University) Kyutae Jung (Hannam University) Kyong-Hyun Pyo (Dankook University) Maria Oh (Jeonju National University of Education) Jae Chul Choi (Chonbuk National University) Dongkyoo Kim (Busan National University of Education) Shin-Hye Kim (Keimyung University) Chongwoon Park (Pukyong National University) Ju-Seop Lee (Cheju National University) Dan Douglas (Iowa State University) Jamie Myers (Penn State University) David Jonassen (University of Missouri) Steve Thorne (Penn State University) Elementary Education Division Committee

Secondary Education Division Committee

Chang-Yong Shim (Gyeongin National University of Education) Jinkyu Park (Korea University) Keun Huh (Jonggok Elementary School) Sunhee Hwang (Samreung Elementary School) Joo-Ri Chang (Deungchon Elementary School) Hee Chul Jun (Yongcheon Elementary School) Ji Young Nam (Korea Polytechnic University) Yoo-Ah Jun (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation) Young Joo Kim (Paichai High School) Mikyung Oh (Puchonbuk High School) Seon Hee Park (Sutaek High School) So-Ra Jung (Sungsa High School) Hyo-Eun Lee (Noil Middle School) Soyoung Kim (Changdong Middle School) Il Ee Park (Chongam Middle School) Yae-Jin Lee (Mansoo Middle School) Myunghee Sung (Chung Kang College of Cultural Industries)

University Division Committee

Hyang-ki Jung (Gimcheon College) Young Sook Shim (Catholic University) Jin Ah Lee (Sang Myung University) Yunkyung Lim (Wonkwang University) Hee-Kyung Lee (Yonsei University) Hyun Sook Yoon (Dongkuk University) Young Mi Kim (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation) Hyunsook Yoon (Dongguk University) Young-Mi Kim (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation) Chung Sook Kim (Korea University)

Foreign Languages Committee

Youngkyu Kim (Ewha Womans University) Jae Chul Choi (Chonbuk National University) Kyunghee Kim (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) Haeng-Gyu Choi (Kyung Hee University) Jaekeun Lee (Korea National University of Education)

Research Division Committee

Sook-Kyung Jung (Seoul Digital University) Hyewon Lee (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation) Heejin Kim (Cyber Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) Hyunjin Kim (Korea National University of Education) Byung Ro Lim (Kyung Hee University) June Lee (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) Yeongbeol Yoon (Geonggi Province Educational Information Research Institute) Chunja Sung (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) Youngsoo Ha (Saneung Elementary School) Hyungho Song (Jayang High School) Gunwoo Kim (Incheon Physical Education High School)

The Journal of KAMALL is published three times a year in April, August, and December. For a membership application and other information, write to: KAMALL Prof. Jungtae Kim, Secretary General Dept. of TESOL, Pai Chai University Doma2-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon-si, Korea, 302-735 Email: [email protected] Tel: 042-520-5913 C.P: 010-7239-6104 Annual membership fees are ₩20,000 for individuals and ₩100,000 for the library and institution with the postage included. The fee for admission to KAMALL is ₩20,000 for individual membership. The life-time membership fee is ₩300,000. Copyright ⓒ The Korea Association of Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning

한국멀티미디어언어교육학회 임원진 (2008. 1 ~ 2009. 12) 김성억(한남대), 김충배(고려대), 배두본(한국교원대), 최수영(한국교원대), 김인석(동덕여대), 조세경(경희대)

고문 자문위원 회장

부 회 장

김영기(오리엔트 AV), 김영이(EKLC), 김성수(잉글리쉬무무), 이찬규(선학사), 박 용(서일시스템) 최인철(고려대)

수석 (편집 및 출판)

이충현(한국외대)

기획 및 조정

한종임(이화여대)

학술 연구

진경애(교육과정평가원)

회원관리 및 프로그램개발

김대진(서울산업대)

교육 및 연수

민덕기(청주교대)

홍보 및 섭외

성기완(경희대)

총무이사

김혜영(중앙대), 김정태(배재대)

국제이사

이 호(중앙대), Dan Craig(Indiana University)

홍보이사

김재경(배재대)

재무이사

이상민(경희대)

감사

임희정(서울교대) 상임이사: 김해동(한국외대)

편집 이사

편집 위원

국내

김남희(한양사이버대), 김성연(한양대), 김지영(중앙대), 김태은(숭실대), 박수정(계명대), 윤서영(한국외대), 이정아(한국외대), 정태영(육사), 차윤정(세종대), 최호성(경인교대), Richard Lynch(고려대) 권청자(서강대), 김대진(서울산업대), 김동규(부산교대), 김신혜(계명대), 김영우(국제영어대학원), 김정태(배재대), 김진석(교육과정평가원), 김혜영(중앙대), 민덕기(청주교대), 박종원(부경대), 성기완(경희대), 신동광(교육과정평가원), 성은경(사이버한국외대), 오마리아(전주교대), 유범(충북대), 유원호(서강대), 이상민(경희대), 이주섭(제주교대), 이창인(배재대), 임현우(한국외국어대), 정규태(한남대), 조세경(경희대), 차경환(중앙대), 최성희(경기공업대), 최재철(전북대), 최희경(경인교대), 표경현(단국대), 한종임(이화여대), 황종배(건국대)

편집 위원

해외

Dan Douglas(Iowa State University), David Jonassen(University of Missouri), Jamie Myers(Penn State University), Steve Thorne(Penn State University) 상임이사: 심창용(경인교대), 박진규(고려대)

초등

장주리(등촌초등), 전희철(용인용천초등), 황선희(삼릉초등), 허 근(중곡초등) 상임이사: 남지영(한국산업기술대), 전유아(교육과정평가원)

중등

대학 I

김소영(창동중), 김영주(배재고), 박선희(수택고), 박일이(종암중), 오미경(부천북고), 이예진(만수중), 이효은(노일중), 정소라(성사고) 상임이사: 성명희(청강문화산업대) 정향기(김천대) 상임이사: 심영숙(가톨릭대), 이진아(상명대)

대학 II 학술 연구 및 교육 이사

외국어 연구 (교수학습) 연구 (교육공학)

김영미(교육과정평가원), 윤현숙(동국대), 이희경(연세대), 임윤영(원광대) 상임이사: 김정숙(고려대), 김영규(이화여대) 김경희(한국외대), 최재철(전북대), 최행규(경희대) 상임이사: 이재근(한국교원대) 김희진(사이버한국외대), 이혜원(교육과정평가원), 정경숙(서울디지털대) 상임이사: 김현진(한국교원대) 이 준(한국외대), 임병노(경희대)

연수

상임이사: 윤영벌(경기도교육정보연구원)

초등 연수

성춘자(한국외대), 하영수(사능초등)

중등 연수

김건우(인천체고), 송형호(자양고)

Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning The Korea Association of Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning (KAMALL) Vol.11, No.2 Summer 2008

Ae Ryang Hong & Chung-Hyun Lee

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners 9

Kyeong-Ouk Jeong

Promoting Learner Autonomy and Classroom Interaction Through Multimedia-Assisted English Language Teaching

41

Listening to Their Stories: Children's Reaction to Electronic Conversations

63

Eun-Hee Lee

Relationship Between Interactivity and Popularity in ESL Websites

83

Sangmin Lee

Exploring the Potential of a Web-Based Writing Instruction Program and AES: An Empirical Study Using My Access 103

Myongsu Park

Today and Tomorrow of Online Teacher Training for Korean In-Service Teachers of English

126

Stimulating Negotiation of Meaning in CMC Interaction

142

YoungIhn Koh

Young-Sook Shim

∙편집위원회 규정 ························································································································ 169 ∙논문 투고 규정 ·························································································································· 171 ∙Information for Contributors ········································································································ 671 ∙연구윤리에 관한 규정 ··············································································································· 177 ∙한국멀티미디어언어교육 학회지 중요 양식 안내 ······································································ 180 ∙회원 입회 신청서 ······················································································································ 188 ∙Membership Application Form ····································································································· 981

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners*1) Ae Ryang Hong (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) Chung-Hyun Lee (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies)

Hong, Ae Ryang & Lee, Chung-Hyun (2008). The effects of focus on form in CMC: A case study of Korean adult learners. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 11(2), 9-40. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of focus on form in computer-mediated communication (CMC) on the improvement of learners’ language ability as well as the potential relationship between the use of CMC, particularly text-based online chat and planned focus on form. It was designed to combine text-based online chat with instructor-guided focus on form in order to achieve a balance between meaning and form in meaningful communication. This study was carried out with four Korean EFL adult learners for 24 weeks. The data were 24 individual CMC transcripts, transcripts of individual instant messenger interviews, and field notes. The major findings of the study were as follows: 1) there was a gradual improvement in their language ability in terms of accuracy, complexity, and fluency. In particular, total C-units and the mean length of C-unit improved throughout the class, which indicates the learners tended to perform actively with more complex utterances in CMC; 2) the data revealed that there were 4 categories of learners’ perception on focus on form in CMC, noticing of the target features, repeated use of the target features, incidental modeling, and focus on form feedback; and 3) there were problems and difficulties occurring through CMC with instructor-guided focus on form, such as overemphasis on form, L1 interference, code switching, affective issues and, lack of independence. Some pedagogical implications are provided that may be helpful when implementing CMC in combination with focus on form.

* This work was supported by the 2008 Research Fund of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.

10

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

I. INTRODUCTION The computer is an integral part of daily life and has been widely used to support and extend language instruction. Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) has recently received much recognition for its potential to create and extend a positive language learning environment. Many studies have suggested the advantages of CMC in comparison with traditional face‐to‐face communication (Beauvois, 1992; Kern, 1995; Lee, 2006; Warschauer, 1996). Indeed, CMC can allow a variety of activities between learners via the instrumentality of computers and also expand learners’ opportunities for engaging in communicative practices. Since there are no time or geographic constraints, learners can use the target language outside the classroom via CMC technology. CMC can be a promising instructional tool for language teaching and learning and it can also provide timely support for language instruction educationally and practically. However, there have been concerns about the use of CMC, especially text-based CMC. Since text-based CMC is “written speech” (Murry, 1991), other learner errors would result in increased error uptake (Kelm, 1992). Research has argued that learners integrate other learner errors into their own interlanguage (Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992; Storch, 2002) and they tend to pay less attention to accuracy. Since both accuracy and fluency are significant, it is necessary to try to achieve a balance between meaning and form simultaneously in communication. Recent studies have suggested that learner communication focusing on learner attention on target forms is widely viewed as a key to language learning (Cook, 2001; Ellis, 1996; Lightbown and Spada, 1993; Pica, 1995). Therefore, communicative activities should be designed to promote both fluency and accuracy in communication and should not neglect either of them. As an effort to deal with the above mentioned concerns, it seems to be useful to combine CMC activities with focus on form. Focus on form does not only emphasize target grammatical features, but also involves engagement in meaning and attention to linguistic forms by communicative need. Thus, the notion of focus on form (Long, 1991) suggests that it can draw learners’ attention to forms within meaningful communication.

In

particular,

text-based

online

chat

involving

written

oral‐like

conversation, has great potential for increasing the noticing of target features. The major purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of focus on form in CMC. First of all, since CMC could lead to improvement in learners’ own interlanguage (Blake, 2000; Pellettieri, 1999; Smith, 2001), this study is to find out whether there is any advancement in their language ability. Also this study allows the learners to interact with

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

11

the instructor and focus on target features at their own pace, so it would be interesting to see whether the learners notice target features within meaningful CMC and how the learners react to them in such cases. Last, this study examines the learners’ perceptions on problems and difficulties during CMC based on focus on form.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 1. CMC and Focus on Form 1) The Instructional Use of CMC CMC can make the language teaching and learning process more flexible and effective in terms of such aspects as speed, flexibility and convenience (Lee & Pyo, 2003; Mason, 1990). It can provide learners with a variety of activities to practice meaningful communication and enhance the learning environment. Previous studies on the use of CMC provide a number of positive findings on the comparison of CMC to traditional face to face classroom interaction. CMC can increase learner participation (Beauvios, 1992; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996), quantity of discourse in text-based CMC (Kern, 1995) and decrease anxiety level for learners (Beauvois, 1992). The widespread use of the CMC medium allows learners the opportunities for a variety of pedagogical activities for language development. CMC as an instructional tool for language teaching and learning is divided into two modes: a) asynchronous communication and b) synchronous communication. Both modes can be used together or separately for learning objectives. In terms of asynchronous CMC (ACMC), it is attractive to language teaching and learning because it allows learners to work on interaction at their own pace (Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999), and gives ample time while performing. In addition, ACMC is “written speech" (Murry, 1991) and the target language can be reviewed, reflected on, and edited (Kern, Ware, & Warschauer, 2004). Synchronous CMC (SCMC) has been widely examined as a tool to promote language development and shown several benefits. SCMC allows learners to practice rapid interaction and negotiation of meaning, receive immediate feedback and provides a communication environment similar to a real (Pica & Doughty, 1985a; Kelm, 1992). In the text-based SCMC, it permits learners to pause and pay closer attention in communication when necessary (Warshauer, 1996) and monitor their interlanguage. As a result, it may be more effective for metalinguistic awareness than oral interactions (Blake, 2000; Kitade,

12

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

2000). Besides, it can elicit more complex language lexically and syntactically than oral classroom production (Fitze, 2006; Warschauer, 1996). CMC is a facilitative tool that can be used to support a variety of learning experiences for learners and teachers can use it to create a more effective language environment based on learners’ learning needs.

2) Planned Focus on Form The present study adapts the broader concept provided by Doughty and Williams (1998), and planned focus on form instruction conceptualized by Ellis (2001) as seen in [Table 1]. Doughty and Williams (1998) suggested a planned or proactive focus on form instruction where the target forms have been determined before the treatment. In this study, it is essential for this concept of focus on form instruction that attention to form occurs naturally within meaningful communication and it is irrelevant to demonstrate whether attention is planned or incidental. [Table 1] Ellis’s three types of Form‐Focused Instruction (2001) Type of FFI

Primary Focus

Distribution

Focus on forms

Form

Intensive

Planned focus on form

Meaning

Intensive

Incidental focus on form

Meaning

Extensive

Studies of planned focus on form is related to input and production. Ellis (2001) argued that enriched input consists of modified input to present learners with many examples of the target structure, so it can induce noticing of the target form in the context of meaning focused activities. They are intended to help learners employ target structures. Loschky and Beley‐Vroman (1993) also noted that communicative tasks can be designed for the production of useful and natural target features because learners tend to avoid using what they find difficult. Focused communicative tasks need to be designed carefully for appropriate target features based on learners’ language needs.

3) Focus on Form in Communication The primary point of focus on form is that learners should notice the target features in meaningful communication. Celce-Murcia (1991), Long and Crookes (1992) suggested that a role for drawing learners’ attention to form within content‐based and task‐based curricula. Ellis (1993) mentioned the development of explicit rule‐based knowledge to help learners sort out input and facilitate output. In order to support focus on form in

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

13

communication, Williams (1995) suggested emphasizing the use of authentic language, the tasks that encourage the negotiation of meaning between learners as well as between learners and teacher, successful communication involving risk taking, and leaner autonomy in choice of language and topic. It also needs to have minimal focus on form, including lack of emphasis on error correction. Spada and Lightbown (1993) suggested that continued attention to form, consistent corrective feedback, increased infrequent forms in the input, and pushing learners toward target‐like production are all important in focus on form. However, it should not be overemphasized and should be a part of overall meaningful communication. Also learners’ language proficiency is very important because focus on form is particularly problematic for beginning learners (Celce-Murcia, 1991; VanPatten, 1990). It might be difficult for beginners to notice the target features in communication initially. Thus, instruction should help them notice the target features effectively in meaningful communication.

2. Research on Focus on Form in CMC Recent research studies have emphasized that the importance of engaging learners in meaningful communicative activities as a key to successful language acquisition (Ells, 2005; Lee, 2006; Pica & Doughty, 1985b; Savignon, 1991), which can be realized by using CMC in language instruction. Some researchers argued that through planning and monitoring output learners might develop their own interlanguage system by noticing the gap between their own production and the target language (Izumi & Bigelow, 2000; Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara, & Fearnow. 1999; Williams, 1995). Consequently, CMC in combination with focus on form might provide language learners with an enhancing learning environment to improve both accuracy and fluency during performance. The use of CMC to draw learners’ attention to linguistic structures is appealing. The previous studies (Blake, 2000; Pellettieri, 1999; Smith, 2001) have demonstrated learners’ incidental attention to language features in CMC leading to learner intake and possible improvement in their interlanguage system. It allows learners to process input and output at a slower pace and in text-based CMC, output is visible during performance. These features enable learners to focus on language forms and gaps in interlanguage without distractions in the flow of communication (Smith, 2001). With regard to the effectiveness of text-based CMC, both SCMC and ACMC as tools for language teaching and learning have been widely examined (Beauvois, 1998; Kern, 1995; Lee, 2001, 2002; Salaberry, 2000; Smith 2003, 2004; Satillo, 2000). For example, the use of CMC for practicing the target language promotes a decrease in instructor

14

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

utterances in favor of active learner participation (Hudson & Bruckman, 2002; Kern, 1995), and learners can produce more complex language in CMC as compared to oral interaction while improving learners’ oral and written skills (Payne & Whitney, 2002; Smith, 2003). Recent studies have proposed that L2 instruction should focus learners’ attention on form while maintaining a focus on meaning, including both focus on meaning and focus on form in communication (e.g., Johnson, 1996; Loschky & Bley‐Vroman, 1993; Skehan, 1998; Willis, 1996). In CMC, some interactional context may provide learners with the right opportunities to expand and refine their interlanguage systems (Tarone, 1995). Therefore, it is necessary to design the CMC activities that will lead learners to pay attention to the target features within meaningful communicative tasks. Indeed, oral interactions may not explicitly lead to a connection between language meaning and language form. According to Sato (1988), conversational interaction is not enough to ensure the acquisition of particular complex syntactic structures. In contrast, learners can reflect on language form during text-based CMC. This kind of ‘written conversation’ (Salaberry, 2000) may accelerate the morphosyntactic development of the target language. CMC in combination with focus on form can draw learners’ attention to the target features in meaningful communication and it can lead to improvement in their interlanguage system.

III. METHODOLOGY 1. Research Questions The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of focus on form through CMC. Therefore, the study examines how well the participants perform during CMC based on focus on form and whether there is any enhancement of their language ability. In addition, it investigates their perception on the language learning process and the attitudes to CMC with instructor‐guided focus on form. The main research questions to be investigated are as follows. First, do the learners have any development of their language ability through CMC based on focus on form? Second, do the learners perceive the target English structures during CMC? If so, how do the learners respond to them? Third, do the learners have any difficulties or problems in CMC with instructor‐ guided focus on form?

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

15

2. Participants and Setting 1) Participants The subjects were four Korean EFL adult learners who had never used CMC as a tool for foreign language learning. Before participating in this study, they had completed the researcher’s two month English basic grammar class at a private language school and participated in this study. None of them received any training in speaking and writing in English. They all had great difficulty learning English when they were in school and were afraid to learn it again. Since they were frequent users of CMC tools like email, bulletin board and instant messenger in Korean, there was no need for CMC training sessions. (1) Subject 1 Subject 1 (S1) has been working at a trading company for over 10 years, so she has chances to use English at work from time to time. However, she is not confident and often avoids using it due to lack of proficiency. At the first interview, she mentioned that she was eager to learn English and definitely needed it, particularly when it comes to writing skills. She seems to be extrinsically motivated to learn English since she could be rewarded through promotions. (2) Subject 2 Subject 2 (S2) did not enjoy English classes in school and was especially bad at spelling. Owing to this shortcoming, she had doubts about her ability to communicate through text-based online chat activity. She has been working at a company almost for 5 years and has no opportunities to use English in daily life. She said that she had a few chances to talk with English native speakers and her affective filter was very high on those occasions and she became very shy. (3) Subject 3 Subject 3 (S3) mentioned that in spite of low language proficiency, she enjoys English. In fact, she makes a lot of mistakes and errors, but she tries to speak English or use it as much as possible. In common with S2, S3 works at a company and does not need to use English. However, she would like to go abroad to study English if she has a chance. (4) Subject 4 Subject 4 (S4) has been working at a bank for three years and the bank has recently required all the employees to take TOEIC speaking test. Since her English proficiency is

16

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

low, she is worried about the new requirement. In addition, she had trouble typing in English so she practiced it before data collection began. S4 was the least frequent CMC tool user among the participants because she does not prefer using them. According to their interviews, all of them were interested in learning English by CMC modes because it was a novel method for them. On the other hand, they were concerned about the capability of dealing with text-based online chat in English for a long period. Their English proficiency was measured by the TOEIC bridge test, consisting of 50 multiple choice grammar questions, after they completed the two‐month basic grammar course. Their level was close to elementary when the data collection started.

2) Setting The class was divided into three steps: pre-activity, activity and post-activity. The topic materials for each text-based chat class were selected from

ELT conversation

textbooks and then the contents of each topic were modified by the researchers and relevant to the learners’ communicative needs. There was no explicit grammatical explanation of the target structures. The object of each topic was designed to induce the target forms in the context of activity so that the learners could focus on the target features incidentally or as planned in CMC. For the text-based online chat activity with instructor‐guided focus on form, the class was conducted once a week via instant messenger. All other activities took place on the bulletin board. The weekly class schedule is presented in Table 2. [Table 2] Weekly Class Schedule Steps Pre-activity

Activity

Post-activity

Objects

Individual tasks

▪ To help the learners prepare for the activity

▪ Work on the topic materials on the bulletin board ▪ Brainstorm

▪ To promote the use of target form in meaningful communication

▪ Text-based online chat (50~60min.) with the instructor ▪ Instant messenger interview

▪ To provide the explicit explanation of errors

▪ Review the feedback on the bulletin board ▪ Question and answer

Each subject carried out the chat activity with the instructor, 50 to 60 minutes in length, followed by an interview in L1 for 10 to 15 minutes to examine their reflections on their language performance throughout the CMC activity. The weekly instant messenger

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

17

interviews demonstrated how the learners react to the use of CMC tools, what difficulties they had and what perspective they had during CMC activities. The places and the times of the chat sessions were arranged based on the learners’ schedule. During the chat, they were allowed to consult the weekly topic on the bulletin board and the main role of the instructor would be a learning partner and a facilitator for the activity.

3. Research Instruments 1) Transcripts The transcripts of 24 weeks of each learner’s chats were collected and analyzed to investigate the development of the learners’ language ability. The two transcripts of the pilot study were excluded from the study to allow for a familiarization phase. After the weekly chat activity, the instructor saved the transcripts and sorted them manually. The transcripts included names and messages of the participants.

2) Interviews A semi‐structured interview designed to provide information on the learners’ perspectives of the CMC activities and attitudes toward them was carried out via CMC. After each text-based online chat, an interview was conducted with open‐ended questions encouraging reflection on the activity and also some impromptu questions were asked for more information. In particular, the questions focused on the learners’ perceptions on the CMC activities, self‐evaluation of performance, difficulties and problems occurring during CMC and affective issues. The transcripts of the weekly interview were collected to analyze as well.

3) Field Notes Field notes were taken by the instructor in detail during and after each text-based online chat activity. The field notes particularly focused on the learners’ avoidance, risk taking, use of nonlinguistic signals, code‐switching, pause, and other difficulties and problems occurring during performance. The field notes also included their interlanguage phenomena, such as L1 interference. After the online chat, the instructor recorded details to investigate the learners’ perceptions on CMC. The following are the main points in the field notes.

18

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

[Table 3] Field Notes Points Categories

Point

Behaviors

▪ Avoidance : message abandonment, topic avoidance ▪ Risk‐taking : to attempt to produce and to interpret L2 ▪ Nonlinguistic Signals : The use of emoticons and various nonlinguistic signals ▪ Code‐switching : The use of L1 ▪ Pause : The difficulty of carrying on interaction

Interlangauge

▪ L1 interference

4) Procedures The research was conducted for about six months from September 2007 to March 2008. As a pilot study, the learners were given a two-week trial chat sessions in pairs and individual with the instructor to select an appropriate method for the study. The individual chat with the instructor was selected out for this study. It could allow the instructor to keep pace with the learners during CMC activities. Subsequently, there were a placement test, a face‐to‐face interview and a questionnaire conducted to find out the state of the learners before the class began and the bulletin board was set up. Then, the topics materials were selected and modified as well. The class was conducted for 24 weeks excluding the pilot study. Text-based online chat based on planned focus‐on form was carried out as individual work, accompanied with a chat interview to know their reflections on the CMC activities. At the last stage of the class, the feedback from the transcripts were posted on the bulletin board along with general comments, highlighting grammatical errors and explicit explanations. After the instruction phase, a post‐interview was conducted for better understanding of the learners’ perception on focus on form in CMC.

5) Data Analysis First of all, the 24 transcripts of each learner were measured as follows: a) total Cunits; b) C-unit length; c) error‐free clauses; d) target‐like use of verb tenses; e) false starts; and f) reformulations (Table 4). This study used communication units (c-units) as the primary units of analysis in order to examine the development of the learners’ language ability for this study. The count of C-unit excluded nonlinguistic signals such as emoticons. Due to low language proficiency, in addition, the learners frequently used short utterances without meaning such as “um,” “ah,” “OK,” and “I see.” Such utterances were excluded from the count of C-units as well.

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

19

[Table 4] Measures of Written Output Measure

Definition

Study

Total C-units

▪ Words, phrases and sentences, Grammatical and ungrammatical, which provide referential or pragmatic meaning

C-unit length

▪ The total number of words/The total number of C-units

Pica, Holliday, Lewis and Morgenthaler (1989)

Error‐free clauses

▪ The number of error‐free clauses/The total number of independent clauses, and subordinate clauses

Foster and Skehan (1996)

Target‐like use of verb tenses

▪ The number of correct finite verb phrases/the total number of verb phrases

Wigglesworth (1997)

False Starts

▪ Utterances or sentences that are not complete.

Reformulations

▪ Phrases or clauses that are repeated with some modification.

Skehan Forster Skehan Forster

and (1999) and (1999)

As general measure of accuracy, percentage of error free clauses and target like use of verb tenses were used to see their language ability based on their overall grammatical competence. Hesitation phenomena such as false starts and reformulations relating to lack of fluency were measured to see how fluently they performed during real‐time communication. The transcripts were categorized to investigate the learners’ noticing of focus on form in CMC and how they reacted to it. The interviews and field notes were summarized to examine the learners’ perception on CMC and then they were also categorized and qualitatively analyzed.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1. The Development of Language Ability in CMC The development of language ability based on the measures were in increments of 6 terms: term 1 (Week 1-4), term 2 (Week 5-8), term 3 (Week 9-12), term 4 (Week 13-16), term 5 (Week 17-20) and term 6 (Week 21-24). Accordingly, the four transcripts of each term were analyzed to investigate the progress of language ability of each learner.

20

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

1) The Overall Progress of the Learners As shown in Table 5, the participants made gradual improvement in their second language performance during CMC activities based on instructor‐guided focus on form. The overall progress of S1 gradually improved, particularly in terms of the total C-units of each term, which was the highest score among the participants. The ratios of error‐free clauses and target‐like use of verb tenses seemed to slightly fluctuate possibly due to familiarization with the topics or target features. However, the total C-units and the mean length of C-unit increased meaning that S1 produced more complex sentences with the similar ratios of error‐free clauses during CMC. [Table 5] Overall Progress of Subject 1 Measure

Term1

Term 2

Term 3

Term 4

Term 5

Term 6

Total C-units

163

169

172

194

198

198

C-unit Length

5.1

5.6

6.4

6.1

6.6.

7.2

Error‐free clauses

65.2%

60.2%

60.7%

65.2%

62.1%

66.5%

Target‐like use of verb tense

78.6%

81.0%

82.8%

87.3%

85.2%

80.9%

False Starts

17

14

10

9

12

5

Reformulations

7

12

3

5

8

6

Table 6 reveals the overall progress of S2 during performance. The progress of S2 in all of the measures was slightly improved, but the ratios of error‐free clauses and target ‐like use of verb tenses showed comparatively improved performance in language accuracy, which appears that S2 tended to focus on accuracy rather than fluency and seemed to monitor her utterances during performance. She frequently delayed her turn and tried to produce accurate utterances by using an Internet dictionary. False starts and reformulations occurred while hesitating and in the end. Some utterances were ended with Korean words due to difficulty in expressing herself in English. The results indicate that unlike the other subjects S3 performed less total C-units at the end of the class (Table 7). Although S3 did not produce more C-units than in the first term, the mean length of C-unit increased gradually, meaning that her utterances became more complex. In terms of error‐free clauses and target‐like use of verb tenses, the ratios show a rising and falling change. It appears that S3 often took more risks, so she had more errors than the other subjects. She did not pay much attention to the errors, but she tended to focus on meaning. False starts slowly decreased and reformulations occurred from time to time during the period.

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

21

[Table 6] Overall Progress of Subject 2 Measure

Term1

Term 2

Term 3

Term 4

Term 5

Term 6

Total C-units

135

127

136

134

135

147

C-unit Length

5.5

6.1

6.2

6.9

6.9

7.3

Error‐free clauses

51.0%

62.4%

59.9%

64.7%

63.5%

60.5%

Target‐like use of verb tense

73.7%

72.3%

76.5%

80.0%

81.0%

80.9%

False Starts

7

7

8

6

6

2

Reformulations

4

2

6

4

9

4

[Table 7] Overall Progress of Subject 3 Measure

Term1

Term 2

Term 3

Term 4

Term 5

Term 6

Total C-units C-unit Length Error‐free clauses Target‐like use of verb tense False Starts Reformulations

143 4.9 52.0%

146 5.6 51.9%

145 6.4 61.1%

143 6.4 64.9%

134 6.9 70.7%

136 7.1 60.6%

79.1%

80.7%

83.6%

85.6%

83.2%

79.6%

12 6

10 4

3 6

4 5

4 4

6 8

S4 had a great improvement in the amount of her output because the total C-units increased from 101 to 141 with the longer mean length of C-unit in Table 8. The ratios of error‐free clauses and target‐like use of verb tenses got higher gradually. However, one of the main reasons for higher ratios of error‐free clauses and target‐like use of verb tenses was that S4 tended to use the limited verb forms, such as present and past simple tenses and less complex utterances than the other learners. [Table 8] Overall Progress of Subject 4 Measure Total C-units C-unit length Error‐free clauses Target‐like use of verb tense False Starts Reformulations

Term1 101 4.8 48.3%

Term 2 119 5.5 55.5%

Term 3 113 5.8 71.3%

Term 4 131 5.5 67.2%

Term 5 134 6.0 59.3%

Term 6 141 6.2 68.8%

75.3%

76.4%

86.9%

87.7%

82.8%

85.1%

18 2

10 2

6 0

4 3

4 0

1 6

In addition, when she had difficulty producing utterances, in the end she tended to finish them with Korean words. However, the false start reduced rapidly, which means that S4 tried not to drop out during the terms in spite of the difficulty. Reformulations rarely occurred since she did not much attention to the errors during performance and

22

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

focused on communication itself.

2) Total C-Units and C-Unit Length Figure 4 describes the total number of C-units, which is the minimal communication unit for measuring the development of their language ability. As a result, S1 and S4 made great strides in total number of C-units, while S2 and S3 maintained the similar total C-units in each term. In particular, there was a big difference of total C-units between S1 and the other subjects although their language proficiency was similar in the beginning. According to S1, after having an experience of online chat for this study, she gained confidence in using English. Therefore, she was able to carry on online chat session in English when necessary at work, meaning S1 had more opportunities to use English than the others during the period. On the other hand, S4 had the least total C-units at the beginning of the class, but at the end she performed as well as S3 and S4 did. It appears that if learners pay attention to accuracy during performance, their written output is produced slowly since they need time to monitor and review problematic utterances. If they focus less on accuracy, they might produce more C-units because they do not monitor their output carefully.

[Figure 4] Comparison of Total C-Units

[Figure 5] Comparison of C-Unit Length

In terms of C-unit length, Figure 5 shows that its mean length increased approximately two words for each subject throughout the class. The results reveal a tendency to the syntactic complexity, which is the ability to produce more words in a Cunit in real‐time communication. Although they were allowed to use an Internet dictionary during CMC, they tended to produce more complex output gradually. While S1, S2 and S3 produced the similar mean length of C-unit, S4 produced the lowest length of it. However, all of them improved the similar progress of C-unit length.

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

23

3) Error‐Free Clauses and Target‐Like Use of Verb Tenses With respect to error‐free clauses, S4 performed the highest rising ratio of error‐free clauses among all the participants through the class. Accordingly, Figure 6 displays that S4’s written output consisted of more error‐free clauses gradually than the other subjects. However, it is important to keep in mind that S4 produced shorter utterances than the others did. That means although the ratios of error‐free clauses of the subjects except for S4 were slightly rising and falling throughout the class, they used longer sentences and more complex clauses during performance. Therefore, it might be necessary to consider complexity when accuracy is measured. In every student, progress in accuracy was made little by little throughout the class. Moreover, due to the low language proficiency it is important for the learners to use appropriate verb tenses for the first step of language development. Therefore, the class was designed for CMC activities with instructor‐guided focus on form, which particularly focused on verb forms, so the learners could have noticed the target structures during CMC.

[Figure 6] Comparison of Error‐Free Clauses

[Figure 7] Comparison of Target‐Like Use of Verb Tenses

As shown in Figure 7, the ratios of target‐like use of verb tenses were improved by degrees. In fact, it reveals lower ratios of target‐like use of verb tenses in term 5 and 6 than term 3 and 4. However, it does not mean that their accuracy decreased because their written output was more complex with longer length and various verb tenses appeared in term 5 and 6. For the last two weeks of term 6, no topics were given and the sessions consisted of free conversation. Thus, the learners might have had more difficulty spontaneously chatting on unanticipated topics, whereas the other terms were conducted with topics given in advance.

24

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

4) False Starts and Reformulations Owing to the difficulty of having text-based online chats, all the learners occasionally abandoned the sentences before completion or ended with Korean words. Figure 8 describes the number of false starts of each learner present in synchronous CMC and the results show that it decreased at the end of the class. It appears that the learners became accustomed to CMC and were able to use the target language with less hesitation. The examples of false starts from the CMC transcripts are presented in Table 9. These hesitation phenomena occur within the pressure of real‐time communication and they may or may not be followed with reformulation. In such cases, the learners abandoned the sentences, produced fragments or used Korean words. According to them, the reason for false starts is due to lack of vocabulary or difficulty in expressing their thoughts in English. Since it was real‐time communication by one‐to‐one interaction, they were under pressure to somehow continue the conversation. Therefore, they produced the incomplete written output although they realized the problems in CMC.

[Figure 8] Comparison of False Starts

[Figure 9] Comparison of Reformulations

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

[Table 9] Examples of False Starts

[Table 10] Examples of Reformulations

T: I went there with my friend who is in Australia. S1: fish? S1: um… have fish?

S1: I wish I go there. T: What’s more Norway is also beautiful. S1: I wish I went there.

T: by the way, it is the almost at the end of the year. Do you have any plans for the next year? S2: I have been thinking …. ^^

S2: My mother don’t have come yet. T: Where has she gone? S2: My mother doesn’t have come yet.

T: What happened to him? S3: He seem to jip ‐yo (집요) [tenacity]

S4: tomorrow exam? T: Yes, I am taking an exam tomorrow. S4: Go for it.

25

T: Did you enjoy the party? S3: She is happy but I can not care of the baby. S3: take care of the baby T: Okay. I see. S4: I want like to meet him someday. T: Do you like him? I didn’t know that. Why? S4: I would like to… S4: He is cute and has a nice voice.

Figure 9 shows the number of reformulations during which the learners modified their sentences when they found out errors or mistakes. Reformulations did not occur time after time because the learners felt that it might interrupt real‐time communication but, it tended to occur when the learners noticed errors and had time to modify them promptly. The examples of reformulations are as follows in Table 10. Throughout the class, most of the reformulations occurred when they noticed the grammatical errors during performance, particularly verb tenses as shown in the examples above. They mentioned that sometimes they did not reformulate their sentences even though they found the errors and mistakes because they tried to continue a conversation without interrupting. Therefore, it appeared irregularly in CMC and the learners did not much care about this phenomenon.

2. Focus on Form in CMC In order to see how the learners perceive the target structures and how they react to them, the following characteristics emerged from the analysis of data based on the CMC transcripts, instant messenger interviews, and field notes. This section classified four categories of learners’ perceptions on focus on form in CMC and they are as follows: 1) noticing of the target features; 2) repeated use of the target features; 3) incidental modeling; and 4) explicit focus on form feedback.

26

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

1) Noticing of the Target Features An important feature of text-based online chat is to help the learners to notice their own problematic L2 utterances during performance. In this study the conversation topic materials were given to the learners on the bulletin board, so they were able to notice the target structures easily from the plentiful examples. They could pay attention to linguistic forms from the instructor’s utterances during text-based online chat. The following are excerpts from the learners’ interviews: S1: “ … I have learned a lot about the verb tenses, particularly the past tense throughout the class.

I think it is very important to practice the sentences

within communicative tasks because what I know about the target language is different from what I can perform. Since I could see the topic materials before text-based online chat, I had time to prepare for the activity in advance. What’s more, I could notice my problematic sentences form the instructor’s utterances…” S4: “…I think I didn’t pay much attention to the grammatical forms during text-based online chat, so I just wrote what I wanted to say.

Sometimes I

found out errors from the instructor’s sentences and noticed English structures during the text-based online chat activity.

So, I often copied the instructor

messages with some modification when I wasn’t sure what to say…” [Table 11] Examples of Noticing of the Target Features T: Did you have dinner? S1: Yes, I did. T: What did you have for dinner? S1: I had for new Kimchi dinner. T: I had noodles for dinner. S1: Sorry… I had new Kimchi for dinner. T: I think you don’t go out on Saturdays. S2: I should need a rest. T: I see.. I need a rest too. S2: These days, I need a rest. S3: I want to go Ireland. T: Don’t think too much about going to Ireland. Just keep studying hard. S3: I should have gone to Ireland last year. S4: She is gone shop. T: Really? Has she gone to the shop? S4: Yes, she has gone to the shop.

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

27

As shown in Table 11, the learners occasionally noticed the target structures during text-based online chat. In these cases, it appears that they corrected the sentences themselves or followed the structures of the instructor’s utterances. From their point of view, it was useful to practice the target structures in real‐time communication. In addition, the instructor’s utterances were effective for noticing the target structures although there was no explicit grammatical explanation during text-based online chat. The learners mentioned that they attended to both the meaning and the form of their utterances by adopting the correct forms from the instructor messages.

2) Repeated Use of the Target Features A significant advantage of text-based online chat based on planned focus on form was that the learners repeatedly used the target structures with the instructor. Since the instructor guided the target forms during CMC activities, they could overcome the difficulty in producing the target structures and integrate the forms repeatedly into their interlanguage knowledge. Since their English proficiency was low, the CMC activities based on focus on form were useful in accelerating the development of the target structures in the context of meaningful communication. The learners’ comments are as follows: S2: “Even though I know the grammatical forms, it’s very difficult to use them appropriately in my own utterances. Therefore, I could understand English structures well while I used the similar patterns repeatedly during text-based online chat.” S3: “I could understand clearly after using the target structures repeatedly. What’s more, it was very helpful to look at the instructor messages with the same structures. The following examples show the similar patterns that appear repeatedly from one of the online chat transcripts of S2. According to the planned focus on form class, it focused on the target structure (i.e. should.) within the communicative practice. As shown in Table 12, the target feature appears repeatedly during CMC. It seems that the learners could pay attention to the target structures and learned them better since they practiced them repeatedly in the context of meaningful communication.

28

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

[Table 12] Examples of Repeated Use of the Target Features T: Even though I sleep a lot, I feel very tired. What should I do? S2: I think… S2: You should take a hot bath. T: I do.. before going to bed.. but it doesn’t help me. S2: and you should enough eat..... S2: I feel lonely these days. What should I do? T: You should meet your friends more often or try to have a boyfriend. S2: I should have a boyfriend. I hope to have a boyfriend..... T: I need money. What should I do? S2: I think you shouldn’t spend money and saving at bank. T: Like what you said, I should save up money. S2: Yes.. you should.....

3) Incidental Modeling Throughout the class, the instructor focused on the target features and tried to draw the learners’ attention to the target English structures. Also the instructor used natural forms and expressions in meaningful conversation. The instructor’s utterances occurring naturally in CMC became models for the learners where they could use them as well. For example, the instructor often asked the learners, “What have you been doing?” as a part of greeting when chat session began each week. Since the learners were often asked, they tended to pick up the structure and tried to make appropriate and extensive use of it in communication as time went by. The examples of incidental modeling are presented in Table 13. At first, S3 did not understand what it meant and answered it incorrectly. In the end she seemed to acquire it and make use of the structure. [Table 13] Examples of Incidental Modeling Term 1

Term 2

Term 3

Term 6

T: I have been watching TV. What have you been doing? S3: Fine. I finished work yesterday. → Misunderstanding of its meaning T: What have you been doing? S3: I have been watching TV. → Noticing the structure from T’s message and trying to use it. T: What did you do today? S3: I have been studying since 10 → Making extensive use of it inappropriately T: Has your guest gone? S3: Yes, then I’ve been cleaning the living room. → Making extensive use of it appropriately

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

29

4) Explicit Focus on Form Feedback Explicit feedback focusing on grammatical errors was provided on the bulletin board every week and the learners were required to review it continuously. Frequent errors were picked up from the transcripts and the errors were recast with detailed explanations. According to the learners, the explicit feedback helped them to understand the target structures clearly. They were eager to check the weekly feedback on the bulletin board and studied them on their own. The followings excerpted from the learners’ interviews. S1: “I am waiting for the day when the feedback is posted on the bulletin board because it is quite interesting to check my errors. I try to study them as many times as possible during the week and I always make sure that it won’t happen again.” S2: “I always try to express my thought in English during text-based online chat, but I end up with broken English very often because of my low English proficiency. The feedback is very useful to understand English structures clearly. So, I can notice what I was wrong during the online chat.” S3: “Sometimes I feel that there might be something wrong with my utterances during the online communication, but I just keep chatting not to interrupt the conversation. After that, when the utterances what I wasn’t sure appear in the feedback with explicit grammatical explanations, I can understand the language forms and remember them easily.” S4: “If there weren’t be no feedback, I would keep making the same errors again and again and I wouldn’t be able to notice the correct forms and expressions. Actually, what I found out from the CMC activities is that there is a big gap between what I can use and what I know. So, the feedback helps me to understand the big difference and narrow down between them.” The learners could allocate closer attention to the linguistic forms from the feedback because it was based on their written output in CMC. All of them mentioned that the feedback was the best part of this study since they could learn a lot from their own utterances during CMC in spite of full of errors and mistakes. It seems that to these participants, CMC activities would not have been as effective without explicit grammatical

30

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

feedback. Therefore, the feedback stimulated their cognitive work and led to effective learning.

3. Difficulties and Problems with Focus on Form in CMC In order to develop language ability as beginners, CMC with instructor guided focus was very effective for them. However, there were difficulties and problems from the learner’s perspective and to address them, the problematic sentences were collected from the CMC transcripts, the learners were asked these issues during the interviews, and the field notes were analyzed. The following characteristics appeared from the data: 1) overemphasis on form; 2) L1 interference; 3) affective issues: anxiety and confidence; and 4) lack of independence.

1) Overemphasis on Form One of the major concerns of the class was to achieve a balance between form and meaning during CMC. Although it was meaning‐based communication with focus on form, sometimes the learners tended to overemphasize the form and neglect the meaning. For example, when the learners felt that the target forms were difficult to use in meaningful conversation, they showed a preference towards drill‐and‐practice type of activities, focusing only on the target forms. In many cases, they copied the instructor’s utterances, which is hard to call 'authentic.' The following are examples of drill‐and‐ practice type of language performance during CMC: T: Have you ever stayed up all night? S4: Yes, once. Have you ever stayed up all night?.... T: Have you ever been on a diet?

If so, how was it?

S4: Yes…. Have you ever been on a diet?....

The online discourse seems to be appropriate for the conversation, but the problem in this case is that S4 did not try to answer the instructor’s questions and simply copied the messages during CMC. In fact, such types of online discourse often occurred at the early terms because the learner had difficulties in performing due to lack of proficiency. According to S4, she wanted to answer the instructor’s question at that time, but it was difficult to express herself in English. She copied the instructor’s utterances at the that moment in order to continue the conversation. It might be useful for low level learners to repeat the target forms, but sometimes it might lead to overemphasis of form over

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

31

meaning. The followings are from the learners’ comments in the interviews: S1: “I think it is very important to use the appropriate grammatical forms. If I just focus on meaning, I think I can just say some necessary words. Actually, I often do that when I have difficulty expressing my thought in English.” S2: “During text-based online chat, I focus on grammatical forms first and then meaning. Sometimes I can’t finish my utterances in CMC because I am not sure of the correct English structures that I need to use.” S3: “I figure that I focus on forms rather than meaning because I don’t want to make a lot of errors. The grammatical forms are the basic of language learning.” S4: “um....I guess I consider English structures first and then meaning, but sometimes I am worried that if you don’t understand what I am trying to say” According to their interviews, they reveals that all the learners focus strongly on forms in spite of conversation‐like exchanges. This is one of the major challenges faced by this study, as it needs to achieve a balance between form and meaning in meaningful communication. Drill‐and practice exchanges supported by the instructor might be partially useful for low level learners to practice the target features in CMC. But it should be carefully planned for and carried out through meaningful communication.

2) L1 Interference As low language proficiency learners, they often tried to express themselves using structures of L1–Korean. In particular, when their utterances became complex, such as longer C-unit length and more than one clause in a C-unit, L1 interference occurred repeatedly during the online chat session. According to them, they noticed their errors during performance, but they could not deal with the problems. So they simply produced English words based on the Korean word order to finish their utterances. They did not notice this kind of errors were caused by their L1, and they realized it during the review of feedback with grammatical explanations.

32

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

[Table 14] Examples of L1 Interference S1: Today got off at work late → Subject‐Prodrop T: I see. So, where are you going tomorrow? T: Yes… You need a rest. S2: but I am going to study after I am going to… → Word order T: but I think you have been very busy these days, too. S3: ok… these days I finish work after meet many peoples… because I am meeting. → Word order S4: I’m going to go on a diet go and come Osaka. → word‐for‐word translation T: Yes. That’s a good idea. You should enjoy the food in Osaka.

The examples are shown in Table 14. Such L1 interference occured when the learners produced more complex output. Due to a difference between Korean and English, it appears in forms of subject-prodrop, word order and translation errors. Since these problems were corrected repeatedly in the feedback, the learners were able to deal with them in later performances.

3) Affective Issues : Anxiety and Confidence In previous studies, one of the greatest benefits to using text-based online chat was learners’ lower anxiety than in face‐to‐face communication. Beauvious (1995) suggested that the delayed language production in CMC helps students to decrease their communication anxiety. However, through the learners’ experience of this study, S1 and S4 were a little nervous, while S2 and S3’s anxiety was higher during performance. After the each text-based online chat activity, they were asked how they felt during CMC with instructor‐guided focus on form. S2 mentioned that she had high level of

anxiety because she was afraid to make

mistakes. Due to her limited knowledge of English vocabulary, she had to use an Internet dictionary to look up words and check spellings. Her anxiety reduced as time went by and she felt more comfortable in term 5 and 6. S3 also mentioned that she was a little anxious when she did not know what to say in English. This may be due to unfamiliarity to English chat sessions as well as differences in learners' personalities. The following comments are from S2 in her interview: S2: “I feel very nervous before the online chat begins. I feel like as if I am taking an exam. But, I become more and more comfortable when the conversation is going well. After that, I am usually content with it in spite

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

33

of full of errors. This kind of class is very new to me and I think I learn a lot while performing on my own in the online chat.” Obviously, the learners’ anxiety in this study was higher than other studies because CMC in this study was like a classroom setting. However, at the end of the class all of them mentioned that they became more confident in using English although they still have difficulty expressing themselves in English. From S1’s point of view, the greatest advantage of participating in this study was: S1: “I gained self‐confidence a lot through the class. So, I don’t cower down anymore in terms of English. Now, I think at least I can express what I want to say in English, which is really nice”

4) Lack of Independence Another problem occurring is lack of learner independence during CMC with instructor ‐guided focus on form, especially on the instructor and Internet dictionaries. The instructor in this study was an interlocutor in one‐to‐one interactions and the learners seemed to wait for the instructor’s help while they were hesitating what to say next. From the field notes, it was found that they paused for one or two minutes to produce only one utterance due to lack of proficiency and it occurred a few times in each chat session. In this case, the instructor’s role was very important because the instructor had to help the learners to perform spontaneously and lead them through a meaningful conversation based on focus on form. From the learners’ perspective, the instructor’s role was as a facilitator, monitor and counselor during the CMC activities. Although the access to Internet dictionaries is on of the advantage of using computers, the problem occurring in this point was that the participants depended on the Internet dictionary too much. On average, they looked up the Internet dictionary four or five times per hour of online chatting. However, S2 used it more because she was bad at spelling. In her interview, she mentioned that she used the Internet dictionary more than twenty times, so the conversation with her was slower than the other learners. This might be one of the reasons her anxiety was the highest among the participants. Unlike S2, the other learners were not concerned about English spelling and simply searched the dictionary when they needed new words as long as it did not interrupt the CMC activity. To sum up, there might be some difficulties and problems occurring during CMC when

34

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

it is based on focus on form. In such cases, the learners tended to overemphasize forms rather than meaning from time to time, so they performed drill‐and‐practice exchanges. They also hesitated with their utterances while considering appropriate English structures. Thus, the instructor as an interlocutor should guide the learners in meaningful communication and should not draw the learners’ attention to forms too much. For this reason, there was no grammatical explanation during online chatting on purpose and afterword the learners could check the explicit grammatical feedback on the bulletin board. Several other factors should be considered as influences on performance. In particular, unlike previous studies, some of the learners reported great anxiety during CMC due to lack of language proficiency. Consequently, the instructor needs to provide the learners with ample time, appropriate conversation, and a comfortable learning environment. In addition, the learners’ attitude or motivation could affect performance because they should not depend on the instructor too much during CMC activities. The evidence of language learning in this study can be ongoing and made an integral part of instructional planning and strategies.

V. CONCLUSION All the participants in this study realized the potential of CMC in English education and they had a gradual improvement in their language ability throughout the class of CMC with focus on form. Pedagogical implications based on the findings are presented as follows. First, the learners had the gradual enhancement of their language ability during the CMC activities. At the end of the class they produced more C‐units with longer mean length, which means that they participated in online chatting actively and were able to produce more complex output. Accuracy throughout the class gradually improved although their output became more complex and used various verb tenses. False starts and code switching decreased at the end of the class. It seems that the meaningful communication based on instructor guided focus on form can help improve language ability. In this regard, the CMC activity can provide an enhancing learning environment for learners in EFL field. Therefore, SCMC based on focus on form would be appropriate to provide learners with the opportunity to have an extended conversation and they can produce more complex utterances focusing on both meaning and form. Second, the learners were able to notice their problems during online chat since the

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

35

activity was guided by the instructor. In addition, it was useful to repeat the target features during CMC so that the learners could notice them easily in meaningful communication. They could pick up natural forms and expressions from the instructor discourse and review the errors from the feedback. These findings imply that the use of CMC based on planned focus on form seems to be effective for language learners to acquire and notice target features during interaction. Therefore, the class needs to be designed based on necessary target features and learners’ learning needs. Third, although the learners highly valued text-based CMC as having a positive effect on the development of their language ability, there were some difficulties and problems in using CMC. One of the major concerns of the class was that the learners tended to overemphasize form and neglect meaning. In fact, it might have occurred due to low English proficiency and might have preferred drill‐and‐practice exercises. It suggests that language instructors as a chat partner need to provide learners with ample time during performance and ask appropriate questions that might encourage learners to perform actively within meaningful CMC. Finally, L1 interference, nonlinguistic signals and code‐switching were frequently seen during performance. In these cases, the instructor as an interlocutor should help the learners to deal with the problems and difficulties without interrupting interaction. If the instructor had mentioned those problems during CMC, the learners would have focused on forms rather than meaning. Therefore, it could be helpful not to mention these problems during performance and then post its feedback on the bulletin board so that the learners would be able to review it themselves at anytime. To sum up, CMC with instructor guided focus on form seems to be useful to extend communicative practice and it can focus on accuracy and fluency concurrently. One limitation of the study is the length of six months, which was rather short for a case study. In order to overcome the limitation, future studies will have to involve more subjects over a longer period. The study suggests that language instructors consider adopting a conversation style to stimulate learners’ better participation and output during text-based online chat. Learners, especially beginning level learners, would have difficulty performing in instructor‐guided interaction and would depend too much on the instructor and the instructor discourse. Thus, at this level, various online chatting activities, such as a teacher‐to student interaction (individual, pair, and group) and student‐to student interactions might lead to a better achievement for learners’ language ability.

36

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

REFERENCES Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer‐assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455-464. Beauvios, M. H. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: computer‐mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian modern language Review, 54, 198-217. Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136. Retrieved May 6, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/. Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 459-512. Cook, V. (2001). Second language teaching and learning (3rd ed.). London: Arnold. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Issues and Terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1-12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of implications of implicit and explicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 289-319. Ellis, R. (1996). SLA and language pedagogy. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 69-92. Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1-46. Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. The Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 9-24. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.asian‐efl‐ journal.com/September_05_re.php. Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and Participation in ESL face‐to‐face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67-86. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/fitze/default.html. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323. Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A. S. (2002). IRC Francais: The creation of an Inter-based SLA community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(2), 109-134. Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition?, TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278.

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

37

Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421-452. Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell. Kelm, R. (1992) The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report, Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 441-454. Kern, R. (1995). Reconstructing classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476. Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243-260. Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 143-166. Lamy, M. N., & Goodfellow, R (1999). “Reflective conversation” in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43-61. Retrieved May 30, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num2/article2/index.html. Lee, C. H. (2006). Computers and four language skills development. Language and Linguistics, 38, 59-87. Lee, C. H., & Pyo, K. H. (2003). A study on the effectiveness of online/offline English language learning at university level. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 6(1), 90-110. Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2), 232-244. Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), 16-23. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University press. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Long, M. & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 235-260. Loschky, L., & Bley‐Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task‐based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and

38

The Effects of Focus on Form in CMC: A Case Study of Korean Adult Learners

practice (pp. 123-167). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Murry, D.(1991). The composing process for computer conversation, Written Communication, 8(1), 35-55 Mason, R. (1990). Computer conferencing in distance education. In Bates, A. W. (Ed.), Media and Technology in European Distance Education (pp. 221-226). Milton Keyens: Open University, Walton Hall. Payne, j., & Whithney, P. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7-32. Pellettieri, J. L.(1999). Why talk?: investigating the role of task‐based interaction through synchronous network‐based communication among classroom learners of Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of California. Davis, CA. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985a). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233-248. Pica, T., & Doughy, C. (1985b). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher‐fronted and group activities. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115-136). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pica, T. (1995). Second language learning through interaction: multiple perspectives: In D. Regan (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition in social context (pp. 9-31). University College Dublin Press, Dublin. Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63-90. Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer mediated communication. Computer Assisted language Learing, 13, 5-27. Sato, C. (1988). Origins of complex syntax in interlanguage development, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 371-395. Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 261-277. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retelling. Language Learning, 49, 93-120.

Ae-Ryang Hong⋅Chung-Hyun Lee

39

Smith, D. (2001). Taking students to task: Task-based computer-mediated communication and negotiated interaction in the ESL classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38-57. Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365-398. Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/ sotillo. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205-224. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119-158. Tarone, E. (1995). A variationist framework for SLA research: Examples and pedagogical insights. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P.Lee, J. Mileham & R. Rutkowski (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 255-271). Mileham, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum. VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face‐to‐face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(1), 7-25. Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85-106. Williams, J. (1995). Focus on form in communicative language teaching: Research teaching and the classroom teacher. TESOL Journal, 4, 12-16. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Edinburgh, England: Longman.

APPENDIX 1. Instant messenger interview 1) How would your participation rate your online chat today? 2) How did you feel during online chat?

3) Did you like today's topic? Was it difficult/interesting/helpful, etc? 4) Did you think about what you were going to say before chatting? 5) Was it closer to speaking English/writing English? 6) How were the instructor’s comments? Were they fast/difficult/appropriate/helpful, etc? 7) How many times did you use Internet dictionaries during chatting? Was it helpful? 8) When you had difficulties expressing yourself in English during chatting, how did you overcome them? 9) Did you think about grammar accuracy while chatting? 10) Did you notice any errors? If so, what did you do about them? 11) How many times did you visit the website (bulletin board) during the week? 12) Were the feedbacks on the bulletin board helpful for checking grammar? 13) Has there been any improvement in your English through CMC so far?

2. Post-instruction interview 1) How do you feel about English learning through chatting? 2) Which was the most helpful for learning English during CMC? (1) topic materials (4) instructor’s feedback

(2) instructor’s comments

(3) your own language production

(5) others __________________________________

3) Was it beneficial to learn English structures during the activity? 4) Do you think your English ability has improved through this class? If yes, what skills? 5) Do you think teacher to student interaction was helpful? If yes, in what ways? What if it was student to student interaction? 6) What were the advantages and difficulties of using CMC in English learning? Name: ____________________________

Date: ___________________________________

Key words: CMC, focus on form, SCMC, the case study Application Levels: secondary & higher education Author(s): Hong, Ae Ryang (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies); [email protected] Lee, Chung-Hyun (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies); [email protected] Received: May 15, 2008 Reviewed: July 30, 2008

Promoting Learner Autonomy and Classroom Interaction Through Multimedia-Assisted English Language Teaching Kyeong-Ouk Jeong (Hannam University)

Jeong, Kyeong-Ouk. (2008). Promoting learner autonomy and classroom interaction through multimedia-assisted English language teaching. MultimediaAssisted Language Learning, 11(2), 41-62. The recent state-of-the-art networking technology has made the Internet a vital medium to promote effective communication and education in language learning and teaching. Universities and schools have been reinforcing traditional classroom-based instructions with online learning management systems. Students can be benefited through the more frequent online interaction with the teacher for their independent learning outside the classroom. This paper explains what the multimedia-assisted language instruction means in English education in college classrooms and then examines how teachers can help students develop learner autonomy and classroom interaction using Moodle, an open source learning management system. Students of this study responded that English language materials provided through this multimedia-assisted instruction were very effective and that they felt doing class activities through online was very convenient because they could control their own learning according to their pace and situations. While sharing common interests and ideas about studying English or life events, they could study in interactive and collaborative ways. Students also answered that they could study voluntarily and more through these online learning activities.

I. INTRODUCTION Learning to be self-directed involves taking responsibility for the objectives of

42

Promoting Learner Autonomy and Classroom Interaction through Multimedia-Assisted English Language Teaching

learning, self-monitoring, self-assessing, and taking an active role in learning (Lee, I., 1998). Autonomy, which is often used interchangeably with self-direction, refers to 'the ability to take charge of one's own learning' (Holec, 1981). According to Lee (1998), the design of the self-directed program takes into account a number of factors which are crucial to the development of learner autonomy: voluntariness, learner choice, flexibility, teacher support, and peer support. A great deal of effort to boost such factors is required for teachers to encourage their students to become more independent learners in and outside of the classrooms. Students can be benefited from the more frequent contacts with the teacher for their independent learning outside the classroom, since it is easier to establish rapport, and hence foster teacher and peer interaction. However, in

English

language classrooms of Korean colleges, it is sometimes difficult to reach all the students personally during the class while dealing with the class materials. There have been always gaps of the expectation between the ideal teacher-student interaction and classroom reality due to demanding class schedule. The solutions may be found in Internet technology. Due to the rapid growth of networking technology, Internet has recently become a vital medium to promote effective communication and education in language learning and teaching. Universities and schools are reinforcing traditional classroom-based instructions with online learning management systems. Nowadays, there are a lot of open source learning management systems which offer the features of the communication tools, productivity tools, student involvement tools such as Atutor, Bazaar, Bodington, Claroline, Coursemanager, Moodle (Uzunboylu, Oezdamli, & Oezinar, 2006). Among them, Moodle was designed to support and promote users interested in developing constructivist, student-centered learning environments (Dougiamas & Taylor, 2003). This paper explains what the multimedia-assisted language teaching and learning means in English education and examines how teachers can help students develop learner autonomy and classroom interaction using Moodle, an open source learning management system. To find out the effects of using multimedia in English language teaching, the data from students' pretests and achievement tests are collected and analyzed. To investigate the students' perception on the multimedia-assisted English instruction and to find out how this multimedia-assisted English course can help the students develop learner autonomy and classroom interaction, a questionnaire is administered and analyzed.

Kyeong-Ouk Jeong

43

Ⅱ. RESEARCH BACKGROUND 1. Web-based Language Teaching and Learning Fantini (1997) mentioned the five C’s as new Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Communication, Culture, Comparison, Communities (connecting with speakers of the target language whether locally or aboard), and Connections (i.e., using the target language to reinforce other subject matter areas also being taught). Using the Internet, we can build the resourceful language communities for learning communicative skills, providing authentic language materials and real audiences for communication (Jeong, 2006). Using the Internet can help students learn English in a sociocultural context and develop communicative competence through intercultural exploration provided by these authentic learning environments. Students can gain sociocultural insight about other’s world through online activities such as e-mail, discussion board and chatting. The use of the Internet can booster students’ learning motivation and facilitate learners with the favorable environments through learner-centered and project-based activities. Through the dynamic interaction with other people, students can learn the world while engaging in learning words. The need for effective and authentic teaching and learning environments in English education is increasing. The solutions may be found in Internet technology. Currently, the high speed Internet access rate of South Korea almost ranked the first in the world. Watts (2003) reported that

Koreans spend 1,340 minutes online per month, and 10% of

economic activity is related to IT - one of the highest levels in the world. Singhal (1997) states that Internet also serves as a medium for experiencing and presenting creative works. Internet technology is highly advanced in Korea; the everyday lives of younger generation are deeply involved in using the web. Many researchers report the positive experience of using the Internet in language education in Korea (Kang & Pae, 2005; Kim & Park, 2007; Kim, H. Y., 2002; Lee & Yang, 2003; Sung, 2005). Some Internet homepages serve as an organizer for better efficiency, as a motivator for students’ independent study, as the center for students writing and correspondence, as a place for students’ entertainment and as an avenue for communication (Lee & Yang, 2003). Beach and Meyers (2001) report that students are more engaged with English, especially when they connect it to their own lives and that students can acquire tools for coping with conflicts within and between social worlds. By having a membership in a certain community working together for some meaningful interactions, students can actively engage in various activities that create social practices and belonging. Social

44

Promoting Learner Autonomy and Classroom Interaction through Multimedia-Assisted English Language Teaching

exchanges with the members of the learning community are an important part of the group interaction and learning (Antonenko, Toy, & Niederhauser, 2004).

2. Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment Internet has become a global communication tool to promote effective communication and education within this information era. Universities and schools are supplementing traditional classroom-based instructions with online learning management systems. Learning Management System (LMS) is one of the main elements of the internet-based education. Cole (2005) states, At a basic level, LMS gives educators the tools to create a course web site and provide access control so only enrolled students can view it. Beyond access control, a LMS typically offers a wide variety of tools to make a course more effective: an easy way to upload and share materials, hold online discussions and chats,

give quizzes and surveys,

gather and review

assignments, and record grades. In order words, it is a suite tool to enhance teaching by taking advantage of the internet without replacing the need for the teacher. Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment (Moodle) is an online LMS created by Martin Dougiamas in Australia in 2003 as a part of a research project to answer the question about which web features encourage or act as barriers to community based e-learning. Moodle is an open source LMS used by more than two thousand educational organizations around the world (Cole, 2005). The term open source software refers to computer programs or operating systems for which the source code is publicly available (Johnson-Eilola, 2002). He designed Moodle to support and promote users interested in developing constructivist, student-centered learning environments, firmly based on social constructivist and social constructionist pedagogies. Dougiamas and Taylor (2003) states that these pedagogies focus on collaborative discourse and the individual development of meaning through construction and sharing of texts and other social artefacts. He discusses the way that involved learners learn cooperatively, building on others' ideas; and importance of critical self reflection and transformative learning. Hannafin and Land (1997) claimed that learning environments of Moodle are rooted in five core foundations: psychological, pedagogical, technological, cultural, and pragmatical. Available for free on the web, Moodle can scale from a single-teacher site to a

Kyeong-Ouk Jeong

45

40,000-student university (Cole, 2005) and its tool set and features are comparable to those of the top commercial systems. With an open source learning environment, it is possible to download and use any learning module one might find on any open source software website (Antonenko, Toy, & Niederhauser, 2004). Moodle is freely available as an open source software, and was designed to be flexible and easy to modify. It is highly modular, and supports a large active community worldwide, including programmers who are continually modifying and expanding its code. Such modifications are incorporated into the main software, and thus the project continually develops and expands to reflect the needs and interests of the Moodle community (Winter, 2006). Dougiamas and Taylor (2003) sees Moodle as a learning community which keeps the pot bubbling so that people are having fun. Using Moodle is a way to incorporate technology into the classes. Moodle can be used to teach a course fully online or to supplement a course taught in a traditional setting. While traditional, face-to-face instructions can still be effective, using Moodle opens up new possibilities for learning that just weren't possible a few years ago (Cole, 2005). Teachers can utilize the online environments for delivering class materials and save course time for class management. Students who are unwilling to speak up in class because of shyness or lack of competence can take their time to respond online activities.

Ⅲ. METHODS 1. Research Design and Participants The participants for this study consisted of 116 students taking an English course whose title is English Practice through a Movie in the first semester in 2007 at a university in Korea. The course was an elective English course for general English education and students through freshmen and seniors could take the course. The class was designed to meet 2 hours a week for 15 weeks. The textbook used for this course was The Truman Show, which is the second series of Movie English (Lee, B. I., 2005) published by Screen English Publishing Company. The textbook was composed of 11 chapters and each chapter contains the movie scripts of The Truman Show and some useful expressions related to the scripts. The objectives of the course were to help students develop more effective listening skills and learn authentic English expressions through a movie. The participants of this study were divided into two groups as a control group (60 students) and an experimental group (56 students). While students of the control group had a conventional classroom instruction, students of the experimental group

46

Promoting Learner Autonomy and Classroom Interaction through Multimedia-Assisted English Language Teaching

had to take part in various activities based on the website called Moodle. Students of the experimental group had access to various listening materials which the teacher had uploaded on the Moodle website. For each chapter, the teacher converted the movie clips assigned to each class into an MP3 files using a software called Audacity and then uploaded the files on the Moodle website. The students could log on the Moodle website and listened to the files whenever they wanted to or they could download MP3 files and listened to them using their portable MP3 devices. Students for the control group could also download the MP3 files, but they didn't have forums through which they could interact with their instructor or other classmates. Figure 1 is the overall layout of the weekly activities of Moodle website.

[Figure 1] Overall Layout of the Weekly Activities of the Moodle Site

While students of the control group had 4 paper-pencil type quizzes during the semester, students of the experimental group were required to take an online quiz through the Moodle website every week. The online quiz consisted of 10 questions of listening, reading, and vocabulary, which were composed of multiple choice questions and open-ended questions. The quiz was a time-limit test and the students were required to take the test within 7 minutes. Whenever each student opened the quiz, the sequence of test questions was different and the examples of the multiple choice questions were mixed up each time. Figure 2 is the online quiz on the Moodle website.

Kyeong-Ouk Jeong

47

[Figure 2] Online Quiz Through the Moodle Site

For every class, students were required to post their homework as the form of online paper after they listened to the MP3 files on the website and made a dictation for extra listening activities. By using word processing function of the website, students could edit 10 useful expressions of their choice learned during the class and use them as reference for their later self-study. Figure 3 is the online homework posted by a student through the Moodle.

[

[Figure 3] Online Homework Through the Moodle Site

48

Promoting Learner Autonomy and Classroom Interaction through Multimedia-Assisted English Language Teaching

Besides taking online quizzes and posting class homework, there were forums between the instructor and the students every week, which were the bulletin boards to communicate for the class. Figure 4 is the forum exchanged between the instructor and the students, as well as among learners themselves.

[Figure 4] Forums Through the Moodle Site

2. Data Collection and Data Analysis The data for this research were collected and analyzed in both quantitative and qualitative manners. The data from the pretest were analyzed and compared using SPSS 12.0 in order to find out the students' entry level of English listening proficiency. The test scores for both the mid-term and final tests were also analyzed and compared using SPSS 12.0 to find out the effects of differential instructions for both groups. At the end of the semester, a questionnaire was used to investigate how this multimedia-assisted English course helped the students develop their autonomy and classroom interaction and how the students viewed this experience in terms of their English language study. Among the 56 students of the experimental group, 51 students answered the questionnaire. The survey questions were analyzed in order to find out how the students viewed their web-based learning experience, how interaction through forums with the instructor influenced them to develop their communicative competence, and how sharing a language community through the web forums helped them promote their autonomy to become more

Kyeong-Ouk Jeong

49

independent and responsible learners. The questionnaire was composed of 27 items and two of them were open-ended questions (Q. 26-27). The five Likert-type questions of the survey were categorized into the 5 main features: overall ideas for English study (Q. 1-5), listening to authentic English through a movie (Q. 6-10), using class materials through the Moodle website (Q. 11-15), the class activities through the Moodle website (Q. 16-20), and the interaction through the Moodle website (Q. 21-25). For the qualitative analysis, data from open-ended questions of the questionnaire and writings on the student-teacher forums were used to describe the students' experience and perception about the advantage and disadvantage of the multimedia-assisted English instruction. In addition, focus group e-mail interviews were also used to enhance the descriptions of the learner autonomy and classroom interaction.

Ⅳ. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1. Effect of Multimedia-assisted English Teaching In the second week of the semester, a pretest was administered to find out the students' entry level of English language abilities using a short version of TOEIC listening test with 30 questions. As shown in Table 1, the result of an Independent Samples t-test revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the entry level of English language abilities between the control group and the experimental group (t=.480, p=.632). [Table 1] Result of Independence t-test for Pretest Test

Group

N

Mean

s.d.

d.f.

Control

53

10.35

3.275

.450

Experimental

47

10.07

2.532

.369

Pretest

t

sig.

.480

.632

In the week 8 of the semester, students took the midterm exam and in the week 15 of the semester they took the final test. Both the mid-term and final tests consisted of 40 questions and had the same test format. Among the 40 test items, 10 questions were the listening questions learned from the movie and the other 30 questions mainly focused on the authentic English expressions learned from the movie scripts. There were dictations,

50

Promoting Learner Autonomy and Classroom Interaction through Multimedia-Assisted English Language Teaching

open-ended short questions, multiple choices, and true or false questions. A total of 60 students in the control group and 56 students in the experimental group took the midterm and final tests. Table 2 presents the mean and the standard deviation of the midterm and final tests for the control group and the experimental group. [Table 2] Result of Independence t-test for Mid-term and Final Tests Test

Group

N

Mean

s.d.

d.f.

Control

60

19.300

9.1305

1.1787

Experimental

56

22.036

8.8682

1.1851

Control

60

16.617

11.2688

1.4548

Experimental

56

21.054

11.1737

1.4931

Mid-term

Finals

t

sig.

1.635

.105

2.128

.036*

*p