Webby Link!
Posted byCheck out my website for Task 4.
http://amirulshariff.host56.com/
Comparison of Face-to-Face and Electronic Discussion in Second Language Classroom.
Education reform has brought the implementation of using technology in the language classroom. In this case, education is now divided into two ways of delivering the idea; face-to-face and electronic discussion in teaching English language. One of the supposed benefits of computer-mediated communication is that it can result in more equal participation among students. However, face-to-face discussion has been practiced in the language classroom for the rest of the history of teaching and it has proven that students could have discussion in the classroom normally due to a few circumstances such as; language ability and student attitude. The purpose of this study is to compare the face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom.
Although e-learning is still in its infancy, the knowledge acquired by teachers who use online and face-to-face methods can be great of use in improving both types of teahing, which is the reason why researchers nowadays study issues related to these teaching methods, e.g. Urtel (2008) and Georgouli et. al. (2008). Several researchers (Warschauer, 2004; Fitze, 2006; Vandergriff, 2006; Sook Kim, 2008; Diaz & Etonado, 2009, among others) have reported on the peculiarities in design, contents, activities, interaction, tools and evaluation processes in face-to-face and online modes of teaching.
In the 1980s, computer conferencing began to be used in academia and the business world, both in its asynchronous form (largely through e-mail discussion lists) and its synchronous form (through real-time discussion on local area networks). For teachers of second language classroom, the rationale and motivation were largely the same as for their first language counterparts.
For teachers of general second language classes, there were a number of additional motivations, including the desire to provide authentic communication partners (Cohen and Miyake, 1986; Paramskas, 1993) the recognition of the importance of cultural exchange (Soh & Soon, 1991) and the desire to teach new learning skills to language minority students (Cummins & Sayers, 1990). According to Warschauer (1996), it is found that students used language which is lexically and syntactically more formal and complex in electronic discussion than they did in face-to-face discussion, thus demonstrating another possible advantage of computer-mediated communication.
There are still some people who prefer face-to-face communication in learning. Scientist say that body language and facial gestures can say many things about a person, his strong and weak sides, his traits, manners and even habits. To know what kind of students the teacher is dealing with is very essential aspect in teaching. Face-to-face discussion would help to eliminate many farther misunderstandings. However, in terms of learning, face-to-face discussion somehow would discourage the students’ participation in the classroom.
Sullivan and Pratt (1996) found that 100% of the students participated in electronic discourse and only 50% in the face-to-face discussion. Kern (1996) and Kelm (1992) similarly found that some students said nothing face-to-face, while all participated online. Warschauer (1996) in an experimental study comparing small group discussion online or face-to-face, found that the online groups were twice as balanced, principally because the most silent students increased their participation many-fold online. A study found that the student-directed nature of the discussion –which contrasted greatly with the face-to-face discussions in the classroom, almost all of which were dominated by the teacher; allowed students to explore and develop their opinions on important topics related to second language learning.
Second and foreign language teachers have also claimed that electronic communication has proved an equalizer in their classrooms. Tella (1992) found that Finnish girls, who traditionally have less access to and experience with computers than boys, benefited greatly from their full and equal participation in an international English-language e-mail project. Kelm (1992) added, computer-assisted classroom discussions are great equalizers of student participation. Kern (1995) compared electronic and face-to-face discussions of the same length in his university French class and found that all students participated in two 50-minute whole class electronic discussion but four did not participate at all, while five tended to dominate, in two 50-minute face-to-face discussions. Sullivan and Pratt (in press) conducted a similar study and found that 50% of the students participated in a whole class face-to-face discussion compared to 100% in a whole class electronic discussion.
Evidence suggests that electronic communication can bring about more equal participation among second and foreign language students. However, all of the previously reported studies compared whole class discussion, where it is especially likely that shy students would be afraid to participate. No studies yet have attempted to compare systematically student participation in face-to-face and electronic discussions which take place in small groups, where the patterns of interaction might be different. It is still undecided yet of which method is the best to be implemented in the second language classroom because both methods have their own pros and cons. In Malaysia, the government has taking up several actions in supporting the implementation. Smart schools would be taken up as the pedestals in implementing the computer mediated classroom in Malaysian schools. However, teachers should play a pivotal role in this ambitious act to perk up the education level in second language learning. The traditional and modern method of learning can be adjoined in making this revolution a success.
References
Alonso D., L., & Blázquez E., F. (2009). Are the Functions of Teachers in e-Learning and Face-to-Face Learning Environments Really Different?. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 331–343. Retrieved February 16, 2011 from http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_4/28.pdf
Fitze, M. (2006) Discourse And Participation In Esl Face-To-Face And Written Electronic Conferences. Language Learning & Technology. January 2006, Volume 10, Number 1 pp. 67-86. Retrieved February 22, 2011 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/fitze/
Kim, K.. Understanding synchronous online and face-to-face communication with EFL
learners. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alberta (Canada), Canada. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT NR46346). Retrieved February 20, 2011 from
Vandergriff, I. (2006) Negotiating Common Ground In Computer-Mediated versus Face-To-Face Discussions. Language Learning & Technology January 2006, Volume 10, Number 1 (pp. 110-138). Retrieved February 20, 2011 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/vandergriff/
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and writing. In C. Davison and J. Cummins (Eds.),
Handbook of English Language Teaching. Kluwer: Dordrecht, Netherlands. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)