Like it or not, English is the dominant language of globalization. As a result, human resource departments across the globe are faced with the problem of providing an ever increasing percentage of the workforce with English language training. While all sorts of training, from workplace safety to project management, have successfully moved online, it’s my impression that very few organizations have moved their English language training out of the traditional classroom.
For those of us that know that online learning can be effective, it seems logical that we ask, “why not English?” Well, there are some pretty obvious reasons for being skeptical. Languages, systems of signs that humans create and use to communicate with one another, are learned by communicating with one another. There is perhaps no clearer case of “learning-by-doing” than good, old-fashioned language socialization. Can we learn to effectively interact with humans by interacting with computers? I am a big believer in the power of computer simulators (I put my faith in them every time I step on an airplane), but, partly because voice recognition software just isn’t very good yet, I don’t believe that even the best virtual reality can create an environment in which a user can engage in a realistic spoken conversation.
Of course, e-learning is not limited to human-to-computer interaction. In fact, the most powerful examples of e-learning that I’m aware of (with the possible exception of flight simulators, the equivalent of which would not be cost-effective for most organizations) are not about human-to-computer interaction, but rather about human-to-human interaction that happens to be mediated by networked computers.
However, most of these interactions are text-based. Indeed, the internet as a whole is dominated by text, especially text in English. As a result of spending hours engaging with this predominantly text-based environment, plenty of people have become quite competent at communicating through written English. IT professionals and programmers throughout the world, for example, communicate with one another very successfully on a daily basis in online support forums in English. I suspect that this activity has a positive impact on their general ability to read and write in English, but does it enable them to speak and understand the spoken language? I don’t think so. How many of us know (or are) people who are more competent reading, and perhaps also writing, in a foreign language than speaking that language? I know many people (myself included, before living in Spain) that, after years of formal training in a foreign language, are capable of reading and writing complex texts, but are helpless in face-to-face situations. Until Voice-over-IP has a drastic and unilateral impact on our commonplace online activities, the obvious assumption is that there isn’t much hope for cost-effective e-learning that enables massive amounts of people to actually speak English.
But recently I’ve been exposed to a small group of studies that indicate that this obvious assumption may be wrong. This research presents compelling evidence that engaging in online chat (that is, synchronous, text-based, computer-mediated communication) in a foreign language has a positive impact on oral proficiency in that language. Now, before organizations across the world start eliminating their English language training and sending their employees to chat rooms instead, there is a need for a lot more research in which these results can be replicated while controlling various variables. It’s also very important to keep in mind that in these studies the learners generally engaged in both face-to-face classes and chat, so this may be a case for blended learning rather than 100% online instruction. Nonetheless, these results are very exciting.
So how can it be that reading and writing in a foreign language (chat is text-based after all) can have an impact on speaking that language? At this point there are no clear answers to this question, just a couple hypotheses. To start with, it may help to think about oral communication and written communication as forming a continuum rather than a strict dichotomy. For example, the language used in a formal speech may have more in common with the language used in a written essay than with the language used in an informal conversation. At the same time, the language used in a friendly email may be more similar to the language used in a voice mail message than the language used in a business letter or a book. Research on chatting generally agrees that chat, although clearly a written form of language, has many oral-like features, perhaps more so than other form of text-based communication. So one hypothesis as to why chat has a positive impact on oral proficiency is that the linguistic (and perhaps cognitive) features of chat are quite similar to those of oral communication.
A second hypothesis relates primarily to social and affective factors of communication. It’s widely held that computer-mediated communication, because of its lack of physical cues, frees people from many of the pressures that often accompany face-to-face interaction. Anyone who has attempted to learn a foreign language is probably familiar with the nervousness and embarrassment that often accompanies, or even prevents, attempting to speak that language. In chat, much of this nervousness and potential embarrassment disappears, enabling learners to feel more comfortable communicating. Their language use may not be more correct, but at least they are willing to engage in discourse, something that may not occur face-to-face. In this sense, with regard to practicing the use of a foreign language, chatting may be a bit like having a drink or two. Alcohol generally decreases inhibitions, potentially freeing language learners to attempt to speak in situations in which they otherwise might not. Maybe experience with chatting can do the same thing. In one study, the subjects reported that the freedom of expression they experienced while chatting remained with them in later face-to-face experiences. They didn’t necessarily feel that they were better at speaking the foreign language, but they didn’t care as much. They were comfortable trying, willing to make mistakes, and able to learn from those mistakes. In other words, chat, by removing some affective barriers, freed these learners to engage in the “doing” that is required for “learning-by-doing”.
So where do these studies leave us in terms of recommendations for learning English? Well, first and foremost, there is a need for more research before making a definitive judgment on the exact nature and degree of the benefits of chatting. But, it seems pretty clear that chat does have some positive impact. At this point, especially for individuals who have some ability to read and write in English but find themselves tongue-tied in face-to-face situations, I’d certainly recommend giving chat a try. I’m sure it can’t hurt, and it may enable learners to get over that initial hump so that they can at least start to engage in face-to-face conversations. I suspect that ultimately this engagement will have the biggest impact on oral proficiency, but chat may be a great way to get started.
Here are the specific studies that I refer to in this post:
> Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157–167.
Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Write to speak: The effects of electronic communication on the oral achievement of fourth semester French students. In J. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language education (pp. 93-115). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
> Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second Language Socialization in a Bilingual Chat Room: Global and Local Considerations. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 44-65.
> Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7-32.
And here is an article about the oral – written continuum:
> Biber, D. (1986). Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language, 62(2), 384-414.