Foreign
Language Exchange in a Virtual World: an Intercultural Task-based
Learning Event
by Aaron Patric Campbell, 2003
an MEd in e-Learning at the University of Sheffield, U.K.
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to set forth a design for networked collaborative learning in the Japanese foreign language classroom using Active Worlds, a 3D virtual reality platform that allows for synchronous graphic and text based communications and the shared creation and manipulation of visual objects; with Blackboard, a common virtual learning environment employing a variety of communication tools designed to support collaborative online learning. It is intended to be an example of how these two software programs can be used together to meet the cultural and linguistic needs of Japanese students studying a foreign language at the University level in such a way as to encourage collaboration and promote learner autonomy.
Introduction
We can now establish that learning is an active creative or inventive process of bringing forth a reality rather than a process of discovery. (Chia 1990, p.13)
Before the age of the internet, one of the biggest challenges faced by tutors in the foreign language[1] classroom in Japan was getting the learners to use their new language skills in a real context. Being a largely monolingual and geographically isolated nation, the opportunities for Japanese foreign language students to interact with native speakers were sparse. This has changed in dramatic fashion with the widespread use of electronic communication technologies, namely email and the World Wide Web. Now it is possible for language learners of all ages and levels to communicate with anyone, anywhere, at anytime. This has sparked considerable interest within the field of language teaching, for not only are the students no longer geographically and culturally limited in their search for communication partners, but also the very machines they’re using as communication tools can serve to enhance their learning simultaneously. Indeed, the field of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has become a hot topic over the last 10 years or so. The use of keypal exchanges, international discussion lists, real time chat, and webpages as communicative tools are now becoming common practice in computer supported University language classrooms in Japan and abroad.
One type of software application that has been relatively absent in the practice of CALL is an internet based three-dimensional, graphical, simulated environment called a ‘virtual world’. Users are represented by a physical form called an avatar. Using a keyboard and mouse, they can navigate the virtual world and interact with other users, both physically by means of gestures and verbally through synchronous text-based chat. Users can also create, manipulate, and interact with the visual objects in the world itself. As we shall discuss shortly, such a 3D environment is highly interactive and can create a strong sense of presence in the user, both of which are important factors in the success of a communicative language-learning event.
It is here that certain questions arise. How can a virtual world be best used for the purposes of foreign language learning? And more specifically, how can this tool be used in the Japanese University foreign language classroom in such a way as to promote the type of learning in which this author takes interest while at the same time meeting the needs of the learners themselves? An attempt to answer these questions will be made through the design of a learning event, namely a 12-week, task-based intercultural tandem language exchange course for 3rd year Japanese University students of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). But before presenting a detailed outline of the course, it is necessary to briefly examine the theory behind the type of learning to be encouraged, to take into account the needs of the learners, and to highlight the particular aims and objectives that the learning event intends to accomplish.
Theory
The theoretical terms summarized below provide the basis of the approach to the course design and will be referred to specifically during its presentation. Each of these theories inspired a certain aspect of the project design.
Social Constructivism
This is a view of learning that emphasizes the vital importance of culture and social context for cognitive development. Based largely on the work of the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky, it describes learning not as a process of knowledge transfer or discovery, but that knowledge is constructed by the learner and is situated in a particular social context. One idea central to Vygotsky’s theory is that of the ‘zone of proximal development’, or zpd, in children, which is defined as:
the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky 1978, p.86, quoted in Wells 1999)
In other words surrounding a core region of useful knowledge is zone of potential development about which the child already has some knowledge, “but needs help in performing tasks which depend on that knowledge” (Lewis 1995, quoted in McConnell 2000, p.199). Learning takes place when the core region expands to encompass a greater field of knowledge, which is aided by interaction with adults and more capable peers. Thus learning is a social, collaborative, and constructive activity.
Adult
Learning Maps
Also based on the idea that learning is a process of our own construction of reality, learning maps are simply reality constructs that learners build up for themselves, with each learner at the center of his or her own map (Rogers 1993). Everything known to each individual occupies a position on his or her map. Highly valued items or items of major concern in the life will occupy a central position, whereas items of lesser value will be further away from the center. Learning is a process of rearranging the map as “new significances are seen, new relevances are identified, and new experiences build new expectations” (p.208). Unlike Vygotsky’s zpd, which concerned the cognitive development of children, Rogers’ theory was largely developed around the inquiry into the attitudes adults bring into new learning situations. Because University students lie somewhere in the middle of being formative children and mature adults, this theory of learning can prove useful in understanding the attitudes that multicultural participants bring into a learning event.
Cooperative
Learning
In general, cooperative learning takes place when learners work together on a project that promotes learning in the individual through the process of collaboration. Specifically, the view of cooperative learning that will be taken here lies closer to McConnell’s view (2000) which, in contrast to the curriculum-based, behaviouristic approach prevalent in the U.S., is a form of open, negotiated learning that is largely problem-based, learner-centered, and with little tutor control. Also central to this view is that learners set their own goals, learn through intrinsic motivation, and assessment of their work often involves self, peer, and tutor review. Such an approach emphasizes the process of learning and, in addition to academic outcomes, often gives rise to outcomes generally deemed to be outside of academia, like greater self-confidence, improved social skills, personal insights, and increased social, moral, and ethical development. (McConnell 2000)
Positive
Interdependence
Closely related to cooperative learning is the concept of positive interdependence, which means that members of a collaborative learning group must see the value of working together in order that the outcome of a task be successful for all. Positive interdependence can be accomplished through goal, reward, resource, and role interdependence. How a learning event is structured in light of positive interdependence is bound to affect the degree and quality of cooperation in the group (Johnson and Johnson 1990, quoted in McConnell 2000, p.121-22; Johnson et al. 1991 and Johnson et al. 1994, quoted in Brandon and Hollingstead 1999, p.114).
Cooperative
Goal Structures
Very similar to goal interdependence, a cooperative goal structure is one in which the learners rewards are in direct proportion to the quality of the group work. It has been shown that in any problem-solving task, a cooperative structure will result in a higher achievement and increased social development than will the use of an individualistic structure. In addition, interpersonal communication will be more open and positive. (Johnson and Johnson, 1974)
Learner
Autonomy
This can be seen as both a goal and an approach to learning. As a goal, the purpose is to develop the ability of individuals to make their own decisions in life about how they think and act. As a pedagogical approach, it involves structuring the learning event in such a way as to coax students into taking more responsibility for their own learning. This often involves tasks like setting their own learning goals, planning their own activities, structuring their own time frame, working collaboratively with others, and reflecting on their learning processes (Boud, 1981). As David Little defines it, “autonomy is a capacity - for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action” (1991, p.4, quoted in Schweinhorst 1998a). The development of greater learner autonomy is crucial for undergraduates in their preparation for graduate school, professional practice, and as informed, contributing citizens in society.
Tandem
Language Learning
First developed as face-to-face meetings between learners of different first languages speaking each other’s native language, tandem exchanges became more popular in the mid-1990s with the widespread use of email. Supported by counseling and collaborative activities, tandem exchanges fell somewhere between the language classroom and self-instruction. According to Schwienhorst, there are three basic principles of tandem learning: the principle of reciprocity, bilingualism, and autonomy. Each learner depends on contributions from the other for their own learning and both use the same amount of native and foreign language in each message composed. Since each partnership is different, the learners must take it upon themselves to determine their own learning objectives and methods to achieve them (1997).
Learner Needs
The typical Japanese third-year university student has studied EFL for six to eight years. In most cases this experience consists of six years of test-oriented reading and grammar study at the junior and senior high school level, and varying degrees of exposure to communication based EFL at the university level. By this time, most are able to communicate at a basic to intermediate level; all are experts at test taking! The important thing to note however is that the majority of them already have formed a solid grammatical and structural base upon which to build their communication skills, yet few of them have had the opportunity to put their skills to use in a realistic context.
Culturally speaking, Japan being a relatively homogenous society, few young adults have had the opportunity to interact with people from other cultures and linguistic backgrounds. As the global economy becomes increasingly networked and the influx of foreign workers into the Japanese society continues to grow, a greater cultural awareness and familiarity with using the English language becomes necessary.
So outside of living, studying, or traveling abroad, the tools of networked communication technology could be of particular value to these learners at this stage in their development.
Aims and Objectives
The learning event will be designed to meet the needs of the Japanese learners as described above in such a way as to:
1. foster collaboration through positive interdependence and cooperative goal structures
2. encourage co-construction of knowledge through an interactive virtual environment
3. raise cultural awareness by working with foreign partners
4. increase language and computer skills
5. maintain student interest and motivation
6. promote learner autonomy
The Course Design
Description
In many ways, this project shares similarities with a recent online cultural exchange project called Euroland, which was originally designed to take place between middle school students in the Netherlands and Italy (Ligorio and Trimpe, n.d.). Aside from age and cultural differences, another significant difference is that in the Euroland project, learners communicated entirely using a common second language (L2), and the focus was on intercultural exchange and co-construction of knowledge. Here, in addition to intercultural exchange and co-construction of knowledge, learners will improve language ability through tandem language exchanges with native speakers of the target language.
Although this paper is written by the Japan-based tutor with the needs of Japanese students in mind, it represents only half of the equation, as it is quite literally a partnership between language classes from two different cultures. Clearly then, a certain amount of pre-course negotiation on the part of the respective tutors is necessary to determine the best structure of the course so that it serves to meet the needs of learners on both sides. Since the design being presented here is hypothetical, we will assume that it has been accepted by the non-Japanese side as also being beneficial for its students. For the purposes of example, we will use British students of Japanese as a Foreign Language (JFL) as the complimentary half of the tandem exchange, since their spring session overlaps the Japanese spring term adequately.
The following is a description as one might find in a Japanese student catalogue of elective courses:
English
350: Tandem Language
Exchange in a Virtual World: intercultural task-based learning
In this 12-week elective course, students will be involved in an online language exchange with British University students of Japanese. Communications will take place entirely online using both English and Japanese, and will be supported by desktop virtual reality software and asynchronous discussion lists. After forming small intercultural groups, students in each group will be required to work together with their British peers to create a 3D structure or landscape in the virtual world that reflects their mutual interests. Self, peer, and tutor evaluation will be used as a means of assessment. Familiarity with using computers and the internet is helpful, but not required. This course is limited to 20 students.
Why
tandem learning?
Tandem learning gives learners from both cultures the equal opportunity to learn from each other. That is, each individual is both a learner of the target language and an ‘expert’ on his or her mother tongue and native culture. Seen from a Vygotskian perspective, as the zpd of learner A comes in contact with a more capable peer B, with B simultaneously basking in A’s expertise in a mutually beneficial relationship of cognitive development. The computer mediates the interaction between the learner and the speaker of the target language and their cultures (Schweinhorst, 1998b).
When each learner makes a commitment to using both languages in equal proportion, neither side feels at a linguistic disadvantage during the interaction, giving both a bit more flexibility of expression, especially in difficult or problematic situations. Since learners depend on each other, this serves to increase their motivation and puts them in a similar position (Schweinhorst, 1998a).
Software
and Tools
There will be two pieces of software to support this event: Active Worlds and Blackboard.
Active Worlds (AW): an internet-based desktop 3D virtual reality platform designed for synchronous communication. The presence of each user is graphically depicted by an ‘avatar’, which can any object of the user’s choice. Users communicate using synchronous text-based chat and instant messaging, asynchronous telegrams, and physically through simple virtual gestures of the avatars. Using their avatar, users navigate the virtual space with the keyboard and/or mouse by walking, running, flying, and instant teleporting to distant locations. Participants are also able to create, move, change, and destroy 3D objects in the world. AW also allows for integration with websites on the internet and other web-based technology like virtual learning environments (VLEs). In this sense, the users are active participants in an interactive world. Chat text can logged and saved automatically.
Blackboard: a common internet-based VLE designed to support collaborative learning through a variety of course management tools, mainly synchronous and asynchronous communications. Blackboard also supports a variety of file formats for uploading and exchange, and gives tutors the ability to customize the interface and available course tools to suit the needs of the course design. For the purposes of this course, it is the asynchronous discussion threads that will serve as the main form of communication outside of work done in AW.
One of the useful features of AW is that it can simultaneously display a website in tandem with its browser. A URL can be inserted in the web browser portion and any 3D object can be linked to a website. For the purposes of this course, it means that the asynchronous discussion threads of Blackboard can be accessed, read, and kept available for reference throughout the entire synchronous interaction in AW (see fig. 1 below). The integration of these tools provide for a mutual benefit: Co-construction of a 3D environment in AW sparks synchronous discussion and debate, which in turn can be carried over into the Blackboard for further in-depth discussion at the learner’s leisure. Having an asynchronous discussion forum is vital to the success of the project, for it provides a space ideas and discussions can be stored more permanently and serve as a basis for reflection and organization. The integration of these tools can be seen as a ‘circular relationship’ (Ligorio and Trimpe, n.d.), where the building task in AW “feeds” the discussion in the asynchronous discussion forums, while Blackboard provides a source for ideas and organizing activities in AW.
fig.1 – the integration of AW with Blackboard; notice the Japanese font capability of both.
Technical
requirements
Because there is currently no version of AW for Macintosh, a windows system is necessary. Broadband access is also helpful to enable faster download times, but not necessary.
Also, it is necessary for the native English-speaking group to be equipped with the appropriate software/hardware combination to read and write Japanese characters. Something like Microsoft IME with Japanese keyboards should suffice.
Course Outline
The class will be limited to 40 students, 20 British and 20 Japanese. The Japanese portion of the 12-week long course will meet face-to-face (f2f) once a week for 90 minutes, and will consist of three phases:
· Phase 1 – Introduction (three weeks)
· Phase 2 – Main Task - Building (six weeks)
· Phase 3 – Evaluation (three weeks)
Learners will be expected to do a fair amount of work outside the classroom in order to successfully complete the course. For those few who have no access to a computer at home, they can use the computers available at the university that will be equipped with the necessary software.
Phase 1 – Introduction
Weeks 1 & 2 – Introductions: The first two weeks will give the learners a chance to get to know each other a bit and familiarize themselves with the features of Blackboard. Learners will be grouped in 10 learning sets of four, with one male-female pair from the Japanese side, and one male-female pair from the British side. Each tutor will be responsible for 5 learning sets. Each learning set will have its own asynchronous discussion forum to carry out its communication (see fig.2). Learners initially will be required to post a personal introductory statement, and practice replying to messages posted by others in the group.
fig.2 – The Cross-Cultural Learning Sets
Groups of four were chosen because it gives the learners a chance to interact closely with both a male and female from the other culture. Also, when the time comes to use the building feature in AW, there is a greater likelihood of there being at least one learner in the group who catches on more quickly than the others and can in turn help the others.
Even though allowing the learners to form their own groups might conform nicely to cooperative learning principles as described previously, time would be better spent preparing to use the building features of AW. Also, by forming the learning sets from the start, learners will have more time to get to know the people with whom they will be working closely over the entire course.
In addition to the 10 learning sets, other forums will be hosted to help facilitate the course, such as an inter-group introduction forum for those wishing to communicate with learners from other groups, a technical forum for those with technical questions, and a general inter-group forum for communications related to meta-issues that arise during the course (see fig.3). In the ‘external links’ section, links leading to online language learning tools pertaining to EFL and JFL will be set-up, like bilingual dictionaries, grammar references, etc.
fig.3 – Inter-group forums
In the weekly f2f meetings in Phase 1, the tutor will provide in-class technical assistance for those having difficulty. Also, learners will be responsible for helping others with problems once they themselves have understood what is to be done. So not only will collaboration be taking place online, but in the f2f classroom as well.
Weeks 2 & 3 – AW field trip: After getting to know each other’s personalities and interests, the learners will then organize a group “field trip” to AW to familiarize themselves with its features. As the two classes are in different time zones, this will involve a certain amount of planning and negotiation. It will also be suggested that students do a bit of their own exploration of AW to further practice getting used to their personal avatar, using the chat function, teleporting, and using the toolbars and tabs (see fig.4).
fig.4 – See the toolbars and tabs
At the conclusion of phase 1, learners should be familiar with the each other and the basic features of both AW and Blackboard.
Phase
2 – The Main Task –
Building
Weeks 4 through 9 – Building: During this six-week period, learners will be required to work together to plan and build a structure or landscape that reflects their mutual interests. All ten learning sets will be required to share the same 400m x 400m area. Each set may claim its own piece of land by building on it, i.e. laying down grass, concrete, sand, etc, after which their structure or landscape may be created. A central pavilion with information will be the only initial structure provided and will be used as a meeting area and center of information (see fig.5). Links to building tutorials, building yards, language resources, respective universities, etc. will be located in the pavilion (see fig.6)
fig.6 – The central pavilion
Technically, the act of building itself is quite simple. Learners simply select any object with their mouse and a small window pops up, allowing the user to input a short code to specify the type of object wanted (see fig.7). After the code is entered, the object changes into the desired one. Learners can visit building yards to view thousands of objects organized by type and select the ones they need by copying the codes. Once the code has been entered and the object materializes, the user can manipulate its geographic orientation using the mouse and keyboard. As soon as the object is in place, a user can designate it as movable or permanent (meaning others cannot move or change it). With a few hours of practice, the process of building becomes easy and simple structures and landscapes can be created quickly (see fig.8).
fig.7 – Users can change any object into another object by typing the appropriate code into the “object:” window. Objects can be moved and rotated with the keyboard or with the toolbar of buttons shown above. Other actions include url-linking, animation, sound, “bump-effects”, etc. Thus, from simple object like the one shown above, a colorful environment can be created easily (see fig.8 below).
fig.8 – This simple structure and landscape was created by the author of this paper from the ‘checkered wall’ in fig.7, in a building time of one hour. This was accomplished after one hour of learning to build, two hours practicing, and one hour in the building yard to select the desired objects.
While the technicalities of building will always be a source of inquiry and challenge to the learners, after an initial investment of time and effort learning to build, learners can focus more on the cross-cultural and linguistic interaction rather than exclusively on the technical issues of building.
After learners discuss ideas, plan their design, negotiate roles, and set a time frame, the process of building can begin. During this time, help with the technical side of building will carried out in each f2f classroom. Learners can also help each other online. Also, AW provides online help in the form of an HTML based interactive help guide and 3D tutorial building worlds, complete with online building experts who volunteer their time helping others with the details of building. As there is no Japanese version of the help guide, one must be created by the Japan-based tutor to help get the Japanese learners up to speed.
Once the building begins, learners will quickly find that space is limited and may have to negotiate with other groups over space. Also, by observing some of the quicker learning sets, learners from slower sets can go to them for ideas and for help with building. Since the nature of the course is open and cooperative, inter-group collaboration may arise and is perfectly acceptable. Learning sets may decide to connect their environments with roads, bridges, teleport doors, etc., or may even decide to entirely co-construct their environments. It’s completely up to the learners to decide how to proceed.
Phase 3 – Evaluation
Week 10 – Formal Presentation: After the building phase is complete, each learning set will be paired with another and be required to give a formal tour of its creation in AW. For example, LS1 would give LS2 an online tour of its creation in AW and vice-versa; all in the same meeting. Since their creations will not have been new to one another (having both witnessed each other’s evolution throughout Phase 2), it provides a chance for each group to ask formally ask questions to the other. If possible, the tutor will also participate. The issues that arise in the formal presentation may be carried over into the Blackboard discussion lists.
Week 11 and 12 – Self, Peer, and Tutor Evaluations: The final two weeks of the project will be spent reflecting on the experiences of the course by writing self and peer evaluations. Self and peer evaluations will consist of two parts.
The first will be carried out within each learning set, each member evaluating himself or herself and the other three in the group. Evaluation criteria will be provided at the beginning of the course, and any additional criteria may be provided by each learner. The second will consist of one learning set providing comments on the creation of the learning set with whom they shared a formal presentation in week 10. Finally, both tutors will provide evaluations for each of the learners in the 5 sets for which he or she was responsible throughout the course.
Possible evaluation criteria:
· Communication skills
· Social Relationships
· Achievement of goals
· Linguistic improvement
Discussion
Let us now examine whether or not the course design meets the needs of the Japanese learners, and in doing so, satisfies the criteria listed in the Aims and Objectives section of this paper.
1. Fostering collaboration through positive interdependence and cooperative goal structures: There is evidence that all four types of positive interdependence (goal, reward, resource, and reward) are structured into the course design and strongly encourage collaboration. Specifically, each learning set shares the common task and final goal of co-constructing a structure or landscape that reflects their mutual interests. As the final result of their efforts will be seen and judged by others, a certain amount of collective reward is in place for a job well done. All members will be sharing common resources, such as the same building space and objects, the same course tools, and most importantly, each learner plays the role of a linguistic and cultural resource to the learners from the other country, according to the principles of tandem learning. Also, in order to accomplish the task effectively, learners may choose to delegate certain roles for learning set members, such as building expert, design expert, organizer, inter-group coordinator, etc.
Clearly the final goal is a cooperative one, as learners share responsibility for a very visual and interactive product. Interestingly, as ten unique learning sets will be building in the same 1,600 square meter area, a mild underlying element of inter-group competition may arise throughout the course. Such competition may be healthy too, for not only may it provide some motivation, but also it has been shown by Myers (1962a, 1962b) that:
members of groups in competition with other groups rated each other more positively and engaged in more positive social interactions with each other than did members of groups which were not in competition with other groups. ( quoted in Johnson and Johnson, 1974, p.232)
2. Encourage co-construction of knowledge through an interactive virtual environment: Aside from the 3D structures and landscapes acting as clear evidence of knowledge constructed collaboratively, there is evidence of other forms of knowledge being constructed throughout the learning event. As Vygotsky has shown that knowledge is constructed in a particular social context, and given that the course design is heavily influenced by McConnell’s view on cooperative learning where learners are given a considerable amount of freedom to direct the outcomes of their learning, a great deal of social interaction and communication becomes necessary amongst the learners if they are to complete the given task. When the zpds of each learner - in which there should be many cross-cultural and linguistic differences – come in contact with one another through means of the virtual learning environments, learning definitely takes place as new forms of knowledge are jointly constructed.
3. Raise cultural awareness by working with foreign partners: Nowhere do cultural differences in people become more apparent than by having them work together on a task and reach a consensus. While doing so, certain features of one’s own culture that lied previously obscured are also brought to light. One way of understanding how these phenomena occur in this course design is to interpret them by means of Roger’s learning maps. When Kenji (from Japan) gets acquainted with Susan (from the U.K.) in the introduction phase, they are sharing some of the important features of their respective learning maps with each other. As the negotiation and planning of the building process begins, and during the evaluation stages, they reveal even more of the items that occupy important positions on their maps. When conflict arises, it may be because the issue in contention occupies vastly different points of distance (value) on their maps. All the while this is happening, new items are appearing on each learner’s map, and others are being repositioned in response to the unfolding experiences. The result is that each learner emerges from the course with an altered map; one that should indeed reflect the quality of their cross-cultural interaction and new understanding.
4. Increase language and computer skills: As we have already seen, tandem learning gives L2 learners from
both cultures the opportunity to learn from each other in a symbiotic relationship. By using the target language in a real context, learners have the opportunity to increase their range of vocabulary and expressions, and improve their written fluency in both a synchronous and asynchronous formats, the former of which has been shown to improve student confidence in speaking (Chun 1994, quoted in Shield et al, 1999) while using language ‘lexically and syntactically more formal and complex’ (Warschauer, 1996, p.7). Finally, as all cross-cultural communication is carried out online and the building process requires a bit of practice using the mouse, keyboard, and window operating system, computer skills should become improve. As an additional outcome, working with the creation and manipulation of 3D objects and interacting with other avatars in a virtual world helps to produce what Gardener (1983, quoted in Ligorio and Trimpe n.d., p.6) calls spatial intelligence, which helps to identify patterns in images.
5. Maintain student interest and motivation: Because this course is designed to be an elective, it is assumed that learners will arrive with some sort of interest or predisposition towards the cross-cultural and computer-related activities. Also, the open, cooperative learning structure of the course allows for learners to work according to their interests. For those having difficulty understanding how to use the building features of AW, negotiations with other group members can be made and roles can be delegated according to the interests and abilities of each. The whole point of the course is to bring Japanese learners into contact with L2 students from abroad so that they can learn English and get experience interacting with people from abroad. Even if the building process doesn’t work out well, or even comes to a complete halt, it still provides a great learning experience for those involved, for example, learning how to overcome personal conflict and cultural differences.
6. Promote learner autonomy: Since the course design requires learners to work collaboratively with others to complete the task of co-constructing a structure or landscape reflecting their mutual interests, to plan and coordinate their activities, engage in process and time management, and finally, reflect on the entire process after it finishes, it meets our definition of a learning environment that promotes autonomy.
Conclusion
By now we should have a better understanding of how synchronous communication in a virtual world and asynchronous communication in a VLE can be combined to create and environment in which language learning and cultural exchange take place in an open, cooperative, and supportive environment. The ability to jointly create a 3D visual structure or landscape opens the doors to a unique type of collaboration between groups of geographically distributed learners that has never before been so easily available to those fortunate enough to have access to technology. In addition to language learning and cultural exchange, similar types of computer supported cooperative learning can be carried out in the fields of architecture, geometry, physics, biology, medicine, psychology, sociology, etc. Learners from many fields of study can benefit from the presence created by the 3D format of interaction afforded by a virtual world, and the more ‘permanent’ record of ideas and thoughts for reflection afforded by a common asynchronous VLE. Further research must continually be done into the affordances of virtual worlds and how they can support cooperative learning as the technology continues to advance. Perhaps what is needed is a single VLE that combines the best of both: a specific collaborative tool for the types of learning events we have just described.
References
Boud D (1981) ‘Moving Towards Autonomy’ in D Boud (ed) Developing Student Autonomy in Learning London: Kogan Page.
Chia R (1990) Opening Up Critical Issues in Open Learning Unpublished document, for presentation at the conference on ‘Open Learning in the 1990’s, September 12-14, 1990, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
Chun DM (1994) ‘Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence’ System 22 (1), p.17-31 (quoted in Shield L, Weininger MJ, and Davies LB (1999) ‘MOOing in L2: Constructivism and Developing Learner Autonomy for Technology Enhanced Language Learning’ C@lling Japan 8/3, < http://jaltcall.org/cjo/10_99/mooin.htm> (accessed 28 August 2002).
Gardener H (1993) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences New York: Basic Books (quoted in Ligorio MB and Trimpe JD, p.6).
Johnson DW, Johnson RT, and Holubec EJ (1994) Cooperative Learning in the Classroom Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (quoted in Brandon DP and Hollingshead AB (1999) ‘Collaborative Learning and Computer-Supported Groups’ Communication Education, 48, p.109-126).
Johnson DW, Johnson RT, and Smith KA (1991) Cooperative Learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.4) Washington D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 465) (quoted in Brandon DP and Hollingshead AB (1999) ‘Collaborative Learning and Computer-Supported Groups’ Communication Education, 48, p.109-126).
Johnson DW and Johnson RT (1990) ‘Cooperative Learning and Achievement’, in Sharan S (1990) Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research Praeger, NY (quoted in McConnell D (2000), p.121-22).
Johnson DW and Johnson RT (1974) ‘Instructional Goal Structure: Cooperative, Competitive, or Individualistic’ Review of Educational Research, 44(2).
Lewis R (1995) Editorial: Professional Learning Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 11 (4), p. 193-95 (quoted in McConnell D (2000), p.199).
Ligorio MB and Trimpe JD (n.d) ‘Euroland: Active Knowledge Building Through Different Formats of Mediated Communication’, unpublished, found on the internet, Katholieke University of Nijmegen, Netherlands. <http://pluk.wau.nl/Euroland/SharedFolder/Communication_Formats.doc> (accessed 23 July 2002).
Little D (1991) Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues, and Problems Dublin: Authentik (quoted in Schweinhorst 1998a).
McConnell D (2000) Implementing Computer Supported Cooperative Learning London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Myers AE (1962a) ‘Competitive team golf with schizophrenics’ Technical Report No.14, University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory (quoted in Johnson and Johnson 1974, p.232).
Myers AE (1962b) ‘Team competition, success, and adjustment of group members’ Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 65 325-332 (quoted in Johnson and Johnson 1974, p.232).
Rogers A (1993) ‘Adult Learning Maps and the Teaching Process’ Studies in the Education of Adults, 25(2).
Schwienhorst
K (1998a)
‘Matching pedagogy and technology- Tandem learning and learner autonomy
in
online virtual language environments’ (quoted in R. Soetaert, E. De
Man, G.
Van Belle (Eds.). Language Teaching On-Line. Ghent: University of
Ghent. pp.
115-127) <http://www.tcd.ie/CLCS/assistants/kschwien.html>
(accessed 27 July 2002).
Schwienhorst K (1998b). The "third place"- virtual reality applications for second language learning. ReCALL, 10(1), 118-126. <http://www.tcd.ie/CLCS/assistants/kschwien.html> (accessed 27 July 2002).
Schwienhorst K (1997) Talking on the MOO: Learner autonomy and language learning in tandem. Paper presented at the CALLMOO: Enhancing Language Learning Through Internet Technologies, Bergen, Norway. <http://www.tcd.ie/CLCS/assistants/kschwien.html> (accessed 27 July 2002).
Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press (quoted in Wells G
(1999) Dialogic
inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
New York: Cambridge University Press. <http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~gwells/resources/ZPD.html>
(accessed 22 August 2002)).
Warschauer
M
(1996) ‘Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second
language
classroom’ CALICO Journal, 13(2), p.7-26, <http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/comparing.html>
(accessed 20 August 2002).