Please cite as Ortega L 2007 Online interactions

Please cite as: Ortega, L. (2007). Online interactions and L 2 learning: Some ethical challenges for teachers and researchers. Invited presentation delivered at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, March 30. Copyright © Lourdes Ortega, 2007

Online interactions & L 2 learning: Some ethical challenges for teachers and researchers Lourdes Ortega University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, lortega@hawaii. edu English Language Institute, University of Michigan March 30, 2007

Acknowledgement Eve Zyzik, Michigan State University Sally Magnan (Ed. ). (in press). Mediating Discourse Online. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Information Communication Technologies have changed § the nature of everyday communication § the educational contexts afforded to our students § opportunities for L 2 learning (e. g. , Kern, 2006; Thorne & Payne, 2005)

ICTs in our digital society Email Internet surfing Instant messaging Cell phones (photos/music) Web page creation, maintenance, viewing Newsgroups Chats Wikis Palm-sized computers (movies) Blogging Gaming

L 2 Computer-Mediated Communication CM interaction between individuals and groups of users, all or some of whom use an L 2 Designed for pedagogical purposes (during regular class time & outside) Some times with no specific pedagogical aim (e. g. , joining a chat room or a news group on the Internet) but with a broad purpose to “practice the L 2”

New ethical challenges? Values that guide research programs (Ortega, 2005) and educational practices Social usefulness and usability of knowledge (Stokes, 1997; House & Howe, 1999) Conduct of research involving human subjects (Mackey & Gass, 2005, Ch. 2)

Ethics and Information Technology (Springer, founded in 1999): “. . . aims to foster and promote reflection and analysis which is intended to make a constructive contribution to answering the ethical, social and political questions associated with the adoption, use, and development of ICT”

L 2 CMC Euphoric discourse Idyllic images Unquestioned assumptions No discussions about ethics so far

Computer-Mediated Communication tremendous potential for promoting Ø L 2 linguistic development Ø Intercultural awareness (Ortega, 1997; Smith, 2003; Belz & Thorne, 2006)

Main identified benefits “leaner communication” (Walther et al. , 2005, p. 634) L 2 development Contact Hypothesis Allport (1954) Egualitarian participation CMC for L 2 learning Target culture closer to students Higher productivity More varied discourse Intercultural learning Promote intercultural understanding

CMC & participation and productivity Educational benefits egalitarian participation structures enable the democratization of education via dialogic communication SLA benefits egalitarian structures bring about higher productivity and more complex discourse, both key ingredients for optimal L 2 development

True: more L 2 output and more varied usage of the L 2 are fostered online (e. g. , Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995) certain traditional participation structures, such as negotiation episodes, also occur online (e. g. , Fiori, 2005; B. Smith, 2003, 2004) But also:

anxiety provoked by the public visibility of text-based postings “You always say - great response - but you do not understand the stress - it is going to be there - this response - people will think of me as this horrible person people who do not know me because it is on the Web and not at all a communication between two peers - it is like communication with a mass audience. ” “The Web is good to force me to read my note but I think it is very difficult - I can hardly write - anything without making many mistakes and I cannot find anything to write. . . I can just keep quiet in the class unless the teacher calls my name -- but [on the Web] I must talk -- it is very hard for me. ” Sengupta (2001, p. 122)

And also: more equally distributed participation for one group but not the other (Fitze, 2006) greater participation for some learners but exclusion of others (Jeon-Ellis et al. , 2005) perpetuation of preexisting power differentials (Reeder et al. , 2004) greater learning in the traditional face-to-face medium than online (Barr et al. , 2005)

Productivity = productive engagement with the L 2? Teachers’ online threaded discussions: “serial monologues” Pawan et al. (2003) Teachers’ text-only synchronous chat: “cooperative development” (Edge, 2006) Ø Not the medium per se, but context and agency Ø

Agency “Always accessible, never fully alone, the wired personality is both more connected to more disparate others and, for that very reason, all the more forced to make choices about availability, about prioritizing the importance and duration of replies, and about filtering incoming messages and information” (Burbules, 2006, pp. 117 -118)

“Interactivity” Ø Ø Cummulative meaning making? (Rafaeli, 1988) Interchangeable roles? Reciprocal influence? Mutual interruptibility? Walther et al. (2005)

What is the relative value of participation and silence in CMC? Soroka and Rafaeli (2006) on lurking & de-lurking: there is a “need to understand lurking behavior not only to make people start participating or de-lurk, but also to be able to create virtual spaces that are pleasant and interesting to be in, even for silent participants” (n. p. ) Do cultural differences that are known to be important in faceto-face communication (such as the valuing of silence and reticence in some cultures) become simply irrelevant when interacting online for the sake of L 2 learning. . . ?

What counts as optimal participation and productivity in L 2 online interactions? Ø Ø Quality and not only quantity of interactions Not the medium per se, but context and agency

Strategy 1: Consider. . . Participation Productivity CMC for L 2 learning Silence (Lurking) Interactivity

Intercultural learning & L 2 CMC Telecollaborations “the use of Internet communication tools by internationally dispersed students of language in institutionalized settings in order to promote the development of (a) foreign language (FL) linguistic competence and (b) intercultural competence” (Belz, 2003, p. 68)

Telecollaborations Have relevance for L 2 teachers (Furstenberg et al. , 2001; Kinginger et al. , 1999; see also Bauer et al. , 2006) Promote contextualized and social views of language in curricula, stressing pragmatic development and cultural learning, rather than just lexis & grammar Foster a sense of cultural curiosity (Abrams, 2002) Help confront stereotypes and prejudice (Sakar, 2001; O’Dowd, 2005) Help reflect on one’s own culture (Ware, 2005)

True: Telecollaborations can result in Ø better learning of cultural content Ø better knowledge of L 2 pragmatics Ø enhanced intercultural understanding But also. . .

If unsuccessful, telecollaborations can reinforce stereotypes and confirm negative attitudes that students had prior to the telecollaboration (Belz, 2002; Meagher & Castaños, 1996; O’Dowd, 2003) e. g. , Kramsch & Thorne (2002): U. S. undergraduates thought French lycée students were unfriendly & pompous because they had an unfamiliar factual, impersonal, and dispassionate communication style

Is CMC a culture-free zone? there is good reason to be “suspicious of the assumption of the flattening out of cultural difference” by merely using technology as a medium Hanna & de Nooy (2003, p. 72)

ICTs are a product of culture ICTs are a Western, affluent, Englishspeaking invention (Ess, 2002; Walther, 1996)

Virtual cultures We now have digital natives (Mcmillan & Morrison, 2006; Thorne, 2003) and they create their own virtual communities and norms Also, primary access to ICTs is severely unequal across geographies and socioeconomic class (digital divide-- Parayil, 2005; Stanley, 2003), so. . .

Cultural resistance and negotiation Many competent users of technology may have had “a reluctant entry into the computer age” (B. Q. Smith, 2004) Many may be resistant/oppositional technology users Plus, online interaction is never just about language, but about repositioning oneself and negotiating cultural, personal, and power differentials online (Chen, 2006; Lam, 2004)

How can “culture” be defined online? Ø Global computer uses, emergent cultures of users, and local cultures interact (Kern, 2006; Thorne, 2003; see also Ess, 2002)

Virtual interlocutors in our classrooms and studies? For cultural learning, “internationally dispersed students” are the imagined interlocutors (Belz, 2003, p. 68) So, “intra-community resources remain largely untapped” (Thorne, 2006, p. 9)

e. g. , French communities in the U. S. ? ? Cajun French, Louisiana Canadian French, New England 13 million French ancestry 1. 6 French-English speakers Francophone Arabs, all of U. S. Haitian French, Miami

Virtual learners in our classrooms and studies? Yoshie, a Japanese-English bilingual who had studied in Berlin as a high school student Yen, a native speaker of Cantonese and English Lori, who came from a rural, working-class background and had never traveled outside of the U. S. Belz (2003, 2006) What does each bring to CMC for L 2 learning?

Strategy 2: Consider. . . “Multilayered Cultures” Negotiation & resistance (global, virtual, local) CMC for L 2 learning Who are the “learners” Legitimate interlocutors?

CMC & research conduct Public space research Loitering & lurking, ok? Virtual disguise, sufficient? Archival research Human research Textual products? Human activity? Public access? Consent? Ephimeral or permanent? Protection of (virtual & real) anonymity? Creative arts research Recognition? Copyrights?

An empirical approach Hudson and Bruckman (2004): Ø Data base: 137 chatrooms and 766 usernames Ø Results: between 56% and 72% of the time chat members showed great hostility and expelled researchers Ø Conclusion: Internet users do expect – perhaps against all logic – privacy

L 2 examples Public space research Archival research Chats: Jepson (2005) himself Tudini (2003) her students Human research Creative arts research Email: ? ? Web creation: Biesenbach. Lucas (2005) Hull & Nelson (2005) Chen (2006)

Strategy 3: Consider. . . Purposes for your research Vulnerability of population CMC for L 2 learning Protection from harm? Credit for cultural creation?

L 2 CMC Euphoric discourse Idyllic images Unquestioned assumptions It’s about technology-mediated. . . human interaction

Thank You lortega@hawaii. edu

References: o o o Abrams, Z. I. (2002). Surfing to cross-cultural awareness: Using Internet-mediated projects to explore cultural stereotypes. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 141 -160. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Barr, D. , Leakey, J. , & Ranchoux, A. (2005). Told like it is! An evaluation of an integrated oral development pilot project. Language Learning and Technology, 9(3), 55 -78. Bauer, B. , de. Benedette, L. , Furstenberg, G. , Levet, S. , & Waryn, S. (2006). The Cultura project. In Belz, J. A. and Thorne, S. L. (eds. ), Internet-Mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education (pp. 31 -62). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60 -81. Belz, J. A. (2003). Identity, deficiency, and first language use in foreign language education. In Blyth, Carl, (ed. ), The Sociolinguistics of Foreign Language Classrooms: Contributions of the Native, Near-Native and the Non-Native Speaker (pp. 209 -250). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Belz, J. A. (2006). At the Intersection of Telecollaboration, Learner Corpus Research, and L 2 Pragmatics: Considerations for Language Program Direction. In Belz, J. A. and Thorne, S. L. (eds. ), Internet-Mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education (pp. 207 -246). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Belz, J. A. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). (Eds). (2006). Internet-Mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2005). Communication topics and strategies in e-mail consultation: Comparison between American and international university students. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 24 -46. Burbules, N. C. (2006). Rethinking dialogue in networked spaces. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 6, 107122. Chen, C. -F. E. (2006). The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 35 -55. Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 1731.

o o o o Edge, J. (2006). Computer-mediated cooperative development: Non-judgemental discourse in online environments. Language Teaching Research, 10, 205 -227. Ess, C. (2002). Computer-mediated colonization, the renaissance, and educational imperative for an intercultural global village. Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 11 -22. Fiori, M. L. (2005). The development of grammatical competence through synchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 22, 567 -602. Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning and Technology, 10(1), 67 -86. Furstenberg, G. , Levet, S. , English, K. , & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura Project. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 55 -102. Gass, S. , & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. Van. Patten & J. Williams (Eds. ), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 173 -196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hanna, B. , & de Nooy, J. (2003). A funny thing happened on the way to the forum: Electronic discussion and foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1), 71 -85. House, E. R. , & Howe, K. R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hudson, J. M. , & Bruckman, A. (2004). “Go away”: Participant objections to being studied and the ethics of chatroom research. The Information Society, 20, 127 -139. Hull, G. A. , & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 224 261. Jeon-Ellis, G. , Debski, R. , & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Oral interaction around computers in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Language Learning and Technology, 9(3), 121 -145. Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations — and negotiated interaction —in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 79 -98. Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with network computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457 -476

o o o Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 183 -210. Kern, R. , Ware, P. , & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 243 -260. Kinginger, C. , Gourves-Hayward, A. , and Simpson, V. (1999). A telecollaborative course on French-American intercultural communication. The French Review, 72(5), 853 -866. Kramsch, C. , & Thorne, S. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D. Cameron & D. Block (Eds. ), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 83 -100). New York: Routledge. Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and local considerations. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 44 -65. Mackey, A. , & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mcmillan, S. J. , & Morrison, M. (2006). Coming of age with the internet: A qualitative exploration of how the internet has become an integral part of young people’s lives. New Media & Society, 8, 73 -95. Meagher, M. E. , & Castaños, F. (1996). Perceptions of American culture: The impact of an electronically-mediated cultural exchange program on Mexican high school students. In Herring, S. C. (Ed. ), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 187 -202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. O’Dowd, E. M. (2003). Understanding the “other side”: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 118 -144. O’Dowd, R. (2005). Negotiating sociocultural and institutional contexts: The case of Spanish-American telecollaboration. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5, 40 -56. Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L 2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning and Technology, 1, 82 -93. Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our research? The ethical as transformative lens in instructed SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 427 -443.

o o o Parayil, G. (2005). The digital divide and increasing returns: Contradictions of informational capitalism. The Information Society, 21, 41 -51. Pawan, F. , Paulus, T. M. , Yalcin, S. , & Chang, C. -F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 119 -140. Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann & S. Pingree (Eds. ), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 110 -134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Reeder, K. , Macfadyen, L. P. , Roche, J. , & Chase, M. (2004). Negotiating cultures in cyberspace: Participation patterns and problematics. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 88 -105. Sakar, A. (2001). The cross-cultural effects of electronic mail exchange on the Turkish university students of English as a foreign language (EFL). CALL-EJ Online, 3(1). Sengupta, S. (2001). Exchanging ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a pain? Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 103 -134. Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29 -53. Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365 -398. Smith, B. Q. (2004). Teaching with technologies: A reflexive auto-ethnographic portrait. Computers and Composition, 21, 49 -62. Soroka, V. , & Rafaeli, S. (2006). Invisible participants: How cultural capital relates to lurking behavior. In IW 3 C 2 (Ed. ), Proceedings of the 15 th International Conference on World Wide Web. (pp. 163 -172). New York: ACM Press. Retrieved August 20, 2006 from: http: //www 2006. org/programme/item. php? id=1018 Stanley, L. D. (2003). Beyond access: Psychosocial barriers to computer literacy. The Information Society, 19, 407 -416. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

o o o o Thorne, S. E. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38 -67. Thorne, S. L. (2006). Pedagogical and praxiological lessons from Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education research. In Belz, J. A. and Thorne, S. L. (eds. ), Internet-Mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education (pp. 2 -30). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Thorne, S. L. , & Payne, J. S. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated expression, and language education. The CALICO Journal, 22(3), 371 -397. Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 141 -159. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3 -43. Walther, J. B. , Gay, G. , & Hancock, J. T. (2005). How do communication and technology researchers study the internet? Journal of Communication, 55, 632 -657. Ware, P. (2005). “Missed” communication in online communication: Tensions in a German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64 -89.