+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Computer-Mediated Communication and Video Chat Randall Sadler University of Illinois @...

Computer-Mediated Communication and Video Chat Randall Sadler University of Illinois @...

Date post: 14-Dec-2015
Category:
Upload: hunter-bragg
View: 214 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Popular Tags:
19
Computer-Mediated Computer-Mediated Communication and Video Communication and Video Chat Chat Randall Sadler Randall Sadler University of Illinois @ University of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign Urbana-Champaign
Transcript

Computer-Mediated Computer-Mediated Communication and Video Communication and Video Chat Chat

Randall SadlerRandall Sadler

University of Illinois @University of Illinois @

Urbana-ChampaignUrbana-Champaign

What is CMC/NBLT?

Computer-Mediated Communication (for language learning) is the use of computers connected by networks to engage in authentic communication with other language learners and/or teachers.

“NBLT represents a new and different side of CALL, where human-to-human communication is the focus” (Kern &

Warschauer, 2000, p. 1).

•Many of these influenced by The Audiolingual Approach

•Aka, Drill and Kill

How is that different from CALL?

“…CALL has traditionally been associated with self-contained, programmed applications such as tutorials, drills, simulations, instructional games, tests, and so on” (Kern

& Warschauer, 2000, p. 1) .

A VERY short review of research…

Email: Absalon & Marden, 2004; Biesenbach-Lucas & Weasenforth, 2001; Fedderholdt, 2001; O'Dowd, 2003; Shang, 2003

Message Boards: Benton, 1996; Kamhi-Stein, 2000; Ware, 2004

MUDs and MOOs: Kötter, 2001b; Peterson, 2001; Weininger & Shield, 2003

Text Chat: Bearden, 2003; Freiermuth, 2002; Perez, 2003; D. B. Smith, 2001; Tudini, 2003; Williams, 2003

Okay, a fairly short review…

Audio Chat: Cziko & Park, 2003; Hampel & Hauck, 2004; Kötter, 2001a; Kötter, Shield, & Stevens, 1999; Lamy, 2004

Video Conferencing: Goodfellow et al., 1996; Kinginger, 1998; Matthews, 1998; McAndrew, Foubister, & Mayes, 1996; Egert, 2000

Video Chat: Wang, 2004

Research Questions

1. What programs are freely available for engaging in synchronous video chat?

2. How different are these tools from each other in terms of technical and pedagogical issues?

3. How suitable are these programs for personal communication?

4. How suitable are these programs for language teaching purposes?

What did the study do?

Evaluated 8 freely available video chat programs

1. CU-See Me World

2. ICQ

3. MSN Messenger

4. Paltalk

5. Skype

6. Yahoo Messenger

Participants

Turkey 8 MATEFL students 4 female & 4 male Taking course on

“The use of computers for language learning”

US 10 MA TESL students 5 male & 5 female U.S., Argentina,

China, Cambodia, and Korea

Taking course on “CMC for Language Teaching”

Procedure

Groups of 2-3 students used each program for international communication

Each student completed a 28-item questionnaire for each tool & a final questionnaire3,132 item responses total

Results

Tool M (over 95) SD Rank

MSN 80.50 13.10 1

Skype 76.55 9.30 2

Yahoo 56.44 14.23 3

ICQ 46.77 15.20 4

CUworld 41.83 15.16 5

Paltalk 35.61 16.63 6

Paired t-tests15 possible combinations of video tool pairs.

MSN Messenger

Skype

Yahoo ICQ

ICQ CUworld

CUworld Paltalk

Items on the questionnaire

CU World

ICQ MSN Paltalk Skype Yahoo

website user friendly

2.29 (6) 3.18 (5) 4.18 (2) 3.27 (4) 4.39 (1) 3.67 (3)

easy to install 2.41 (6) 3.41 (5) 4.73 (1) 3.73 (4) 4.44 (2) 4.00 (3) easy to setup 2.59 (6) 3.44 (5) 4.67 (1) 3.73 (4) 4.38 (2) 4.00 (3)

Tec

h Is

sues

good help/support

2.90 (3) 2.80 (5) 3.67 (1) 2.40 (6) 3.73 (2) 2.85 (4)

easy to use 2.53 (6) 3.00 (4) 4.69 (1) 2.64 (5) 4.28 (2) 3.65 (3) easy to add members

3.18 (6) 3.29 (5) 4.53 (1) 3.53 (4) 4.06 (2) 4.06 (2)

easy to start a conversation

2.82 (5) 3.06 (4) 4.67 (1) 2.60 (6) 4.50 (2) 3.44 (3)

Use

issu

es

easy to see if others were online

3.33 (5) 3.81 (4) 4.82 (1) 3.13 (6) 4.35 (2) 4.12 (3)

Average 2.75 3.25 4.50 3.13 4.27 3.72

Average Rank 5.36 4.25 1.13 4.89 1.89 3.00

Technical & Use Issues

The Upper 3rd—MSN & Skype (Traditional)

What they liked/disliked

High audio and video qualityAbility to make landline callsFamiliarity

No possibility for multi-user video chatSkype—small user video

The Lower 3rd—Paltalk & CUworld (Community Oriented)

What they liked/disliked

“Potential” for multi-user chatPre-existing interest groups

Free usage restrictedButton turn-taking (Paltalk)Technical Issues (CUworld)Wow/Yikes Factor

The Middle 3rd—Yahoo & ICQ (Transitional Tools)

The Middle 3rd—Yahoo & ICQ (Transitional Tools)

FreeMultiuser video chat for free—ICQ

Some video and audio issuesAnnoying extra software (Yahoo)Chat overload—317

What does all this mean for us?

1. Do you need video?

2. In class or out of class usage?1. Individual or class to class (videoconferencing)?

3. Free or pay?

4. 1-1 or multi-person communication?

5. Have a partner or need a partner?

6. xLingo & mylanguageexchange


Recommended