Week 2: Yulia (article review)

Peterson’s (2012) article starts with a literature review on the impact of various computer-mediated communication (henceforth CMC) tools on learning process. Based on his review, the advantages of CMC tools – text chat, MOOs and MUVEs – are the following. The use of these tools can help create a low-stress environment and reduce barriers to learning, such as inhibition, and status concerns, which is one of the ways to deal with students’ anxiety that might have a negative impact on their progress. Again, this relates to Krashen’s theory of SLA that I mentioned in my previous review. Other positive findings include increased participation, motivation, production of target language (henceforth TL) and collaborative TL interaction mainly due to visual appeal (in the case of MUVEs) and anonymity.

Peterson (2012) research addresses 3 main questions. Do EFL learners engage in collaborative social interaction in SL? In what ways, if any, did the computer-based nature of the interaction and the communication tools provided by SL facilitate the production of TL output? And what are learner attitudes toward interaction in SL?

By means of discourse analysis of the chat transcripts, post-study questionnaire and interviews, Peterson (2012) found that the participants (8 undergraduate students from a Japanese university) indeed engaged in collaborative interaction. One of the features of this interaction is that it led to peer scaffolding focused on lexis and correction in the form of clarification and assistance requests. In my view, this is a valuable contribution to the literature on corrective feedback. According to Ellis (2007), this feedback may take the forms of explicit error correction, recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic cues, elicitation and repetition. Although there are continuous debates on who should be providing this feedback – teachers or classmates, or if learners themselves should be given an opportunity to decide whether they need assistance from them - Peterson’s (2012) findings suggest that peer scaffolding can be quite effective and beneficial and the nature of SL environment facilitates the interaction where peers tend to support each other.

Another feature of collaborative interaction was the use of TL utterances that signaled attention and interest. Similar to peer scaffolding, these utterances (also known as continuers) were in the form of questions that facilitated the continuum of conversations and production of the TL output. Although it wasn’t mentioned, I think the use of continuers might be a good tactic to encourage willingness to communicate among language learners, particularly among those who need some sort of incentive to start communicating in the TL.

Other features of collaborative interaction that Peterson (2012) found were social cohesion, which was achieved by means of politeness strategies, and intersubjectivity that involved the use of continuers, politeness and scaffolding.

With regards to the attitude to interaction in SL, the participants felt their experience was enjoyable and beneficial. They also noted that the SL environment was less stressful than a regular language class. For the practitioners it means that SL provides an opportunity to help language learners tackle issues in such a way that it would not make them feel stressed, anxious and uncomfortable as in the classroom situation.

Obviously any research has limitations and this one is not an exception. Peterson (2012) acknowledges that these limitations (number of subjects, duration of the project sessions, institutional constraints, etc.) should be acknowledged when evaluating the findings. Nonetheless, his article is an interesting account of EFL learners’ interaction in SL and raises possibilities for further investigations.

References:

Ellis, R. (2007). Cognitive, social and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. Paper presented at the Conference on the Social and Cognitive Aspects of Second Language Teaching and Learning, Auckland, New Zealand.

Peterson, M. (2012). EFL learner collaborative interaction in second life. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 24(1), 20-39. doi: 10.1017/S0958344011000279