[...] In our introduction, we first want to draw on the field of educational MOOs.
The upcoming of personal computers, it’s speedy with more advancing progress up
to this date and the easy accessibility at home or in educational institutions such as
schools and universities. Language Classes in universities for example, have already
led the 1980s to an ever increasing awareness that there is an almost unsustainable
and enormously large potential in its use for classroom purposes and other activities.
Although manifold, in the focus of our interest (for we are dealing with EFL learning
in our seminar) we measured L2 acquisition and the learnability of a Foreign
Language with the help of a computer program. We will thus narrow down several
possible choices we could make relating to teaching/learning software and choose
one of them. The program that we will thoroughly discuss in the next few chapters is
one that already, from a technological standpoint, has a long history. We must look
back to 1979 when the first virtual MUD (Multi-User Dungeon or Multi-User Domain),
the predecessor of the MOO (Multi-User Domain, Object-Oriented) comes into play.
MUDs do not crucially differ from MOOs, as becomes evident in their being virtually
the same program based on a similar code, the MOO, however, evolved from the
MUD as a more advanced version sporting some more additional and useful features
and making it therefore better to use for classroom purposes.1
First of all, what is a/the MOO? The MOO is a publicly accessible database,
available and accessible from anywhere on the world via network systems like, most
popular, the Internet. Users must log on to a server in order to gain access. Some of
this works via telnet or clients include MacMOOSE, Pueblo or encore Xpress. Curtis
and Nichols say that MOOs are “frequently referred to as text-based virtual realities”
(own italics, K.M, D.B) (TBVRs)2, because they are based on unformatted text, rather
than a colourful user graphic interface (UGI). The term object-oriented, hidden in
MOO, means MOO players can add new spaces in the form of rooms or other
objects to the classroom.
1 To provide the reader with a complete history on MUD/MOO environments would by far exceed the
length of this paper. For a complete history, see Holmevik, Jan Rune; Haynes, Cynthia:
MOOniversity:a student´s guide to online learning environments. 2000. p. 1 ff.
2 Curtis/Nichols 1993: n.p.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. The discrepancy between synchronous electronic and spoken discourse
II.1 Writing vs. speaking
II.2 Formality vs. informality
II.3 Turn-taking strategies in MOO discourse
III. The provision of corrective feedback in the Münster-Vassar project
III.1 Direct peer correction
III.1.1 Feedback on grammar
III.2 Indirect peer correction
III.3 Students’ inquiries after unknown vocabulary
III.4 The supervision of peer utterances
IV. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Topics
This paper investigates the nature of computer-mediated communication in educational MOO environments by analyzing transcripts of exchanges between German students of English and American students of German. The primary objective is to evaluate how synchronous electronic discourse functions, how it differs from spoken language, and how learners utilize specific strategies for peer feedback and language acquisition.
- The impact of synchronous electronic discourse on turn-taking behaviors.
- Differences between formal writing and electronic communication in virtual classrooms.
- The role of direct and indirect peer correction strategies in L2 development.
- Methods for vocabulary acquisition through learner inquiries within MOO environments.
- The influence of participant attitudes and social dynamics on effective online interaction.
Excerpt from the Book
III.2 Indirect peer correction
Indirect peer correction was found relatively often, which is one of the most interesting outcomes of Kötter’s study regarding error correction. The students didn’t hesitate to correct their partners in an indirect way. The next excerpt shows a perfectly formed way of peer correction from a German ESL student, as well as her methodological insight in teaching:
SaraH sagt, "Es ist (confusing). Wie sagt man confusing auf Deutsch?"
Barbara to SaraH "verwirrend"
SaraH sagt, "Ich bin oft hier verwirrend!"
Barbara to SaraH Ich bin auch ziemlich oft verwirrt.
SaraH sagt, "Ihr Koennt mein Deutsch korrigieren. verwirrt!"
First, what Sarah does is she asks after an unknown word (confusing), Barbara immediately responses and says “verwirrend” that is she gives her the infinitive (notice: marking, that is setting brackets or quotation marks when asking after unknown vocabulary etc., is a convention in the educational MOO and often practised by the students). Then SaraH is using the newly acquired word embedded in a context (“Ich bin oft hier verwirrend!”). But her utterance is wrong. Sarah, instead of correcting her in a direct way and hereby interrupting the conversation very deliberately embeds the right verb form in her meaningful sentence (“Ich bin auch ziemlich oft verwirrt.”). What is most striking here is that SaraH recognizes that she has been corrected by Sarah indirectly, seems grateful and says “Ihr Koennt mein Deutsch korrigieren. verwirrt!”. This is absolutely interesting, because this is what indirect error correction aims at: letting the student know that his utterance was wrong without interrupting the conversation, but having corrected him and paved the way that the likelihood to make the same error again is enormously decreased. SarahH even shows her gratitude and appreciation towards having been corrected in this manner. A direct correction would probably have had a negative effect and the conversation would have gone on in a different style.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: This chapter provides the theoretical background of MOOs and defines the paper's focus on L2 acquisition within the Münster-Vassar project.
II. The discrepancy between synchronous electronic and spoken discourse: This section examines the characteristics of real-time computer-mediated communication and compares it to spoken and written linguistic modes.
III. The provision of corrective feedback in the Münster-Vassar project: This chapter analyzes how students provide feedback, focusing on direct and indirect strategies and the role of peer supervision.
IV. Conclusion: The concluding chapter summarizes the key findings, emphasizing the adaptability of students to online classrooms and the significance of context-embedded error correction.
Keywords
MOO, synchronous CMC, electronic discourse, language acquisition, Münster-Vassar project, peer correction, L2 learning, turn-taking, computer-mediated communication, educational software, virtual environments, language teaching, discourse analysis, foreign language learning, online interaction.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper examines how students communicate and interact within an educational MOO environment, focusing specifically on computer-mediated communication as a tool for Foreign Language Learning.
What are the central themes discussed in this work?
The central themes include the nature of electronic discourse, the dynamics of turn-taking, the effectiveness of peer-to-peer feedback, and strategies used for vocabulary and grammar acquisition.
What is the primary objective of this study?
The primary objective is to analyze transcripts from the Münster-Vassar project to understand how synchronous electronic interaction influences L2 learning and what specific correction strategies students adopt.
Which scientific methodology is used?
The research employs a qualitative analysis of written transcripts from MOO sessions, evaluating student interactions and feedback patterns based on discourse analysis principles.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section details the differences between electronic and spoken discourse, the formality of online communication, and various forms of peer correction, including both direct and indirect methods.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
Core keywords include MOO, electronic discourse, L2 acquisition, peer correction, computer-mediated communication, and language interaction.
How do students handle communication difficulties in crowded MOO rooms?
Students utilize specific software commands such as "to" and "whisper," use their partner's names to direct attention, or employ emoticons to manage the flow of conversation effectively.
Why is indirect peer correction considered more effective than direct correction in the MOO?
Indirect correction allows learners to improve their language accuracy without interrupting the conversational flow or negatively impacting the relaxed social atmosphere, thus preventing potential demoralization.
- Quote paper
- Kai Mühlenhoff (Author), 2003, Electronic Discourse in educational Moos, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/17885
