Advertisement

Computer-Mediated Communication and Meaning-Making in the Language Classroom: Disruptions in Learning and Teaching

  • Regine HampelEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the changes that the new technologies have brought about and the opportunities that these technologies offer language learners. It sets out two key premises—that face-to-face conversation is the original form of discourse, and that it is a complex dynamic system which is characterized by certain attractors, i.e. modes and behaviours that the system prefers. These are set classroom interaction patterns, particular ways of communicating in terms of space, time and mode, and the positioning of the language learner in relation to the world. Research studies provide a broad overview of the developments in relation to these attractors, illustrating how electronic communication technologies have been disrupting language learning and teaching. The chapter concludes by highlighting the resulting phase shift.

Keywords

Attractors Classroom interaction Ways of communicating Positioning of the online language learner Learning in the wild Phase shift 

References

  1. Austin, N. (2015). Video conferencing and multimodal expression of voice: Children’s conversations in a second language using Skype (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Milton Keynes, The Open University.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, N., Hampel, R., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2017). Video conferencing and multimodal expression of voice: Children’s conversations using Skype for second language development in a telecollaborative setting. System, 64, 87–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bezemer, J. (2014). Gesture in operations. In Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 354–364). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Black, R. W. (2006). Language, culture, and identity in online fanfiction. E-Learning, 3(2), 170–184.  https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2006.3.2.170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Block, D. (2013). Moving beyond “lingualism”: Multilingual embodiment and multimodality in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 54–77). New York: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203113493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blommaert, J. (2008). Bernstein and poetics revisited: Voice, globalization and education. Discourse & Society, 19(4), 425–451.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508089938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  9. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2013/2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Bytheway, J. (2015). A taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies used in massively multiplayer online role-playing games (Special Issue). CALICO Journal, 32(3), 508–527.  https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v32i3.26787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.  https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, J. C. (2016). The crossroads of English language learners, task-based instruction, and 3D multi-user virtual learning in Second Life. Computers & Education, 102, 152–171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chik, A. (2014). Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and community (Special Issue). Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 85–100. Available at https://www.lltjournal.org/item/2857. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44371.
  14. Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(94)90037-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark, H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 249–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2017). Language, identity, and investment in the twenty-first century. In T. L. McCarty & S. May (Eds.), Language policy and political issues in education and multilingualism. Encyclopedia of language and education. Springer International Publishing AG.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02320-5_18-2.Google Scholar
  18. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2005). Dynamic systems theory and applied linguistics: The ultimate “so what”? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 116–118.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.0083b.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deusen-Scholl, N. (2018). The negotiation of multilingual heritage identity in a distance environment: HLA and the plurilingual turn. CALICO Journal, 35(3), 235–256.  https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.36723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dooly, M., & O’Dowd, R. (Eds.). (2012). Researching online interaction and exchange in foreign language education. Bern and Wien: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  21. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Duranti, A. (2010). Husserl, intersubjectivity and anthropology. Anthropological Theory, 10(1), 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499610370517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51–71. Available at https://www.lltjournal.org/item/2700. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44226.
  24. Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K. & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The CULTURA project. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 55–102. Available at https://www.lltjournal.org/item/2342. http://dx.doi.org/10125/25113.
  25. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet & Higher Education, 2, 87–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gaved, M., Luley, P., Efremidis, S., Georgiou, I., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Jones, A., et al. (2014, November 3–5). Challenges in context-aware mobile language learning: The MASELTOV approach. In 13th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning. Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  27. Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today’s schools. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context (pp. 214–232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Gee, J. P. (2018). Affinity spaces: How young people live and learn online and out of school. Phi Delta Kappan: The Professional Journal for Educators. Available at https://www.kappanonline.org/gee-affinity-spaces-young-people-live-learn-online-school/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. R. (2011). Language and learning in the digital age. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gullberg, M. (1998). Gesture as a communication strategy in second language discourse: A Study of learners of French and Swedish. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gullberg, M. (2006). Some reasons for studying gesture and second language acquisition (Hommage à Adam Kendon). International Review of Applied Linguistics, 44(2), 103–124.  https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2006.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gullberg, M. (2010). Methodological reflections on gesture analysis in second language acquisition and bilingualism research. Second Language Research, 26(1), 75–102.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658309337639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gunawardena, C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147–166.Google Scholar
  35. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Systemic background. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse, Volume 1: Selected theoretical papers from the 9th international systemic workshop (pp. 1–15). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  36. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004/2013), An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Available at http://www.uel.br/projetos/ppcat/pages/arquivos/RESOURCES/2004_HALLIDAY_MATTHIESSEN_An_Introduction_to_Functional_Grammar.pdf.
  37. Hampel, R. (2003). Theoretical perspectives and new practices in audio-graphic conferencing for language learning. ReCALL, 15(1), 21–36.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344003000314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hampel, R. (2014). Making meaning online: Computer-mediated communication for language learning. In A. Peti-Stantić & M.-M. Stanojević (Eds.), Language as Information: Proceedings from the CALS Conference 2012 (pp. 89–106). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  39. Hampel, R. (2019). The conceptualization of time, space and the body in virtual sites and the impact on language learner identities. In G. Messina-Dahlberg, S. Bagga-Gupta, & Y. Lindberg (Eds.), Virtual sites as learning spaces: Critical issues on languaging research in changing eduscapes (pp. 1–31). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
  40. Hampel, R., Felix, U., Hauck, M., & Coleman, J. A. (2005). Complexities of learning and teaching languages in a real-time audiographic environment. German as a Foreign Language, 3, 1–30. Available at http://www.gfl-journal.de/3-2005/hampel_felix_hauck_coleman.pdf.
  41. Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2012). The use of videoconferencing to support multimodal interaction in an online language classroom. ReCALL, 24(2), 116–137.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401200002X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Harper, N. R. (2011). Education beyond institutionalization: Learning outside of the formal curriculum. Critical Education, 2(4). Retrieved 6 March 2019, from http://m1.cust.educ.ubc.ca/journal/index.php/criticaled/issue/view/153.
  43. Hawkins, M. R. (2005). Becoming a student: Identity work and academic literacies in early schooling. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 59–82.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3588452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hecht, M. A., & Ambady, N. (1999). Nonverbal communication and psychology: Past and future. The New Jersey Journal of Communication, 7(2), 1–15. Available at http://ambadylab.stanford.edu/pubs/1999Hecht.pdf.
  45. Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Available at http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/sgramley/Hymes-1.pdf.
  46. Jabbari, N., & Eslami, Z. R. (2019). Second language learning in the context of massively multiplayer online games: A scoping review. ReCALL, 31(1), 92–113.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344018000058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jewitt, C. (2014). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 117–142). London and New York: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203830932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kern, R. (2014). Technology as Pharmakon: The promise and perils of the Internet for foreign language education. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 330–347.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781,2014.12065.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41–58.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220903467335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kötter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 145–172. Available at https://www.lltjournal.org/item/2433. http://dx.doi.org/10125/25203.
  53. Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50(3), 199–212.  https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.3.199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  55. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  56. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2000). Knowledge, identity, pedagogy pedagogic discourse and the representational environments of education in late modernity. Linguistics and Education, 11(1), 7–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(99)00015-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  58. Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2010). Mobile learning as a catalyst for change. Open Learning: the Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25(3), 181–185.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2010.511945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2015). Language as a bridge connecting formal and informal language learning through mobile devices. In L.-H. Wong, M. Milrad, & M. Specht (Eds.), Seamless learning in the age of mobile connectivity (pp. 281–294). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Kukulska-Hulme, A., Norris, L., & Donohue, J. (2015). Mobile pedagogy for English language teaching: A guide for teachers. British Council. London. Available at https://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/attachments/e485_mobile_pedagogy_for_elt_final_v2.pdf.
  61. Lamy, M.-N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). ‘Reflective conversation’ in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43–61. https://www.lltjournal.org/item/2272. http://dx.doi.org/10125/25042.
  62. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate Peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13, 232–244.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344001000829a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lee, H., Hampel, R., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2019). Gesture in speaking tasks beyond the classroom: An exploration of the multimodal negotiation of meaning via Skype videoconferencing on mobile devices. System, 81, 26–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lewis, T., & O’Dowd, R. (2016). Online intercultural exchange and foreign language learning: A systematic review. In R. O’Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 21–66). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017). Explaining dynamic interactions in wiki-based writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 96–120. Available at https://www.lltjournal.org/item/2998. https://dx.doi.org/10125/44613.
  68. Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141, http://dx.doi.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/10.1093/applin/4.2.126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: A collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(1), 35–54.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Malinowski, D. (2015, September). Seeing and hearing apart: The dilemmas and possibilities of intersubjectivity in shared language classrooms. In Paper Presented at the Conference Virtual Learning Sites as Languaging Spaces. Örebro University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  71. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  72. Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2015). Teaching languages online (2nd ed). Bristol, Tonawanda and North York, ON: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  73. Montoro Sanjosé, C. (2013). The language learning activity of individual learners using online tasks (EdD thesis). Milton Keynes, The Open University. Available at http://oro.open.ac.uk/50081/1/MONTOROthesis.pdf.
  74. Murphy, E., & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 30(2). Available at http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26522/19704.  https://doi.org/10.21432/t27g7n.
  75. Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  76. Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409–429.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3587831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Norton, B. (2006). Identity as a sociocultural construct in second language education. In K. Cadman & K. O’Regan (Eds.), Tales out of school: TESOL in context (Special Issue), 22–33. Available at http://faculty.educ.ubc.ca/norton/Norton%202006%20in%20Australia%20TESOL.pdf.
  78. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Norton, B., & McKinney, C. (2011). An identity approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 73–94). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. O’Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (Eds.). (2016). Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Oh, S. Y., Bailenson, J., Krämer, N., & Li, B. (2016). Let the avatar brighten your smile: Effects of enhancing facial expressions in virtual environments. PLoS One, 11(9). Available at http://vhil.stanford.edu/mm/2016/11/oh-po-smile.pdf.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. O’Rourke, B., & Stickler, U. (2017). Synchronous communication technologies for language learning: Promise and challenges in research and pedagogy. Language Learning in Higher Education: Journal of the European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education (CercleS), 7(1), 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2017-0009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pavlenko, A. (2015, January 28). Learning languages in the classroom and “in the wild”: Second language learning and embodied cognition. Psychology Today. Available at https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/life-bilingual/201501/learning-languages-in-the-classroom-and-in-the-wild.
  84. Pellerin, M. (2014). Using mobile technologies with young language learners to support and promote oral language production. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 14–28. Available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b089/fca33e62fff491d446dd7d480f2bc1309a6f.pdf.  https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2014100102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Peterson, M. (2011). Towards a research agenda for the use of three-dimensional virtual worlds in language learning. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 67–80.  https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.1.67-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Roed, J. (2003). Language learner behaviour in a virtual environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(2–3), 155–172.  https://doi.org/10.1076/call.16.2.155.15880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rosborough, A. (2014). Gesture, meaning-making, and embodiment: Second language learning in an elementary classroom. Journal of Pedagogy, 2, 227–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l’enseignement à distance, 14(2), 50–71. Available at https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58774853.pdf.
  90. Salaberry, R. (1999). CALL in the year 2000: Still developing the research agenda—A commentary on Carol Chapelle’s CALL in the year 2000; Still in search of research paradigms. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 91–95. Available at https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/25060/1/03_01_comment.pdf.
  91. Sampurna, J., Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Stickler, U. (2018). Exploring learners’ and teacher’s participation in online non-formal project-based language learning. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 8(3), 73–90. Available at http://oro.open.ac.uk/56989/1/56989.pdf.  https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2018070104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Satar, H. M. (2011). Social presence in online multimodal communication: A framework to analyse online interactions between language learners (PhD thesis). Milton Keynes, The Open University. Available at http://oro.open.ac.uk/60804/1/533112.pdf.
  93. Satar, H. M. (2013). Multimodal language learner interactions via desktop videoconferencing within a framework of social presence: Gaze. ReCALL, 25(1), 122–142.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Satar, H. M. (2015). Sustaining multimodal language learner interactions online. CALICO Journal, 32(3), 480–507.  https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v32i3.26508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sauro, S. (2017). Online fan practices and CALL. CALICO Journal, 34(2), 131–146.  https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.33077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sauro, S., & Zourou, K. (2017). Call for papers. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 186. https://www.lltjournal.org/item/2983. https://dx.doi.org/10125/44603.
  97. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Language Learning, 54(Suppl. 1), 1–300.Google Scholar
  99. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  100. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82–119. Available at https://www.lltjournal.org/item/2317. http://dx.doi.org/10125/25088.
  102. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: The case of electronic mail. Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Steiner, E. (1997). Systemic functional linguistics and its application to foreign language teaching. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 26, 15–27. Available at ela.cele.unam.mx/index.php/ela/article/download/340/320.Google Scholar
  104. Stickler, U., & Hampel, R. (2010). CyberDeutsch: Language production and user preferences in a Moodle virtual learning environment. CALICO Journal, 28(1), 49–73.  https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.1.49-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Sun, S. Y. H. (2018). Student configuration and place-making in fully online language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 932–959.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1466808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sundqvist, P., & Sylvén, L. K. (2016). Extramural English in teaching and learning: From theory and research to practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Sykes, J. M. (2018). Interlanguage pragmatics, curricular innovation, and digital technologies. CALICO Journal, 35(2), 120–141.  https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.36175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. The New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Available at http://www.sfu.ca/~decaste/newlondon.htm.
  109. Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online games. Modern Language Journal, 93, 802–821.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00974.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi. Sage.Google Scholar
  111. Ushioda, E. (2011). Language learning motivation, self and identity: Current theoretical perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 199–210.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.538701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development: Change between complexity and chaos. New York: Harvester.Google Scholar
  113. Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90.  https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/6.1.71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Wagner, J. (2015). Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 75–102). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110378528-006.
  115. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–481.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05514.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computer and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57–71.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800012970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., & Roberts, B. (1996). Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24(1), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00049-P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Wigham, C. R., & Chanier, T. (2013). A study of verbal and nonverbal communication in Second Life—The ARCHI21 experience. ReCALL, 25(1), 63–84.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Yeh, H.-C. (2018). Exploring the perceived benefits of the process of multimodal video making in developing multiliteracies. Language Learning & Technology, 22(2), 28–37. Available at https://www.lltjournal.org/item/3067. https://dx.doi.org/10125/44642.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language StudiesThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations