technically speaking: transforming language learning through virtual learning environments (moos)

Technically Speaking: TransformingLanguage Learning through VirtualLearning Environments (MOOs)

Though MOOs (multiple user domains object-oriented) have found a limited use in somelanguage courses, their potential for transforming the language learning classroom has notbeen fully recognized or valued. In Fall 1998 and 1999, the authors teamed up to teach thefirst language course conducted almost entirely using a MOO and involving a 7-week exchangebetween students learning German at an American college and advanced students of Englishat a German university. Drawing on their experiences, the authors systematically map out thetremendous pedagogical benefits to using a MOO for language learning: a student-centeredlearning environment structured by such objectives as peer teaching, autonomous learningprinciples, intellectually rich content-based instruction, individualized learning, and play. Inaddition to offering a model for the successful integration of technology into the classroom,this article suggests how MOOs can help achieve the long-sought goal of securely anchoringintermediate or even elementary language learning back into the liberal arts curriculum.

BEGINNING AS FAR BACK AS THE 1950s WITHthe use of tape decks in the Audiolingualmethod, new technologies have been a perennialsource of hope for making language learning afaster and more efficient process (Blake, 1998).The invention and widespread use of personalcomputers in the late 1980s and 1990s breathednew life into visions of a new future for foreignlanguages (FLs). Yet despite such promises, evenlongtime proponents of FL technology often ex-press frustration with the current state of affairs.Garrett’s 1991 conclusion that technology is still“light-years ahead of the profession’s ability” toharness it for FL learning (p. 74) still seems truetoday. More recently, Bush (1997), citing amongother studies an informal survey of subscribers tothe Language Learning Technology Interna-tional (LLTI) listserve that “found few examplesof language education programs where students

spend at least 10% of their time using technologyto help in their learning,” laments that “there islittle evidence that technology is having any sig-nificant impact on the way most students learnlanguages in today’s classroom” (p. 288). Whilethe expenses associated with most new technolo-gies share much of the blame, teachers have beenhampered just as often by the enormous commit-ment of time required to develop or adopt newtechnologies, especially because return on thatinvestment of time is often not immediate. More-over, many multimedia software programs do notyet achieve the promised goals for computer-assisted language learning (CALL). Even if mostCALL activities are no longer built around “drill-and-kill” exercises, many commercially availableprograms are still structured quite rigidly andlack a truly communicative interface.

While educational multiple user domains ob-ject-oriented (MOOs) are not the only kind oftechnology suited to language learning, we thinkthe MOO-based project we conducted with stu-dents learning German at Vassar College and stu-

SILKE VON DER EMDE JEFFREY SCHNEIDER MARKUS KÖTTERDepartment of German Studies Department of German Studies Westfälische Wilhelms–Universität MünsterVassar College, Box 426 Vassar College, Box 501 Englisches SeminarPoughkeepsie, NY 12604 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 Johannisstr. 12–20Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] D-48143 Münster, Germany

Email: [email protected]

The Modern Language Journal, 85, ii, (2001)0026-7902/01/210–225 $1.50/0©2001 The Modern Language Journal

dents studying English at the University of Mün-ster, Germany, can serve as one important modelfor using technology to transform and to enrichthe language learning experience in the under-graduate classroom. The MOO has evolved fromits origins as Dungeons and Dragons game soft-ware in the 1970s into an online, synchronous,text-based learning environment that serves a va-riety of professional and social purposes. AtAmerican universities, MOOs have found adher-ents in English classes and other subjects,1 butthey are only now starting to find use in FL class-room settings.2 This delay seems to be in partbecause early generations of MOOs admittedlyrequired some training and adjustment time,leading Lafford and Lafford (1997) to recom-mend avoiding them in favor of “less complicatedenvironments” (p. 259) such as chat rooms. Nev-ertheless, the newest generation of MOO inter-faces now makes such warnings unjustified.MOOs have come a long way and deserve a sec-ond look. Until now, however, research on MOOseither has underrecognized their true potentialfor language learning or, despite certain similari-ties between MOOs and chat rooms, has failed todistinguish them fully from other synchronousonline technologies. And while we are not thefirst to use a MOO to teach a FL, we believe weare the first to teach an entire semester-long FLcourse around it and to assess systematically aMOO’s potential for the FL classroom. As thisarticle will suggest, the true advantages of usingMOOs are best achieved through full integrationinto the syllabus—both as a way to modify tradi-tional classroom activities, such as discussions,small group work, and paper writing, and as ameans for introducing important new communi-cative activities. Moreover, opting for a less com-plex system means sacrificing real opportunitiesto transform language learning.

Thus, rather than report directly on use of theMOO in the classroom, this article draws on class-room experiences to outline and document sev-eral extraordinary pedagogical benefits from us-ing MOOs for FL learning. Though the MOOrepresents a technological revolution of sorts thatmoves away from the traditional language class-room, it actually offers unique possibilities forapplying many theoretically sound languagelearning methods. Indeed, we want to suggestthat the MOO makes it technologically possiblefor the first time for teachers and learners toachieve many long-held language learning goalsin a manner that we could only have dreamt ofjust a few years ago. Even as extensive contact withnative speakers stands out as the most obvious

innovation made possible by the MOO, the re-conceptualization of all student interaction asauthentic input through the use of the MOO isequally exciting. The MOO has enabled theauthors to refashion the FL classroom into a stu-dent-centered learning environment structuredby such objectives as peer teaching, autonomouslearning principles, intellectually rich content-based instruction, individualized learning, and,last but not least, play. The MOO realizes the corevision of “communicative CALL” (Underwood,1984): the transformation of the language learn-ing classroom itself.

MOOS AS A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

MOOs are virtual learning environments withpowerful educational tools.3 As synchronous,text-based Internet databases, they extend thevery concept of communication itself—bothwithin and beyond the four walls of the class-room. Of course, like chat rooms, in which usershave keyboard conversations with each other,MOOs enable people from all over the globe to“speak” to each other in real time. Nevertheless,to appreciate the MOO’s potential impact on lan-guage learning, it is important to understand howit differs from chat rooms such as Internet relaychats (IRCs), or even more complex Web-basedcollaborative writing programs such as Daedalus.Although they share with chat rooms the abilityto bring together language learners with nativespeakers for conversational exchange or directedwriting, MOOs offer users many more communi-cation features than are available on these otherchat systems. First, MOOs offer a variety of com-municative modalities. Not only can users con-verse with others in the same virtual room oracross different rooms, but one can also “whis-per” to another person (so that others in theroom do not see what is being “said”), “shout” (sothat everyone in the MOO sees, regardless oftheir room location) and, most importantly,“emote” (that is, express feelings or “physical”actions through words). Second, MOOs providea wide range of manipulable educational toolsand allow users to create and display their ownvirtual objects through simple commands or witha few clicks of the mouse. For instance, users canrecord entire discussions with a (virtual) recorderand play them back at a later date. They can alsowrite notes for other users—and even post themon electronic noteboards. In fact, users can cre-ate an almost unlimited variety of personal cyberobjects, since all objects in the MOO consist of atextual description. Third, instead of using pre-

Silke von der Emde, Jeffrey Schneider, and Markus Kötter 211

defined and abstract spaces, MOOs allow users tocreate personal rooms and describe them in apersonal way. As this article will show, the abilityto personalize space and objects in the MOOallows a community of users to create and evenanalyze its own virtual culture. Finally, the newestgeneration of MOOs are fully integrated with theWorld Wide Web. This development means notonly that users can access MOOs based on theenCore MOO database using a standard Webbrowser, but they can also import Web pages andother graphics into the MOO and send them toother people in the MOO. Because the hyper-links in these Web pages are active, users canjump from the MOO to the Web and back againwith just a few clicks of the mouse. In fact, allobjects created in the enCore system have uniqueUniform Resource Locators (URLs) and can beaccessed directly through the Web, making it easyto publish electronically without any training inHypertext Markup Language (HTML). As a re-sult of these features, the MOO retains the text-based elements that its supporters have alwaysadmired while comparing favorably with any oftoday’s graphic-oriented multimedia programs.

Despite these expansive possibilities, MOOsare easy to learn to use. It takes less than 5 min-utes for beginners to learn to move around andto communicate, and we found that as instructorswe needed no more technical support to teach inthe MOO than is required for any new computersoftware system used in the classroom. Especiallywith the new Web-based interface, even the ad-vanced features of the MOO are intuitive. Fur-thermore, using an existing MOO is absolutelyfree: All that each user requires is a computerwith access to the Internet. Most educationalMOOs allow anyone to sign on as a guest, afterwhich it is possible to apply for a free permanent“character” (sign-on name). Moreover, building aMOO at one’s home institution is relatively easy,though the process requires a small amount oftechnical support. For instance, with the help oftwo student assistants, two of us, von der Emdeand Schneider, developed MOOssiggang, one ofthe world’s first bilingual German MOOs. Thename is a pun on the German word Müßiggang,which means something akin to leisure, relaxa-tion, and idleness and is intended to capture theMOO’s dimension of play.4 When a user entersMOOssiggang, he or she has the option of goingto the “English side” or the “German side” of theMOO. In rooms on the German side, users areexpected to type commands in German, and al-most all feedback from the computer is also inGerman.5 Of course, even though such a bilin-

gual MOO interface offers continuous opportu-nities for language practice at the level of com-puter commands, messages, and use, many of thecommunicative benefits from using a MOO canalso be obtained from an English-language MOOinterface.

COURSE DESCRIPTION AND ONLINEEXCHANGE

Beginning in Fall 1998, the three of us collabo-rated to reorganize Vassar’s third-semester inter-mediate German course to include a virtual ex-change with students studying English at theUniversity of Münster. Kötter, an English instruc-tor at University of Münster, was actively searchingfor American partners for a collaborative ex-change that would enable him to measure the im-pact of MOOs on tandem learning between lan-guage learners and native speakers.6 Meanwhile,von der Emde and Schneider were motivated todevelop a course around the MOO to achieve twopedagogical goals: to find a solution to the oftenvexing range of student proficiencies in our inter-mediate German course (a common problem insmall language programs that often leave somestudents underchallenged and others striving tokeep up) and to introduce intellectually rich con-tent at an earlier stage in the language learningprocess and thereby move beyond teaching a FL asa mere “skill.” Hence, we also used the MOO in theweeks prior to the exchange to introduce low to in-termediate FL learners to texts and questions verymuch along the lines of our own scholarship in lit-erary and cultural studies.7

Because the German academic calendar startsin mid-October, we at Vassar College organizedour intermediate German seminar in two dis-tinct phases.8 During the first 7 weeks, studentsgot acquainted with the MOO, began an inten-sive grammar review, and reflected upon generalcultural topics. Though we drew on a grammartextbook, the primary focus of this phase wason exploring issues of identity and spacethrough literary and cultural readings, throughdiscussions in the MOO, and by having studentscreate their own cultural spaces and identitiesin the MOO. In addition to activities that en-couraged students to reflect upon the virtual cul-ture they were constructing in the MOO, thisfirst phase also included assignments that askedstudents to define their learning goals, assesstheir progress, build vocabulary, and understandthe principles of collaborative learning. Duringthe second phase of the course, which lastedfrom mid-October to early December, students

212 The Modern Language Journal 85 (2001)

at Vassar worked in small groups with studentsfrom Münster to develop and present their ownjoint research projects in the MOO. These col-laborative, interdisciplinary projects arose out ofthe students’ own interests, and all projects fo-cused primarily on differences and similaritiesbetween German and American culture. Projectsin the Fall 1998 and Fall 1999 semesters com-pared German and American educational sys-tems, immigration policies, national stereotypes,multiculturalism, and music culture. Because thecourse met twice weekly for 75-minute sessions,Phase 2 offered each student approximately 16contact hours with native speakers—about 8hours in each language—in groups no largerthan two Americans and two Germans. Projectwork often necessitated that groups also ex-changed emails or met in the MOO outside ofclass. In addition to the two weekly 75-minutesessions in the MOO, Vassar students also metfor 50 minutes on a weekly basis with instructorsand teaching assistants to practice oral skills andreflect on their work in the MOO. Instead ofquizzes and tests on grammar, students kept alearning portfolio of all their work completedinside and outside the MOO throughout the se-mester. The students and teachers used theseportfolios to evaluate the students’ overall classperformance.9

FIVE PEDAGOGICAL BENEFITS TO USINGTHE MOO

Of course, computer technologies such as theMOO do not represent a particular or inherentteaching strategy in and of themselves. As Garrett(1991) has observed, “the computer is rather amedium or an environment in which a wide vari-ety of methods, approaches, or pedagogical phi-losophies may be implemented” (p. 75). Thoughit is still necessary to gather more information onthe actual effects of the MOO on student progressbefore conclusive results can be made available,our experience with MOOs in the intermediatelanguage classroom has nevertheless led us toidentify at least five pedagogical dimensions thatshould constitute an informed and principled in-tegration of MOOs for FL learning. Each of thefollowing benefits from using MOOs derives inpart from the radically student-centered learningenvironment made possible by the MOO.

Authentic Communication and Content

Almost automatically, the MOO restructureslanguage learning dynamics away from drill-like

exercises or an exclusive attention to grammati-cal accuracy to content-based activities and mean-ingful communication between students. Re-searchers in second language acquisition havelong reminded language teachers that languageacquisition is not a passive skill of recognition buta creative construction process. Cognitive scien-tists such as Hunt (1982) have found that bymatching new language input with older bits ofknowledge—what linguists call “schemata”—stu-dents constantly “negotiate” between what theyalready know and what they hear and see in newcommunicative situations (Rüschoff, 1993, p.29). Indeed, in order to learn a new language,students must actively gather new information,and then process, reorganize, and internalize it.Already in 1985, Ellis pronounced that languagelearning results from communicative languageuse. Unlike many textbook exercises (and cer-tainly most grammar exercises), however, theMOO establishes such authentic communicativesituations in ideal ways.

First of all, like chat rooms, MOOs can be usedto discuss authentic materials. For instance, in aunit on space during the first phase of the course(prior to contact with native speakers), studentsanalyzed three exemplary short passages in Ger-man culled from different genres. The first was aparagraph from Franz Kafka’s story “Der Bau”(“The Burrow”), which portrays a mole’s nerv-ously charged relation to his burrow. The secondwas taken from a contemporary detective story byJakob Arjouni that describes the protagonist’svery messy office in ironic, postmodern noirterms. The third was excerpted from a letter writ-ten by Rosa Luxemburg, in which she juxtaposesthe dull confines of her World War I prison cellwith the beautiful, emotionally liberating, phan-tasmic spaces of her memory and imagination. Inthe first step in this unit, we asked students todiscuss the readings in small groups in the MOO.Our experience with discussions in the MOOconfirms what Beauvois (1997) has found in herstudy of chat rooms: Students at the intermediatelevel were able to draw fairly sophisticated conclu-sions in the target language because the writtenconversational form of the MOO enables them tobridge the gap between written and oral skills—agap that otherwise often prevents the “full ex-pression of ideas” in discussions in a traditionallanguage classroom (p. 167).

Using the MOO as a chat room–like discussionspace, however, is not the only, or even the mostunique, use of the MOO. The MOO also makesit possible for students to construct their ownlanguage learning environment and thereby re-


fashion themselves into a community of learners.Eck, Legenhausen, and Wolff (1995) suggest thattruly authentic communicative situations onlyarise when the language classroom itself becomesthe focus of student work and activities, that is,when the classroom environment is recognizedand thematized as an integral part of students’living reality (Lebenswirklichkeit) rather than as anunreflected routine outside of it. Thus, after in-itiating another MOO-based discussion about therelationship between the MOO’s unique spatialdimensions and the three texts illustrating differ-ent notions of space, we asked students to puttheory into practice and to construct their ownroom in MOOssiggang. In the virtual, text-basedworld of the MOO, building a room essentiallymeans describing a space—any imaginativespace—with language, and thus the goal of theassignment was to have students produce textson par with the discursive examples they hadread for this unit. Students then analyzed with apartner the spaces they had produced. Thesepartner work exercises not only helped studentswith their descriptions but also emphasized thattheir writing had an authentic communicativepurpose. For instance, after they built and de-scribed their rooms, partners gave each otherfeedback about their descriptions, such as whatkind of impression they made and what kind ofperson they thought lived there. Thus, ratherthan an arbitrary exercise undertaken only topractice the language, these spaces becamethemselves objects for the same kind of analysisdone on Kafka’s story or Luxemburg’s letter. Aspublic documents of a sort, these virtual roomswere qualitatively different from a description ofa dorm room, a standard assignment in a tradi-tional FL classroom.

An example of a room description by one ofthe students from the Fall 1998 semester canserve as an example:

Zimmer von CarlaMein Raum ist prima. Ich habe einenKuehlschrank, wo mein Wodka steht (aber ichfinde Rum am besten!) Mein Bett liegt in dieEcke. An meine Anrichte liegt eine Kerze. DieKerze ist zauberhaft (aber ich weiss nichtwarum!) Meine Freunde glauben, dass sie eineFrau in die Flamme sehen koennen. Ja, ich findees sehr mystisch. Mein Raum ist auch sehr ruhig.Leute spricht nicht in meinem Raum. Sie wollennur Musik hoeren. Meine Waende sindblau—blau wie die Himmel. Mein Teppich istgruen—gruen wie das Gras. Mein Raum gibtnur ein Fenster. Ich liebe, wenn ich mich aufs

Fenster lehnen. Ich kann ein Wald sehen. DieAussicht ist sehr schoen. Ich denke oft ueber dieWaeldern. Die Waeldern geben keine Waende.Manchmal ist mein Raum ein bisschen unorden-tlich. Mein Kleidung steht nicht imSchrank—aber es ist mir egal. Mein Raum,schmutzig oder nicht schmutzig, gefaellt mir. Achso—ich habe eine Katze. Herby, die SuperKatze,wohnt mit mir. Ich bin nicht so einsam. MeinRaum ist gemuetlich aber ein bisschen unheim-lich. Ich liebe meinen Raum.

(Carla’s RoomMy room is super. I have a refrigerator,where I keep my vodka (though I like rumthe best!) My bed is in the corner. A candlelies on my sideboard. The candle is magical(but I don’t know why!) My friends believethat they can see a woman in the flame. Yes,I find it very mystical. My room is also verycalm. People do not speak in my room.They only want to hear music. My walls areblue—blue like the sky. My carpet isgreen—green like the grass. My room hasonly one window. I love to lean out of thewindow. I can see a forest. The view is verybeautiful. I think a lot about the woods.The woods don’t have any walls. Sometimesmy room is a little disorderly. My clothingis not in the closet—but that’s not impor-tant. Dirty or not dirty, I think my room isgreat. Oh, I have a cat. Herby, the Super-Cat, lives with me. I am not so lonely. Myroom is cozy but a little uncanny. I love myroom.)

Though this assignment generated an impressiveamount of language use from a third-semesterstudent just weeks after the start of our course,we advocate reading the room description forthe cultural and personal notions of space it con-veys. As Kramsch and Nolden (1994) stress, in-termediate language students (and their teach-ers) need to value student writing—and take itseriously—by subjecting it to the kinds of cul-tural analyses that are practiced in the classroomon the published writing by native-speakingauthors. Such an approach means that gram-matical accuracy should not be the only or evena primary focus of any response to student writ-ing—either by a teacher or by a fellow student.Indeed, like the short texts by Kafka, Luxem-burg, or Arjouni, Carla’s room description offersan imaginary space worthy of more careful con-sideration. Perhaps the most striking feature ofher room is its fusion of practicality with mysti-cism. Though one of the first things she tells us


is that she has a refrigerator with alcohol (notan uncommon feature of a dorm room), shealso informs her fellow students that she has aburning candle near her bed in whose flame sev-eral visitors claimed to see a spirit. This secondpoint makes the room seem very different froma typical dorm room. Nevertheless, it is possibleto read Carla’s room as a reaction to the chal-lenges and uncertainties of life as a first-semesterfreshman. Her own virtual room—with its bluewalls resembling the limitless sky—attempts tostrike a curious equilibrium between unlimitedpossibility and natural borders. This search foran equilibrium seems to be required of all fresh-men as they leave the confining comfort ofhome for the big adventure of college. That newlife is both exciting and scary—perhaps some-times lonely or even uncanny. Carla’s virtualroom captures that heady combination of feel-ings—and, with affirmative statements at the be-ginning and end of her description, embracesit.

When students build their own rooms, createnoteboards or other educational tools, and rep-resent their own (virtual) personality in the FL,their motivation to use the target language isgenuine and has authentic communicative goals.While research into computer-mediated commu-nication (CMC) has verified its significant im-pact on learner motivation (Warschauer, 1996;Beauvois, 1994), the MOO necessarily expandsthe definition of “communication” beyond syn-chronous discussions or other direct and inten-tional exchanges (such as email) with nativespeakers, classmates, and teachers. Indeed,building rooms in the MOO is not just a pretendexercise, which students hand in and then for-get. Instead, their rooms become part of the en-vironment that the students themselves con-struct and use for their language learning.Because these virtual rooms become the meetingplaces for groups of students working on proj-ects or just looking for fun, the students’ writingbecomes part of their identity as language learn-ers and can potentially trigger countless discus-sions and exchanges with other learners in theMOO. Like one’s own apartment, home, ordorm room, the virtual rooms convey importantinformation about who students are or want tobe in the target language, and in this sense theyrepresent their owners to the native and nonna-tive speakers they might soon encounter andeven work with. Hence, it would be a mistaketo discount the virtual nature of spaces and in-teractions in the MOO as “unreal” or “inauthen-tic.” As Haynes and Holmevik, the developers of

the MOO core used in this study and two of theMOO’s most thoughtful theorists, eloquently putit: “Our work debunks the myth that online re-lationships are somehow UNREAL and ONLYfull of inane chat; rather, it is a testimony tocommunity-building, not dehumanizing urbani-zation” (Haynes & Holmevik, 1995). The writingthat students do in the MOO becomes part ofthis community’s discourse and plays an integraland lasting role in constructing that public cul-ture. What kind of communication could bemore authentic?

Autonomous Learning and Peer Teaching in aStudent-Centered Classroom

Much research on the use of synchronous on-line systems in classes has observed that workingwith these programs inevitably transfers more re-sponsibility for the direction of the course fromthe teacher to the students (Beauvois, 1992; Laf-ford & Lafford, 1997). In our use of the MOO,this happened at two distinct but intimately re-lated levels. First, the decentered space of theMOO necessarily gives students more autonomyas learners, which Little (1991) provisionally de-fines as “a capacity for detachment, critical reflec-tion, decision-making and independent action”vis-à-vis the very process of learning (p. 2). In thesmall group work that takes place in the MOO,students largely control the flow of discussion; incompleting authentic documents for the MOO,such as their room or character description, stu-dents decide how many drafts and revisions theymust complete in order to meet their own stan-dards for self-presentation; in reviewing theirlogs, students identify their contributions to classdiscussions and their own learning. Second, thecommunity-based structure of MOOs also natu-rally leads to peer teaching, since students beginto learn from and teach each other. Though tan-dem learning is an age-old method that relies onautonomous learning principles, new technolo-gies such as email have made it more feasible tobring native speakers together with languagelearners across great physical distances (Bram-merts, 1996). In the case of the exchange organ-ized between students from Vassar College andstudents at the University of Münster duringPhase 2, all participants were responsible not onlyfor their own but also for their partners’ languagelearning progress. While having native speakersfunction as experts increased the number ofteachers available to students (from 1 to about20) and allowed each student to receive muchmore feedback, taking on the role of teacher for


their own native language also automaticallymade students’ own language learning processmore self-reflective.

In line with the principles of autonomouslearning and peer teaching, students negotiatedwith their native-speaker partners about howmuch time should be spent working in each lan-guage and how they wanted to handle correc-tions. All students understood that their partnersshould have a fair chance to learn from them,too, and thus each language should get equaltime. Each group, however, could decide how toachieve this goal. In the first exchange (Fall1998), many groups decided to switch half-waythrough each session, while others decided toalternate entire periods—a possibility since theclass met twice weekly. In addition to determiningthe time allotted to each language in the discus-sions, students also negotiated how to help eachother learn the target language. The logs fromthe students’ group work demonstrated time andagain how thoughtful and responsibly studentsteach their partners: They correct each other po-litely and in encouraging ways, they gently re-mind one another to get back to work, and theypraise each other’s efforts and accomplishments.Often a series of complex interactions occurs in ashort period of time, such as in the followinginteraction about language learning that tookplace in a group consisting of two Americans andone German:

Michael laechelt auchFrank says, “Mmh, ich denke, Hemmungenbeim Sprechen einer Fremdsporache [sic] liegenoft daran, dass wir beim lernen gesagt bekommenhaben, dass alles korrekt sein muss. Dabei istdoch der Inhalt viel wichtiger als die absolutefehlerfreie Sprache.”Holger_Guest says, “ich bemerke gerade, dassdas hier suechtig macht, nicht wahr?”Linda says, “Was heissen Hemmungen undsuechtig?”Frank says, “Hemmungen sind, wenn man sichnicht traut, etwas zu tun, wenn man zoegert,weil man Angst hat, etwas Falsches zu tun.Suechtig: wenn man die Finger nicht davon las-sen kann und immer mehr will; abhaengig, wievon Drogen. Okay?”Linda says, “Ja, danke.”Michael says, “die Saetze mit viele Infinitivs,und mit dem Konjunktiv sind sehr schwer fuermich””Frank says, “Mmmh, ich versuche, kuerzer zuschreiben. Und einfacher.”

(Michael smiles too

Frank says, “Hmm, I think speaking inhibi-tions [Hemmungen] in a foreign languageare often due to the fact that when we werelearning we were always told that every-thing had to be correct. Yet the content isreally more important than totally error-free speech.”Holger_Guest says, “I already notice thatthis [talking in the MOO] is addictive[suechtig]—don’t you agree?”Linda says, “What do ‘Hemmungen’ and‘suechtig’ mean?”Frank says, “Hemmungen are when youdon’t dare to do something, when you hesi-tate because you are afraid to do somethingwrong. Suechtig: when you can’t keep yourhands off something and always want moreof it; dependent, like addicted to drugs.Okay?”Linda says, “Yes, thanks.”Michael says, “The sentences with lots ofinfinitives and with subjunctive/condi-tional are very difficult for me.”Frank says, “Hmmm, I will try to writeshorter sentences. And simpler ones.”)

As this example illustrates, students working inthe MOO often felt much more comfortable ask-ing their partners for definitions and other helpthan tends to be the case in the traditional class-room, where their questions might have inter-rupted the discussion for the whole class. Whileboth German and American students often re-sorted to English words and translations, espe-cially when they excitedly sought to convey infor-mation or make a point quickly, many also putextraordinary care and effort into giving defini-tions of words and even whole concepts in thetarget language. Frank’s thoughtful definitions of“Hemmungen” (inhibitions) and “süchtig” (ad-dictive) helped his American partner Linda, butthe complex syntax he used in his initial pointabout speaking inhibitions confused Michael.Fortunately, the MOO’s mediated conversationalformat lowered speaking inhibitions, and Mi-chael was able to admit that he did not under-stand something and to ask his partners to slowdown or to use simpler German. Thus, thoughFrank focused on helping Linda and Michaellearn German, he also received feedback on hisuse of his native language, making him morecognizant of the complex social and psychologi-cal processes required to facilitate positive andeffective language learning. This, of course, wasthe point Frank originally set out to make aboutspeaking inhibitions!


Students similarly showed great responsibilityin either correcting their partners’ mistakes orhelping them with vocabulary. Without the teach-ers’ help, most groups in the Fall 1998 semesteractually discussed on their own initiative whenthey would intervene to correct their partnersand when they would overlook less importantslips in order to refrain from interrupting theconversation. For instance, in this same discus-sion Frank employs a very effective method ofhandling mistakes:

Michael says, “Ich will ein ‘Webpage’machen.”Linda says, “Also, Schwierigkeiten mit Immigra-tion, und. . . .Frank says, “Auf einer Internet-Seite? Okay,klingt gut.”Michael says, “Ahhh . . . Vielen Dank, Frank”Michael says, “Sollen wir eine Internet-Seite ue-ber Immigration machen?Oder ueber ein andere Thema?”

(Michael says, “I want to make a ‘Webpage.’”Linda says, “Okay, difficulties with Immi-gration, and. . . . ”Frank says, “On an ‘Internet-Seite’ [Webpage]? Okay, sounds good.”Michael says, “Ahhh. . . . Thanks a lot,Frank”Michael says, “Should we make eine Internet-Seite [a Web page, gender � feminine]about Immigration? Or about a differenttopic?”)

Instead of correcting Michael, Frank simply mod-eled the correct use of the German word for Webpage (“Internet-Seite”). Michael immediatelypicked up on this input and used the word cor-rectly—with the correct gender!—from this pointon. Even though Michael, Frank, and Linda un-derstood each other in this discussion, Michaelstill signaled his interest in improving his Germanskills and thus improving his chances of beingunderstood better in the future. It was obvioushow much the students in this group liked oneanother and how they trusted their partners totreat them with respect and empathy. In this way,peer teaching actually increased the students’self-confidence in using the language. Because allAmerican students were learners of the FL as wellas teachers of their native language, they not onlyfelt safe to make mistakes but they also gainedself-confidence in the knowledge that they hadsomething to teach their partners in Germany.Although the English of the students from the

University of Münster was more advanced thanthe German of the students from Vassar College,the American students did correct their Germanpartners and they did feel that they had some-thing to offer to the students in Germany.

If students using a MOO assume these tworoles previously held by the teacher—on the onehand setting learning goals and structuring classdiscussions, while on the other correcting mis-takes and representing the target language andculture—then clearly the role of the instructormust change radically. Thus, the introduction oftechnology challenges teachers to develop newpedagogical approaches as much as it promisesdeeper student language learning. Blake (1998)suggests that empowering students “to communi-cate with other students and teachers from otherinstitutions in the United States and abroad” ne-cessitates that teachers “surrender their sover-eignty over the direction of the classroom” and“embrace a new social infrastructure” (p. 232).Rather than serving as the final arbiter of whathas to be learned, the teacher becomes “facilita-tor” and “guide” (Beauvois, 1992) in the commonproject of exploring the FL.

Of course, the responsibility that teachers turnover to students does not diminish their role inthe classroom, let alone make them superfluous.Rather than personally directing all activities inthe classroom, teachers using the MOO need tofacilitate student learning in three primary ways.First, teachers need to design meaningful stu-dent-centered activities with explicit content-based goals. Because we no longer relied on atextbook to organize classroom activities, prepa-rations for the course involved identifying topics,locating pertinent readings, developing discus-sion questions (which we posted in the MOO),guiding students through the features of theMOO, and supplementing work in the MOOwith class sessions devoted to oral practice. Sec-ond, teachers need to help students becomeautonomous learners by letting them definetheir individual learning goals and analyze theirown progress, since, as Little (1991) emphasizes,“autonomy is likely to be hard-won and its perma-nence cannot be guaranteed” (p. 4). We metwith students once each week outside the MOOto show them, for instance, how to go backthrough their logs to identify errors and use thecorrect modeling done by their native-speakerpartners, how to identify grammar exercises fortheir own practice, and how to learn the vocabu-lary they needed for their projects. The results ofthese activities formed the basis of their learningportfolios, which also included printouts of all


their work in the MOO. Third, instructors needto respond regularly to the students’ ongoingportfolios as well as to their efforts in the MOO,because students require counseling and feed-back from instructors in order to be effectivepeer teachers (Brammerts, 1996). In the end, theeffective integration of MOOs into the languagelearning curriculum does not mean turning stu-dents loose simply to “chat.” On the contrary, theunstructured exercises in early experiments us-ing the MOO to teach ESL (Pinto, 1996) canleave students feeling bored or conflicted aboutits benefits for their language learning—evenwhen conversing with native speakers.

Individualized Learning

An important facet of the MOO is its potentialfor individualized learning. By having studentswork together in the MOO, all students write andspeak at the level they are capable of while stillparticipating fully in the collaborative learningprojects taking shape there. As the two examplesabove illustrate, the MOO enables multiple andflexible communication levels that can be tai-lored to each student’s needs through negotia-tion with his or her partner. Moreover, the prac-tice of having students maintain logs of theirwork in the MOO allowed slower learners to “re-peat” the conversation at a later date to study thevocabulary and syntax that had given them prob-lems the first time around. This mediated struc-ture to communication in the MOO is especiallyimportant for small language programs like theGerman section at Vassar College, where an in-structor is more likely to have a larger range ofstudents at different—sometimes perplexinglydifferent—skill levels in the same classroom. In arecent article, for instance, Tschirner (1997) callssuch heterogeneity in language classrooms “thebiggest problem” after the persistent “lack oftime” required to achieve our goals as teachersand learners (p. 123).

In addition to facilitating partner and groupwork between students at different proficiencylevels, the MOO and other online, synchronoussystems lead all students to produce more lan-guage than is possible in a traditional classroom(Beauvois, 1992; Pinto, 1996). Even in an era oflanguage teaching that values (or even overval-ues) oral proficiency, such language productionis significant, given that research by Beauvois(1996, 1997) and Smith (1990) suggests that writ-ten skills practiced in synchronous environmentsmay lead to improved oral performance. More-over, although the logs from the classroom ses-

sions document increased language productionfor all students, this increase was even moreprevalent and noteworthy for students who wereeither shy, afraid of making mistakes, or other-wise unable to perform equally well in all differ-ent skill areas. While a traditional classroom set-ting might easily discourage these kinds ofstudents from participating fully in a class discus-sion, the more mediated form of oral communi-cation creates a less-pressured atmosphere by al-lowing students to consider their words beforepressing enter. One of the American students, forexample, a shy but talented perfectionist whowould not participate in a discussion unless shewas absolutely certain that what she wanted to saywas free of all grammatical mistakes, gave at theend of the semester the following evaluation ofher learning in the MOO: “I think I pick up onmistakes when I’m speaking and try to correctthem, but this is, of course, easier in the MOObecause the text is right in front of us. . . . I thinkI’ve also been a little more experimental with thelanguage, using a word that I’m not completelysure of or making a German word out of anEnglish one and then asking my MOO-mates if Idid use the word correctly.” Though working inthe MOO did not necessarily lead her to changeher approach dramatically, it did help her to par-ticipate more fully in class by giving her morecontrol, and teaching her to rely on her partnersfor assistance. Of course, the MOO does not onlyfacilitate more direct participation—in the formof discussion—with other class members or nativespeakers. As a space for producing culture andnon-synchronous documents (i.e., room descrip-tions) that are then integrated back into the syn-chronous environment, the MOO also offers FLlearners a variety of participatory and expressiveoptions not available in IRCs and other chatrooms. Not only is the MOO, as a general space,hospitable to a wide variety of interactions be-tween students, but through personal rooms andother tools, it allows each student to tailor his orher learning environment to make individualizedlearning possible.

Importance of Experimentation and Play

Aside from structuring all communication asmeaningful interaction, the MOO also encour-ages an element of play and experimentationwith the language which triggers students’ crea-tivity, a vital dimension of the language learningprocess. Rüschoff (1993), for example, remindsus that “language learners not only need ampleopportunity to engage in communicative activi-


ties but must also . . . be given enough freedomto creatively interact with [language] in order tobuild on their mental knowledge base” (p. 9).Like no other medium, the MOO allows learnersto experiment with and explore the language towhich they are being exposed. For instance,through the use of pseudonyms, the MOO pro-vides a wealth of opportunity for role-play activi-ties that can even extend to constructing the nec-essary setting and props as well as “filming” forplayback at a later date. But even without theanonymity of assigned or freely chosen names inan organized activity, the MOO’s more mediatedform of interaction—its reliance on “writtenspeech”—makes it also a safe environment forstudents to experiment and play with new lan-guage structures. Such a playful and non-pres-sured environment can lower or even eliminateaffective filters, thus encouraging learning as wellas experimentation with communication strate-gies (Beauvois, 1992).

It is possible to find countless examples of in-stances in the logs where students began to playand experiment with the target language: Theytried to be funny in the target language, theydisplayed an amazing creativity with the emotecommands, and they explored ways to sympa-thize, encourage, and convince their partners. Atthe end of one group’s otherwise productive ses-sion, one of the American students tempted herGerman partner into leaving the more sophisti-cated discussion of multicultural identities inGermany and the United States for some MOOplay in English:

Sarah says, “ok—I’ve got a quote we coulddiscuss. . . . . . ”Carla says, “let us have it”Carla eats LuigiCarla and spits him outLuigi doesn’t taste that good, really ;)Luigi nibbles on Carla’s ear.Luigi says, “I’d like to hear the quote too”Luigi pokes you in the ribs.Sarah says, “As long as the U.S. continuesto emphasize teh [sic] rights of individualsover those of groups, we need not fear thatteh [sic] diversity brought by immigrationwill lead to ethnic division or disunity”Carla runs awaySarah feels left out of the actionLuigi comforts Sarah, telling her that every-thing will be allright [sic].Sarah wonders “what about my ears?”Luigi nibbles on Sarah’s ear too.Sarah expresses gratitude

Even in situations where students only seemed tobe silly and not very focused on the task at hand,they displayed a tremendous range of communi-cation strategies. In terms of soliciting spontane-ous and unselfconscious use of language, playingand experimenting with language is probably themost obvious and one of the most productivelearning strategies that the MOO encourages. Yetplaying is also a means for students to developand to affirm their meaning within the commu-nity they have established in the MOO. ThoughSarah initially felt left out of the play betweenCarla and Luigi, Luigi brought her into the gameand afforded her the same kind of affection hehad shown Carla. Thus, play also encourages stu-dents to build the kind of bonds with each otherthat make the MOO such a safe place for experi-menting with language.

Students as Researchers: The Intellectual Dimension

As several of the student examples illustrate,not only did the target language serve as themedium of authentic conversational exchangesin the MOO course, but it also formed the intel-lectual focus of the class and project work. Inaddition to the usual expectation of an interme-diate class that students become better “users” ofa language, a content-based approach to ourwork in the MOO also asks students to becomeresearchers of their target language and its cul-ture. With this pronounced focus on culture inthe language classroom we join language learn-ing theorists such as Kramsch (1993), who insistthat language—as one of the very structures ofculture—cannot be learned in isolation from itscultural uses. Kramsch explains that:

Culture in language learning is not an expendablefifth skill, tacked on, so to speak, to the teaching ofspeaking, listening, reading, and writing. It is alwaysin the background, right from day one, ready to un-settle the good language learners when they expect itleast, making evident the limitations of their hard-won communicative competence, challenging theirability to make sense of the world around them.(p. 1)

In the first half of the course, students from Vas-sar College used their own language productionin the MOO—for example, the room descrip-tions and their self-descriptions—as a site forcombined cultural and linguistic analysis. Whilethese activities during Phase 1 were designed tolead to such analyses, the project work that stu-dents completed with their native-speaker part-ners during Phase 2 facilitated potentially even


broader and deeper cultural and linguistic in-sights. This happened at two different, butequally important, and related levels. First, at themost general level students developed projects ofa cross-cultural nature. Though one of the pri-mary goals for all the students was to learn moreabout the culture of their target language, inevi-tably and happily their group work also couldopen up new understandings of their own cul-ture. Often, this insight came about in their part-ners’ estranged reactions to cultural realities intheir own culture that they had assumed werenatural. Just as often as not, it also came fromdisagreements between native speakers who eachspoke with authority about their own culture. Forexample, in Fall 1998 a group compared the Ger-man and American educational systems. The con-versation initially led one of the Americans to theexpected conclusion that the German educationsystem’s practice of categorizing students ataround the fifth grade and sending them toschools with different (and socially hierarchized)missions was inherently unfair. Nevertheless, inarticulating to their German partners the Ameri-can system, in which most students attend thesame public schools but take classes requiringdifferent aptitudes that are themselves sociallyhierarchized (such as advanced placement or vo-cational training), the students from Vassar Col-lege recognized that the American system mightbe similarly unfair—but that it hides that unfair-ness behind a veil of supposed equality. Ratherthan being exposed to such observations in alecture, students experienced for themselves theeffort required to reach such conclusions. Thepleasure of their insight was all theirs.

Second, at the linguistic level, student projectsalso forced learners to go beyond merely gaininga knowledge of correct word usage and to focusalso on ideological and contextual uses of thewords. Thus, one of the Fall 1998 groups that hadchosen to focus on multicultural identities inGermany and the United States had an interest-ing discussion about the semantic valences of theword assimilate versus integrate:

Sarah sagt, “so is assimilation seen as a goodthing?”Luigi [zu Barbara]: Hmm . . . He should beonlineSarah sagt, “in teh [sic] U.S. assimilation isnot a very politically correct term”Luigi cackles.Sarah sagt, “everyone is supposed to be ableto keep their own identity in the US”Barbara [zu Sarah]: Maybe the term is not

the correct one, in Germany we talk a lotabout integrationLuigi sagt, “Hehe, kinda strange, this in-stant switching to another language”Barbara [zu Sarah]: Ein guter bergang [Über-gang]Luigi [zu Barbara]: So, hab Markus unserThema und unsere Gruppe mitgeteiltBarbara sagt: “Integration wird als wichtig und. . . Moment mal eben”Luigi [zu Barbara]: Und wir haben keine Um-laute, nicht VergessenSarah sagt, “Ich denke, dass Integrieren ist gleichals ‘assimilate’”Barbara [zu Luigi]: wie?Sarah sagt, “was? Ich been [sic] verworren!”Barbara [zu Sarah]: Es ist, glaube ich, nichtganz das gleicheBarbara [zu Sarah]: warum?Sarah sagt, “Vielleicht sie sind nicht ganz gleich”Luigi sagt, “ ‘Assimilieren’ hoert sich wie einAngriff an, integrieren hoert sich jedenfalls fre-undlicher an”Barbara [zu Sarah]: Ich schaue mal eben imdictionary nach. bis [bin] sofort zurueckSarah sagt, “integrieren bedeutet, dass die leuteleben zusammen konnen”Sarah sagt, “angriff?”Luigi sagt, “Oh, ich habe assimilate immer nurvon Star Trek im Kopf (You will be assimi-lated)”Sarah [zu Luigi]: oohhhLuigi sagt, “Ist ‘assimilate’ und ‘integrate’denn das gleiche in Amerika?”Barbara sagt, “Im Lexikon stehen sie alsbersetzungen [Übersetzungen] voneinander, aberich verstehe sie nicht gleich”Sarah sagt, “denkst du, dass wenn die Leuteintgrieren werden, mussen sie ihre Identitaet‘lose’”

(Sarah says, “so is assimilation seen as agood thing?”Luigi [to Barbara]: Hmm . . . He should beonlineSarah says, “in the U.S. assimilation is not avery politically correct term”)Luigi cackles.Sarah says, “everyone is supposed to beable to keep their own identity in the US”Barbara [to Sarah]: Maybe the term is notthe correct one, in Germany we talk a lotabout integrationLuigi says, “Hehe, kinda strange, this in-stant switching to another language”Barbara [to Sarah]: A good transition [to


German]Luigi [to Barbara]: So, I just informedMarkus about our topic and groupBarbara says: “Integration is [seen] as im-portant and . . . wait just a second”Luigi [to Barbara]: And we don’t have anyumlauts, don’t forget10

Sarah says, “I think that integration is thesame as ‘assimilate’”Barbara [to Luigi]: How?Sarah says, “What? I am confused!”Barbara [to Sarah]: They aren’t, I think,the same thing.Barbara [to Sarah]: Why?Sarah says, “Perhaps they are not quite thesame”Luigi says, “ ‘Assimilate’ sounds like an at-tack [Angriff], integrate sounds friendlierin any case”Barbara [to Sarah]: I’m going to just checkin the dictionary. I’ll be right back.Sarah says, “Integrate means that the peo-ple can live together”Sarah says, “Angriff?”Luigi says, “Oh, I am thinking of assimilatefrom Star Trek (You will be assimilated)”Sarah [to Luigi]: oohhhLuigi says, “Are ‘assimilate’ and ‘integrate’the same thing in America?”Barbara says, “The dictionary says that theyare translations of each other, but I don’tunderstand them as the same”Sarah says, “Do you think that when peopleare integrated they have to ‘lose’ their iden-tity?”

Though it requires practice to get accustomed tothe multiple threads of conversation happeningsimultaneously in any given MOO conversation,it should be easy to notice the problem the groupfaced in trying to identify the proper term—thatis, not only the linguistically correct, but also po-litically desirable, expression—to characterizethe ideal relationship between minority groupsand the dominant culture. Instead of being ableto rely on their native-speaker partners for the“correct” words, both American and German stu-dents were driven to explore the cultural contextfor interpreting and using these words. In thissituation, real differences between American andGerman students emerged in the understandingof assimilate. In Germany, the contemporary de-bate about whether to offer citizenship to chil-dren born in Germany to immigrant parents hasbeen characterized by a problematic emphasis onassimilating immigrant populations into German

culture. It was clearly interesting for Barbara andLuigi, himself a native German-speaker of Italiandescent, that Sarah initially sounded the alarm atthe word assimilation. Nevertheless, she, too, wasunclear about the slight semantic differences be-tween assimilation and integration, and signaledher confusion. While Barbara immediately of-fered to consult an online dictionary in the hopeof placing the debate on firm ground, Sarah andLuigi continued to explore the cultural referentsfor that term, which, in the case of Luigi’s StarTrek reference, were surprisingly international.Ultimately, Barbara’s dictionary search proves fu-tile when the dictionary implies that the wordsare synonyms. In the end, the students were leftwith a sense of the complexity of word choice ina FL and even of the ultimate impossibility oflocating objective and authoritative meaning out-side a cultural and political context.

CONCLUSION

These five principles for using the MOO inthe language learning classroom represent thefundamental communicative goals that Under-wood (1984) established for CALL more than15 years ago. In fact, we believe that our use ofthe MOO offers a model for integrating tech-nology into language learning—not, however, asa mere additional component or expansion ofcurrent classroom practices, but as an opportu-nity to transform the language learning processitself. In articulating the theoretical foundationsfor such a meaningful and transformative use ofthe MOO, we have drawn on specific examplesfrom our first use of the MOO. Future empiricalstudies of its impact on learners will eventuallyprove helpful for assessing particular claims. Indesigning such studies, however, researchersshould keep in mind that several considerationswill most likely limit the ability of any one em-pirical study to evaluate satisfactorily the use ofthe MOO as a language learning tool. First, thedefinition of what constitutes ideal languagelearning—already contested in terms of peda-gogical goals and methodologies employed11—isin fact being altered by the possibilities that theMOO opens up. Rather than seeing languagelearning as the successful application of gram-matical and lexical rules or even, as Turbee(1997) suggests, the internalization of “languagestructures within the broader contexts of dia-logue and culture,” we would provisionally sug-gest a broader definition that emphasizes lan-guage as a developing and changing practicethat not only reflects cultural differences but


shapes the very constitution of humanisticknowledge. Such a definition recognizes thatlanguage learning, like the use of language itself,is an inherently political project whose open-endedness may make it difficult to measure. Sec-ond, the conscious application of autonomouslearning principles means that it may be impos-sible to decide in advance what is important foreach language learner. Since each learner maybe motivated in different ways, what constitutessuccess may vary greatly from one student to an-other. Measuring all students against the sameproficiency goals may not provide an accuratepicture of language learning successes, many ofwhich are more intellectual and cultural thanpractical. This logic does not mean that practicalgoals should be devalued in favor of intellectualawareness, but rather only that instructorsshould help our students make informed deci-sions for themselves—and that means openingup, rather than narrowing down, their optionsin the language learning classroom.

Within a pedagogical context that valuesautonomous learning, peer teaching, individual-ized learning, play, and intellectual work, theMOO presents students with a range of self-em-powering options for their own language learn-ing while still providing them with significantlymore intensive language practice than availablein the traditional classroom. It is important tostress that the benefits of a MOO can even berealized in the absence of native speakers, be-cause activities such as these used in the first partof the course—building rooms, discussing texts,role playing, and so on—should not be seenmerely as a preliminary stage in the languagelearning process, but rather as the potential basisfor an entire seminar.12 Ultimately, however, wethink that using the MOO in language coursespromises to do more than just offer a model foreffectively integrating technology into the lan-guage learning classroom or even, for that mat-ter, a way for making language learning moreefficient and attractive. The MOO can help in-structors realize the long-sought goal of securelyanchoring intermediate or even elementary lan-guage learning back into the liberal arts curricu-lum. Indeed, the intellectually rich, highly self-re-flective approach to language learning madepossible by the MOO emphasizes “languagestudy” and thus saves language learning from aninstrumentalized and instrumentalizing fate asmerely a “practical skill” that only needs to be“drilled” into a student. Of course, introducingcultural studies themes and approaches into theclassroom is integral to changing the meaning

and activities of language learning, and we hopethat we have pointed in that direction.

In just two trial semesters, those students withthe least developed language proficiency in thevirtual exchanges—third-semester students ofGerman—showed that they could complete inthe target language many sophisticated tasks thatpreviously were expected only in upper-levelseminars. Thanks to the MOO, they were not onlylearning how to be better “users” of German, theywere also realizing themselves through lan-guage—through the “foreign” language. By creat-ing spaces and identities in the MOO, they ex-plored new identities and began taking stepstoward learning who they were, a process integralto gaining self-esteem as learners. By working onquestions of culture, they were using a FL to de-velop critical thinking skills. Finally, by creatingand maintaining a public culture in the FL in theMOO, they recognized that they were not justinterpreters of culture, but producers of cultureas well. These students have profited immenselyfrom their hard work in the MOO—not only asFL learners, but also as curious, motivated indi-viduals and citizens of the world. Their progresshas given us, as teachers and scholars, deep satis-faction and increased motivation for our workand a renewed sense of what is possible in the FLclassroom. Though we view this first experimentas an unqualified success, we at Vassar plan toexperiment next year by adding an exchangewith other students learning German before re-turning to an exchange with native speakers,which will happen in a later semester. BecauseMOOs are inexpensive and easy to use, we lookforward to seeing this content-based applicationof MOOs tested in other university language pro-grams.

After extolling the merits of learner autonomy,self-esteem, and self-motivation, we find it fittingto give students the final word by citing what oneAmerican learner wrote in her final self-evalu-ation of the semester:

The second half of this semester has been such anincredible experience for me: I have greatly im-proved my German “conversing” skills over theMOO. I have increased my knowledge of computertechnology, and I have made two great Germanfriends! And for those reasons, this has been the mostmemorable class that I’ve ever taken at Vassar. I am soproud of the progress that I made this semester. MyGerman has improved at such an incredible rate thatI can hardly believe it! Even since the last portfolio, Ifeel that I have a much better understanding of theGerman language. I had a much easier time writingour presentation than the essays at the beginning of


the semester. . . . And as I sat in class reading thepresentations of my fellow classmates, I was amazed athow easily I was able to follow the German. When Iremembered how long it took me to get throughstories at the beginning of the semester, I must saythat I was very proud of myself! And besides that, Ihad a lot of fun going back and looking througheveryone’s Web pages and pinwands [note-boards]—they were all so interesting! Although I’venoticed my improvements in writing and readingGerman, I have noticed yet another improvement inmy German skills. Although this improvement wasonly reflected by one grade point higher, it was a bigtriumph for me. The improvement that I’m speakingof is my [oral] interview grade.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For their sage advice and enthusiastic support for thisproject, we would like to thank Cynthia Haynes, JanRune Holmevik, Michael Joyce, and Lienhard Legen-hausen. We would also like to recognize the stellar pro-gramming and research help from our student assis-tants, Cristina Carp and Andrew Rosenberg. Finally, wewould also like to thank Norman Fainstein, Dean of theFaculty of Vassar College, for making it possible for Silkevon der Emde and Jeffrey Schneider to team-teach Ger-man 210.

NOTES

1 For information on the use of MOOs in Englishcomposition and other seminars, see Crump (1998) andFanderclai (1995).

2 For reports on uses of the MOO in a FL setting, seeDonaldson and Kötter (1999), Schwienhorst (1998),Turbee (1996), Sanchez (1996), and Pinto (1996).

3 For an excellent introduction to using MOOs, seeHolmevik and Haynes (2000): The book was designedfor student use and can be assigned as required reading.For a useful overview to general practical, theoretical,and pedagogical issues in using MOOs in the classroom,see Haynes and Holmevik (1998).

4 MOOssiggang can be accessed via Netscape 4.5 (orhigher) or Microsoft Explorer with the addresshttp://iberia.vassar.edu:7000. Our MOO core, whichrepresents the latest generation of MOOs, is opensource freeware developed by Jan Rune Holmevik andCynthia Haynes, the creators of LinguaMOO (based atthe University of Texas at Dallas). The enCore MOOEducational Core Database can be downloaded free ofcharge from the LinguaMOO Web site (http://lin-gua.utdallas.edu).

5 The authors are still in the process of completing aGerman translation of all the commands and messagesin MOOssiggang. Nevertheless, MOOssiggang alreadycontains nearly 100 different German-language roomsthat have been built by students and faculty members

over the past couple years. The enCore Xpress interfaceprovides an Xpress toolbar at the top of the screen, withmenu options to powerful features such as mailing, ob-ject creation, editing and programming. The right halfof the screen contains the Web window that displaysgraphics and descriptions of rooms and other objects aswell as links to Web sites outside the MOO. The left sideof the screen is divided into two windows: a large win-dow at the top that displays running discussions andcomputer messages, and a smaller window at the bottomthat allows users to type in their messages to others aswell as specific program commands to the computer.

6 These results, based on several transatlantic MOOexchanges, will be forthcoming.

7 The relationship between cultural studies as an in-tellectual enterprise and language learning as a skill-based process of gaining proficiency has become one ofthe most important issues in the field of second lan-guage acquisition. For an overview of a recent attemptmade by Stanford’s German program to combine thetwo, see Bernhardt and Berman (1999). For an overviewof the MOO as a tool for reconceiving intermediatelanguage courses as cultural studies courses, seeSchneider and von der Emde (2000).

8 Because this article is addressed to an academicaudience at American colleges and universities, we havedecided to focus primarily on Vassar College’s perspec-tive in analyzing the benefit of MOO technology in theFL classroom, especially because the American studentslearning German were less proficient in the target lan-guage than the German students studying English andhad the most to gain from using the MOO. In addition,space prevents us from drawing specific conclusionsabout the potential impact of the MOO on languageprograms in Germany because the German academicsystem differs significantly from American undergradu-ate programs.

9 Though the question of assessment of student workis ultimately critical to measuring the success of theMOO, a discussion of this topic here would go beyondthe scope of this article, which deals with the principlesbehind the effective use of the MOO in class. We planto handle this question in future research on the MOO.

10 The newest versions of Encore Xpress MOOs nowsupport special characters, such as umlauts.

11 See, for example, assessments and critiques of theACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, Oral Proficiency Inter-views, and Simulated Oral Proficiency Interviews (Nor-ris 1997; Fulcher, 1996; Bachman & Savignon, 1986).

12 For a more detailed discussion that addresses thestrengths of MOO work completed in the absence ofnative speakers, see Schneider and von der Emde(2000).

REFERENCES

Arjouni, J. (1987). Happy birthday, Türke! Zurich: Dio-genes.

Bachmann, L. F., & Savignon, S. J. (1986). The evalu-ation of communicative language proficiency: A


critique of the ACTFL oral interview. Modern Lan-guage Journal, 70, 380-390.

Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroomdiscussion in the foreign language classroom:Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language An-nals, 25, 455-463.

Beauvois, M. H. (1994). E-talk: Attitudes and motivationin computer-assisted classroom discussion. Com-puters and the Humanities, 28, 177-190.

Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Computer-mediated communi-cation: Technology for improving speaking andwriting. In M. D. Bush (Ed.), Technology-enhancedlanguage learning (pp. 165-184). Lincolnwood, IL:National Textbook Company.

Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Write to speak: The effects ofelectronic communication on the oral achieve-ment of fourth semester French students. In J. A.Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching:Focus on technology and foreign language education(pp. 93-116). Boston: Heinle.

Bernhardt, E. B., & Berman, R. A. (1999). From Ger-man 1 to German Studies 001: A chronicle ofcurricular reform. Die Unterrichtspraxis/TeachingGerman, 32, 22-31.

Blake, R. J. (1998). The role of technology in secondlanguage learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learningforeign and second languages: Perspectives in researchand scholarship (pp. 209-237). New York: ModernLanguage Association.

Brammerts, H. (1996). Language learning in tandemusing the internet. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecol-laboration in foreign language learning. Proceedings ofthe Hawai’i Symposium (pp. 121-130). Honolulu:University of Hawai’i Second Language Teachingand Curriculum Center.

Bush, M. D. (1997). Implementing technology forlanguage learning. In M. D. Bush (Ed.), Tech-nology-enhanced language learning (pp. 287-349).Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Com-pany.

Crump, E. (1998). At home in the MUD: Writing cen-ters learn to wallow. In C. Haynes and J. R. Hol-mevik (Ed.), High wired: On the design, use, andtheory of educational MOOs (pp. 177-191). Ann Ar-bor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Donaldson, R. P., & Kötter, M. (1999). Language learn-ing in cyberspace: Teleporting the classroom intothe target culture. CALICO, 16, 531-557.

Eck, A., Legenhausen, L., & Wolff, D. (1995). Telekommu-nikation und Fremdsprachenunterricht: Informationen,Projekte, Ergebnisse [Telecommunications and FLteaching: Information, projects, research results].Bochum: AKS-Verlag.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition.Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.

Fanderclai, T. L. (1995). MUDs in education: New envi-ronments, new pedagogies. Computer-MediatedCommunication Magazine, 2(1), 8.

Fulcher, G. (1996). Invalidating validity claims for theACTFL Oral Rating Scale. System, 24, 163-172.

Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of lan-

guage learning: Trends and issues. Modern Lan-guage Journal, 75, 74-101.

Haynes, C., & Holmevik, J. R. (1995). Synchroni/CITY:Online Collaboration, Research and Teaching inMOOspace. Presented at the annual meeting ofThe Modern Language Association, Chicago, De-cember 1995. Retrieved Feb. 19, 1999, from theWorld Wide Web: http://lingua.utdallas.edu:7000/748.

Haynes, C., & Holmevik, J. R. (Eds.). (1998). High wired:On the design, use, and theory of educational MOOs.Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Holmevik, J. R., & Haynes, C. (1995). LinguaMOO. Uni-versity of Texas, Dallas. Retrieved from the WorldWide Web March 20, 2000: http://linguamoo.utdallas.edu.

Holmevik, J. R., & Haynes, C. (2000). MOOniversity. Bos-ton: Allyn and Bacon.

Hunt, M. M. (1982). The universe within: A new scienceexplores the mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kafka, F. (1946). Der Bau. In M. Brod (Ed.), GesammelteSchriften [Collected Writings] (Vol. V, pp. 172-214). New York: Schocken Books.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teach-ing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, C., & Nolden, T. (1994). Redefining literacy ina foreign language. Die Unterrichtspraxis/TeachingGerman, 27, 28-35.

Lafford, P. A., & Lafford, B. A. (1997). Learning lan-guage and culture with internet technologies. InM. D. Bush (Ed.), Technology-enhanced languagelearning (pp. 215-262). Lincolnwood, IL: NationalTextbook Company.

Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy. 1: Definitions, issuesand problems. Dublin: Authentik Language Learn-ing Resources.

Luxemburg, R. (1976). Aus den “Briefen aus dem Ge-fängnis” [Letter from the middle of December1917]. In S. Hermlin (Ed.), Deutsches Lesebuch. VonLuther bis Liebknecht [German Reader: FromLuther to Liebknecht] (pp. 567-571). Leipzig: Ver-lag Philipp Reclam.

Norris, J. M. (1997). The German speaking test: Utilityand caveats. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German,30, 148-158.

Patrikis, P. C. (1995). Where is computer technologytaking us? ADFL Bulletin, 26, 36-39.

Pinto, D. (1996). What does “schMOOze” mean? Non-native speaker interactions on the Internet. In M.Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign lan-guage learning. Proceedings of the Hawai’i Symposium(pp. 165-184). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Sec-ond Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Rüschoff, B. (1993). Language learning and informationtechnology: State of the art. CALICO, 10(3), 5-17.

Sanchez, B. (1996). MOOving to a new frontier in lan-guage learning. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecol-laboration in foreign language learning. Proceedings ofthe Hawai’i Symposium (pp. 145-163). Honolulu:University of Hawai’i Second Language Teachingand Curriculum Center.


Schneider, J., & von der Emde, S. (2000). Brave new(virtual) world: Transforming language learninginto cultural studies through online learning envi-ronments (MOOs). ADFL Bulletin, 32, 18-26.

Schwienhorst, K. (1998). The “Third Place”—Virtualreality applications for second language learning.ReCALL, 10, 118–126.

Smith, K. (1990). Collaborative and interactive writingfor increasing communications skills. Hispania,73, 77-87.

Tschirner, E. (1997). Neue Perspektiven für DaF durchdie neuen Medien [New perspectives for Germanas a FL through new media]. Die Unterrichts-praxis/Teaching German, 30(2), 121-129.

Turbee, L. (1996). MOOing in a foreign language: How,why, and who? Retrieved May 25, 2000, from theWorld Wide Web: http://home.twcny.rr.com/lonnieturbee/itechtm.html.

Turbee, L. (1997). Educational MOO: Text-based virtualreality for learning in community [Web]. ERIC Digest,March 1997. Retrieved May 25, 2000, from theWorld Wide Web: http://ericir.syr.edu/ithome/digests/turbee.html.

Underwood, J. (1984). Linguistics, computers and the lan-guage teacher. Rowley, MA: Newbury.

von der Emde, S., & Schneider, J. (1998). MOOssiggang.Vassar College. Retrieved March 21, 2000, fromthe World Wide Web: http://iberia.vassar.edu:7000.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Motivational aspects of usingcomputers for writing and communication. In M.Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign lan-guage learning. Proceedings of the Hawai’i Symposium(pp. 29-46). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Sec-ond Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

New Book Series: Research in Second Language Learning

A new book series, Research in Second Language Learning (Series Editor, JoAnn Hammadou Sullivan), willbegin publication by Information Age Publishing in 2002. The mission statement for the new seriesspeaks to academic researchers, university instructors, and educators interested in research-basedanalysis that informs teaching practice.

Mission Statement: The field of second language learning research has grown rapidly in recent years.Educators have become increasingly aware that pedagogical knowledge varies significantly from onesubject domain to the next, and the findings from educational research in one domain are notnecessarily applicable to the next. Researchers in second language learning are adding to our under-standings of second-language specific pedagogy. There exists a need, therefore, for an outlet for theseever-improving understandings of this content-specific pedagogy. The new book series, Research inSecond Language Learning, will provide such an outlet. The series invites articles from all methodologicalapproaches to research. The series will promote a research-based approach to the decision-makingprocess in second language teaching/learning.

The theme of the 2002 volume will be “literacy and the second language learner” in which literacy isdefined broadly across reading, writing, and technology. Future volumes will cover a wide range ofsecond language learning research topics such as: language proficiency evaluation, student and teacherperformance standards, needs of heritage learners, the role of online technologies, and cooperativelanguage learning.

For more information, contact:JoAnn Hammadou Sullivan, Series EditorDepartment of Modern and Classical Languages and LiteraturesUniversity of Rhode Island, Independence HallKingston, RI 02881Email: [email protected]

Or learn more about the series on the publishers’ Web site: www.infoagepub.com


technically speaking: transforming language learning through virtual learning environments (moos)

Documents