TASK 2

11.0 Introduction

Integrating technology in the classroom has been implemented for decades, yet it has not been fully explored. With the rapid advancement, teachers nowadays are not restricted to teach conventionally. They have wider options to deliver their teachings through computer- mediated communication (CMC). One of the examples is online- chat. According to Xuan Teng, it is categorized as a form of synchronous or real-time CMC (2010). It can be defined as a simultaneous interaction between people by writing and exchanging messages (Blake, 2006). Nevertheless, in Malaysia education context, till the present day, no researcher attempts to investigate chat’s suitability as one of the teaching aids. Hence, this new field should be explored by local researchers as the findings may benefit the local education system.

Referring to the topic, the theory highlighted is based on communicative CALL.  In details, it requires interaction which falls under cognitive approach. Also, the research papers highlight on fluency. It is clearly demonstrated in which the students’ writings and speeches are assessed based on the collected data through the chat sessions. Moreover, Interaction Account (I A) is also discussed. It focuses on oral interaction by “connecting input, internal learner capacities, and output via selective attention” (Ellis, 2008, p. 257, cited in Xuan Teng, 2010).  In addition, Shiffrin and Schneider (1977b, cited in Blake, 2008) view fluency incorporates automatic processing theory in which the skills are fast, effortless, and do not require the use of short-term memory.

Learning skills are identified as the dependent variable. In details, the following discussion includes oral fluency or speaking skill and vocabulary development. In contrast, the independent variables focus on four areas namely learners’ age, type of materials, type of applications and duration of the study.

2.0 Participants’ age

Based on the research papers, it is found the learners’ age does influence the degree of learning skills.  First, for vocabulary development, Xuan Teng’s (2010) findings show ENGL 101D participants with average age of 23 to 30 perform better compared to the 18 to 29 year-old of ENGL 99L participants.  It is proven as ENGL 101D participants made use of more complex language than ENGL 99L participants. Moreover, it is supported by Lee (2009) in which the investigated participants within the age range of 23 to 35 do well in negotiation of meaning. Thus, it can be said chat benefits more the older participants in fostering comprehension and new retention of new second language vocabulary.

Besides, for oral fluency or speaking skill, it could be said the university participants have positive attitude towards chat. Blake (2008)figures out the Internet Chat group in Purdue University demonstrates high average gain scores on five measures; specifically speaking rate, phonation or time ratio, articulation rate, mean length of run and  average length of pause. It is line with Xiao Long and Long Dayou’s (2007) finding in which the chat group achieves a higher score in speaking skill compared to the control group. Similarly, Payne and Whitney (2002) mention participants spending half of their instructional time in a synchronous online environment are advantaged in their oral proficiency skill over those meeting face to face in the classroom.

3.0 Type of Materials

For vocabulary development, Xuan Teng (2010) incorporates Communication Task Typology that focuses on kitchen utensils. In contrast, Lee (2009) uses information- gap task highlights on the car’s auto parts. Even though the contents are different, both materials are quite similar as things are listed down to be described and guessed. These tasks are done in pairs in which a participant acts as an explainer whereas the other is a guesser via online chat. In fact, both studies claim these CMC interaction tasks help participants to acquire new lexical items (Xuan Teng, 2010; Lee, 2009).

4.0 Type of Applications

It was found the researchers apply different application for chat such as MOODLE; Modular Object Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment (Xuan Teng, 2010), MSN messenger (Lee, 2009) and Skype (Payne and Whitney, 2002). However, they do not have significant effects on the results of both oral fluency and vocabulary development because all studies indicate chat receives positive attitude from the participants.

5.0 Duration of the Study

      Blake (2008) conducted the study for six weeks. On the other hand, Payne and Whitney (2002) have a longer duration, specifically 15 weeks. It is believed the findings are not affected with the large gap. As a proof, both studies that highlight on oral fluency show the chat groups attain positive results.

6.0 Conclusion

To sum up, it is believed chat is a useful medium for effective teaching and learning process. The findings are parallel in which they indicate chat gives a positive impact towards vocabulary development and oral fluency. However, since chat has not been tested in Malaysia academic setting, its effectiveness as a teaching tool is questionable. Considering the current situation, it is believed chat is impossible to be applied.  Nevertheless, this assumption might be wrong. Therefore, it is suggested the researchers should conduct a study in the local classroom whereby the findings might change the teachers’ present teaching aid.