James writes about his research

On Dec 4, 2001, James sent the following regarding his ideas on using Webheads in his research (italics below are mine - Vance) ...

Hello everyone!

In the Sunday chat sessions we have been talking about the ethics of logging and using the transcripts of our discussions. As one of the webheads who has a research agenda, I would like to put across my views and explain my own research.

The prime reason for logging the chats must be for learners to go to the logs and read through the bits they either missed or didn’t understand first time around. If I miss a session I skim through the log to find out what went on, and I’m sure many others do the same. But a further reason for saving the logs is for research.

When I first started researching computer-mediated communication in October last year I knew very little about it. I had been an EFL teacher for twelve or so years, but had never explored the potential of the emerging technology. In the early months of my research I became very interested in the discourse of CMC from an academic point of view, and also in the pedagogical potential of the new technology. What I wanted to do, and what I still want to do, was to combine discussion of the linguistic aspects of text-based CMC with ways in which language learning can be enabled by CMC and the internet.

Of course I needed to find an example of a web-based English language learning context. And when I found Webheads I was delighted from a research point of view. Here was a pioneering example of the potential of CMC to make a difference with the technology.

But something else has been happening since I joined Webheads which I was less prepared for. I did not realise the extent to which I would enjoy the online chats and being part of an online community. Meeting learners and other teachers from around the world online is a thoroughly rewarding and enjoyable experience. And I have come to understand that the boundary between teacher and learner in Webheads is well and truly blurred. I have learned an enormous amount since I joined.

So what about my research? I am a PhD candidate at the University of Reading, UK, in the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. I first spent quite a lot of time studying synchronous CMC chat from a number of sources (IRC, Messenger, etc) and developed a fairly good idea of the type of discourse features which might be worth looking at with reference to language learning. Without going into too much detail, let me outline what I’m looking at in the Webheads data.

In the chapter where I introduce my research questions, I discuss collaboration as a concept, and look at the linguistic and discourse features of collaborative language learning. I identify turn-taking as being at the heart of collaboration and also of interactivity, proposing that questions of collaboration can be addressed with reference to the interactivity of the discourse. I outline a preliminary list of discourse and linguistic features which might be said to characterise interactive turns and exchanges in synchronous CMC-based CALL discourse. The discussion in this later part of the chapter generated a number of guiding questions which, when fully developed, will serve to guide the analysis of the Webheads chat data.

These questions still need some refinement, but I’ll write them down here to give you an idea of where I’m going.

Q.1 In the specific context of the web-based language learning environment at the heart of this thesis (EFIWebheads), what are the characteristics of participation levels amongst the individual participants?
Q.2 How do levels of participation amongst participants change over time?
Q.3 Within the context of the specific web-based language learning environment, how does collaboration between learners and peers exist in synchronous, text-based CMC discourse?
Q.4 Given the complex nature of turn-taking behaviour on synchronous CMC, is it possible to identify interactive turns and exchanges in the text of the discourse under investigation?
Q.5 Do the following discourse and linguistic features exist in interactive turns (or at some point within an interactive exchange) [significantly] more than in non-interactive turns?

· Statements of opinion which refer to previous turns
· Questions which refer to previous turns
· Expressions of agreement with statements in previous turns
· First person plural pronoun
· Reciprocation in addressivity
· Third person action (including back channel)
· Split turns for interactivity

I hope to say a lot more about the development of a virtual community and about other issues to do with electronic literacy, so looking at the text of the discourse is a starting point. What makes webheads interesting is that the distinction between learners and others is not clear. I think that will be increasingly the case as more people find an element of their language learning experience online.

My area of research has caught the imagination of many in my department, and a number of English Language students and lecturers have shown an interest in joining Webheads. But I really want to know what people think about using the chats for this type of linguistic research.

I see three possible options:

Keep things as they are, i.e. treat the logs as a public resource and simply proceed with my study
Anonymise the logs, i.e. change the names of all the participants
Contact each participant individually to ask for written (email) permission to use their postings
Warn everyone as soon as I get online that I might be using the logs of the chat for research purposes.

I am prepared to do 1-3; 4 would be difficult if a) I wasn’t there, and b) if I want to go back in time to early logs.

I’m sorry to be so long-winded about this, but I don’t want to go ahead any further without getting an idea of what people think. So I welcome your comments.

James Simpson
University of Reading
School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies
PO Box 218
Whiteknights
Reading RG6 6AA
UK
Email: jamesebsimpson@hotmail.com

Vance's response, Dec 5, 2001

Thanks for your email. I think your research ideas sound great. I personally approve of people using Webheads in this way especially if they are themselves interested members of the community, and most important, that the research is action research, that is, feeds back in some way into the community to help its members understand how they relate and what they have accomplished, how they can improve, and so on.

Perhaps you have been in touch with John Steele. He has of course almost completed his dissertation having become himself a member of our community. John appealed to the Webheads community for cooperation in his research and received some takers (I think that means he used option 3 below). His statements to the community are recorded on his Webheads web page which you can access by clicking on his picture wherever you find it on our web pages.

If you wish to use Webheads in your research I think you would be welcome to do so (speaking for the community) especially as you appear to have warmed up to the group. Of your options below, I don't think you can do #1 and receive a degree from an institution that would hold you to normal ethical standards, and #4 is, as you point out, impractical. Even I have had to grapple with this one in disclaimers since it's really impossible to warn everyone who wanders by that they are about to appear on the internet / in research without posting signs at the door. So that leaves you with 2 and 3. Now 2 would probably not work since if you quoted from the logs, I or anyone wishing to discover identity could type your quote into a search engine and discover the true identity of the speaker, so hmmmm, we could just keep that one to ourselves and hope no one on your committee wishes to pursue it, or you could then do #3. I guess this is in fact the proper thing to do, and of course I would be happy to help you secure permissions as needed.

As part of our open community policy, so our members can understand your motives (which I think are worthy) I would like to post your email on your Webheads web page, as I have done for John, and with your permission of course.

I would also like to encourage your studies and, taking my advice above into consideration, leave you to grapple with the ethical issues, which I think you have laid out neatly on the table.

I'm sure we'll hear more from you on this,

Vance

James again, Dec 19, 2001

Yes, I think it is a very good idea to post the email onto the web page. Thank you very much. Do you think we could send a message to the group with a link?

Use your browser's BACK button to return to a previous page

For comments, suggestions, or further information on this page, contact Vance Stevens, page webmaster.

James writes about his research

Last updated: December 21, 2001, in Hot Metal Pro 6.0