Review of the Research

What ARE the deficiencies that are stifling the full potential of online language learning in 2008?

There is no doubt that Internet-based language instruction (aka Web-based language learning (WBLL)) is an innovative and relatively young offshoot of the study of second language acquisition growing exponentially in both its popularity and its range. This last particularly refers to the constant creation and adaption of new computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools to its developing pedagogy. There can be no doubt at all that its future is both promising and healthy; second language learning and teaching (SLLT) is in good hands. Yes, this author is convinced that the future of SLLT does indeed lie online. Already, the advantages are clear, but you will have to refer to the WBLL literature to expressly read about them for they lie beyond the scope of this essay. The disadvantages, though being elemental enough to deny the full potential of WBLL as an instructional medium, are the subject of this discussion. As we work towards Web 3.0, all the concerns raised here should eventually be resolved. There is no question that language instruction over the Internet works well ['the Internet', 'the Web' and 'online' are being used synonymously here, though of course they strictly are not], and that there are already many language learners and teachers studying and working in cyberspace. The fundamental problem is that the technical state of the existing technology is not yet good enough to accomplish the full set of tasks we want it to be capable of.

The first thing we must realise is that we seem to be trying to treat online pedagogy as though it should fit within the guidelines and parameters defined by 40 years of SLLT research; that is, designed for a traditional (face-to-face) F2F pedagogy. But because '[d]elivering a language course exclusively via the Web constitutes a paradigm shift in teaching; very little relevant research exists to guide the language teaching profession in this new endeavour' (Fleming, Hipple & Du, 2002, pp. 36-7). Consequently, it looks like we may have to design our own. Case in point: even though WBLL is still a baby in terms of its relative lifecycle, three potential problem areas have already been exposed (the use of certified SLLT language teachers untrained in WBLL, unfortunately, is only exacerbating the situation). One emerging disadvantage is that the technological limitations [to be discussed later] 'may lead to a lack of attention to form' [aka accuracy] (Sotillo, 2000,
May, p. 101). The technical - and, in turn, pedagogical - inability to conduct the same standard of monitoring as the teacher can so readily implement in the classroom is causing '[c]lassroom practitioners [to] frequently worry that learner discussions will propagate and reinforce nontarget-like language, in other words, the blind leading the blind' (Blake, 2000, p. 133). Another problem child is the inability to vary student groupings online as easily as the teacher can routinely do in the F2F classroom; again, due to the apparent technological limitations. While the third is the foreseen inability to replicate the same levels of social interaction and sense of community online that skilled teachers can so readily attain in the conventional classroom, and which those same teachers see as vital components for SLLT. [The author, unfortunately, has no supportive evidence from the research on this point.] It can be imagined that teachers (particularly, those untrained in WBLL) may encounter difficulties with juggling the demands of teaching as well as perceiving the technical limitations of the given computer-mediated communication (CMC) tool. All three problem areas are not insurmountable, though, but the answer must lie in further research to develop an online pedagogy capable of limiting any potential damage to the learners. Though every WBLL practitioner is looking forward to the next generation of CMC tools to hopefully solve these deficiencies, we cannot rely on that moment to provide the appropriate pedagogical template in an instant; we need to maintain a momentum of research in the development and promulgation of such an online pedagogy right now.

The literature reveals the fact that today's generation of synchronous computer-mediated audio communication (SCMAC) tools simply do not possess the technical capabilities to replicate authentic oral interaction, particularly in a group situation. For example, students are still required to incorporate military-like communication discipline when using SCMAC tools which simply cannot and does not duplicate the spontaneity and rhythm of natural F2F conversation. 'In cyberspace, the most difficult thing to replicate is the experience of face to face communication' (Fleming, Hipple & Du, 2002, p. 36). As Abras and Sunshine (2008) similarly note, 'today's CMC tools can almost mimic face to face interactions among participants [my italics]' (p. 181). That said, however, this same reference does note that '[v]ideoconferencing mimics face to face instruction, but the price can place it out of reach of most institutions' (p. 183). Let alone the reach of the individual language student who may be studying from home; so, for that very reason videoconferencing remains a tool which is uncommonly used in this field. Sotillo (2000, May) acknowledges WBLLs limitations whilst also supporting the continued use of the technology currently at our disposal,

Although face to face interaction in language learning situations is still essential for making oral input comprehensible and facilitating the

restructuring of the learner's evolving linguistic system, CMC technologies facilitate massive information exchange, have the potential

to enhance the process of ... acquisition and encourage the formation of electronic communities of learning (p. 107).

Though her implication is that all language learning situations require oral input [my italics], two years later Fleming, Hipple and Du (2002) argue that, 'exclusive Web-based delivery is appropriate for skills other than speaking [their emphasis]' (p. 31). As far as this author can determine, this description still fits the current state of play in WBLL today; where it is only speaking that cannot yet be taught exclusively. Furthermore, Fleming et al. (2002) present a fresh perspective of WBLL, the validation of which would also apply to the broader spectrum of SLLT. In comparison to an equivalent course taught in the traditional F2F format,

A reading and writing class [taught online] offers many more opportunities for the learner to read and write, since only by reading and

writing can he communicate. Time devoted to oral discussion in the traditional classroom is turned into time devoted to reading

and writing; the targeted modalities are used to teach the targeted modalities (p. 36).
Using targeted modalities to teach targeted modalities is an interesting hypothesis that certainly warrants further research in order to prove or deny its validity. If it is proven, WBLL would possesses a marked advantage over the rest of the field and receive a massive shot in the arm. [A simple perusal of any WBLL site which targets reading reveals the presentation of the task instructions certainly do follow this precise line of reasoning.] Continuing to run with this thought: perhaps websites that target listening could contain embedded audio in future, in order to present the instructions in that particular target modality; of course, with a scripted backup for learners who experience difficulties. In fact, this author believes Fleming, Hipple and Du's (2002) observation to be so intuitively logical that it actually is the best explanation for speaking not being able to be taught exclusively online just yet [my italics]. The targetted modality cannot be taught via that same modality just yet due to the technical limitations of the extant tools.

The study by Sotillo (2000) is admittedly confined to online textual discussion; to written student output only. But because keyboard input still comprises the vast bulk of Internet (Siu & Chiu, 2001), research is also needed here to see if the findings can be extrapolated to encompass oral output as well. Sotillo (2000, May) finds that allowing student exposure to the two modes of CMC tools - both the synchronous (instant messaging, and chat rooms) and the asynchronous (email, wikis, and blogs) ones - works extremely well together because they offer 'different cognitive processing demands' (p. 106). Her work is a detailed highlight of the full potential that the teaching of speaking could well deliver, yet remains unrealised because of the limited technical capacity of the tools, as has been previously described. The remark about the partial realisation of WBLLs potential refers to the comparison of the existing condition with what could well be if we has the tools to match our imagination (virtual reality sounds interesting, it must be said). The materialisation of its full potential in the future would open up WBLLs horizons even further. Exclusivity as a teaching tool for speaking may well be achieved, for example. Perhaps WBLL may even become mainstream; much like what happened to communicative language teaching within a decade after its emergence as a theory in the 1980s. Interestingly, this phenomenon was was only because of the ensuing explosion of research at the time which could well recur. But for now, the teaching of speaking online must be (or, at least, should be) handled by trained WBLL teachers: to maintain the integrity of the developing systems and so avoid the blind application of the wrong pedagogy, as was described earlier. Online instruction still needs to be complemented by an F2F oral component due to its more authentic input (at least, for the time being). That said, the wealth of research to date acknowledges the undisputed value still to be gained by teaching speaking online, especially if both CMC modes are utilised in tandem.

WBLL still serves a brilliant purpose in its present state; it is simply up to the teacher to maximise its advantages and minimise its technical and pedagogical deficiencies. Because, 'language learning is at the forefront of online education and is taking advantage of all available technologies that enhance oral participation' (Abras & Sunshine, 2008, p. 188), we WBLL educators eagerly await the arrival of Web 3.0. The following observations from Goertler & Winke (2008) are aimed squarely at the future of our chosen field of endeavour. 'Teachers who know and use technology will be preferred [employees, both today and into the future; particularly when in competition with] those who do not' (p. 253); and 'only by knowing the success and failures of others who have already embarked on developing hybrid or distance learning courses, can others follow in their footsteps and avoid making some of the same mistakes' (p. 254). This last note is an obvious call to arms for WBLL practitioners: to help conduct research, so to keep pace with the rapid developments that are only going to continue. Perhaps, even exponentially.

About the author HOME A lesson plan