COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION

Transcription

1 COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION AND THE BERLITZ VIRTUAL CLASSROOM NICOLE ZIEGLER, PH.D. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF SECOND LANGUAGE STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI I AT MĀNOA JUNE 2014 Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) can be defined as any process in which a learner uses a computer, and as a result, improves his or her language (Beatty, 2010, p. 7). It encompasses a very broad range of activities, materials, technologies, and modes of instruction. Because technology is constantly evolving, CALL is also a field that advances regularly, with new pedagogical tools and approaches often developing simultaneously with updates in hardware and software. Multiple research syntheses and numerous empirical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of computers for second language and foreign language learning (e.g. Felix, 2005; Liu, Moore, Graham, & Lee, 2002; Zhao, 2003), with studies indicating that computer technologies may help students to not only develop better language skills, but also improve problem-solving skills and become more creative when compared with students who do not receive any instruction (Liu, 2002; Marcos, 2001; Sun & Wang, 2003; Weatherford, 1986). Positive effects have been found for a wide range of computer-mediated tools on a variety of language skills, as well as on learners attitudes and motivation. Interestingly, research has also shown that CALL is effective for a range of typologically quite different languages, including English, Spanish, French, Japanese, Indonesian, Chinese, and Russian (Felix, 2008), suggesting that the benefits of technology for language learning aren t constrained by learners choice of target language. Overall, research suggests that using technology for language learning leads to positive effects on L2 outcomes (e.g., Nutta, 1998, Torlaković & Deugo, 2004). The Berlitz Virtual Classroom (BVC) is an excellent example of a dynamic CALL classroom environment that can be used independently or together with face-to-face, in-person instruction. Using synchronous computer mediated communication (SCMC), the BVC provides learners with video, audio, and text-based input, as well as interactive whiteboard technology, to support and facilitate second language learning.. The BVC makes available a wide range of tools in its live teacher-learner context including conferencing, chatting, and the interactive white board to share or highlight target features, utilizing multiple methods to most effectively take advantage of the unique features of computer-mediated communication (CMC). The types of multi-modal language learning components used by the BVC have been shown to have positive effects on L2 learners opinions (Felix, 2003), performance (López, 2010) and development (Yang, Gamble, & Tang, 2012). This white paper outlines the research findings in relation to the field of CALL, in particular SCMC, and explain how the BVC embodies these findings to positively impact learners perceptions, attitudes, and L2 learning outcomes. In the field of language teaching, as availability and access to technology and electronic communication tools, such as , chat, conferencing, and the use of interactive white boards,

2 2 has increased over the past few years, the use of technology in the language learning classroom has grown as well. Computer-mediated communication is operationalized as any communication that takes places between human beings via the instrumentality of computers (Herring, 1996, p.1). Although it shares many similarities with face-to-face (F2F) communication, the use of the computer can enhance the manner in which students produce, comprehend, process, and exchange information. Exciting new research in the CALL area suggests that CMC can have important advantages for promoting and supporting second language (L2) learning and teaching. There are two types of CMC: (a) synchronous (SCMC), which refers to interaction and communication occurring live in real-time, such as through chat or conferencing software, or (b) asynchronous (ACMC), where communication may take place at different points in time, such as in or tandem correspondence. SCMC has been described as the most interactive end of the CMC spectrum (Paramskas, 1999, p. 17), and includes such technologies as text chatting (e.g. Lai & Zhao, 2006; Smith, 2004; Tudini, 2003), voice chatting (e.g. Blake, 2008; Jepson, 2005), conferencing (e.g. Fitze, 2006; Yanguas, 2010), and online discussions (e.g. Beauvois, 1992; Salaberry, 2000). The real-time opportunities found in SCMC technologies provides learners with opportunities to interact, produce language, and modify their output in response to any communication difficulties, as well as respond to feedback from an interlocutor. For example, studies demonstrate that many of the helpful features found in F2F interaction can and do occur in SCMC contexts (see Sauro, 2011 for a review). Furthermore, studies suggest that certain types of SCMC, such as the two-way streaming video- and audio-conferencing utilized by the BVC, may be especially beneficial for distance learning contexts. One reason for this may be because it can provide more authentic opportunities for oral practice than are possible through traditional asynchronous distance courses (Hampel & Hauck, 2004). It also offers an affordable and relatively accessible option for language instruction (Godwin-Jones, 2003). Research further suggests that developmental outcomes of distance learning courses, which can be defined as communicative interactions where the interlocutors are geographically separated (Levy & Stockwell, 2006), result in the same levels of gains as in traditional, F2F or brick-and-mortar classrooms (McIntyre & Wolff, 1998). In general, research has shown that SCMC can provide learners with advantages over more traditional F2F interactions, including increased opportunities for learners attention to be drawn to the form of the language, more time for them to understand and process what they hear, and as discussed later in this white paper, reduced anxiety (Abrams, 2003; Chun, 1994; Müller- Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2010; Smith, 2003; Toyoda & Harrison, 2002; Warschauer, 1997). In addition to these benefits, CALL environments typically provide learners with the ability to print out text logs, offering valuable opportunities to review notes or chat transcripts. In addition, reviewing recordings of lessons conducted in video or multi-media sessions provides learners with repeated input when they need it, together with a record of any changes in their language use, a feature that may be particularly useful for learners participating in distance education (Tudini, 2002). To summarize then, research suggests that CMC, especially SCMC, offers important advantages in supporting and facilitating L2 development, with a growing body of research suggesting that SCMC technologies, such as chatting and conferencing, result in similar learning

3 3 outcomes to traditional, F2F learning contexts. We next turn to a discussion of the key features of the Berlitz Virtual Classroom, a synchronous computer-mediated learning environment. These BVC features will be discussed in terms of their relationship to theoretical approaches and empirical findings in second language acquisition (SLA). THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION MODE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT During the last two decades, options in technology have not only become more varied, but also more complex. Because computers are now a commonplace part of the educational process, it is necessary to investigate how different technologies might affect L2 learning processes and outcomes (Felix, 2005). A variety of studies have compared the impact of different computer-mediated methods on L2 development (e.g. Lo, Wang, & Yeh, 2004; Ma, Van Vosselen, Gierts, & Vandamme, 2002; Smith, Alvarez-Torres, & Zhao, 2003; Yanguas, 2010, 2012), with results revealing interesting differences across mode on L2 learning outcomes. For example, Blake (2008) found a higher number of repair moves occurred in voice chat than text chat, while Yanguas (2010) found advantages for an audio-conferencing group, in which learners were able to speak directly with one another using headsets via Skype, over video and F2F. Although, these findings provide promising information on different outcomes of technology depending on the mode, more research is needed to determine whether certain approaches are more facilitative of L2 development. Recent research in CMC has also examined the effect of specific types of technology on the quantity and type of negotiation learners produce. Negotiation occurs when an interlocutor indicates with questions or comments that the other speaker s utterance has not been completely understood. This can then prompt the original speaker to modify the utterance either by repeating, rephrasing, elaborating, or simplifying the original message in an attempt to attain comprehension. Negotiation can manifest in multiple forms, and might include efforts by a speaker to confirm that an utterance has been correctly heard or understood, requests designed to clarify the meaning or intent of an utterance, or statements made in order to anticipate and prevent a breakdown in communication (Long, 1983). Studies comparing the amount of negotiated repair moves in voice and text chat (Jepson, 2005), and the relationship between learners eye movements and uptake, defined in this study as the immediate incorporation of feedback in learners production (Smith, 2010), have found that learners patterns of negotiation are influenced by the mode of communication. Wang (2006) examined the role of visual cues, such as facial expressions or gestures, in negotiation routines during interactive white-board supported video-conferences. Results indicated these paralinguistic cues facilitated understanding and communication, and were particularly important in instances where the audio feed or sound quality was disrupted. Learners indicated that they relied on the video and whiteboard features to confirm or disconfirm their understanding of problematic items, providing additional evidence for the efficacy of visual cues in reducing misunderstanding and ambiguity in oral interaction (Bruce, 1996). In general, multi-modal environments, in which learners have audio, visual, and written input, such as the one used in Wang (2004, 2006) and in the BVC, have been shown to support an environment facilitative of L2 development (Chun & Plass, 2000). Through an enriching combination of cutting-edge technological features supported by the L2 research, the BVC aims to create an engaging, effective language learning environment for distance learning students.

4 4 Although some researchers have pointed out differences between F2F and SCMC interaction, such as in structure or turn-taking patterns (Smith, 2004; Toyoda & Harrison, 2002), other researchers have argued that video SCMC provides similar social signals to those in F2F interaction, as learners are still able to receive and produce visual cues (Lee, 2007). In other words, learners using video conferencing are able to use body language, such as gestures and facial expressions, to offset language-related communication failures. Indeed, scholars have suggested that culturally and linguistically appropriate gestures are critical for authentic interaction and L2 learning (McCafferty & Ahmed, 2000). Similarities in performance have been found for learners in video conferencing and F2F contexts, although these similarities do not seem to extend to audio-only interaction. For instance, Yanguas (2010) found differences in negotiation patterns between learners participating in audio interaction with learners taking part in F2F or video interaction, a difference attributed to the lack of visual input in the audio SCMC group. Learners in the audio group seemed to utilize other linguistic resources when deprived of the visual cues in video SCMC and F2F contexts. Results also indicated that overall interactional patterns in oral SCMC were more similar to those found in F2F contexts than those of written computer-mediated communication, suggesting that there are important implications of restricting learners input to aural or literal forms. These findings regarding the effects of different modes of oral SCMC are highly relevant to the BVC, in which the use of video is optional for instructors and students. In order to optimize opportunities for L2 learning, more regular use of the visual components available in the BVC may be helpful in supporting learners attempts to communicate and negotiate. More recent research further supports these results, with findings indicating advantages for audio SCMC contexts over video SCMC or F2F contexts in at least one line of research on listening comprehension measures (Yanguas, 2012), suggesting that there may be positive benefits to audio conferencing for oral measures over other forms of SCMC. Mayer s cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2001, 2005; Mayer & Moreno, 2003) may provide an explanation for these results. This theory proposes that visual and auditory information is processed through two individual channels, with each channel having a limited capacity for intake. Each channel actively filters, selects, organizes, and integrates information in the input. This suggests that when one channel is inactive, cognitive resources are focused to one channel rather than dispersed over two channels. Processing only audio information, rather than processing visual and audio input simultaneously through both channels, may lead to improved performance on aural receptive and productive measures. Overall, then, research findings provide clear support for the Berlitz Method s emphasis on the use of listening and speaking skills to facilitate learners L2 development, with numerous studies offering empirical evidence on the positive benefits of interaction in computer-mediated language learning contexts, such as the BVC. In addition, research has demonstrated promising results regarding the effectiveness of SCMC in promoting both oral and written L2 development (Chun, 1994; Kost, 2004; Payne & Whitney, 2002; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996), with some researchers finding that the developmental benefits of interaction in SCMC are not confined to skill specific learning. In other words, results have suggested that written SCMC may gradually (Chun, 1994) or directly transfer between oral and written modalities (Beauvois, 1992; Kern, 1995; Payne & Whitney, 2002).

5 5 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, AFFECTIVE FACTORS, AND TECHNOLOGY IN L2 LEARNING Obviously, learners vary widely in terms of their ultimate success in acquiring a second language, with some learners rapidly developing a high level of proficiency while others remain stabilized at lower levels. Although there are many factors that may impact learners ultimate attainment, research in L2 learning has demonstrated the importance of individual differences, with findings indicating that these differences are consistent predictors of language learning success. Many individual differences have been identified as potentially important in L2 learning, including personality, aptitude, creativity, and willingness to communicate, and how these individual factors interact with the unique features of SCMC is an important consideration in L2 learning and teaching. For example, motivation and attitude are two of the most important individual differences influencing L2 learning (Ellis, 2008; Dörnyei, 1994, 2001, 2003; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2013; Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2009), with some scholars highlighting that motivation is not only the impetus to initiate language learning, but also the driving force necessary to maintain sustained development (Dörnyei, 2005). In addition, learners high levels of motivation and positive attitudes can make up for shortcomings in other areas, such as language aptitude and conditions, underscoring the importance of these factors in the overall language learning process. Learning conditions have been shown to impact learners motivation and attitudes (Mihaljević Djigunović, 2009), with positive attitudes, including high levels of enjoyment and greater levels of engagement, helping to improve learners overall motivation. In the context of this research what emerges as particularly interesting in relation to technology are findings that show use of computer-mediated technology results in more positive attitudes towards language learning and higher levels of enjoyment (Beauvois, 1992; Lim & Shen, 2006). Research also shows students are more interested in language learning when it involves interactivity (Ayres, 2002; Echavez-Solano, 2003), suggesting that some students may have more positive perceptions about language learning in technology-mediated classrooms than in traditional classrooms (Christie, 2001; Murday, Ushida, & Chenoweth, 2008). Recent research by Murphy (2011), for example, has demonstrated the importance of corrective feedback provided during social interaction in asynchronous and synchronous chats. Findings suggest that feedback contributed to learners having improved confidence and better evaluations of themselves, while the social aspects served as a source of motivation for students. These results provide evidence of the positive impact of CMC on affective factors. Research has also indicated that learners in SCMC interactions may be more willing to participate more often and more equally (with each other) than learners in F2F environments (Fitze, 2006; Kern, 1995; Kitade, 2000; Warschauer, 1995, 1997). Studies show SCMC leads to increased individual practice time (Bueno-Alastuey, 2011), thereby offering learners opportunities to share the control and direction of the interactive task. This sense of control and direction can be connected to intrinsic motivation, which may depend on students feeling challenged and engaged by their studies, one of the best predictors of overall language learning success (Dörnyei, 2001). Research has also indicated that both instructors and learners perceive video interaction to be beneficial to language learning (Eröz-Tuga & Sadler, 2009; Smyth, 2005), with findings

6 6 suggesting that video appears to improve authenticity, provides models for appropriate gesture and facial expressions, and aids in correct pronunciation. Furthermore, Yang et al. (2012) suggest that discussions and interaction within a video and text-chat enabled environment, specifically those in which a facilitator or instructor guides the discussion, result in improved oral proficiency as well as greater levels of learner motivation when compared to a traditional classroom. These results suggest that learners are not only likely to experience the same opportunities for L2 development in SCMC environments like the BVC as in F2F classrooms, but they may have more positive perceptions and attitudes towards language learning in general as a result of the technology-mediated context. In summary then, the importance of learner motivation and attitude in L2 learning is clear, and research suggests that computer-mediated communication may have a positive impact on these individual differences (Fotos & Browne, 2004; Schwienhorst, 2008), with some findings suggesting that computer-mediated contexts may result in heightened and sustained student interest through greater interaction with a variety of materials and tasks (Strambi, 2001). These findings provide research-based support for the computer-mediated environment of the BVC, and the potential benefits of this context for L2 learning. ANXIETY AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION Previous studies have also suggested that one of the benefits of computer-mediated interaction is the potential to reduce learners anxiety levels (Chun, 1994; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996; Abrams, 2003). As Beauvois (1992) points out, the reduced sense of immediacy in SCMC, when compared to F2F, provides learners with additional time to process input and produce output. This added time is typically going to be beneficial to some learners with greater levels of anxiety or for learners with lower proficiency levels. In addition, Kern (1995) found that introverted learners may be more likely to participate in SCMC contexts, with students reporting that they felt freer to take part in the interaction. According to Beauvois (1997), computer-mediated contexts provide an anonymous, less pressured environment that tends to lower the affective filter (p.171), potentially providing anxious or introverted students with additional interactional opportunities. SCMC, by offering a less stressful environment than F2F contexts, may provide shy learners with opportunities to receive input by counteracting some of the disadvantages and anxiety that learners experience in NS interactions. For instance, some researchers have argued that oral production is one of the leading causes of learner anxiety (Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002; Hauck & Hurd, 2005; Krashen, 2003), a claim that would suggest computer-mediated environments may be advantageous over F2F interactions for certain learners with high levels of anxiety. Furthermore, due to the additional processing and planning time in computer-mediated interaction, which provides learners with opportunities to reflect on what was said before responding (Beauvois, 1992), SCMC interaction, particularly text-based modalities, may place lower social demands on learners, thereby reducing their levels of anxiety (Baralt & Gurzynski-Weiss, 2011). In addition, research comparing tasks carried out in online chat and F2F contexts has suggested that online chatting led to the creation of a more comfortable learning environment and enhanced students willingness to communicate (Freiermuth & Jarrell, 2006). For instance, studies suggest that a computer-mediated environment may provide more equal opportunities for

7 7 speaking and sharing opinions (Wang & Woo, 2007). Within traditional classroom settings, certain students may dominate listening and speaking activities in the classroom. This type of classroom monopolization can potentially lead to unbalanced discussion and reduced opportunities for interaction and production (Fitze, 2006). For some students, this type of classroom environment might lead to not only reduced learner opportunities, but also negative effects on learner motivation (Yang et al., 2012). Studies suggest that computer-mediated contexts may equalize participation across students, providing more reticent learners with increased opportunities for interaction and production. For shy or reserved learners, SCMC learning contexts like the BVC may offer them developmental opportunities that would be unavailable in a F2F environment as they may be more likely to participate and engage in interaction in an online context in which they feel some of the social pressures of F2F communication are removed (Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1995). Learners who elect not to use the video component of the BVC, instead focusing on the audio and text-based features of the platform, may do so because they feel more able to focus on language and meaning without the pressure of the social or pragmatic cues present in F2F interaction (Yamada & Akahori, 2007). In other words, the absence of this visual and gestural input may provide certain learners with opportunities to test hypotheses about the target language without social pressure (Payne & Whitney, 2002). It is possible that this may be due to cultural issues, but to our knowledge, there is no research specifically investigating this yet. Overall, for less proficient and/or more anxious learners, SCMC contexts seem likely to provide a more comfortable and non-threatening environment in which learners can feel free to make mistakes and test their hypotheses about the target language. SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, THE INTERACTION APPROACH, AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION The interaction approach to second language acquisition (SLA) suggests that conversational adjustments occurring during communication benefit second language (L2) development by providing learners with opportunities to receive interactional feedback, to notice gaps between their language and that of the target language, and to modify utterances in response to their interlocutors (Gass & Mackey, 2006, 2007; Mackey, Abbuhl, & Gass, 2012). Nearly 100 empirical studies and multiple meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of interaction on L2 development (Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-Ventura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Ziegler, 2013 for recent reviews). The Berlitz Method embodies many of the key constructs of the interaction approach, placing an emphasis on meaningful interaction between learners and instructors, allowing learners the freedom to negotiate meaning with one another and their NS teacher, and providing multiple opportunities for learners to receive modified input and produce modified output. Meaningful interaction, in which learners are able to resolve communication problems through negotiation and repair errors in their production, may prepare learners to be more attentive to future input, raising their awareness of specific features of the target language and providing them with multiple opportunities to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses they have formed regarding the L2. In addition to participating in negotiation, research has shown that receiving feedback may support learners L2 development by providing both positive and

8 8 negative evidence regarding the target language. The flexibility of the BVC, which offers opportunities for learner-instructor as well as learner-learner interaction, provides learners with multiple chances to provide and use these types of interactional features. Although research suggests that interactional features used by interlocutors may vary depending on whether learners interact with a native or non-native speaker (Gass & Varonis, 1994; Long & Porter, 1985; Mackey, Oliver, & Leeman, 2003; Oliver, 2002; Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos, & Linnell, 1996; Varonis & Gass, 1985), importantly positive benefits are available regardless, with research demonstrating no significant differences in learning outcomes across type of interlocutor in SCMC contexts (Ziegler, 2013). Furthermore, in group study contexts, learners are able to not only interact directly with a native speaker, but they may observe interactions between other learners and the instructor, providing both direct and indirect chances to positively benefit from the interaction. Research has suggested that learners acting as observers can still benefit developmentally (Mackey, 1999; Ziegler et al., 2013), and as Gass and Mackey (2006) point out, these interactional opportunities can aid learners in noticing their erroneous utterances and focusing their attention on the target language, thereby preparing learners to be more observant regarding future instances of linguistic input and the testing of their linguistic hypotheses. A growing body of research has sought to compare the efficacy of interaction in computer-assisted language learning contexts to interaction in face-to-face contexts, with recent studies investigating the ability of CMC to direct learners attention to specific target language features and to provide learners with opportunities to negotiate for meaning, to receive comprehensible input and corrective feedback, and to produce modified output (Smith, 2004). Research has provided compelling evidence that interactional features found to be beneficial to L2 development in F2F contexts, such as negotiation for meaning and modified output, can and do occur in CALL environments (Beauvois, 1992; Iwasaki & Oliver, 2003; Kötter, 2003; Lee, 2001). For instance, Pellettieri (2000) found that the patterns of interaction found in SCMC were similar to those found in learner F2F conversation, with instances of negotiation triggered by inappropriate responses or lack of comprehension. Results also showed that learners used clarification requests and confirmation checks to negotiate for meaning, and provided one another with corrective feedback during meaning-focused exchanges. These results led Pellettieri to conclude that SCMC provided an environment facilitative of negotiation of meaning and interaction, and importantly, that because learners in a computer-mediated context may have more time to process and monitor their language, SCMC may play a significant role in the development of grammatical competence among classroom language learners (Pellettieri, 2000, p.59). In addition, research suggests that oral SCMC, such as that found in the BVC, leads to more diverse patterns of interaction (Yanguas, 2012), providing learners with a wide range of developmental opportunities. Overall, these findings indicate that oral, face-to-face interaction and SCMC display many of the same features, with learners receiving similar opportunities for negotiation and feedback in both contexts, and learning outcomes (Ziegler, 2013). Key interactional principles, such as making key linguistic features salient, supporting modified interaction between the learner and the interlocutor, and providing opportunities for learners to be active participants in the task and to notice their errors, are clearly illustrated in the BVC. For example, the educational design of the BVC encourages instructors to direct learners attention to specific target language features contextualized through authentic, content based lessons, and to provide

9 9 learners with opportunities to negotiate for meaning, to receive comprehensible input and corrective feedback, and to produce modified output, all features demonstrated by research to be facilitative to L2 learning (Smith, 2004). Thus, if learners are concerned that by interacting online through the BVC interface they will not have the same learning opportunities as students in traditional F2F classrooms, they need not be. Research suggests that in terms of the building blocks of learning, such as negotiation for meaning, opportunities for noticing, and chances to modify output, F2F and SCMC are quite similar, and in some cases, SCMC even offers advantages over more traditional classroom contexts. FOCUS ON FORM AND FOCUS ON MEANING IN TRADITIONAL AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED CONTEXTS During the past few decades, there have been a wide variety of approaches to teaching grammar within the fields of second language learning and teaching. Reflecting one of the most important debates in language teaching (Long & Robinson, 1998), there has been substantial discussion regarding whether language, and grammar in particular, should be taught using a focus on forms approach, in which parts of language are taught linearly with a focus on individual grammar items, functions, and structures, with a specific emphasis on accuracy, or a more meaning-based approach, in which learners primary focus is on processing and making meaning. Although learners in a meaning-only based classroom may develop high levels of fluency, their productive skills remain far from native-like, particularly with respect to grammatical competence (Swain, 1995), suggesting that exposure to contextualized examples of correct linguistic form through meaning-based tasks is important for efficient and successful language development. Within the context of the BVC, learners are presented with authentic tasks representative of real-world language use, in which they are provided with multiple opportunities to see and hear, as well as produce, language in a meaning-based context. For instance, the Berlitz material, which is shared via the interactive whiteboard, is designed to provide learners with opportunities to produce language and interact with each other in a meaningful way. For example, a task-based activity might encourage learners to discuss the types of products one might sell or purchase, and how one could best handle defective items or return them. Furthermore, the goal of the task may be set collaboratively amongst the instructor and students. These sorts of real-world scenarios encourage learners to discuss their decisions, maintaining a focus on meaning as they work towards completing task goals, providing learners with numerous opportunities for L2 development. In addition, the focus on form approach can be used in the L2 classroom in a variety of ways. For instance, focus on form instruction may be planned, allowing the instructor to use a focused task to provide learners with opportunities to use a predetermined grammatical structure. The planned approach also is designed to provide learners with multiple instances of exposure to the same structure, thereby providing intensive input regarding the target feature. An alternative approach for focus on form is an incidental approach, in which learners encounter a target form through the context of a communicative activity or task. In this case, attention to form is not predetermined, but rather arises organically from the needs of the learners as they participate in and complete the language activity, providing learners with exposure to a variety of grammatical structures contextualized within a meaning-based task. In the BVC, instructors use both a planned and unplanned approach, maximizing the

10 10 chances of learning, regardless of specific learning style. For instance, instructors might elect to use a particular task to focus on a specific feature or lexical target item, such as the use of a comprehension activity based on an or memo to expose students to colloquialisms or idioms that might be heard in a business or corporate context. Students are asked to discuss how they might use such phrases in their own corporate environments, providing them with opportunities to draw on their personal experience and to produce meaningful L2 utterances. Although the focus may remain on communication and meaning making as the learners discuss the content and aim of the sample , the instructor can draw their attention to specific words and phrases, thereby raising learners awareness of target features. In addition to the flexibility provided by the BVC platform, the synchronous computermediated environment may offer advantages over a more traditional, F2F instructional context. According to Smith (2004) and Chapelle (2001), certain forms of SCMC might provide learners with additional saliency as well as the opportunity to re-read and review previous text, thereby allowing learners to more closely focus on target forms while not impacting the communicative success of the interaction. Furthermore, the added time available to learners, particularly in textchat, may provide more processing time, potentially leading to improved comprehension, more accurate production, and a higher quality of interaction than might have occurred in a F2F context (Pellettieri, 1999). The chat and note board functions in the BVC, which provide learners and instructors with a dedicated space in which to write notes or communicate with other participants, allows for the highlighting of important linguistic items or simultaneous multi-modal discussions of language content or features provided by Berlitz. Learners are able to review the information within these areas of the interactive white-board, allowing them additional time to process the input as well as plan their output in response to their interlocutors. In addition, these types of text components provide further support for learners who may encounter difficulty with other linguistic variables, such as rate of speech or volume, which might impact learners comprehension of input. Importantly, research suggests that these features allow learners to focus on the visual input, potentially providing learners with more opportunities to focus on language and form. Indeed, previous studies have demonstrated that learners in SCMC report focusing on form more than in F2F contexts (Payne & Whitney, 2002), as well as reporting that they noticed the forms more due to their ability to review chat logs and/or transcripts (Lai & Zhao, 2006; Shekary & Tahirian, 2006). This suggests that learners in SCMC may have more opportunities to notice new features as well as any gaps between their level of language and the target language (Kelm, 1992). Because noticing is a critical aspect of SLA (Schmidt, 2001), these increased opportunities in computer-mediated contexts have important implications for learners development. For example, Schmidt s Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990; Schmidt & Frota, 1986) theorizes that the conscious noticing of mismatches between a learners language and the target language is a necessary condition for successful SLA, with empirical studies demonstrating a direct link between the noticing of a target feature and its subsequent intake (Izumi, 2002; Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara, & Fearnow, 1999; Leow, 2001; Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000). If computer-mediated contexts promote the noticing of forms and gaps between what learners can currently produce and understand, and the target language, they may be more facilitative of L2 development due to the increased number of noticing opportunities that CMC provides. In fact, a number of SCMC researchers have argued that this is a distinct

11 11 advantage for computer-mediated contexts over F2F interaction. For instance, Pellettieri s (2000) results indicated that text-chat promoted learners use of negotiation of meaning and formfocused interaction, leading her to argue that the additional time for monitoring and processing in SCMC supported learners noticing of gaps, thereby facilitating their L2 development. Seeking to investigate what linguistic features learners pay attention to in CMC learning contexts, Smith and Gorsuch (2004) examined the relationship between learners verbalizations, gestures, and scrolling, with findings suggesting an increased attention to form, while Smith s (2010) study used eye-tracking technology to examine the relationship between recasts, noticing, and uptake, providing tangible evidence of what learners attended to in the input and feedback. Empirical evidence also seems to suggest that learners do in fact take advantage of the additional processing time afforded them in SCMC. For example, in their study of learners of German, Sauro and Smith (2010) found that learners use online planning time to monitor their production and that of their interlocutors, resulting in more careful production and complex language. Within the BVC, the availability of text chat and notes features may provide learners additional opportunities for visual saliency, chances to review the output of both interlocutors, and longer processing times (Smith, 2004). Together, this increases the opportunities learners have to focus on form, providing improved chances for L2 development (Salaberry, 2000). In addition to the extended processing time offered within the real-time interaction during BVC lessons, the recordings provide learners with further opportunities to process input and corrective feedback, enhance incidental noticing of new forms as well as the gaps between their language production and the target language, and to raise their awareness of form, meaning, and use. These opportunities could potentially lead to increased instances of intake, a prerequisite for integration into the learners linguistic resources as they must first attend, or notice, the input in order to successfully acquire it. ENHANCED INPUT IN COMPUTER-ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING Second language research has examined a wide range of instruction types in an effort to identify what is most effective for better L2 performance and learning. Visual input enhancement is one of these pedagogical methodologies. Designed to enhance learners attention to input, visual input enhancement uses a range of cues to increase the saliency of the target form, including underlining, bolding, italicization, capitalization, color coding, and different font sizes or types (Lee & Huang, 2008). By drawing learners attention to the target item, the chances that a learner notices the input, and thus creates a long-term memory trace, are increased. As discussed earlier, Schmidt s Noticing Hypothesis (2001) proposes that learners must first notice a form in order to acquire it, suggesting that noticing is a necessary component of successful SLA. Indeed, empirical research has indicated that visual input enhancement resulted in promoting learners noticing of target forms (Izumi, 2002, 2003), thereby increasing learners opportunities for L2 development. For example, Winke s (2013) recent study used eye-tracking techniques to examine whether learners exposed to visually enhanced texts experienced higher levels of noticing. Results indicate that input enhancement led to longer gaze duration and rereading time, demonstrating that learners noticing of the target form was in face promoted. In addition, recent meta-analytic work suggests that learners using learning materials that were visually enhanced performed better on measurements of L2 learning outcomes than learners that did not (Lee & Huang, 2008).

12 12 Furthermore, within a CALL context, the use of input enhancement is more versatile than in a static text, as target items can be underlined, highlighted, repeated, or expanded upon in a dynamic fashion (Chapelle, 2003). For example, input can be modified to be more comprehensible using images or first language translation. Learners understanding can also be positively impacted by elaboration, which might include analysis of the word s form or discussion of the contextual meaning. Elaboration is believed to positively impact processing and retention, particularly in regards to vocabulary learning (Hulstijn, 2001). Chapelle also argues that input should be provided interactively, as learners who are able to take part in negotiation and interaction while listening to the target language are more likely to have greater levels of comprehension (Loschky, 1994). In other words, within a CALL context, learners can listen to or read the input, while simultaneously taking advantage of the input enhancement. This is particularly relevant in regards to the BVC, which provides a versatile assortment of tools for the instructor to use for the purposes of enhancing L2 input. For example, the interactive white board features, which allow the instructor to underline, circle, highlight or otherwise draw leaners attention to specific target items that relate to customized content provided by Berlitz, give the students an interactive experience where they can seek repetition or elaboration in order to engage more deeply with the materials. This dynamic enhancement provides opportunities to promote learners noticing of the target features, thereby increasing the potential for L2 development. Overall, then, the multi-modal environment of the BVC offers instructors a range of tools that SLA research has shown can be used to facilitate and support learning. RECOMMENDATIONS Thus far, this paper has described multiple ways that current second language research supports the Berlitz Method and the Berlitz Virtual Classroom as facilitative of successful second language development. Various empirical studies and theoretical approaches within L2 research suggest that if instructors within the BVC implement the reviewed principles, the Berlitz Method will be successful within a computer-mediated context. In order for Berlitz to continue to maintain a firm theoretical and empirical grounding within L2 research, it will be helpful for instructors to emphasize the advantages afforded them by the technology. For example, the BVC includes an optional video component, a feature that provides learners with unique benefits by providing an environment more similar to face-to-face communication than text-based chat alone, increasing the likelihood of positive results associated with interaction. Wherever possible, instructors should use the video component. Research has demonstrated that gestures provide learners with important communicative information, with studies suggesting that gestures may be used to supplement gaps in learners vocabulary knowledge (Bialystok, 1990; Faerch & Kasper, 1983). More recent work reveals that gestures are not restricted to an auxiliary role, but instead complement speech and interaction. For example, Gullberg s (1998) results show that learners used gesture to inform their interlocutors that they were searching for a word or needed help with an expression, providing information important to the success of the interaction. Research has also shown that gesture directly impacts L2 development, with studies demonstrating improved listening comprehension when learners were able to view video showing the speaker s facial gestures in addition to hearing an audio track (Kellerman, 1992; Sueyoshi & Hardison, 2005). These promising findings illustrate the important role of gesture in interaction, and this

13 13 suggests that regular use of the video component of the BVC would likely lead to increased benefits for language learners. The role of gesture in L2 development also highlights the potential learning benefits of video SCMC, which has been shown to produce similar results to F2F interaction in both receptive and productive measures (Yanguas, 2010, 2012). Within the context of the BVC, utilizing video more frequently may help learners notice gaps in their language and the TL, improve pronunciation, and increase the potential benefits of the conversational interaction. Based on the current research findings, then, Berlitz might consider encouraging instructors to always use video in order to provide learners with important opportunities for visual input. Of course, in some contexts or cultures learners themselves might prefer that the video is not used, or that they see the instructor but the instructor does not see them and learners preferences are an important part of the equation. Another of the key features of the BVC is the diverse range of interactive tools available to both the teacher and the learner. For example, instructors and students are able to chat via video and/or text, as well as use a separate notes section in which the instructor can highlight an important grammatical or lexical item and they can discuss Berlitz material. In addition, the BVC provides an interactive white board that allows the instructor to write, draw, or share in order to prompt learners attention towards specific target features. The review above highlights some of the research-tested advantages of these individual features, and taken together, the diversity of communication modes available to instructors and students provides additional forms of support for different types of learners. For instance, individual learners typically have preferred modes of perceiving, remembering, organizing, processing, and representing information (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). Learning styles refer to relatively fixed personal preferences, rather than natural abilities that will automatically lead to success, that usually operate without the learner s awareness. Some learners prefer to process linguistic input visually while others benefit most from aural presentation. Because learners naturally have different preferences when it comes to language learning, instructors may find it helpful to consciously seek to use all of the wide range of interactive tools available in the BVC, thereby increasing the diversity of the input to which learners are exposed. CONCLUSION This white paper demonstrates how the Berlitz Virtual Classroom is grounded in established SLA theory, and how empirical research on the efficacy of computer-mediated communication on L2 development relates to the key components of the BVC. The BVC uses a wide range of multi-modal tools to promote and facilitate L2 learning, drawing on important SLA constructs, such as noticing, negotiation, feedback, enhanced input, and focus on form. In addition, research suggests that the computer-mediated context of the BVC may offer advantages over face-to-face contexts, including improved motivation and willingness to communicate, as well as more equitable production and potential reductions in anxiety. Overall, a large body of second language research suggests that as long as the SLA principles represented in the BVC are implemented correctly and adhered to consistently, participants should experience a motivating, engaging, and successful second language learning experience.