If you are interested in learning about research on the use and effectiveness of audio-graphic platforms for language education, you should have a look at this EPPI-center report . Even though their findings suggest that more substantial research is needed, there are some interesting studies and results presented.

Lately I have come across some audio-graphic platforms that I haven’t seen before. During my presentation in Norrkoeping at CFL, I mentioned some different tools for oral interaction online, and some of these (like Marratech, Horizon Wimba, Lyceum (OU platform) etc.) fit with the EPPI definition of tools for Synchronous Audio-graphic Conferencing (SAC), in that they have “bi-directional multipoint speaking/listening” and “text manipulation” (shared tools). In connection with my presentation someone told me about a solution they are using, called Interwise. Another tip I have had is from my sister-in-law who is taking a very interesting-looking course at Uppsala University on ICT in education, where they have used the Macromedia Breeze platform for online seminars. One of the students participating in our oral discussions in FlashMeeting this semester also told me about a platform I haven’t seen before: WebEx. It is nice to get some new input!

For research purposes, it would be interesting to get access to material with people interacting in these different types of environments. I am also trying to convince my department to experiment some more with different tools for oral interaction and web-based seminars, so I’ll continue to keep my eyes open for new solutions. Does anyone know of any good non-commercial audio-graphic platforms?

In a comment to my last post, Joshua remarks on the fact that I apply Milroy’s theory of language change to internet discourse. As can be seen from my reply, I always try to relate my compulsory course work to my research interests (with varying results). Next week we will start a course on technologically mediated communication in connection with HUMlab, and if anyone is looking for a reference on linguistic change in the light of new media, a more current alternative can be found in one of the texts we are reading for this class: Susan Herring’s introduction to the special edition of the Journal of Historical Pragmatics on Media and language change. Even though it can be fruitful to apply theories that were originally used for other areas to CMC research, I am happy to say that I am sure I will have plenty of reasons to return to the readings of this course here in my blog without having to make any artificial connections between course work and research interests!

Again, I am attending a language history course as part of my compulsory course work for my PhD in English Linguistics. This time we are focusing on historical sociolinguistics, and one of the books we are reading is Milroy’s introduction to the topic, Linguistic Variation and Change, from 1992. This is a quite enjoyable read, since it not only focuses on the historical aspect, but also reviews some of the basic tenets of sociolinguistics.

Especially in one section of what I have read so far, it is noticeable that some 15 years have past since the book was written. Milroy refers to the nature of text as opposed to speech and claims that text is decontextualized and mainly has a message-oriented function rather than the speaker-oriented function of most speech. This, he claims, has important consequences for linguistic change. He argues that most change is initiated in speech, since conversational organization itself allows for miscomprehensions. As speakers, we can assume that if there is a miscomprehension which cannot be tolerated, it will be repaired in the course of interaction, and therefore we are also more likely to introduce linguistic innovations in this context.

In today’s connected world, I think it would be true to argue that it is not so much whether we are dealing with speech or text which is significant, but rather it is a question of synchronicity. Also synchronous text interactions will allow for repairs of misunderstandings, and so, following Milroy, linguistic innovations should also be possible in this type of textual conversation.

This brings us to the popular question of whether the innovations in textual lingo will influence other parts of our linguistic system. As you are all aware of, quite a few people are scared that online interaction in text will ruin kids’ ability to write proper English (or Swedish for that matter). Another of Milroy’s points is that a linguistic system at any time is filled with different varieties. This could imply that the CMC variety is one among many suited for different purposes. This is in line with one of the claims that David Craig is making in his paper on Instant Messaging: The language of youth literacy, namely that people know when which variety is appropriate. I agree with this, and think that the more writing practice kids get the better – they will still know when to use what register. If we are to talk about influences between varieties, rather it seems as if the innovation here is about incorporating the traits of casual speech into this specific variety of conversational writing.

It is important to remember that there are varieties within CMC as well. These are both due to the different affordances of the different media and due to the different conventions (or norms, as Milroy would call it) that develop among different groups of people. However, it is not uncommon that these conventions are transported from one medium to another. As an example I can refer to findings from a small scale study I carried out for my Swedish Masters where I looked at the graphical 3D environment ActiveWorlds (among others). Here, you may use your avatar to position yourself in space in order to address someone, or use a kind of spatial gaze to indicate who you refer to by only using a personal pronoun. This pattern only seemed to be followed by a few users. Most would stick to the traditional chat conventions and specify in the text who was addressed/referred to. The co-existence of these two sets of conventions led to some misunderstandings, as can be seen in this excerpt from the chat:

“[x]“: she doesint like me
“[y]” who?
“[z]“: she refers to the entire female population?
“[x]“: unamed girl
“[y]“: a girl without a name?
“[a]“: who me?
“[x]“: no
“[x]“: her

Whether this miscomprehension caused linguistic change in the long run, though, is a question which remains to be explored.

I’ve previously blogged about problems of conveying and understanding irony in text, a difficulty which is getting increasingly noticeable in the age of written CMC. Mymarkup.net points us to a recent post in Cognitive Daily on the topic of sarcasm in email correspondence, inspired by current psychology research and by this list of writing advice (make sure you check out the comments to this list since they include an interesting discussion concerning correctness and the use of Google as a spellchecker).

One concrete tip which strikes me as especially useful is to read your text aloud and to try to do so from a serious perspective. This way you should be able to spot all potential sources of misunderstanding. I usually claim that it the use of smileys helps us get around these problems as well, but, as one of the authors at Cognitive Daily points out, there seems to be little agreement as to what the smileys actually stand for, thus also causing confusion.

For as long as I can remember, my mom has played the piano, and I have many pleasant memories of singing or playing the flute accompanied by her. In recent years, I have started regretting that I never took the chance to let her teach me how to play, since I would love to be able to do the same thing with the kids I hope to have as part of my family sometime in the future.

Luckily, my mom has now started a course to become a certified organist, and one of her tasks is to have a piano student. As soon as I heard about this, I gladly volunteered, and plugged in the electric children’s piano that my husband used to play on when he was a kid. Interestingly, since my mother lives about 250 kilometers from us, we will have to do this with a blended pedagogical approach (some face-to-face and some online tutorials). Yesterday we had our first online lesson, and it turned out to be quite a challenge, keeping track of both keyboards and dealing with the time lag on the sound. Since my first priority is to learn how to play piano accompaniment, we focus on playing chords and singing, and as soon as my mom would try to sing along with me we would notice the time lag. It sure was fun, though!

I’m so excited that I’m finally taking advantage of the fact that my mother has this skill that she can share with me. Now, I just want to find a way of giving back, and so we’re thinking of turning this into an exchange where we use part of our sessions for English tutorials, since mom is taking English classes as well. Should be interesting!

Tomorrow at 1.15pm CET, Brian Hudson, who has just started working at IML here at Umea University will be talking about collaborative learning, social infrastructure and peer support in HUMlab. The seminar will both be live streamed and archived (RealMedia and mp3). Hope to see you there!

Update: Read some of my reflections after the seminar in the HUMlab blog.

A last-minute reminder that there still is time left to submit abstracts to a couple of interesting-looking conferences taking place later this year:

CATaC’06
(Submission deadline: February 13. Read my reflections from the last CATaC conference here.)

IR 7.0
(Extended submission deadline: February 21.)

Since I hope to go to Helsinki, Bordeaux and Granada for conferences this spring and summer, I’m afraid I probably won’t be able to go myself (at least not to Australia), but I’ll give it some more thought over the weekend.

I’ve just finished my second university pedagogy course, which has been useful to me in many ways. Apart from meeting colleagues from different parts of the university and getting information about the rules and regulations that apply here, the most rewarding task was one in which we were to investigate our own departments from a pedagogical point of view. The instructions were very broad, leaving it open to each participant to choose a specific topic. I decided to look at our net based course in English, to learn more about the history and development of the course and the reasoning behind its setup.

While working on this I found out that since the course started in 2002, many innovative setups have been tried. This was new information to me, and even though not all attempts have completely successful, I was happily surprised to hear that efforts have been made. I believe immature technology is one of the reasons why things did not work out as planned, and trying again now might be a good idea. This task also gave me the opportunity to further reflect on the role of interaction in online language learning, and gave me a platform to further promote synchronous oral interaction components in our courses.

Tomorrow my third course in university pedagogy begins. I see that one of the topics will be distance education and web based seminars. It should be interesting to get a better view of how other departments work with these tools!

Every now and then I get a reminder of the fact that I am spending too much time working with digital artefacts. The other week the library contacted me because I had to return a book. I spent hours searching for it – completely annoyed that I couldn’t just type a search word on my computer to find out where it was located. It is sad but true: I am getting so used to not having to memorize where I put things that I have problems finding physical objects…

A few years ago there was a doctoral student at the Computer Science Department here at Umea University, Thomas Pederson, who was involved with a project conducted in connection with HUMlab: Magic Touch. One of the ideas here was to integrate the virtual and the physical office by using a tagging system. If I remember correctly, this would make it possible to search computer folders named after physical containers (like “bookshelf” or “drawer”) also for physical objects, since the tracking system would know where you had put, for instance, your library books. I wonder if he ever developed a prototype… If so, I could certainly use it!