Herding Cats: A Descriptive Case Study Of a Virtual Language Learning Community
John H. Steele
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
May 2002
What Happens in an Online ESL/EFL Class?
How Does an Online ESL/EFL Class Become
a Language Learning Community?
WTI: A Language Learning Community?
What Differences Exist Between
Virtual and Real-World (Face-to-Face) Interviewing?
Online Interviewing as a Method of Data Generation
Considerations Related to the Medium
Considerations Related to Obtrusiveness
This chapter looks at each of the three main questions posed at the beginning
of my study.
What happens in an online ESL/EFL class?
How does an online ESL/EFL class become a language learning community?
What differences exist between virtual and “real-world” (face-to-face) interviewing?
As mentioned in above (Chapter 1: The Problem), this study does not
attempt to answer the question about how much English the students learn,
or how they learn, but what they do in the class and how they do it.
To answer these questions, I first describe in depth what the Writing
through the Internet (WTI) class looks like. Then I describe the characteristics
of a community and show how WTI meets them. Finally, I describe virtual
interviewing and methodology, emphasizing how it is different from the
same study carried out face-to-face.
What Happens in an Online ESL/EFL Class?
The Vandar Online English School (VOES) is an experiment in online learning developed by Samual Granten, an ESL professor at a major American university. It uses volunteer ESL/EFL specialists to offer free language courses to students from around the world who apply for the three or four month sessions. At the time this study was conducted, classes were offered at beginning, intermediate and advanced levels in Grammar and Writing, Pronunciation, English for Specific Purposes, and Conversation. Each instructor was expected to develop his or her own classes using prior teaching experience. All instructors were invited to meet in a monthly chat session to discuss common problems and share experiences. Further, instructors giving similar courses were encouraged to meet and discuss their experiences in the school. For this purpose, a special school/classroom/meeting place was developed in a chat site called The Palace. While being encouraged to develop their own courses, the classes are part of the VOES and, as such, are responsible to the school coordinator.
To join the school, students apply for the class they want, take a placement
test, and then wait for their name to be sent to a teacher who has an
appropriate section of the desired class. In general, courses are expected
to last from three to four months and are offered in asynchronous mode,
synchronous mode, or both. Most courses are asynchronous and are little
more than email discussion lists with an associated web page. There is
a high drop out rate among students, about half losing interest in the school
even before being invited to participate in a class. In an average term,
less than half of the 50-60 students assigned to a class will generally
answer the email invitation to enroll. Of those students who answer, between
one and five will usually complete the entire term. The school coordinator
has indicated that he feels a large part of the initial drop out rate is
due to the fact that people will often take the placement test just to see
what it is (Granten, Personal Communication). The drop out rate after the
class has begun may be due to several factors: 1) the fact that the school
is free, 2) the unexpected amount of work required in the class, and 3)
a loss of interest. As one of my informants Karla commented, many of the
students do not value what they do not pay for. Further, as the WTI coordinating
teacher commented, it may also be due to the students just wanting someone
to check their work before turning it in to either their boss or their teacher.
WTI is an outgrowth of this experience. Like most VOES classes, it
started out as an asynchronous class. Unlike most classes, however, the
coordinating teacher Stonners was not content to just try to improve an asynchronous
class. When the coordinator of VOES sent out a call for teachers to try
their hand at synchronous classes, he was among the first to respond. Three
other teachers and one student, who was asked to be student representative,
also participated in the chat classes. Eventually, three of the teachers
had combined their knowledge and students and started the class that eventually
became what today is called Writing through the Internet (WTI). One of the
key aspects of this class was eliminating the term system. Although the
VOES coordinator may still assign students to the class using a 3 or 4-month
schedule, in practice, once a student has joined the class he/she is encouraged
to remain as long as there is interest. Some students appear and then disappear
while others appear, disappear for a while, and then reappear. But there
are also students who have been continually active in the class for two
or three years. Students are from all parts of the world and all walks
of life. While there are two or three high school students, and a handful
of undergraduate college students, the majority of participants have completed
at least an undergraduate degree, and many are either involved in or have
completed graduate studies. There are government employees, factory workers,
self-employed workers, teachers, bankers, and unemployed members in the class.
As a class, WTI has three main means of communication between teachers
and students as well as communication and interaction among the students
themselves. According to the class web page, these means are called assignments.
The assignments are to join the e-class, join the chat sessions, and
start a web page.
The e-class is an email discussion list to which each member of the
community is expected to subscribe. Nobody who participates in the chat
session is really considered a member of the class until he/she joins the
e-class. Since students are from all parts of the world, no chat session
can have all members of the class present. During any given hour, some
members are available to participate, other members are sound asleep, and
others are at their places of employment. The e-class serves as a means
of connection among the various members of the class. It also serves as
a means of posting assignments for the students to answer. When an assignment
is posted to the list, students reply either privately to one of the teachers
or, it is hoped, to the entire list. Not only are students (and teachers
and friends) encouraged to post their responses to this discussion list,
but they are also encouraged to post other topics. Some students send jokes
and other items they have found in magazines and newspapers while others
write about themselves and their interests, but most either just answer
the assignments or post nothing. When somebody joins the e-class, he/she
is supposed to post an introduction telling about themselves and why they
are interested in the class. The other class members are supposed to write
to the list welcoming the new member to the class. In other words, the e-class
is meant to be the primary means of communication and interaction between
and among class members.
The chat sessions are held for two hours once a week. Originally, there
were three separate one-hour sessions--one for each of the three teachers--but
these were finally reduced to the current two-hour session in which all
three of the teachers participate. The sessions are not always held in
the same place, or even in one single place each week. More often than
not, there are two or even three separate venues for each session. Among
the sites that chat sessions are, or have been, held are a Homestead text-based
chat room on the WTI web site, The Palace visual chat client, the HearMe
voice chat client, Tapped In (a modified MOO environment) and the Yahoo!
Instant Messenger conferencing system (for voice).
The reason for holding the session in such a variety of sites is to
allow students who want to use a particular mode of communication to do
so, as well as to allow students who cannot connect to one site the opportunity
to connect, and participate, at another site. The closest to a universally
accessible chat room is the Homestead chat client, and there are times
that even Homestead is inaccessible to at least one or two participants.
Of these sites, both The Palace and the HearMe voice chat client are no
longer supported (and therefore no longer exist). Currently, the environments
being used by the class are the Tapped In MOO Environment and the Yahoo!
Instant Messenger (for voice and web cam conversations). This will be discussed
in depth in the sections titled Course development and
Change in the community over the period of the study, below.
Besides the regularly scheduled weekly chat sessions, members of the
class also tend to communicate with each other using one of three Instant
Messaging Systems. The first, and most common system used by community
members, is ICQ. Almost every member of the community has access to ICQ
and is a registered user. At the same time, some members of the class
prefer to use either MSN Messenger or Yahoo! Messenger. These informal
and impromptu chat (or IM) sessions tend to usually be of a short duration--more
of a “Hello. How are you?” type of communication, or a student asking for
specific help from one of the teachers. At the same time, they are integral
in developing the sense of community that is so important to this class.
When one member of the class feels free to contact any other member just
to ask how they are doing, it tends to develop a sense of trust and to
reinforce a sense of community.
The third assignment is to develop a web page. This can be either a
self-developed web page or one developed and maintained by the coordinating
teacher. Almost all of the web pages are of this second type. In fact,
even when a class member has his/her own web page, they also have one developed
and maintained by Stonners for the specific purposes of the class. As a
member sends in an assignment, it is corrected for grammatical errors and
placed on this page. The student is then asked to look at the assignment
as posted and compare it with the original assignment as sent. Since many
of these assignments are posted to the e-class, any student can check and
compare the two versions.
A more comprehensive explanation of these three assignments is discussed
in the section on the course development below.
WTI is basically a class for high intermediate and advanced ESL/EFL
learners, although there are also low intermediate students who participate
in the e-class on an irregular basis. In general, the students already
have a basis in English grammar (as taught in the schools of their country).
They are in the class to improve their English and, except in a very few
cases, have little interest in taking a formal online class. Based on this,
and on their experiences in previous classes for VOES, as well as in discussions
with other VOES teachers concerning mutual problems with student retention,
the WTI teachers have two overt language teaching assumptions. There
is also an assumption that, while not overtly mentioned, can be inferred
from the way the teachers and students interact in the class as well as
from the types of activities found on the community web page. At no time
has any teacher discussed the theoretical basis for any of these assumptions.
There is another inferred assumption that is not related to language teaching.
The overt assumptions on which the class is based are the following.
1) The class should be fun . To make a class fun, it should be conducted in a relaxed environment in which the students do not feel threatened. The lack of tests, the lack of detailed and set lesson plans, the lack of a set syllabus, and openness to the beliefs and ideas of the students support this assumption. The way class topics generally arise from the students also support/develop the assumption. Lately, it can also be seen in the activities such as virtual parties that occur in the class.
2) Grammar skills should not be emphasized nor taught in isolation. As mentioned earlier, the only grammar instruction consists of the revision of student writing before being placed on the student’s web page with the intention that the student will look at his/her work and compare it with the revised version. The only other overt language instruction comes when a student requests feedback on something he/she says, or when a student indicates he/she does not understand something else mentioned in the class.
3) A third assumption can be inferred through the class activities. This assumption is that language use , at least at the level of the students in WTI, i s best developed when used for actual communication in a natural situation and using real language. Although words and phrases from other languages often pop up, they are used in a way that indicates the international flavor of the community. Also, the teachers (and often students) will ask a student to tell them how to say something in their own language. The use of non-English vocabulary is seen especially in the voice chat sessions, where it is possible to hear how a word in Chinese, for example, is pronounced.
Although this third assumption is one that is only inferred (that is,
it is not stated overtly in any class document), The WTI coordinating
teacher recently wrote to another member of the community, an EFL teacher
who was going to be a co-presenter at a conference. Since he thought
it would be of interest to the WTI community at large, he also sent a copy
to the community at large. In this message, he expanded slightly on the
idea that using a language for actual communication is a necessary requirement
for learning the language.
One of the fascinating things about the Internet is this ability to get to know each other. I think our natural curiosity about each other, our natural desire for insights into foreign cultures, and the impetus for communication that these give us, are the great strengths for language learning of synchronous multimedia online communication (SMOC - I just coined an acronym!) (Stonners, personal communication, November 1, 2001).
4) A fourth, non-language related, assumption is that all participants in the WTI class will have access to the necessary technology and the knowledge to use it. As Bicknell (1998) observes, WTI requires both high-end computer equipment and Internet connectivity. In the absence of the first, the student can still participate, but will miss out on much of the interaction that takes place in the course. Recently, for example, there have been a few students who could not participate in the voice chat session due to a lack of the required technology. In the absence of Internet connectivity, the student cannot even participate. One other thing that Bicknell does not mention is that the students must have access to the specific chat clients and rooms used by the community. If any of the sites being used are blocked, the student cannot participate fully.
WTI is billed as an experiment in building world friendship through
language learning. As such, it is a language learning class in which the
students improve their English through interaction with native speakers,
as well as with other non-native speakers who, in general, do not speak
the same native languages. When I first joined this class, there were
three teachers and approximately 40 students. By the time I started my
study, the number of students had grown to over 45, and by the end of the
data generation, had grown to 50. Today, there are four teachers, one
student tutor and 59 other members from all over the world. Many of these
students are teachers of ESL/EFL in their countries. The one thing they
all have in common is an intense interest in online learning.
Most students in the WTI class are between 20 and 60 years old, are
of both sexes, are from several different countries and have already finished
at least an undergraduate degree. They come from Europe, Asia, South
America, North America, and Oceania. Students in the class also come
from all occupations. They are lawyers, engineers, graduate students, business
people, publishers, factory workers, high school students, teachers, accountants,
and employees of their government. Further, most of the students have
a fairly good command of both written and oral English and are able to
use the computer, including the Internet to communicate both synchronically
and asynchronically with native speakers of English. While they often have
problems with pronunciation, both their written and their listening skills
appear to be advanced as based both on their participation in voice chat
sessions and their written participation in text chat sessions.
The three regular teachers are practicing ESL/EFL professionals, two
in institutions of higher education and the third as a private teacher
of business English. They are experienced in online education, one of them
being a teacher trainer for online teachers. Further all three of them
are native speakers of English. The fourth teacher is the researcher.
Sally owns her own business and needs to communicate in English with
potential clients outside of her country. Since she wants to learn to
think in this language, she feels that she needs to have contact with
native speakers. As there are no native speakers in her community, she
decided to find a language school on the Internet. While surfing the net,
she found VOES and decided to enroll. She was accepted into WTI about
a year prior to the beginning of this study. WTI is her first experience
in an online course. At the same time, she is also thinking of taking another
online language course (Japanese) in the future, especially if she can find
one similar to WTI. Her previous experiences with studying English were
in school, in a language school in her community, and with a private teacher/tutor.
At one time she was a regular participant in the e-class and attended several
of the synchronous chat meetings. However, raising a child, operating a
business, and taking professional improvement classes at the university
currently leave her little time for connecting to the Internet. Although
she does not currently post to the e-class or join the weekly chat session,
she does contact other members of the class on an irregular basis and asks
how they are doing.
Sally likes the fact that she is able to get advice from native speakers
in other countries as well as being able to do research for her business
and classes in her free time. Further, she remembers a time when she
had an appointment with the British consul and was unsure of what to say.
She communicated with one of the teachers in WTI and asked for advice.
The teacher helped her plan and phrase what she wanted to tell the consul.
There was another time when she had to make an oral report about her business
and had to turn in a written version of the report. She was able to use
the Internet to get advice and help in editing and revising her report from
another WTI teacher.
George is a high school student who found out about VOES and WTI while
reading a newspaper. He contacted VOES and enrolled and was assigned
to the WTI course approximately six months before this study began. Although
he writes excellent English, his reason for taking the course is to improve
his English. His previous experience with learning English include his
school, two language schools in his country, and classes offered in Canada
and the United Kingdom. He has also studied Russian online and has taken
a course offered by another online course (englishlearner.com). Due to
time zone differences, George has never been a regular participant in the
synchronous part of the class. He has, however, been a regular contributor
to the e-class and has participated in synchronous text-chat sessions with
each of the WTI teachers and with at least one fellow WTI student. He has
also participated in voice chat sessions with one of the teachers and one
of the other students. Often, when he is online and finds one of the other
class members online at the same time, he contacts them via ICQ. He thinks
chat is important in online classes since a student can practice his English
with native speakers. Further, he says that while a student might not be
willing to tell a teacher he doesn’t understand something, by using chat
he demonstrates what he does or does not know.
Karla works in a financial institution where she often has to use English
to communicate with clients. She is a college graduate who felt that her
English was not good enough for her job. While reading a magazine she
came across an article about how to study online, including mention of
schools such as VOES. Since she could not afford to take a class in the
United States or other English speaking country, she decided to study
online. She contacted VOES and registered for a class with the school’s
coordinator. She has also participated in another online English class
(PeakEnglish). When WTI was organized, she was one of the first students
to sign up for it. She is a constant participant in both the synchronous
chat sessions and the e-class. Further, whenever one of the teachers is
presenting in an online conference (or a conference with an online portion),
she joins them online and talks about the student point of view of online
learning. Recently, while she has continued to be active in the chat sessions,
she has become less active in the e-class due to finding her “mind in blank.”
She especially likes the chat sessions since participation in these sessions
forces her to use English and has helped her improve her English ability
quite dramatically. She likes the voice chat portion because it aids in
improving her pronunciation.
Frank is also one of the original members of the WTI class. He is a
recent college graduate who teaches EFL in his country. He was looking
for native speakers to practice his English when he chanced upon VOES while
surfing the Internet. Like Karla, he first took the class with the school
coordinator and later joined WTI when it was organized. While he seldom
participates in the e-class due to time constraints, he tries to participate
in the weekly chat sessions whenever he is near a computer at the appropriate
time and can be considered a semi-regular member of the chat sessions.
He likes the freedom that the class offers for studying, although he wishes
there were more language-oriented discussions (grammar and reading exercises,
for example). He also likes the voice chat sessions since they bring people
closer together. He says that it is more exciting to know you are talking
to a real person instead of writing to a machine. His previous experience
in English learning was in school. When asked if he would take another
online course, he mentioned, quite frankly, “only if it is similar to WTI.”
Thomas, a computer specialist who works in the tourism industry of his
country, is another of the original students in WTI. Although he studied
English in school, he felt his English was not good enough and searched
for a way to practice with native speakers. While surfing the Internet,
he found VOES and signed up for classes. Eventually he met Barnes and was
recommended for WTI. When the class was organized, he was invited to join
them and did so. He finds the lack of pressure of this type of class one
of its best aspects. He feels that his writing has improved considerably
through the practice he has received in WTI and is now a regular participant
in the voice chat sessions. He hopes to put voice chat to use in improving
his speaking ability and listening comprehension.
My Participation in the Course
Although my study actually began in December, I joined the WTI class
at the beginning of the previous September. The teachers openly discussed,
in various chat sessions and in the e-class, my plans to eventually invite
members of the class to participate in my study. This discussion was
frank and indicated that all three teachers were supporting my plans.
The class members present in these sessions were not only open to participating
in my study, but also often asked me when we could start. Some of them
asked me if we could start even prior to my obtaining permission from the
IRB. I consistently explained that I could not gather any data prior to
receiving permission. The coordinating teacher also placed a description
of my study, together with all the communication related to it on my class
web page. There was no secret to my carrying out research in the class,
and it was often mentioned to new members and guests. In more than one case,
I was also pointed out to other prospective researchers as someone they
could get information from.
When I first joined the class, I expected it to be like other VOES classes--a
class with a definite start and finish date (generally 3 months). What
I found instead was a community of language learners and teachers who had
been meeting constantly since 1998. This, of course, colored the development
of my study in several ways, not the least of which was leading me to do
a description of this particular class instead of a general study using
students from several classes at the same school. Further, it led me
to observe what actually happened in the class instead of simply interviewing
the students. I will explain this more in depth in the section titled
Change in the
community over the period of the study, below.
Although I joined the class for purposes not related to the study (as
a teacher for VOES, I was (and still am) interested in participating in
this type of community), I feel the fact that I did so join it, as well
as the fact that I was completely open about eventually doing research involving
the class, helped to develop the trust that is so necessary in conducting
qualitative research in general and interviews in particular. By the
time I started my data collection, I was considered a regular member of
the weekly chat sessions. By the time my data collection was half completed,
my participation was consistent enough for the other teachers to invite
me to join them as a teacher. After the end of my data collection, I
have continued as a member of the class, and will continue to participate
as long as the WTI class continues.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) emphasize the importance of the researcher becoming
thoroughly acquainted with the site being studied. Such acquaintance
is especially important in virtual studies since the use of media such
as chat rooms and MOOs usually have their own codes of conduct. What is
acceptable in one room is often unacceptable in another and what is unacceptable
in one room may be the norm in another. Further, a researcher’s presence
in a physical (“real-world”) community may often be noted without his/her
active participation in the site (other than presence). A researcher can
often show his/her interest in an event through body language observable
to any member of the community. On the other hand, in the text only environment
of a virtual site, a person’s presence is only noted through active participation.
It is extremely difficult for a person who lurks (does not actively participate)
to develop the trust necessary for carrying out interview studies.
Qualitative researchers are unanimous in the need for researchers to
repay (give back to) the community for allowing access to its members for
purposes of the study (see, for example, Glesne and Peshkin, 1992; Lincoln
and Guba, 1985; Marshall and Rossman, 1995; J. Mason, 1996; Merriam, 1988;
and Stake, 1995). I see the opportunity to continue as a teacher in WTI
as both a chance to pay back the access I had to the community, and as
a chance to continue in a project that I find both stimulating and of importance
to the educational community. Being asked to join the ranks of the teachers
(being one of four instead of a guest of three) was a great honor. I saw
it, and still see it, as indicative of the trust I had obtained, not only
from the teachers, but also from the students, because I know I would never
have been asked if the students had shown any reluctance to see me as such.
Unlike teachers in many other (traditional) classes, the teachers in WTI
are seen more as friends and equals one can go to for help rather than
as authority figures. The teachers do no evaluating, nor do they exercise
any “power” over the students. Being a teacher in WTI simply means you
are knowledgeable about English and have shown a willingness to be available
to help others. Further, as previously mentioned, by being a teacher I
am able to repay the community through my time and knowledge.
Of course, being invited to participate as a teacher also has its negative
aspects for researchers. In many normal classes, a teacher is seen as
an authority the students have to obey. There exists a teacher-student
dichotomy in which the teacher exercises power and authority over the
student, usually by being responsible for evaluating the student’s progress.
Therefore, by becoming a teacher, there is often the danger of losing the
complete trust of the students. However, as mentioned above, WTI is not
a class in the normal sense of the word. Although there are members of
the community who are called “teachers,” in practice, the “students” are
as much teachers as are the teachers. Many of the members of WTI are also
teachers who use the community either as a means of improving their English,
or as a means of communicating with native speakers. It is, in fact, seen
more as a community of equals than as a class that consists of teachers
and students. As students gain experience, or discussion relate to the
students’ experiences, they become the teachers and the teachers become
the students. Today (five months after finishing the data collecting/
generating part of my study), the number of native speakers and teachers
who have joined the class is almost equal to the number of active non-native
speaking students. More dangerous than the loss of trust of the community
members is the danger of loss of objectivity in my study. Instead of
saying “you members of WTI,” I often say, and feel, “we members of WTI.”
But this had already started occurring while I was still considered just
a “friend” of the community. So I saw, and see, no negative affect arising
from my designation as teacher, a designation that merely made overt what
many of the community members had already indicated through their actions.
I had become a teacher merely by my active and continuous participation
and willingness to help other members of the community whenever they asked.
Writing Through the Internet is an excellent occasion to develop our
English in a socially interactive group while also learning about new technologies
for language learning (Frank).
During the time I have been a member of the WTI community, it has used
several programs and environments in the class. Often, these are used concurrently,
thereby allowing members who cannot participate in one environment to
do so in another. This means that at least one of the teachers (and, if
possible, all of them) should be in all of the environments to permit continuity
of the discussion. While some of these environments have ceased to function,
or have been relegated to an area of secondary importance, most of them
are still used to some extent. The following is a description of each of
the environments used officially by WTI with emphasis on how they are used
in the community. It is divided into four sections: chat Rooms, instant
messaging, asynchronous communication, and Web pages.
Synchronous Communication (Chat Rooms)
There are four chat rooms that are, or have been, used consistently by WTI. Of these, two are text based, one is voice-based, and one is a MOO environment. Each of these is described below.
• Homestead Text-based Chat Room
:
Description : Homestead, at one time a free web page hosting service (currently a pay service), allows people who construct web pages at their location to have chat rooms by copying the necessary code to their page. Unlike sites such as Yahoo! Chat and Excite Chat, where anybody can enter any of the chat rooms, each Homestead room is autonomous and is accessible only to people who know the URL of the page on which it is located. WTI has made use of this service since switching to this host from Geocities. As a text-based chat client, the Homestead chat room allows participants in the session to type in their message and send it to all others in the chat room. It updates automatically, so as soon as a person types a message and presses the enter key all other participants can read it. It permits logging the session only through copy and paste (a person copies what he/she wants to save and pastes it into a word processing program). Unfortunately, the Homestead buffer is not large, so someone must continuously copy all new text and paste it into their word processor. By the end of this study, although not used as much as previously, Homestead was still an option for members of the community. As a web-based chat client, no specific software is required to reside on the user’s computer. Any graphical web browser, such as Netscape, Internet Explorer, or Opera, will allow access to and participation in this chat room.
Use: When I first joined WTI, the Homestead chat room was the starting place for the weekly chat sessions. Each week, the members of the class/community would log onto the Homestead room in order to decide where the class would meet that day. Often, the participants decided, for one reason or another, to remain in this chat room. At other times, they decided to move into the Palace or into HearMe. Even when the community decided to meet in one of these two places, someone always stayed in the Homestead site to inform others where the class was meeting. It is still a primary means for new members, or people who are interested in joining, to leave a message indicating their interest.
• The Palace Visual Chat Room
:
Description : The Palace was a visual chat room with a graphic that showed what the room looked like, and each participant had an avatar (a small picture) to indicate what he/she looked like or felt at the moment. This avatar was often a picture of the actual participant. Besides the standard avatars that the program itself provided, each participant could create as many avatars as he/she wished. When a participant in the session typed in his/her comments and pressed the send key, the text would appear both in a text window and in a bubble next to the person’s avatar. In that way, the participants could see who was talking at any particular time. It was possible to save a log of the entire session by copying and pasting the dialogue at the end of the session. It was always a good idea to copy and paste at various times, however, since all dialogue was lost as soon as the client disconnected or closed for any reason (including the server going down, as often happened). Since VOES had a palace (personalized chat room) within The Palace network, WTI, as a VOES class, was able to make use of this environment. This same was true of all VOES classes. At about the time that I actually began my data generation, this environment was discontinued.
Use: The Palace was the room where classes seemed to be more formal. The community would meet in this site and discuss whatever topic the students wanted to develop that day. But it was also a site in which the teachers could use English in order to teach something else, such as how to make an avatar or use the tools found in the Palace environment. Since the disappearance of the Palace, this aspect of the class has basically been taken over by Tapped In.
• HearMe Voice Chat:
Description : HearMe was the third synchronous environment in use at the time I joined the community. The free HearMe client allowed anybody with a web page to copy the code onto their page and have an autonomous chat room. To participate, a user would go to the designated web page, click on the HearMe button and, once connected, participate in the chat session. Communication was by voice, which meant for full participation the user needed both a microphone and speakers (or even better a microphone-earphone headset). At the same time, since voice was not always available to all participants (for example, I lost my microphone just prior to one session), there was also text capability. This allowed students to type words of which they were unsure, or for teachers to type in the correct spelling of a new word. While the voice portion of the session could not be logged (without connecting a tape recorder to the computer or having specific software for recording voice, something nobody in WTI had) the text portion could be copied and pasted at the end of the session. As with The Palace, however, all text was lost at the moment the client was turned off for any reason. Like The Palace, the HearMe chat client was discontinued at about the time I began my data generation. It was replaced by TelcoPoint Voice Chat.
Use: HearMe was an excellent resource for practicing pronunciation. Anybody who had a microphone and speakers could participate in whatever discussion was taking place at the time. Like The Palace, HearMe was used for actually giving class. In this site the accent was on pronunciation. Like grammar instruction, however, pronunciation was never an overt purpose of any class. It occurred when a student asked the correct way to pronounce a word. And it was not only for practicing English pronunciation. Many times, the students would demonstrate to the teachers how to pronounce a word in their own language. This client was also used to allow teachers and students to type an unfamiliar word and explain how it was used and/or pronounced. When this client disappeared at the end of the year 2000, there was an attempt to replace it with the TelcoPoint Voice Chat. This particular voice chat client was never really able to replace HearMe. It was difficult to connect to the server, and chat rooms that were “registered” in the service often never appeared. It took several months to find a suitable replacement in the Yahoo! Messenger (see below).
• Tapped In MOO Environment
:
Description : Tapped In is a modified MOO environment that is free to all educators. Like all MOOs, Tapped In allows for the creation of objects that remain from session to session and with which the participants can interact. While VOES has no official connection with Tapped In, and WTI does not have a specific office space there, several of the WTI participants have personal offices there. For the last couple of months of my study (and increasingly since ending the study itself) WTI has been meeting in this environment. Besides allowing for interaction with objects, the environment allows all registered participants to have their own recorders. Everything that is said in the same room with the recorder is logged and sent to the participant in an email as soon as he/she has logged off. One side benefit of the use of Tapped In is that participants in the WTI sessions can meet new people who just drop in to say hello. Often, these visitors remain and become a part of the weekly sessions, thereby allowing for students to interact with other native speakers (as well as other non-native speakers) both informally and in a more formal class-like environment (as when one of the members explains how to perform an action in Tapped In).
Use: Tapped In has become the normal meeting place for WTI. Like the Palace, it is used not only for informal chat sessions and meeting new people, but also for more formal classes, such as how to create an object in Tapped In, how to interact with an object, or how to modify a room. The one thing all the lessons in Tapped In have in common is that they use English as the language of instruction.
Synchronous Communication (Instant Messaging)
The WTI community makes use of three different Instant Messaging services. These are used both to see if another member of the community is online at a specific time and to have informal chat sessions. All three of them have certain elements in common: On the downside, 1) they must be downloaded and installed in the computer in order to work, 2) the only way to communicate with another person using instant messaging is by knowing the person’s user identity, something many people do not willingly reveal, and 3) they are not really secure. On the bright side, 1) they all allow for automatic (or semi-automatic) logging of all sessions, 2) they all allow for the users to have a list of contacts with whom they can communicate with a click of the mouse button, 3) they allow a user to see if any of his/her friends are online, and 4) they allow at least partial voice chatting.
WTI uses three instant messaging programs, ICQ, MSN Messenger Service,
and Yahoo! Messenger in the same ways. First, they are a means of informal
chatting outside of the regular chat sessions. In this way, students who
are unable to attend a weekly chat session can still interact with other
community members. Second, they are used as a means of communicating with
other members who wish to find out where the class is meeting that week.
It is also a means of communicating with another member of the community
when the two people want to have a private conversation. In the case
of Yahoo! Messenger, it is also the replacement for HearMe, allowing for
voice chatting during the regular weekly chat sessions. Since each of
the services is similar in use and function, the following descriptions
will emphasize their outstanding differences.
• ICQ:
ICQ allows for automatic logging of all sessions. To see what has been said to a specific contact at any time, a user need only click on the contact’s name, select “History,” and read everything they have said to each other since they began communicating. Further, ICQ automatically stamps all messages with both the date and time so that a user can see on what date and at what moment a contact made a particular comment. ICQ is the principal means of initial communication among members of the WTI class. Almost all members of the community have an ICQ number and user identity.
• MSN Messenger Service :
There are only two real benefits of MSN over the other IM services. First, it allows a user to see when he/she has received an email in their Hotmail account. Second, it indicates when the other person in a chat session is actually typing. While it allows for voice communication, voice is only available on a one-to-one session, not in a conference mode. It allows for logging of any session by going to the File menu and selecting save. Unlike ICQ, which automatically saves chronologically all sessions with a specific user, MSN Messenger will overwrite any previously saved sessions with any user unless you give the file a unique name. Also unlike ICQ, which can be disabled, or in which a user can indicate that he/she is not available for communication (or even indicate that they are not connected to the Internet) and unlike Yahoo! Messenger, in which a user can automatically connect in an “Invisible” mode, the MSN Messenger user must select “appear offline” every time he/she logs on. Further, if the user exits this IM, it will automatically reconnect if the user connects to Hotmail or Outlook. It is the IM service that is least used by WTI.
• Yahoo! Messenger:
The main benefit of Yahoo! Messenger, and what is making it an integral part of the WTI sessions, is its recently acquired web cam service as well as its ability to provide for voice conferences. Recently, several members of the community have purchased web cams and have been using them to show each other what they look like while participating in the chat sessions. Unfortunately, the use of web cams and voice at the same time uses so much bandwidth that it often causes systems to crash.
Its voice chat capabilities are similar to HearMe in quality, and, like
HearMe, the number of users who can participate in a voice chat conference
is theoretically unlimited. Like MSN Messenger, selecting Save from the
File menu can save chat sessions. However, every time a session is saved,
the name must be changed from im.txt to another name or it will overwrite
whatever has previously been saved with that name. It also allows for
voice chatting in which a user can open a conference, invite others to participate,
and thereby open a voice conference. Until recently the members of the
community thought that a conference had to be closed before adding a new
member to the conference. Quite by accident, a member of one conference
found how to invite people to attend an existing conference.
There are actually two type of asynchronous communication used by the WTI community. The first is an email discussion list that was originally hosted by the e-groups service and is currently hosted by Yahoo! Groups. Like most discussion lists, all members are allowed to send an email to the list. All messages sent to the list are automatically forwarded to all other subscribers. Further, list members can choose to read the email by going to the WTI Yahoo! Group page and selecting the message they want to read. All messages are archived according to the date in which they are sent to the list. A list subscriber can also post an email from this page. Only subscribers (community members) are allowed to post messages to the list. By subscribing to the list, a person becomes a member of the e-class and is expected to participate actively. To subscribe, the person sends an email to the corresponding address. The list is used as the primary means of communication between/among members of the class as well as for posting assignments to the e-class.
The second type of asynchronous communication used by the WTI community
is the Wimba Voice Board. This is a bulletin board type of communication
in which the user connects to the WTI Wimba Conference and records a
message for other members to hear. Unlike the pay service, the free
Wimba service to which WTI subscribes does not have indefinite archiving.
All messages are deleted after a short period of time (30 days). Further,
the number of messages allowed as well as the number of participants permitted
to be present at any one time are also limited to 30 messages and 5 participants
at any one time. The service also has a text-based area for those who
either do not have a microphone or who wish to leave both oral and written
messages. This service is seldom used by members of the WTI community,
but does exist for those who wish to leave voice messages for others to
hear and respond to.
Unlike discussion lists, where the member just sends an email from his/her
account and that is automatically forwarded to all list members, bulletin
boards require that participants go to the server to read/listen to/post
messages. This often makes it less used since there is that extra step
(It is easier to just receive a message and read it than to actually go
and find the message). At the same time, while discussion lists generally
require subscription, bulletin boards (such as Wimba) are open to anybody
who wishes to visit it and read/listen to messages or who wishes to post
messages for others.
The fourth type of communication in the WTI community is the web page. The WTI class has a web site that consists of three types of web pages: the community pages, the chat logs, and the personal pages.
The first is a series of pages with information about the community.
This set of pages allows visitors to get a feel for how the class is organized,
what activities are required and recommended, and who the members are.
This last gives not just names but also pictures, email addresses, nationalities,
and other pertinent information useful for contacting the person. Further,
each name and picture is linked to the student’s personal page. The Homestead
chat room (as well as links to recommended and/or required software) is
also located in these pages. This is often the first contact a prospective
new member has with the group. Further, the coordinating teacher constantly
invites other language teachers who are interested in online education
to visit these pages and get a feel for what a successful group can do.
The second set of pages is the compilation of all the logs of the class
chat sessions from almost the beginning of the community. Generally,
the coordinating teacher places an exact log of the previous chat session
on this site within one week of the session (although he occasionally
takes a little longer). He also includes a short synopsis of the high
points of the session. If the session took place in more than one location
(as is often the case) there are links to the particular section of the logs
that deals with that location.
The chat logs are divided into three main parts: a list with pictures
(where available) of the participants in that week’s session, a short analysis/synopsis
of the high points of the session, and the logs of the session itself.
This last is obtained, in most cases, through the cut and paste copies
(that the teachers have made) of the original session or, in the case of
Tapped In, from the email copy of the log that is sent upon the end of each
session. The teachers recommend that the students read these logs to see
if they have any comments.
The third section of the Web site consists of personal pages for each
member of the community. As people sign up for the class, they are asked
to send a short introduction for the other members of the group to read
and, if they are willing and it is possible, a picture so the others can
see what the person looks like. The Webmaster (coordinating teacher) then
edits the introduction for grammatical mistakes and posts it on a web page
that he creates for that particular student. After the web page has been
made, Stonners sends a message to the e-class informing the community of
the new page and inviting everybody to come and meet the new member. If a
member of the community has his/her own web pages, the Webmaster also places
a link to their site. Every time a student answers an assignment, the answer
is corrected for grammar and placed on his/her page. A message is then
sent out asking the students to read the answer and respond. Further,
the student who posted the answer is asked to read the corrected version
and compare it to what was originally sent. When enough members have responded
to a specific assignment, and especially if they respond to each other’s
comments, that particular assignment is then given its own page, with
links to it from the pages of each of the participating members. In this
way, the students are encouraged to exchange their views on diverse topics
and read how other views are also possible.
As mentioned above, the WTI class has two principal means of interaction between and among participants (as well as the web pages). Each week the teachers and those students who are available and interested in doing so, connect to the chat sessions. These sessions last two hours and often appear to be chaotic. In fact, one recent participant has labeled it controlled chaos, a term that the community has since made its own. In any single session, there may be as many as three different chat rooms open at once. Some participants, especially teachers, may be in all the chat rooms while others may be in only one or two. Sometimes the class then settles down so that most of it is carried out in one room or another. At other times, all of the chat rooms may be busy. Usually, two rooms are in use. One of these is a text-based room, while the other is usually a voice-based room.
This section will describe what happens in a normal session. In this
session, the class takes place in two places, the Tapped-In MOO environment
and a Yahoo! Instant Messenger voice conference.
It is shortly before noon GMT on a Sunday. In several different countries
around the world, members of the WTI community begin to connect to the
Internet. By the end of the session, ten participants have shown up.
Stonners, Jarce, and Barnes - WTI teachers
John - Researcher and recently appointed WTI teacher
Karla, Frank and Thomas - Three students who usually attend the sessions
Mary - a student who has recently become active after a time of inactivity
Genevieve and Karen - two new participants
As Stonners connects to ICQ, he notices that Jarce and John are already
connected. Jarce and John have been chatting in the class chat room for
the past 15 minutes while waiting for the others to show up.
Stonners sends a message to John: “Is anybody in the chat room?”
John replies: “Just Jarce and me. We’ve been there for 15 minutes.”
As he is sending this message, Karla appears online and enters the chat
room.
John: “Karla has appeared.”
Stonners joins the chat room.
Stonners: “Hello, Karla. Good to see you again. Hi, Jarce, John”
Jarce: “Hi, Karla. So you finally showed up Stonners?”
John: “Morning, all.”
Karla: “Hi. Has anybody else come yet?”
Karen joins the chat session.
Karen: “Morning, everybody”
(The members of the session welcome Karen to the session.)
This series of greetings occurs every time somebody joins the chat session.
Occasionally, a guest will appear, sometimes because they have heard about
the group; other times by accident. In this way, the community draws in
new members. Both Karen and Genevieve were people who had joined a session
by accident and had signed up for the e-class.
As the greetings continue, John and Stonners both receive Yahoo! messages
from Frank inviting them to join a voice conference. Both accept the
invitation and join the conference. They inform Frank about who is in
the session. Frank sends invitations to Karla, Karen and Genevieve. Jarce
doesn’t have Yahoo! Messenger so she is not invited to the conference.
Karen turns down the request because her microphone isn’t working. Genevieve
joins the conference. There are now two chat sessions occurring at the
same time. Frank, John, Stonners, Karla, and Genevieve are in the voice
chat talking about what each has done during the past week. John, Stonners,
Karla, Genevieve, Jarce, and Karen are in the text chat talking about arranging
a virtual party for the next class.
John now notices Barnes on ICQ and sends him a message: “We are in Tapped-In
and and Yahoo!.”
Barnes: “I’ll be right there. Send me an invitation to Yahoo!.”
John invites Barnes to the Yahoo! session. He appears and joins in
the discussion. He also appears in the text chat room and sends greetings
to the others.
Stonners: “Mary is online. I’ll invite her.”
Mary soon joins the others in the Yahoo! session, but not in the text
session.
Now, Thomas joins the text session. His connection today does not allow
him to connect to both the text and voice sessions. As soon as he finds
out that there is also a voice session, he leaves the text-based room and
joins the voice conference.
An hour of the class has passed and the topics have been changing in
each room. Genevieve is now commenting in the text session about how it
is difficult to pay complete attention to both sessions at the same time.
Usually, people tend to pay more attention to one of the sessions for
a while, and then change to the other session for a while. They continue
changing back and forth as the topic being discussed in one session becomes
more interesting than the topic in the other session. Meanwhile, Stonners,
and sometimes Genevieve, comment in one session about what is happening
in the other. These comments are for the benefit of those who are participating
in only one chat room.
After an hour, the topic in the voice chat alternates between Mary’s
plans to visit the United States and a visit Thomas received from another
WTI member. In the text room, there is another topic about traveling.
Karla is also going to visit the United States and is asking for advice
from Karen and John, both of whom are currently there, and from Stonners
and Jarce who are originally from there. By the end of the session,
the text-based room has practiced writing and has planned a party for
the following week. The voice-based room has practiced speaking and
listening, but has not had any specific topic.
After two hours of chatting, the participants who have not already left
due to either the late (for them) hour or because there are other things
they have to do, start saying their good-byes.
My informants have all mentioned the chat sessions as an important part
of the class. George never attends the regular weekly sessions because
he lives in a time zone that makes his participation difficult. At the
same time, he has indicated that he feels the chat sessions allow the students
to see how much they have learned, and allow for a type of practice that
is impossible in an asynchronous class. They are able to communicate
in real time with both native and other non-native speakers. Sally is
another member of the community who chats with members at other times,
but does not participate in the weekly sessions. Like George, she emphasizes
that chat sessions are important. Her non-participation, however, is due
to a lack of time. While it is too early for George to participate, Sally
is working during class time.
Of my other three informants, Karla, Thomas, and Frank, all three tend
to be regular participants in the weekly sessions. In one case, Karla, participation
is so regular that the members comment on any absence, usually wondering
if she is well. Both Thomas and Frank are less regular participants, depending
on what they are doing during the class time, including whether or not they
have access to a computer at the moment. Although Frank says he feels the
chat is helpful in itself, he tends to prefer participating in the voice
chat. On those days that he is unable to connect to both, he connects to
the voice session. Thomas also insists that the chat sessions have been
of great help to him, especially in improving his writing ability. He says
that now he wants to participate in the voice chats to improve his pronunciation.
Karla usually participates in both the voice and text-based chat sessions.
She sees the chat sessions as important in developing the sense of community
that is so important to the WTI community.
There are other members besides the ones mentioned here who attend regularly
for a while and then drop out of sight, only to reappear again at a later
date. This ability to drop out of sight for a short while and then reappear,
and be sure of a welcome, is one element of the class that has made it into
such a success for as long as it has existed.
What topics are covered in the chat sessions? That depends on what the
people present want to talk about. One aspect of what the community is
now calling controlled chaos is that the class takes place in two
or more chat rooms at one time, but another aspect is the lack of set topics.
By meeting in two chat rooms, with some members being in one room, other
members in another room, and others in both rooms, it is exceedingly difficult
for any specific topic to be discussed by everyone.
In general, the session starts, as mentioned above, with greetings.
Occasionally, the topic is a continuation of one that was going on before
the session officially began. For example, in the first session in which
I participated, I showed up early and was being interviewed by a student
who was present. When the other class members showed up, the class turned
into an interview where all the members present in the session asked me
anything they wanted to. At another session, I was chatting with a student
about a book she was reading. When other members of the class showed up,
we continued discussing the book. The session then turned into a discussion
of several books by the same author.
On the other hand, topics also occur after the session has already started.
In one session, for example, there was no topic until a student showed
up who was having problems with his computer. Most of the rest of the
session dealt with various computer related problems (something that was
so common that all the people present wanted to explore it) and how to solve
them. Other topics that have been covered include international affairs,
health, the environment, how to perform certain operations on the computer,
and (to show that topics are not always serious) how to help one of the
participants solve her love-life problems.
In general, however, the sessions seem to change topics at the whim of
the participants. Even when there is an attempt to have a set topic for
the session, the participants tend to go their own ways, paying little
attention to the set topic. This has led Stonners to describe the class
as a case of “herding cats.” As anyone who has ever owned a cat knows, they
are impossible to herd. In the same way, it is impossible to herd the
participants in these chat sessions.
Of course the chat sessions is only one means of interaction in the class.
Another means is the e-class that is described in the next session.
The e-class is basically a continuation of the original idea of the asynchronous class that eventually developed into WTI. In this part of the course, students and teachers can communicate and interact in an asynchronous mode. The e-class allows those members who live in time zones that make participation in the chat sessions difficult feel like part of the class. One of the purposes of the e-class is to allow the teachers to post assignments. Although any of the teachers (or even one of the students) can post an assignment, most assignments come from Barnes. To see how students reacted to the assignments, I asked each of my informants to explain 1) how they decided which assignment to answer, 2) how long it took them to decide to answer the assignment, 3) what they did to answer an assignment, and 4) whether or not they did any editing or revising.
Karla - When Karla receives an assignment, she reads it, decides if
it “grabs her heart”, and then immediately answers it. She sits at her
computer and writes what she feels. As soon as she has answered the assignment
she sends it without revising, editing, or proofreading. While she used
to answer almost all assignments, she has recently found herself unable
to become interested in almost any assignment. Although she usually decides
whether or not an assignment is worth answering immediately upon receiving
it, she told me that she sometimes gets an idea for an answer at a later
time. In such a case, she answers it if she is near a computer and not too
occupied with work. At the same time, she seldom answers any assignment
that she doesn’t answer immediately.
Frank - Like Karla, when Frank receives an assignment, he reads it and almost immediately decides if it grabs his interest or not. He then sits at his computer, writes his answer at one sitting, and sends it with no revision or editing (although he mentioned that he knows this is an important step in writing). While he used to try to answer all assignments, he has recently found himself too busy to do much more in the e-class than read the assignments and postings. Frank shows a good command of English writing ability. His extemporaneous writing (e.g. in the chat rooms or IM messages) is generally of high grammatical quality.
Sally - Although Sally also uses interest in the topic to decide whether
or not to answer it, the amount of time she has is more of an overriding
factor. Again, like the others, she decides immediately if the assignment
is worth answering or not. If she has the time to answer it, she sends
a short answer to the e-class. She does no editing or revising. Unlike
both Karla and Frank, she has never tried to answer all the assignments.
Thomas -Like the other informants, Thomas selects only those topics he
finds of interest, but he mentioned that there are few assignments that
he does not find interesting. He also answers the assignments as soon
as he receives them. Unlike the others, however, he generally proofreads
what he has written to verify that he has not made any simple typographical
mistakes. He does not try to edit his grammar because he feels his grammatical
ability is not adequate for this purpose. Like both Karla and Frank, Thomas
was also a constant poster to the e-class. Unlike the others, he still
tries to post whenever possible. What I have seen of his writing as posted
to the class (before editing by the teachers for placement on his web page)
and what he has sent me is of very good grammatical quality. He mentioned
that, although he was unable to write simple sentences when he first joined
the class, the e-class has helped him to improve his English writing ability
dramatically.
George - Like the others, George generally decides on what assignments
to answer based on how interesting he finds it and on how much time he
has. He also answers as soon as he receives the assignment. He was the
only one of the informants, however, to tell me that he does not just write
without stopping. If he is unsure of a word, he stops and looks it up
in the dictionary. He also looks over his writing before sending it. He
told me that he likes to make sure that he doesn’t have simple grammatical
mistakes and that he has said everything he wants to say. The first time
I had an interview with him, his fluency and writing ability in English
struck me as being almost of native speaker quality.
Why did only one informant admit to carrying out at least some simple
editing? My informants mentioned that they did not feel confident in checking
their own grammar. At the same time, while no informant admitted to this,
I cannot help but feel that the fact that the teachers will correct their
grammar before placing it on their web pages may also have something to
do with the lack of revision.
Change in the Community over the Period of the Study
As mentioned above, when I first joined the WTI class, I expected a class that consisted of teachers and students who met together for a set period of time. My experience as a VOES teacher led me to believe there would be only a few students and the class would last 3 months. Further, I expected there to be lessons on writing and grammar, and possibly on reading. What I found was the community of language learners and teachers described above. Although officially there are four teachers and approximately 50 students, in practice there are no teachers or students. The members of this community consider each other equals. Although some are called teachers and others are called students, they consider themselves tutors and friends. Also, some of the students are teachers in their own countries, and some of the teachers are also students. All of the members of the community are willing to share their expertise and teach others in the community. At least four members of the community besides myself are also researching virtual education, either as part of a class or as a thesis or dissertation topic.
Like all communities, there have been changes over the past year-and-a-half
of my participation. At the beginning there were more non-native speaking
participants and, occasionally, something closely related to an actual
class. Currently, the community has more of an informal atmosphere, with
new participants coming into the community and participating actively as
members. Almost every week has a visitor drop by and then decide to join
the class. But there have also been more specific changes in the organization
of meeting sessions and the environment in which the community meets. These
changes are explained more in depth in this section.
A community that does not change is usually a stagnant community. Growth
is a requirement for any living entity, and true communities are alive.
Therefore, like any true community anywhere, WTI has changed over time.
This change can be seen in the logs of the chat sessions, and is recounted
in the history of the community as written by the teachers. Also, I
have personally observed changes in the relatively short time I have
been a member. I joined the community approximately 6 months before I
started my study. During the six months of the study, as well as during
the six months prior to beginning it and the months since finishing my
data collection/generation, I have noticed many changes in the community.
One reason virtual communities like WTI change is the very nature of
the Internet itself. Since the Internet is constantly growing and changing,
much of what this community does varies over time. For example, when
I first joined this community, the synchronous part of the class was held
in three locations: a text-based chat room at Homestead, a room at the
visual chat space The Palace, and a room at the voice-based chat client
called HearMe. The community had been using both the text-based Homestead
chat room and the chat room at The Palace from the beginning and had just
started using the HearMe chat client a couple of months before I joined
them. Over the course of the next few months both The Palace and HearMe
ceased to be supported and disappeared. While Palaces can still be found,
they are usually of a social nature and the difficulty in finding the necessary
software make them hard to use with a growing community. HearMe developed
a new product called TelcoPoint HearMe, but this also had certain limits
that the original client did not have. First, instead of installing the
chat room on one’s own web page and allowing people to use it from there,
it became necessary to connect to the TelcoPoint web server itself. Second,
where HearMe allowed, in theory, practically unlimited people in each chat
room, TelcoPoint HearMe allows a total of 50 participants spread over 5 chat
rooms. Third, the TelcoPoint chat client was difficult to connect to.
Immediately, the community began a search for another voice-based chat
client that would work as well as HearMe had done. It also began a search
for another regular meeting place. While, due to the nature of this client,
Homestead is always available for use, somebody in the chat room needs to
constantly copy and paste the logs of the session. While this does not
interfere with normal use of the room, it does mean that the coordinating
teacher, or someone else, or even two of them, have to pay attention more
to how much had been said than to what had been said. This sometimes inhibits
the amount of participation of that particular member.
Over the course of the next few months, (most of the time of my study)
the community tried several new chat clients. Many of these clients would
be used in one session, found lacking, and not used again. One, the Wimba
Voice Board, was acceptable enough for asynchronous messages, and is still
occasionally used by community members.
Currently, WTI uses the MOO environment at Tapped In for its weekly chat
sessions. It has become a normal enough meeting place that several of the
regular members of that space have joined the WTI community. This has given
a new flavor to participation, with more involvement in meeting new people,
discussions on how this environment can be used, and discussions on education,
and with less discussion based on student topics. While most students
seldom participated regularly in the chat sessions, with this change,
even fewer students started attending the sessions.
For voice chat purposes, the community now uses Yahoo! Instant Messenger.
This client has both many of the benefits of HearMe (voice quality, unlimited
number of participants in a session, secondary text-based communication
for people without microphones or for misunderstood words) and a benefit
that HearMe never had--web cam support. Also, HearMe was web based, which
meant the participant only had to go to the page where the room was located
and log in. The Yahoo! client, on the other hand, must be downloaded
to the participant’s computer. Participation is by invitation from one
of the conference participants who has the invitee on his/her contact list.
The use of this client does, however, seem to be attracting some of the
older students to return to the sessions.
For one-on-one conversations, which occur during the week, the participants
use one of three clients, ICQ, Yahoo! Messenger, and MSN Messenger. Only
a few of the participants have more than one of these, so they are generally
limited to chatting only with those who have that particular client. Although
most participants use only one of these clients, some members have all
three clients, which allows them to chat with any other member of the community
who wants to talk.
While not mentioned specifically as one of the three major assignments,
this one-to-one communication is an integral part of the community. Through
this medium, those participants who are unable, for one reason or another,
to attend the weekly chat sessions can get help with assignments, practice
their English with other members of the community, and build community
bonds.
A second integral part of the class-community is the asynchronous e-class.
Since many members of the class cannot participate in the synchronous
sessions, their participation in the e-class has been extremely important.
Members have posted introductions, answered assignments, sent jokes,
and sent messages they thought would be of interest to the others. Stonners
uses the e-class also to send reminders of the weekly sessions, to inform
the class when there has been a change to the web site (such as the posting
of the weekly chat logs), to welcome new members, and to send congratulatory
messages on a member’s birthday and membership anniversary. From the beginning,
this was seen as the primary means of communication within the community.
The chat sessions, in fact, were originally considered an additional
activity (and not the primary focus) of the class. When I first joined
the community, the discussion list was active and interaction among the
members was constant. Most weeks there were five or six messages per day
from members, which is fairly active for any discussion list of this size
(less than fifty members at the time). By the time I had concluded my
study, there were only two or three messages a week, usually an administrative
message from Stonners. After I had finished the data generation portion
of my study, a new group of members started posting messages to the e-class.
This seems to have drawn at least of few of the original members back into
using the e-class.
As with the synchronous portions of the community, part of the change
in participation appears to be from the actual nature of the Internet itself.
Just as services disappear (as happened with both the visual chat client
at The Palace and the HearMe voice chat client), so also services change
owners. While these changes often have little or no effect on the user
of the service, there are times when it may cause problems. For example,
the e-class is hosted on a server that has gone through both a change of
name and a merging with another service. The objective of the service was
always to allow and encourage the development of discussion lists about almost
any topic. The service has always been free of charge and anybody who wished
could subscribe to a list. Only list owners had to be registered members
of the service. The first change, a change in name from Onelist to E-groups,
actually took place before I joined this community. I had been using the
service to host discussion lists for my regular classes, and received a
message telling me of the change in service. Many of my students informed
me that they had also received this message. This message told the list
members that the service had changed names and gave them the new address
to use for posting messages. When I joined the WTI community, the e-class
was hosted by E-groups. During the time I was carrying out my study, there
was another change. E-groups merged with Yahoo! groups. E-groups sent a
message informing the list owners and members about the change in the service,
but also included information in the message that was specific to list owners.
Starting at about the time of this change, the amount of participation in
the e-class dropped off dramatically. While two of my informants said they
thought it was due to members losing interest (as Karla put it, becoming
“less passionate about the class”), my own experience with having trouble
posting to the e-class shortly after the change in owners leads me to wonder
if this is the cause of the problems. In the first case, there was simply
a change in name. The rest stayed basically the same. In this change, the
groups had to be converted to the Yahoo! system. One of my informants lost
contact with the e-class for a while when his email service was blocked by
Yahoo!. In many cases, a student who has been having problems of the sort
will eventually give up and stop all participation. This particular informant,
however, due to his strong interest in the community, found out how he could
become active again. He changed his email service and rejoined the list.
There was also some doubt about whether or not a person had to register
with Yahoo! to subscribe to a list (they didn’t) and about associating an
email address with an account. After Stonners sent a message to all the
class members in which he explained how to participate, that only list owners
had to register with Yahoo! groups, and that associating an email address
with a Yahoo! groups was not necessary, participation appeared to increase.
As with both the synchronous sessions and the e-class, the web pages
have also undergone changes. However, since the pages are under the direct
management of the coordinating teacher, there has been little disruption
in that part of the class. Basically, the changes have been in the location
(links) to the pages as the community switched services. These changes
in services were generally because China would block the sites and was for
the specific purpose of allowing the Chinese members of the community continue
their active participation.
How Does an Online ESL/EFL Class Become a Language Learning Community?
WTI: A Language Learning Community?
Is WTI a virtual community? As mentioned earlier, Blanchard (2000), Frank and Davie (2001), and Müller (1999) identify four components of most communities.
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).
To find if WTI is a community, we need only see if it has these components.
Do the participants in WTI share a common characteristic? In answering
this question, we should remember that a location can be physical, as in
a village or a college campus, or may be virtual, as in a chat area, a
MOO, or other virtual space. WTI does have a virtual space it calls it
own. As mentioned above, the class includes meeting places at Homestead,
Yahoo! Chat, and Tapped In. Also, there is a set of web pages that bear
the WTI name, and that the participants in this class use as a means of
sharing what they have written. So we can say that WTI does have the component
of sharing a common location. The members of the WTI class also share
a common interest in the learning of English. All members of the class
originally signed up for this class because they wanted to improve their
English communication skills. That there are new members in the class
who are joining more because they are interested in developing their skills
in teaching online ESL is just another sign of change that most communities
undergo.
Is there interaction among the participants? A look at the class shows
that there are several ways in which interaction in encouraged and takes
place. First, the e-class is a means of communication/interaction that
the members are expected to use to share their views with other members
of the community. While there are many times in which a member of the class
will post a comment and nothing else will be heard about that topic, there
are also many times in which participants post responses to what others
have posted, thereby leading to threads that can later be posted on the
web site. There is also interaction in the weekly chat sessions where
participants interact with each other in real time, sometimes using text
and other times using voice. This is such an integral part of the class
that the coordinating teacher Stonners has arranged for a weekly message
to be sent to each member reminding them of the chat session, where it
meets, how to connect to it, and who to look for when they get there.
A third form of interaction is the informal IM sessions that occur several
times each week. In these sessions, members of the class who happen
to be online at the same time often send instant messages to each other,
thereby opening a chat session between two members. These sessions may
be recorded and included in the weekly chat session log (especially if one
of the two participants is one of the teachers), or may never leave a public
record. Often, the only way the rest of the class knows that a session occurred
is when somebody mentions that he/she had met somebody on one of the IM spaces
and had had a short conversation. Finally, there are also individual emails
that are often exchanged between two members of the class. Again, while
these are private messages, they occur because the two people met in the
class.
Is there a defined boundary between inside and outside, leading to the
development of a common identity? While it is possible that anybody can
show up at a chat session, and that this person may show up on several
occasions, it is only when a chat participant joins the e-class that he/she
is considered part of the class. People in WTI are members of the community
only when they subscribe to the e-class and have their name and email
address listed on the class web page. This class web page includes a
list of class members with pictures (where possible) and email addresses
as well as link to the member’s personal web page. Anybody who does not
appear on this page, and who does not have a personal WTI page, is not
a member of the class. Therefore, we can say that there is a boundary
between who is and who is not a member of the community.
Is there a sense of community? Throughout the interviews with my informants,
they always insisted that WTI is more than just a class. They pointed
out that the members show a sense of trust in each other in the sharing
of pictures, not only of themselves, but also of their houses and families.
Further, except in one or two cases, members of the community do not use
pseudonyms (or at least do not admit to it). In one case, a member of the
class used a pseudonym until he realized that he could trust the rest of
the members of the class. This person was the first to post a picture of
his house on his web page and to use a web cam to show the rest of the class
what he looks like at a regular weekly chat session. The other occurrence
was a visitor who used an obvious pseudonym, but who also appeared only twice
in the class, and never joined the e-class. My informants also indicated
that the use of voice chat was another means of developing a sense of community.
As Frank put it, “the use of voice makes me realize I am really talking
to a person.” A sense of community is also seen in the exchange of birthday
greetings on members’ birthdays and indications of worry when a natural
disaster occurs in an area where there are class members. In fact, if a
person does not show up or send a message after a disaster, members of the
community will often write to the e-class asking if anybody knows if the
person had been affected or not.
In looking at the descriptions of the four components, the answer to
whether WTI is a community, instead of simply a group of students who are
enrolled in the same class, must be in the affirmative.
How did the Class Develop into a Community?
Another question that arises, and which should be answered is “how has this class been able to develop into a virtual community?” This is easy to answer. It has been a conscious effort on the part of the teachers, especially Stonners. Early experiences of VOES instructors indicated that free asynchronous ESL/EFL classes seldom worked. As mentioned earlier, at least half the students who took the placement test failed to answer the email invitation to join a class. When enough students had replied to form a section, most instructors would send out another email informing them of where, when, and how to join the class. Usually less than half of the students who had indicated interest in the class actually came to the first session, or participated in the first assignment. Further attrition was usually quick, with only 1 or 2 students actually finishing any one term. While many teachers tried to make their asynchronous classes more interesting, the three teachers who finally developed WTI decided that a new focus was needed. Therefore, when the coordinator of VOES called for volunteers for synchronous teachers, all three of them were among the few that answered the call.
Meanwhile, Stonners was also experimenting with other ideas. Having finally
decided that one of the main problems with the classes is that the students
who took them basically just wanted someone to look over their work and
correct it, Stonners decided to try developing a new concept for the class.
The concept as finally developed took the following form. First, the
three-month terms were eliminated. Students were invited to join at any
time and stay as long as they wished. This meant, of course, that the traditional
idea of a class that discussed specific grammatical points, or that tried
to discuss a previously assigned reading or writing assignment, was no
longer plausible. If a student could come to the class at any time, then
not all students would have the assignment or know what point was to be discussed.
Therefore, the set assignment part of the class was replaced by floating
assignments. The teachers also established one basic rule for the class:
the class had to be fun for the students.
Since one of the problems he had seen with his previous attempts at
this type of class was a lack of focus, Stonners decided to look for one.
He finally decided the class should focus on the use of different technologies
in the teaching and learning of languages. The idea behind the class became
to play with various programs as they became available and see how they
could be integrated into language education.
Since community requires interaction and a sense of trust, the teachers
decided to foster student-student communication instead of the usual student-teacher
interaction. To do this, they integrated the asynchronous (email) discussion
list, the synchronous (chat) sessions, and a class web site into three
basic assignments. These assignments were, as mentioned above, 1) to post
answers to writing assignments on the discussion list, with the expectation
that other members of the class would then reply to what had posted, 2)
to participate in the weekly chat sessions, and 3) to create a web page
so the members could learn about each other. At the same time, realizing
that not everybody would be able to participate in the chat sessions, or
would know how to create a web page, he made all of the assignments voluntary--except
that everybody had to carry out at least one of them.
To build a sense of trust among people who come from all parts of the
world and will, in all probability, never meet, was the next step. To do
this, everybody who joined the class was expected to send an introduction.
When possible, they were to either send a picture of themselves or point
to one that already existed on the Internet (such as one in a web page
they had already developed). All of my informants agreed that being able
to see a picture, as well as read an introduction, is a very important part
of the class.
The introduction and picture were placed on a web page that was created
specifically for the member. His/her name and picture, as well as their
nationality, email address(s), web page address, ICQ number and ID, the
date of enrollment in the e-class, and the last date and method of participation
were also placed on the class web page. In this way, any community member
can know who the members of the class are and communicate with them. Further,
as each student completes a year in the group, he/she receives an email
congratulating them on a year’s participation and a star next to their name
on the class list. Some students find this so important that at least one
person has written to the list to ask why they were forgotten on the few
occasions that Stonners failed to mention them.
Besides using the e-class, the chat sessions, and the web site for building
community, the teachers also encourage students to communicate with each
other and with the teachers using one of the three commonly available
instant messaging programs. This allows participants who are unable to
join the chat sessions to interact with others in the class in a more informal
and personal way then the e-class allows for.
What Has Kept the WTI Community Together for so Long?
The answer to this question is one that has been of interest to the community itself since before the beginning of my study. The most logical answer may be the one provided by the Stonners in a personal communication
Basically, the community engages its members in motivating, communicative, and authentic interaction. Language learning activities are purely constructivist and utilize other community members in the zone of proximal development. The members of the group contribute to each other's projects and goals and make and keep commitments to one another (Stonners, Personal Communication).
At the same time, there appears to be other conditions that have helped
the community to last for so long. One of these is that more than one
type of interaction is fostered. By using both synchronous and asynchronous
communication, members of the community are able to interact even when
time zone differences do not allow for all to participate in the chat sessions.
The use of IM clients allows for the possibility of synchronous communication
among community members outside of the weekly chat sessions.
Until recently, the type of chat rooms used by the community also enabled
it to continue functioning for as long as it has. While the weekly chat
sessions often appear to be social in nature, they have always been in
private chat rooms. To enter the community’s Homestead chat room, a participant
has to access the community’s main web page. To access the avatar based
chat room at The Palace, the visitor has to either use the exact address
of the room or access it through the community’s web page. Similarly,
the HearMe voice chat room was accessible only through the group’s main
page, or the web page belonging to Barnes, one of the three teachers.
An acceptance of change is another characteristic of the community that
has enabled it to last for so long. Change relates not only to the chat
clients and programs being used, but also to the community make-up. While
the community originally started as a group of teachers and EFL students,
its make-up has recently been changing to include more native speakers
of English who are interested in online education. While most of these
new community members are language teachers, many of them are also interested
in other fields.
From the point of view of the students, the class has lasted so long
because it is interesting. In the words of one informant, Karla, “we are
passionate about it.” Further, students find the chance to interact
with people from other parts of the world to be valuable in itself. At
a recent online conference where several WTI students were present, a member
of the audience asked what it was like to interact online with students
from another part of the world. Some of the students who were present
gave the following answers. “Wonderful.” “We can transcend time and space.”
“The world is smaller.” “Miraculous.” “I have friends all over the world.”
The elimination of any one of these characteristics (multiple means of
interaction, privacy of chat-rooms, and acceptance of change), could threaten
the ability of the community to continue as it has. Of course, eliminating
the group focus would also cause it to disappear. A lot of the group’s
success is due to the sense of community that derives from the interaction
and the willingness of the members to contribute to each other's projects
and goals.
What Differences Exist Between Virtual and Real-World (Face-to-Face)
Interviewing?
Online Interviewing as a Method of Data Generation
While, as discussed earlier (chapter 2), the existence of a “virtual” as opposed to “real world” methodology is one that is still being discussed (see, for example, Blanchard, 2000; Hine, 1998, 2000a, 2000b; B. Mason, 1996, 1999; Müller, 1999; Paccagnella, 1997; Thomsen, Straubhaar and Bolyard, 1998; as well as the discussion on online interviewing on the virtual methods list (February 2000), particularly Bennett (February 17), Kendall (February 27), Slater (February 27), and Waern (February 27)), there are differences in conducting interviews in each case. This section will describe the considerations that are necessary to carry out research (especially interviews) using the Internet.
Considerations Related to the Medium
The first major difference between virtual and real-world interviewing is related to the type of medium--rich or poor. Real-world interviewing--that is, interviewing that is conducted in a face-to-face environment--is a rich medium. The interviewer has access to both what the informant says and how he/she says it. Further, there is a plethora of non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, posture, and gestures, as well as the volume and tone of voice. If the informant is distracted, the interviewer can note this. Also, the informant can begin answering the question as soon as the interviewer asks it and continue answering until finished. If he/she has to pause to consider the answer, the interviewer can tell this from the non-verbal cues. The interviewer can also give encouraging sounds (such as “uh huh” and “I see”) or through non-verbal cues such as the way he/she looks.
Opposing this is the context-poor medium of the virtual interview. Since
the virtual interview is completely text based, there is no non-verbal
or extra-verbal cue for the interviewer to rely on for much of his/her
information. Even in multimedia interviews that take advantage of voice
chat rooms or web cams; unless both participants in the interview have
a high-speed connection and sufficient bandwidth, this type of feedback
can also be misleading. For example, a web cam that also uses voice requires
so much bandwidth that systems often freeze. This reliance on a text-only
medium can be helpful to some extent. Since there are no non-verbal and
extra-verbal cues, the interviewer has to pay particular attention both
to how he/she phrases the questions and to the answers the informant gives.
If there is any doubt about what the informant meant, it needs to be clarified
immediately. Some informants make use of extra comments, smileys, and
shorthand to aid in clarification. For example, I asked Karla what she
did when she received an assignment from Barnes. She replied, “Ignore.
. .lol.” and then sent another comment “Just kidding” to ensure that I
knew she was trying to be humorous. Other informants might have used a
smiley (such as :-) ) to indicate this information. At the same time,
the interviewer can pay this extra attention to
the interview itself because there is no need to take notes or any tape
recorder to worry about. Since the questions and answers are automatically
recorded in text, the interviewer knows he/she will have an exact transcript
of the interview as soon as it is over. Further, since the interview is
automatically saved, there is no need to try to transcribe a tape with
the problems that result from poor pronunciation or problems with accents.
Problems that occur in this type of medium are mostly related to the
lack of non-textual cues. Once the interviewer types a question and hits
the “send” button, there is no immediate response. In the face-to-face
interview, as mentioned above, the informant can start answering immediately,
and the interviewer can hear this answer. In the case of the virtual
interview, however, the interviewer has to wait for the informant to type
in his/her answer. So the questions start: Did the informant understand
the question? Is the informant still there or did he/she lose his/her
internet connection? Is the informant typing the answer? Is the informant
thinking about the answer? And so on. If, as is often the case, the informant
is a slow typist, this wait can seem interminable, even when it is only
a few seconds. After the answer arrives, however, there are still questions
that occur to the interviewer. Is the person finished? Should I go ahead,
or wait to see if there is more? In more than one case, I decided to ask
either a follow up or the next question, only to have the informant continue
answering the previous question. Another problem that occurs due to this
type of interview is the interviewer interrupting the informant with questions
such as “are you still there?” or “did you understand the question?” Usually,
the informant is still there and did understand the question, but has to
take his/her time typing it. In the case of informants who normally do
not use a Roman alphabet, they may be very slow typists. But even informants
who do use a Roman alphabet are not necessarily fast typists.
Another question of interest is what else the informant is doing besides
answering your questions. For example, one of my informants would often
pause for a few minutes and then come back to the interview and say, “Sorry,
I had to answer the telephone.” Another informant generally scheduled
our interviews for the time between finishing work and waiting for her son
to pick her up. I tended to wonder if she was also straightening up her
desk and workspace while answering my questions. But even in cases where
the person is not at work, and there is no telephone, many people who are
in a chat environment also have a television or radio on in the background.
Or they have family who come in and interrupt. Or they have other people
in the room who are having a conversation that he/she is also paying attention
to. Or, as happened to me on more than one occasion, they may be involved
in more than one chat session at a time. All of these must be taken into
consideration in carrying out virtual interviews.
Considerations Related to Obtrusiveness
Related to this difference in rich and poor medium is the amount of obtrusiveness that is necessary in observing interaction in a classroom and finding possible informants. In a real-world context, an investigator can sit in the back of a room and be basically ignored. After a while this person may become a fixture that the students basically ignore. At the same time, they can make some judgments about the researcher based on such non-verbal cues as manner of dress, age, gender, and his/her interaction with the teacher. When the time comes for the researcher to look for informants, he/she has probably developed some idea of who is or is not a good candidate, and the students have seen him/her enough to have developed some sense of the researcher belonging to the class. In a virtual class, on the other hand, a person who just appears in the class and sits there becomes only a name on the list of people present. Since everything is based on text, there is no way to form any judgment about the researcher unless he/she participates actively in the class.
Considerations Related to Time
Finally, a third aspect of virtual interviews that must be taken into consideration is time. This section can actually be divided into three sub-sections: 1) time to learn the programs used by the community and community norms, 2) time to become known and trusted, and 3) problems related to differences in time zones.
All communities have their norms, and online communities are no different.
Further, all virtual communities have their own set of software and
chat clients they prefer to use. Anybody who has attended chat sessions
run by different groups will probably have noticed this, and usually
spent a little time getting used to it. In the case of norms what is
acceptable in one group may not be acceptable in another, and what is
unacceptable in one may be the norm in another. For example, most informal
chat rooms rely on pseudonyms. Most formal, professional, and educational
groups do not approve of them. In the case of WTI, this led to problems
in convincing my informants that I had to use pseudonyms since they normally
did not use them.
Besides learning the norms of the community, something that may take
several sessions, the researcher needs to learn what software the community
normally uses. In some cases this can take a large amount of time. Not
all MOOs use the same interface, and if the researcher is used to one interface,
another may cause him/her trouble. Further, many chat clients are different
in how they post. In some cases, the chat room occupants must constantly
use the “update” key to see what has been posted. In others, the chat
page is automatically updated every time someone posts. In some cases,
pressing the <ENTER> key will automatically post the message that
is being typed; in other cases, the poster must press the “send” key.
In the case of MOO environments, some have one set of commands; others have
a different set. What works in one environment, then, will not necessarily
work in another. Time to learn the programs works not just for the researcher
and new members of the community. The WTI group started using Yahoo!
for voice conferencing in late May - early June. At the end of October,
the members of the community learned, just by accident, how to allow new
participants in a conference without first closing the conference and
then opening a new one.
Besides the time needed to become familiar with the norms and software,
the researcher also has to spend enough time in the community to become known
as a regular participant. While in many informal groups, this means the
researcher has to be present in the particular chat room every day, in groups
such as WTI, it means he/she must be present in every weekly chat session,
post weekly to the e-class, and be available to chat with group members
at odd hours when they find the researcher online. This is similar to the
need for researchers of “real-life” environments to be present in that environment.
The major time factor that needs to be kept in mind is not a length of
time, but the need to take time zones into account. If two people in New
York make an appointment to meet for an interview at 3:30 in the afternoon
on June 6, they can both take for granted that 3:30 in the afternoon means
3:30 Eastern Daylight Time. This does not work in a virtual environment.
Using the same time (3:30 pm) the following questions must be answered.
1. Where is it 3:30? (Where the researcher lives or where the informant lives)2. What is the time zone in each of these places?
3. Is either place on Summer (or Winter) time?
As an example, let’s take an interview that is set up for March 1 where
the researcher is in Puerto Rico (-4) and the informant is in Brazil (-3).
However, since Puerto Rico does not have Summer or Winter time, while
Brazil does, the informant may actually be in zone (-2). The question that
needs to be answered is: “Should I (the researcher) be available at 3:30,
2:30, or 1:30?” In other words, if the researchers is not aware of Brazil
being on Summer time, he/she may arrive in the chat room either one or
two hours late, or one or two hours early. There is a way to overcome
this problem. In most cases, the WTI community uses GMT for all time-related
matters. However, in the case of arranging for interviews, there is still
the need to take the time zones into account since both the researcher
and the informant should be aware of the approximate time at the other
place. Failure to realize this may mean arranging for interviews at such
times as one or the other will either be asleep or working.
Considerations Related to Technical Matters
Finally, there are technical considerations that should
be taken into account. In a “real-life” environment, if the tape recorder
fails to work, the researcher can always fall back on the use of paper
and pen. In a virtual interview, however, if either participant loses his/her
connection to the Internet, or cannot access the agreed upon chat client,
the interview cannot be carried out. In one interview, an informant and
I had agreed to meet in a chat room that became inaccessible. Fortunately,
we found each other online and decided to use ICQ. There were two cases
in which one or the other of us was unable to connect to the Internet. In
these cases, all we could do was send each other email messages explaining
why we missed an appointment. This definitely has to be taken into consideration
by any researcher who decides to use the Internet to carry out interviews.
In the next chapter, I will discuss my findings, including
recommendations for further research in this area.