Distance Language Learning:
Interactiv-ity and Fourth-generation Internet-based
Videoconferencing
Y
upingW
angGriffith University ABSTRACT
This article provides a report on NetMeeting as an appropriate fourth-generation tool for interactive language learning in distance mode. It follows on earlier research by Wang and Sun (2000, 2001) on the most urgent problem facing distance language education—lack of provision of oral-visual interaction and the emergence of a fourth-generation distance language learning. The article proceeds through three cumulative
parts. The first part is a definitional context of interaction and computer-mediated
communication (CMC) as a framework for the article. The second part focuses on interaction as a core problem in the language learning literature and suggests a new
taxonomy through CMC in terms of the potential for written, oral, and, more recently,
oral-visual interaction. The third part, and the substance of the article, is an empirical investigation of Internet-based videoconferencing tools focusing on NetMeeting as the most appropriate one in terms of meeting criteria proposed for such tools. KEYWORDS
Computer-mediated Communication (CMC), Fourth Generation Distance Language Education, Email, Audioconferencing, Videoconferencing, NetMeeting, Interaction, Oral-visual Interaction
INTRODUCTION
Wang and Sun (2001) described the emergence of a fourth-generation distance language education in which Internet-based real-time technology fosters “spon-taneous communication and interaction.” They maintain that a major issue in the first three generations of distance language education is the problem of lack of exposure to oral-visual interaction due to physical distance,1 a problem that
can be solved by fourth-generation technologies of which the defining feature is synchronous communication. This author’s research has shown that this problem still persists, even though computer technology has had an impact on every aspect of our lives. Its persistence does not indicate a lack of attention by distance lan-guage professionals or scholars, nor does it indicate the incapacity of computer technology to support such interaction. Rather, it is argued here that a lack of
information on available interactive technologies contributes to the ongoing nature of the problem. Solutions that have been attempted to solve the problem (e.g., Wong & Fauverge, 1999; Buckett & Stringer, 1997) have often involved huge initial investments and ongoing maintenance costs. The purpose of this article is to explore the issue of oral-visual interaction in distance language education through commercially or freely available technologies using criteria developed for a study described in this article.
The article addresses issues in the author’s previous research and that of others in the field by investigating available and appropriate technologies for interactive oral-visual distance language learning. The discussion proceeds in three parts. The first part addresses a definitional framework for interaction and computer-medi-ated communication (CMC). The second part moves towards a new taxonomy of interaction through CMC adopted for the study described here. The third step is a report on an empirical study of four available videoconferencing tools: CUseeMe, ICUII, Video VoxPhone Gold, and Net-Meeting. The focus of the discussion in part three is on NetMeeting, which was evaluated as the most appropriate language learning tool on technological criteria (i.e., quality of audio and video features, reliability, user friendliness, and cost). Appropriate technological media are a precondition of improved language learning in distance mode.
PART ONE: DEFINITIONAL FRAMEWORK IN CONTEXT The Definition of Interaction
A review of the literature on interaction indicates two major traits of interac-tion—the social nature and individual nature of the activity. Bates (1997. p. 100) summarized the two traits as follows:
[T]he first is an individual, isolated activity, and that is the interaction of a learner with the learning material, be it text, television or computer pro-gram; the second is a social activity, and that is the interaction between two or more people about the learning material. Both kinds of interactions are important in learning.
There seems to be no dispute over the importance of interaction to the learning process. It is in fact so important that many phrases used in language learning are preceded by ‘interactive:’ interactive listening, interactive writing, and interac-tive reading. The importance of interaction in generating “deep-level learning,” “critical thinking,” as well as other benefits, is generally recognized (see Wells, 1981; Rivers, 1987; Moore, 1989; Mason, 1994; Burke, Lundin, & Daunt, 1997). If interaction adds value to learning in a general sense, it is indispensable to language learning for the simple reason that language itself is a means of com-munication and interaction. In fact, in the area of second language (L2) learning, it has become a popular belief among L2 language professionals that interaction is an integral part of a communicative language learning process (Hall, 1995;
Lantolf, 1994; Ohta, 1995; Swain & Lapkin,1995; Kitade, 2000). It is argued here that interaction is both a means and a goal in language learning. Unfortunately, sufficient interaction is exactly what is missing in distance language learning, and the urgency in solving this problem is self-evident.
The Definition of CMC
Since CMC is the key issue of this study, it is helpful to clarify its meaning at the outset so that a foundation can be laid for later discussion. It is also necessary to address some confusion over the extensive scholarly use of this term as its content and scope have evolved over time along with the development in computer and Internet technology.
Although nothing in the term CMC suggests that it should be text-based or asynchronous, of its various definitions in the 1990s (e.g., Santoro, 1995; Her-ring, 1996; Warschauer, 1997; Garrison, 1997), CMC was defined in an unneces-sarily restrictive way to infer text-based asynchronous communication. Such a perception was no doubt influenced by technology prevalent at the time, which most people thought capable of providing only computer-mediated written com-munication such as email, text chat, and Web-based reading activities.
However, CMC now embraces much more content and depth than text-based asynchronous interaction alone. In fact, CMC now offers improved scope and quality of interaction. To date, although technologies that provide oral and oral-visual discourses (e.g., Internet-based synchronous audio- and videoconferenc-ing) are not sufficiently explored for language learning purposes, their existence and potential warrant inclusion in CMC. To this author’s knowledge, only Levy (2000) and Harrington and Levy (2001) have included videoconferencing in their definition of CMC:
CMC is a research area concerned with “...communication that takes place between human beings via the instrumentality of computers” (Herring 1996, p. 1). It includes email, video-conferencing, IRC and other forms of CMC. (Harrington & Levy, 2001, p. 21)
On the basis of the above discussion, CMC is inclusively defined in this study as
communications between human beings via a computer network. It encompasses the following characteristics:
1. It can be text-based, oral, and/or visual. 2. It can be either synchronous or asynchronous. 3. It can be one to one, one to many, or many to many.
4. It can be learner to learner, learner to instructor, or learner to native speaker.
PART TWO: A NEW TAXONOMY OF INTERACTION IN CMC
In line with this understanding of CMC, the author proposes a new taxonomy of interaction in the context of CMC in terms of its potential for language learning and different L2 learner goals. This new taxonomy is based on the sociocultural perspective which regards language learning as a process of social communica-tion and interaccommunica-tion.
It is proposed here that in a CMC context, interaction can be further categorized into written, oral, and oral-visual interaction in view of specific learner goals (see Figure 1). These three types of interaction are distinct from the traditional noncomputer-mediated oral, written, and face-to-face interaction both in terms of their linguistic and interactional functions and features. Established theories and empirical studies on the traditional forms of interaction can shed light on CMC-based interaction but cannot encompass the entirety of this emerging activity. New theories and empirical studies are needed in order to understand CMC-based interaction.
Figure 1
Three Types of Interaction in CMC
Written Interaction in a CMC Context
In a CMC learning environment, written interaction as a social activity can be both synchronous and asynchronous. Written interaction can be one to one, one to many, or many to many among learners, learners and native speakers, and/or learners and instructors. It can be either time and place independent or dependent. Asynchronous written interaction can be achieved through email and other Internet tools such as bulletin boards and listservs. These types of Internet tools are often evaluated against their potential for improving the learner’s “conversa-tion-like forms of written language exchange” (Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999, p. 43) through communication with native speakers or the instructor. This kind of written interaction is delineated as “reflective conversation” by Lamy & Goodfel-low (1999, p. 43).
Synchronous written interaction is mostly generated by IRC (Internet Relay Chat). The potential of this type of interaction is again often interpreted using
CMC-based interaction
theories pertaining to oral discourse such as conversation analysis because of the communicative nature of such interaction (e.g., Negretti, 1999; Kitade, 2000). These kinds of views indicate that the technology supporting written interaction is more mature than that supporting oral and oral-visual interaction.2 At the same
time, it is interesting to note that although much of the theory on interaction re-lates to oral interaction (e.g., turn taking and body language), existing literature on CMC-based interaction concentrates mostly on its written rather than oral form.
Oral Interaction in a CMC Context
Oral interaction here refers to real-time spoken interaction that can be realized through Internet audioconferencing tools (e.g., I-phone, NetMeeting, and audio chatrooms). Despite the fact that visual input does not exist in such interaction, it is a step closer towards face-to-face interaction, providing the learner with a new venue for the improvement of oral communicative competence. At the same time, used effectively, these Internet conferencing tools can generate interaction much richer than face-to-face interaction both in terms of its content and scope. For example, through one of the audio conferencing tools, an authentic conversation can be easily achieved between a learner in one country and a native speaker in another country where the target language is spoken.
There are at least two kinds of interaction in this category: time-and-place independent and time-and-place dependent. PalTalk is a good example of net-work-based conferencing tools providing time-and-place independent interaction in which students can join a chat group anywhere and anytime. They can use the computer’s microphone to talk to native speakers or join a group with the same interest. Such an approach provides a good practice venue for students with intermediate or higher level of proficiency in the target language. I-phone and NetMeeting are good examples of time-and-place dependent network-based audioconferencing tools, which need to be set up with the party that one wants to talk to. Time and place dependent conferencing tools can be effectively used for planned tutorials with the goal of improving learners’ speaking skills. Probably because most of the available audioconferencing tools (e.g., I-phone and NetMeeting) are not specifically designed for language learning purposes, there is little work to date which investigates the use of these commercially or freely available audioconferencing tools in language learning, with the exception of an Open University (OU) Project (see Hauck & Haezewindt, 1999; Hewer, Kötter, Rodine, & Shield, 1999; Kötter, Shield, & Stevens, 1999; Shield, Hauck, & Hewer, 2001). The OU project trialed audioconferencing software and email to provide real-time tutorials. Through an OU campus server, students were able to communicate with each other using a headset with a built-in microphone and speaker (Kötter et al., 1999). Although the software used in the project had a window where participants were identified, the students were still faceless because the software did not provide visual input (Kötter et al., 1999).
Another attempt to provide oral interaction can be found in Project MERLIN. This project, developed by the University of Hull and British Telecommunica-tions and released in September 1996, had a different technical approach. It linked telephone conferencing facilities to a Web browser so that learners could interact with one another in small groups over the telephone. Although the audio-conferencing was still telephone based, it differed from conventional telephone conferencing in that students’ participation could be monitored through a window on the computer (Marsh, Arnold, Ellis, Halliwell, Hodgins, & Malcolm, 1997). These two projects provide students with a higher level of interactivity in that students can speak with one another spontaneously in the target language. However, without visual input, many conversational cues (e.g., eye contact and nods) are lost, rendering conversations less natural and communicative-like than in real-life situations.
Oral-visual Interaction in a CMC Context
Oral-visual interaction in a CMC context refers to a much higher level of inter-activity, similar to but much richer than that of face-to-face interaction. It can be described as a very effective real-time learning environment in which language learners can not only interact orally with one another in the target language but also use paralinguistic cues such as facial expressions and body movements. The visual input weighs heavily because
Where the teaching and learning do not incorporate visual elements the loss of the visual channel is less likely to be prohibitive but it is still significant. Although the telephone amplifies sound and hence spoken language, in its elimination of body language and physical context, important sources by which meaning is constructed are denied. While written text is fixed, oral discourse is fluid, ongoing and ever-changing. For this reason, there is general recognition of the importance of non-verbal features and contextual elements to support the communicative experience. (Thompson, 1996, p. 24)
Without visual input, the language learning environment is far removed from real-life situations, thus compromising the ultimate goal of language learning ac-cording to communicative methodologies, that is, to communicate and interact in the target language in an authentic environment. The importance of visual input and interaction may be even more prominent to distance language learners in that it can help reduce isolation and anxiety and build confidence.
In a distance learning environment, the best place for oral-visual interaction to occur is in front of a personal computer, where students talk to one another via a Web camera with a headset or microphone (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
Example of Videoconferencing
This is the highest level of interaction that distance language professionals can provide to learners at this stage of technological development, although it is often time-and-place dependent. Nevertheless, this is the kind of interaction that distance learners need most, and Internet-based videoconferencing tools now allow it to be achieved.
Empirical research reporting on the use of videoconferencing for oral-visual interaction in distance mode is rarely found in the literature. However, there are three notable exceptions: the reports on HIPERNET, LEVERAGE and ReLaTe projects.
McAndrew, Foubister, and Mayes (1996) described the HIPERNET system (short for “HIgh PERformance NETworked multimedia for distributed language learning”) which used a Bitfield H261 conferencing card with customized software. Instead of making use of the Internet, the system operates over the GRANTA Backbone Network, which connects together the different institutions of Cambridge University. The results from the trials of the system suggested that “collaborative task-based learning is adequately supported by videoconferencing, with the important implication that such methods may be appropriate for distance learning” (McAndrew et al., 1996, p. 211).
LEVERAGE (LEarn from Video Extensive Real Atm Gigabit Experiment), was a three-year project from 1996-1998 researching the use of multimedia broadband technology to support language learning at a distance (see greco.dit. upm.es/~leverage/about.htm; Wong & Fauverge, 1999). This system supported oral-visual interaction among the three sites participating in the project: Univer-sity of Cambridge, Insitut National des Télécommunications, and Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid. The ATM LANs of the three sites were interconnected by using ISDN dial-up access routers and the Internet as a fallback path. Learners from the three countries used LEVERAGE to assist one another in language learning. For example, a native student from Paris played the role of tutor to a learner of French from Madrid. Three field trials have been reported so far, and the overall responses from the students have been very positive. LEVERAGE’s multipoint and point-to-point videoconferencing feature allows learners to see each other in a window and is regarded by the students as “the most important tool” and “the best of the sessions” (Ibañez & Duque, 1999, p. 2).
ReLaTe (Remote Language Teaching) was originally developed by the Univer-sity of Exeter and UniverUniver-sity College, London, in 1994 (see www-mice.cs.ucl. ac.uk/multimedia/projects [accessed on 28 November 2001]; Buckett, Stringer, & Datta, 1999). After several years of development, ReLaTe’s videoconferencing interface can now support up to eight participants conferencing simultaneously. Extensive trials of ReLaTe in teaching started in 1995, and, since then, several language courses and other subjects have been taught through ReLaTe. Feedback from both tutors and their distant students was “extremely positive.” The results of these trials have also shown that “the use of Internet videoconferencing is a feasible proposition for language tuition and that with current software and hardware, small to medium sized groups can be taught cost-effectively” (see www.ex.ac.uk/pallas/relate/papers/peg99/stringer.htm [accessed 28 November 2001]).
The use of MBone (short for Multicast Backbone) and RAT (short for Robust Audio Tool) is the most innovative contribution from the ReLaTe project to In-ternet-based videoconferencing. “The MBone is an overlay network consisting of portions of the Internet which support a technique known as multicasting” (Buck-ett & Stringer, 1997, p. 3). This technique can effectively reduce congestion in the Internet by selectively sending out only one stream of data to the participants, unlike other Internet-based videoconferencing tools which duplicate data streams resulting in congestion because of limited Internet bandwidth. The limited capacity of bandwidth is the most serious technical problem with the present generation of Internet-based videoconferencing because congestion caused by the limited bandwidth can significantly affect the audio and video quality of the conferencing. This problem is aggravated in the case of many-to-many videoconferencing. To provide reliable sound quality, which is crucial to the success of language learning by videoconferencing, ReLaTe uses RAT (Robust Audio Tool) to send a duplicate copy of all the audio files. Sending a duplicate copy ensures that an audio file is available if the original gets lost or delayed (Buckett, Stringer, & Datta, 1999).
ReLaTe seems to promise immense potential for distance language learning although experiments have so far been restricted to European universities using UK high-bandwidth SuperJANET academic computer network. The software is freely available on the Internet, but set up and maintenance can be resource
de-manding. Videoconferencing tools such as Microsoft NetMeeting and CUseeMe clearly enjoy advantages in this respect because of their ease of installation and low cost of maintenance.
The HIPERNET, LEVERAGE and ReLaTe projects may represent the be-ginning of efforts to find a way of offering oral-visual interaction in distance language learning, but such efforts have so far been restricted to Europe and to the mid 1990s. Since that time, little substantial achievement has been reported that is sufficient to conclude that videoconferencing offers quality oral-visual interaction to distance language education.
The Relationship Among Written, Oral, and Oral-visual Interactions
in CMC
As discussed above, written interaction in CMC can be of both a synchronous and asynchronous nature. Research on the effectiveness of CMC-based written interaction (e.g., Negretti, 1999; Kitade, 2000) indicates that such interaction has the potential to improve students’ writing skills and to prepare them for the other two types of interaction (i.e., oral and oral-visual interaction). Most Internet chat facilities can be used for such preparation because students can carry out synchronous written conversations with one another. Although written interac-tion can achieve a certain degree of spontaneity and fluency, such spontaneity is often delayed.
Oral interaction in a CMC context offers more spontaneity and fluency than written interaction, but accuracy may be at risk because students do not have time to prepare what they wish to say in a real-time situation. Furthermore, without visual cues, the negotiation of meaning can take a longer time or can be difficult in some circumstances, such as when the learner’s proficiency is low.
Oral-visual interaction in CMC should improve both fluency and accuracy because of its synchronous nature and visual input. This is because learners can more accurately negotiate meanings with the help of paralinguistic cues, thus improving the quality of interaction and the degree of interactivity. However, while this level of interactivity can be technically achievable through technolo-gies such as videoconferencing, it is often technically problematic due to limited bandwidth.
Part three below probes the issue of provision of such interaction to distance language learning through an examination of the practicability of the present generation Internet-based videoconferencing tools.
PART THREE: EMPIRICAL STUDIES—AN EVALUATION OF INTERNET-BASED VIDEOCONFERENCING TOOLS WITH A FOCUS ON NETMEETING As stated above, oral and visual interaction is a core requirement for effective distance language learning. Although Internet-based videoconferencing has been around since the 1990s, its capacity to support high quality interaction has been diminished by the poor video and audio quality of the pioneering
videoconferenc-ing facilities. Few attempts have yet been made to test the technical and peda-gogical value of Internet-based videoconferencing since, generally speaking, the technology required has not reached a stage at which it is sufficiently stable and reliable. However, the recent rapid development in computer network technol-ogy justifies a re-evaluation of Internet-based videoconferencing tools in terms of their technological and pedagogical capabilities. This is because
1. The computing power of PCs has increased. The memory of most present-day PCs is large enough to support highly interactive language tutorials, and most computers have built-in sound and video cards. This means that the only additional hardware needed for network-based videoconferencing is a Web Camera and headphone, which cost around US$50.
2. A variety of videoconferencing tools is also readily available. Some can be freely downloaded from the Internet (e.g., Microsoft NetMeeting). Some can be purchased for around US$40.
3. Limited bandwidth invariably represents the most fundamental problem in network-based videoconferencing. However, the providers of video-conferencing tools are constantly reducing the bandwidth requirements of their products for faster performance.
4. Network bandwidth has also been greatly improved since the 1990s. 5. The interface of videoconferencing tools is under constant improvement
to make it more user friendly.
Criteria for Selecting Videoconferencing Tools
Since Internet-based videoconferencing is still new to distance language learning, criteria for selecting appropriate videoconferencing tools are not readily available in the literature. General guidance for developing such criteria appears in Levy’s (1997) argument that there should be a fit between the demands of learning ob-jectives and the capabilities of technology. As Hewer et al. (1999, p. 382) have stated, it is very important to “adapt the available technologies to the pedagogy rather than the pedagogy to the technology.”
For the purpose of this study, the point of departure in developing criteria for selecting appropriate videoconferencing tools lies in the identification of the need for such a tool. In other words, for what learning goals do we use it? In this instance, the learning objective of using such a tool is to provide a synchro-nous interactive learning environment in which distant learners can improve their communicative speaking skills in the target language through oral-visual interaction. Thus, there are three major factors that determine relevant criteria: the synchronous and interactive nature of the learning environment, the distance among the learners and education provider, and oral/aural-visual interaction. On the basis of these considerations, the following criteria are proposed: (a) acceptable video and audio quality, (b) reliability, (c) user friendliness, (d) other features of pedagogical value, and (e) low cost.
Acceptable Video and Audio Quality
The author’s observation of numerous videoconferencing sessions indicates that there is much room for improvement with respect to the quality of the video and audio in the present generation of videoconferencing tools. Consequently, it would be unrealistic to expect television broadcast quality from videoconferenc-ing. Criteria for audio and video quality in videoconferencing should then aim at a level acceptable to both learners and the instructor so as to facilitate interactive language learning. Too much sound distortion and too many freezing and jittery images disrupt the flow of interaction and can quickly frustrate learners. The synchrony of sound and video images should also be taken into consider-ation in the choice of technology. Summerfield (as cited in Bruce, 1996) believes that, even with a delay of up to 80 msec., sound and image can still be perceived to be synchronous, given that sound travels slower than light. Longer delays can be tolerated if the audio transmission lags behind the video transmission rather than vice versa. Therefore, a delay of a little more than 80 msec. in a language learning situation can be accepted as long as it does not cause miscomprehension. For the purpose of interactive distance language teaching, reasonable clarity and continuousness of the video image and sound should be the minimum require-ments for supporting interaction.
Reliability
Reliability here refers to the stability of the video conferencing tools (e.g., whether or how often they crash), which is crucial for maintaining the flow of interaction. As distance students and teachers are often physically separated and access to technical support is not readily available, reliability is imperative to ensure the success of CMC interactions. The author’s experience indicates that more than one crash during a videoconferencing session will deter students from using it. Of course, the ideal videoconferencing tool should never crash.
User Friendliness
The main concerns here are the effectiveness of the interface and the ease of set-ting up the videoconferencing tools. Because distance language students do not have ready access to technical support, user friendliness is an important factor in the choice of videoconferencing tools. The interface layout should be uncompli-cated and effective (e.g., with few icons and buttons). The ease of setting up is judged by whether learners can set up everything by themselves as they follow written instructions.
Other Features of Pedagogical Value
Other features of pedagogical value refer to features other than video and audio functions that are beneficial to language learning. For example, a videocon-ferencing tool with a Whiteboard can better facilitate interaction and language acquisition than video chat alone.
Low Cost
Cost consists of initial set-up expenses and ongoing maintenance costs. These include costs to both the institution and learners. Although cost is not a peda-gogical criterion, it is obviously an important factor influencing the choice of a particular technology. The less the technology costs learners, the more accept-able it will be.
Evaluation of NetMeeting
The criteria above were used to evaluate NetMeeting in July 2001, together with three other videoconferencing tools—CUseeMe 5.0, Video VoxPhone Gold 2.0 and ICUII 4.9 (version 5.5 was released in November 2001) in order to determine the most suitable tool to support oral-visual interaction for the Open Learning Chinese Program offered at Griffith University. Table 1 provides an overview of the four videoconferencing tools.
Table 1
Overview of Four Videoconferencing Tools
Notes:
Information on the videoconferencing tools was obtained from the following web
sites, all accessed on 19 December 2001:
download.cnet.com/downloads/1,10150,0-10001-103-0-1-7,00.html?tag=srch&qt=NetMeeting&cn=&ca=10001; download.cnet.
com/downloads/0-3364651-100-5976507.html?tag=st.dl.10001-103-1.lst-7-6.5976507; download.cnet.com/downloads/0-3364651-100-7978697.html?tag=st.dl.10001-103-1.lst-7-1.7978697; and download.cnet.com/downloads/0-3364652-100-4538974.html? tag=st.
dl.10001-103-1.lst-7-1.4538974.
The freeware version of NetMeeting only supports one-to-one video and/or audio con -ferencing, but a server version supporting multiple users is commercially available for
US$4,000 (see www.netmeet.net/nm3_faq.asp; accessed on 8 August 2001).
NetMeeting, the only tool that can be downloaded free from the Internet, has the largest number of users (1,593,506 downloads) compared to ICUII, CU- seeMe and Video VoxPhone Gold (299,481, 26,680, and 20,992 downloads, respectively).
The major features of the four videoconferencing tools are summarized in Table 2. e m a N Pubilsher Numberof s d a o l n w o d m u m i n i M s t n e m e r i u q e r Cost 1 0 . 3 g n it e e M t e N Microsoft 1,593,506 Windows T N / e M / 8 9 / 5 9 e e r F 0 . 5 e M e e s U C CUseeMe 26,680 Windows ; 0 0 0 2 / e M M A R B M 4 6 -d a o l n w o d r o f 9 9 . 9 3 $ 9 9 . 9 4 $ ; n o i s r e v e l b a 5 1 ; n o i s r e v D C r o f l a i r t e e r f y a d 9 . 4 I I U C I Cybraiton 299,481 Windows P X / 0 0 0 2 / e M / 8 9 / 5 9 e e r f y a d 1 2 ; 5 9 . 9 3 $ l a i r t e n o h P x o V o e d i V 0 . 2 d l o G a d a n a C h c e T -E . d t L 2 9 9 , 0 2 Windows ; 0 0 0 2 / e M / 8 9 / 5 9 M A R B M 2 3 e e r f y a d 0 3 ; 9 9 . 1 3 $ l a i r t
Table 2
Summary of the Major Features of the Four Videoconferencing Tools
It is apparent from Table 2 that the videoconferencing tools, with the exception of NetMeeting, are more or less designed only for video chat, not for learning per se. Although NetMeeting is not specifically designed for language learning, it offers many useful functions (e.g., whiteboard and document sharing) that the other three do not have, which make it a more appropriate tool for language learning.
NetMeeting can support one-to-one videoconferencing only, while all the other three claim to support many-to-many videoconferencing. However, our trials reveal that none of the many-to-many videoconferencing tools could be used for language learning at this stage due to their poor audio and video quality (e.g., slower frame rate, poor resolution, and muffled sound). Usually, as soon as a third party joined a videoconference, the system either crashed, or the video images of the participants became frozen and the sound distorted. The audio transmission was also much delayed. The reason for these problems is that the videoconferencing tools still use the Internet as their transmission carrier, and, in the case of many-to-many videoconferencing, limited bandwidth often causes network congestion.
The fact that NetMeeting only supports one-to-one videoconferencing was regarded by some (e.g., Buckett & Stringer, 1999) as a disadvantage. While this is true for group work, it is argued here that whether it is a disadvantage depends on its application and students’ needs. For example, for students who do not have enough proficiency in the target language to collaborate with others, NetMeeting can be very effective and efficient for dealing with individual problems such as correcting pronunciation and conducting basic, guided dialogues between the learner and the teacher. Because it provides for paralinguistic cues (video) and teaching tools (Whiteboard), it can be a better choice of technology than tele-phone alone for conducting speaking tutorials. It can also be effectively used by advanced learners to interact with the teacher, another learner, or a native speaker. NetMeeting’s inability to support many-to-many interaction is less of a disadvantage than one might suppose, given the problem of limited bandwidth in multipoint interactions.
A three-stage evaluation process was designed to assess NetMeeting at Griffith University in Australia. Stage one, evaluation by language professionals and computer specialists, was completed between July and November 2001.3 Stage
e m a N conVfeirdeenoc-ing conAfeurdeinoc-ing Wbohartide- Dsohcaurminegnt traFnlisefer Tcheaxtt Rdeesmkototpe g n i r a h s 1 0 . 3 g n it e e M t e N Onetomany Onetomany X X X X X 0 . 5 e M e e s U C Manytomany Manytomany X 9 . 4 I I U C I Manytomany Manytomany X e n o h P x o V o e d i V 0 . 2 d l o G Manytomany Manytomany X X
two will involve evaluation of the product by on-campus students at Griffith University and stage three evaluation by distance language students in the Open Learning Chinese Program at Griffith University. This article reports on the results from stage one.
In stage one, the focus was on the investigation of the technical capabilities of four videoconferencing tools as a necessary precondition for effective oral-visual interaction in distance language learning. For this purpose, NetMeeting was used for everyday communication in both a local area network (LAN) and the Internet for about two months. The author also observed the delivery of a conference paper through NetMeeting from Griffith University to a conference in another country. NetMeeting proved to be very stable and reliable. Following the criteria listed above, NetMeeting was extensively investigated in terms of its audio and video quality, reliability, user friendliness, other features of pedagogical value, and cost.
Acceptable Audio and Video Quality
Our trials confirmed that NetMeeting offered the best audio and video quality among the four videoconferencing tools tested. In a LAN environment, the sound quality proved to be nearly as good as that of the telephone; no sound distortion was detected. The sound was clear and consistent enough for interac-tive language learning. It can be used, for example, to perform a role play or an interactive pronunciation drill on the subtle differences between z, c, s, and zh,
ch, sh in Pinyin.
During the two-month trial, with the exception of occasional video images blur-ring for about a second—probably due to temporary congestion in the network or too much head movement, the video image on the whole was clear and continuous. Conversational cues such as a nod and a smile were all presented almost in real time. When showing how to pronounce certain words, lip movements can be seen clearly enough for learners to notice the difference in pronunciation. There was no significant delay in the synchronization of sound and video image. As expected, both the audio and video quality of NetMeeting in a LAN environment is better than that using the Internet. Nevertheless, our trials indicated that the audio and video quality of NetMeeting has reached an acceptable level of performance for the provision of oral-visual interaction in distance language learning.
NetMeeting also offers a function called “My Video,” a self-view window that teachers found very useful to observe their teaching styles and to modify their paralinguistic cues (see Figure 3).
Figure 3
Self-view Window
Note: “My video” can be enlarged and moved to any part of the computer screen.
Reliability
In our investigation of videoconferencing tools, reliability was treated as an essential issue and was one of the most important criteria in determining the ap-propriateness of tools. When using a LAN, NetMeeting never crashed, and the audio and video maintained constant good quality during the videoconferencing sessions.
When used in an Internet environment, no crash ever occurred either, although the video and audio quality was, to a degree, affected by limited bandwidth result-ing in background noise and unstable sound quality. However, our investigation indicates that NetMeeting can still be used to provide good quality oral-visual interactions if conferences are conducted at a time when the Internet is less con-gested (e.g., weekends or early in the morning).
User Friendliness
The trials started with the setting up of NetMeeting. We discovered that the set up of NetMeeting was not complicated, although there were a few steps to follow. A manual was written for students so that they can set up NetMeeting without additional technical assistance.
As far as its interface is concerned, NetMeeting offers the most user-friendly interface design among the four videoconferencing tools. Its layout is simple with only a few icons (See Figure 7). The participants became familiar with the operation of the program almost immediately.
Figure 4
NetMeeting Interface
Other Features of Pedagogical Value The Whiteboard
Among the four videoconferencing tools, NetMeeting is the only one that offers the facility of whiteboard (see Figure 4).
Figure 5
Whiteboard in NetMeeting
The whiteboard was found to be an indispensable tool for language learning since it allows users to review, create, and update information collaboratively in real time. For example, users can cut, copy, and paste information from any Windows-based application onto the Whiteboard. Both parties can view, write, edit, and draw simultaneously. This is especially useful for teaching students how
Internet directory To hang up a call To initiate a call Program sharing Text chat Whiteboard File transfer
to write Chinese characters online for the simple reason that the stroke orders can be shown step by step in real time. It is also a good platform for negotiation for meaning because learners can write the characters and draw pictures to paraphrase their intended meaning. Furthermore, the whiteboard contents can be saved for future reference.
Text Chat
This function allows learners to conduct online conversations via text with any number of people (see Figure 5).
Figure 6
Text Chat in NetMeeting
NetMeeting also supports a variety of languages if the word processor of the language in question is installed on the computer. Combined with MSN 4.5, users can do text chat in 26 languages such as Chinese (both traditional and simplified characters), French, Italian, Japanese, and so on. NetMeeting text chat offers great potential for text-based interactions to improve second language learners’ writing skills. However, because the focus of the trials at this time was on oral-visual interaction, the chat function was only used as a back up resource when there was a technical problem with the audio.
File Transfer
Only NetMeeting and Video VoxPhone Gold 2.0 have a file transfer function. Used in a language learning situation, this function enables the students or the teacher to send files (e.g., video clips or text files) to other people during a conference to generate interactions on those files (see Figure 6). We found the transfer of text files to be virtually instantaneous and of the highest quality in both LAN and Internet environments, but the transfer of videos on the Internet took longer.
Figure 7
File Transfer in NetMeeting
Document Sharing
Document sharing, which is an important function for language learning, is of-fered only by NetMeeting (see Figure 7).
Figure 8
Document Sharing in NetMeeting
With this function, users can share multiple documents open in the background with others during a NetMeeting conference. The difference between document sharing and the shared whiteboard lies in the fact that document sharing does not allow the other party to edit the file. In other words, the owner of the file has greater control over its use. This function is useful in presenting a prepared docu-ment, be it a Power Point slide, a scanned photo, or a Web page. This function was employed extensively to share a photo and Web pages with the participants during the trials in order to facilitate spontaneous discussions.
Remote Desktop Sharing
Remote Desktop Sharing, a very useful feature, is also offered only by NetMeet-ing. As its name suggests, users can see and operate a computer desktop from a remote location. This is especially useful to distance learners because the instructor can show students where to find certain things directly on their desktops.
Cost of NetMeeting
The point-to-point videoconferencing version of NetMeeting is free and can be downloaded from the company’s web site. The cost of the group version of the program is $US4,000 (see Table 1 and notes above). Because NetMeeting is a Microsoft product, users have no maintenance costs to bear.
The only required purchase for learners is a web camera with headphones, around US$50. Compared with the cost of some textbooks, most students should be able to afford NetMeeting, especially since it can be used over the entire course of their studies.
Evaluation Summary
The investigation described here has revealed that among the four videoconfer-encing tools, NetMeeting represents the state of art in such tools and is the most viable program to support oral-visual interaction in distance language education at this point in time. The results of our evaluation showed that
1. The audio and video quality of NetMeeting is acceptable for language learning.
2. NetMeeting is reliable both in terms of the quality of its sound and video and its network transmission.
3. NetMeeting is easy to use and to set up. Its interface and other features are more refined and user friendly than those in other videoconferencing tools.
4. NetMeeting also offers features (e.g., whiteboard and document sharing) that are indispensable to learner interaction and language learning at a distance.
5. NetMeeting is free. Neither the students nor the educational institution need to invest in anything except a web camera and headphones. 6. Because NetMeeting is a Microsoft product, users can expect it to be
updated regularly. CONCLUSION
Several contributions to the discussion of fourth-generation distance language education have been offered in this article. First, our understanding of CMC has been clarified and extended to include new features that are now possible in such computer-based activities. Second, a new taxonomy of interaction in CMC has been proposed, and the three types of interaction (i.e., written, oral, and oral-visual) have been distinguished in terms of their potential to meet spe-cific learning objectives. Third, review of advancements in CMC has indicated that only a few projects (e.g., LEVERAGE and ReLaTe) have made attempts to solve the problem of the absence of oral-visual interaction in distance language learning; the problem still exists. Fourth, a set of criteria has been developed to guide the selection of videoconferencing tools. Fifth, results of the evaluation of
four videoconferencing tools (Microsoft NetMeeting 3.01, CUseeMe 5.0, Video VoxPhone Gold 2.0, and ICUII 4.9) have revealed that NetMeeting holds great promise as a videoconferencing tool. NetMeeting may well emerge as a cost-ef-fective way to provide adequate support for oral-visual interaction.
Internet-based videoconferencing in fourth-generation distance language learn-ing is fast maturlearn-ing. Videoconferenclearn-ing tools such as NetMeetlearn-ing are urgently needed for this purpose. Whether and how to take advantage of these tools will be largely determined by the requirements of teachers and learners.
NOTES
1 For a detailed discussion on the lack of exposure to oral-visual interaction in third-gen
-eration distance language learning, see Wang and Sun (2000, 2001).
2 For reports on the use of Internet technology to improve text-based interaction, see Barnes
(2000), Lamy and Goodfellow (1999), Negretti (1999), and Pennington (1999).
3 NetMeeting was set up and evaluated by Yuping Wang, lecturer of Chinese language;
Chengzheng Sun, Professor of Internet Computing; Junwei Lu, Senior Lecturer of Informa -tion Technology; Xiaodong Fang, master student in Informa-tion technology; and Woody Lin, master student in Information technology.
REFERENCES
Bates, A. W. (1997). The impact of technological changes on open and distance learning. Distance Education, 18 (1), 93-109.
Bruce, V. (1996). The role of face in communication: Implications for videophone design. Interacting with Computers, 8 (2), 166-176.
Buckett, J., & Stringer, G. (1997, September). ReLaTe (Remote Language Teaching): Progress, problems and potential. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
EUROCALL, Dublin, Ireland.
Buckett, J., & Stringer, G. (1999). Internet videoconferencing’s 3Ms: Multiway, multimedia, multicast. Retrieved August 28, 2001, from http://www.ex.ac.uk/pallas/relate/ papers/peg99/stringer.htm
Buckett, J., Stringer, G., & Datta, J. (1999). Life after ReLaTe: Internet videoconferencing’s growing pains. In K. Cameron (Ed.), CALL and the Learning Community (pp.
31-38). Exeter, UK: Elm Bank Publications.
Burke, C., Lundin, R., & Daunt, C. (1997). Pushing the boundaries of interaction in video -conferencing: A dialogical approach. Distance Education, 18 (2), 349-360. Garrison, D. R. (1997). Computer conferencing: The post-industrial age of distance
educa-tion. Open Learning, 12 (2), 3-11.
Hall, J. K. (1995). “Aw, man, Where you goin?”: Classroom interaction and the develop-ment of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 37-62. Harrington, M., & Levy, M. (2001). CALL begins with a “C”: Interaction in
Hauck, M., & Haezewindt, B. (1999). Adding a new perspective to distance (language) learning and teaching—The tutor’s perspective. ReCALL, 11 (2), 46-54. Herring, S. C. (Ed.). (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and
cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hewer, S., Kötter, M., Rodine, C. R., & Shield, L. (1999, September). The right tools for the job: Criteria for the choice of tools in the design of a virtual, interactive environment for distance language learners and their tutors. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of EUROCALL, Besançon, France.
Ibañez, A., & Duque, M. (1999). Pedagogical issues. Retrieved December 20, 2000, from
http://greco.dit.upm.es/~leverage/levenews/pedagog5.htm
Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13 (2), 143-166.
Kötter, M., Shield, L., & Stevens, A. (1999). Real-time audio and email for fluency: Promoting distance language learners’ aural and oral skills via the Internet.
ReCALL, 11 (2), 55-60.
Lamy, M., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). “Reflective conversation” in the virtual language
classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2 (2), 43-61. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num2/article2
Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Introduction to
the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 78 (4), 418-420.
Levy, M. (1997). Theory-driven CALL and the development process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10, 41-56.
Levy, M. (2000). Scope, goals and methods in CALL research: Questions of coherence and autonomy. ReCALL, 12 (2), 170-195.
Marsh, D., Arnold, I., Ellis, N., Halliwell, J., Hodgins, C., & Malcolm, S. (1997). Project
MERLIN: A learning environment of the future. ReCALL, 9 (1), 52-54. Mason, R. (1994). Using communications media in open and flexible learning. London:
Kogan Page.
McAndrew, P., Foubister, S. P., & Mayes, T. (1996). Videoconferencing in a language
learning application. Interacting with Computers, 8 (2), 207-217.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Dis-tance Education, 13 (2), 1-6.
Negretti, R. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A conversation analysis research ap-proach. Language Learning & Technology, 3 (1), 75-87. Retrieved from http:
//llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/negretti
Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse:
Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development.
Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 93-121.
Paramskas, D. (1999). The shape of computer mediated communication. In K. Cameron
(Ed.), CALL: Media, design and applications (pp. 13-34). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Pennington (1999). The missing link in computer-assisted writing. In K. Cameron
(Ed.), CALL: Media, design & applications (pp. 271-294). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Rivers, W. M. (1987). Interaction as the key to teaching language for communication. In W. M. Rivers (Ed.), Interactive language learning (pp. 3-16). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Santoro, G. (1995). What is computer mediated communication? In Z. Berge & M. Col-lins (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and the online classroom in distance Learning (pp. 11-28). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Shield, L., Hauck, M., & Hewer, S. (2001). Talking to strangers—the role of the tutor in developing target language speaking skills at a distance. In A. Kazeroni (Ed.), Proceedings of UNTELE 2000: Vol. II. Use of new technologies in foreign lan-guage teaching (pp. 75-84). La bibliothèque de l’Université de Technologie de
Compiègne: Compiègne, France. Retrieved from http://www.utc.fr/~untele
Shield, L., & Hewer, S. (1999). A synchronous learning environment to support distance language learners. In K. Cameron (Ed.), Call and the learning community (pp.
379-390). Exeter, UK: Elm Bank Publications.
Summerfield, Q. (1992). Lipreading and audio-visual speech perception. Philosophical Trans. Royal Society of London, B335, 71-78.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they
generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
Thompson, D. J. (1996). Audioteleconferencing: Myths and realities. Open Learning, 11 (2), 20-27.
Wang, Y., & Sun, C. (2000). Synchronous distance education: Enhancing speaking skills via Internet-based real time technology. In X. Zhou, J. Fong, X. Jia, Y. Kam-bayashi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on web information systems engineering (pp. 168-172). Los Alamitos, CA: IEE Computer Society.
Wang, Y., & Sun, C. (2001). Internet-based real time language education: Towards a fourth generation distance education. CALICO Journal, 18 (3), 539-561.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 470-481.
Wells, G. (1981). Language as interaction. In G. Wells (Ed.), Learning through interac-tion: The study of language development (pp. 22-72). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wong, J., & Fauverge, A. (1999). LEVERAGE—Reciprocal peer tutoring over broadband networks. ReCALL, 11 (1), 33-142.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Professor Chengzheng Sun for his assistance in funding this subject and in providing technical support during the project. Without his advice and constant encouragement, this article would not have been written. I am also extremely grateful to Associate Professor Mary Farquhar, Associate Professor Mike Levy, and Professor Nick Knight for their time and valuable comments, which in many ways helped shape this article. My gratitude also goes to the anonymous reviewers of the CALICO Journal for their constructive and insightful comments on an earlier version of this article.
AUTHORS’ BIODATA
Yuping Wang is Lecturer of Chinese language at Griffith University, Australia. Her research interests are the use of CMC in teaching Chinese language, Inter-net-based language teaching, distance education, Chinese language software development, and second language teaching methodologies.
AUTHORS’ ADDRESSES Yuping Wang
School of Languages and Linguistics Griffith University Nathan 4111 Australia Phone: 617 3875 7537 Fax: 617 3875 6766 Email: [email protected]
