Bilingual Negotiation via Email. An International Project

This article examines selective results of an international email project between twenty four students studying law with German (in England) and English (in Germany). It refers to outcomes as manifested in the students’ written reports and oral assessments, but concentrates on samples of bilingual negotiation between partners as expressed in their emails. The article focuses on the design of the project and the socio-cultural environment in which it is situated. Taking into account the relevant research in computer-mediated communication, the design of the project follows two primary objectives: the acquisition of (1) language and (2) content as part of a task-based email exchange. 1. CONTEXT OF PROJECT 1.1. Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) The framework of this project was influenced by recent research in computer-mediated communication in general and email in particular. The following represents a short overview of CMC research. Several studies about computer-mediated communication have been conducted, often focusing on beginners or intermediate learners of a foreign language e.g., Beauvois (1998), Chun (1998), St. John and Cash (1995a+ 1995b), Sullivan (1998), Tella (1991, 1992a, 1992b), Warschauer and Ortega (1997), Warschauer (1999), Vilmi (1995) or on learners who were not matched according to language proficiency. The international email tandem project, for instance, is based on random tandem partnerships (Little and Brammerts, 1996). Computer-mediated communication in the form of a computer-assisted class discussion can improve communicative language proficiency. Chun (1998) reports on a twosemester study of students studying first-year German. Her findings point at a noticeable increase in student contributions overall, with lesser teacher input necessary than in traditionally taught classes. Sullivan’s study (1998), based on a computer-assisted writing summer course for high school leavers newly enrolled at university, suggested similar results. During the entire computer-mediated communication sessions (5 weeks), students produced over 90% of the exchanges while the teacher’s input averaged 7%. Chun’s findings include a marked shift of students’ utterances from answers to teacher’s questions, as predominantly found in traditionally taught classes, to asking questions of other fellow students and submitting statements to the group. The latter two forms of contribution to the electronic discussion outweigh the volunteered answers to questions from all. In other words, students seem to exhibit quite different behaviour from oral classroom discussions. More students contribute actively, initiate and respond to Leahy, C. ‘Biligual Negotiation ...’ 1 statements, and negotiate meaning. The length of statements varied from one sentence to one paragraph. Sullivan’s study (1998) seems to confirm that computer-assisted class discussion can serve as an empowering tool which can help to overcome social differences and personal characteristics such as shyness or the dominance of individual students. Tella (1991) also refers to the positive effect CMC may have, due to the lack of artifacts which could potentially build social barriers, the possibility to overcome “gender and racial based discrimination” and the inherent encouragement to participate for shy people. Furthermore, he refers to the features of CMC of independence of time and space and therefore time to redraft and elaborate on messages (p.31). Summarising the above in the words of Warschauer (1997), computer-mediated communication can support increased student participation in respect of “(a) percentage of student talk versus teacher talk, (b) directional focus of student talk (toward other students or toward the teacher), and (c) equality of student participation” (p. 473). Warschauer also points towards 3 possible disadvantages of CMC which can hinder collaboration, namely the difficulty to reach consensus online compared with face-to-face interaction, the existence of hostile language or “bullying”, and information overload, which can lead to monologues rather than interactions (ibid). The above comments point at features observed in CMC, which relate to the social and interactional component of communication. Furthermore, CMC allows for a communication mode, which is different from the traditional forms, firstly the distinction between oral and written speech, and secondly the distinction between formal and informal writing (and speech). “Writing instruments, however, lead to different kinds of writing processes. Using pen and paper usually leads to a once-writtenthen-completed principle. As revising and rewriting one’s draft is time-consuming and laborious, students generally mistake their first draft for the final version.” Tella (1991, 43) Asynchronous CMC on the other hand combines the factor of a time-saving-device and easy editing options. Computer-mediated communication can become a powerful learning tool, not only in foreign language learning, but also in other learning situations. It allows students to interact with their partner beyond traditional restrictions of time (in the case of asynchronous communication) and place. Asynchronous, and to a certain degree synchronous, communication enables students to set their own pace, provides time for them to comprehend, reflect and to compose several drafts. It also provides the opportunity to check facts and, in the case of SLA, to analyse and/or copy native speaker style. There are different forms of CMC of which email is one. Email is usually asynchronous communication which combines the advantages of computer-assisted text production with the possibility of rapid exchanges of ideas over potentially vast distances. Furthermore, text production does not need to be an entirely linear process any more. Leahy, C. ‘Biligual Negotiation ...’ 2 Additional information can be fed in at any time, the structure and content can be rearranged before sending the message off. CMC in form of email allows for additional valuable advantages which are closely related to time. Email as asynchronous communication allows time for in-depth analysis and critical reflection (Warschauer, 1997), as well as time for drafting and re-drafting replies. Because of the asynchronous nature of email, email is “suitable for more complex writing and problem solving tasks” (Warschauer, 1997, p. 474). These qualities can aid language learning considerably. 1.2. CMC in form of email: Considerations regarding the framework of email exchanges Besides the advantages of CMC as listed above, the setting-up of email exchanges presents considerable challenges. Potential difficulties in international email projects between schools as described in some detail by Tella (1991, 1992a, 1992b) and Fischer (1998) are often related to the general framework. First, are teaching times different, i.e., is there a sufficient simultaneous teaching period without interference due to differing holiday periods, “zero periods” in case of Finnish schools (Tella, 1991) or due to other stressful events like examination periods. Second, are students matched according to age and therefore the enhanced likelihood of similar interests? Are students matched according to a mutual interest, e.g., subject specific interests, following a task related to the main degree course? Third, does the exchange framework stipulate similar challenges for all participants regarding the language used for communication, i.e., do all participants write in L2? If they do, is their L2 proficiency compatible? Obviously, international frameworks with L2 exchanges only, imply the additional problems for less taught languages, e.g., Finnish. If English was the desired L2 for Finnish participants, would it be possible to find native speakers of English with comparable L2 proficiency in Finnish? If, on the other hand, not all participants communicate in their respective L2 languages, how can the interest of the native speaker group in the project be sustained? Obviously, native non-native speaker communication is on one hand demanding for non-native speakers, but may become quickly demotivating for native speakers, since a parity regarding subtleties of content might not be possible to achieve consistently. Fischer (1998) mentions observations to this effect. His students were aware of the impression their attempts to communicate content in L2 might have on the receiving partners, who are native speakers. Fischer describes how one of the email exchange groups studied was concerned not to only write in the foreign language. Due to the limited knowledge the participants had in the foreign language, they were not able to express all the subtleties they wanted and therefore expressed the wish to also write in their mother-tongue. “What will they [the German email partners] think of us if we keep writing in babyGerman? [...] Just let us write to them in English for a while.” (p.114) Furthermore, the inequity of language proficiency may lead to undesirable side-effects like build-up or reinforcement of national prejudices (Fischer, 1998) rather than enhancement of intercultural understanding. There is a particular danger for young participants, who might lack the skill / life experience and confidence to ask for Leahy, C. ‘Biligual Negotiation ...’ 3 clarification instead of excepting the messages at face-value or jumping to conclusions (Fischer, 1998, 11). In order to make sure that the meaning interpretations made by the recipient of a message are close to the meanings intended by the sender, constant communication about those meanings must occur. I have referred to this process as meaning negotiation or as the reconstruction of meanings and social realities.” (Fischer, 1998, 178; my italics) In terms of the production of text, the same is true in the reverse: Tella (1991; 114) describes his study group as students, who “had the opportunity to write to young people of a similar age, but they did not spontaneously stop to think what the readers in the target country might already know of the matter, or rather conversely, what they expressly would not know.” Therefore, in the case of email projects between schools especially, the role of the teacher / tutor is crucial regarding guidance towards interpretation of the communicated messages. Barson, Frommer and Schwartz (1993) describe a national interuniversity email project, which was integrated into class time, and in which they opted for L2 exchanges for all participants. In this case, the students share the same L1 (English) and the same L2 (French). Furthermore, all the students share a similar cultural background since they all live in the same country, the USA. Fourth, closely related to the choice of L1 or L2 or a mixture of both as the language for communication, is the question of error correction. While Barson et. al opted for “peer critiquing” and teacher input, Vilmi (1995) reports on language corrections through peers. Woodin and Ojanguren (1995) also report on error corrections. There are problems inherent in peer correction as part of CMC. First, participants are not language teachers and may occasionally be unsure about the correct use of the mother tongue or the reasons for the application of specific grammatical rules. Woodin and Ojanguren (1995, 506) highlight this problem. Second, synchronous communication focuses more on content and communicative skills than on form. In the context of computer-assisted class discussion, Sullivan (1998, 52) therefore sees error corrections as the wrong point of focus. Both points of view can be appropriate. With regard to CACD, Sullivan’s decision not to analyse the data from the point of view of language accuracy is understandable. It would be difficult to determine in each case whether language errors represent typing errors or genuine lack of knowledge. Furthermore, synchronous electronic discussion lends itself to more rapid exchanges of thoughts, which in turn often leads to a lack of focus on accuracy. A decision on the need for L2 accuracy and error correction needs to be based on the primary objectives of the CMC project. Leahy, C. ‘Biligual Negotiation ...’ 4 2. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT The project had two primary functions: to acquire (1) language and (2) content through meaningful negotiation within a subject-specific task. Furthermore, the project followed several secondary objectives such as practising time-management, practising the discussion of subject-specific materials in the target language, and preparing for the year abroad. 3. TASK The project combines the following elements: a subject specific task, internet use for primary source materials, computer-mediated communication via email, and a written as well as oral modified output. It therefore makes use of the four skills of reading, writing, speaking and listening, and does not focus on reading and writing only. In order to supply a suitable challenge for these advanced foreign language learners, the task includes reading skills which incorporated top-down as well as bottom-up processing, and leads to individual composition (writing) and modified output (writing and oral). The following task was constructed • reading Students collected material about a topic of their choice from the internet and through email exchanges. • writing The assessed group (British only) wrote a report on their findings. • oral The written report served as a basis for a short oral (which was video-taped), in which questions were asked by the tutor. Using reading and writing as the working modes, combined with the internet as source material obviously opens the doors to plagiarism. If the task requires a written report to be handed in, the danger is that chunks will be directly copied from the internet and pasted into the text without appropriate reference to the source. In an attempt to eliminate that possibility, students were given a task which requires a transfer of acquired knowledge to a given perspective. The email exchanges between the British and German students were copied to the tutor. If students send messages bypassing the tutor they cannot be detected, except when a reference appears in another message copied to the tutor. When the only assessed piece of work consists of the written report, the danger of using the partner as writer or person to improve the language quality increases. Therefore, the written report served as a basis for an oral discussion with the tutor at the end of the project. The oral assessment is the point when an unknown perspective can be introduced. In an oral exchange with unknown questions students have the opportunity to answer questions based on their written report. A modified language output under controlled circumstances can be assessed. Leahy, C. ‘Biligual Negotiation ...’ 5 Two underlying questions influenced decisions made regarding the task development: (1) Can CMC via email enhance L2 acquisition in a subject specific context? (2) Can students produce a modified output at the end of the project which represents their abilities and is not based on plagiarised elements? The first research question can be tested against evidence in the email exchanges and written and oral assessment. The second question can be tested in the oral. Even if students had learned passages by heart, these could not be reproduced without prior modification. Students were giving answers to specific questions. An authentic situation was created in which students answered more in-depth questions, clarifying content as expressed in the written report, thus stimulating new language production and avoiding repetition of elements of the written report. The above reflects the set-up for the whole project, but this article only reports in detail about the email exchanges between partners, not the written and oral assessment at the end of the project. 4. FRAMEWORK This project is based on computer-mediated communication on an international level. The project took place as part of the directed/independent learning component of the language module ‘Introduction to German Legal Language” during the summer semester of 1999. Parity between the conditions of all participants whenever possible was a major concern when designing the framework. The greatest point of departure from an equal framework was the fact that the German students did not receive accreditation. It is interesting to note that this did not cause any problem for them or led to a lack of motivation on their part. 4.1 The groups studied Twenty-four students studying law completed the project. They are advanced second language learners of German, doing a combined degree course of LL.B. (Europe) German, a comparative law course for undergraduate students. At the time, the participants were studying in their second year at university. Their email partners are German native speakers also studying law who take English as a supplementary option. Some English language courses are also obligatory for the German participants. The average age of the participants was 20 in GB and 23 in Germany, ranging from 1928. The male/female ratio for participating students was 7 males compared with 6 females (GB), and 6 males as compared with 7 females (Germany). All British students are English native speakers, and one bilingual participant (English / Gujarati) took part. All German participants are German native speakers. Participants’ L2 proficiency Before the start of the project students completed a C-test, a placement test, which allowed some insight into the participants’ foreign language proficiency. The German group achieved higher scores than their British counterpart. It is helpful to have a point of reference when analysing individual results. Furthermore, when comparing these Leahy, C. ‘Biligual Negotiation ...’ 6 average score results with the findings of Coleman’s survey of 1996, the British students achieved scores which are located roughly in the middle of the bandwidths of national level-2 results. The German law group achieved the highest score, approximately 20 points ahead of the other group. Motivational aspects All British participants were in their second year of study and had to spend the following year abroad. Their email partners were also studying law at partner universities. Besides subject-related communication, students therefore had the opportunity to learn more about living and studying in the L2 country. Communication about these topics was encouraged. Some of the German participants also planned to spend a year in an English-speaking country, some of them in Nottingham. It was anticipated that the participants were influenced by instrumental and integrative motivation. The set-up and task were therefore seen as providing a nearly ideal learning situation for the participating students. 4.2 Email exchanges Students agreed to write at least 1 message to their partner per week. Approximately 50% of the exchanges were to be written in the target language, and 50% in the mother tongue. The native speaker was to make some corrections to the partner’s foreign language output. How the correction would be dealt with was to be negotiated between the partners. Participants were encouraged to observe their partner’s language style and register. The tasks were collaborative and problem-oriented in order to encourage discussion and negotiation. The exchanges took place mainly via asynchronous email. Student support Students were supported during the whole project, mainly via email. Only the initial introduction took place face-to-face. The British students also had the opportunity to meet the project leader during office hours. This opportunity was only taken up by some students. The general guidelines were handed out and sent by email. Furthermore, additional information was sent electronically, e.g., ‘Why email in tandem’, ‘Chat in real time’, and ‘Progress feed-back’, general feed-back to all, as well as personal feed-back to the individual students concerned. One main premise of the project was to allow the students maximum freedom, only offering guidance or intervening when problems or difficulties arose, or when explicitly asked. The students’ email exchanges were monitored daily and encouragement, clarification as well as other forms of support were supplied immediately, where appropriate. If individual students failed to make progress, i.e., did not write, they were contacted. Beyond that, students were strongly encouraged to discuss any queries, suggestions, time management, modus operandi regarding language corrections etc. with their partner. Email was introduced as a learning, not a teaching tool. Leahy, C. ‘Biligual Negotiation ...’ 7 Native speaker – non-native speaker communication By requesting that 50% of the messages be written in the native and 50% in the target language, it was hoped that some parity would be achieved between the partners, and that neither would be elevated to a specialist position above the other. Native non-native speaker communication can be fraught with several difficulties, as discussed above (Tella, 1991, 1992; Fischer, 1998). Advantages of native non-native speaker communication An obvious advantage of native non-native speaker communication is the relative equality between partners (facing similar difficulties). Partners share equal opportunities for growth and learning. A passage in the mother tongue can help with the delivery and clarification of a complex concept to/for the partner and can help prevent the development or reinforcement of existing prejudices against the partner’s culture or nationality, which can often be traced back to incomplete understanding of the other culture. Furthermore, the partner’s message can serve as a model for subject specific register and style. Language correction The acquisition of language was one of the primary functions of the project in which error correction plays an important role. The project was based on negotiation among peers, and it therefore seems appropriate to ask the participants to correct each other. Guidelines as to how this could be done sensitively were distributed to all participants. Details were to be negotiated between partners. 5. DATA COLLECTION The collected data is based on two questionnaires, a C-test, the email exchanges between students and students, students and tutor, tutor and students, and the written reports and oral assessments at the end of the project. Furthermore, some face-to-face meetings between the tutor and students informed about the students’ attitudes towards the project. 6. SELECTIVE RESULTS 6. 1. Formal observations Gender A marked difference in contributions relating to gender was not observed. Flow of messages Over the whole period of the project, students generally wrote about one message per week to their partner, but the exchanges did not necessarily take place consistently. Once the deadline for handing in the written report approached, more activity could be observed. Additionally, some students entered into a dialogue with the project leader. 6.2. Quantitative results Leahy, C. ‘Biligual Negotiation ...’ 8 Within the framework of this article, the results of the written report and oral assessment at the end of the project can only be referred to. Most of the students gained from this project. Learning progress with regard to both content and language was made: Students started with varying L2 proficiencies and progressed from there. Following their brief, they produced a modified language output and were well capable to answer questions on their reports, therefore manipulated content and language successfully. The question raised earlier ‘Can students produce a modified output at the end of the project which represents their abilities and is not based on plagiarised elements?’ can therefore be clearly answered positively. Secondary objectives, e.g., developing or improving electronic literacy skills, increasing vocabulary range and the reading of subject-specific material in the target language were successfully achieved by participating students. This is also documented in the written report as well as the oral examination. More subtle learning objectives, e.g., improved time management, improved autonomous learning via computer-mediated communication, and improvement of negotiation skills were not always achieved. In the students’ self-perception, learning was acknowledged, as can be seen in Table 1. Leahy, C. ‘Biligual Negotiation ...’ 9 Table 1: Areas in which students felt they had improved their skills, as named in the postproject-questionnaire: Slightly to strongly agree in % Improved/gained confidence in ... Law study