Herding Cats: A Descriptive Case Study Of a Virtual Language Learning Community
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Research on the Use of the Internet in ESL/EFL Classes
Research on Virtual Community Development
Research on Online Distance Learners
Research on Virtual Methodology
This chapter focuses on the literature related to the use of the Internet for offering classes in English as a second or foreign language and includes both print and online sources. Among the print sources I used were recent books and articles in the field, as well as searches of data bases such as ERIC database, the indices of publications in the humanities, social sciences, education and indices related to the teaching of foreign languages, the Dissertations Abstracts International (DAI) database. I also carried out online conversations with online ESL/EFL instructors such as Steven Haber, David Tillyer, Arun-Kumar Tripathi, Ruth Vilmi, and Kevin Wilkinson as well as with operators of online ESL/EFL schools such as Marsha Chan, Elaine Hoter, Debra Marsh, Jean Vermel, and David Winet.
At the same time, since my research was conducted completely online, the chapter also covers the literature related to virtual methodology.
I have divided my review of the literature into four major areas of research.
First, since my study concerns a virtual EFL class, the longest, section concentrates on research related to the use of the Internet in ESL and EFL Classes. In this section, I give a description of what the literature indicates about how the Internet impacts on ESL and EFL teaching. While research in this field concentrates on the use of the Internet as an adjunct to the regular face-to-face class, there recent studies related to virtual classes.
The use of the Internet in the ESL and EFL class leads directly into the second section that concentrates on the development of virtual communities. While most research in this area relates to communities that have developed in newsgroups and email discussion lists, there is also some literature on MOO-based communities. Since WTI uses both a discussion list and a MOO environment, much of this research is directly related to my study.
Section three covers research related to students in distance education courses, specifically online courses. The section describes what the literature says about these students. The section concentrates on adult learners because most students who currently take online courses are adults.
Finally, in the fourth section I concentrate on research related to virtual methodology. Due to its relatively new development as a field, there is little published research related to virtual methodology. The section deals specifically with virtual ethnographies and online interviewing.
Research on the Use of the Internet in ESL/EFL Classes
An intense review of the literature related to the teaching of ESL/EFL through the Internet reveals a dearth of published research in this area. Two years ago, in 1999, many postings on discussion lists related to teaching ESL online mentioned research that was currently being carried out but had not yet yet been published. Two years later, in 2001, much of that research still has not been published. In 1995, Frizler (1995) stated, “the body of published material which currently exists on the subject of using the Internet in the ESOL classroom is sparse at best” (p.9). If she was writing today, the same statement could be used. Most of the information for her thesis was “through online discussion lists and their archives, newsgroups, the World Wide Web, and e-mail communication and MOO discussions with international colleagues” (p. 9) and her own direct experience. Conditions are somewhat better today, but still not ideal (Condon, 2000; Kern and Warschauer, 2000; Merisotis and Phipps, 1999; Warschauer and Kern, 2000).
In discussing the literature related to distance language learning courses, Boyle (1995) indicates that, a search of journal databases as far back as 1980 showed that there was almost no mention of distance learning in the leading journals devoted to language teaching. Almost no language teachers were familiar with the few distance learning projects in EFL and ESL that had taken place. In fact, as Merisotis and Phipps (1999) say, “the vast majority of what is written about distance learning is opinion pieces, how-to articles, and second-hand reports” (p. 1).
According to Condon (2000) most literature on virtual classrooms currently available is exploratory in nature. It describes attempts to use networked computer environments, either as a means of offering classes or as an adjunct to a face-to-face class. Further, most of what it describes is the virtual classroom that is based on the use of e-mail. Almost none of the studies currently available deal with chat- and MOO-based classes. Of these studies, most focus on the contrast between the traditional and the computer-equipped classroom.
Warschauer and Kern (2000) also support this. They found that
the field was long on pedagogical suggestions for exploring networking technology but short on research. Despite a growing body of general research on computer-mediated communication, relatively few studies have been published that deal specifically with second language learning contexts (xi).
Further, Kern and Warschauer (2000) also mention this when they state that
to date, there has been relatively little published research that explores the relationship between the use of computer networks and language learning. The simple question to which everyone wants an answer – Does the use of network-based language teaching lead to better language learning? – turns out not to be so simple (2).
Kern and Warschauer (2000) indicate that the reason there are few published studies is because this is an emerging field. They also find that there needs to be further in-depth studies on the contexts in which internet-based language teaching and learning occur. This is especially so in light of the fact that much of what has been published to date consists of informal reports by teachers concerning what they have done in their classes.
As mentioned above, most literature concentrates on the use of the Internet (in general) as an adjunct to the regular classroom (Berge, 1993; Berge and Collins, 1995; Graus, 1997; Herron, 1998; Kitao and Kitao, 1996; Swaffar, Romano, Markley and Arens, 1998; Wang and Dalton, 1997; Warschauer, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1999, 2000; Warschauer and Kern, 2000; Warschauer, Turbee and Roberts, 1996). At the same time, there is also much literature related to the use of the Internet in specific Internet media. Almost all of this research is also related to the Internet as an adjunct to face-to-face classes and concerns asynchronous communication. The following is a list of research related to specific Internet media used as an adjunct to the regular classroom. While most of these deal specifically with ESL/EFL classes, two (Gonzalez-Bueno, 1998 and Cruz Piñol, 1997) relate to Spanish while others relate to classrooms in general.
Computer Conferences/Newsgroups: (Barber, 1995, 2000; Beauvois, 1992; Davis and Brewer, 1997; Davis and Chang, 1994-95; Kelm, 1992)
Email: (Aitsiselmi, 1999; Gonzalez-Bueno, 1998; Kroonenberg, 1994-95; Leh, 1997; Sayers, 1993; Shetzer, 1997; Soh and Soon, 1991)
Web-Based Instruction: (Cruz Piñol, 1997; Li and Hart, 1996)
Chats and MOOs/MUDs: (Boswell, 1997; Falsetti, 1995; Pelletieri, 2000; Turbee, 1996, 1997, 1999; Weber and Lieberman, 2000)
The only research related specifically to virtual ESL/EFL classes (not to the Internet as an adjunct to other classes) are Bicknell (1998), Coghlan (1999), Coghlan and Stevens (2000), Frank and Davie (2001) and Frizler (1995).
Bicknell (1998) studied and described an online ESL/EFL class for a paper for one of his classes. He spent some time in the class, interviewed the teachers, and described the class as he saw it.
Coghlan (1999) describes how to facilitate communication in an online class. To explain how the facilitating is done, he uses classes that he teaches or has taught in an online environment. At the same time, he suggests that, whenever possible, online classes should also incorporate an off-line (face-to-face) portion.
Coghlan and Stevens (2000) describe what students say about an online class they team teach. Some of their students were present in the conference and were willing to describe their experiences in the class.
Frank and Davie (2001) explain how they developed an online community. They then describe how this community assisted in the development of critical thinking skills.
Finally, Frizler (1995) developed an online writing class for her Masters thesis. In this thesis, she describes how the students participated in an asynchronous class that was taught completely by email and the World Wide Web.
This almost total lack of published research on virtual ESL/EFL classes may be related to the few such classes that are offered. Except for a handful of language schools (e.g., English Town, English for the Internet, English Learner, Peak English, and Vandar Online Language School (see “Appendix A: Internet Resources” for URL’s)), most ESL and EFL teachers who use the Internet do so within their own classes. A few have web sites where the students can come and receive help, either through tutoring or through access to documents (e.g., Dave’s ESL Cafe, Online ESL Palace, Randall’s ESL Cyber Listening Lab, Tower of English, Web Enhanced Language Learning (WELL) (see “Appendix A: Internet Resources” for URL’s)). All of these, however, are meant to be adjuncts to regular classes. They do not offer classes as such.
Research on virtual classes for first language students is a bit more numerous. Condon (2000), for example, describes the participation in an online writing class. Cogdill (2000) describes how students interact in flame wars in a virtual classroom. Hanson (2000) describes the pedagogical model used in an online advanced composition classroom. What all three of these have in common however, is their focus on describing the authors’ experiences in their own classes.
In 1996, Warschauer, Turbee and Roberts (1996) found that the most popular forms of Computer Mediated Communication for language teachers were still e-mail and asynchronous conferencing, but it was still not used extensively for distance learning for ESL/EFL students. Supplemental activities such as cross-cultural exchanges, pen pal writing, long-distance interviews, shared research projects, joint student publications, and multi-class simulations were (and still are) the most common use of the Internet. While they saw synchronous conferencing, becoming popular with composition teachers, it still had not become very common in the second-language classroom. Today the use of synchronous language practice is common in IRC chat rooms and MOOs such as MundoHispano for students of Spanish, MOOfrancais for students of French, and schMOOze University for ESL/EFL students (see “Appendix A: Internet Resources” for URLs), to mention the three most well known (Falsetti, 1995; Hall, 1998; Holmevik and Haynes (2000); Meloni, 1998; Turbee, 1996, 1997, 1999; Vilmi, 1998). Still, except in a very few cases, chat and MOO environments are generally used as supplemental activities in (or in addition to) regular face-to-face classes and not as a means of offering complete classes.
With the improvements in computer technology, synchronous (MOO- and chat-based) language classes have become more popular during the past two years. It is now common to find chat-based classes advertised on the Internet. In some cases, these are simple tutorial sessions for students who want a chance to practice their English. In other cases, they are full virtual classes that incorporate chat into their offering.
What the above literature about the use of the Internet in ESL/EFL class does show is that Internet-related language-learning activities can be beneficial to ESL/EFL students. Through the Internet, students write to communicate with a variety of people for authentic purposes. Therefore, students are motivated to write for a broad audience, which extends beyond the classroom, and not just compose assignments for the teacher. Students using e-mail with keypals, for example, have a “real” audience--the keypal--to read what they write as well as having a purpose more in keeping with real-life writing--the need to communicate with their keypals (Bergs and Collins, 1995; Warschauer, 1996).
According to Warschauer (1996), second and foreign language teachers began to integrate electronic communication into language teaching in the late 1980s. For teachers of second language writing, the rationale and motivation were largely the same as for their first language counterparts, chief among these being that electronic communication can bring about more equal participation among second and foreign language students as well as offering an audience other than the teacher and a reason for writing other than a class assignment.
Ruth Vilmi, one of the leading proponents of online language learning activities, is constantly looking for distance learning language courses. Vilmi (1998) adds more to the usefulness of electronic communication. She found that there are 11 ways in which the Internet has been used in language learning.
1. reference and research
2. listening resources
3. finding grammar rules
4. interactive exercises, activities, or drills for vocabulary, grammar, listening, and reading
5. analyzing texts
6. concordancing
7. searching for structures by which the student can deduce rules
8. publishing writing with the opportunity for reader feedback
9. communicating internationally with e-mail keypals or newsgroups
10. communicating in real time
11. taking on-line courses, with tutor or teacher participation
Of the few distance courses specifically for language learning that Vilmi (1998) found, David Winet's courses were perhaps the first to be taught online, and he offers them free of charge on an experimental basis at English for Internet. That is not to say there are no other online language schools. Besides English Town, English Learner, and Peak English (see “Appendix A: Internet Resources” for URLs), the University of Hull in the United Kingdom offers two online ESL/EFL classes in their site called Merlin: World Class. Since 1997, this school has been teaching 15-week, Internet-based, distance EFL courses in English for Business and English for Communication . According to the coordinator, however, the classes have had few students enrolled at any one time (Meloni, Personal Communication).
Even in the area of online courses in general, there is little to be found. As Schrum (1998) says,
The impact of online courses has only begun to be investigated. To date, the traditional distance education literature has focused on the design and implementation of correspondence, compressed video, or satellite broadcast delivery courses (p. 53).
While this literature may provide some parallels, it does not directly relate to on online courses.
Swan (1994) also found that students taking Interactive Video Network (IVN) classes in Spanish, College Algebra, AP English, and Calculus liked the IVN class and would take another one if offered. Further, they were well satisfied with IVN classes, thought they lived up to their expectations as well as to the expectations of their parents, and that they did as well in the IVN classes as they did in their traditional F2F classes. While this was not a study of Internet classes, studies on the use of the Internet in education conducted by Goodwin, Hamrick and Stewart (1993) and by Valance (1998) found this same to be true of their students.
In discussing the use of online classes in general, Harasim (1990) summarized the characteristics of online courses as place and time independence, many-to-many communication, collaborative learning, and dependence on text-based communications to promote thoughtful and reflective commentary. Kearsley, Lynch and Wizer (1995) also found a high degree of interactivity, opportunity to see the work of others and to compare their ideas with those of their classmates, and ample time for students to reflect and compose their responses in the online classroom.
Even recent research that covers Internet-based language courses is limited. Again, most of the published literature consists of reports on how teachers or schools set up and operated their classes. Those reports that do relate to research into the students, deal with the need to develop communities in online classes instead of the learners’ perceptions of what they go through in the class (Bliss, 2000; Cherny, 1999; Coghlan and Stevens, 2000; Kasper, 2000; Weber and Lieberman, 2000; Yurgens, 2000).
According to M. K. Barbour, (personal communication, July 28, 1998), Internet-based distance education appears to be becoming much more popular than the traditional audio conferencing or text-based material. This echoes Price (1996) who saw that the rapid growth in popularity of the Internet had made online teaching an alternative for colleges and universities and Shoemake (1996) who indicates that online teaching has dramatically increased in every discipline allowing students to even earn graduate degrees almost completely online. Research also sees distance education in all its forms as becoming more widely accepted in higher education (Eastmond, 1998). Hodgson (1999), for example, found that 58 percent of two-year and 62 percent of four-year public colleges offered distance education courses, with another 28 percent of two-year and 23 percent of four-year public colleges planning to start offering distance education courses within three years.
Today, books on how to set up and operate a virtual class are coming out every day. While many of these books are written by online teachers using their experience in online classes as the basis for their writing (while supplementing this experience with research into what other teachers and administrators have said), other books may be written by a team of teachers from one school and is specific for how classes are set-up and taught at that place (e.g., Khan, 1997; Ko and Rossen, 2001; Palloff and Pratt, 1999; Ryan, Scott, Freeman, and Patel, 2000).
According to Berge and Collins (1995), computer-mediated communication (CMC), and specifically the online classroom, offers opportunities for mentoring/tutoring, project-based instruction (individual and group), retrieval of information from online archives and databases, course management, interactive chat, personal networking and professional growth, peer review of writing, practice and experience using modern technology. All of these are being used today.
According to M. K. Barbour (personal communication, July 28, 1998) and K. Severn (personal communication, February 26, 1998), studying online has several advantages. In classes these two graduate students have taken, they found that the online class permitted them to learn at their own pace, at their own time, and in the physical location where they wanted to study. Class preparation and learning happened on their own schedules and they were able to take breaks, including fixing meals, in the middle of the class.
There are also disadvantages to online courses, as both Barbour and Severn recognized. First, while there are some courses that purport to deal with oral-aural skills, it is difficult to promote speaking and listening skills since it requires the use of special software and additional hardware such as microphones and speakers that many students do not yet have. It is also easy to procrastinate about assignments. Further, many students are not mentally prepared for distance learning (M. K. Barbour, personal communication, July 28, 1998; K. Severn, personal communication, February 26, 1998). This view was further supported by communication with online instructors such as Begum Ibrahim, Ruth Vilmi, and David Winet. It takes adjustments in habits and attitude, leading many who begin a class to fail to complete it. However, once this adjustment takes place, distance learning can, in the words of Severn, “be a fuller experience.”
Research on Virtual Community Development
Rheingold (1993b) defines virtual communities as “cultural aggregations that emerge when enough people bump into each other often enough in cyberspace” (p. 1). In expanding on this definition, he describes it as
A group of people who may or may not meet one another face-to-face, and who exchange words and ideas through the mediation of computer bulletin boards and networks. In cyberspace, we chat and argue, engage in intellectual discourse, perform acts of commerce, exchange knowledge, share emotional support, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, find friends and lose them, play games and metagames, flirt, create a little high art and a lot of idle talk. We do everything people do when people get together, but we do it with words on computer screens, leaving our bodies behind (Rheingold, 1993a, p. 58).
According to Palloff and Pratt (1999), “This reasoning seems to indicate that there are, in fact, such things as virtual community” (p. 21). Blanchard (2000), Frank and Davie (2001), Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, and Shoemaker (2000) and Müller (1999) also hold this view.
According to Blanchard (2000), there is significant debate as to the existence of virtual communities. This is echoed by researchers such as Cherny (1999), Harasim (1993), Q. Jones (1997) and McLaughlin, Osborne and Smith (1995) who ask if communities as we think of them in a traditional sense really can exist. The major problem with answering this question is one of defining community (See also, Müller, 1999). Most people feel they can identify whether or not a particular group of people is a community, but nobody has yet developed an adequate definition.
Blanchard (2000) indicates that the major obstacle to defining community is determining the need for a common physical location. She states, however, that “traditional communities do not necessarily have to share a physical location” (p. 3). Examples of non-physically located communities are the academic community and social and service clubs such as the Lions Club, and the Rotary club, where people share an interest, but not necessarily a common location. Blanchard then goes on to state that “Definitions of a community require a unifying characteristic for the community members. However, it does not have to be a location. It may be an interest or some sort of cultural identity” (p. 3).
The most important element in the definition of a community may be what Mann (1978) and McMillian and Chavis (1986) call the members’ sense of community. This sense of community is the feelings members have of belonging to a community and is what makes a community different from just a group.
Blanchard (2000) sees the community as consisting of three components: a) some characteristic the members have in common (i.e., location or interest), b) a set of processes that help the community function, and c) a sense of community). She then indicates that the only necessary requirement to apply this definition to virtual communities is to clarify that the common characteristic is an interest in a particular topic. That does not mean, however, that all groups that share a common interest are communities. If a group has not developed a sense of community, it is a group, not a community.
Müller (1999) also finds three criteria for a Community to exist: a) frequent communication among members, b) commonly shared norms, values and collective practices, and c) defined boundaries between members and non-members. Similarly, Cherny (1999), in looking at research on communities, found common characteristics in the various definitions. Among these characteristics are a) an area of interest or location, b) the need for social interaction, and c) common ties among the members.
Like the others, Frank and Davie (2001) also see a sense of community as important in community building. They are more specific, however, in stating that it plays an important role in helping students to express their views.
According to Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, and Shoemaker (2000) research reveals that building learning communities has a number of positive outcomes for individuals. First, there is a greater chance of collaborative learning when there are strong interpersonal ties among group members. Second, these ties also increase the flow of information among all members. Third, by developing a sense of trust, it fosters support in times of need. Fourth, individuals experience a sense of well-being.
Although studies indicate it is possible to create and maintain online communities (See, for example, Baym 1995, 1997; McLaughlin, Osborne and Smith, 1995; Reid, 1995; Rheingold, 1993; Smith, McLaughlin and Osborne, 1996), this does not mean that all online groups that call themselves communities are, in reality, communities. Quite often they are just groups of people. According both to Blanchard (2000) and to Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins and Shoemaker (2000), it is important to ask if members feel a sense of community.
According to Kollock and Smith (1999), while critics of virtual communities often claim that online communities are more isolated than real-life groups, “their comparison seems to be an ideal of community rather that f2f communities as they are actually lived” (p. 16). Further, “one can find online groups that meet any reasonable definition of community” (p. 23). This view is also held by Wellman and Gulia (1999) who state that “most community ties in the contemporary western world are specialized and do not form densely knit clusters of relationships. Most members of a person’s community network do not really know each other” (p. 171).
As in the use of the Internet in teaching ESL/EFL (as mentioned above), much of the research on virtual community building is also specific to certain Internet media. Much of the literature discusses community within the confines of computer conferencing (also known as bulletin boards and newsgroups) (e.g., Baym, 1992, 1995, 1997; Blanchard, 2000; Donath, 1999). Other researchers look at community as it develops within a MOO environment (e.g., Bechar-Israeli, 1995; Cherny, 1999; Curtis, 1992, 1997; Frank and Davie, 2001; Reid, 1991, 1995). Finally, a few look at community as it is developed within a web-based class (e.g., Bliss, 2000; Carlson and Repman, 2000a, 2000b; Conrad, 1999; LaMonica, 2001)
In deciding if an online group can be classified as a community (or if it is merely an online group), Blanchard (2000), Frank and Davie (2001), and Müller (1999) identify four components that most communities have in common.
a) Members share some common characteristic such as location or interest)
b) There is interaction among the members of the community.
c) There are defined boundaries between inside and outside, which leads to the development of a common identity
d) Members share an identification with and attachment to this community (i.e., a sense of community).
This study looks at the WTI class from the point of view of these four characteristics.
Research on Online Distance Learners
Most research tends to agree that the online (Internet-based) distant learner appears to be older, more mature and share many characteristics in common. They tend to be self-directed (Biner and Dean, 1997; Buchanan, 1999; Cahoon, 1998; Carlson and Repman, 2000; Eastmond, 1998; Schifter, 1999; Schrum, 1998), believe that life experience is important for their learning (Cahoon, 1998; Eastmond, 1998; Porter, 1997), need to apply what they learn (Cahoon, 1998; Eastmond, 1998; Schifter, 1999; Schrum, 1998), able to manage change (Rogers, 2000), and are struggling to balance their studies with their family and work relationships (Cahoon, 1998; Schifter, 1999; Porter, 1997).
According to LaMonica (2001), however, there is a lack of research on what students are really like in web-based courses. Of the research that exists, Conrad (1999), sees self-direction as a learned trait that may not be present in all students participating in web-based courses. While Carlson and Repman (2000) found that successful distance learning students are usually mature, highly motivated, and self-directed, they also state that these characteristics “may not describe our average student" (p. 12).
Although beginning and advanced ESL/EFL students often try to take online courses, Li and Hart (1996) indicates that “intermediate-level learners seem to be the audience who can profit most immediately from Web-based courseware” (p. 5). At the same time, those students who appear to be most successful in the WTI community are precisely the advanced students. This may be due to the manner in which the students are expected to participate (using what Nyrop (personal communication) calls chaos navigation. A complete description of this type of navigation can be found in Chapter 4: Controlled Chaos . When it comes to student success in finishing a course, researchers are just as united in their findings. Eastmond (1998), for example, found that many of the characteristics about student success in traditional distance education programs are also applicable to Internet-based courses. Among the most important such characteristics are social and academic integration, student control of and responsibility for their learning, intrinsic motivation, and positive evaluations.
According to Priest (2000) successful online learners have two things in common: they are committed to their studies, and they have a willingness to learn. Further, she found that they share particular learner characteristics such as the ability to take command of and responsibility for their own learning, and the ability to tailor their learning for themselves instead of accepting something ready-made. Further, they have a greater zest for learning and make better use of their time.
Meanwhile, Schrum (1998) found from personal experience and interviews that the following characteristics are associated with success in online courses: Students had a strong reason for taking the course, moved through the lessons fairly rapidly, had support from their family, and began with a certain level of technical knowledge and experience. This agrees also with the findings of Biner and Dean (1997) and Schifter (1999). The one point where Biner and Dean (1997) disagrees is in the relationship with age, gender or socio-economic status. While other authors indicate that there is a relationship, they found none.
Research on Virtual Methodology
In carrying out my study I used what B. Mason (1996) calls a virtual ethnography (See also, Hine 1998, 2000a, 2000b; B. Mason 1999), which is “simply an ethnography that treats cyberspace as the ethnographic reality” (B. Mason, 1996, p 4). What differentiates a virtual ethnography from a regular ethnography, then, is that it occurs completely online. The researcher becomes a part of the virtual community he/she is studying, but does not physically meet the other members of the community except by accident.
According to Hine (1998, 2000a), the essential features of ethnography are difficult to define. Most people would agree that the two principal characteristics of ethnography are the continuous presence of the researcher in the field setting and the researcher’s engagement with the everyday life of the inhabitants. In a virtual ethnography, this means the active and continuous participation of the researcher in the virtual space being studied. Hine (2000a), considers the Internet as a site for interaction that is ethnographically available because of the assumption that “what goes on within the Internet is social interaction” (p. 50).
As discussed below, there are conditions related to conducting online interviews that face-to-face interviewers seldom encounter. The email discussion list “Virtual Methods” (see “Appendix A: Internet Resources” for URL) deals with research using the Internet. In a discussion on this list, Waern and Slater discussed some of the problems with synchronous online interviews (Slater, message on online interviews posted to Virtual Methods discussion list, 27 Feb 2000; Waern, message on online interviews posted to Virtual Methods discussion list, 27 Feb 2000). Among the points they raised were:
1. The interface of most chats and MOOs are not interview-friendly. First, the channel may not be serious enough to be suitable for interviews. Second, most of these spaces need extra features such as a private room where you do not get disturbed and the ability to log the interview. Third, the people being interviewed are usually involved in quite a range of other activities while you are talking to them.
2. It is difficult to gauge the dropouts from an online interview study.
3. The synchronous nature of chats makes it more difficult to find times that suit both the interviewer and the informant, particularly when the participants are from different continents.
Paccagnella (1997) points out another problem with virtual studies. The membership of any virtual community always consists of both people who actively participate and those (often the great majority) who merely read the messages without actively participating in most discussions. Further, as B. Mason (1996, 1999) points out, much of the communication that takes place in an online community actually occurs via private email. If a researcher merely observes what takes place in the public portions of the community, he/she will miss much of the give-and-take that occurs.
According to B. Mason (1996, 1999), there are three basic strategies for studying a text-based virtual community.
1. Save all the messages written to it.
Although this might look like the ethnographer’s paradise (observing without being observed) the researcher should realize that many members of a virtual community also communicate via private email. By just reading the messages that are posted to the public space the researcher misses out on what goes on behind closed doors.
Paccagnella (1997) also finds problems with merely copying and reading the text (emails and logs). Logs lack at least two aspects of interaction. First they do not record the nature of turn taking, which can occur over a few seconds in chat or take several days in newsgroups and mailing lists. It also fails to record the time it takes to type a response, which helps to shape the collective mood of the community. Second, they ignore the actual experiences of individual participants at their own keyboards in their own rooms all around the globe.
2. Use an electronic survey.
Although such surveys, if they are properly done, can provide snapshots of attitudes and thoughts within the community, all surveys face one of two basic features of asynchronous virtual communities--the split between those who read only (lurkers) and those who are active members (Posters).
While Hine (2000a, 2000b) sees Web based surveys as useful for acquiring data on a predefined topic, she also sees them as facing the same problems as regular mail surveys--defining the sample population and low response rates. To combat the low response rates, she recommends that the researcher contact potential informants via email and ask them if they would prefer to answer by regular mail, email or the web.
3. Use email interviews.
While this may also seem like an ideal solution (send an email and wait for a reply), there is a danger of information overload. When too many informants are answering questions sent by email, it is sometimes difficult to remember who is answering which set of questions. This can be handled by setting the email into the context of an interview by making the subject of the email mention which set of questions is being answered. To do this, the researcher sends an email with three or four questions, and then waits for a response before posting the next set. In this way, it is possible to set up a semi-structured interview in advance while allowing for the necessary changes required by the informant’s answers. Further, each set of questions should include the subject: “Interview, part x” so that the relationship is defined within the communicative act.
According to Mann and Stewart (2000), text-based media “is not an appropriate method for research which seeks to observe the ‘real’ world” (p. 84). At the same time, they point out that recent research that focuses on virtual communities is challenging this idea. Further, they point out that most virtual interviews are carried out using email. They also found that “researchers who have carried out non-standardized interviews using asynchronous CMC are divided about their success” (p. 76). On the other hand, they note that Bennett (1998) used chat rooms to carry out in-depth interviews and preferred chat to either face-to-face or email alternatives because it allowed for a balance between the researcher and the informant as well as for negotiated meaning.
A further element of the virtual ethnography is directly related to the virtual space in which the research takes place. According to Thompson, Straubhaar and Bolyard (1998), ethnographies have always taken advantage of written materials from a culture. The use of written materials, however, has usually been only a part of the data examined. In the case of virtual research, the researcher has nothing but text. The virtual ethnographer cannot observe people except through their text. Even in the case of online interviews, the data to be examined is text. Although this emphasis on text can be limiting in the amount of information the researcher can observe, it also presents the opportunity for the researcher to find more information since “all speech, behavior, community rules, and community history is, in principle, likely to be available online for the researcher's inspection” (Thompson, Straubhaar and Bolyard, 1998).
In carrying out online interviews, Bennett (message on “online interviewing” posted to virtual-methods discussion list, February 17, 2000) found success with one to one chat using programs such as ICQ. She also found that the quality of the data generated in this way depended on a sustained relationship of equals (not interviewer/informant) between both people.
On the other hand, Waern (message on “online interviewing” posted to virtual-methods discussion list, February 27, 2000) sees several problems with interviewing in a chat room.
1) The channel may not be "serious" enough to be suitable for "serious" interviews.
2) It is difficult to gauge the dropouts from an interview study.
3) The interface of chats and MUDs is not "user-friendly" for interview purposes.
4) The synchronous nature of chats makes it more difficult to find times that suit both the researcher and the informant.
Slater (message on “online interviewing” posted to virtual-methods discussion
list, February 27, 2000) sees interviews as events embedded in much more complex
relationships with people. He sees the interview-unfriendly nature of chat
being the result of the range of other activities the informant is involved
in while participating in the interview. He finds it important for the researcher
to be able to flirt, banter, have fun with chat, be playful, use the lingo
and conventions fluently, and slip in the questions as part of the ongoing
events. This almost always means building up a personal presence over time.
Kendall (message on “online interviewing” posted to virtual-methods discussion list, February 27, 2000) agrees with Slater that it is important to be in the community for a long time, and to know when to ask questions. She sees the success of online interviewing as dependent on the researcher’s relationships with people there and the research topic.
As we have seen, the amount of research related to using the Internet in the ESL/EFL classroom has grown considerably in the past two to three years. What has not changed, however, is the paucity of research dealing with the use of the Internet to actually offer the ESL/EFL class. The Internet is still seen as an adjunct to the classroom, and is used as such. It is used much more than previously, and some researchers are also looking at virtual language classes but, as Coghlan (personal communication) explained to me when I described my study to him, most teachers still see dual mode (online and face-to-face) as the ideal way to offer ESL/EFL classes.
We have also seen that Internet-related language-learning activities can be beneficial to ESL/EFL students. Through the Internet, students write to communicate with a variety of people for authentic purposes. Therefore, students are motivated to write for a broad audience, which extends beyond the classroom, and not just compose assignments for the teacher.
In the area of constructing virtual communities, we have seen that the literature accepts the reality of virtual communities. But we have also seen that not everything that calls itself a community is one. I will go into this more in depth in “Chapter 4: Controlled Chaos” where I analyze the community characteristics of WTI using the definitions and characteristics found in the literature.
We have also looked at the characteristics of successful online learners as found in the literature. They are generally more mature and motivated, as well as having a strong reason for taking the course. In the case of WTI, another characteristic is that the students have a certain level of technical experience and technology/software that is close to high-end.
Finally, we saw that the field of virtual ethnography is beginning to gain more published research. As a field of study, research about the Internet, using the Internet appears to be finally coming of age. More researchers are carrying out research in virtual communities and using ethnographic techniques such as participant observation and interviewing. This is further developed in “Chapter 3: Methodology” where I discuss my methodological considerations and explain why I selected a virtual ethnography as my means of generating data.