Non-native speakers in e-learning environments.

Abstract

The growing importance of technology in education and the reality of a global village call for studies of non-native English speakers' (NNES) learning performance in network-based learning environments. This paper reviews research on network-based instruction and its effects on NNES achievements in network-based environments. Potential benefits and difficulties of these learning environments are reviewed, as well as the linguistic and affeCtive achievements of NNES in these environments. Suggestions are made for future research in these areas.

Introduction

The role of technology in the delivery of instruction has become extremely important as a result of the rapid advances in digital technologies (Reiser, 2001). The research literature on non-native English speakers' (NNES) language learning in computer-mediated environments, both in synchronous and asynchronous environments, is growing. Findings indicate positive linguistic and affective changes for students learning second languages through online instruction (Braine, 1997; Kamhi-Stein, 2000; Kivela, 1996; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996). Today's global village demands intercultural communication with foreign/second language learning becoming more important. In addition, due to the advancement and implementation of technology in education, network-based instruction provides interactive learning among students worldwide. Increasingly, universities in English speaking countries provide network-based classes to speakers of other languages. Therefore, it is important to document what literature tells us regarding how this technology helps or obstructs NNES' learning, both in language and other subject matter classrooms. This paper focuses on the following questions: (1) What are the benefits of network-based instruction in general? (2) What can network-based instruction offer to NNES both in language learning and in learning other subject matter? (3) What are the issues concerning network-based instruction for NNES?

Network-based Instruction

Due to a growing demand for continuing education and the convenience of taking courses online, network-based instruction is emerging as an increasingly important component in education (Galvin, 2002). Studies in this area involve the impact of online instruction on students' learning, and its potential advantages and difficulties for learners (Harasim, 1990; Valenta, Therriault, Dieter, & Mrtek, 2001). Research suggests that online instruction can provide students with student-centered communication, opportunities for collaboration, and an inquiry-based learning environment, besides the benefit of freedom from the restraints of time and space (Hiltz, 1997; Jaffee, 1997). Some find students' performance online is as good as in the traditional classroom (Hiltz, 1997; Wegner, Holloway, & Garton, 1999). Others claimed that online students achieved better than lecture students (Dutton, Dutton, & Perry, 2002; Schutte, 1996). Students generally reported that online instruction encourages active involvement and equal participation (Harasim, 1987).

Potential Advantages

First, students reported flexibility, convenience of access and sense of control as reasons to register for an online course instead of a face-to-face course (Richards & Ridley, 1997). Since online instruction frees them from constraints of time and space, learners find it more convenient to take courses whenever they need (Burge, 1994; Harasim, 1987; Hiltz, 1997). The flexibility allows them to take control over their learning and the nature of classroom interactions (Harasim, 1990). Students report more time for research, reflection and composition of their ideas offline. The absence of some physical and social status cues, such as age, gender, and race diminishes stereotyping associated with these cues and lower students' anxiety levels to engage in equal participation (Harasim, 1986, 1987). Students with different learning styles can also participate equally, which is favorable for those whose native language is not English (Chen, 1999, Harasim, 1987).

Second, the nature of the many-to-many communications in network-based instruction potentially provides opportunities for collaboration through enhanced interactivities (Burge, 1994; Kamhi-Stein, 2000). Both students and teachers report not only more interaction, but also more intense learning interaction in an online environment (Gold, 2001; Harasim, 1987). In addition, Kamhi-Stein (2000) found online instruction promotes a high degree of peer support, assistance, and collaboration. The instructor acts as a facilitator with the discussion driven by the needs and interests of the students (Cifuentes, & Shih, 2001; Kamhi-Stein, 2000). With the multiple perspectives on given topics and access to a vast array of information, students are actively engaged in context-rich, social negotiation of ideas.

Third, the nature of text-based communication in most online education makes it necessary for learners to communicate through writing and allows time for reflection on that writing. These processes encourage higher-level learning and promote clearer and more process-oriented thinking and encourage analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Jonassen, 1996). Wegner et al. (1999) report that students in their internet-based instruction group felt that they had acquired skills of collaboration, problem solving, locating and using information, and communication. In addition, text-based asynchronous discussion produces a record of the discussion to which students can refer to reflect on negotiated meanings and to find the thread of their thinking and their own position within it (Ganeva, 1999; Harasim, 1987). Through this process, students are engaged in the self-regulatory, self-mediated and self-aware learning processes that constructivists suggest support optimal learning. However, while the asynchronous mode of network-based instruction can enhance learning, at the same time it can raise potential difficulties for learning.

Potential Difficulties

Text-based communication can be less responsive than face-to-face communication (Harasim, 1990). There may be misunderstandings and a lack of socio-emotional communication (Burge, 1994; Harasim, 1990). Harasim (1990) reports different reactions toward absence of visual cues. Students couldn't agree if images of fellow classmates help or hinder their discussions. The time lag of responses can affect students' information management and processing and the delay of responses frustrates students in keeping track of the vast array of information (Burge, 1994; Harasim, 1987). Information overload seems to be another issue (Burge, 1994). Harasim (1990) suggested that students in online learning have two dimensions to confront. They need to digest the information related to both the content and the context in which it is delivered.

Network-based Instruction and Non-native English Speakers

Network-based instruction has been found to provide students with opportunities for equal participation in discussions and individualized interactions with instructors. It has been suggested that it may be particularly supportive of the learning of NNES including: performance in virtual language classrooms regarding language achievement (Davis & Ye-ling, 1994/95; Liaw, 1998; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996), affective achievement (Chen, 1999, Cifuentes & Shih, 2001; Ganeva, 1999; Kamhi-Stein, 2000), and participation in discussions (Belcher, 1999; Kamhi-Stein, 2000).

NNES language achievement in network-based language classrooms

NNES report improvement in their writing skills, including language accuracy, fluency, organization, variety of language topics and language functions as a result of learning with network-based instruction (Braine, 1997; Liaw, 1998; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996, Warschauer, 1996). Ortega (1997, as cited in Sengupta, 2001) reports "a typical feature of the Web experience seemed to be the greater quantity of language used in interaction" (p.106). Warschauer (1996) found in network-based class settings, students' writings were longer and more lexically and syntactically sophisticated. He suggested that online environment encourages use of complex language. Cifuentes & Shih (2001) report that NNES value and feel they benefit from the opportunity for authentic language learning through writing practice with native English speakers that online instruction provides them. They suggest that such authenticity could only be attained through distance technologies. In addition, students feel that the improvement in their writing skills transfers to better speaking skills (see also, Warschauer, 1996). Cultural exchange is another benefit of online learning that NNES report (Cifuentes & Shih, 2001; Davis & Ye-ling, 1994/95; Liaw, 1998). Students' cultural awareness was enhanced through the cross-cultural communication in virtual classrooms, and both native and non-native English speakers valued the opportunity for cultural exchange in online classes (Cifuentes & Shih, 2001; Liaw, 1998). Native English speakers felt that online instruction provided them with the opportunity to learn about other cultures while sharing their own and improving their communication skills (Cifuentes & Shih, 2001).

NNES affective performance in online environment

Regardless of the content area, students report an increase in self-confidence and interest in using the target language, and a decrease in anxiety in online environments (Ganeva, 1999; Kivela, 1996). NNES report that online instruction helps to reduce the anxiety level that some students from language and cultural minority backgrounds experience in face-to-face discussions (Chen, 1999; Kamhi-Stein, 2000). The sense of anonymity and privacy that online discussion fosters (Kamhi-Stein, 2000) and the reduction of competition with fluent English speakers (Harasim, 1987) were noted as contributing to this anxiety reduction. NNES also report that while they often feel embarrassed in expressing their ideas in front of instructors or classmates, they can express their ideas more easily in online discussion (Chen, 1999; Kivela, 1996). Chen (1999) argued that this is in part because teacher's roles are less formal and authoritative online than in face-to-face classroom environments. Chen (1999) found that online instruction motivated culturally diverse students. There were no cultural differences between ESL and native speaking students regarding their initial reactions to online learning. They all were motivated by the novelty of the experience. A similar result was found by Kamhi-Stein (2000) who reports that both novice native English speakers in the subject area and non-native English speakers were motivated to participate in an online bulletin board by its asynchronous nature. Liaw (1998) reported that 76% of students learning English with network-based instruction increased their interest in the content area. Cifuentes and Shih (2001) found that both problem-solving activities and critiques of writing were motivating for NNES in online instruction. This suggested to the researchers that online instruction encourages NNES high-order thinking as well.

NNES participation in online discussion

Research studies agree that in a network-based setting NNES were provided equal participation opportunities though some disagree on NNES participation patterns (Belcher, 1999; Chert, 1999; Kamhi-Stein, 2000). NNES participants were more actively involved in class discussion. The discussion is more student-centered and student-initiated. NNES students felt more comfortable contributing; therefore they contributed more often, and were less concerned about their language deficiencies in online classes than in face-to-face classes (Belcher, 1999; Braine, 1997; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996). Yet, there is a disagreement regarding NNES participation patterns in network-based instructional environments. Chen (1999) reported that NNES only provided simple comment statements during online communications while native English speakers' statements consisted of a variety of different types, such as comments, information statements, and replies. She argued that this reflected NNES language problems.

However, Kamhi-Stein (2000) found no difference in participation between native and non-native English speakers in an online instructional environment. Even though there were slightly more initiations in face-to-face discussions for native English speakers than for NNES, and slightly more responses in online bulletin board discussions from NNES than from native English speakers, these differences were not statistically significant. She suggested that online instruction could serve as an equalizer for native and NNES participation in classroom discussions. Kamhi-Stein (2000) further argued that web-based instruction could promote more balanced participation among students whose participation may differ or be otherwise hindered in face-to-face situations, especially for students with non-native English language background. Ganeva (1999) found that non-native speaking students participated more in online environment than native English speaking students and with equal speech functionality. NNES also reported better self-expression in online environments than in face-to-face environments. NNES and novice native speakers reported that the asynchronicity of web-based threaded discussions allowed them to participate in their own time and at their own pace without being pressured, and giving them more time to reflect on and process new ideas (Kamhi-Stein, 2000). Davis & Thiede (2000, as cited in Sengupta, 2001) also suggested that "participation on asynchronous bulletin board developed discourse-related awareness as well as syntactic ability to abide by the social norms. The discourse-related demand in the process of exchanging ideas in a network-based situation may develop an awareness of practical aspects of language use" (p. 106). Belcher (1999) reported her observation of NNES and their participation in an online newsgroup and claimed that NNES did not see themselves as disadvantaged. They were more confident and provided more sophisticated, well-developed ideas and even provided information and resources to fill in knowledge gaps for others in the class.

While the feature of text-based communication in network-based instruction provides time for reflection and a record for future review, it also misses some useful non-verbal cues that face-to-face classroom instruction can provide to NNES. In addition, NNES reported they experienced workload-related stress in network-based instruction (Sengupta, 2001). However, Toyota (2002) argues that the absence of nonverbal cues may induce negotiation of meaning in language. However, this needs further investigation.

Future Directions for Research

Research suggests that network-based instruction provides NNES with equal opportunities, reduces their anxiety level, provides them with more time to reflect and compose their ideas, and creates a sense of control over their learning. Therefore, they participate more in class discussions and class activities. The majority of students reported positive learning experience in network-based learning environments with positive linguistic effects for NNES. However, additional research in the following areas seems to be important in order to further understand NNES performance in network-based environments:

1. Because of the globalization of learning, research studies involving multilingual and multinational populations need to be conducted to document similarities and differences in learning in network-based environments among diverse populations.

2. Studies on NNES performance in network-based classes of different subject domains are needed since most studies have focused on NNES performance only on language learning.

3. Studies need to be done to see how NNES language skills transfer to their real life.

4. Observational studies on NNES interaction pattern or discourse in discussions in network-based instruction are needed to investigate if NNES demonstrate effective argument and justification skills, are able to initiate new ideas, and negotiate language meaning. There is also a need to study how network-based environments work differently from traditional classrooms related to these interaction patterns and discourse skills.

References

Belcher, D. D. (1999). Authentic interaction in a virtual classroom: Leveling the playing field in a graduate seminar. Computers and Composition, 16, 253-267.

Braine, G. (1997). Beyond word processing: networked computers in ESL writing classes. Computers and Composition, 14, 45-58.

Burge, E. J. (1994). Learning in computer confereneed contexts: The learners' perspective. Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 19-43.

Chen, L. (1999). How can local interactive on-line discussion assist culturally diverse students in learning? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 28(1), 33-42.

Cifuentes, L., & Shih, Y. D. (2001). Teaching and learning online: A collaborative between U.S. and Taiwanese students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 456-475.

Davis, B.H. & Ye-ling, C. (1994/95). Long-Distance collaboration with online conferencing. TESOL Journal, 4(2), 28-31.

Dutton, J., Dutton, M., & Perry, J. (2002). How do online students differ from lecture students? Journal of Asynchronous learning networks, 6(1). Retrieved July, 2002, from http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol6_issue1/6_1dutton.htm

Galvin, T. (2002). 2002 Industry Report: Training magazine's 21st annual comprehensive analysis of employer-sponsored training in the United States. Training, 39 (10), 37-81.

Ganeva, I. B. (1999). Native and non-native speakers' participation in educational asynchronous computer conferencing: A case study, Dissertation, University of Toronto.

Gold, S. (2001). A constructivist approach to online training for online teachers. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 35-57.

Harasim, L. (1986). Computer learning networks: Educational applications of computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 59-70.

Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal for educational Communication, 16 (2), 117-135.

Harasim, L. (1990). Online education: Perspectives on a new environment. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Hiltz, S. R. (1997) Impacts of college-level courses via asynchronous learning networks: Some preliminary results. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1 (2), 1-19. Retrieved August, 1997, from http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/jaln_Vol1issue2.htm

Jaffee, D. (1997). Asynchronous learning: Technology and pedagogical strategy in a distance learning course. Teaching Sociology, 25(4), 262-77.

Jonassen, D. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Connecting communities of learners. Computers in the Classroom. 158-182, Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Web-based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (3), 423-455.

Kivela, R. (1996). Writing on networked computers: Effect on ESL writer attitudes and apprehension. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 6, 85-92.

Liaw, M. L. (1998). Using electronic mail for English as a foreign language instruction. System, 26(3), 335-351.

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research & Development. 49(1), 53-64.

Richards, C.N. & Ridley D.R. (1997). Factors affecting college students' persistence in online computer-managed instruction. College Student Journal, 31 (4), 490-5.

Schutte, J. G. (1996). Virtual teaching in higher education: The new intellectual superhighway or just another traffic jam? California State University, Northridge. Available online: http://www.csun.edu/sociology/virexp.htm

Sengupta, S. (2001). Exchanging ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a pain? Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 103-134.

Sullivan, N. & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29(4), 491-501.

Toyota, (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning and Technology, 6(1), 82-99.

Valenta, A., Therriault, D., Dieter, M., & Mrtek, R. (2001). Identifying student attitudes and learning styles in distance education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-15.

Warschauer, M (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7-26.

Wegner, S.B., Holloway, K.C., & Garton, E.M (1999). The effects of internet-based instruction on student learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 98-106.

Yuzhu Teng, The College of Saint Rose, Albany, NY James Allen, The College of Saint Rose, Albany, NY

Teng, doctoral student in Instructional Technology at SUNY Albany, is an Educational Technologist. Allen is a Professor of Educational Psychology. His research interests include case study pedagogy, classroom management, motivation and learning, constructivist approaches to teaching EFL, technology-integrated instruction.