¡Habla Más!

Reading Reflection #2 - Interaction via computers (Peyton)

In Joy Peyton's article, Theory and Research: Interaction via Computers, she lays out the importance of interaction and negotiation for effective learning and the positives and negatives that are associated with interaction via computer networks for both students and teachers.

Peyton first discusses this history of "interaction" according to Vygotsky in which he states all human learning is mediated through interaction with others. (1978) In the 70;s and 80;s the research done was based mostly on this definition with the focus on "oral" interaction. Scholars found that more proficient language users facilitated the participation of less proficient participants by interacting with them in oral communication, thereby supporting negotiation. More knowledgeable language partners would modify their own language by asking questions, repeating, rephrasing, and extending the learners sentences to provide a language and thinking model, and simplify their language so the learner could understand it. (Krashen, 1981) Therefore, the lower language learners received a comprehensible input and were encouraged to provide a comprehensible output. It wasn't until the 90's that researchers began to focus on the dynamic and outcomes of written interaction of students-students or students-teachers. (Journals, notebooks, etc...) However, all of this research did show a clear correlation between learning/language development and interaction/negotiation.

With the onset of computer networks and opportunities for written interaction beyond one-to-one to many-to-many the dynamic has changed and so has the findings/research. In her article Peyton describes some of the positive patterns for computer-mediated Interaction. First, she found that in student - student interactions the more proficient and knowledgeable language users were helping their partners communicate by asking them questions, answering their questions and repeating and expanding on what they were writing. As these interactions continued the students became more independent and developed more complex English. Second, Peyton found that using interaction with computers allows us to network our ideas and build/change our text based on others reactions. Instead of one final written document, the documents gets revised and revisited over and over all in writing. Instead of one author, there may be many. Sirc and Reynolds describe this as "sampling" a construction of meaning built from a blend of one's own ideas, others' ideas, and material one has read or heard in discussion. This is a big change from one-to-one interaction. Third, Peyton found that with many-to-many interaction there is less discrimination based on race, gender, and social status and that participation in computer-mediated discussions is more equally distributed than in face-to-face discussion. I completely agree with this last positive outcome of interaction via computers. This structure of communication allows us to share ourselves based on our knowledge and input rather than the color of our skin or how much money we have. It allows students to be themselves without worrying about being discriminated against and this is wonderful for our world. Hopefully this can allow us to cross cultural barriers across the world as well and students everywhere can communicate via the computer.

Peyton also lays out three challenges for computer-mediated interaction. They are as follows:
1) Because students seem to feel anonymous is some cases, this has led to an urge to play with language and display their wit and verbal audacity which can result in confrontational, inappropriate, and insulting dialogues. This can include swear words, obscenity, bigotry, and puerility. (Peyton, 1998)
2) Some teachers and researchers have argued that students have more time to think and compose their thoughts in written than in oral interactions. However rather than write complex thoughts or thoughtful prose, students try to keep up with the constant flow of language scrolling up their screens and the sudden competition may produce "graffiti-like" messages or "easy insults". (Peyton, 1998)
3) Even when the students are try to collaborate, network discussion can seem fragmented, diffuse, and off the topic until students and teachers find ways to establish and follow topic threads.(Peyton, 1998)
4) Finally, teachers accustomed to having a considerable amount of authority in the classroom may initially find it difficult to maintain control and establish order when students are free to write whatever they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want. (Peyton, 1998).

In conclusion, this new medium has created some great opportunities as well as brought up some potential dangers. However, in any medium whether it is one-to-one or many-to-many the quality of the interaction needs to be regulated in order for real learning to occur. If teachers can maintain a high quality in computer interaction then the students will be successful. This also goes to the point that computers should be seen as tools and as a way for teachers to broaden the tools that they have on their belt. Computer interaction should not replace teachers but should compliment their work. In the future I see great possibilities using a network communication in my own class to foster a higher level of language acquisition and to teach my students about other cultures and communities. There are dangers and they can be very real but with continued knowledge about the medium and with more familiarity in using it those dangers with not be so threatening to success.

posted by Christine Parker @ 9:33 AM