Reading Prompt #8

Some kinds of technologies which are used for CMC are introduced in Levy’s book, like Email/SMS, chat, MOOs, conferencing and mailing lists/BBS. They are different from each other, but share some commons at the same time. They can be great helps for language learning.

For learners in the same class or the same time zone, synchronous forms of CAC are good choices. They can use text-based chat or videoconferencing and don’t even have to meet each other. For learners who cannot be online at the same time, they can use asynchronous forms of CMC to facilitate their language learning, such as emails. Researchers also find out that CMC does play a role in second language learning. CMC has a ability to provide learners with a forum through which to negotiate meaning. According to Skehan, “the negotiation of meaning that occurs through interactions is seen as an ideal mechanism through which learners can identify where their interlanguage is limited and needs to be further extended”.

Email is the most often used tool for me. Although I learned English in Chinese for 10 years, I didn’t really have chances to communicate with people in English, either spoken or written English. So when I started to write emails in English, I would spend an average time of 15 min on each email. I would write, think, rewrite, and rethink every sentence. But now, I spend much less time, I can say that this practice does improve my English. Then I want to talk something about chat. Last week, I had the chance to take a virtual class for ESL5013 and that was a disaster for me. Just like Lvey’s book says, in the chat or other synchronous environments, “other participants are not aware when one person starts to type a message and may continue with a topic, or else may change the direction of the discussion while a potential contributor to the discussion types his or her message”. My contribution to the discussion was often “out of step with what has gone before it”. I think my English is not good enough for chatting virtually with native speakers.

Dr. Sauro made a research about the two computer-mediated corrective feedbacks. According to her findings, both of these two types supported gains in target form knowledge in familiar contexts, but in immediate term or over time, neither of them was more effective than the other. And the metalinguistic group in the Time of Test Administration showed much more significant improvement than recast and control. Those help the teacher know what kind of feedbacks work best for their students. We know that feedback is important in language building because feedbacks can facilitate the occurrences of noticing and promote Le processing. With the appropriate feedbacks, learners will make their output work more effective in L2 acquisition than inappropriate or no feedback taken.