Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:12:49.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EFL learner collaborative interaction in Second Life

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2012

Mark Peterson
Mark Peterson*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Yoshida-Nihonmatsu-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports on the task-based interaction of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in the 3D multiuser virtual environment (MUVE) Second Life. The discussion first explores research on the precursors of MUVEs, text-based 2D virtual worlds known as MOOs. This is followed by an examination of studies on the use of MUVEs in Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL). The discussion then focuses on an investigation of the Second Life-based text chat of learners located at a university in Japan. Data analysis reveals that the environment, and tasks, elicited types of collaborative interaction hypothesized as beneficial in the sociocultural account of language development. Collaborative interaction identified in the data involved peer-scaffolding focusing on lexis, and correction. The data further showed that the participants actively maintained a supportive atmosphere through the provision of utterances designed to signal interest, and the extensive use of positive politeness. These factors facilitated social cohesion, intersubjectivity, and the consistent production of coherent target language output focused on the tasks. Participant feedback was broadly positive, and indicates that specific features of Second Life such as individual avatars, coupled to the computer-based nature of the interaction, appeared to enhance discourse management, engagement, and participation. The findings suggest that Second Life provides an arena for learner centered social interaction that offers valuable opportunities for target language practice, and the development of autonomy. Areas of potential for future research are identified.

Keywords

Second LifeMUVEMOOinteractioncomputer mediated communication (CMC)CALL
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , 04 January 2012 , pp. 20 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anton, M.DiCamilla, F. (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 in collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3): 314–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1997) Computer-mediated communication: Technology for improving speaking and writing. In: Bush, M. D. (ed.), Technology Enhanced Language Learning. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 165–184.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000) Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1): 120–136. http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.htmlGoogle Scholar
Brown, P.Levinson, S. (1987) Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In: Goody, E. (ed.), Questions and politeness strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–311.Google Scholar
Chun, D. (1994) Using Computer Networks to Facilitate the Acquisition of Interactive Competence. System, 22(1): 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke-Plagwitz, J. (2008) New directions in CALL: An objective introduction to Second Life. CALICO Journal, 25(3): 547–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darhower, M. (2002) Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19(2): 249–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P.Ohta, A. S. (2005) Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3): 402–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, N. (2009) Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1): 719–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, J. M.Bruckman, A. S. (2002) IRC Francais: the creation of an Internet-based SLA community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(2): 109–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelm, O. R. (1992) The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25(2): 441–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kötter, M. (2003) Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2): 145–172. http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/kotter/default.htmlGoogle Scholar
Lee, L. (2008) Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3): 53–72.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. (1995) Applying socio-cultural theory to the analysis of learner discourse: learner-learner interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2): 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2001) MOOs and second language acquisition: Towards a rationale for MOO-based learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(5): 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2006) Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1): 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2011) Towards a research agenda for the use of three-dimensional virtual worlds in language learning. CALICO Journal, 29(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwienhorst, K. (2002) Evaluating tandem language learning in the MOO: Discourse repair strategies in a bilingual Internet project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(2): 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shield, L. (2003) MOO as a language learning tool. In: Felix, U. (ed.), Online language learning: Towards best practice. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger, 97–122.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1): 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, V. (2006) Second Life in Education and Language Learning. TESL-EJ, 10(3). http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej39/int.htmlGoogle Scholar
Svensson, P. (2003) Virtual worlds as arenas for language learning. In: Felix, U. (ed.), Language learning on-line: Towards best practice. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger, 123–142.Google Scholar
Swaffar, J. (1998) Networked language learning: Introduction. In: Swaffar, J. S., Romano, S., Arens, K. and Markley, P. (eds.), Language learning online: Theory and practice in the ESL and L2 computer classroom. Austin: Labyrinth Publications, 1–15.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2003) Artifacts and cultures of use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2): 38–67.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W.Sykes, J. M. (2009) Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1s): 802–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toyoda, E.Harrison, R. (2002) Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1): 82–99. http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/pdf/toyoda.pdfGoogle Scholar
Tudini, V. (2003) Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3): 141–159. http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/tudini/default.htmlGoogle Scholar
Wang, C. X., Song, H., Stone, D. E.Yan, Q. (2009) Integrating Second Life into an EFL program in China: Research collaboration across the continents. TechTrends, 53(6): 14–19.Google Scholar
Warner, C. N. (2004) It's just a game right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2): 69–87. http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/pdf/warner.pdfGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M., Turbee, L.Roberts, B. (1996) Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar