Vol 34 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUARTERLY Volume 34, Number 3 䊐 Autumn 2000
A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

Founded 1966
and of Standard English as a Second Dialect
Editor
CAROL A. CHAPELLE, Iowa State University
Brief Reports and Summaries Editors
CAROL A. CHAPELLE, Iowa State University
Reviews Editor
DAN DOUGLAS, Iowa State University
Assistant Editor
ELLEN GARSHICK, TESOL Central Office
Assistant to the Editor
BARBARA S. PLAKANS, Iowa State University
Editorial Advisory Board
Ralph Adendorff, Linda Harklau,
University of Natal University of Georgia
Dwight Atkinson, Thomas N. Huckin,
Temple University Japan University of Utah
Patricia L. Carrell, Joan Jamieson,
Georgia State University Northern Arizona University
Micheline Chalhoub-Deville, Frederick O. Lorenz,
University of Iowa Iowa State University
Caroline Clapham, Numa Markee,
Lancaster University University of Illinois at
Susan Conrad, Urbana-Champaign
Iowa State University Tim McNamara,
Kathryn A. Davis, University of Melbourne
University of Hawaii at Manoa Steven Ross,
Dana Ferris, Kwansei Gakuin University
California State University, Sacramento James W. Tollefson,
John Flowerdew, University of Washington
City University of Hong Kong Devon Woods,
Carol Fraser, Carleton University
Glendon College, York University
Additional Readers
Michael Barlow, Margaret Beauvois, Marianne Celce-Murcia, Douglas Coleman, Jim Cummins,
Lise Desmarais, Stephen Gaies, Elizabeth Gatbonton, Constant Leung, Michael Levy, Hsien-Chin Liou,
Peter Lowenberg, Roy Major, Denise Murray, Alastair Pennycook, Teresa Pica, Thomas Ricento,
Julio Rodriguez, Leo van Lier, David Wallace, Gail Weinstein, Ann Wennerstrom
Credits
Advertising arranged by Suzanne Levine, TESOL Central Office, Alexandria, Virginia U.S.A.
Typesetting by Capitol Communication Systems, Inc., Crofton, Maryland U.S.A.
Printing and binding by Pantagraph Printing, Bloomington, Illinois U.S.A.
Copies of articles that appear in the TESOL Quarterly are available through ISI Document Solution, 3501 Market Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 U.S.A.
Copyright © 2000
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
US ISSN 0039-8322
REVIEWS ccclxxxix
VOLUMES MENU
QUARTERLY
Founded 1966 CONTENTS
SPECIAL-TOPIC ISSUE: TESOL IN THE 21st CENTURY

ARTICLES
Protean Communication: The Language of Computer-Mediated
Communication 397
Denise E. Murray
Looking to the Future of TESOL Teacher Education: Web-Based Bulletin Board
Discussions in a Methods Course 423
Lía D. Kamhi-Stein
L2 Literacy and the Design of the Self: A Case Study of a Teenager
Writing on the Internet 457
Wan Shun Eva Lam
The Changing Faces of English: A Caribbean Perspective 483
Shondel J. Nero
The Changing Global Economy and the Future of English Teaching 511
Mark Warschauer
THE FORUM
Academic Language Learning, Transformative Pedagogy, and Information
Technology: Towards a Critical Balance 537
Jim Cummins
Will Corpus Linguistics Revolutionize Grammar Teaching in the
21st Century? 548
Susan Conrad
Machine Translation: The Alternative for the 21st Century? 560
V. Michael Cribb
Some Thoughts on Globalization: A Response to Warschauer 569
Numa Markee
BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES

Trends in Computer Use Among International Students 575
Carol Taylor, Joan Jamieson, and Daniel Eignor
Electronic Texts in ESOL Classrooms 585
Carla Meskill and Jonathan Mossop
Does Popular Speech Recognition Software Work With ESL Speech? 592
Tracey M. Derwing, Murray J. Munro, and Michael Carbonaro
Web-Based Technology as a Resource for Form-Focused
Language Learning 603
Douglas Mills
cccxc TESOL QUARTERLY

Volume 34, Number 3 䊐 Autumn 2000
REVIEWS
Computers and Pedagogy 617
New Ways of Using Computers in Language Teaching
Tim Boswood (Ed.)
CALL: Media, Design and Applications
Keith Cameron (Ed.)
WorldCALL: Global Perspectives on Computer-Assisted Language Learning
Robert Debski and Mike Levy (Eds.)
CALL Environments: Research, Practice, and Critical Issues
Joy Egbert and Elizabeth Hanson-Smith (Eds.)
Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization
Mike Levy
Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice
Mark Warschauer and Richard Kern (Eds.)
Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom
Rupert Wegerif and Peter Scrimshaw (Eds.)
Reviewed by Leo van Lier
Language, Literacy, Politics, and Access 625
Literacy, Access, and Libraries Among the Language Minority Population
Rebecca Constantino (Ed.)
Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities
Thomas Ricento and Barbara Burnaby (Eds.)
Dialects in Schools and Communities
Walt Wolfram, Carolyn Temple Adger, and Donna Christian
Reviewed by Johnnie Johnson Hafernik
Information for Contributors 631

Editorial Policy
General Information for Authors
TESOL Order Form
TESOL Membership Application
REVIEWS cccxci
is an international professional organization for those concerned
with the teaching of English as a second or foreign language and of
standard English as a second dialect. TESOL’s mission is to develop
the expertise of its members and others involved in teaching English to speakers of
other languages to help them foster effective communication in diverse settings
while respecting individuals’ language rights. To this end, TESOL articulates and
advances standards for professional preparation and employment, continuing educa-
tion, and student programs; links groups worldwide to enhance communication
among language specialists; produces high-quality programs, services, and products;
and promotes advocacy to further the profession.
Information about membership and other TESOL services is available from TESOL
Central Office at the address below.
TESOL Quarterly is published in Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter. Contributions should
be sent to the Editor or the appropriate Section Editors at the addresses listed in the
Information for Contributors section. Publishers’ representative is Helen Kornblum, Director
of Communications & Marketing. All material in TESOL Quarterly is copyrighted. Copying
without the permission of TESOL, beyond the exemptions specified by law, is an infringement
involving liability for damages.
Reader Response You can respond to the ideas expressed in TESOL Quarterly by writing directly
to editors and staff at [email protected]. This will be a read-only service, but your opinions and ideas
will be read regularly.
TESOL Home Page You can find out more about TESOL services and publications by accessing
the TESOL home page on the World Wide Web at http://www.tesol.org/.
Advertising in all TESOL publications is arranged by Suzanne Levine, TESOL Central Office,
700 South Washington Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 USA, Tel. 703-836-0774.
Fax 703-836-7864. E-mail [email protected].
OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2000–2001

President Kathleen Bailey Adelaide Parsons
BARBARA SCHWARTE Monterey Institute of Southeast Missouri
Iowa State University International Studies State University
Ames, IA USA Monterey, CA USA Cape Girardeau, MO USA
John L. Balbi Mary Romney
President-elect Board of Education of the Quinebaug Valley Community-
NEIL J. ANDERSON City of New York Technical College
Brigham Young University New York, NY USA Willimantic, CT USA
Provo, UT USA
Virginia Christopher Amy Schlessman
Past President Vancouver YMCA Evaluation, Instruction, Design
DAVID NUNAN English Language Institute Tucson, AZ USA
University of Hong Kong Vancouver, BC Canada Northern Arizona University
Hong Kong Nancy Cloud Flagstaff, AZ USA
Rhode Island College Nancy K. Storer
Secretary Warwick, RI USA Baker University
CHARLES S. Donna T. Fujimoto Baldwin City, KS USA
AMOROSINO, JR. Kobe University of Gail Weinstein
Alexandria, VA USA Commerce San Francisco State University
Kobe, Japan San Francisco, CA USA
Treasurer
MARTHA EDMONDSON Elizabeth Hanson-Smith Jean Zukowski/Faust
Washington, DC USA Computers for Education Northern Arizona University
Sacramento, CA USA Flagstaff, AZ USA
Constantine Ioannou
Ottawa-Carleton District
cccxcii School Board TESOL QUARTERLY
Ottawa, ON Canada
QUARTERLY
Founded 1966
Editor’s Note
■ In 1998 the Editorial Advisory Board indicated a desire to consider issues
for TESOL in the 21st century. Thanks to the forward-looking contributions
of the authors and the excellent work of reviewers, this issue contains a
stimulating glimpse into the future of TESOL. Please note the call for
submissions for the Autumn 2002 special-topic issue on page 396.
In This Issue
■ The articles collectively reflect the theme of change. For the most part the
changes are connected to technology, but the technology is inextricably
linked to language use and language learning.
• Arguing that TESOL professionals need to understand the conven-
tions of computer-mediated communication (CMC) that ESOL learn-
ers engage in, Denise Murray looks at the research investigating the
speech communities associated with the medium. She summarizes
results from research and adds a critical perspective by questioning
who is potentially advantaged and disadvantaged by CMC. Finally, she
brings these concerns to bear on the application of CMC to distance
education, raising questions about its use in TESOL and arguing that
the use of CMC should be shaped by the needs of the profession.
• Lía D. Kamhi-Stein examines the uses of CMC in TESOL teacher
education through examples of Web-based bulletin board discussions
in a methods course. She investigated patterns of communication in
her face-to-face classroom versus those in the Web-based bulletin board
discussion. Qualitative and quantitative analysis revealed differences in
the structure of participation from the perspective of initiation,
response, and evaluation moves as well as different levels of participa-
tion by the teacher in the two conditions. Kamhi-Stein concludes that
electronic bulletin board discussions hold potential for promoting
active participation in graduate classes.
• Wan Shun Eva Lam’s case study shows how an ESL teenager in the
United States created literacy experiences for himself through involve-
ment in various forms of CMC on the Internet. Lam analyzes the
learner’s formation of textual identity through the theoretical constructs
IN THIS
TESOL ISSUE Vol. 34, No. 3, Autumn 2000
QUARTERLY 393
of voice (construction of roles and identities), design (use of representa-
tional resources to construct meaning), and self (as discursive forma-
tion). Based on findings concerning the importance of the Internet for
literacy development, Lam raises questions about the study of ESOL
learners’ literacy development in today’s networked, electronic era.
• Shondel J. Nero looks at language off the Internet to demonstrate how
one variety, Caribbean Creole English (CCE), raises questions about
the native-nonnative dichotomy, thereby creating a dilemma for En-
glish language teaching. Through case studies of four anglophone
Caribbean college students, Nero reveals that these immigrant stu-
dents consider themselves native speakers of English but are placed in
ESL basic writing courses. Nero illustrates some features of CCE and
discusses the literacy needs of such students in terms of classroom
practices, teacher education, the deconstruction of ESL/English di-
chotomies, and linguistic attitudes.
• Mark Warschauer places issues raised in the other articles into a broad
framework of the changing global economy, which is likely to influence
the future of English teaching. He considers three consequences of
informationalism, a new stage of global capitalism: a shift in authority
over English to a growing number of speakers of nonnative and
nonstandard varieties, a growing need to use English to communicate
complex ideas and negotiate, and a change in conceptions of literacy
to include electronic forms. Warschauer suggests implications of these
macrolevel social changes for TESOL.
■ The Forum: Jim Cummins and Numa Markee discuss Murray’s and
Warschauer’s articles, respectively. Two other commentators raise questions
about the character of TESOL in the 21st century in view of developments
other than CMC.
• Jim Cummins responds to some of the issues Murray raises about the
need for critical examination and deliberate shaping of the ways
technology is used for academic language learning. He underscores
the need for TESOL professionals to come to grips with the social
contexts of language teaching and argues that information technology
is an important aspect of those contexts. He outlines a framework for
academic language learning—including focus on meaning, language,
and use—intended to harness technology in the service of educational
goals.
• Susan Conrad argues that corpus linguistics could radically change
grammar teaching in the 21st century in three ways: register-specific
grammatical description could replace “the grammar” of English,
grammar and vocabulary teaching could become more integrated, and
emphasis could shift from structural accuracy to appropriateness of
grammatical choice.
• Michael Cribb outlines a scenario for the future of TESOL that has
been seldom, if ever, considered in academic discussion: that advances
in and availability of quality machine translation could mitigate the
394 TESOL QUARTERLY

need for English language learning. Taking the opposite of the
canonical position—that English will continue to be the language used
for wide communication—Cribb considers machine translation as it is
currently available on the Web. He argues that the use of such tools
and their successors in lieu of English language learning would
radically change the profession.
• Numa Markee comments on Warschauer’s article, admiring its insight-
ful treatment of the complex interrelationships among language,
technology, and social context. He also questions the precise meaning
of the globalization Warschauer discusses as well as the methods for
investigating globalization that will help explain how it affects changes
occurring in TESOL.
■ Brief Reports and Summaries: Reports in this section explain and provide
data on L2 learners’ current and future computer use.
• Carol Taylor, Joan Jamieson, and Daniel Eignor provide empirical data
on an issue often left to speculation: the extent to which English
language learners around the world actually use computers. Results of
a survey of takers of the Test of English as a Foreign Language
(TOEFL) throughout the world indicated that a high percentage had
used computers. This appearance of overall high computer use inter-
nationally, however, is tempered by the variation found among regions
and by the nature of the sample investigated.
• Carla Meskill and Jonathan Mossop share a glimpse of a large-scale
study of successful computer use by ESL learners in U.S. public
schools. They discuss ways in which electronic texts in ESOL classes
influence learning and implications for L2 and literacy development.
• Tracey M. Derwing, Murray J. Munro, and Michael Carbonaro report
data pertaining to the fundamental question about popular speech
recognition software for ESL: To what extent can the software recog-
nize learner language? Based on their findings that the software fails to
recognize nonnative language at an acceptable level even under ideal
conditions, the authors recommend careful evaluation of the claims of
language recognition in ESOL software.
• Douglas Mills looks ahead to some of the software capabilities soon to
be available on the Web for helping learners notice linguistic form in
text and Web-based audio materials. He points out that some of the
general-purpose authoring tools on the Web are ideally suited for
developing ESOL learning materials.
■ Reviews: Leo van Lier reviews seven books on computers and L2 peda-
gogy, concluding that the collection demonstrates progress in the field away
from a narrow concern for technology and toward a variety of pedagogical
issues associated with technology. Johnnie Johnson Hafernik reviews three
books on current issues in language, literacy, politics, and access, particularly
for language minorities.
Carol A. Chapelle
IN THIS ISSUE 395

Protean 1 Communication: The Language
of Computer-Mediated Communication
DENISE E. MURRAY
Macquarie University
Sydney, Australia
Computer-mediated communication (CMC), which began in propri-

etary companies two decades ago, has developed into a worldwide
medium of communication that ESOL learners encounter inside and
outside the classroom. Because learners’ participation in CMC is likely
to increase in the coming years, it is important for TESOL professionals
to understand the norms of language use developed by CMC-based
speech communities. Research has found that CMC exhibits features of
simplified registers associated with both oral and written language. It
also exhibits its own norms for organizing conversation and accommo-
dating threads of discourse. CMC, however, cannot be studied as a
neutral linguistic phenomenon; instead, researchers and educators
need to examine how CMC influences the dominance of English, access
to knowledge and power, and equity in discourse. Distance learning, an
application of CMC that has begun and will continue to serve a role in
English language teaching and in ESOL teacher education, is an area in
which these issues are relevant. CMC should be viewed not in terms of
its functionality but in terms of the ways in which users shape a new
medium of communication to fit the needs of their speech community.
I n trying to predict changes in higher education as a result of

technology, a report for The College Board (Gladieux & Swail, 1999)
notes, “The fact is, computer and related technologies are evolving so
quickly—and new providers and brokers of higher education proliferat-
ing so rapidly—no one knows” its future (p. 8). Yet computer-mediated
communication (CMC) appears to be a salient mode of communication
among the educated middle class, especially in English-dominant coun-
tries, and is being promoted as a tool to facilitate (English) language
learning or ESOL teacher education (e.g., Nunan, 1999; Sperling, 1996;
Warschauer, 1995). As CMC becomes part of English language teaching
(ELT) and ESOL teacher education, TESOL professionals need to
1
Proteus, a sea god who served Neptune, had the power to assume different shapes.
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 34, No. 3, Autumn 2000 397

understand and critically examine its structure and use. However, a
critical examination of CMC and its implications for the future is
problematic: Its history covers a mere two decades. In this short period,
CMC researchers have primarily used case study methodology; few
researchers have studied the language of CMC, especially as it relates to
(English) language learning; very little research has been conducted in
non-English-dominant countries or among language minority communi-
ties; and any descriptions of the technologies and functions of CMC are
likely to be outdated by the time they are published.
Despite these difficulties, prior work examining CMC speech commu-
nities offers a starting point for critical analysis. This article begins by
clarifying what is meant by the term CMC and then describes findings
about the linguistic characteristics of various types of CMC to demon-
strate their protean nature. Following this description is a critical analysis
of CMC in view of the dominance of English, differential access to
technology, and control of CMC discourse. CMC in distance education is
then discussed in light of this critical analysis and its historical context.
WHAT IS CMC?
The term CMC was coined by Hiltz and Turoff (1978) in their classic
study of computer conferencing, their use of the term being confined to
this mode of electronic communication. Other researchers include
communication via e-mail, bulletin boards, Internet Relay Chat (IRC),
e-mail discussion lists, chat rooms, and the World Wide Web (e.g.,
Herring, 1996a; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997; Jones, 1998). Warschauer
(1999), on the other hand, restricted the term to modes in which people
send messages to individuals or groups. D. E. Murray (1986, p. 19)
identified an interactivity continuum within CMC, from computer mes-
sages (a form of instant messaging [IM]) as the most interactive to
billboards as the least. In 1997, the on-line CMC Magazine focused an
entire issue on the question “What is CMC?”, leading to a spirited debate,
with P. Murray (1997) claiming (accurately) that “it means different
things to different people, which is both its strength and the source of
some of the problems arising in the research literature” (n.p.). Howard
(1997), however, rejected the term CMC in favor of networked texts
because he considered this technology a new medium rather than a
repackaging of orality and literacy and because he focused his study on
“the power to shape and maintain the communities that shape and
maintain us” (p. 2).
For the purposes of this article, I use the more usual term CMC and
restrict Herring’s (1996a) open-ended definition (“communication that
398 TESOL QUARTERLY

takes place between human beings via the instrumentality of computers,”
p. 1) by modifying communication to include only text-based modes.
This definition still covers a wide range of functions. Although it
deliberately excludes uses of computer technology that do not involve
communication, such as pop-up toasters or computer games, it is
sufficiently flexible to cover evolving technologies whose study will add
to the current knowledge about human discourse (e.g., two-way text
messaging on wireless telephones). It does not, however, include spoken
language modes, such as the use of computers for telephony or future
voice-to-voice technologies that will involve text recognition and speech
synthesis. This definition also allows for the binary division of CMC into
synchronous and asynchronous modes. In synchronous modes of CMC,
communication occurs in real time; examples are IRC and MOOs
(MUDs [multiuser dungeons or dimensions], object oriented), both of
which require participants to be communicating in the same session.
Asynchronous modes of CMC, such as e-mail and bulletin boards, do not
require participants to be on-line at the same time. However, because of
the time delays of the medium, even real-time communications are
asynchronous, the length of the delays depending on variables such as
the computer, network, and typing speed.
CMC SPEECH COMMUNITIES
Linguists have posited the construct of speech community as an organiz-

ing principle for clusters of shared linguistic and nonlinguistic features
of human interaction. Although competing definitions of speech com-
munity have merit, “it is possible that speech communities do not really
exist in society except as prototypes in the minds of people, in which case
the search for the ‘true’ definition of ‘speech community’ is just a wild
goose chase” (Hudson, 1980, p. 30). Nonetheless, the term speech
community has been useful in describing the challenge of the nonnative
speaker of English who must learn the particular linguistic conventions
of a group (Swales, 1990). The large majority of ESOL learners may need
to access CMC speech communities, so the construct serves as an
organizing concept for examining CMC. A speech community is a group
of people who share norms of linguistic and nonlinguistic interaction
but whose norms may be evolving or may be sites of struggle. The
language of CMC exhibits certain characteristics, and speech communi-
ties have incorporated this new medium into their repertoire of lan-
guage use in particular ways.
PROTEAN COMMUNICATION 399

Linguistic Characteristics
Examination of four linguistic characteristics reveals the nature of

CMC: (a) its similarity to spoken or written language, (b) its use of
simplified registers, (c) its organizational structure, and (d) its mecha-
nisms for maintaining topic cohesion.
Spoken or Written Language?
Early observers of CMC were quick to note the orality of this literacy
event (e.g., D. E. Murray, 1988a; Ong, 1982). However, based on
ethnographic data, in previous work (D. E. Murray, 1988a) I argued that
in CMC the complex interaction of contextual aspects results in specific
bundles of linguistic features, the medium being only one aspect of the
context. Using a Hallidayan (e.g., 1978) approach to context, I showed
how CMC users moved from telephone, to e-mail, to face-to-face commu-
nication, for example, because of differences in the topic, the power
relations between the interlocutors, or the setting. As a CMC conversa-
tion moved into personnel issues, one of the participants might ask to
move to the telephone, which is more secure but amplifies different
features of communication than CMC does; for example, features such
as stress and intonation are available on the telephone but not in CMC.
Or participants moved from the synchronous mode of IM to the
asynchronous mode of e-mail because the latter provides a permanent
record of the conversation and permits multiple threads of discourse
(see below). Subordinates e-mailing to management wrote more for-
mally (and in a more literate manner) than they did to peers.
Using Biber’s (1988) multidimensional-multifeature model for analyz-
ing language variation, Collot and Belmore (1996) found features of
both oral and written language in their bulletin board system corpus.
Yates (1996) conducted a large corpus–based comparison among spo-
ken, written, and CMC discourse; the CMC data came from open
computer conferences using the CoSy system at Open University in the
United Kingdom. The spoken corpora were from the London-Lund
corpus, and the written, from the Lancaster–Oslo/Bergen corpus. Using
the Hallidayan model of language use, Yates’ analysis also identified
some textual features of CMC (e.g., lexical density) that were similar to
those most often found in writing and others (e.g., use of first person)
most often found in oral language.
Using a variety of analytical tools, Gains (1999) examined 116 ran-
domly selected e-mail messages from the United Kingdom, 62 ex-
changed within a large insurance company and 54 exchanged within and
between universities. He found standard written business English in the
400 TESOL QUARTERLY

insurance company data but conversational features in the academic
data. The insurance company e-mailers, for example, used a semiformal
style, did not incorporate features from conversational discourse, tended
not to include an opening greeting, and used few features of a simplified
register. The academic e-mailers, on the other hand, used a range of
styles, adopted features from conversational discourse (e.g., well, you see),
included some form of greeting, and referred often to the medium itself.
From their analysis of the linguistic features of 1,353 messages sent
and received between 1981 and 1984 by the developers of the Common
Lisp programming language, Yates and Orlikowski (1993) identified
speechlike characteristics (e.g., informality), written characteristics (e.g.,
textual formatting), and features particular to the electronic medium
(e.g., graphic humor). Like D. E. Murray (1991), they demonstrated that
“the context of interaction . . . influences the particular combination of
linguistic and textual characteristics” (p. 16).
Despite all this linguistic evidence, writers outside the field of linguis-
tics (e.g., Shank & Cunningham, 1996; Snyder, 1998) continue to focus
on the speech-in-writing characteristic of some uses of CMC. If one takes
the social rather than the technology as prior, one finds that people use
linguistic modes and features appropriate to their particular context. “As
with both written and spoken discourse, CMC is affected by the numer-
ous social structural and social situational factors which surround and
define the communication taking place” (Yates, 1996, p. 46).
Simplified Register
Simplified registers result from particular features of the context;

either the speaker perceives the addressee to be a language user with
limited competence or is performing under constraints on time or space.
The former is exemplified by caretaker talk (e.g., Ferguson, 1977),
foreigner talk (e.g., Ellis, 1985), and teacher talk (e.g., Gaies, 1977;
Henzl, 1974), used by adults to babies, native speakers to nonnative
speakers, and teachers to students, respectively. These registers are
characterized by reduced or simplified speech; slow, exaggerated pro-
nunciation and intonation; short sentences; special lexicons; and feed-
back devices that facilitate the listener’s or reader’s comprehension. The
latter situation is exemplified by newspaper headlines (e.g., Straumann,
1935), advertising (e.g., Leech, 1966), or note-taking (Janda, 1985). In
this type of register, simplification may include the use of abbreviations
and the omission of articles, pronouns, and copula. Here, the goal is not
to facilitate comprehension but to provide efficient communication
given limits on time or space.
In CMC, the addressee is perceived as competent, but the technology

constrains time and space. Most nonlinguistic discussions of CMC
demonstrate that it may take place anywhere, anytime; however, CMC
relies on typing, computer, and network speed. Additionally, CMC gives
no visual paralinguistic or nonverbal cues. Consequently, CMC users
employ strategies that reduce the time needed to write the message or
substitute for the lack of paralinguistic and nonverbal cues (see, e.g.,
Ferrara, Brunner, & Whittemore, 1991; Gains, 1999; D. E. Murray, 1991).
These strategies include
• the use of abbreviations—both standard back formations, such as
info and tech, and acronyms, such as IMHO for in my humble opinion or
F2F for face-to-face
• simplified syntax, such as subject or modal deletion
• the acceptance of surface errors, such as typographical and spelling
errors
• the use of symbols to express emotional meaning, such as multiple
vowels or consonants (yeeesss) or emoticons (faces typed with key-
board characters; e.g., :) for a happy face)
• formulaic phrases, such as programmed emotes (phrases used to
display actions or emotions in a chat room; e.g., looks around the room
carefully, used to check whether everyone who wants to speak has
done so)
In earlier work (D. E. Murray, 1988a) I noted that simplified register
features were more common in IM (what I called e-messages) than in
e-mail and that the features were used less in e-mail when one or more
aspects of the context prompted greater formality (e.g., when the
addressee was a manager). Gains (1999) also noted a difference between
his two data sets. The insurance company employees wrote e-mail that
resembled formal business letters; the academics used a more conversa-
tional style. Yet both used abbreviations, perhaps because each group
formed a speech community with its own specialized discourse.
Structure of CMC Conversations
Speech communities have developed norms—such as openings, clos-

ings, greetings, turn taking, and adjacency pairs—for the structuring and
regulation of conversations that use different media of communication.
In telephone conversations, for example, both speaker and hearer often
identify themselves; in face-to-face conversation, self-identification is not
necessary except with strangers. Openings and closings are optional in
CMC, mostly because the technology automatically identifies the sender
and recipient. Gains (1999) found that the insurance company workers
did not use greetings whereas the academics did. I also found that the
402 TESOL QUARTERLY

CMC users in a business environment did not use greetings, especially in
IM (D. E. Murray, 1991). However, all groups frequently used closings.
Because of time delays, turn taking in both synchronous and asynchro-
nous modes includes more overlaps than face-to-face or telephone
conversation does (Davis & Brewer, 1997; D. E. Murray, 1988b; Werry,
1996). When two people talk at the same time face-to-face, one person
cedes the floor to the other. Because this is not possible in CMC, the
receiver decides among competing turns, choosing which ones to answer
in which order. In e-mail, this choice is invisible to the sender; in IM and
IRC, the turn taking is transparent.
Using speech-act theory, I hypothesized a model of CMC for business
environments called conversation for action (D. E. Murray, 1991), the main
elements of which are the initial action bid or request and the respond-
ing action, which may be followed by an assertion that the requested
action has been completed. Business CMC contains “a high proportion
of requests, which may indicate that this is a popular form for asking
people to do something without the necessity of the elaborate rituals of
social pleasantries” (Gains, 1999, p. 98); hence the limited use of
greetings, openings, and even closings.
Topic Thread Cohesion
E-mail is often used as a vehicle for multiple threads of discourse

(Black, Levin, Mehan, & Quinn, 1983) because it is easily retrievable as
permanent text; synchronous modes, such as IM, on the other hand, are
better suited to single topics. However, precisely because of its asynchrony,
e-mail even on a single topic can be sent over large time spans and arrive
interwoven with e-mail on different topics. Because recipients find it
difficult to track the topic and to retrieve and store relevant e-mail
messages for later access, some researchers (e.g., Lewis & Knowles, 1997)
have proposed tools that would track these multiple threads. Conse-
quently, many rules of netiquette 2 specify that e-mail users should restrict
each message to a single topic (see, e.g., Shea, 1994).
E-mail respondents also use a variety of strategies to signal the
continuation of a topic. Explicit reference to the topic in a previous
message (e.g., In your last e-mail you asked for . . . .) is similar to the use of
referents, such as You know when we were talking about X last week, well . . . .
used in oral conversation. However, these explicit references are often
ambiguous, as in the example just given, which assumes the recipient will
2
To reduce flaming (free emotional responses), the coordinators of e-mail discussion lists
wrote in-house rules for contributors to follow. These rules became known as netiquette (coined
from net and etiquette). Today, the term is in common use, and books of netiquette have been
written.

remember the content of the last e-mail message to that person.
Repeating the topic in the subject line or using the automatic reply
function (without appending the e-mail) is similar to writing Your Ref:
Letter dated . . . in business letters.
A distinctive characteristic of e-mail is the appending of all previous
e-mail messages on the same topic, creating an electronic thread of
continuity that provides conversational context. In some ways the func-
tion of appending in e-mail is similar to that of literature reviews in
academic writing, in which all the possible background information (or
hyperlinks) is made explicit. However, appending previous, related
e-mail messages merely requires using the reply and append function
rather than the reply with no append function; the e-mailer does not
summarize, analyze, or synthesize the previous messages. On the other
hand, an effective literature review is among the most difficult uses of
language, requiring skill and care in selecting, analyzing, and synthesiz-
ing previous studies. A loosely compiled list of summaries of previous
research (still more difficult to create than an e-mail message with
relevant messages appended) is considered an inadequate literature
review.
The research data on the linguistic characteristics of CMC are limited
and therefore present many opportunities for further descriptive work.
Despite the findings described above, research seems to demonstrate the
protean nature of communication as specific speech communities de-
velop their own norms for the orderly conduct of communication. Many
questions remain, however, about the characteristics of particular types
of CMC to which ESOL learners need to gain access.
CMC as Part of Speech Communities’ Repertoire
Much discussion of computer-based technology speaks to its inevitabil-

ity, making its consequences, such as CMC, a foregone conclusion rather
than a tool under the control of human intention or accountability. In
1980, Kay, in testimony before the U.S. Congress, claimed that the
computer will “literally change the fabric of society” and that “the genie
is out of the bottle as far as worrying about controlling it is concerned, it
is uncontrolled right now; it is just going to happen” (Hearings, 1982).
More recently, in a widely popular book about the future of the digital
world, Negraponte (1995) claimed that e-mail would be the dominant
medium for interpersonal communication in the 21st century. Neither
CMC research nor an analysis of the introduction of other technologies
of communication supports this view.
The findings of research on the uses of CMC, as opposed to its
characteristics, indicate that the various types of CMC (from IM to
404 TESOL QUARTERLY

MOOs) become part of the entire repertoire of language modes avail-
able to language users (see, e.g., Baron, 1998; D. E. Murray, 1998a). They
then decide, based on the context, which modality to use for a particular
speech event. For example, an individual can choose to thank a
colleague via e-mail, by telephone, face-to-face, or in a handwritten note.
This choice is the result of the complex interaction among the various
aspects of the context, such as topic, audience characteristics, and setting
(D. E. Murray, 1998a). Both time and space (physical distance) greatly
affect which modes can be chosen. CMC is not bound by time and space
as face-to-face conversation is, but the various modes of CMC differ in
this regard: IM can only be used synchronously; e-mail, though predomi-
nantly asynchronous, can appear almost synchronous.
Time and space are not the only aspects of the context that determine
the choice of mode. As CMC users become more familiar with asynchro-
nous modes, they realize the ease with which they can forward e-mail and
conclude that no e-mail message is actually private or confidential. IM
users, realizing the evanescence of the mode, take more risks through
behavior that is less socially sanctioned (e.g., flaming, telling crude
jokes).
In addition to choosing the mode for a speech event, users also
choose when to shift from one mode to another. Subjects in a previous
study (D. E. Murray, 1988a) moved from e-mail to face-to-face for more
privacy, for example. Furthermore, the social conventions for mode
choice are still being negotiated. Baron (1998) observes, “Nowhere is
this issue clearer than in deciding what message to attend to when signals
arrive from more than one modality” (p. 161). Which takes prece-
dence—e-mail, telephone, or face-to-face conversation? Rules of netiquette
often ask users not to check e-mail while engaged in face-to-face
conversation. That this guideline needs to be stated is evidence that
conventions for precedence of modality are as yet unresolved.
Similarly, in a comparison of the introduction of earlier literacy
technologies with the introduction of information technologies (D. E.
Murray, in press-a), I show that new technologies did not replace earlier
ones. The introduction of writing did not replace oral communication;
the advent of print did not replace writing; the telephone did not replace
handwritten letters; electronic communication has not replaced print.
Rather, communities rearrange their web of communication, with some
functions changing to the new technology and others staying with the
older technology. The role of each mode is contested socioculturally,
with different communities making different choices.
Bell and Gray (1997) of Microsoft Corporation asserted that “by 2047
. . . all information about physical objects, including humans, buildings,
processes and organizations, will be on-line. This is both desirable and
inevitable” (p. 5). If computer technology and an on-line presence are

inevitable, then educators, the argument goes, must include computer
literacy in the school curriculum. For if educators fail to include
technology in students’ educational experience, they engage in “a kind
of educational malpractice” (Green, 1997, p. 9). This rhetoric of
inevitability, which disempowers by assuming that users of the technol-
ogy are not in control of the new ways of communicating, needs to be
met by a critical examination of CMC.
CRITICAL ISSUES IN CMC USE
No technology is neutral or value free. Historical evidence demon-

strates that technology use carries social meaning; social values and
practices develop around the use of a new technology. Different tech-
nologies amplify certain features of communication and reduce others
(Bowers, 1998). For example, the telephone amplifies the voice while
reducing nonverbal and paraverbal cues such as gesture and intonation.
Consequently, the telephone became not just a machine but a way of
communicating, with socially constructed conventions for opening and
closing conversations that vary across speech communities. With the
advent of the telephone answering machine and subsequently of voice
mail, speech communities developed new conventions, such as voice
mail messages that contain multiple conversational moves—identification
of the person reached, an apology for absence, and a request to leave a
message. None of these conventions was part of the design of the
machine; they were socially constructed and contested over time.
Similarly, “there are many earlier points [than the World Wide Web]
in the development of computers that dramatically revealed the prece-
dence of communication over computation” (Winograd, 1997, p. 150).
Winograd cites two such examples: the use of the Internet for communi-
cation rather than for its originally intended purpose, remote comput-
ing; and the use of the personal computer for communication via tools,
such as word-processing, presentation, and e-mail software. Even before
the development of the personal computer, people turned a “comput-
ing” machine (hence the name computer) into a medium of communi-
cation. Early mainframe machines were designed to perform calcula-
tions (especially for the war effort during World War II) faster and more
accurately than humans could. Yet, within a very short time, users had
adopted computers for communication. The first messages sent were
usually one-line requests from programmers working at dumb terminals
to operators, asking them to mount a tape, fix a printer jam, or perform
another task. Very quickly, people logged onto the same mainframe
computer at the same time realized they could also send such one-liners
to communicate; hence the introduction of e-messages, which later
406 TESOL QUARTERLY

became IM and chat rooms (see D. E. Murray, 1986, for a full description
of e-messages). Next, developers created the store-and-forward capability
so that users could send data files to people not logged on. Again, users
took advantage of this feature to send not just data but communications,
that is, e-mail. More recently, as Winograd mentions, the Internet, which
grew out of the U.S. Department of Defense’s Advanced Research
Project Agency network (ARPANET), has become a major vehicle for
communication, although it was designed for remote computing among
universities and other agencies engaged in research for the Department
of Defense.
Like all media of communication, the computer amplifies some
characteristics of communication and reduces others. Because the
conventions for interaction via CMC are still being contested, the
rhetoric that poses computer-based communication as unproblematic
and inevitable must change and instead consider it as socially con-
structed. This shift in rhetoric involves taking the stance of critical literacy
or critical pedagogy (e.g., Shor, 1996; Wallerstein, 1983; Wink, 1997), that
is, of examining how the language and its use frame interaction. Critical
approaches examine the various ways that power operates in society.
Critical literacy in particular examines the ways “discourse may play
crucial roles in perpetuating the ways difference is understood, repro-
duced, or changed” (Pennycook, 1999, p. 332). Just as critical studies of
other discourses have unveiled inequalities, so, too, will critical studies of
CMC. In particular, examination of three critical questions should help
shape how English language educators use CMC in classes and profes-
sional life: (a) Whose language dominates the discourse? (b) Who has
access to the technology? (c) Who controls the discourse? (See D. E.
Murray, 1999, in press-b, for a more detailed discussion of these issues.)
The Dominance of English
Research revealing the hegemony of English, especially one or two

prestigious varieties (e.g., Canagarajah, 1999; Crystal, 1997; Kachru &
Nelson, 1996; Pennycook, 1995), has so far failed to consider the
language of cyberspace, where English dominates as it does in interna-
tional business, entertainment, research, and other areas of communica-
tion (see the argument below). The domination of cyberspace by English
is the result not only of the global expansion of English as a lingua franca
but also of the historical development of the technology itself. The early
developers of computational machines were English speakers (e.g.,
Charles Babbage, the inventor of the analytical engine, and Alan Turing,
the inventor of the universal machine, were both English). Commercial
development and subsequent advances in the technology occurred

mostly in the United States (see Augarten, 1984, for a history of com-
puters). The Internet, as noted, was an outgrowth of ARPANET, the
network developed by the U.S. Department of Defense (see Hafner &
Lyon, 1996, for a history of the Internet). The World Wide Web grew out
of a notion first suggested by Bush (1945), director of the U.S. Office of
Scientific Research and Development during World War II. It is there-
fore not surprising that, in 1997, 60% of the world’s Internet host
computers were located in the United States (Network Wizards, 1997).
The most comprehensive statistics on CMC use in various languages
are available only for the accessing of Web pages or for Internet use, not
for uses of CMC such as e-mail. These statistics show that 83.0% of Web
pages were in English in 1997 (Babel, 1997). The next most common
language for Web pages was German, at 4.0%, followed by Japanese, at
1.6%. The percentage of Web pages in Spanish and Chinese, the other
two languages with large numbers of speakers worldwide, was exception-
ally small: only 1.1% and fewer than 0.1%, respectively. A more recent
survey (Computer Economics, 1999) presents raw data indicating that
128 million English speakers and 88 million non–English speakers use
the Internet; however, the language of the user is not necessarily the
language of Internet access. In addition, the non-English-speaking
market for the Internet is growing faster than the English-speaking
market. Although no statistical data exist on the languages used in
e-mail, the data on Web pages, the data on Internet host computers, and
the data presented below in the section Differential Access to the
Technology show that computer technology itself is available primarily in
English-dominant countries.
English norms may dominate even in CMC speech communities in
which nonnative speakers of English participate, such as e-mail and chat
groups. Participants who are not competent in English may be excluded
from a potentially influential medium of communication or, worse still,
may experience the use of English as a tool of power. Baird (1998), for
example, describes how Native American Chat (a chat room) strength-
ens Indian (her preferred term) identification and allows the formation
of networks never possible before. This speech community has devel-
oped its own norms for interaction, including the “policing” of people
who claim to be Indian but are not. Yet the language of the chat room is
English, with some code switching into the native language (e.g.,
Cherokee). Recently a startup company has developed a search engine
for East Africa with the catchy headline “Think Globally, Search Locally”
(Turner, 1999). Yet the language of the search engine is English.
Warschauer (1999) describes how one ESL student, Atsuko, “was ha-
rassed by a self-appointed guardian of ‘correct’ English after she dared
venture on an international e-mail list” (p. 171). More recently, in their
study of the use of English and Arabic on-line in Egypt, Warschauer,
408 TESOL QUARTERLY

Zohry, and Refaat (2000) found that Egyptian Colloquial Arabic was used
for Internet chat (for which they used a romanized Arabic) whereas
English was used for Web pages and formal CMC.
When speakers of languages other than English try to use their
mother tongue on-line, they are hampered by a technology that was
designed for English. The character system (ASCII—American Standard
Code for Information Interchange) used for written language in
cyberspace privileges the Roman alphabet, making it extraordinarily
difficult to represent other writing scripts without special software.
Warschauer et al. (2000) note that most computers lack Arabic operating
systems. Even languages that use the Roman alphabet with diacritics are
difficult to represent, especially in CMC; either many of the diacritics are
stripped in transfer, or the browser does not allow diacritics to be typed.
The conventions of CMC speech communities and the technical facts
of Internet use leave English language educators with a paradox. On the
one hand, teaching English provides learners with the opportunity to
participate in the global speech community of CMC; on the other hand,
English teachers may be helping ensure that local languages will not find
voice on the Internet.
Differential Access to the Technology
“Virtual space is infinite, but it does not promise universality or equity”

(Gladieux & Swail, 1999, p. 22). Although many people are denied
access to CMC speech communities because they speak languages other
than English, many others are denied access because they do not have
the required computer technology. Access to and use of computers and
the Internet mirror the socioeconomic divide between rich and poor
individuals and nations. In the United States, race, gender, education,
and income are all predictors of computer access and use. Fifty percent
of U.S. homes have computers, and 33% are on-line; however, these are
the homes of educated, affluent, Whites in which males are the primary
users of the Internet (Claymon, 1999; Novak & Hoffman, 1998; Plotnikoff,
1999). In education, despite U.S. President Bill Clinton’s goal of con-
necting every classroom to the Internet by 2000, only 78% of U.S. schools
are reported to be connected; this figure includes connections in the
library, media center, and principal’s office (National Center for Educa-
tion Statistics, 1998). Even this figure is misleading, for actual hands-on
access for students is still quite limited: Only 43% of schools have such
access in five or more instructional rooms. Moreover, the schools with
such access are suburban, White, and middle class; only 63% of schools
with high percentages of minority or poor students report Internet
access. In U.S. colleges, freshmen at private universities were most likely

to have access to e-mail (80.1%); students at public, historically Black
colleges had the least access (41.4%) (“E-Mail and the American
Freshman,” 1999).
Although these data refer to Internet access in general, it seems safe to
infer that differences in access to CMC are at least equally dramatic, as
highlighted by a story recently reported in U.S. newspapers (Cassidy,
2000). Myra, a Navajo middle school student, surfed the Web at school
(with her teacher’s encouragement), entered an on-line competition,
and won a new computer from a startup company in Silicon Valley. The
young girl was delighted; the chief executive officer of the company was
astonished to find that Myra’s home did not have a telephone line with
which to connect her new computer to the Internet. Furthermore, the
estimated cost of installing such a line was U.S.$23,000–$35,000 because
the family lived so far from the nearest telecommunications line. And
even if the company paid for the line, Myra’s family could not afford the
monthly telephone bill.
Across nations, the same chasm exists. Per capita Internet use is high
among the affluent postindustrial nations. In 1997, Finland, at 244.5 per
1,000, had the highest per capita use; the worldwide average was 16.9 per
1,000 (“Top 15 Countries for Net Usage,” 1998). Per capita use in Japan
was 63.1 per 1,000, largely because of the cost of telephone lines rather
than a lack of computers (Chandler, 1999). Indeed, it is because of lack
of infrastructure such as telephone lines and inexpensive power and
paper that Africa remains the least computerized continent.
The data on access are collected and presented in so many different
ways that comparisons are difficult. For some countries, reports are in
raw numbers; for others, reports are the percentage of population. Some
report number of households with a personal computer; others report
use (e.g., number of Internet uses per week). Some data are available for
1998, others for the beginning of 1999, and still others for the end of
1999. Compounding the difficulty of comparison is the recency with
which the Internet became available; in Saudi Arabia, for example,
Internet connection began only in 1999. Despite the difficulties of
comparison, Tables 1 and 2, compiled by Computer Industry Almanac and
CyberAtlas from several different data sets, give some indication of the
distribution of Internet use.
In nations with burgeoning information technology (e.g., India),
access is often restricted by infrastructure problems and tied to indi-
vidual wealth. Although individual Indian states such as Andhra Pradesh
have offered incentives to attract investment, International Data
Corporation’s late 1999 survey of technology readiness in 55 countries
(as reported in Heim, 2000) ranked India second to last, largely because
of lack of reliable telecommunications services: India has 2.4 phones per
100 people, China has 10.0, and the United States has more than 101.0.
410 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 1
Internet Users in 1998, by Region
Region Internet users per 1,000 people
Worldwide 30.65
North America 311.20
Western Europe and Scandinavia 105.80
Eastern Europe 13.01
South and Central America 11.37
Asia-Pacific 9.93
Middle East and Africa 3.03
Source: “North America Is the Leading Region for Internet Users” (1999).
In Gujarat, India, for example, Dalit (lower caste) or OBC (Other

Backward Classes) students need access to computers both to develop
their English skills through interaction and to qualify for the many jobs
that require computer literacy (Ramanathan, 1999), but they do not
have such access. Indeed, learners with the least access to fluent English
speakers in their community are also unlikely to have access to CMC as a
source of authentic language experiences.
The statistics revealing who has access to the Internet contrast sharply
with predictions implied by the euphoria of scholars who expected that
computer technology would be a tool for equity and social justice.
Proponents of the idea that social justice could be propagated through
the Internet predicted that the barriers erected by class, gender, and race
TABLE 2
Internet Users in Late 1999, by Region
Region Internet users (%)
United States 43.0

United Kingdom 27.0
Canada 25.0
Australia 25.0
Korea 22.4
Italy 15.0
Hong Kong 14.0
Malaysia 7.0
China 4.0
Czech Republic < 3.0
Indonesia 1.0
Source: “The Big Picture: Demographics” (2000).

would be broken down through CMC because it masks physical cues of
those characteristics. In reality, however, these same characteristics
appear to remain barriers to physical access to CMC.
Control of the Discourse of CMC

Access can also be viewed from a local perspective of interaction, the
question being whether control of the discourse of CMC is evenly
distributed among participants. The limited research on these issues
provides no simple answer. Early research on CMC behavior (e.g.,
Sproull & Kiesler, 1986) drew attention to the phenomenon of flaming,
which was attributed to the lack of physical cues and social norms in
CMC. Other researchers (e.g., Davis & Brewer, 1997; Ferrara et al., 1991;
D. E. Murray, 1991) have not found evidence of these emotional
outbursts, attributing the different findings to differences in the speech
communities studied. However, Herring, who has conducted a variety of
studies on gender and CMC, including linguistic analyses (1996c) of 136
individual messages from two Internet mailing lists (LINGUIST and
WMST [the Women’s Studies List]), an electronic survey on network
etiquette (1993), an ethnographic observation of nine CMC lists (1996b),
and a content analysis of netiquette statements on e-mail lists (1996b),
has shown that a male discourse style —characterized by debate, freedom
from rules, and adversarial argumentation—currently dominates the
Internet. Men also complain more than women do about messages that
they perceive as containing little information (Herring, 1996b). Herring
identifies the female style as one of politeness and consideration,
alignment, support, and appreciation. However, women’s messages are
“more informative, in contrast with male messages which most often
express (critical) views” (Herring, 1996c, p. 82). Additionally, those in
the minority gender of the particular list shift their styles toward the
majority style.
Allen (1995), on the other hand, found in a case study of e-mail use
among employees in the corporate headquarters of a U.S. public
broadcasting service (a nonprofit corporation providing television pro-
gramming) that women had more positive attitudes toward e-mail use
than men did. Her data included interviews with 30 employees randomly
selected but representing five hierarchical levels. These interviews were
followed by a survey (with 192 responses) eliciting attitudes toward
e-mail use, patterns of use, and demographic data. The women in Allen’s
study rated e-mail more highly than men did in terms of ease of use,
usefulness, efficiency, and effectiveness. She speculates that these find-
ings may be the result of women’s greater ease with word processing and
their supportive and nurturing attitude toward communication. In a
412 TESOL QUARTERLY

recent summary of studies on gender differences in CMC, Herring
(2000) notes “a tendency for Internet users to display features of
culturally learned gender styles in their typed messages” (p. 6).
Thus, the research so far contradicts the predictions of many com-
mentators that CMC would create a more equal site for communication.
The assumption was that CMC would allow for anonymous interaction in
which gender was masked. However, the research shows that users of
asynchronous CMC mostly retain their real-life identities, and even when
they try to mask their gender, gender-specific cues are visible through
discourse style. Synchronous CMC shows more equal participation, at
least in terms of number of messages and message length; however,
participants often either ask others to reveal their gender or display their
own through their language use (Herring, 2000).
In a meta-analysis of experimental studies published between 1980
and 1990, McLeod (1992) found that synchronous electronic support
systems, such as e-mail and electronic conference rooms, facilitate
decision making by groups: Group members focus more on the task,
participate more equally, make higher quality decisions, strongly support
their decisions, and believe them to be correct; however, they take longer
to reach decisions and are less satisfied with the results. However, English
language educators should be aware that switching to electronic commu-
nication will not necessarily lead to a student-centered, egalitarian
learning environment. Some instructors (Hawisher & Selfe, 1998) found
that they dominated electronic classroom discussions as much as they
did face-to-face discussions. Thus, it would seem that norms of behavior
of a speech community can prevail despite the medium. Further re-
search is needed to substantiate this claim. In short, CMC requires the
same critical lens that is used to uncover pedagogical practices and
question the status quo of interaction in any ELT or TESOL teacher
education classroom, just as Nunan (1999) has attempted to do in his
preliminary study on delivering TESOL graduate courses via distance
education on the Web.
DISTANCE EDUCATION: A PEDAGOGICAL

APPLICATION OF CMC
One growing application of CMC in education has been its incorpora-

tion into distance education programs. A quick search on-line indicates
that a number of traditional universities and consortia of such universi-
ties offer teacher education courses and degrees in TESOL through
distance education. Similarly, a number of schools around the world
offer ELT on-line, either as part of a more traditional curriculum or as a
stand-alone language program. The TESOL association began offering

professional development on-line in 1998. The technology used in such
programs includes (streaming) video, multimedia conferencing, and the
entire range of CMC modes. The use of CMC in teacher education and
ELT needs to be examined in terms of the larger context of distance
education in order to discover whose interests are served.
Historical Context of Distance Education
Although the particular characteristics of distance education deliv-

ered through CMC appear to be qualitatively different from those of
prior educational delivery mechanisms, distance education itself is not a
recent phenomenon. This traditional stepchild of most educational
systems has simply gained popular attention in the past two decades.
Many current practices have their roots in correspondence courses, in
which students and teachers exchanged lectures and assignments via the
postal service. These courses began around the turn of the 20th century
in several countries to meet differing local needs, but the democratizing
voice for social justice through distance education is evident in these
early efforts. In the United States, a number of colleges, such as the
People’s College in Kansas, were instituted to “bring education within
the reach of every man, woman, and child, and . . . teach the viewpoint
of the working class” (Greer, 1999, p. 252). In Australia, individual state
departments of education began to operate correspondence schools in
the 1920s with the goal of reaching children in remote areas of the
country, where 95% of the population lives in coastal urban areas.
In some states, these programs later incorporated technology as it was
developed for other purposes, at first voice, using the pedal wireless
system (radio powered by pedal-driven generators) originally designed
for the Flying Doctor Service.3 These programs were called School of the
Air. In the 1960s, television (either live or taped) was used for distance
education programs in the United States, and in the 1980s, satellites
were harnessed. Probably the most recognized distance-learning pro-
gram is the United Kingdom’s Open University, which was founded in
1969 and has served 2 million students worldwide through a combina-
tion of correspondence, television, face-to-face tutorials, and, more
recently, computer-based technologies. Now many countries, universi-
ties, and schools are developing virtual campuses (supplements to regular
instructional modes) or even virtual universities, which deliver all instruc-
tion remotely via technology.
3
The Royal Flying Doctor Service, established in Australia in 1928, had become nationwide
by the 1930s, providing not only emergency medical care for people in the outback but also
comprehensive health care and community service. Today the service covers an area larger than
Western Europe and operates around the clock from 19 bases.
414 TESOL QUARTERLY

Distance Learning for Whom?
The impetus for the proliferation of distance-learning courses, pro-

grams, and degrees, of which ELT and TESOL are only one part, comes
from several sectors—industry, educational institutions, students, and
the public. As computer networks, software, and other hardware have
developed, industry has looked for new markets; educational institu-
tions, with rising student enrollments and shrinking budgets, have seen
distance learning as a cost-effective delivery system; with the develop-
ment of higher levels of knowledge and skills for high-paying jobs,
students have recognized the need for higher levels of education; and
the public has shown an increased desire to reduce the cost of education,
especially at the college level. Students and educators focus on com-
puter-based distance education’s anywhere, anytime (both in real time
and not in real time)—and, I would add, anything—functionality and
therefore its ability to reach nontraditional students.
Demographic research on distance learning in general shows that
students who take distance-learning courses are mostly female, married,
working full-time, and 25–50 years old (Moore & Kearsley, 1996), a
group that is a major focus of Open University. However, this profile is
becoming equally that of the traditional student, for, at least in the
United States, “the traditional age cohort (18–22 years of age), living on
campus and attending classes full time, represents today only 25 percent
of total enrollment” (Van Dusen, 1998, p. 60). In an interview (Irving,
1999), Sir John Daniel, vice chancellor of Open University, noted, “We’re
trying to provide a convenient form of education. Anything we require
the student to do at a particular time and place we have to be really
convinced that adds value” (n.p.). Many educators claim that classrooms
requiring face-to-face interaction indeed provide added value—a com-
munity of learners. As noted earlier, published demographic data on
computer and Internet use indicate that on-line college courses and
degrees provide expanded educational opportunities for students with
easy access to computers but are less useful for poor and minority
students who do not have that access (Gladieux & Swail, 1999).
The Value of Distance Learning?
Although virtual distance learning is proliferating, there is little

research in any field that critically examines either the effectiveness of
instruction or the nature of human communication via CMC. Two recent
reports on distance education using new technologies in higher educa-
tion in the United States (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1999,
2000) remark on the promise and the peril of virtual universities.

According to the second report, which reviews research on distance
learning in higher education, research indicates that distance education
compares favorably with traditional methods in higher education in
terms of grades, test scores, and student and faculty satisfaction. How-
ever, the report writers claim that these results are questionable because
the studies reviewed did not ask the research questions whose answers
would tell whether distance learning is effective, including how learners
engage in asynchronous CMC.
Research is needed on CMC in ELT and TESOL teacher education.
Nunan’s (1999) study of TESOL teacher education delivered over
distance on-line provides some data but has limited findings. His study
focused primarily on the interaction on-line in chat mode, which has
restrictions on turn taking and the number of active participants. Nunan
stressed that although such Web-based courses may facilitate collabora-
tion and independent learning, they may equally support traditional
methodologies—the technology is merely a tool.
Because much research in L2 learning (e.g., Ellis, 1999; Gass, 1997;
Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos, & Linnell, 1996) has indicated that
student-teacher and student-student interaction facilitates language ac-
quisition, it seems reasonable to claim that future research and discus-
sion concerning the use of CMC in ELT distance education should
“‘focus on the outcomes of interaction rather than the agents of the
interaction’ (Wagner, 1997). Although the delivery technology may
present certain constraints or offer particular advantages, content and
learning objectives should drive the choice of communication strategies”
(Boaz, 1999, p. 41).
CONCLUSION
CMC provides a crucible for the study of how speech communities

adapt language to new situations and demonstrates that the forms
language takes result from the complex interaction among the various
aspects of the context. Users and promoters of CMC focus on its
anywhere, anytime functions but fail to critically examine who is
disempowered or lacks access because of a barrier of language, culture,
race, class, poverty, or gender. What lies ahead for CMC is not so much a
question of its functionality but will depend on how speech communities
use the variety of available communication media systematically. ELT and
TESOL teacher education need to focus on communication and its
speech communities rather than on the technology because “lighting a
fire in the students’ heart, role modeling and nurturing may contribute
more to learning than the neatest hyper-linked courseware” (Dertouzos,
1999, n.p.) or the most novel CMC tools.
416 TESOL QUARTERLY

THE AUTHOR
Denise E. Murray, director of the National Center for English Language Teaching
and Research, Macquarie University, has been a language educator in England,
Australia, Thailand, and the United States. Her research interests include cross-
cultural literacy and the intersection of language, society, and technology. She was
on the TESOL Board of Directors for 7 years, serving as president in 1996–1997.
REFERENCES
Allen, B. J. (1995). Gender and computer-mediated communication. Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, 32, 557–564.
Augarten, S. (1984). Bit by bit: An illustrated history of computers. New York: Ticknor &
Fields.
Babel. (1997, June). Web languages hit parade. Retrieved April 5, 2000, from the World
Wide Web: http://babel.alis.com.8080/palmares.html.
Baird, E. (1998, July). Ain’t gotta do nothin’ but be brown and die. CMC Magazine.
Retrieved April 5, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.december.com
/cmc/mag/1998/jul/baird.html.
Baron, N. S. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: The linguistics of
email. Language and Communication, 18, 133–170.
Bell, G., & Gray, J. N. (1997). The revolution yet to happen. In P. J. Denning & R. M.
Metcalfe (Eds.), Beyond calculation: The next fifty years of computing (pp. 5–32). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
The big picture: Demographics. (2000). CyberAtlas. Retrieved February 28, 2000, from
the World Wide Web: http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/demographics.
Black, S. D., Levin, J. E., Mehan, H., & Quinn, C. N. (1983). Real and non-real time
interaction: Unraveling multiple threads of discourse. Discourse Processes, 6, 59–75.
Boaz, M. (1999). Effective methods of communication and student collaboration. In
M. Boaz, B. Elliott, D. Foshee, D. Hardy, C. Jarmon, & D. Olcott Jr., Teaching as a
distance: A handbook for instructors (pp. 41–47). Mission Viejo, CA: League for
Innovation in the Community College/Archipelago Productions.
Bowers, C. A. (1998). The paradox of technology: What’s gained and lost? Thought
and Action, 15, 49–57.
Bush, V. (1945, July). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176, 101–108. Retrieved
April 5, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound
/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm.
Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Cassidy, M. (2000, March 4). Myra, meet your iMac. San José Mercury News, p. 24A.
Chandler, C. (1999, August 18). Phone costs hamper growth of e-commerce. San José
Mercury News, p. 21A.
Claymon, D. (1999, April 12). Cheap PCs lead to breakthrough: Computers now in
50% of homes. San José Mercury News, pp. 1A, 12A.
Collot, M., & Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic language: A new variety of English. In
S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-
cultural perspectives (pp. 13–28). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Computer Economics. (1999, June 9). English will dominate Web for only three more
years. Retrieved April 5, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www
.computereconomics.com/new4/pr/pr990610.html.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Davis, B. H., & Brewer, J. P. 1997. Electronic discourse: Verbal individuals in virtual space.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Dertouzos, M. (1999, January/February). The people’s computer. Technology Review.
Retrieved May 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://techreview.com
/articles/jan99/dertouzos.htm.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
E-mail and the American freshman in 1998. (1999, March). Advocate, p. 9.
Ferguson, C. A. (1977). Baby talk as a simplified register. In C. E. Snow & C. A.
Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children (pp. 209–235). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Ferrara, K., Brunner, H., & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as
an emergent register. Written Communication, 8, 8–34.
Gaies, S. (1977). The nature of linguistic input in formal second language learning:
Linguistic and communicative strategies in ESL teachers’ classroom language. In
H. D. Brown, R. Crymes, & C. Yorio (Eds.), On TESOL ’77 (pp. 204–212).
Washington, DC: TESOL.
Gains, J. (1999). Electronic mail—a new style of communication or just a new
medium? An investigation into the text features of e-mail. English for Specific
Purposes, 18, 81–101.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Gladieux, L. E., & Swail, W. S. (1999, April). The virtual university and educational
opportunity: Issues of equity and access for the next generation. Washington, DC: The
College Board. Retrieved April 5, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://
www.collegeboard.org/policy/html/April.pdf.
Green, K. C. (1997, September). High tech vs. high touch: The potential promise and
probable limits of technology-based education and training in higher education. Working
paper prepared for the U.S. Department of Education/World Bank Workshop on
Competence Without Credentials, Washington, DC.
Greer, J. (1999). “No smiling Madonna”: Marion Wharton and the struggle to
construct a critical pedagogy for the working class, 1914–1917. College Composition
and Communication, 51, 248–271.
Hafner, K., & Lyon, M. (1996). Where wizards stay up late: The origins of the Internet. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (1998). Reflections on computers and composition
studies at the century’s end. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the
electronic era (pp. 3–19). London: Routledge.
Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology, Subcommittee on
Investigation and Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, of the U.S. House of
Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1982, July 15) (testimony of Alan Kay).
Heim, K. (2000, March 19). Despite flaws, India offers a lucrative tech market. San
José Mercury News, pp. 1A, 16A.
Henzl, V. (1974). Linguistic register of foreign language instruction. Language
Learning, 23, 437–454.
Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communica-
tion. In R. Kling (Ed.), Computerization and controversy (2nd ed., pp. 476–489). New
York: Academic Press.
418 TESOL QUARTERLY

Herring, S. C. (Ed.). (1996a). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and
cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Herring, S. C. (1996b). Posting in a different voice: Gender and ethics in computer-
mediated communication. In C. Ess (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on computer-
mediated communication (pp. 115–145). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Herring, S. C. (1996c). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S. C.
Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural
perspectives (pp. 81–106). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Herring, S. C. (2000). Gender differences in CMC: Findings and implications. The
CPSR Newsletter, 18(1), 1–12. Retrieved April 5, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/herring
.html.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via
computer. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hiltz, S. R,. & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual
classroom. Communication of the ACM, 40, 44–50.
Howard, T. (1997). A rhetoric of electronic communities. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Hudson, R. A. (1980). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1999). What’s the difference? Retrieved May 15,
2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ihep.com/difference.pdf.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success
in Internet-based distance education. Retrieved May 15, 2000, from the World Wide
Web: http://www.ihep.com/qualityonline.pdf.
Irving, C. (1999). An interview: Sir John Daniel. National CrossTalk, 7(3). Retrieved
April 5, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.highereducation.org
/crosstalk/ct0799/interview0799.html.
Janda, R. D. (1985). Note-taking English as a simplified register. Discourse Processes, 8,
437–454.
Jones, S. G. (Ed.). (1998). Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication
and community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kachru, B. B., & Nelson, C. L. (1996). World Englishes. In S. L. McKay & N. H.
Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 71–102). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G. N. (1966). English in advertising. London: Longman.
Lewis, D. D., & Knowles, K. A. (1997). Threading electronic mail: A preliminary
study. Information Processing and Management, 33, 209–217.
McLeod, P. L. (1992). An assessment of the experimental literature on electronic
support of group work: Results of a meta-analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 7,
257–280.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Murray, D. E. (1986). Conversation for action: The computer terminal as medium of
communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford,
CA.
Murray, D. E. (1988a). The context of oral and written language: A framework for
mode and media switching. Language in Society, 17, 351–373.
Murray, D. E. (1988b). When the medium determines turns: Turn-taking in
computer conversation. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Working with language (pp. 210–
223). The Hague: Mouton.
Murray, D. E. (1991). Conversation for action: The computer terminal as medium of
communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Murray, D. E. (1999). Access to information technology: Considerations for language
educators. Prospect, 14, 4–12.

Murray, D. E. (in press-a). Changing technologies, changing literacy communities?
Language Learning & Technology.
Murray, D. E. (in press-b). The language of cyberspace. In J. Rickford & E. Finegan
(Eds.), Language in the USA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murray, P. J. (1997, January). A rose by any other name. CMC Magazine. Retrieved
April 5, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.december.com/cmc/mag
/1997/jan/murray.html.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1998, February). Internet access in public
schools (NCES 98-031). Retrieved April 5, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://
nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98031.html.
Negraponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf.
Network Wizards. (1997). Internet domain survey. Retrieved April 5, 2000, from the
World Wide Web: http://www.nw.com/zone/WWW/top.html.
North America is the leading region for Internet users. (1999). Computer industry
almanac. Retrieved February 28, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www
.c-i-a.com/199908iu.htm.
Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (1998). Bridging the digital divide: The impact of race on
computer access and Internet use. Retrieved April 5, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/papers/race/science.html.
Nunan, D. (1999). A foot in the world of ideas: Graduate study through the Internet.
Language Learning & Technology, 3(1), 52–74. Retrieved April 5, 2000, from the
World Wide Web: http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt/vol3num1/nunan/index.html.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
Pennycook, A. (1995). English in the world/The world in English. In J. W. Tollefson
(Ed.), Power and inequality in language education (pp. 34–58). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
33, 329–348.
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’
interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2
learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84.
Plotnikoff, D. (1999, April 4). E-mail: A critical medium has reached critical mass.
San José Mercury News, pp. 1F, 2F.
Ramanathan, V. (1999). “English is here to stay”: A critical look at institutional and
educational practices in India. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 211–231.
Shank, G., & Cunningham, D. (1996). Mediated phosphor dots: Toward a post-
Cartesian model of computer-mediated communication via the semiotic highway.
In C. Ess (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication (pp. 27–
41). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Shea, V. (1994). Netiquette. San Francisco: Albion Books.
Shor, I. (1996). When students have power: Negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Snyder, I. (Ed.). (1998). Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era. London:
Routledge.
Sperling, D. (1996). The Internet guide for English language teachers. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: The case of electronic
mail. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.
Straumann, H. (1935). Newspaper headlines: A study in linguistic method. London: Allen
& Unwin.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Top 15 countries for net usage. (1998, December 29). CyberAtlas. Retrieved April 5,
420 TESOL QUARTERLY

2000, from the World Wide Web: http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture
/geographics/article/0,1323,5911_151271,00.html.
Turner, M. (1999, August 15). Search engine links to East African sites. San José
Mercury News, pp. 2AA.
Van Dusen, G. C. (1998). Technology: Higher education’s magic bullet. Thought and
Action, 15, 59–67.
Wallerstein, N. (1983). Language and culture in conflict: Problem-posing in the ESL
classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Warschauer, M. (1995). E-mail for English teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online
education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Warschauer, M., Zohry, A., & Refaat, G. (2000, March). Language and literacy online: A
study of Egyptian Internet users. Paper presented at the conference of the American
Association for Applied Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada.
Werry, C. C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In
Wink, J. (1997). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world. New York: Longman.
Winograd, T. (1997). The design of interaction. In J. Burke, P. J. Denning, & R. M.
Metcalfe (Eds.), Beyond calculation: The next fifty years of computing (pp. 149–161).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). Knee-jerk anti-LOOPism and other e-mail phenomena:
Oral, written and electronic patterns in computer-mediated communication (MIT Sloan
School Working Paper No. 3578-93). Retrieved April 5, 2000, from the World
Wide Web: http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/CCSWP150.html.
Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A
corpus based study. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication:
Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29–46). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Looking to the Future of TESOL Teacher
Education: Web-Based Bulletin Board
Discussions in a Methods Course
LÍA D. KAMHI-STEIN
California State University
Los Angeles, California, United States
This study investigated students’ participation in whole-class, face-to-

face discussions and in World Wide Web–based bulletin board (BB)
discussions in a TESOL teacher preparation course titled Methods of
Teaching Second Languages. Participation patterns and attitudes to-
ward the Web-based discussion were identified through quantitative
and qualitative analyses of videotapes of whole-class, face-to-face discus-
sions; transcripts of Web-based BB discussions; and interviews with
selected students. The results of the study show that students contrib-
uted a substantially larger number of turns in the Web-based BB
interactions than the instructor did and that there was no statistical
difference between the number of turns contributed by nonnative
English speakers and native English speakers in either condition. Face-
to-face discussions reflected a three-part structure of initiation, re-
sponse, and evaluation in which the instructor played a large role
whereas Web-based BB discussions consisted of primarily student-
student interactions that reflected a high degree of peer support and
collaboration. Students held positive attitudes toward Web-based BB
discussions as a means of hearing the perspectives of their peers. The
findings suggest Web-based BB discussion as a means of integrating
technology into TESOL teacher education while encouraging students
to develop knowledge through collaboration.
I n recent years, computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools,

including but not limited to e-mail and electronic bulletin board (BB)
systems, have become increasingly popular in the L2 classroom. Re-
search suggests that the use of CMC tools in the L2 classroom improves
student involvement (e.g., Fotos & Iwabuchi, 1998; Kelm, 1992; Kern,
1995; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Tella, 1991; Warschauer, 1996, 1999) and
cross-cultural understanding (e.g., Cummins & Sayers, 1995; Furstenberg,
2000), and promotes reflection on and awareness of how to use language
in social discourse (e.g., Cummins & Sayers, 1995; Kern, 1996; Ma, 1996;

Warschauer, 1998). Given results from research and the widespread use
of CMC for learning and professional communication, accreditation
agencies such as the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE), which TESOL recently joined (Wong, 1998), argue
that teacher education programs should prepare candidates to integrate
information technology into their instruction (NCATE, 2000). TESOL
teacher educators advocate the same position. Crandall (1999), for
example, supports the notion that TESOL teacher education programs
need to provide students with opportunities to “become comfortable
with various technologies used in language teaching, testing, and learn-
ing” (p. 21).
Despite suggestions that learning how to use technology should be an
important part of professional preparation in TESOL, limited data exist
concerning the use of CMC in the TESOL teacher education curriculum
and the role of technology in the learning experience and, ultimately, in
the preparation of ESL/EFL teachers. This article reports the results of
an investigation into the use of a CMC tool, a Web-based BB system, into
a course titled Methods of Teaching Second Languages. Specifically, it
compares the participation of the instructor and students in classroom
discussions with their participation in Web-based BB discussions as well
as the participation of native speakers and nonnative speakers. The
article describes the structure of interaction in both conditions and
summarizes students’ perceptions of the Web-based BB discussion.
CMC AND TEACHER PREPARATION
Teacher educators argue that integrating CMC tools into the require-
ments of teacher education courses allows students to learn to use
technology to meet their own instructional goals (Kovalchick, 1997;
Yildirim & Kiraz, 1999). They suggest that if students are to use
technology effectively for teaching in the future, they must use it for
learning while they are students; limiting technology experiences to one
course or to one area of teacher preparation is insufficient for develop-
ing teachers who can use technology creatively and flexibly (see, e.g.,
Duffield, 1997; Thompson, Bull, & Willis, 1998). Instead, technology
should be integrated across the curriculum of teacher education pro-
grams, and technology instruction should be aligned with NCATE’s
technology standards (Levin & Buell, 1999; Thompson et al., 1998;
Wildner, 2000).
The use of CMC in teacher education is particularly important
because of its potential effect on classroom dynamics. Communication in
the typical classroom is constrained by factors such as location, time,
audience, and interactivity. In contrast, CMC allows the creation of
424 TESOL QUARTERLY

learning environments in which communication can occur in the same
geographical and physical places at different times, in different geo-
graphical and physical places at the same time, or in different geographi-
cal and physical places at different times (Sussex & White, 1996). The
extent to which CMC eases time constraints depends on the type of CMC
system used. As noted by Johansen (cited in Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz,
1999), CMC can be synchronous, or real-time (i.e., interaction occurs at
the same time), or asynchronous (i.e., interaction occurs at different
times). Modes of synchronous CMC include Web-based chats; modes of
asynchronous CMC include e-mail messages and BB interactions.
Research dealing with the use of CMC tools in TESOL teacher
preparation offers some insights into the use of technology. In a recent
case study, Nunan (1999) investigated the potential of Web chatting, a
synchronous CMC mode, for teaching a course in a master of science
program in TESOL. The participants in the study were four native
English speakers and one native Japanese speaker. The results of the
qualitative data analysis, including transcripts of Web chatting interac-
tions and students’ reflections on and evaluations of the course, showed
that Web chatting provided students with a forum that allowed them to
make connections between the realities of their work experiences and
the knowledge presented in the textbooks “as their ideas evolve in real
time across different educational and cultural contexts” (p. 58). Nunan
also found that, in Web chatting, students communicated to negotiate
information, there was limited transmission of knowledge, and the
initiation-response-evaluation (IRE) pattern was relatively rare—a find-
ing that he attributed to the instructor’s personal style and beliefs about
teaching and learning. Furthermore, Nunan found that in the early
stages of the course, Web chatting discourse was more teacher- than
student-centered in that, to distribute speaking turns, it relied on one
voice, usually the instructor’s. However, as the course progressed, stu-
dents took greater control of the interactions and, much as in face-to-
face classrooms, allowed their personalities to emerge. Nunan concluded
by cautioning that, although Web-based chatting can be used to promote
constructivist, student-centered, and collaborative learning, there is
nothing inherent in the medium that will prevent traditional types of
teaching and learning.
Other recent studies (Kamhi-Stein, 2000; Schlagal, Trathen, & Blanton,
1996; Yildirim & Kiraz, 1999) suggest that using asynchronous CMC
modes (e.g., Web-based BB systems and e-mail) in practicum courses
allows student teachers to collaborate with their peers, mentor teachers,
and supervisors and that it reduces the student teachers’ feelings of
isolation. Specifically, in a 1-year case study, Schlagal et al. (1996)
investigated how student teachers and their university supervisors used
e-mail to exchange ideas. The results of the analysis showed that, during
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE OF TESOL TEACHER EDUCATION 425

the year, student teachers engaged in substantive reflection focusing on
various themes observed in their classrooms (e.g., invented spelling,
dialect, classroom management, and process writing). Moreover, the
public nature of the e-mail dialogues provided student teachers with
opportunities to learn about their peers’ field experiences and broad-
ened their own experiences. According to Schlagal et al., the student
teachers’ reflectivity was prompted by three factors. First, the prompts
were open-ended and focused on themes observed in the student
teachers’ classrooms (e.g., How should I deal with errors in children’s
writing?). Second, as student teachers and university supervisors inter-
acted via e-mail, student teachers spontaneously contributed ideas and
built upon their peers’ messages. Finally, the time budgeted for e-mail
communication in the student teachers’ daily field experience allowed
for sustained communication.
In another practicum-related case study (Kamhi-Stein, 2000), I ana-
lyzed the Web-based BB interaction of five student teachers (three
nonnative English speakers and two native English speakers), two
mentor teachers, and a university supervisor. I found that the Web-based
BB system provided the student teachers with a forum in which they
discussed their immediate concerns and gave and received feedback on
their field experiences. Moreover, Web-based BB discussions provided
student teachers with a sense of community and allowed them to
participate at their own pace, a feature that nonnative English speakers
found very positive.
In another practicum-related case study, Yildirim and Kiraz (1999)
found that, although student teachers, university supervisors, and men-
tor teachers believed that they needed to be prepared for the use of
technology in the classroom, they felt unprepared to use e-mail for
professional development. The participants in this study showed various
degrees of computer anxiety, and the student teachers were found to be
more experienced in the use of technology that their mentor teachers
were. Yildirim and Kiraz suggest that teacher education programs
integrate technology into the curricula of courses other than those
designed to teach computer literacy. In this respect, Irujo and Johnson
(1997) argue that CMC tools should be integrated across the curricula of
TESOL teacher preparation courses and that students should be given
specific direction in how to use such CMC tools.
Overall, then, the research indicates that the integration of CMC tools
into the teaching practicum has the potential to promote collaboration
among teachers-in-preparation and reduce the isolation felt by novice
teachers. These findings prompt an examination of the typical participa-
tion patterns in face-to-face, teacher-fronted classrooms in contrast to
those in CMC environments.
426 TESOL QUARTERLY

The Teacher-Fronted Classroom
The teacher-fronted lesson, the form of classroom discussion con-

trasted with the Web-based BB discussion in this research, has been
characterized as having a three-part sequence involving teacher initia-
tion (I), student response (R), and teacher evaluation (E) (Cazden,
1988; Losey, 1995; Mehan, 1982). As Mehan explains, in the sequence
known as IRE, “The teacher provides information to students, elicits
information from them, and directs their procedural actions” (pp. 73–
74). The IRE sequence allows the teacher to control turn taking as well
as the topic of conversation (Cazden, 1988; Losey, 1995). Many have
questioned whether the teacher’s degree of control in this common
classroom structure best serves the development of the learner.
A central feature of the IRE pattern is that the students’ job is limited
to displaying information that is known to the instructor (Cazden, 1988).
From Freire’s (1970) point of view, the IRE structure involves the
depositing of information in the students’ minds: Students are mere
repositories designed to receive, memorize, and repeat information.
This role of the student as a receptive learner appears at odds with one
of the goals of TESOL teacher education: to develop students’ capacities
for creative problem solving and reflective practice. In contrast, TESOL
teacher educators argue (e.g., Irujo & Johnson, 1997; Kamhi-Stein,
2000), future ESL/EFL teachers need a forum in which to collaborate
with their peers and share their knowledge and understanding of the
field.
A second concern raised about the teacher-fronted IRE pattern is that
it may disproportionately disadvantage learners who are hesitant to
speak up in a large group. In a study of a basic writing class, Losey (1995)
found that of 310 exchanges in three whole-class discussions, 79% were
teacher initiated and 57% drew on the IRE structure. Additionally,
although 55% of the students were bilingual Mexican Americans and
45% were monolingual Anglo Americans, the Anglo Americans contrib-
uted 82% of the responses, and the Mexican Americans contributed
18%. In addition, Losey found that the Mexican American women
participated significantly less often than did the Mexican American men
in whole-class interactions. The Mexican American women favored
small-group interactions—a finding previously identified for Mexican
Americans as a whole (Delgado-Gaitán & Trueba, 1985; Trueba, 1985).
In short, the IRE sequence may not be conducive to some of the
objectives of TESOL teacher education; therefore, other forms of
communication need to be explored. Given the suggestion that students
in teacher preparation programs should become acquainted with learn-
ing through technology, it may be beneficial to explore how learning

through technology might support alternative patterns of classroom
communication as well.
Classroom Discussion via Asynchronous CMC
Asynchronous CMC places conditions on language use that are

considerably different from those of face-to-face classroom discussion.
Perhaps most important for the support of reflective discussion is that
asynchronous CMC does not impose any time constraints, which allows
participants to work at their own pace (Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999). In
particular, three types of asynchronous CMC might support TESOL
teacher education: (a) electronic discussion lists, (b) e-mail, and (c) BB
systems.
The research on electronic discussion lists has focused primarily on
the influence of identity factors on participation. Examining male and
female patterns of participation in electronic discussion lists, Herring
(1992, 1996) found that messages posted by women tended to be more
supportive than those posted by men, which tended to be more critical of
other people’s positions. Relative to men, women tended to produce less
adversarial turns and to participate less often in adversarial exchanges.
In another study related to gender differences and participation in an
electronic discussion list, Fishman (1999) found that, compared with
their male counterparts, female high school students were more reluc-
tant to participate in conversations in public forums such as Usenet
newsgroups. Fishman attributes this reluctance to the fact that conversa-
tions in public forums are sometimes rude and inflammatory, factors that
may appeal less to girls than to boys. Kahai and Cooper (1999) suggest
that pressure to reach agreement in asynchronous CMC is greater when
the group is attractive to a discussion participant or, as noted by Postmes,
Spears, and Lea (1998), when communicators share a common social
identity.
Research on the use of e-mail in L2 classrooms has produced a
number of positive findings with respect to learner involvement and
learning. Research in this area shows that e-mail improves the participa-
tion of shy students (Fotos & Iwabuchi, 1998). Moreover, implementing
e-mail projects in the L2 classroom reduces gender-related differences in
classroom participation (Kamhi-Stein & Browne-del Mar, 1997; Tella,
1992a) and promotes student-student, as opposed to teacher-student,
interaction (Ady, 1999; Kern, 1996; Tella, 1991, 1992a, 1992b). E-mail
projects also allow L2 speakers to improve their cross-cultural awareness
(Ady, 1999; Cummins & Sayers, 1995; Kamhi-Stein & Browne-del Mar,
1997). Finally, e-mail dialogue journals create opportunities for self-
paced learning (González-Bueno, 1998).
428 TESOL QUARTERLY

Similarly, Mabrito (2000) argues, based on the research on writing
apprehension, that asynchronous computer conferencing provides highly
apprehensive writers with an environment that is less threatening than
that provided by face-to-face tutorials. According to Mabrito, e-mail
conferences provide “greater physical and psychological distance to the
high-apprehensive writer, providing greater freedom to experiment with
writing” (p. 146). However, Castner (2000) found that most students did
not extend e-mail consultations at a university’s on-line writing center
beyond the initial contact because (a) it took too long to obtain a
response, (b) the students were unfamiliar with e-mail and did not know
how to e-mail questions, (c) they did not have access to a computer, (d)
they found help elsewhere, (e) they were not aware that on-line
assistance was available, (f) they did not understand the first response, or
(g) they did not view the response as helpful. Carlson and Apperson-
Williams (2000) also found that both new and experienced writing
center tutors felt anxious about responding to an impersonal computer
screen.
Recent research has yielded information on the characteristics of
electronic BB messages. Electronic language exhibits characteristics
typical of certain forms of written and spoken language, and electronic
messages resemble public interviews and letters as well as personal and
professional letters (Collot & Belmore, 1996). Lamy and Goodfellow
(1999) found that asynchronous BB messages in a foreign language class
promoted three degrees of interactivity, described as (a) monologic (i.e.,
“contain[ing] no invitation to interaction,” p. 48), (b) conversational (i.e.,
social in nature), and (c) reflective (i.e., allowing participants to negotiate
meaning through personal exchanges, focus on formal features of
language and strategies, and produce modified output within a struc-
tured setting). Lamy and Goodfellow further argue that, for learning to
occur, reflective exchanges have to be sustained over time.1
BB research has also focused on cross-cultural issues. Specifically,
Meagher and Castaños (1996) analyzed the impact of a CMC cultural
exchange program on Mexican high school students’ perceptions of U.S.
culture. After the program, the Mexican students’ English language skills
had improved, and their attitudes toward Americans had become less
positive. According to Meagher and Castaños, increased contact with the
L2 culture prompted the students to evaluate that culture as well as their
own.
1
Ahern and El-Hindi (2000) argue that traditional BB systems constrain student-student
communication because they do not allow individual messages to be linked to more than one
message at a time. To overcome this limitation, they designed IdeaWeb, a Web-based BB system
that allows multiple linking of messages. In discussions on IdeaWeb, student discourse is peer
oriented, and the instructor’s voice is virtually ignored.

In summary, research on discussion conducted through asynchronous
CMC tools has identified a number of characteristics that suggest its use
as an alternative to the IRE pattern of the face-to-face classroom.
However, additional data are needed to better understand how these
tools might best be implemented in TESOL courses.
MOTIVATION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This investigation was inspired by findings arising from the integra-

tion of Web-based tools in a TESOL teacher education course. Specifi-
cally, for nearly 2 years before the investigation described here, I had
been using the Web-based software WebCT (1999) as an integral part of
a course titled Practicum in English as a Second Language. WebCT
facilitates the creation of Web-based educational environments and
requires minimal technical expertise on the part of the course developer
(Goldberg & Salari, 1997). The system includes conferencing tools,
group presentation areas, synchronous chat areas, e-mail, and asynchro-
nous Web-based BB systems. The teaching practicum emphasized use of
the asynchronous Web-based BB system and e-mail, which were thought
to promote collaboration and communication.
Web-based BB systems allow messages, usually called postings, to be
threaded, or sequenced by topic. The original posting for each thread acts
as an anchor, and each response is assigned a value, or degree, based on
its distance from the anchor. A direct reply to the original posting in the
thread is known as a first-degree posting. A direct reply to a first-degree
posting is known as a second-degree posting, and so on (“Threaded
Discussion,” 1999).
In the teaching practicum, students reported that using the asynchro-
nous Web-based BB system allowed them to develop knowledge as a
social rather than an individual activity; reduced the social distance
between students and the course instructor; promoted continuous
dialogues; and reduced anxiety, in particular among nonnative-English-
speaking students (see Kamhi-Stein, 2000, for a complete discussion).
These positive reactions led me to integrate WebCT into Methods of
Teaching Second Languages. Moreover, I wanted to teach the students
about the use of CMC in learning even as they used CMC tools to
complete the course (Kovalchick, 1997).
To gain insight into the use of these tools relative to other teaching
activities within the same class, I attempted to address three broad
research questions:
1. In a TESOL teacher education course, what are the quantitative
differences between students’ participation in face-to-face, classroom
430 TESOL QUARTERLY

discussions and in Web-based BB discussions? Do native and nonna-
tive speakers of English differ in their participation in either of the
conditions?
2. What are the qualitative differences between the participatory struc-
tures promoted in face-to-face discussions and in Web-based BB
discussions in a TESOL teacher education course?
3. What are the attitudes of the students toward Web-based BB
discussions?
METHOD
Setting
The setting for this study was a course titled Methods of Teaching
Second Languages in a TESOL MA program at an urban university in
southern California. Designed to address current methods in teaching
ESL/EFL, the course involved three main classroom activities. First,
students participated in whole-class, face-to-face discussions designed to
promote reflection on the techniques and strategies observed in weekly
demonstrations. Second, students engaged in microteaching, which
involved presenting five minilessons designed to implement the tech-
niques and strategies demonstrated the previous week. The minilessons
were followed by self- and peer evaluations. Finally, students participated
in seven group-led, asynchronous Web-based BB discussions, which were
completed outside the classroom environment and followed by debriefings
in class. Students received points for participating in classroom discus-
sions and activities, completing the microteaching activities, and partici-
pating in the Web-based BB discussions. At the beginning of the term,
two graduate teaching assistants and I led a 2-hour workshop designed to
introduce students to the Web-based BB system. As part of the workshop,
we gave the students information (hours, resources, and services specific
to each lab) on the six computer labs available on campus. We also
helped the students use the system as needed throughout the term. This
help involved assisting one student who had limited experience using
the Web and showing students how to compile WebCT postings and
search for postings by subject.
This study focuses on two of the three classroom activities described:
(a) the whole-class, face-to-face discussions, including the debriefings of
demonstrations and Web-based BB discussions, and (b) the group-led,
asynchronous Web-based BB discussions, ranging from 30 minutes to
1 hour in length. I chose these two activities because they were thought
to have loosely similar structures in that both promoted whole-class

participation. In contrast, the microteaching activities required students
to participate in small groups and were highly structured: Individual
students took turns presenting their lessons and giving and receiving
feedback.
Participants
The participants in this study were 20 students enrolled in Methods of
Teaching Second Languages. Thirteen were nonnative English speakers
(9 female, 4 male) whose home languages were Armenian (1), Cantonese
(1), Japanese (1), Korean (1), Mandarin (1), Polish (1), Portuguese (1),
Spanish (3), Tagalog (1), Urdu (1), and Vietnamese (1). The remaining
7 participants were native English speakers (6 females, 1 male).
After completing the Computer Use Survey, described in the Materials
section, the 20 participants were classified into four groups according to
language status and frequency of use of CMC tools: (a) native English
speakers who were frequent users of CMC tools, (b) nonnative English
speakers who were frequent users of CMC tools, (c) native English
speakers who were not frequent users of CMC tools, and (d) nonnative
English speakers who were not frequent users of CMC tools. Twelve
participants (3 from each of the four groups) were selected to participate
in a semistructured interview designed to investigate their attitudes
toward the Web-based discussions.
As the instructor of Methods of Teaching Second Languages, I
considered myself not a detached observer but a full participant (Glesne
& Peshkin, 1992). Like 13 of the participants in the study, I am a
nonnative speaker of English; at the time of the study, I had been
teaching for nearly 5 years in the TESOL MA program where the
investigation was conducted. My full participation and my prior experi-
ence with the use of technology in TESOL teacher preparation courses
may have proved to be important influences on the outcomes of this
study.
Materials
Computer Use Survey. The Computer Use Survey, which included 11

closed-ended items (see Appendix A), was designed to provide informa-
tion on the participants’ patterns of computer use and their attitudes
toward CMC. The results were used to classify the 20 participants into the
four groups mentioned in the Participants section (see Appendix B for
relevant results).
432 TESOL QUARTERLY

Interview protocol. The 12 students described in the Participants section
completed a semistructured interview protocol designed to provide
information on the participants’ attitudes toward the Web-based BB
interactions (see Appendix C). Specifically, the questions focused on the
participants’ perceptions regarding (a) patterns of participation in the
whole-class, face-to-face discussions and the Web-based BB interactions;
(b) the use of technology in the course; (c) the use of the Web-based BB
system for expressing ideas in the course; (d) the benefits, if any, arising
from the Web-based BB interactions; and (e) the overall Web-based BB
experience.
Videotapes of whole-class, face-to-face discussions. Eight whole-class, face-to-

face discussions in which the students and the course instructor partici-
pated were videotaped (see Appendix D for the topics).
Transcripts of the Web-based BB interactions. For purposes of analysis,

transcripts of the seven weekly Web-based BB interactions were saved,
retrieved, and printed (see Appendix E for the instructions given to
students).
Data Collection
Data collection involved the following steps:

Week 1: Outside class, the 20 students enrolled in Methods of
Teaching Second Languages completed the Computer Use
Survey. They returned the survey to the course instructor in
Week 2.
Week 1: During the first class meeting, students received hands-on
training in how to post questions and answers on WebCT.
As a home assignment, they were asked to respond to a
practice question. Students were also told that they would
receive points for participation in whole-class, face-to-face
discussions.
Weeks 1–9: Eight face-to-face classroom discussion were videotaped,
and the videotapes were later transcribed. Students partici-
pated in seven Web-based BB discussions. I posted the first
question; groups consisting of three or four students posted
subsequent questions. I subsequently retrieved and printed
the transcripts of the discussions.
Weeks 7–9: Twelve students met privately with me in a quiet office on
campus for a semistructured interview ranging from 20
minutes to 1 hour in length.

Data Analysis
The data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively as described

below.
Quantitative Analysis
The quantitative analysis involved examining the transcripts of the

videotaped face-to-face discussions and the Web-based BB discussions for
differences in the instructor’s and the learners’ turns (i.e., initiations,
responses, and evaluations) and in the participation of native and
nonnative speakers. An initiation was defined as the first turn in the
three-part sequence and involved asking a question, making a statement,
or nominating someone to share information on a particular topic. A
response was defined as the second turn in the three-part sequence and
involved giving an answer or providing information in response to the
first turn. An evaluation was the third step in the three-part sequence and
involved giving feedback or making an evaluative comment on the
answer provided.
A research assistant (who had taken the class) and I identified
initiations, responses, and evaluations independently; interrater reliabil-
ity was .91. We jointly resolved any disagreements in data coding. I then
calculated (a) totals and percentages for the students’ initiations and
responses and for the instructor’s initiations, responses, and evaluations;
(b) means and standard deviations for the students’ initiations and
responses by language status; and (c) independent sample t-tests to
compare native and nonnative English speakers with regard to initiations
and responses in face-to-face discussions and in the Web-based BB
discussions.
Qualitative Analysis
The first step in the qualitative analysis was to examine the transcripts
of the whole-class, face-to-face discussions and Web-based BB discussions
in order to determine their structure (IRE or other) and the direction of
the interactions (instructor to student, student to student, or other). The
research assistant and I jointly identified excerpts from the transcripts of
whole-class, face-to-face discussions and Web-based BB threads that
reflected the interactions observed throughout the term. We then
separately read the selected transcripts and threads recursively and
identified their features.
Second, to uncover salient themes in the 12 selected participants’
beliefs about the Web-based BB discussions, the research assistant and I
434 TESOL QUARTERLY

analyzed the transcripts of the taped interviews. Instead of assigning the
data to preconceived thematic categories, we each independently used a
process of recursive reading to identify responses that recurred in the
participants’ interviews (open coding; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). I then
assigned the responses to tentative thematic categories (axial coding;
Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and named the themes that emerged from the
analysis.
FINDINGS
Quantitative Findings
In the face-to-face discussions, the total number of turns by both the

instructor and the students was 1,371, of which 22% were initiations,
distributed evenly between the instructor (11%) and the students (11%)
(Table 1). The majority of turns (68%) were responses, of which students
were responsible for 42% and the instructor contributed 26%. Evalua-
tions accounted for 10% of the turns.
The total number of moves in the Web-based BB discussions (253) was
less than one fifth of the number in the face-to-face discussions.
Although the total counts are not comparable because of the lack of a
common metric for quantifying the samples taken from each condition,
the percentages of each type of turn taken by instructors and students
within each condition are revealing. In the Web-based BB discussions,
the instructor posted 32 messages (3 initiations, 29 responses); the
students posted 221 messages (23 initiations, 198 responses). The
instructor posted a much lower percentage of the total number of
TABLE 1
Participation in Whole-Class, Face-to-Face Discussions and Web-Based BB Discussions
Whole-class, Web-based
face-to-face discussions BB discussions
Moves and participants n % n %
Initiations
Instructor 151 11 3 1
Students 153 11 23 9
Responses
Instructor 354 26 29 11
Students 582 42 198 78
Evaluations (instructor) 131 10 0 0
Total 1,371 100 253 100

initiations than the students did (1% and 9%, respectively). The same
was true for responses (11% and 78%, respectively). There was also a
dramatic reduction in the evaluative comments made on the Web-based
BB system vis-á-vis the whole class, face-to-face setting (0% and 9%,
respectively). In terms of quantity of moves, then, the instructor played
less of a role in Web-based BB discussions than the students did.
In the whole-class, face-to-face discussions, native English speakers
accounted for more initiations than nonnative English speakers did (M =
10.43 and M = 6.15, respectively) (Table 2), but these differences were
not statistically significant, t (18 df ) = 1.12, p = .241. The mean number
of responses in face-to-face discussions was higher for native speakers
than for nonnative English speakers (M = 37.43 and M = 24.62,
TABLE 2
Students’ Initiations and Responses in Face-to-Face Discussions and
Web-Based Discussions, by Language Status
Initiations Responses
Face-to-face Web-based BB Face-to-face Web-based BB

Student discussions discussions discussions discussions
Native English speakers
Alan 3 1 62 10
Beatriz 32 3 103 9
Karen 10 1 37 17
Mary 10 1 23 4
Diane 12 1 19 7
Sue 2 1 10 6
Jennifer 4 1 8 5
Total 73 9 262 58
M 10.43 1.29 37.43 8.29
SD 10.29 0.76 34.33 4.39
Nonnative English speakers

Jorge 10 1 67 7
Ramiro 9 1 33 8
Tim 3 1 7 7
Inseong 1 1 9 11
Emily 19 1 54 11
Marina 12 1 63 10
Sylvia 3 1 25 5
Betsy 6 1 16 10
Rita 11 1 19 19
Cynthia 2 2 12 16
Junko 1 1 9 13
Kathy 3 1 3 15
Angelica 0 1 3 8
Total 80 14 320 140
M 6.15 1.08 24.62 10.77
SD 5.65 0.28 22.73 4.04
436 TESOL QUARTERLY

respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant, t (18 df ) =
1.00, p = .32. In contrast, in the Web-based BB discussions, nonnative
English speakers made more responses than native English speakers did
(M = 10.77 and M = 8.29, respectively), but the difference was not
statistically significant, t (18 df ) = ⫺1.27, p = .21. Native English speakers
accounted for only slightly more initiations than nonnative English
speakers did (M = 1.29 and M = 1.08, respectively), again not a
statistically significant difference, t (18 df )= .90, p = .37. In other words,
the participation of nonnative speakers did not differ significantly from
that of native speakers in either face-to-face or Web-based discussions.
Qualitative Findings
The qualitative analysis of face-to-face discussions revealed that they

exhibited an IRE structure in which the course instructor and the
students initiated interactions; this pattern did not promote interaction
among the students.
Face-to-Face Discussions
In general, face-to-face discussions reflected the IRE structure, with

initiations often followed by two or more responses in a row. In turn,
evaluations followed responses and preceded initiations. In the excerpt
below, for example, the instructor initiated the discussion by connecting
the topic of the day (the structure of the lesson) to the previous week’s
topic (the natural approach and the structure of the lesson) and inviting
replies (Turn 343). After a student responded with a question (Turn
344), the instructor responded by repeating the question (Turn 345) in
order to allow the class to respond. After a student responded (Turn
346), the instructor evaluated the response, built on it, and initiated a
new IRE sequence by asking a follow-up question (Turn 347) designed to
expand on that response.2
343 Instructor (I): You remember that last week we watched a videotape
of a Natural Approach lesson. What I did was sum-
marize the discussion we had in class. Remember
that we said that the instructor opened the lesson by
saying, “We’ve been talking about clothes. We learned
the names of clothes. . . . Is there anything we need
to add to the opening or . . .?”
2
Each turn is identified by number, by the name of the person who produced it, and by type
(I = initiation, R = response, E = evaluation). All names are pseudonyms.

344 Rita (R): What level was it?
345 Instructor (I): What level was it?
346 Karen (R): Intermediate
347 Instructor (E, I): Actually it was beginning, Early Production. The
students were at the beginning level, they were
placed in an ESL classroom in northern California.
Other questions or comments regarding the warm-
up/review section of the lesson?
348 Karen (R): Wouldn’t the teacher’s question be considered a bit
difficult for their level? I mean how would you
simplify that kind of question? That’s what I’m
having a problem with in my lesson plan.
349 Instructor (R): I think that with your lesson plan, the problem was
the degree of complexity of your questions. We can
talk about your concern . . .
350 Karen (R): Okay, because I don’t know . . .
351 Betsy (R): There was a problem with the pants and with the
zipper.
352 Instructor (E, I): That’s right. The teacher said . . .
As can be seen in the excerpt above, evaluations did not always occur
right after a student responded to an initiation. Instead, evaluations
came at the end of a set of topically related exchanges, a point made by
Mehan (1982).
In the face-to-face discussions, the instructor-initiated IRE sequence
was broken when the students initiated a sequence by asking questions
meant to clarify content. In general, these questions focused on how to
apply the techniques under discussion to particular settings or student
populations, as in Turn 1029:
1028 Instructor (E): Exactly, this [a humanistic activity] can be used

as a follow-up. And it can certainly be adapted to
meet the needs of beginning-level students.
1029 Beatriz (I): Could this be used as an introduction? This is, I
am, she is good at. . . . Have them do like a
dialogue . . .
1030 Instructor (R, E, I): Yes. That’s an excellent idea. You could certainly
use it as a first-day activity. What, if any, would
the problem be?
1031 Ramiro (R): Shy students.
Besides focusing on content, the students asked questions about

classroom procedures, but these questions took little class time and were
limited to the first 3 weeks of the term. As in Turn 294, these questions
involved information on course requirements (e.g., lesson plans, class-
room observation reports, final portfolio, ways to meet class requirements).
438 TESOL QUARTERLY

294 Diane (I): So the concept is that we revise [the lesson plans] in order
to include them in our portfolio. Is that correct?
Students also broke the instructor-initiated IRE sequence by making

statements. As noted by Freeman and McElhinny (1996), statements do
not promote continuing interaction. When students made statements,
they did not seem to expect a response either from the instructor or
from their peers but seemed instead to be displaying their knowledge of
and experience with ESL/EFL teaching and learning contexts. An
illustration is Marina’s comment (Turn 753), made in the course of a
discussion on the use of drama and role playing in the L2 classroom.
752 Jorge (R): . . . And in terms of content, it [the play] was excellent.
There are a lot of things you can do with plays. You don’t
have to write them yourselves. There are a lot of books
that have been written on plays dealing with different
content.
753 Marina (I): I just wanted to bring up one thing. One of my students
one time was assigned to a group [to] work and to do a
role play, and he absolutely refused to do that, and so of
course I said to him, “Here do something.” He did the
right thing. He wrote a letter describing something he
wanted to share [with the class] at the end of the year. . . .
And when I later talked with him, because we had a little
conflict during the year, he said, “After I did this exercise,
this assignment, I read it, and I realized what I have
learned,” and it was such a reflective activity for him. And
as teachers, we sometimes have to let the students decide
on what they want to do.
The qualitative analysis showed that the whole-class, face-to-face

discussions included very little interaction among students. The majority
of exchanges were between the instructor and one student, as in Turns
344, 346, 348, 351, 1029, 1031, and 294 above.
Web-Based BB Discussions
As the quantitative analysis showed, the Web-based BB discussions did

not reflect the IRE structure. In these discussions, the instructor played
a reduced role, the discussion flowed from student to student, and the
students engaged in multiple dialogues for various purposes with a high
degree of peer support and collaboration.
The thread from a set of week-long Web-based BB discussions, shown
in Figure 1, reflects the typical patterns of Web-based BB interaction
observed throughout the term. Posting 161, the question of the week,

acts as the anchor for the thread. Postings 164–68, 170, 172, 175, 177,
178, 180, 181, 184, 185, and 189, made in direct reply to the question of
the week, are first-degree postings. Postings 182, 173, 174, 183, 179, 187,
215, 214, 186, and 195, made in reply to first-degree postings, are second-
degree postings. In turn, Posting 216, made in reply to second-degree
postings, is a third-degree posting. In contrast to the traditional class-
room, in which the instructor often determined the instructional se-
quence, in Web-based BB interactions the responsibility of the course
instructor was greatly reduced. The fact that the instructor posted only
1 of the 27 messages in the thread shows that the students were
responsible for keeping the conversation going and for maintaining and
managing the Web-based BB discussions.
It could be argued that the instructions given for participating in the
Web-based BB discussions deemphasized the role of the instructor.
However, even when the instructor chose to participate in the Web-based
BB discussions, her postings were almost always overlooked. For in-
stance, Posting 164 did not prompt a response from the students.
Instead of directing their attention solely to the question of the week,
FIGURE 1
Typical Thread Observed in Web-Based BB Discussions
䊐 161. Diane, Sue, Marina (Sat., Jan. 30 1999, 13:33)

䊐 164. Instructor (Sat., Jan. 30 1999, 18:48)
䊐 165. Cynthia (Sun., Jan. 31, 1999, 08:44)
䊐 182. Jennifer (Tue, Feb. 2, 1999, 21:30)
䊐 166. Angelica (Mon., Feb. 1, 1999, 09:26)
䊐 167. Alan (Mon., Feb. 1, 1999, 11:11)
䊐 168. Karen (Mon., Feb. 1, 1999, 11:29)
䊐 170. Beatriz (Mon., Feb. 1, 1999, 15:24)
䊐 173. Angelica (Tue., Feb. 2, 1999, 09:58)
䊐 174. Rita (Tue., Feb. 2, 1999, 12:22)
䊐 183. Cynthia (Tue., Feb. 2, 1999, 22:02)
䊐 172. Mary (Mon., Feb. 1, 1999, 23:00)
䊐 175. Rita (Tue., Feb. 2, 1999, 12:37)
䊐 179. Ramiro (Tue., Feb. 2, 1999, 19:36)
䊐 216. Rita (Thu., Feb. 11, 1999, 16:19)
䊐 177. Tim (Tue., Feb. 2, 1999, 15:54)
䊐 178. Ramiro (Tue., Feb. 2, 1999, 19:30)
䊐 180. Kathy (Tue., Feb. 2, 1999, 20:38)
䊐 187. Junko (Wed., Feb. 3, 1999, 21:31)
䊐 215. Rita (Thu., Feb. 11, 1999, 16:10)
䊐 181. Betsy (Tue., Feb. 2, 1999, 21:14)
䊐 184. Jorge (Wed., Feb. 3, 1999, 15:47)
䊐 214. Rita (Thu., Feb. 11, 1999, 16:02)
䊐 185. Inseong (Wed., Feb. 3, 1999, 18:27)
䊐 186. Junko (Wed., Feb. 3, 1999, 21:29)
䊐 189. Emily (Thu., Feb. 4, 1999, 00:08)
䊐 195. Junko (Mon., Feb. 8, 1999, 18:44)
440 TESOL QUARTERLY

students tended to direct their messages to selected postings. The result
was multiple dialogues that often were sustained over several days. For
example, on Tuesday, Rita (in Posting 174) responded to Beatriz
(Posting 170) and (in Posting 175) to the question of the week (Posting
161). On Thursday (in Posting 214) she responded to Jorge (Posting
184).
Similarly, in Figure 2, an excerpt from the Web-based BB thread
shown in Figure 1, the question of the week (Posting 161) was posted by
the group of three students responsible for doing so (see Appendix E).
Posting 164 (by the instructor), a response to the question of the week,
did not prompt a further response, but Posting 165 (by Cynthia), also a
response to the question of the week, prompted Posting 182 (by
Jennifer).
Students posted messages for various purposes. One was to relate their
experiences to those of their peers. In Posting 182, for example, Jennifer
responded directly to Cynthia because they shared experience as teach-
ers of Asian students. Students also used the postings to make connec-
tions between their own concerns and those of their peers. Again, in
Posting 182, Jennifer expressed her concern about how to use drama
techniques with speech-emergent students, much as Beatriz did in
Posting 170. Third, throughout the term, students used their postings to
reflect on what they had learned in various TESOL MA courses. An
example is Posting 182, in which Jennifer connected information
learned in a sociolinguistics course and information learned in Methods
of Teaching Second Languages.
FIGURE 2
Excerpt From a Web-Based BB Thread
Message No. 161: posted by Diane, Sue, Marina on Sat., Jan. 30, 1999, 13:33
Subject: QUESTION OF THE WEEK. TOPIC 4: STORYTELLING, ROLE PLAY, DRAMA
Based on readings we can conclude that drama is an effective technique in L2 learning. It
contributes to ego flexibility, lowers inhibitions and creates a forum for meaningful
communication among students. Do you, as teachers of L2 as well as learners of L2, see this
technique useful in a classroom where students and/or learners have different personalities
and cultural backgrounds? Is motivation truly increased with storytelling, role-playing or
drama? Please share your experiences and observations using this technique both from a
teacher’s and student’s point of view. Diane, Sue, and Marina
Message No. 164: [Branch from No. 161] posted by Instructor on Sat., Jan. 30, 1999,
18:48
Dear group,
Here are some ideas for those of you who were interested in integrating music and
poetry into your lessons: Go to the Web. The following site has songs . . . Additionally, if
you search using one of the search engines (Yahoo, Alta Vista, etc.), type. . . . Best, Lia
continued on p. 442

FIGURE 2, continued
Message No. 165: [Branch from No. 161] posted by Cynthia on Sun., Jan. 31, 1999, 08:44
Music, I’ve never used . . . TPR only once in a while, but drama, role-playing and
storytelling are my favorite methods when it comes to teaching L2. . . . I’ve had my
students pretending to be in the Ricki Lake show. . . . Most of my students are Asian, a
group stereotypically labeled as reserved . . . not so when role-playing in an environment
that they feel comfortable in, so I don’t think it really matters what cultural groups you
have. Once you, as a teacher, have established rapport with them, you can have them
doing almost anything! Cynthia
Message No. 182: [Branch from No. 165] posted by Jennifer on Tue., Feb. 2, 1999,
21:30
Hello everyone! I am responding to Cynthia’s response because we have in
common that our students are both Asians. Stereotypically, they are more reserved
and conservative. However, one time. . . . I decided, off the top of my head, to
pretend they were news reporters. It was a hit!
The students felt comfortable enough with me and their fellow students . . . .
Therefore, their inhibitions were low. . . In the sociolinguistics class, I studied
anxiety and found role play to reduce anxiety.
Like Beatriz I am curious if and how this can be used with Speech emergent
students. I look forward to your responses!
Have a good week! Jennifer
Message No. 166: [Branch from No. 161] posted by Angelica on Mon., Feb. 1, 1999, 09:26
I like using role-play and drama for my students in Hong Kong because it can turn
language learning into an interactive student-directed experience. . . . bove all, the
expectation from the teacher means a lot . . . .
I once tried drama with an intermediate-level class. Groups of five selected a topic . . .
Everybody got so involved that nobody thought that it was “work” . . .
Message No. 167: [Branch from No. 161] posted by Alan on Mon., Feb. 1, 1999, 11:11
My experience with using drama and role-playing in the class has been nothing but
positive . . . As a learner, I’ve . . . while trying to learn Korean, I was able to “act out” with
my Korean friends and co-workers . . . and the experience helped me learn the language
in an engaging and non-threatening way.
Message No. 168: [Branch from No. 161] posted by Karen on Mon., Feb. 1, 1999, 11:29
Unfortunately, I am not only not a teacher but I never benefited from drama in
learning an L2. I think it would have been beneficial . . . Also, I think it is terrific that
drama can increase integrative and instrumental motivation, which is not easy to do.
I am enjoying the bulletin board postings and look forward to reading more of my
fellow classmates’ experiences with this technique. I am gaining a wealth of knowledge
from all of you and I feel very fortunate to be in your class. Thank you all. Karen
Message No. 170: [Branch from No. 161] posted by Beatriz on Mon., Feb. 1, 1999, 15:24
I agree with everyone’s comments: I, too, think drama and role-playing are a wonderful
vehicle for expression. I have used a variety of the 2 in all my sheltered ESL . . . . classes.
My only concern is how to implement drama and role-playing at the beginning stages and
still respect the “silent period”? . . . Thus far, all my lessons revolve around early speech
emergent learners. I’m wondering if role-playing and drama are i + 1 or would I be
expecting too much as a teacher. Lastly, if applicable, how should drama/role-playing be
included? Does anyone have suggestions?? Sample lessons or variations of those presented
in the text (at the beginning stages)? HELP?
continued on p. 443
442 TESOL QUARTERLY

FIGURE 2, continued
Message No. 173: [Branch from No. 170] posted by Angelica on Tue.,
Feb. 2, 1999, 09:58
I read in the book MIH that we could ask students at the beginning level to act
out different kinds of emotions like being “sad”, “happy”, or “angry”. The acting
can be accompanied by drawing . . . I hope the above can inspire others to give
more valuable opinions and suggestions regarding this issue.
Message No. 174: [Branch from No. 170] posted by Rita on Tue., Feb. 2, 1999,
12:22
Hi Beatriz,
I just did something in my class a couple of weeks ago that I usually don’t do too
much of but found it very rewarding. . . . My students acted out the words. They
did a rainbow on the ground, at first some did not want to participate, but then
they really got involved. One volunteered to . . . . Would this be like drama? It was
fun. Adios Rita
Message No. 183: [Branch from No. 170] posted by Cynthia on Tue., Feb. 2, 1999,
22:02
Hi Beatriz! You should try out the suggested Storytelling Activity: Story
Experience. I used it today in my class, and we had soooo much fun!!! There was
no talking involved at all, just a lot of laughter. Everything had to be acted out. . . .
There really is nothing like drama to make a word come alive and be real for
students, I believe. Cynthia
In Figure 2, Postings 166 (by Angelica) and 167 (by Alan), made in
response to the question of the week, illustrate another purpose for
which students posted messages: to give their peers a summary of their
experience with various teaching techniques, in this case drama and role
playing. Postings sometimes served multiple purposes. For example,
Karen used Posting 168 not only to respond to the question of the week
but also to disclose her lack of experience with drama and role playing
and reflect on the benefits of participating in the Web-based BB
discussions. In Posting 170, Beatriz responded to the question of the
week, agreed with her peers, raised questions about how to use drama
and role playing with a specified student population, and requested peer
assistance.
Neither the instructor nor the students posting the question of the
week controlled the focus of the Web-based BB discussions; instead, it
was driven by the needs and interests of the students. As shown in Figure
2, Beatriz (Posting 170) used her BB interactions to meet her needs
regarding a classroom assignment. The first part of her posting focused
on how she had used drama and role playing in sheltered ESL classes;
she then shifted her focus to request help on integrating drama and role
playing into a lesson for beginning-level students. Several students
responded directly to her message.

The Web-based BB discussions were characterized by a high degree of
peer support, assistance, and collaboration. A posting was likely to
receive a response when the student posting the message requested
assistance or shared new information, as in Beatriz’s Posting 170.
Angelica (Posting 173), Rita (Posting 174), and Cynthia (Posting 183)
responded to Beatriz’s message by offering their ideas.
Semistructured Interviews
Examination of the interview transcripts revealed three themes char-

acterizing the participants’ beliefs about the Web-based BB discussions:
that Web-based BB interactions (a) allowed them to hear multiple voices
and perspectives, (b) promoted self-paced learning, and (c) reduced
cultural and linguistic barriers.
All students, regardless of L1 and the frequency with which they used
CMC tools, noted that the Web-based BB discussions provided them with
many opportunities for learning and allowed them to hear the voices of
peers who did not express their views in face-to-face discussions. During
the interviews, most students cited Angelica, a student originally from
Hong Kong, as a valuable voice that would not have been heard if not for
the Web-based BB discussions:
WebCT allows you to listen to or to read everybody’s ideas. In the TPR [Total
Physical Response] discussion, I got many ideas from people—like Angelica’s
experiences. (Ramiro, February 18, 1999)
With the WebCT BB, I got to hear the voices of students who have techniques
or strategies that I can use in my own classes—especially Angelica. (Jennifer,
February 18, 1999)
All nonnative-English-speaking students and novice native speakers

agreed that the Web-based BB discussions allowed them to develop
knowledge at their own time and pace. They reported that the asynchro-
nous nature of the Web-based BB discussions facilitated composing and
posting messages in that students did not have to perform under
pressure:
WebCT [’s asynchronous nature] gives NNESs [nonnative-English-speaking

students] control; they do not have to feel intimidated or threatened and can
concentrate on what they are studying in the course or class. (Inseong,
February 17, 1999)
In face-to-face discussions, I might be timid or shy, or my culture and my

experiences may not let me feel comfortable participating. With WebCT, I
444 TESOL QUARTERLY

have time to read and participate, sharing my experiences. (Kathy, February
17, 1999)
Another feature of the Web-based discussions that contributed to self-

paced, student-centered learning is that the Web-based BB system gave
students a visible record of the discussion and allowed them to retrieve
the postings. This feature, typical of Web-based BB systems, was particu-
larly appealing to both native and nonnative speakers who felt they were
novices.
Compiling or assembling all the messages allows me to see the issues or

themes. If class time is limited, I can hear from my classmates by compiling.
(Emily, February 11, 1999)
I like the idea of being able to retrieve the postings. I have been saving them
so that I can use them as a resource when I start teaching. (Karen, February
25, 1999)
Students from nonnative-English-speaking backgrounds (e.g., Inseong,

Angelica, Kathy, and Cynthia), regardless of the frequency with which
they used CMC tools, argued that the Web-based BB discussions reduced
social cues and allowed them to participate more freely than in face-to-
face discussions. According to the students, the Web-based BB activities
lowered their inhibitions and reduced cultural and linguistic barriers.
It is easier to express myself on WebCT, I have freedom because I am not

watching the body language of others for feedback. (Kathy, February 17,
1999)
Maybe I am not that quick in class, or I feel anxious or nervous because of my

personality or linguistic background, but with WebCT, I can express my ideas
and concentrate on what I want to say or contribute. (Angelica, February 25,
1999)
DISCUSSION: FACE-TO-FACE AND

WEB-BASED DISCUSSION
Table 3 summarizes the findings concerning face-to-face discussions

and Web-based BB discussions as they address the issues of instructor
participation, participation by native and nonnative speakers, structure
of the discussions, and students’ perceptions of the Web-based discussions.

TABLE 3
Summary of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings
Issue Whole-class, face-to-face discussions Web-based BB discussions
Participation • Students exhibited as many • The instructor exhibited a lower

by instructor initiations as the teacher did and number of initiations and
and students made more responses than the responses than the students did.
teacher did.
Participation • Native English speakers exhibited • Native English speakers exhibited

by native and more initiations and responses slightly more initiations and fewer
nonnative than nonnative English speakers, responses than nonnative English
speakers but differences between groups speakers, but the differences were
were not statistically significant. not statistically significant.
Participatory • Exchanges reflected the • Interaction patterns did not

structures initiation-response-evaluation reflect the IRE structure; instead,
(IRE) structure. many of the exchanges consisted
• Students asked questions to of students’ initiations and
clarify course content and responses.
procedures. • The focus of the discussion was
• Students made statements that driven by the needs and interests
did not promote classroom of the students.
interaction. • Students engaged in multiple
• Students directed their attention dialogues with a high degree of
to the instructor. support and collaboration.
Students’ Regardless of reported frequency of

attitudes use of CMC tools,
• All students argued that Web-
based BB discussions allowed
participants to hear multiple
voices and perspectives.
• Nonnative-English-speaking and
novice native-English-speaking
students reported that Web-based
BB discussions allowed
participants to develop
knowledge at their own time and
pace.
• Nonnative English-speaking
students reported that Web-based
BB discussions reduced cultural
and linguistic barriers.
Participation by Students and Instructor
The course instructor participated differently in whole-class, face-to-

face discussions than in Web-based BB discussions. Specifically, in whole-
class, face-to-face discussions, the instructor and the students contributed
an equal percentage of initiations; both were responsible for framing the
446 TESOL QUARTERLY

focus of the discussion. In contrast, in Web-based BB discussions, the
instructor produced fewer initiations and responses than the students
did and produced no evaluations. In the Web-based BB discussions, the
students had to initiate interactions and keep the conversation going.
Although the instructor did not dominate the whole-class, face-to-face
discussions, in the Web-based BB discussions a dramatic increase in
student responsibility was accompanied by a decrease in the instructor’s
participation. This decrease in the instructor’s role was also observed in
the limited student response to her postings.
CMC as an Equalizer of Native and Nonnative Participation
Web-based CMC is often argued to promote more balanced participa-

tion among students who differ in their willingness to participate in face-
to-face discussions. Such differences might be a factor in the level of
participation of nonnative versus native speakers in the classroom.
However, the data showed that native and nonnative speakers partici-
pated equally in the classroom investigated in this study; therefore, no
improvement in the balance of participation between native and nonna-
tive English speakers could be seen in the Web-based discussions, in
which they also participated at equivalent levels.
Nevertheless, the issue of balanced participation is central to TESOL
teacher preparation programs, which enroll individuals from diverse
linguistic and cultural backgrounds (see Liu, 1999, for statistics on
enrollment in TESOL MA programs). Future research needs to investi-
gate the extent to which alternative forms of classroom organization,
such as asynchronous Web-based BB discussion, will enhance the partici-
pation of a diverse student population when face-to-face discussion fails
to do so.
Participatory Structures Promoted
The IRE sequence observed in the whole-class, face-to-face discussions

did not promote student collaboration. In fact, the students directed
most of their discussion to the instructor, who was responsible for
keeping the conversation going and for evaluating what the students had
to say. The Web-based BB discussions, by contrast, promoted collabora-
tion and interaction that were driven by the needs and interests of the
students. As Ruberg, Moore, and Taylor (1996) note, CMC provides
environments conducive to collaboration. In both the whole-class, face-
to-face discussions and the Web-based BB discussions, students asked for
clarification of content, but the direction of these questions differed in

the two environments. Specifically, in the whole-class, face-to-face discus-
sions students sought assistance from the instructor. In the Web-based BB
discussions, they sought and received assistance from their peers.
In the Web-based BB discussions, students constructed collaborative,
joint knowledge in an electronic space that they collectively owned.
Specifically, they maintained and managed the electronic space, selected
messages to which they would respond, engaged in multiple dialogues,
supported their peers, and made connections between new and previ-
ously presented information. The Web-based BB discussions allowed
students to interact with their peers and, in the process of interaction, to
play complementary roles (Ruberg et al., 1996). Sometimes they pro-
vided assistance and gave feedback; sometimes they received guidance
and support. In the whole-class, face-to-face discussions, in contrast, they
primarily sought to display their knowledge.
These findings suggest that the traditional teacher-fronted classroom
and the Web-based BB system promote different types of participation.
On the one hand, teacher-fronted discussions do not promote equal
participation and interaction; knowledge in teacher-fronted discussions
seems to develop in an isolated fashion. On the other hand, Web-based
BB discussions allow students to engage in context-rich discourse (Schlagal
et al., 1996) and negotiate meaning.
Students’ Attitudes
Regardless of language status and the frequency with which they

reported using CMC tools, the students believed that the Web-based BB
discussions allowed them to hear multiple voices and perspectives. They
could receive input from peers who, for cultural or linguistic reasons,
remained silent in whole-class, face-to-face discussions. In turn, more
balanced participation contributed to a more diverse and ultimately
richer learning environment.
Regardless of the frequency with which they reported using CMC
tools, nonnative English speakers and novice native speakers argued that
the Web-based BB discussions allowed them to participate at their own
time and pace. Because of the asynchronous nature of communication
on the Web-based BB system, students could participate without being
pressured to perform on cue and, ultimately, had more opportunities to
reflect on and process new ideas. Additionally, nonnative speakers
argued that Web-based BB discussions reduced the cultural and linguis-
tic barriers that often exist in face-to-face discussions. The sense of
anonymity and privacy fostered by the Web-based BB system (Ruberg
et al., 1996) may help reduce the anxiety that some students from
448 TESOL QUARTERLY

language and cultural minority backgrounds experience in face-to-face
discussions.
CONCLUSION
This study sheds light on how students responded to the use of

innovative Web-based technology, in this case a Web-based BB system, in
a TESOL methods course. The results appeared to indicate that the
integration of Web-based instruction in one such course helped future
ESOL teachers develop knowledge through collaboration while giving
them experience in learning through technology. These findings suggest
that, as O’Bannon, Matthew, and Thomas (1998) have argued, Web-
based technology might be integrated across the teacher education
curriculum. At the same time, the limited data considered in this study
suggest the need for future research focusing on other issues related to
the use of Web-based BB systems in TESOL teacher preparation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank the students who participated in this study. I am also grateful to Simeon
Slovacek for his assistance with the statistical analysis in this study as well as two
anonymous readers and the TESOL Quarterly editor for their valuable insights and
suggestions.
THE AUTHOR
Lía D. Kamhi-Stein is an assistant professor at California State University, Los
Angeles, where she teaches in the TESOL MA Program. Her teaching interests are
ESL/EFL methodology and the teaching practicum. Her research interests are
academic literacy, teacher education, and nonnative-English-speaking professionals.
REFERENCES
Ady, J. (1999). Computer-mediated communication in a high school global educa-
tion curriculum: A brochure project. Social Studies, 90, 159–164.
Ahern, T., & El-Hindi, A. E. (2000). Improving the instructional congruency of a
computer-mediated small group discussion: A case study in design and delivery.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 385–401.
Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). Educational applications of CMCs: Solving
case studies through asynchronous learning environments. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 4(3). Retrieved May 30, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://209.130.1.169/jcmc/vol4/issue3/benbunan-fich.html.
Carlson, D., & Apperson-Williams, E. (2000). The anxieties of distance: Online tutors
reflect. In J. A. Inman & D. N. Sewell (Eds.), Taking flight with OWLs: Examining
electronic writing center work (pp. 129–139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Castner, J. (2000). The asynchronous, online writing session: A two-way stab in the
dark? In J. A. Inman & D. N. Sewell (Eds.), Taking flight with OWLs: Examining
electronic writing center work (pp. 119–128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Collot, M. & Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic language: A new variety of English. In
cultural perspectives (pp. 13–28). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Crandall, J. (1999). Preparing teachers for real classrooms: Aligning teacher educa-
tion with teaching. TESOL Matters, 9(3), 1, 21.
Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural illiteracy
through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Delgado-Gaitán, C., & Trueba, H. T. (1985). Ethnographic study of participant
structures in task completion: Reinterpretation of “handicaps” in Mexican chil-
dren. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 8, 67–75.
Duffield, J. (1997). Trials, tribulations, and minor successes: Integrating technology
into a preservice teacher-preparation program. TechTrends, 42(4), 22–26.
Fishman, B. J. (1999). Characteristics of students related to computer-mediated
communications activity. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 73–97.
Fotos, S., & Iwabuchi, T. (1998, March). Using e-mail to build EFL communicative
competence. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual TESOL Convention, Orlando, FL.
Freeman, R., & McElhinny, B. (1996). Language and gender. In S. L. McKay & N. H.
Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 218–280). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
Furstenberg, G. (2000, March). Using a Web-based, interactive cross-cultural ap-
proach for developing cultural literacy. In R. Kern (Chair), Literacies and technol-
ogy. Colloquium conducted at the annual conference of the American Association
of Applied Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Goldberg, M. W., & Salari, S. (1997). An update on WebCT (World-Wide-Web Course
Tools): A tool for the creation of sophisticated Web-based learning environments. Retrieved
May 30, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~nauweb97
/papers/goldberg/goldberg.html.
González-Bueno, M. (1998). The effects of electronic mail on Spanish L2 discourse.
Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 55–70. Retrieved May 30, 2000, from the
World Wide Web: http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/article3/default.html.
Herring, S. C. (1992). Gender and participation in computer-mediated linguistic discourse.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 345 553)
Herring, S. C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S. C. Herring
(Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspec-
tives (pp. 81–106). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Irujo, S., & Johnson, K. (March, 1997). Integrating computer technology in teacher
education programs. Paper presented at the 31st Annual TESOL Convention,
Orlando, FL.
Kahai, S. S., & Cooper, R. B. (1999). The effect of computer-mediated communica-
tion on agreement and acceptance. Journal of Management Information Systems,
16(1). Retrieved April 10, 2000, from EBSCOhost (Academic Search Elite) on the
World Wide Web: http://www.ebscohost.com.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Integrating computer-mediated communication tools
450 TESOL QUARTERLY

into the practicum. In K. E. Johnson (Ed.), Teacher education (pp. 119–135).
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D., & Browne-del Mar, C. (1997). EFL teachers and e-mail instruc-
tion: Perceived language and professional benefits. CAELL Journal, 7(4), 14–19.
Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language
instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441–454.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers:
Effects on quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language Journal,
79, 457–476.
Kern, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail to explore
personal histories in two cultures. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in
foreign language learning (pp. 105–119). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Kovalchick, A. (1997). Technology portfolios as instructional strategy: Designing a
reflexive approach to preservice technology training. TechTrends, 42(4), 31–36.
Lamy, M.-N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). “Reflective conversation” in the virtual
language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43–61. Retrieved
May 30, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num2/article2
/index.html.
Levin, S. R., & Buell, J. G. (1999). Merging technology into teacher education:
Technology tools and faculty collaboration. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 16(1), 7–14.
Liu, D. (1999). Training non-native TESOL students: Challenges for TESOL teacher
education in the West. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in ELT (pp. 197–
210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Losey, K. M. (1995). Gender and ethnicity as factors in the development of verbal
skills in bilingual Mexican American women. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 635–661.
Ma, R. (1996). Computer-mediated conversations as a new dimension of intercul-
tural communication between East Asian and North American college students.
In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-
cultural perspectives (pp. 173–185). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Mabrito, M. (2000). E-mail tutoring and apprehensive writers: What research tells us.
In J. A. Inman & D. N. Sewell (Eds.), Taking flight with OWLs: Examining electronic
writing center work (pp. 140–147). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meagher, M. E., & Castaños, F. (1996). Perceptions of American culture: The impact
of an electronically-mediated cultural exchange program on Mexican high school
students. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social
and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 187–202). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Mehan, H. (1982). The structure of classroom events and their consequences for
student performance. In P. Gilmore & D. M. Smith (Eds.), Children in and out of
school: Ethnography and education (pp. 59–87). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
National Council on the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2000). NCATE 2000
unit standards. Retrieved June 19, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://
www.ncate.org/2000/200stds.pdf.
Nunan, D. (1999). A foot in the world of ideas: Graduate study through the Internet.
Language Learning & Technology, 3(1), 52–74. Retrieved May 30, 2000, from the
World Wide Web: http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/nunan/index.html.
O’Bannon, B., Matthew, K. I., & Thomas, L. (1998). Faculty development: Key to the
integration of technology in teacher education. Journal of Computing and Teacher
Education, 14(4), 7–11.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries?

Side effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25(6).
Retrieved April 10, 2000, from EBSCOhost (Academic Search Elite) on the World
Wide Web: http://www.ebscohost.com.
Ruberg, L. F., Moore, D. M., & Taylor, C. D. (1996). Student participation,
interaction, and regulation in a computer-mediated communication environ-
ment: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 243–268.
Schlagal, B., Trathen, W., & Blanton, W. (1996). Structuring telecommunications to
create instructional conversations about student teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 47, 175–183.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environ-
ments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29,
491–501.
Sussex, R. & White, P. (1996). Electronic networking. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 16, 200–225.
Tella, S. (1991). Introducing international communications networks and electronic mail into
foreign language classrooms: A case study in Finnish senior secondary schools (Research
Report No. 95). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.
Tella, S. (1992a). Boys, girls and e-mail: A case study in Finnish senior secondary schools
(Research Report No. 110). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki, Department
of Teacher Education.
Tella, S. (1992b). Talking shop via e-mail: A thematic and linguistic analysis of electronic
mail communication (Research Report No. 99). Helsinki, Finland: University of
Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education.
Thompson, A., Bull, G., & Willis, J. (1998). Statement of basic principles and suggested
actions: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. Charlottesville, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Retrieved May 30,
2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.aace.org/site/ameswhitepaper.htm.
Threaded discussion: Cats magazine policy statement. (1999). Cats. Retrieved May 30,
2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.catsmag.com/threads/help.html.
Trueba, H. T. (1985). Organizing classroom instruction in specific sociocultural
contexts: Teaching Mexican youth to write in English. In S. R. Goldman & H. T.
Trueba (Eds.), Becoming literate in English as a second language (pp. 235–252).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the
second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 12, 7–26.
Warschauer, M. (1998). Online learning in sociocultural contexts. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 29, 68–88.
WebCT (Version 1.3.1) [Computer software]. (1999). Vancouver, Canada: WebCT.
(Available from http://www.webct.com)
Wildner, S. (2000). Technology integration into preservice foreign language teacher
education programs. CALICO Journal, 17, 223–250.
Wong, S. (1998, August/September). TESOL joins NCATE. TESOL Matters, p. 1.
Yildirim, S., & Kiraz, E. (1999). Obstacles in integrating online communications tools
into preservice teacher education: A case study. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 15(3), 23–28.
452 TESOL QUARTERLY

APPENDIX A
Computer Use Survey
This questionnaire is designed to provide the instructor with background information about
your use of computers. All responses will remain confidential. Only group responses will be
reported. Thank you for your assistance!
Your name:
TESL 562 Circle one: Section 1 2 3
Circle the appropriate answer:

1. Do you own a computer? YES NO
2. Do you have an Internet Service Provider (e.g., AOL, EarthLink, Netcom)

to access the Web? YES NO
How often do you use the following? Please mark the appropriate response:
Very Not
frequently Frequently frequently
5–9 times/ 1–4 times/ 1–4 times/ No
week week month Never answer
3. Database software
(e.g., Access)?
4. Telecommunications software
(e.g., Procomm Plus)?
5. Web browsers
(e.g., Netscape)?
6. The Web?
7. E-mail?
8. Computers in the ESL/EFL

classroom?
Circle the appropriate answer:

9. What would you say about your attitude toward the use of software/computers in the
ESL/EFL classroom?
A. I strongly believe in the use of software/computers in the ESL/EFL classroom.
B. I believe in the use of software/computers in the ESL/EFL classroom.
C. I do not believe in the use of software/computers in the ESL/EFL classroom.
D. I never thought about the use software/ computers in the ESL/EFL classroom.
E. No answer.
10. When considering enrolling in courses that require the use of software/computers in the
Charter School of Education (CSOE) or in the TESOL MA Program, what do you do?
A. I actively seek to enroll in these classes.
B. I enroll in these classes.
C. I feel nervous, but nonetheless enroll in these classes.
D. I actively avoid these classes.
E. None of the above.

11. What’s your overall attitude toward computers?
A. I strongly like them.
B. I like them.
C. I am neutral about them.
D. I dislike them.
E. I strongly dislike them.
F. No answer.
APPENDIX B
Results of Computer Use Survey (Selected)
Native Nonnative
English speakers English speakers
Question n % n %
Do you own a computer?

Yes 6 86 12 92
No 1 14 1 8
How often do you use the Web?

Very frequently 4 57 5 39
Frequently 2 29 3 23
Not frequently 1 14 4 31
Never 0 0 1 8
No answer 0 0 0 0
How often do you use e-mail?

Very frequently 4 57 6 46
Frequently 1 14 2 15
Not frequently 1 14 4 31
Never 0 0 1 8
No answer 1 14 0 0
What’s your attitude toward the use of computers

in the ESL/EFL classroom?
Strongly believe in them 3 43 5 39
Believe in them 3 43 6 46
Do not believe in them 0 0 0 0
Never thought about it 1 14 1 8
No answer 0 0 1 8
What’s your overall attitude toward computers?

Like them a lot 4 57 6 46
Like them 2 29 4 31
Am neutral about them 0 0 2 15
Dislike them 0 0 1 8
Strongly dislike them 1 14 0 0
454 TESOL QUARTERLY

APPENDIX C
Interview Protocol
1. How would you describe your pattern of participation/interaction in whole-class, face-to-
face discussions and in the Web-based BB discussions in the Methods of Teaching Second
Languages course? How do your interaction patterns in the two settings compare?
2. To what extent, if any, is the use of technology affecting, either positively or negatively, your
participation in the Methods of Teaching Second Languages course?
3. How do you feel about expressing your ideas on the Web-based BB system?
4. What, if any, are the benefits from exchanging information on the Web-based BB system?
5. How would you characterize your overall Web-based BB experience?
APPENDIX D
Topics Discussed in Whole-Class, Face-to-Face Discussions,
Weeks 2–9
Week 2: Total Physical Response
Week 3: The Natural Approach; Structure of a Language Lesson
Week 4: The Structure of a Language Lesson; Interaction in the Language Classroom
Week 5: Multiple Intelligences; Music; Poetry and Jazz Chants
Week 6: Storytelling, Role-Playing, and Drama
Week 7: Reading and Vocabulary Development Techniques
Week 8: Reading and Vocabulary Development Techniques (continued)
Week 9: Writing in the L2 Classroom
APPENDIX E
The WebCT Bulletin Board Discussions:
Question of the Week3
Working in dyads or small groups, you will take turns on a weekly basis: (a) identifying a
question based on the readings for that week, (b) posting the question on the WebCT BB
system by a specified date and time, and (c) summarizing and presenting your peers’ responses
at the beginning of each class meeting. The remaining students in the class will answer the
question by a specified date and time. Sample postings will be distributed and analyzed in class.
When posting the “Question of the Week” on the BB system:
1. Decide with your group members the nature of the question you will post. Remember
that the question should be based on the readings assigned.
2. Label the posting in the following way: “Question of Week 1: Topic:”
3. Post the “Question of the Week” by the specified date and time.
4. Read and summarize the postings prior to class. Be ready to summarize the WebCT
discussion for the class.
5. If your group has identified other questions related to the topic, bring these to class for
discussion.
When responding to the “Question of the Week” on the BB system:
1. Be concise, stay on topic.
2. Keep a positive tone and respond personally.
3. Give a response that’s specific to the question posted. Generic responses are not
acceptable.
4. Don’t be overly concerned about grammar.
3
Adapted from Irujo and Johnson (1997).

L2 Literacy and the Design of the Self:
A Case Study of a Teenager Writing
on the Internet
WAN SHUN EVA LAM
University of California
Berkeley, California, United States
This article presents a case study that uses ethnographic and discourse
analytic methods to examine how electronic textual experiences in ESL
figure in the identity formation and literacy development of the learner.
First, the article reviews some recent work in literacy studies, L2
learning, and computer-mediated communication to provide a concep-
tual basis for studying discursive practices and identity formation in L2
learning. The results of a case study of a Chinese immigrant teenager’s
written correspondence with a transnational group of peers on the
Internet then show how this correspondence relates to his developing
identity in the use of English. This study develops the notion of textual
identity for understanding how texts are composed and used to
represent and reposition identity in the networked computer media. It
also raises critical questions on literacy and cultural belonging in the
present age of globalization and transborder relations.
C urrent research on L2 literacy (e.g., McKay, 1993, 1996; Kern, 1995)

has demonstrated the contextual nature of literacy practices and
raised questions about how literacy experiences in a nonnative language
influence the identity formation of the learner. The relation between
identity and literacy development in TESOL warrants critical examina-
tion in the present age of globalization as “virtual communities” emerge
on the Internet and cultural products, symbols, and images circulate
transnationally. How do communities on the Internet act as contexts for
L2 literacy use and development? What kinds of textual forms and
cultural discourses are used and developed in these literacy practices?
How are learners’ identities in the L2 constructed through networked
computer media? These are some of the questions that guided this study.
In this article, I introduce constructs from L2 literacy research and
communication studies to develop a conceptual basis for studying
literacy development in ESL in the contexts created through electronic

media. The theoretical concepts relevant to this study are identity, as
described in L2 literacy research (e.g., Peirce, 1995); voice, which refers
to the construction of roles and identities through discursive choices
(Kramsch, in press); design, the use of representational resources to
construct meaning (Kress, 2000); and self as a discursive formation
(Kramsch, in press). These constructs are seen in action through
Goffman’s (1959, 1981) dramaturgical view of interaction, that is, role
play and drama, in Internet-mediated environments. I then present
results from a case study of a Chinese immigrant teenager’s correspon-
dence with a transnational group of peers on the Internet. I examine
how this correspondence relates to his identity formation and literacy
development in ESL: how he constructs a textual identity by composing
texts and using them to represent and reposition identity in the cross-
cultural milieu of Internet communication. The analysis shows the use of
a variety of discourses and a distancing of the narrative and biographical
selves by the focal student in constructing his social relations with a
transborder network of Asian youth. This study raises critical issues in
textuality and identity for literacy education and research in TESOL as
the world enters an increasingly networked, electronic, and globalized
age.
LITERACY IN CONTEXTS
The majority of research in L2 literacy has focused on the cognitive

and linguistic demands of reading and writing in a nonnative language,
examining L2 reading and writing from a psycholinguistic perspective to
unveil the mental operations involved and identify learners’ processes
and strategies with L2 texts.1 Other research (e.g., Christie, 1999; Cope &
Kalantzis, 1993; Hasan & Williams, 1996; Hyon, 1996; Swales, 1990) has
broadened to include the study of genres in academic contexts, in which
the theory of genre varies from linguistically based to socially based
views. Research within the New Literacy Studies (e.g., Barton, Hamilton,
& Ivanic, 2000; Baynham, 1995; Gee, 1996; Luke, 1996; Street, 1993)
extends beyond both approaches by illuminating the contextual nature
of reading and writing, and the way literacy is intimately bound up with
particular sociocultural contexts, institutions, and social relationships. As
a socially situated practice, literacy appears in multiple forms that have
political and ideological significance; hence, it is more appropriate to
1
See, for example, Auerbach and Paxton (1997), Grabe (1991), Lee and Schallert (1997),
O’Malley and Chamot (1990), and Raimes (1991) for reviews and recent research; see
Pennycook (1996) for a critique.
458 TESOL QUARTERLY

refer to literacies in multiple manifestations that bear no universal
consequences. From this perspective, the cognitive skills, rhetorical
styles, and interpretive strategies involved in any act of reading or writing
are largely influenced by the prevailing beliefs, practices, and social
relationships in a particular institutional setting or sociocultural group
(Cushman, 1998; Heath, 1983; Ivanic, 1998; Scollon & Scollon, 1981;
Scribner & Cole, 1981). Literacy learning is understood as a process by
which the individual is socialized for group membership in specific
literate communities and, in turn, participates in shaping the social
practices of these communities. Accordingly, a central construct is the
language user’s identity, for in practicing any form of literacy, the user is
at the same time enacting a particular social role and membership in a
particular group.
One of the more influential theorizations on literacy and identity is
found in Gee’s (1996, 2000) work. Gee uses the term Discourses (with a
capital D) to refer to the many socially specific practices of literacy in
society, which include using oral and written language in tandem with
other symbol systems, such as thinking, believing, valuing, acting, inter-
acting, gesturing, and dressing, and using tools and technology. Gee
(2000) argues that
a Discourse is composed of distinctive ways of “being and doing” that allow

people to enact and/or recognize a specific and distinctive socially situated
identity (e.g., being-doing an “appropriate” first-grader in Ms Smith’s pro-
gressive classroom; an “appropriate” sort of U.S. generative linguist; or an
“appropriate” sort of Los Angeles Latino teenage street gang member, etc.).
(p. 2)
Here, in Gee’s formulation, identity is understood as social: as member-

ship in particular social groups and discourse communities.
However, this theory of discourse and identity, although noting the
heterogeneity of discourses in society, does not address how these diverse
discourses might interact on the individual level and create alternative,
contextually defined identities vis-à-vis these discourses. Poststructuralist
theories of discourse and identity (e.g., Fairclough, 1992b; Threadgold,
1997; Weedon, 1997) suggest that an individual may participate in a
multiplicity of discourses and that these discourses may exist in various
relations of complementarity, contradiction, or conflict with one an-
other. As Weedon (1997) points out, identity is inherently unstable, and
social identity, although constituted and governed by prevailing prac-
tices, is capable of resistance and innovations produced out of the clash
between contradictory and competing practices. In this context of
contradiction, learners somehow construct their identities through the
selective appropriation of literacy resources.
L2 LITERACY AND THE DESIGN OF THE SELF 459

Designing Identity Through Voice
In studying L2 literacy development, researchers (e.g., McKay &

Wong, 1996; Peirce, 1995) have shown how identity affects the ways in
which learners develop and demonstrate their competence in the L2 and
how they draw on diverse discourses and identities to assert and develop
their voice in the L2. For example, Peirce (1995) has argued that
learners’ investment—a complex relationship of language learners to the
target language contexts—influences their successes and failures in
accomplishing their goals in the target language. Accordingly, when
language learners speak, they are not only exchanging information with
target language speakers but are constantly organizing and reorganizing
a sense of who they are and how they relate to the social world. Zamel
(1997) reveals the reflective and generative power of writing for learners
in creating their own voices in an L2. Instead of viewing discourse
practices as discrete sets of conventions or processes of enculturation
that overdetermine the learners’ identities, Zamel argues that students
could appropriate elements from a diversity of discourses to create a new
written voice.
Kramsch (2000a, in press) elaborates on this concept of voice,
defining it as the process by which people create, maintain, or transform
institutional roles and identities through the discursive choices they
make. Whereas the notions of role and identity index the historical and
social or collective formation of identity, the notion of voice reveals the
inadequacy of historical and social categories to encompass all enun-
ciable experiences. Kramsch (in press) describes voice as
the act of meaning making itself (Bruner 1990: ch. 4), the choice of which
role we will play, which identity we will put forth in our interaction with
others. If identity and role stress the socially constructed nature of institu-
tions, the concept of voice reminds us that institutions are created, main-
tained and changed by the individual utterance in discourse.
Kramsch (in press) notes that her notion of identity versus role versus
voice shares an affinity with Goffman’s (1981) three production formats
in discursive interaction: principal, animator, and author. A principal is
“someone whose position is established by the words that are spoken. . . .
[who is active in] some special capacity as a member of a group, office,
category, relationship, association, or whatever, some socially based
source of self-identification” (p. 145). In other words, the principal is an
identity that is established by social institutions (e.g., Chinese vs. Chinese
American, immigrant, limited English proficient, masculine vs. femi-
nine). An animator is “someone who openly speaks for someone else and
in someone else’s words, as we do, say, in reading a deposition or
460 TESOL QUARTERLY

providing a simultaneous translation of a speech, without taking the
position to which these words attest” (pp. 145–146). In other words, the
animator is the actor type enacting existing social roles in society (e.g., a
Chinese American youngster playing the role of model minority in the
United States). Finally, an author is “someone who has selected the
sentiments that are being expressed and the words in which they are
encoded” (p. 144). The notion of voice captures this discursive process
of consciously selecting, juxtaposing, or reworking existing social roles
and identities in the representation of self and other.
This perspective of voice as a means of constructing one’s identity is
further elaborated by Kress’s (2000) concept of design, which refers to
the transformative use of available representational resources in the
production of new meaning. Poststructuralist literacy scholars such as
Kress (2000) and others in the New London Group (1996; Cope &
Kalantzis, 2000) have suggested that design is an essential textual
principle at a time when articulating one’s voice can involve the complex
orchestration of multiple modalities through electronic media within a
growing diversity of linguistic and cultural affiliations. The concept of
design is used to capture the transformative and innovative aspect of
meaning making, in which language use is not only a matter of deploying
existing representational resources according to conventions, but also a
dynamic process of adopting and reshaping existing resources in differ-
ent measures to create new meanings and ways of representing reality. As
Kress (2000) remarks, “an adequate theory of semiosis will be founded
on a recognition of the ‘interested action’ of socially located, culturally
and historically formed individuals, as the remakers, the transformers,
and the re-shapers of the representational resources available to them”
(p. 155). Design involves the orchestration of existing resources—such as
linguistic patterns, genres, and discourses—in potentially transformative
ways to achieve the designer’s communicative purpose, particularly when
the designer’s interest is at odds with existing representations of social
reality. Through their collaboration in designing, people may alter and
renegotiate their identities within their social communities. As a conse-
quence, the communities in which they obtain representational re-
sources are critical to the design of their identities and their literacy
development.
Collective Identities in Computer-Mediated Communication
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is a vehicle for the meta-

phorical construction of community, the crafting of multiple personae
and collective identities, and the assumption of social roles in the
temporal frame of on-line exchanges. The self-conscious and reflective

nature of design in CMC makes computer-mediated contexts an ideal
site for observing Goffman’s (1959; 1981, pp. 146–157) dramaturgical
concept of discursive interaction in action. In Goffman’s view, social life
is akin to a staged drama in which individuals, as social actors, manage
others’ impressions of them and influence the context of interaction
through their “personal front” (1959, p. 24)—their conduct and manner
of self-presentation. Discursively, this personal front appears in the social
role and manner of speaking one adopts in interaction, the production
format (as principal, animator, author) that signals the particular rela-
tion of the words to the speaker, or the use of an embedded first-person
pronoun that serves as a narrative voice for the speaker. In Goffman’s
(1981) terms, the embedded voice is “figure in a statement who is
present only in a world that is being told about, not in the world in which
the current telling takes place” (p. 149). Like the poststructuralist
conception of identity, Goffman’s view of the self is “something of
collaborative manufacture” (1959, p. 253) that must be produced and
developed in specific interactions. Like stage actors, social actors enact
roles, assume characters, and play through scenes when engaged in the
everyday rituals of communication with one another. Research on CMC
has provided some evidence of the significance of alternative social
collectivities, role play, and stylistic innovation in CMC environments.
Researchers in communication, linguistics, and cultural studies have
pointed out the widespread use of community as a metaphor for CMC and
examined the processes of its construction. For example, in her study of
the asynchronous communication of newsgroup discussions,2 Baym
(1995) suggests that certain social dynamics in CMC, such as group-
specific forms of expression, identity, social relationships, and behavioral
norms, promote a sense of community. Tepper (1997) analyzes the use of
trolls—insiders’ jokes and peculiar forms of spelling—as a boundary
mechanism for consolidating group culture and distinguishing insiders
from outsiders.
The construction of community as a frame for interaction in the
synchronous communication of Internet Relay Chat (IRC) is discussed
by Bays (1998). By portraying in words the imagined physical setting of
their conversation and the behaviors of the participants that form the
context of their social encounter, the participants in the IRC group that
Bays studied collectively constructed a sense of community as a notion
associated with familiarity, sharing, and working together for the com-
mon good. For example, this group developed what Bays calls the cookie
2
In asynchronous communication, participants read and post messages to one another
without having to be on-line simultaneously. Another form of CMC is synchronous, in which all
participants are on-line at the same time and respond to one another immediately.
462 TESOL QUARTERLY

convention, in which members give cookies to each other as a sign of
generosity and goodwill. Sanction is meted out to violators of the
communal atmosphere, such as somebody who “acts aggressively” by
using swear words. Aberrant behaviors as such are penalized by equally
scathing comments or the threat of being “kicked off” the channel. Bays
notes that “physicality exists within the world of IRC as a frame in which
the rules of interactive conduct and ‘reality’ within the CMC are based”
(n.p.).
Some researchers suggest that one attraction of CMC is the variety of
options it offers participants for designing their identities. Bays (1998)
analyzes the crafting of nicknames as an aspect of the face that one
adopts in negotiating one’s identity in CMC. Composed of letters,
numbers, punctuation, or other notations, the nickname is a sign of
individuality and a carrier of sociological cues, such as age, gender, and
interest. Hence, as some scholars (e.g., Turkle, 1995) argue, the donning
of nicknames and other attributes in CMC makes it a social arena in
which people may construct multiple roles and personae.
One reason for the many voices an individual might adopt through
CMC is that the physical self is not presented through CMC’s commonly
used modes. CMC is believed by some to hold the potential for a
“democratization of subject constitution” (Poster, 1997, p. 211; Turkle,
1995) because of the attenuation of highly conspicuous social cues (e.g.,
indicators of gender, ethnicity, or class) that come with face-to-face
communication. Moreover, social norms and categories tend to be
subverted in an arena that is more accepting of experimentation and in
which the risks of social sanction are not as high. Yet, depending on the
politics and social interests of the group and individuals, social norms
can just as easily be intensified in the bodyless pragmatics (Hall, 1996) of
CMC, in which communication relies heavily on the textual media. For
example, Hall shows how participants in a feminist discussion list
collectively construct particular linguistic practices that highlight what
they believe to be the attributes of the female gender in order to
promote feminist beliefs and protest the sexual harassment they experi-
ence elsewhere on the Internet.
Given its use for the expression of both community and individual
identity, CMC has come to be seen as a rhetorical device (Lanham, 1993),
in which a dramatic tension exists between unself-conscious verbal
involvement and self-conscious textual design. Werry (1996) notes the
interplay between involvement and detachment in the synchronous
communication of IRC:
When communicating on IRC there is a different sense of connection to the

word; it does not belong to the speaker in the sense that a spoken word does
. . . . Yet at the same time, words exist in a temporal framework which

approximates oral discourse, which requires interactivity and involvement,
and which invites the fabrication of the texture and signature of an individual
speaker’s voice. (p. 59)
Some analogues to oral discourse found in the written dialogues of IRC

include using abbreviation, ellipsis, and a telegraphic style to simulate
the speed and informality of oral conversation; signaling paralinguistic
and prosodic cues by punctuation, capitalization, and spelling; and
attempting to inscribe behaviors and gestures through words and
emoticons. However, compared with face-to-face communication, this
orate mode (a mode of language closer to everyday conversation; see,
e.g., Kramsch, 1993), peculiar to IRC communication, is often character-
ized by a greater degree of reflectiveness and playful attention to form.
Bays (1998) observes that the distinctive combination of textuality and
temporality in IRC offers the opportunity to experiment with one’s
identity as an on-line presence.
L2 Identity Through CMC

The many and varied opportunities for ESL learners to engage in
literacy experiences on the Internet have not been investigated in depth.
The aim of the present study, therefore, is to explore how literacy in an
L2 is related to the discursive construction of identity as writing enters
the electronic age and new forms of social networking emerge through
World Wide Web–based communication. I draw on Goffman’s (1959,
1981) dramaturgical view of interaction (the assumption of roles and
characters in social interaction), Kramsch’s (in press) notion of voice
(the discursive construction of social and cultural affiliations), and
Kress’s (2000) semiotic notion of design (the transformative use of
available discourses and norms of representation) to examine how a
teenager constructs his textual identity in ESL in written correspondence
with a transnational group of peers on the Internet via a home page on
the World Wide Web and synchronous and asynchronous communication.
In discussing the learner’s literacy experiences, I use the term textual
identity as an attempt to characterize the discursive strategies that he uses
to articulate and position himself in written texts (and other semiotic
media) as he negotiates diverse discourses on the Internet. Through this
case study, I present an analysis of how texts are composed and used to
represent and reposition identity in the cross-cultural milieu of Internet
communication. By examining the relation between textuality and
identity in the networked computer medium as it engenders literacy
development in ESL, I draw implications for an expanded vision of
literacy education in ESL in an age of global electronic communication.
464 TESOL QUARTERLY

RESEARCH METHOD
Context
The case study reported here forms part of an ongoing ethnographic

research project that explores the cross-cultural literacy practices of
adolescent immigrants in a city on the West Coast of the United States. In
fall 1996, I began meeting students as a classroom observer in an urban
high school where I had taught ESL and Chinese bilingual classes a few
years before the study began. From the classroom and the school as a
starting point, I interviewed the students about what they read and wrote,
and observed some out-of-school settings where they practiced forms of
literacy in their native and nonnative languages. The research takes an
ethnographic approach to theory construction that is grounded in the
everyday life of the people studied, their social activities in specific
contexts, and the meanings these activities hold for them (Erickson,
1986; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999; Watson-
Gegeo, 1988).
As a case study that emerged out of the larger ethnographic project,
this investigation aims not to generalize from its findings but to expand
and provide alternative visions of literacy development (see, e.g., Dyson,
1995). The in-depth study of cases helps illuminate the situated nature of
learning to read and write, and the complexity of individual persons and
the practices of literacy. It holds the potential to destablize conceptual
boundaries and contribute to new understandings of the concepts under
study (Stake, 1995).
For this case study, I first interviewed the student in the fall of 1996 as
part of the broader ethnographic project. I was away from the field site
for the spring and summer of 1997 and, on my return in fall 1997, found
that the student was actively involved in the Internet and that his ability
to write in English had improved dramatically. Hence, I found it
compelling to study how this student was learning English through the
Internet.
Procedure
Over a 6-month period beginning in fall 1997, I used participant

observation, in-depth interviews, and textual documentation to gather
data on the student’s computer experiences and activities, his personal
background, and his schooling experiences. With his permission, over
that period I collected 50 log files of his on-line chat (real-time
conversation on the Internet) and e-mail and documents from his home

page. Hence, I was able to observe the progression in his correspon-
dences with some on-line chat mates and e-mail pen pals. I took field
notes from direct observation of the student’s computing activities while
he showed me how he used different programs on the Web and from the
files and documents that were stored on his computer. Field notes and
documentation were also gathered from my own exploration of the Web
sites and chat systems that the student used. I carried out four tape-
recorded interviews that lasted approximately an hour each and con-
ducted about seven brief exchanges (in person, on the phone, via e-mail,
and via on-line chat) with the student to gather information on his
personal background, history of computer use and Internet involve-
ment, retrospective reflections on the texts that he produced on the
Internet, and English learning experiences.
Besides using inductive thematic analysis to identify patterns in the
field notes, interview transcripts, and Internet data, I also used Goffman’s
(1981) method of interactional analysis to examine the production format
or speaking roles in the discursive exchanges of chat and e-mail.
Through the research methods of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough,
1992b; Huckin, 1995; Kress, 1990), I examined how language as dis-
course—system(s) of beliefs and practices—was involved in the produc-
tion, maintenance, and transformation of social relations and identities.
In critical discourse analysis, discourse is viewed as a form of social action
that has effects on social structures as well as being determined by them
and so contributes to social continuity and social change. Specifically, I
analyzed the use of metaphors, deictic pronouns, and modality in the
discursive construction of social identities and relations in documents on
the Web server and home page, in on-line chat, and in e-mail exchanges.
The Focal Student
Almon3 emigrated from Hong Kong to the United States with his
parents and younger brother in 1992, at the age of 12, and, once settled,
the family rented a small apartment on the outer fringes of the
Chinatown community. When I met Almon, a high school senior, at an
after-school tutorial class in fall 1996, he expressed frustration over the
fact that his English skills were still insufficient even though he had been
in the country for 5 years. All of the friends he had made in and out of
school were Chinese speakers. Most of his classes at school were ESL,
bilingual, or remedial courses, which stigmatized him as a low-achieving
student. For instance, he was enrolled in a remedial composition class
3
The data presented here are also discussed in Kramsch, A’Ness, and Lam (in press). The
names of the informant and his correspondents are pseudonyms.
466 TESOL QUARTERLY

designed for students who had failed the mandatory high school
composition test that was required for graduation. All of the students in
the class were immigrants and ESL learners, and the teacher put a great
deal of emphasis on imparting the correct linguistic code to them
through the use of grammar charts and corrections on their essays. On
several occasions, Almon expressed worry about his future life and
career, and considered his difficulty with English a crucial part of the
problem:
The Chinese are prospering quite okay here. The problem is mainly with
discrimination. The Chinese have more problems with English, and so it’s
more difficult for them to find jobs. Even those who have been here for a long
time don’t speak like the native-born Americans . . . English is my biggest
problem. . . . It’s like this place isn’t my world, I don’t belong here. I guess it’s
going to be very hard for me to develop my career here. And I have a feeling
that my English won’t be that good even in 10 years.4 (interview, October 15,
1996)
Here, Almon reveals a sense of his marginalized position in society and a

perception that his inability to speak English like a native will hinder his
prospects in life. English both signifies and constitutes his feeling of not
belonging.
In fall 1997, when I returned to the field site after being away for
6 months and reinterviewed some of the students that I had first met a
year before, Almon described to me how he had become actively
involved in learning about the Internet in the latter part of his senior
year. After attending an introductory class on e-mail and browsing for
information on the Web in the high school from which he would soon
graduate, he continued to look up different Web sites for tutorials on
how to make personal home pages and conduct on-line chat. By fall
1997, when he began his studies at a local junior college, he had almost
completed a personal home page on a Japanese pop singer, had
compiled a long list of names of on-line chat mates in several countries
around the world, and was starting to write regularly to a few e-mail “pen
pals” (Almon’s term; interview, September 2, 1997).
Almon pointed out to me that it was easier to express what he wanted
to say by writing it out than by speaking in front of others. And in terms
of his writing ability in English, he had made great strides and noted a
“visible improvement” (interview, September 2, 1997). He could now
write more fluently in school and was planning to take a public speaking
class to improve his oral delivery skills. Commenting on the change in his
writing, he said,
4
Quotations from recorded interviews are translations from Cantonese. Underlining
represents Almon’s code switching to English.

[about learning to write English in school] I’ve always been poor in my
English, writing in English. I couldn’t write anything, and my mind just went
blank all the time. Especially for the topics that I wasn’t interested in, the
writing topics, I couldn’t write out anything . . . I wasn’t interested, like the
way things are expressed in English is not that good, not as good as Chinese.
. . . At first when I was using ICQ [pronounced “I seek you”; on-line instant
messaging software], I don’t know why, but my English is much better now
than at that time. At that time when I typed, I was typing so slow, like typing
space by space, and didn’t really know how to type it. Later, after many times,
I realized I could, even if it’s still not very good, I can express myself much
more easily now . . . . It’s not a matter of typing skill, it’s the English. . . . Now
I’ve improved, it’s because of ICQ or e-mail or other reasons. . . . Now it’s
somewhat different, before I was the type who hated English, really, I didn’t
like English. Maybe it was a kind of escapism, knowing I wasn’t doing well at
it, and so I used hating it as a way to deal with the problem. But I think it’s
easier for me to write out something now . . . [to] express better. (interview,
October 5, 1997)
This qualitatively different relationship to English came with a newly

discovered ability to express himself in writing via the electronic media,
which also helped him overcome some of his fear and worry about the
future:
I’ve changed a lot in the last 2 months, actually. I have kind of changed my
determination. I’m not as fearful, or afraid of the future, that I won’t have a
future. I’m not as afraid now. . . . When I was feeling negative, I felt the world
doesn’t belong to me, and it’s hard to survive here. And I felt not many
people understand me, or would. I didn’t feel like I belong to this world. . . .
But now I feel there’s nothing much to be afraid of. It really depends on how
you go about it. It’s not like the world always has power over you. It was
[names of a few chat mates and e-mail pen pals] who helped me to change
and encouraged me. If I hadn’t known them, perhaps I wouldn’t have
changed so much. . . . Yeah, maybe the Internet has changed me. (interview,
October 5, 1997)
Given the changes that Almon experienced through writing on the

Internet—from a sense of alienation from the English language in his
adopted country to a newfound sense of expressivity and solidarity when
communicating in English with his Internet peers—what sorts of identi-
ties was he designing for himself as an English user on the Web, and what
was the nature of the discourse community that supported his English
learning?
468 TESOL QUARTERLY

RESULTS: DESIGNING A TEXTUAL IDENTITY
Almon constructed a personal Web site through an international

server, called GeoCities, advertised on the Web as follows:
Welcome to GeoCities, the largest and fastest growing community on the

Internet. . . . At GeoCities, we provide members with free e-mail accounts,
home pages and the best page building tools and online help resources to
make personal publishing and community building as easy as writing a letter
to a friend. More than 2 million people have already joined, and thousands
more are signing up every day. . . . GeoCities is a thriving online community
of people just like you. We call our members “homesteaders” because they’ve
staked a claim on their own plot of “land” on the Internet. . . . There are 15
themed avenues (Entertainment, Arts & Literature, Sport & Recreation etc.).
. . . From the neighborhoods, you can peruse the best home pages, visit our
exciting, interactive avenues, or just cruise the suburbs. . . . (Geotour, 1998,
n.p.)
This ad shows that Web technology offers not only the virtual base for the
construction, storage, and retrieval of electronic texts but also a full-
fledged metaphor for the building of social and cultural communities.
The fusion of the words “home” and “page” merges the two overlapping
tropes “publishing” and “urban landscape” in an American lifestyle that
is exported over the Internet. One can “peruse” the creative aspects of
texts (or home pages) by “cruising” down the neighborhoods and
suburbs of contexts (or themes). The names and themes of the more than
40 neighborhoods (with branches called suburbs) are characteristically
empty symbols filled with stereotypical content. For example,
Paris is the neighborhood of: Romance, poetry, and the arts

Broadway: Theater, musical, show business
Athens: Education, literature, poetry, philosophy
Vienna: Classical music, opera, ballet
Madison Avenue: Advertising
Silicon Valley: Hardware, software, programming
Wellesley: A community of women
Tokyo: Anime and all things Asian (Geotour, 1998, n.p.)
Almon chose to settle his home page in “Tokyo,” where a global

community of Asians gathers around Japanese pop culture. Almon’s on-
line chat mates were located in such diverse sites as Canada, Hong Kong,
Japan, Malaysia, and the United States.

Design
Almon designed his home page on a young Japanese popular (J-pop)

singer (or idol, in Japanese parlance) named Ryoko Hirosue out of his
interest in J-pop music. He bought J-pop music and magazines in a
Japantown district a few miles from his home. He followed the trends in
J-pop culture closely by reading magazines, watching television programs
imported from Japan on a local channel, and searching the growing
number of Web sites on J-pop music and particular singers. He was able
to understand some of the Japanese language used in these media
because he had attended Japanese language classes in school. On why he
chose Ryoko as the subject of his home page, Almon said, “Well, I am
always into Japanese things . . . and she was my idol at that time. . . . If you
are introducing some idols who are attractive, then people may read it.”
According to him, the intended audience of his home page are “those
people who are interested in Japanese pop stars . . . teenagers” (inter-
view, November 10, 1997).
Almon designed his Ryoko page by using materials and sources from
magazines and other Web sites on J-pop music and celebrities. He chose
a pseudonym, Mr. Children (also the name of a J-pop music group), to
designate himself; hence the home page is called Mr. Children’s Ryoko
Page (http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Garden/5088/frame.html). It
appears on the computer screen with a main page that presents a written
introduction, an animated cartoon of Ryoko next to her name in
Japanese kanji (Chinese characters in Japanese script), and a song of
hers playing in the background. A side panel shows a list of buttons
indicating the other parts of the home page that can be opened by
clicking on them: a profile of Ryoko; a history page with her biographical
information; a large selection of photos; a music section with songs that
visitors can listen to on-line or download to their computers; several
video clips; a section called “My Favorite Links” that provides, for
example, links to other personal and institutional Web sites on J-pop
music, particular singers like Ryoko, and Japanese animations; and a
page with an Internet search engine. In a guest book, visitors may write
comments or view other people’s comments.
In the written text on the main page, Almon presents the topic of his
home page, Ryoko Hirosue, and introduces himself as Mr. Children.
Almon makes abundant use of the deictic pronouns you and I to address
the audience of J-pop fans and himself throughout the text, and he
refers to Ryoko as she. This usage creates an addresser-addressee relation-
ship even as the discussion revolves around Ryoko. Almon highlights his
ownership of the home page by the use of the first-person possessive in
“my site” and “my homepage,” and establishes himself as a knowledge-
470 TESOL QUARTERLY

able and helpful member of the international J-pop community in
statements like “No problem! ^_^ you’ll find out anythings about her in
my site.”5 In the second paragraph, Almon provides multiple channels of
communication (e-mail and on-line chat using ICQ) through which Mr.
Children and his readers/visitors can establish and maintain contact.
Clearly, the home page introduces and represents not only the singer
Ryoko but also Mr. Children, a participant in J-pop culture. Through his
choice of linguistic features in the Web page (i.e., deictic pronouns to
signal affiliations), Almon discursively constructs (Kramsch, in press) his
new position as a member of the global J-pop community.
In the section “My Favorite Links,” Almon forms associations with
other home pages on Ryoko and various aspects of J-pop music,
including animation (anime, as it is commonly abbreviated in Japan), and
extends these associations to other interests of Internet users, friends’
home pages, and computer games, a few of which contain the Chinese
language. In regard to J-pop music, the section not only presents factual
information but actively seeks to galvanize the J-pop fan community. This
is exemplified in the use of imperatives (e.g., “Let join there . . .”, “Go
check it now . . .”, “*Must Visit*”) and the modal auxiliary verb can (e.g.,
“A lot of Ryoko’s pictures you can get here,” “You can try to hear the
brand-new songs . . .,” “Here you can download a tons of mp3 files of
song,” “You can find all TK family official homepage here”). In state-
ments like “If you think you are J-pop fan, but you have (n)ever visit this
site and don’t know what it’s about, than I don’t think you really are a
J-pop fan,” there is an active construction of who J-pop fans are and what
they are supposed to do and know. Being a member of the J-pop fan
community involves helping define one another’s identity.
The rhetoric that runs through the page promotes both the music
culture and industry and Almon himself in that culture, as can be seen in
his adoption of the nickname Mr. Children. The descriptor for the link
to the home page of the music group “Mr. Children innocent world”
reads, “Please don’t mistake this, this is not my home page. This is a
regular Mr. Children page. Check it out, and see why I like this group so much
[italics added]. They are so great!!!” Here Almon adopts an iconic figure
in the music industry as an identification badge for a J-pop fan. The
advertising discourse of the global music and high-tech industry be-
comes a vehicle for Almon to introduce himself as a knowledgeable,
valued member of the global J-pop community and participate in
5
Almon uses both Western and Japanese versions of emoticons. The Japanese smiley ^_^ is
more easily recognizable as a face than the Western version :-) because it is right-side up rather
than sideways (rotated to the left), although the mouth does not curve upward as in the
Western version (Pollack, 1996; Sugimoto & Levin, 2000).

promoting its interests and resources. Almon actively acquires and
deploys the promotional rhetoric of the Web as a discursive norm or
design (Kress, 2000) that he uses not only to perpetuate the viability of
the Web and music industries but to construct new social networks for
himself with a transnational group of Asian peers.
Dramaturgical Interaction
Almon’s dialogic exchanges with his on-line pen pals constructed

gendered social roles that evidence Goffman’s (1959; 1981, pp. 146–57)
dramaturgical view of social interaction. The gendering aspect of their
written exchanges is seen in Almon’s preference for and closer relation-
ship with his female pen pals:
. . . maybe I feel, I don’t know, more comfortable with females. It doesn’t have
to be some kind of relationship, but with females, I like to, and can talk more
easily. . . . Boys . . . they give you a different kind of encouragement. It’s like
encouraging you to talk. But the kind that the girls give is the encouragement
to believe in yourself. (interview, December 12, 1997)
As opposed to the camaraderie between boys, Almon believes that girls

are more able to foster self-knowledge and confidence. Female pen pals
take on a nurturing, motherly, supportive role. Before writing the
following posting to Ying, a Chinese female pen pal from Hong Kong,
Almon had presented himself as a shy person in need of support, and
Ying had responded accordingly:
Hum . . . you said you can share my happiness or sadness, that’s great. It is a
very important thing to be a good pal. So don’t try to hide when I need to
share things with you, okay. Also I would like to listen, if you have anything
you want to share too. :-) (e-mail, August 25, 1997)
Seiko, a Japanese female living in the United States, gave him advice to
which he responded:
Seiko, arigatoo for your advice to me (>_0) [wink] I will try to more open
myself, and be more talkative. But, it takes time to change. Hey, you know
what, something can always control my sentiments. Can you guess it? . . Yeah,
right. It’s music. (e-mail, November 25, 1997)
Here is Almon’s on-line exchange with Ada, a Hong Kong Chinese living
in Canada:
Almon: I have some photo scans of my childhood and fellowship, I don’t

know if you are interesting to take look . . .
472 TESOL QUARTERLY

Ada: oh . . . . i’m interested . . . . I’m curious to see how you look when
you’re young.
Almon: Ok, I hope you don’t feel sick by look at my pic. hehe ^^
Ada: I’m sure I won’t . . . .
Almon: the pic is very blur . . . . . .
Ada: You are very happy and cute when you’re small : >
Almon: Yeah, I like my smile when I was a kid. But, I don’t know will I smile
like that again . . hee hee.
Ada: . . . . you’ll have a smile like the one you had when you’re a baby. . . .
if you can be as simple as a baby . . . I mean it in a nice way. . . .
Remember Jesus told us that we have to be like a child if we want
to go to heaven.
Almon: Yes, I’m 100% agreeing what you’re saying. That’s what I always
thinking, so I very like the people childlike outside, but also mature
inside . . . . (chat, October 22, 1997)
In this dialogue, Almon’s hesitations about presenting and recovering

the image in his childhood picture are exemplified in several negative
statements (“I don’t know if you are interesting”; “I hope you don’t feel
sick”; “I don’t know will I smile”). These are reversed into the affirmative
in Ada’s replies (“i’m interested”; “I’m curious”; “I’m sure”; “you’ll have
a smile like the one you had”). Ada transforms the negative modality6 of
Almon’s statements into a categorical and positive mode of declaration
(“you are very happy and cute when you’re small”, “you’ll have a smile
like the one you had when you’re baby . . . . if you can be as simple as a
baby” [italics added]). By using the genre of electronic verbal exchange
as a friendly counseling session, Ada fits squarely into the role of the
nurturing female that Almon helps create through the way he presents
himself textually in the dialogue.
Furthermore, these postings sound both very personal and very much
like a role play. The hedges and qualifiers (“you know what?”; “Can you
guess it?”; “hehe”; “oh”; “hum”; “okay”) and the ellipses that signal
pauses and hesitation, as well as the emoticons of the genre (>_0),
establish a distance between Almon the author and Almon the narra-
tor—between the world that is spoken about and the world in which the
speaking occurs (Goffman, 1981, p. 147).
The distancing of the author (the composer of a text) and narrator (a
role or character in the text) also allows them to adopt a mutually
supportive, nurturing role across gender lines in the context of inten-
tional friendship over the Internet. This is seen, for example, in an on-
line circular posting between Almon and Ada, in which the first- and
6
As discussed in Simpson (1993), “modality refers broadly to a speaker’s attitude towards, or
opinion about, the truth of a proposition expressed by a sentence. It also extends to their
attitude towards the situation or event described by a sentence” (p. 47).

second-person pronouns serve as the deictics for narrative roles that can
be associated at will with any speaker:
You are my friend and I hope you know that’s true.
No matter what happens I will stand by you.
I’ll be there for you whenever you need.
To lend you a hand to do a good deed.
So just call on me when you need me my friend.
I will always be there even to the end.
Forward this promise to all your friends to show your friendship and see who
sends it back. (chat, December 5, 1997)
In the following exchange, Almon consoles Ying after she has expressed
frustration over her relationship with her boyfriend:
Ying, I hope you don’t mind, I don’t know how to say things to cheer up
others. But I really hope you will feel better. Don’t be troubled by those
people who are not true to you . . . You’re so kind and understanding . . .
You’ll surely find somebody who truly loves you . . . I give you my blessing! ^_^
(e-mail, January 13, 1998)
Here Almon brackets his own authorial authority through the use of
hedges (“I hope”; “I don’t know”; “I really hope”). It is as though the
utterances that follow the initial qualifiers do not belong to the speaker
in the normal sense but are an animation of a gendered narrative voice
that he has adopted in this situation (Goffman, 1975, pp. 508–550). In
fact, one has the feeling that Almon is crossing gender lines and is taking
on the nurturing, supportive voice usually associated with the female
identity.
As a form of communicative exchange that relies heavily on writing,
the genre of electronic dialogue constitutes a highly visible medium for
the scripting of social roles (Goffman, 1959). This textual mode of role
scripting may variously fall within existing gender stereotypes or move
beyond them. Almon’s expectation and discursive construction of his
interlocutors as “nurturing females,” and his own partial adoption of this
gendered role, show how normative gender relations can be both
reproduced and destablized in textual communication within an elec-
tronic friendship network.
The gender roles adopted by the interlocutors reinforce the impres-
sion that they are developing textual or rhetorical identities that are
related to but different from their biographical identities. Almon tries to
explain this to one of his pen pals:
I believe most people has two different “I”, one is in the realistic world, one is
in the imaginational world. There is no definition to define which “I” is the
original “I”, though they might have difference. Because they both are
474 TESOL QUARTERLY

connect together. The reality “I” is develop by the environment changing.
The imaginative “I” is develop by the heart growing. But, sometime they will
influence each other. For example me, “I” am very silent, shy, straight,
dummy, serious, outdate, etc. in the realistic world. But, “I” in the imaginational
world is talkative, playful, prankish, naughty, open, sentimental, clever,
sometime easy to get angry, etc. . . . I don’t like the “I” of reality. I’m trying to
change myself.
But, I think you usually would see “I” in imaginational world because I’m
very open to writing e-mail to people. ^_^ How about you?? Do you have two
different “I”?? hee hee. (e-mail, January 13, 1998)
DISCUSSION: IDENTITY AND LITERACY

What does all this have to do with English learning? One could argue,
following Gee’s (1996, 2000) theory of discourse, that Almon is actively
acquiring, and also actively reproducing, the many discourses and
narrative roles in the English networked electronic environment—
Madison Avenue advertising (e.g., GeoCities promotional talk), adoles-
cent Internet talk (e.g., emoticons, oral forms of language), popular
psychology (e.g., the need to share and care, to change oneself), and
religious discourse (e.g., references to Jesus). One may wish that Almon
would acquire a more “proper” or “standard” written English. Yet it is
precisely this worldliness of English and the discourses that adhere to its
global spread (Pennycook, 1998) that have provided Almon with the
linguistic tools to enter into a multicultural world of Japanese pop
culture, where he finds a community that understands and supports him.
The adoption of a variety of discourses and the distancing of one’s
narrative and biographical selves could be characterized as the discursive
strategies that Almon used to construct his identity and relations with a
transborder network of peers on the Internet—an identity that is not
available to him in the social environment and institutions of his adopted
country. Although these discourses and narrative roles are often con-
strained by the dominant discourses in society (Fairclough, 1992b, 2000;
Gee, 1996), they may be appropriated and rearticulated in one’s own
voice for one’s own purposes in the process of meaning making and
literacy development. For Almon, the imaginative I, or the textual self,
has in some instances blurred the boundaries of stereotypical gender
roles and destablized national borders as the defining characteristic of
his minority social identity. Electronic networks may hold the potential
to bring the textual and the social into creative tension with each other
and serve the decentering function of what Lanham (1993) describes as
the stylistic play on transparent reality.
The English that Almon acquired through his Internet involvement is
the global English of adolescent pop culture rather than the standard

English taught in ESL classes. Whereas classroom English appeared to
contribute to Almon’s sense of exclusion or marginalization (his inability
to speak like a native), which paradoxically contradicts the school’s
mandate to prepare students for the workplace and civic involvement,
the English he controlled on the Internet enabled him to develop a
sense of belonging and connectedness to a global English-speaking
community. Almon was learning not only more English but also more
relevant and appropriate English for the World Wide Web community he
sought to become part of.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR

L2 LITERACY DEVELOPMENT
This case study describes how an immigrant teenager discursively

constructed his identity in English with a transborder group of peers on
the Internet. It compels us as TESOL practitioners and researchers to
reconsider the significance of identity formation in the process of
learning to read and write in an L2. The development of L2 literacy in
networked electronic media is shown here to involve a generative
process of self- and other fashioning in a particular communicative
group. I have used Kress’s (2000) semiotic notion of design and
Kramsch’s (in press) identity concept of voice to examine the discursive
construction of textual self in Web-based communication, in which
identity is understood not simply as a process of socialization into
existing social groups and discourse communities, but also as a reflective
and generative process for constructing alternative social networks and
subject positions through the textual media.
Reinventing a Model of Communication
Indeed, networked electronic communication may have reinstated

the significance of role play and drama (Goffman, 1959) in the under-
standing of language and literacy development in TESOL (see also
Kramsch, A’Ness, & Lam, in press). In Communication as Culture, Carey
(1988) has contrasted the transmission view of communication, which is
by far the more common in most industrialized countries, with the ritual
view of communication, which is less prominent but reaches far back in
history and may provide an important but overlooked perspective. The
transmission view of communication is signified by the conduit meta-
phor of “imparting,” “sending,” “transmitting,” or “giving information to
others” (p. 15) and leads to a view of language as transparent, objective,
analytical, and a tool or instrument for action. A ritual view of communi-
476 TESOL QUARTERLY

cation, on the other hand, stresses the common roots of the terms
communion, community, and communication. It sees communication as
directed toward the formation of social relations and shared beliefs, and
sees language as a symbolic process for creating, maintaining, or
transforming social reality. Carey illustrates the ritual view in regard to
newspaper reading:
A ritual view of communication will focus on a different range of problems in

examining a newspaper. It will, for example, view reading a newspaper less as
sending or gaining information and more as attending a mass, a situation in
which nothing new is learned but in which a particular view of the world is
portrayed and confirmed. News reading, and writing, is a ritual act and
moreover a dramatic one. What is arrayed before the reader is not pure
information but a portrayal of the contending forces in the world. Moreover,
as readers make their way through the paper, they engage in a continual shift
of roles or of dramatic focus. . . . The model here is not that of information
acquisition, though such acquisition occurs, but of dramatic action in which
the reader joins a world of contending forces as an observer at a play. (pp.
20–21)
To understand the development of L2 literacy in the new networked

computer media requires a model of communication that looks at how
learners’ identities are created through a ritual of role play and dramatic
acts. As shown in this case study and the studies of CMC (see Murray, this
issue), a prominent aspect of Internet-based communication is the use of
textual and other semiotic tools to create communal affiliations and
construct social roles and narrative representations of self. Within
Almon’s electronic peer-group network, some of the discourses that he
adopted carry the dominant codes of commercial interests and gender
relations, but Almon also appropriated them as a means to create an
alternative self and social affiliations.
Hence, as computer technology becomes increasingly integral to the
practice of TESOL in the 21st century, we as TESOL professionals need
to reinvent an age-old model of communication to help students
critically reflect on the social roles and relations they are constructing
through their rituals of dramatic acts on the Internet. For example, we
can guide students to become more critically conscious of the types of
discourses they are adopting as the they develop facility with these
discourses (Delpit, 1995; Fairclough, 1992a, Hammond & Macken-
Horarik, 1999). Although the computer has often been portrayed as a
pragmatic and informational technology, it can also be recognized and
used as a creative forum for the construction of new forms of identity
and solidarity that promote positive changes in society. (See Hawisher &
Selfe, 2000, for a number of case studies that show how Web-based
multimedia are used to promote social critique and social change.) For

instance, with Almon, who is already quite conscious of the power of
language to create a textual self, a teacher could reflect on and analyze
the discursive choices he made in constructing his narrative voice
(Kramsch, 2000b) and how those choices replicated or altered dominant
discourses and gender relations. The use of computer technology in
TESOL calls for both an imaginative and a critical approach to the
production and reception of texts in the electronic media that allows the
textual to produce a new design for the social (Kress, 2000). It under-
scores the importance of constructing possible worlds (Bruner, 1986) and
transformative pedagogies (e.g., Pennycook, 1999a, 1999b) in the teach-
ing and development of literacy in TESOL whereby students develop
strategies of articulation that question dominant discourses and power
relations and produce alternative visions of reality.
A Critical Conception of Language and Literacy
This study also raises critical issues for language and cultural identity
in an age of globalization, transborder relations, and the popularization
of Internet-based communication. The changes that Almon experienced
in relation to the English language—from a sense of alienation relative
to native-born Americans in U.S. society to a growing confidence in his
expressive ability with a transnational group of peers—illustrate the
variable nature of the use of varieties of English for exclusion or
inclusion. Together with the current rethinking of the concept of culture
in anthropology and cultural theory (see, e.g., Atkinson, 1999), this
study calls into question the conjuncture of language with national
culture, which often happens in the teaching of second or foreign
languages, and argues for the recognition and valuing of multiple
linguistic and cultural affiliations.
Facilitated by electronic media, the English language is becoming
increasingly tied to the cultural expression of various groups of native
and nonnative speakers around the world (see Warschauer, this issue).
Rather than signifying Englishness, Americanness, or other exclusive
cultural ideologies, the language may well be used to represent Japanese
popular culture or diasporic Chinese relations. All this calls for a critical
assessment of how students’ chosen target language may diverge from
the standard language in the English classroom and how their choice of
target is simultaneously an act of investment and desire and a reaction to
their marginal position in the English-speaking classroom and society
(Ibrahim, 1999). TESOL in today’s global, multicultural world needs a
broad and critical conception of language and literacy that is responsive
to students’ relations to multiple target languages and cultural commu-
nities, and that actively creates opportunities for the students to use their
478 TESOL QUARTERLY

positioning in other target languages to challenge and expand their
notion of that standard as they are learning it. In this way, the develop-
ment of literacy or multiple literacies in ESL may become not only an
opportunity for gaining access to the standard language or dominant
discourses but also a creative process of self-formation in light of diverse
practices and ways of representing human experiences.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Claire Kramsch for her insights and mentorship throughout the evolution of
this article. I am grateful to Mark Warschauer and two anonymous reviewers for their
very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article, and to the editor of TESOL
Quarterly for her continual support. My deep appreciation goes to Almon, who
generously shared his work and experiences with me during this study and beyond.
THE AUTHOR
Wan Shun Eva Lam is a PhD candidate in the language, literacy, and culture division
of the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley. Her
areas of specialization are literacy theory, language and culture, and the role of
bilingual development in L2 learning.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 625–654.
Auerbach, E. R., & Paxton, D. (1997). “It’s not the English thing”: Bringing reading
research into the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 237–261.
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in
context. London: Routledge.
Baym, N. K. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communi-
cation. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and
community (pp. 138–163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baynham, M. (1995). Literacy practices: Investigating literacy in social contexts. London:
Longman.
Bays, H. (1998, January). Framing and face in Internet exchanges: A socio-cognitive
approach. Linguistic Online, 1. Retrieved June 6, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://viadrina.euv-frankfurt-o.de/~wjournal/bays.htm.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carey, J. W. (1988). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. London:
Unwin Hyman.
Christie, F. (1999). Genre theory and ESL teaching: A systemic functional perspec-
tive. TESOL Quarterly 33, 759–763.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to
teaching writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design
of social futures. London: Routledge.

Cushman, E. (1998). The struggle and the tools: Oral and literate strategies in an inner city
community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New
Press.
Dyson, A. H. (1995). Children out of bounds: The power of case studies in expanding visions
of literacy development (Technical Report No. 73). Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia, Center for the Study of Writing.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–1161). New York: Macmillan.
Fairclough, N. (Ed.). (1992a). Critical language awareness. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992b). Discourse and social change. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fairclough, N. (2000). Muliliteracies and language: Orders of discourse and
intertextuality. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning
and the design of social futures (pp. 162–181). London: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer
Press.
Gee, J. P. (2000, February). Literacies, identities, and discourses. Paper presented at the
Acquisition of Advanced Literacy Conference, Davis, CA.
Geotour. (1998). GeoCities. Retrieved February 7, 1998, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.geocities.com/main/help/geotour.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1975). Frame analysis. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research.
TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375–405.
Hall, K. (1996). Cyberfeminism. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communica-
tion: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 147–170). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Hammond, J., & Macken-Horarik, M. (1999). Critical literacy: Challenges and
questions for ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 528–544.
Hasan, R., & William, G. (Eds.). (1996). Literacy in society. New York: Longman.
Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (2000). Global literacies and the World-Wide Web. London:
Routledge.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huckin, T. N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional
approaches to written text: Classroom applications. TESOL-France Journal, 2(2),
95–111.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly,
30, 693–722.
Ibrahim, A. (1999). Becoming Black: Rap and hip-hop, race, gender, identity, and
the politics of ESL learning. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 349–369.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic
writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kern, R. (1995). Redefining the boundaries of foreign language literacy. In C. Kramsch
(Ed.), Redefining the boundaries of language study (pp. 61–98). Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Culture and context in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Kramsch, C. (2000a, March). Linguistic identities at the boundaries. Paper presented at
the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
480 TESOL QUARTERLY

Kramsch, C. (2000b). Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning. In
J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 133–154).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (in press). Identity, role, and voice in interdiscursive (mis)communication.
In J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Misunderstandings in social life. London: Longman.
Kramsch, C., A’Ness, F., & Lam, W. S. E. (in press). Authenticity and authorship in
the computer-mediated acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning & Technology,
4(2).
Kress, G. (1990). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11,
84–99.
Kress, G. (2000). Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In B. Cope &
M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures
(pp. 153–161). London: Routledge.
Lanham, R. (1993). The electronic word: Democracy, technology, and the arts. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lee, J. W., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 proficiency and
L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis
in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713–740.
Luke, A. (1996). Genres of power? Literacy education and the production of capital.
In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 308–338). New York:
Longman.
McKay, S. (1993). Examining L2 composition ideology: A look at literacy education.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 65–81.
McKay, S. (1996). Literacy and literacies. In S. McKay & N. Hornberger (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 421–445). New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
McKay, S., & Wong, S. L. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment
and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant
students. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 577–608.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 9–32.
Pennycook, A. (1996). TESOL and critical literacies: Modern, post, or neo? TESOL
Quarterly, 30, 163–171.
Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. (Ed.). (1999a). Critical approaches to TESOL [Special-topic issue].
TESOL Quarterly, 33(3).
Pennycook, A. (1999b). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quar-
terly, 33, 329–348.
Pollack, A. (1996, August 12). Happy in the East (^_^) or smiling :-) in the West. New
York Times, p. D5.
Poster, M. (1997). Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the public sphere. In D. Porter
(Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 201–218). New York: Routledge.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.
Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Ethnographic approaches and methods in
L2 writing research: A critical guide and review. Applied Linguistics, 20, 44–70.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative, literacy, and face in interethnic communica-
tion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology and point of view. London: Routledge.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Street, B. (Ed.). (1993). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sugimoto, T., & Levin, J. A. (2000). Multiple literacies and multimedia: a comparison
of Japanese and American uses of the Internet. In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe
(Eds.), Global literacies and the World-Wide Web (pp. 133–153). New York: Routledge.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York:
Tepper, M. (1997). Usenet communities and the cultural politics of information. In
D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 39–54). New York: Routledge.
Threadgold, T. (1997). Feminist poetics: Poiesis, performance, histories. London: Routledge.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL
Quarterly, 22, 575–592.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
Werry, C. C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In
Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 341–352.
482 TESOL QUARTERLY

The Changing Faces of English:
A Caribbean Perspective
SHONDEL J. NERO
St. John’s University
Jamaica, New York, United States
This article discusses the globalization of English and the extent to

which speakers of varieties of the language such as Caribbean Creole
English (CCE) complicate the native speaker/nonnative speaker di-
chotomy, challenging English language teachers to respond to the
specific needs of Creole English-speaking and other bidialectal stu-
dents. The article describes the linguistic situation in the anglophone
Caribbean, the salient features of CCE as compared with standard
American English, and the linguistic challenges faced by anglophone
Caribbean students and their teachers in North American schools and
colleges. Reporting the findings of a 2-year qualitative study of four
anglophone Caribbean college students, the author describes the
students’ linguistic self-perception and provides examples of their oral
and written language as one variety of English that teachers will
increasingly encounter in 21st-century classrooms. The article proposes
that the literacy needs of bidialectal students be addressed on four
levels: (a) classroom practices, (b) teacher education, (c) the
deconstruction of ESL/English dichotomies, and (d) linguistic attitudes.
I n an article discussing the use of Caribbean Creole English (CCE) in

literature, Morris (1993) alludes to a scene in Selvon’s (1979) novel,
The Lonely Londoners (set in the 1950s), in which Galahad, a Trinidadian
immigrant in England, is conversing with a White Englishwoman, Daisy,
after their first date:
“You get that raise the foreman was promising you?” Galahad ask, for
something to say.
“What did you say? You know it will take me some time to understand
everything you say. The way you West Indians1 speak!”
1
The term West Indians refers to natives of the officially English-speaking Caribbean. The
region is also called the anglophone Caribbean, which includes all of the following islands:
Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, the British Virgin Islands, Caricou, the
Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts–Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent

“What wrong with it?” Galahad ask. “Is English we speaking.” (cited in
Morris, 1993, p. 18)
The exchange between Galahad and Daisy illustrates a curious clash of

assumptions—curious because Galahad assumes that he and Daisy speak
a common language, that is, English. But Daisy’s response to Galahad
suggesting that she could not understand him framed his language as
other, non-English—in short, as nonnative, prompting Galahad’s defen-
sive retort (a retort that claims ownership of English but that, ironically,
alienates him further from Daisy because of its nonstandard phrasing).
Just as Daisy’s remark suggests that she questions Galahad’s nativeness to
English, so do many teachers question the nativeness of a rapidly
growing number of anglophone Caribbean immigrant students in North
American schools and colleges.
The question of who should be considered a native speaker (NS)
presents a problem for English language teachers who must make
important decisions about the placement, assessment, and instruction of
immigrant students. Educators in the host country often view these
students’ English as substandard or nonnative, leading to their being
(mis)placed into ESL classes. Having no other language than their
English to lay claim to, many of these students are genuinely surprised at
the perception of their language by outsiders, especially educators, as
“not quite English.” This disjunction between perceptions of anglophone
Caribbean students and those of educators adds to the profession’s
growing concern with the concept of a clear-cut dichotomy between NSs
and nonnative speakers (NNSs) of English.
This article begins by reviewing the problems that have been pointed
out with the NS/NNS dichotomy, with a focus on speakers of CCE. I then
examine CCE further by summarizing some of its linguistic characteris-
tics and research revealing the performance of anglophone Caribbean
students in North American classrooms. Highlights from results of a
2-year qualitative study of four anglophone Caribbean college students
add to previous findings by addressing issues of perceived linguistic
identity, the students’ actual spoken and written language, and their
treatment in English language classes. Implications are drawn for
teaching the growing numbers of immigrant learners in the 21st century.
and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Also part of the region are the mainland countries of Belize in Central America and
Guyana in South America. Belize and Guyana are included because of their shared history of
British colonization with and cultural similarities to the Caribbean islands.
484 TESOL QUARTERLY

BACKGROUND
Deconstructing Nativeness, Reconstructing English
In the past, the term native speaker was often used in the field of
language teaching and learning as if it had a clear meaning. It continues
to be used as a point of reference for placement into language classes,
decisions about which students are tested, and criteria for evaluation.
The native/nonnative dichotomy and use of the NS as reference point,
however, come into question in the linguistic landscape of the 21st
century, when most TESOL professionals recognize the integrity of a
variety of “Englishes” (B. Kachru, 1977, p. 29).
Now that English appears firmly established as an international
language, manifested in many varieties and used for myriad purposes by
more than a billion people worldwide, the assumption that so-called NSs
and NNSs alike agree on the existence of one English has been
questioned. Furthermore, the very notion of the NS has been success-
fully challenged (Canagarajah, 1999; Davies, 1991; Ferguson, 1992;
B. Kachru, 1986; Y. Kachru, 1994; Kramsch, 1997; Leung, Harris, &
Rampton, 1997; Nayar, 1994; Paikeday, 1985; Pennycook, 1994; Rampton,
1990; Sridhar, 1994; Widdowson, 1994). However, B. Kachru (1992), in
his well-known profile of World Englishes, for example, suggests that NSs
of English are those that belong to the “inner circle,” countries that are
the “cultural and linguistic bases of English” (p. 356), such as England,
the United States, and Canada. The anglophone Caribbean is treated as
a special case (mainly because the region does not fit neatly into a
native/nonnative paradigm) and thus is excluded from his inner circle/
outer circle profile. Kachru notes, “Countries such as South Africa or
Jamaica are difficult to place within the concentric circles. In terms of
the English-using populations and the functions of English their situa-
tions are rather complex” (p. 362).
The anglophone Caribbean is an important case to consider precisely
because of the questions it raises about the NS/NNS dichotomy. As
Canagarajah (1999) notes, “With the existence of indigenized variants of
English developed in postcolonial communities, many here would con-
sider themselves native speakers of these Englishes” (p. 78). This
perception may be at odds with practices of educational systems that
place such students in classes with NNSs of English—practices that may
stem from what Phillipson (1992) calls the “native speaker fallacy” (p.
194), which he believes can be traced back to the Makerere, Uganda,
tenet of 1961. According to the tenet, NSs of a language have a better
command of fluent, idiomatically correct language forms, are more
knowledgeable about the cultural nuances of the language, and are the
CHANGING FACES OF ENGLISH 485

final arbiters of “the acceptability of any given samples of the language”
(p. 194). This tenet has had a lasting effect on language teachers, whose
tendency is to render those who do not fit the presumed image of an NS
as NNSs.
The construction of the NNS has also been questioned by Liu (1999),
who cautions against defining an NS as someone with a specific national-
ity, cultural affiliation, ethnicity, or social identity. Findings from her
research suggest that, in employment decisions, such a view disfavors
competent English language teachers who do not fit the image. This
presumption, as well as the binary construct of NS/NNS, may also work
against anglophone Caribbean students now living in North America,
who identify themselves, at least publicly, as NSs of English.
The Anglophone Caribbean: A Special Case
The anglophone Caribbean might be characterized as a linguistic

contact zone from which local or “Creole languages emerged as a result
of European-controlled plantation systems’ bringing together Africans as
slaves and other ethnic groups from Asia and Europe as indentured
laborers” (Nero, 1997, p. 586). These languages comprise a combination
of the phonology, morphology, and syntax of West African and other
ethnic languages, with the largest contribution to the lexicon coming
from British English—hence the term Creole English. It is this partial
resemblance to a form of standard English, however, that has precluded
Creole Englishes from attaining structural autonomy, and the colonial
legacy in the Caribbean has allowed them to continue to be portrayed by
both their speakers and outsiders as deformed versions of standard
English. As Roberts (1988) notes,
the value system of colonial slave society created the belief that the Africans
had no language. This belief, with its total vacuum of knowledge on the
African side, left the West Indian with no alternative but to think of his
language negatively in terms of English; hence, the terms “broken English,”
“bad English,” etc. (p. 14)
Characteristics of CCE
Tables 1 and 2 summarize some of the main differences between CCE

and standard American English (SAE) in terms of pronunciation, syntax,
and vocabulary. (A full-scale comparison of the major features of the two
is beyond the scope of this article.) The features are adapted from the
work of Allsopp (1996), Rickford (1987), and Roberts (1988). Roberts
notes, for example, that the verb is the most central syntactic feature of
486 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 1
Pronunciation Features in Caribbean Creole English and Standard American English
Feature Caribbean Creole English Standard American English
Initial consonants (t) ting (th) thing

(tr) tree (thr) three
(d) dat (dh) that
(ky) kyaña (k) can’t
( )b ’ome (h) home
Final consonantsc (n) sometin’ (ng) something
(n) don’ (n’t) don’t
(s) bes’ (st) best
Vowels (ih) dih (e) the
(e) mek (a) make
(uh) yuh (oo) you
(a) bady (o) body
final (a) fadda (er) father
Source: Adapted from Allsopp (1996), Rickford (1987), and Roberts (1988), using a modifica-
tion of Rickford’s system for comparing CCE and SAE pronunciation features.
a
In CCE, palatalization—the insertion of the /y/ sound—often occurs between any of the
consonants /p, t, k, d, g/ and a following vowel, usually /a/. bPrimarily rural feature. cIn CCE,
consonant clusters are typically reduced.
Caribbean Creole English; that is to say, there is syntactic flexibility as to

what type of word can function as a verb. For example, in the sentence
That boy tief the books, the word tief (thief), normally a noun, functions as
a verb (meaning stole). Also, in CCE, adjectives are subcategories of verbs
(e.g., He rich), and CCE verbs are not subject to the rigid inflection rules
of SAE.
Actual language usage among anglophone Caribbean natives is more
complex than shown by the typical features in Tables 1 and 2, and is
reflected in the existence of a Creole continuum ranging from Creole (the
basilect) at one end, to Creole English (the mesolect) in the midrange, to
standard Caribbean English (the acrolect) at the other end, with no clear-
cut demarcation point between the two ends. For most of their day-to-day
communication and in informal domains, the vast majority of anglophone
Caribbean natives use some form of Creole English. However, because
standard English was imposed as the official language in the region
through British colonization, it is preferred and used in formal domains
such as school, church, business, government, and law. Furthermore,
one of the more vexing legacies of British colonization in the Caribbean
is the stigmatization of Creole English and the privileging of standard
English, creating what Winford (1994) describes as a tension between
public attitudes that elevate standard English over Creole English and
private attitudes that celebrate Creole English. The use of Creole English
and standard English, however, is not only attitudinal but related to

TABLE 2
Syntactic and Vocabulary Features of Caribbean Creole English (CCE) and
Standard American English (SAE)
Syntactic CCE feature CCE form Corresponding SAE form
Zero copula if predicate He strong He is strong

is an adjective
Zero inflection for She tell me everything She tells me everything
subject-verb agreement
Zero inflection for tensea Yesterday, I wash the clothes Yesterday, I washed the clothes
Zero use of passive Eggs selling today Eggs are being sold today
structure
Use of does (unstressed) He does go to church every week He goes to church every week
to indicate habitual action
with any person or numberb
Zero inflection for plurals My father work two job c My father works two jobs
if plurality already indicated
Zero marking for Paul house Paul’s house
possessiond
Vocabulary Item e Meaning in CCE Meaning in SAE
hand Part of the body from the Part of the body from the
shoulders to the fingers wrist to the fingers
foot Part of the body from the Part of the body from the
thigh to the toes ankle to the toes
tea Any hot beverage Specific beverage made from
(may include coffee) tea leaves
goblet Covered pitcher made of clay Drinking glass with a stem
in which water is kept cool and base.
a next Another (e.g., I want a next one) —f
Source: Adapted from Allsopp (1996), Rickford (1987), and Roberts (1988).
a
Tense is indicated by context. bPrimarily Guyanese feature. cIn this case two already signals more
than one; thus the standard English s is redundant. dPossession is shown by the juxtaposition of
possessor and possessed. eMany other false friends exist. fAnother would be used in place of this
form.
other factors such as social class, rural versus urban provenance, and
education. Rickford’s (1987) study of language patterns in Guyana, for
example, shows a strong correlation between rural provenance and
basilectal speech and, conversely, between urban provenance and
acrolectal speech or approximations thereof. Still, there is a fair amount
of bidirectional style shifting along the continuum as Caribbean natives
engage in acts of identity, revealing through their language both their
personal identity and their ethnic solidarity and difference (Le Page &
Tabouret-Keller, 1985).
488 TESOL QUARTERLY

Unlike Hindi, Yoruba, or other clearly defined ethnic languages that
coexist with English in former British colonies such as India or Nigeria,
CCE bears a sufficient resemblance to a standard form of English, as
shown in Table 2 above, that the similarities often mask the real
differences between the two. This phenomenon, combined with the fact
that Creole English is in constant interaction with standard Caribbean
English along the continuum, reinforces the English-speaking identifica-
tion in the Caribbean. Anglophone Caribbean natives therefore live and
migrate with the expectation that they will be perceived as English
speaking.
CCE in North American Classrooms
The large-scale migration of anglophone Caribbean natives to North

America, specifically to New York City, in the past two decades (see Table
3) has brought an influx of students from the region into U.S. schools
and colleges. Given that migration from the region, particularly from
Jamaica and Guyana, shows little sign of abating (Foner, 1987; Kasinitz,
1992; Palmer, 1995), English teachers are likely to encounter an increas-
ing number of these students in their classes.
Several studies of anglophone Caribbean students in North American
elementary and secondary schools (Anderson & Grant, 1987; Coelho,
1991; Pratt-Johnson, 1993; Solomon, 1992; Winer, 1993) have begun to
reveal the problems that these students face. The studies by Anderson
and Grant, Coelho, and Solomon showed that linguistic difficulties and
(mis)placement in ESL classes were two factors, among others, respon-
sible for the academic underachievement of anglophone Caribbean
students in Canadian schools (20% of ESL teachers reported having
anglophone Caribbean students in their classes). Coelho concluded, for
example, that Creole English speakers have different needs from ESL
students and from speakers of standard English. As reported by Coelho,
several Canadian schools now offer classes in standard English as a
second dialect to address the needs of Creole English speakers.
Pratt-Johnson’s (1993) study addressed the difficulties encountered by
poorly educated Jamaican Creole English-speaking students in New York
City public schools. She gave examples of many students who admitted
feeling threatened and intimidated in U.S. classrooms because of their
Jamaican accent. Likewise, she cited several teachers who expressed
frustration at not understanding Jamaican students and felt unprepared
to address their linguistic needs. Pratt-Johnson argued that placing such
students in special education or ESL classes, as has often been done, was
not the solution. Instead, she called for a specialized curriculum that
would focus on the linguistic features of Jamaican Creole English and
that would also include culturally relevant content.

TABLE 3
490
Estimated Percentage Distribution of Caribbean Immigrants in New York City, by Country of Birth and Borough of Residence, 1991
Borough of residence
Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island
Country of birth % No. % No. % No. % No. % No.
Cuba 16.3 6,161 12.6 4,763 37.2 14,062 33.7 12,739 0.2 76
Dominican Republic 17.3 125,183 17.3 125,183 50.6 366,142 14.7 106,369 0.1 724
Anguillaa 25.8 83 32.3 103 16.1 52 16.1 52 9.7 31
Antigua & Barbudaa 53.6 11,578 19.6 4,234 12.7 2,743 13.1 2,830 1.0 216
Aruba 5.4 22 59.5 238 21.6 86 10.8 43 2.7 11
Bahamasa 29.3 2,110 42.7 3,074 12.2 878 15.5 1,116 0.3 22
Barbadosa 7.3 2,759 75.5 28,539 5.8 2,192 10.8 4,082 0.6 227
British Virgin Islandsa 25.9 932 48.9 1,760 12.8 461 11.3 407 1.1 40
Cayman Islandsa 11.8 33 50.0 140 11.8 33 0.0 0 26.4 74
Dominicaa 32.0 1,152 30.4 1,094 13.8 497 23.2 835 0.6 22
Grenadaa 3.1 1,116 86.1 30,996 4.3 1,548 6.1 2,196 0.4 144
Guadeloupe 12.5 33 52.1 135 10.4 27 14.6 38 10.4 27
Guyanaa 21.0 24,192 54.0 62,208 20.0 23,040 4.8 5,530 0.2 230
Haiti 2.1 4,990 73.4 174,398 6.7 15,919 17.6 41,818 0.2 475
Jamaicaa 28.0 123,032 46.4 203,882 4.1 18,015 21.2 93,153 0.3 1,318
Martinique 15.0 102 45.0 306 12.5 85 27.5 187 0.0 0
Montserrata 49.3 887 25.6 460 11.3 203 12.3 221 1.5 27
Netherland Antilles 15.8 490 51.3 1,593 17.6 546 13.1 406 2.2 68
St. Kitts–Nevisa 45.2 3,526 30.1 2,348 10.8 842 12.4 967 1.5 117
St. Luciaa 18.3 1,501 67.4 5,527 4.9 402 8.0 730 0.5 41
St.Vincent & Grenadinesa 4.0 864 83.0 17,928 4.0 864 8.5 1,836 0.5 108
Trinidad & Tobagoa 8.4 7,711 65.2 59,854 7.0 6,426 18.4 16,891 1.0 918
Turks & Caicos Islandsa 37.5 90 43.8 105 0.0 0 18.8 45 0.0 0
U.S.Virgin Islandsa 0.0 0 33.3 40 0.0 0 33.3 40 33.3 40
All 17.7 318,547 40.5 728,908 25.3 455,063 16.3 292,531 0.3 4,956
TESOL QUARTERLY
Source: Caribbean Research Center, Medgar Evers College, Brooklyn, New York.
a
Anglophone Caribbean country.
Given the difficulties Caribbean students face in North American
educational systems and the challenge they pose for the construct of the
NS, their language and educational experience require further investiga-
tion. The present study adds to data that have been obtained in
elementary and secondary schools by investigating college-level anglo-
phone Caribbean students in three ways: (a) their linguistic self-percep-
tion, (b) their actual linguistic behavior inside and outside the academic
setting, and (c) the responses of educators to their language.2
CASE STUDIES
Setting
The study was conducted in the basic writing program at a large,
urban university in New York City between 1995 and 1997. The basic
writing program was a two-semester, 12-credit sequence (English 100 and
200) for students whose writing did not meet the standards for place-
ment in freshman composition. On successful completion of the writing
program, students moved on to freshman composition, a two-semester,
6-credit sequence (English 300 and 400) that focused on essay writing in
the first half and research writing in the second half.
Placement into the basic writing program was based on the results of
a 2-hour test that required students to write an essay in response to an
excerpted piece of literature. The program was divided into regular classes
(ostensibly for NSs of English or those whose writing did not exhibit so-
called ESL features) and ESL classes. The decision to place a student into
a regular or an ESL class (made by a committee of English department
faculty) was challenging because it was based on one sample of writing
taken under timed test conditions and was influenced by perceptions of
nativeness versus nonnativeness. Factors such as ESL features and
nonstandard English features came into play in determining placement
into ESL classes.
Participants
Four students (two from Guyana and two from Jamaica) were selected
from the university’s basic writing program to be participants. The
students were selected because they were all recent immigrants to New
York City; despite different socioeconomic and educational experiences
in their respective home countries, they were all placed into the basic
2
For a fuller discussion of this study, see Nero (2000).

writing program. The two Guyanese participants, Charles and Myrna,3
and one of the Jamaican participants, Nadine, were all placed into ESL
classes initially, although Myrna and Nadine subsequently transferred to
basic writing classes for NSs.
Charles and Myrna were both from rural, working-class backgrounds
and had migrated to New York City as teenagers. Charles was a basilect-
dominant speaker4 who had his primary education in a rural area in
Guyana and attended an alternative high school there. Myrna, a mesolect-
dominant speaker, attended a rural primary school and an urban
traditional high school in Guyana. The two Jamaican participants,
Nadine and Oscar, were both mesolectal to acrolectal speakers and came
from middle-class families. Nadine migrated to New York City at age 9
and attended high school there, whereas Oscar received his primary and
secondary education in prestigious urban schools in Jamaica. He mi-
grated to New York City at age 20.
Data Collection and Analysis

I tape-recorded and transcribed six interviews with the participants to
document their linguistic self-identification and their educational and
linguistic experiences in their home countries and in New York City (see
the Appendix for sample interview questions). I then selected, tran-
scribed, and analyzed excerpts from the participants’ responses in regard
to the following themes: (a) the participants’ linguistic identity and
perceptions of their language, (b) the participants’ early literacy prac-
tices at home and school both in their native countries and in New York
City, and (c) the participants’ reflections on their placement and college
writing. Next, I compared the excerpts to determine similarities and
differences across the participants with respect to each of the themes.
These excerpts were also used as a basis for comparing the participants’
perceptions of their speech and writing with their actual speech and
written language.
I also collected the participants’ college writing portfolios and re-
search papers over the course of 2 academic years and analyzed their
formal and informal writing for salient morphosyntactic and lexical
features. I was particularly interested in the patterns that emerged in the
students’ college writing, the degree to which these patterns might be
attributed to or influenced by Creole English, and the ways in which
teachers responded to their writing.
3
The names of all participants are pseudonyms.
4
Terms such as basilect-dominant or mesolect-dominant are broadly defined. They are attempts
to characterize the predominant speech patterns of the participants by placing them within a
range along the Creole continuum.
492 TESOL QUARTERLY

RESULTS
Results of the analysis indicated that anglophone Caribbean students

considered themselves to be NSs of English and were aware that their
vernacular was a stigmatized variety of the language, that their language
displayed typical characteristics of CCE speakers, and that teachers noted
but often did not help explain problems to these learners.
Linguistic Identity and Perceptions of Language
All of the participants identified themselves as speakers of English

(perhaps an imagined standard variety), at least in public domains,
although they noted that they also spoke what they called broken English,
patois, or Creolese (the Guyanese term for Creole English) in private or
informal domains. The fact that the students noted the difference
between their public and their private language meant that they were
aware that they were bidialectal, that their private language was different
enough from their public language to be stigmatized, and that being a
speaker of broken English was not an acceptable public linguistic
identity. This awareness is consistent with Winford’s (1994) description,
mentioned earlier, of the tension between public and private linguistic
identities among anglophone Caribbean natives. The following excerpt
from an interview with Oscar illustrates the point:
Most [Jamaican] people doesn’t have a problem writing English. The

problem comes in when it’s like tryin’ to speak straight English, like I’m
speaking to you now. I’m tryin’ to speak straight English . . . you’ll definitely
hear moments . . . you’ll hear “cuts” when I’m not all that fluent. (O, p. 10)5
Despite Oscar’s claim that many Jamaicans speak English, he suggests

that it is not necessarily “straight” (i.e, standard) and that it takes some
effort to speak for a sustained period in standard English without “cuts”
(i.e., slipping into Creole English). Two points can be inferred from
Oscar’s remarks: (a) He was aware of the difference between his own
speech and his perception of standard English; and (b) in the context of
my interview with him, he framed me as an outsider, although I was born
and raised in the anglophone Caribbean. In other words, my role as a
professor overshadowed my being Caribbean. Oscar therefore felt the
need to be formal with me by trying to speak what he called “straight
English.” In fact, a significant part of my interaction with the four
5
Each interview excerpt is identified by the first letter of the participant’s name followed by
the transcription page number from which the quotation was taken. Italics in interview excerpts
indicate spoken emphasis.

participants in the study was characterized by constant style shifting
between their attempts to be relaxed with me as a fellow Caribbean
person (hence their use of the vernacular) and an awareness of the
formality of speech required in an interview, particularly one taking
place in a school setting with a person perceived as their superior.
Myrna and Charles showed discrepancies between their linguistic self-
perception and their actual behavior. For example, Myrna claimed that
she made a conscious effort to modify her rural Guyanese accent towards
the prestigious urban variety (possibly an attempt to avoid the stigma of
a rural identity). However, one of the most pronounced features of her
speech was her dropping of word initial h, (e.g., saying, “We ’ad [had] to
take the assignment ’ome [home]” (M, p. 16), a highly stigmatized feature
of rural, basilectal speech. Myrna’s speech, not unlike many mesolect-
dominant speakers, showed the greatest range among the participants;
that is, her urban schooling pushed her in the direction of standard
English, but her rural upbringing was an equally strong force.
Charles, the participant with the lowest level of proficiency in standard
oral or written English, largely due to his minimal and ineffective
schooling, felt he had “no problem” (C, p. 7) with English. Yet Charles
repeated two of his four basic writing courses, one of them, to his
surprise, being my own ESL class.
Nadine, on the other hand, was fully aware of the inconsistencies
surrounding her home language. She noted, for example, that her
Creole English home language was forbidden at home. Recognizing the
paradox, she added, “Sometimes my mother doesn’t wanna hear it
[Creole English] but she speaks like that, too” (N, p. 8).
Literacy Practices and Schooling in the

Home Country and New York City
Charles
Charles, who grew up in a rural village in Guyana, told me that he did

very little reading and writing at home. He noted that reading was mainly
confined to the Bible: “My mother, she just get everybady to the Bible
stuff” (C, p. 22). After completing primary school, Charles attended a
community high school. In Guyana, students are assigned to such a high
school if their marks are low on a national entrance examination used as
the main criterion for placement into high school. Community high
schools such as the one Charles attended are nontraditional schools that
suffer from a serious lack of resources for curriculum, facilities, and
staffing; they often have poor attendance and a high dropout rate. In
fact, Charles admitted that he went to school only 1 day a week. The
494 TESOL QUARTERLY

conditions at such schools are usually not conducive to learning, as
Charles described:
Dih school was overcrowded. Dih majority o’ dih class couldn’t keep inside.
Dey had to keep outside on dih grass. Nobady was payin’ attention. Dey was
not a lot o’ chalkboard and books and dose t’ings. (C, p. 24)
Against this backdrop of poor schooling, Charles migrated to New York

City and continued his education at an equally overcrowded public high
school. When I asked him about his performance in his high school
English classes, he replied,
I neva really use to ’ave a problem wit’ English. Dey neva really use to do a lot
o’ writin’ in ’igh school . . . jus’ read a passage and fill in dih blank . . . not
much essay writin’. . . . Mos’ o’ dih work we did in class. It wasn’t a lot o’
writin’. (C, p. 27)
Charles’ comments are symptomatic of his literacy issues. He did not

perceive any problems with his writing precisely because he had had so
little practice with the process. He aptly summed up his high school
experience in New York City: “I get a high school diploma, but I don’ feel
like I earn it honestly, ’cause I really didn’t get nuttin’ from school” (C,
p. 35).
Myrna
Myrna, who also grew up in a rural area, attended traditional primary

and secondary schools in Guyana. She said that her English teachers
emphasized grammatical correctness in her writing and would correct
her “bad” (Creole) pronunciation whenever she read aloud in class. She
noted that, at first, she felt her speech influenced her writing, but once
she began high school, that was no longer the case. In high school in
Guyana, Myrna wrote short stories and poems, and she claimed she did
well on essays, finding them easier to write than essays in her New York
City high school. For one thing, “there were no drafts,” she emphasized,
“we just write it one time, hand it in, and that’s it” (M, p. 20). This
fundamental difference in approach to writing would become a chal-
lenge for Myrna in her New York City high school.
In New York City, Myrna stated, her teachers were impressed with her
writing and placed her in honors English. Yet she admitted having
difficulty with some writing assignments because her teachers kept
pushing her for more analysis and elaboration, writing practices that
were unfamiliar to Myrna. The result was her having to rewrite several
papers. Comparing her writing experiences in Guyana and New York
City, she stated,

Like back ’ome they give a subject, you ’ave to write on somet’ing . . . they just
kind o’ like look for the answer in the paper. But over ’ere it’s like more
proofreading, like it gotta be more descriptive, more substance, more
analysis, more examples. (M, p. 21)
Myrna also had a constant preoccupation with her grammar, feeling that
it was rather weak. This might have been a function of her early school-
ing experiences in Guyana, which emphasized grammatical correctness.
Nadine
Nadine, who spent only her primary school years in Jamaica, shared
with me her earliest recollections of reading in school, which were
pattern drills like “See Sally run” (N, p. 22). She remembered going to
the library and reading books with pictures or stories of Jamaica. She,
too, noted that writing was focused on prescriptive grammar exercises,
but she took pleasure in writing letters to her mother, who had migrated
to New York City. Once Nadine migrated there, she was placed into a
special accelerated program in high school that condensed the 4-year
high school sequence into 3 years. She described feeling “a lot of
pressure” (N, p. 25) in the program, adding that English class was an
unpleasant experience. She described writing in high school as essen-
tially a one-shot exercise. Only in her senior year was she introduced to
doing drafts as part of the writing process.
Oscar
Oscar was the only one of the four participants who was not a
permanent resident of the United States. He came to New York City to
attend college on an athletic scholarship. All of his primary and
secondary education took place in Jamaica. Oscar recalled that he had
begun reading and writing regularly at an early age at home, where he
grew up watching his parents and grandparents reading. He also
described positive experiences with writing in primary school:
My writin’ was good. You know we started out with basic writin’ like small
topics . . . you know the name of the school. I remember like composition
stuff . . . like it was based on the school and we had to tell the teacher about
that school . . . the name of the principal and all o’ dat. (O, p. 20)
Oscar noted that he had attended a very prestigious high school in

Jamaica, which stressed that students must speak and write “proper
English” (O, p. 21). Like Myrna, Oscar migrated to New York City with a
strong preoccupation with correctness in his writing.
496 TESOL QUARTERLY

Participants’ Reflections on Their Placement
and College Writing
Given the very different schooling experiences of the four partici-

pants, it is noteworthy that they all placed into basic writing for very
different reasons. Reflecting on their college writing experiences, the
participants shared their views about their placement and their perform-
ance in writing classes.
Charles’ poor writing skills, which were due to his lack of opportunity
for writing, clearly predisposed him to placement into the basic writing
program. He expressed surprise at being placed into an ESL class, for, as
he put it, such classes are meant for “dem students dat don’ speak
English” (C, p. 30). Charles did not seem to really understand the cause
or extent of his difficulties with academic writing. He only expressed
regret at not taking the advice of one of his writing instructors, who
suggested that he get a tutor: “Dih firs’ t’ing he [the instructor] tol’ me
say I gotta get a tutor . . . I brush it off . . . I neva really tek him on . . . I
wasn’t into it” (C, p. 30).
Myrna expressed surprise at being placed into the ESL component of
the basic writing program, particularly because she was in her high
school’s honors English class. She requested an immediate transfer to
the regular basic writing class, which was granted: “I was surprise to get
put in ESL. I t’ink dey make a mistake, so I ask to go to a regular class”
(M, p. 30). Myrna’s placement into basic writing might have been due to
her inability to give a critical-analytical response to a piece of literature,
which was required on the placement test. This inability brings to mind
her lament, quoted above, that her high school teachers had pushed her
for “more substance, more analysis.” Reflecting on four semesters in the
writing program, two in basic writing and two in freshman composition,
Myrna felt there was little difference in her writing:
You know I didn’t know why I do 100 and 200 and 300 and 400 ’cause it’s the
same t’ing. So I t’ink dey shoulda put me in 300 and 400 ’cause you know it’s
the same process o’ writin’ . . . maybe 400, the research paper, was okay ’cause
I never did dat before. (M, p. 33)
Myrna felt, however, that she had made some progress in analyzing texts,
quoting, and proofreading. She continued to be preoccupied with
grammar: “I always have to do work on my grammar . . . yeah, sometimes
I still write the way I speak” (M, p. 33).
Nadine said she was not surprised at her placement into basic writing,
although she was disturbed at being put in the ESL section: “I don’t do
well on those [placement] tests. I hate them. It’s a lot o’ pressure. But I
was upset that they put me in ESL, so I talk to the teacher and transferred

to the regular class” (N, p. 28). Nadine was perhaps the most successful
bidialectal speaker and writer of the four participants. In her English 200
class, she wrote a powerful autobiographical essay skillfully using CCE
and SAE, showing her mother’s resistance to her speaking CCE at home
and especially at school. Reflecting on her writing, the first area she
pointed to as a measure of her improvement was her subject-verb
concord: “You know like ‘the girls walk and a girl walks,’ yeah, I got that
together now” (N, p. 29). She noted that her introductions and transi-
tions had improved the most but that she still needed to work on making
sentences clearer.
Oscar was the only participant who was placed into the regular basic
writing class. Although Oscar said he was surprised at his placement, he
quickly explained it by saying that his writing was “not as in-depth as it
should be” (O, p. 25), which he believed may have accounted for his
placement. Because Oscar’s schooling in Jamaica emphasized correct-
ness, he often attended to form at the expense of developing content in
his writing. He particularly had trouble writing critical responses to
literature and research papers that required citing secondary sources:
You know just writin’ an essay on a particular topic I could just write, but when
she [the teacher] would ask us to base a question from the book and we were
to answer that question with reference to the book and all o’ dat, dat’s when
I sometimes fall into trap. (O, p. 27)
Still, Oscar felt that four semesters in the writing program did help
overall:
I found that I’ve been able to locate errors on things that never seemed
obvious to me when I was writin’ in 100. I’ve been taught how to look at things
like certain aspects of my writin’ on a deeper level. I’ve been able to expand
on things that I used to give skimpish details. I’ve been taught how to analyze
and bring out more meaning. (O, p. 31)
Student Writing and Teachers’ Responses
Analysis of the students’ writing showed a combination of CCE and

SAE forms depending on the writing assignment. The students’ written
narratives and dialogues tended to exhibit more CCE features, whereas
their essays and research papers showed more attempts at SAE. Teachers’
responses to the writing revealed a lack of awareness of CCE features.
498 TESOL QUARTERLY

CCE Features in the Students’ Writing
Most of the CCE morphosyntactic features of the participants’ writings

were related to the verb, illustrating Roberts’ (1988) point about the
centrality of the verb in CCE sentences. For example, Myrna wrote, “The
only time I write a paper is if it assign to the class” (M, p. 18). This
sentence would be acceptable in CCE; however, SAE would require the
verb assign to be in the passive voice and perhaps include a modal
auxiliary before the verb write (e.g., The only time I would write a paper is if
it were assigned to the class). Myrna’s teacher simply circled assign and wrote
the comment “verb form” next to it. The teacher’s assumption was that
Myrna would know how to correct the error.
The use of high-frequency verbs, such as does, done, been, and had, is
also different in CCE and SAE. For example, as noted in Table 2, in CCE
does is unstressed and used with the main verb to indicate habitual action;
it is also used for any person or number. Thus, Charles, having written in
one of his essays, “Students does go on like that” (C, p. 20), meaning
Students go on like that, was baffled when his writing instructor simply
crossed out the word does with no explanation of the error. The
instructor missed Charles’ intended meaning because she was obviously
reading the sentence with the standard English usage of does in mind. It
is usually stressed, used only for third-person singular, and used in
response to a contrary statement (e.g., He doesn’t have to go to work. Yes, he
does).
Nadine’s writing showed another type of verb-related error: She
tended to add the standard English past tense inflection only on the first
verb of sentences that included more than one verb, as in the following
examples taken from the same essay: (a) “Blake carried guns and threaten
other people”; (b) “He didn’t think it look provocative”; (c) “But he
realized that he scare other people” (N, p. 23). Given that Nadine
obviously knew the standard English past tense inflection, she probably
assumed that the past tense context was already established on the first
verb in her sentences; hence, there was no need to reiterate it on
subsequent verbs (consistent with Creole English discourse norms). At
any rate, her teacher’s response to these errors was simply to ask her to
be “consistent” with her verb tenses.
In terms of vocabulary, Nadine wrote in an autobiographical essay
about growing up in Jamaica and receiving “a next” [another] (N, p. 14)
letter from her mother, who lived in New York City. Nadine’s writing
instructor simply wrote the above a—a minor error from the teacher’s
perspective.

Academic Interlanguage
The degree to which the participants’ writing showed Creole English

influence was related to their educational experiences, the amount of
their exposure to school-based English, and the genre and nature of the
writing assignment. The participants often produced what I call an
academic interlanguage —a written form of English that reflects some
Creole English influence along with instances of overgeneralization of
standard English rules, inconsistent application of the rules of prescrip-
tive grammar, or both. The following excerpt from Charles’ writing is an
example of academic interlanguage. In this essay, Charles is comparing
his experience as a Guyanese immigrant in New York City with that of
Thomas (1967), whose memoir Down These Mean Streets describes his own
experience as a Puerto Rican immigrant:
My first experience was at school it was rough way to start school for a
stranger to this country. The reason is a youth from the carribbean
never has it easy because you are never welcome or an outcast to
everyone and everything. They feel that you come here to take
something away from them meaning the “bullies” in school. They
would start calling you names like, “hey banana boat boy why did you
come here why don’t you go back where you came from” so if the
name calling does not work they tend to find something else to do
with you.
For example, like one day while walking in the park a group of 1
boys come up to me and said where did you come from and my
answer was Guyana with taht answer they started a bunch of nonsense
that could make some one do something to them which you might
not be cut out to do. (C, p. 18) 5
In this essay, Charles’ writing can clearly be recognized as English, but

a unique kind of English marked by Creole and standard English
influence. For instance, in Line 4, “come” has zero inflection for past
10
tense; phrases like “they started a bunch of nonsense” (Line 12) give an
oral feel to the writing, consistent with the fact that Creole English is
essentially an oral form of expression. At the same time, Charles shows
an awareness of some prescriptive grammar rules although his applica- 14
tion of them may be inconsistent, as in his use of punctuation: “My”
(Line 1) and “Guyana” (Line 12) are capitalized; “carribbean” (Line 2) is
not. There are also several run-on sentences in this excerpt. Charles also
demonstrates awareness of the rule that pronouns must have a corre-
sponding referent; thus in Lines 5 and 8, “they” and “them” are
explained by the cataphoric reference “the ‘bullies’ in school.” The
pronouns “they” and “them” (suggesting a reference to Americans in this
context) also aptly characterize Charles’ sense of being the other as a
500 TESOL QUARTERLY

Caribbean immigrant student in his New York City high school or, as he
put it, an “outcast” (Line 3).
A college writing instructor might argue that Charles’ writing does not
fully satisfy the requirements for an edited piece of standard academic
writing. Although that may be true, it seems inappropriate to place
Charles in an ESL class. In his particular case, he found himself in an
ESL class with students who had very strong L1 literacies, further
highlighting his own shortcomings. The difficulties Charles encountered
had less to do with his unfamiliarity with English as a medium of
communication than with his poor formal schooling and his inexperi-
ence with academic writing.
An examination of the four participants’ linguistic identity, their
language, and their teachers’ responses indicates that their language
defies classification through a binary native/nonnative construct. In-
stead, it spans a continuum that includes both Creole and standard
English. One illustration is the excerpt from Oscar’s interview in which
he said “Most [Jamaica] people doesn’t . . .” and “The problem comes” in
two successive sentences (p. 13). He also said “tryin’” and “speaking” in
the same sentence. Myrna said “’ad” and “’ome” (p. 13) in the same
sentence but used very standard pronunciation (“proofreading,” “de-
scriptive,” “analysis,” p. 16) when describing the writing process. Charles’
writing sample, discussed above, showed CCE and SAE features as well.
IMPLICATIONS OF BIDIALECTALISM FOR SCHOOLING
One might draw some parallels between CCE and African American
Vernacular English (AAVE) in the United States. The linguistic and
educational issues in regard to AAVE speakers, whose speech and writing
include both AAVE and SAE features (Delpit, 1998), appear on the
surface to be similar enough to those of CCE speakers that students from
both groups might best be served by similar methods. In terms of
linguistic similarities, both AAVE and CCE have zero inflections for
subject-verb concord, tense, plural, and possessives, and both use zero
copula in sentences that include predicative adjectives. Consonant
cluster reduction is also common to both varieties. Research by Ball
(1992) shows that the academic writing of AAVE speakers exhibits many
of the same features as that of CCE speakers.
However, in looking to the pedagogy associated with language educa-
tion of AAVE speakers, one finds more controversies than solutions.
AAVE and CCE are equally stigmatized as language varieties spoken by
socially disfavored groups. In addition, there is a real fear among
members of the public and some educators that interference or negative
transfer from the vernacular could delay the acquisition of standard

English. Siegel (1999) notes that this fear stems from the behaviorist
point of view, prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s, which held that “the
main obstacle to learning was interference from prior knowledge. It was
thought that old habits from the L1 got in the way of attempts to learn
new habits in the target language” (p. 703). Thus, early approaches to
teaching bidialectal speakers were based on an eradicationist model,
espoused by educational psychologists such as Bereiter and Engelmann
(1966).
In recent times, however, various programs have adopted more
progressive approaches to teaching bidialectal speakers. Siegel (1999)
reviews three such programs: (a) instrumental programs, in which the
vernacular is used as a medium of instruction to teach initial literacy; (b)
accommodation programs, in which the vernacular is not used as a medium
of instruction but is accepted in the classroom; and (c) awareness
programs, in which the vernacular is the object of study in the context of
discussions of language diversity (p. 705). Although Siegel reports that
available studies show positive results in all of the above-mentioned
programs, awareness programs appear to have been particularly success-
ful for bidialectal speakers. One example is the DeKalb Bidialectal
Communication Program, which uses a contrastive approach to raise
students’ awareness of the differences between AAVE and SAE. Prelimi-
nary results show an improvement in verbal scores and greater progress
in reading since the beginning of the program (Harris-Wright, 1999).
Another example is the Caribbean Academic Program (CAP) for CCE-
speaking high school students in the United States, investigated by
Fischer (1992) and Menacker (1998). The CAP aims to raise students’
awareness of the differences between CCE and SAE, and both varieties
are used in the classroom for speaking, reading, and writing. At the high
school where the CAP is run, classes are divided into four levels based on
academic ability. Fischer noted that during the 1991–1992 school year,
73% of CAP students were in the lowest level, and none were in the two
highest. After 1 year in the program, only 7% remained in the lowest
level, 26% were in the two highest levels, and 81% had moved up at least
one level.
These programs show that both AAVE and CCE speakers are likely to
benefit from the incorporation of their language into the curriculum.
Educators who have a greater understanding of the students’ language
and culture would also help both groups. The need is particularly great
for CCE speakers, who are more likely to be (mis)placed into ESL classes
because their nonstandard language is coupled with their immigrant
status. The challenge, then, is to find the appropriate placement and
literacy instruction for bidialectal speakers. Solutions, which will ideally
remain on the agenda for TESOL professionals in the 21st century, will
need to entail specific classroom practices, restructured ESL/English
502 TESOL QUARTERLY

writing courses, general teacher education, and enlightened public
awareness.
Classroom Practices
Effective classroom practices require that teachers familiarize them-

selves with the linguistic, cultural, and educational background of their
students. One way to obtain this information is through student ques-
tionnaires filled out at the beginning of the semester. For example, a
questionnaire could have helped Charles’ teachers learn more about his
minimal writing experience in Guyana and New York City or about
Myrna’s and Oscar’s perceptions that good writing primarily meant
grammatically correct writing. Familiarization with the language and
culture of students should also serve to inform teachers in selecting and
using culturally relevant materials in their classes.
Some activities drawing on such materials are the following:
1. Have students read, write, and share stories in their home language
and standard English. Students from the community can be used as
experts on interpreting linguistic items and providing cultural
context for such texts. Nadine’s essay on the use of CCE and
standard English could serve as a model for other student-generated
texts on diverse varieties of English.
2. Read literature by community members who write both in the home
language and standard English. This helps students see their home
language as part of an integrated repertoire of language varieties or
choices.
3. Encourage dialogue writing and role playing using both the home
dialect and standard English as a way of teaching language variation
in different social contexts. Oscar’s tendency to use only standard
English forms might be addressed through role play that highlights
the pragmatics of language variation.
4. Have students do research projects on the community language.
Students can easily function as participant researchers in their own
work, thereby heightening linguistic and metalinguistic awareness. A
project on the home language might be one way to motivate students
like Oscar, who had difficulty doing research papers.
5. Use the discourse patterns found in students’ writings to discuss their
appropriateness for various genres and audiences and to compare
and contrast the rhetorical styles used in the home and school
cultures. (See Taylor, 1989, for a report of successful use of contras-
tive analysis with bidialectal speakers.)

6. Probe students for clarification whenever morphosyntactic or lexical
features in students’ speech or writing impede communication.
These instances can serve as opportunities to compare and contrast
features of CCE or AAVE with those of SAE. Had Charles’ writing
instructor been aware of the major syntactic features of CCE, she
might have been able to take advantage of his Creole English usage
of does as a teaching/learning moment, specifically to focus on
syntactic indicators of habitual action and the appropriate verb form
in standard English.
Deconstructing the ESL/English Dichotomy
Just as the NS/NNS dichotomy has been deconstructed through

examination of speakers of Englishes, so might the distinction between
ESL and English need to be reexamined. Students from the anglophone
Caribbean are not well served in ESL classes for two reasons (Nero,
1997):
1. Because they perceive themselves as speakers of English, they are less
motivated to frame themselves as learners of English under the
conditions of traditional ESL classes. Such students are surprised
and insulted at their placement in ESL classes (as expressed by
Charles, Myrna, and Nadine), which could lead to their resistance to
language learning. Peirce (1995) argues forcefully that a person’s
investment in learning a language is an investment in his or her own
evolving social identity, and to the extent that anglophone Carib-
bean students already identify with a variety of English, they are less
likely to make a deliberate investment in learning it as a separate
language.
2. Anglophone Caribbean students’ receptive knowledge of standard
oral and written English far exceeds that of many speakers of
languages other than English because of the constant interaction
between Creole and standard English along the Creole continuum.
Such students are best served in writing classes that attend to their
literacy needs and that highlight real differences between CCE and
SAE. In other words, they might benefit from judicious use of some
ESL approaches without being necessarily placed into an ESL class.
Teacher Education
Deconstructing the ESL/English dichotomy has implications for the

education of all teachers. Teacher education programs should include
504 TESOL QUARTERLY

courses in sociolinguistics that address language diversity and writing
instruction. Such courses should familiarize teachers with the linguistic
features of community languages as well as sensitize them to the history,
culture, and teaching and learning styles of language minorities.
Schools should provide funding for ongoing faculty development on
cultural and linguistic diversity, as these issues will continue to be of
major importance in the 21st-century classroom. Workshops, for ex-
ample, can provide a forum for exploring ways in which teachers might
use the actual language of students as a point of departure for writing
pedagogy instead of the language of an imagined NS. For example, a
teacher could use Myrna’s sentence, alluded to earlier, “The only time I
write a paper is if it assign to the class,” to begin a discussion of the
structure and functions of the passive voice. Charles’ essay describing his
first experience in a New York City high school included the sentence
“They started a bunch of nonsense that could make someone do
something to them which you might not be cut out to do.” The sentence
is somewhat vague to a reader who might not know what Charles meant
by “a bunch of nonsense.” It seems to be a rather oral expression, which
presumes shared knowledge with a listener. A writing teacher could use
this sentence to talk with Charles about the need for more verbal
explicitness in writing, because a reader has less information in common
with a writer than a listener does with a speaker. As an expansion activity,
Charles’ essay might serve as an entrée to a whole-class writing exercise
responding to a prompt such as Describe a situation where you did not feel
welcome. Such an exercise might build empathy for Charles’ situation and
could lead to broader discussion and essay topics, such as xenophobia.
Language Attitudes
Language attitudes are probably the most challenging area to address

because language attitudes toward particular groups, such as Caribbean
immigrants, are socially constructed, are a result of historical circum-
stances, and are often deeply guarded. Teachers often have negative
attitudes toward students who speak CCE or AAVE (Bowie & Bond,
1994), attitudes that may lead those teachers to expect little of such
students or to assign them inappropriately to learning-disabled, special
education, or, as was seen in this study, ESL classes.
Attitudes toward CCE or AAVE are not uniform, however. McGroarty
(1996) and Morgan (1994) have pointed out that many parents who
accept the use of the vernacular at home or in informal settings
vehemently oppose its use in school or in reading and writing. Nadine’s
essay about her mother’s resistance to the use of CCE is a case in point.
Many youth of all ages and races echo the negative attitudes of teachers,

parents, and the media toward AAVE, yet a large number of teenagers
use the vernacular as a rejection of mainstream White culture and of
school, which is perceived as reflecting mainstream culture and values.
Bereiter and Engelmann (1966), for example, decry the use of AAVE
structures by young children as evidence of cognitive deficits whereas
linguists such as Labov (1970) and Baugh (1988) offer persuasive
rebuttals. Smitherman (1986) characterizes this ambivalence toward
AAVE as part of a larger “push-pull” (p. 170) dynamic in African
American history. This dynamic is similar to the tension of public versus
private linguistic identity in the Caribbean community.
In language classes, teachers might begin to address these issues by
encouraging and facilitating honest, meaningful dialogue on language
difference and language attitudes, focusing particularly on the history,
range, and complexity of attitudes in regard to different varieties of
English and their effects on education and the wider culture. Such
dialogues might cover topics such as language and power, the tension
between public and private linguistic identities as raised in this article,
and the binary construct of NS/NNS and its implications for language
teaching and learning.
CONCLUSION
The global spread of English is likely to continue well into the 21st
century, thereby creating more diverse varieties of the language that will
continue to erode the notion of an ideal English or an ideal NS. For
teachers in North America, CCE is the variety they are most likely to
encounter after AAVE because of ongoing migration from the anglophone
Caribbean. This study should enhance understanding of CCE and its
speakers and serve as a point of departure for addressing the literacy
needs of CCE and other bidialectal students. At the same time, it should
add to the growing literature that questions the basis upon which
nativeness to English is determined.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank St. John’s University’s School of Education for a summer research grant to
support the completion of this article. I owe a tremendous debt to the four student
participants in this study, without whom it would not have been possible. This article
has benefited greatly from the comments of Louis Parascandola, Carol Chapelle, and
the anonymous reviewers.
506 TESOL QUARTERLY

THE AUTHOR
Shondel J. Nero is an assistant professor of TESOL at St. John’s University. Her
teaching and research interests include ESL, standard English as a second dialect,
teacher education, linguistics, sociolinguistics, and Caribbean Creole English. Her
work on teaching standard English to Caribbean Creole English speakers has
appeared in TESOL Quarterly and TESOL Journal. She is the author of Englishes in
Contact: Anglophone Caribbean Students in an Urban College (Hampton Press, 2000).
REFERENCES
Allsopp, R. (1996). Dictionary of Caribbean English usage. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Anderson, W., & Grant, R. (1987). The new newcomers. Toronto, Canada: Canadian
Scholars Press.
Ball, A. (1992). Cultural preference and the expository writing of African-American
adolescents. Written Communication, 9, 501–532.
Baugh, J. (1988). Design and implementation of language arts programs for speakers
of nonstandard English. In B. Cronell (Ed.), Perspectives from a national neighbor-
hood literacy program: The linguistic needs of linguistically different children (pp. 17–43).
Los Alamitos, CA: South West Regional Laboratory.
Bereiter, C., & Engelmann, S. (1966). Teaching disadvantaged children in the preschool.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bowie, R. L., & Bond, C. L. (1994). Influencing teachers’ attitudes toward Black
English: Are we making a difference? Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 112–118.
Canagarajah, A. (1999). Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Non-linguistic
roots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English
language teaching (pp. 77–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coelho, E. (1991). Caribbean students in Canadian schools, Book II. Toronto, Canada:
Pippin.
Davies, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh, Scotland:
Edinburgh University Press.
Delpit, L. (1998). What should teachers do? Ebonics and culturally responsive
instruction. In T. Perry & L. Delpit (Eds.), The real Ebonics debate: Power, language
and the education of African-American children (pp. 17–26). Boston: Beacon Press.
Ferguson, C. (1992). Foreword. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across
cultures (2nd ed., pp. xiii–xvii). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Fischer, K. (1992). Educating speakers of Caribbean English in the United States. In
J. Siegel (Ed.), Pidgins, creoles, and nonstandard dialects in education (pp. 99–123).
Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.
Foner, N. (1987). Introduction: New immigrants and changing patterns in New York
City. In N. Foner (Ed.), New immigrants in New York (pp. 1–33). New York:
Columbia University Press.
Harris-Wright, K. (1999). Enhancing bidialectalism in urban African American
students. In C. T. Adger, D. Christian, & O. Taylor (Eds.), Making the connection:
Language and academic achievement among African American students: Proceedings of a
conference of the Coalition on Diversity in Education (pp. 53–60). McHenry, IL: Center
for Applied Linguistics/Delta Systems.
Kachru, B. (1977). The new Englishes and the old models. English Teaching Forum, 15,
29–35.
Kachru, B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of nonnative
Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Kachru, B. (1992). Teaching World Englishes. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue:
English across cultures (2nd ed., pp. 355–365). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, Y. (1994). Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 795–800.
Kasinitz, P. (1992). Caribbean New York: Black immigrants and the politics of race. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1997). The privilege of the nonnative speaker. PMLA, 112, 359–369.
Labov, W. (1970). The logic of nonstandard English. In F. Williams (Ed.), Language
and poverty: Perspectives on a theme (pp. 153–189). Chicago: Markham.
Le Page, R., & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole based approaches to
language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leung, C., Harris, R., & Rampton, B. (1997). The idealised native speaker, reified
ethnicities, and classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 543–560.
Liu, J. (1999). Nonnative-English-speaking professionals in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
33, 85–102.
McGroarty, M. (1996). Language attitudes, motivation and standards. In S. L. McKay
& N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 3–46). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Menacker, T. (1998). A visit to CAP. Pidgins and Creoles in Education (PACE) Newsletter,
9, 3–4.
Morgan, M. (1994). Introduction. In M. Morgan (Ed.), Language and the social
construction of identity in creole situations (pp. 1–6). Los Angeles: University of
California, Center for Afro-American Studies.
Morris, M. (1993). Is English we speaking. English Today, 36(9), 18–26.
Nayar, P. (1994). Whose English is it? TESL-EJ, 1(1), F-1. Retrieved November 6,
1999, from the World Wide Web: http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/
ej01/f.1.html.
Nero, S. (1997). English is my native language . . . or so I believe. TESOL Quarterly, 31,
585–593.
Nero, S. (2000). Englishes in contact: Anglophone Caribbean students in an urban college.
Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Paikeday, T. (1985). The native speaker is dead! Toronto, Canada: Paikeday.
Palmer, R. (1995). Pilgrims from the sun: West Indian migration to America. New York:
Twayne.
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language.
London: Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pratt-Johnson, Y. (1993). Curriculum for Jamaican Creole-speaking students in New
York City. World Englishes, 12, 257–264.
Rampton, B. (1990). Displacing the “native speaker”: Expertise, affiliation and
inheritance. ELT Journal, 44, 97–101.
Rickford, J. (1987). Dimensions of a Creole continuum. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Roberts, P. (1988). West Indians and their language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Siegel, J. (1999). Stigmatized and standardized varieties in the classroom: Interfer-
ence or separation? TESOL Quarterly, 33, 701–728.
Smitherman, G. (1986). Talkin and testifyin: The language of Black America. Detroit, MI:
Wayne State University Press. (Original work published 1977)
Solomon, R. P. (1992). Black resistance in high school: Forging a separatist culture. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
508 TESOL QUARTERLY

Sridhar, S. (1994). A reality check for SLA theories. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 800–805.
Taylor, H. (1989). Standard English, Black English, and bidialectalism. New York: Peter
Lang.
Thomas, P. (1967). Down these mean streets. New York: Knopf.
Widdowson, H.G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 377–392.
Winer, L. (1993). Teaching speakers of Caribbean English Creoles in North
American classrooms. In A. W. Glowka & D. Lance (Eds.), Language variation in
North American English (pp. 191–198). New York: Modern Language Association.
Winford, D. (1994). Sociolinguistic approaches to language use in the anglophone
Caribbean. In M. Morgan (Ed.), Language and the social construction of identity in
creole situations (pp. 43–62). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Afro-
American Studies.
APPENDIX A
Sample Interview questions
A: Biographical
1. What is your date and place of birth?
2. Where did you grow up? Was it an urban or rural area?
3. Describe your family—e.g., number of siblings, occupation of parents.
4. When did you migrate to the United States? Who sponsored you?
5. How old were you when you migrated?
B: Formal Education
(inyour country)
1. What was the highest level of schooling attained in your country?
2. Did you attend urban or rural schools?
3. Were they traditional/academic or vocational schools?
(inNew York City)
4. Did you attend elementary, middle or high school in New York City? If answer is yes, give
name and location of school.
5. In what grade were you placed on entering school in New York City?
6. Do you have a regular high school diploma or high school equivalency diploma (GED)?
Give year diploma was granted.
7. When did you start attending LIU?
C: Linguistic Identification, Spoken Language, and Writing

(in your country)
1. How would you identify your language or the language spoken in your home?
2. How would you characterize the attitude towards your home language in school? in the
community?
3. What are your earliest recollections of reading/writing at home and school?
(in New York City)
4. How did administrators and teachers respond to your speech and writing when you first
entered school in New York City?
5. Were you ever placed in an ESL, remedial or special education class because of your
language? Describe the experience.
6. How did other students react to your speech initially?
7. Describe any changes you have noticed in teachers’ and students’ attitudes and responses
to your speech and writing. Explain.

8. Describe any changes you have noticed in your own speech and writing since migrating to
New York City.
9. What kinds of texts did you read/write in high school?
10. How do you feel about your writing at LIU? How has it changed since being in the writing
program?
11. Which writing assignments are the most challenging for you?
12. What kinds of writing do you do best and why?
510 TESOL QUARTERLY

The Changing Global Economy and the
Future of English Teaching
MARK WARSCHAUER
America-Mideast Educational & Training Services
Cairo, Egypt
This article analyzes the emergence of a new stage of global capitalism,

called informationalism, and its consequences for English language
teaching, focusing on three critical issues. First, globalization will result
in the further spread of English as an international language and a shift
of authority to nonnative speakers and dialects. This change will call
into question basic notions of language, culture, context, and the
relationship between ESL and EFL. Second, economic and employ-
ment trends will change the way English is used. Increasingly, nonnative
speakers will need to use the language daily for presentation of complex
ideas, international collaboration and negotiation, and location and
critical interpretation of rapidly changing information. Finally, new
information technologies will transform notions of literacy, making on-
line navigation and research, interpretation and authoring of
hypermedia, and synchronous and asynchronous on-line communica-
tion critical skills for learners of English. The above changes, taken
together, will render ineffective curricula based strictly on syntactic or
functional elements or narrowly defined tasks. Rather, project-based
learning—incorporating situated practice and critical inquiry, and
based on students’ own cultural frameworks—will be required if stu-
dents are to master the complex English literacy and communications
skills required by the emerging informational economy and society.
W ith the fast-paced changes brought about by globalization and

technological development, TESOL professionals need to under-
stand current socioeconomic factors and their influence on English
language teaching (ELT). The industrial societies of the past are giving
way to a new postindustrial economic order based on globalized manu-
facturing and distribution; flexible, customized production; the applica-
tion of science, technology, and information management as the key
elements of productivity and economy growth; and increased inequality
between those who control technological and media resources and those
who lack technological access and know-how (Carnoy, Castells, Cohen, &

Cardoso, 1993). This new global economic order, termed informationalism
by Castells (1996), first emerged in the 1970s following advances in
computing technology and telecommunications.
Informationalism has given rise to economic, social, and cultural
dynamics that are very different from those of the industrial area and
that are shaped by an overriding contradiction between the power of
global networks and the struggle for local identity (Barber, 1995;
Castells, 1996; Friedman, 1999). Simply put, people’s lives are increas-
ingly affected by international networks, operating via financial markets,
transnational corporations, and the Internet, that impinge on traditional
seats of authority and meaning, such as family, patriarchy, and nation. In
response to the increased power of global networks, people—as individu-
als and in collectives—struggle to assert control over their identity and
defend what they see as essential to that identity.
Although informationalism is still in its infancy, it has already had an
important impact on the field of TESOL. One of its consequences is the
dominance of the communicative approach within the field of ELT (at
least in theory, if not in practice). The increased global contact brought
about in the new networked society—through international tourism,
business, scientific exchange, and media—places a premium on the
ability to communicate in a lingua franca. The emphasis in the commu-
nicative approach on functional interaction rather than on the achieve-
ment of nativelike perfection corresponds to the imperatives of the new
society, in which English is shared among many groups of nonnative
speakers rather than dominated by the British or Americans. This trend
toward multinational integration, in which English is used as an addi-
tional language, has developed the furthest and fastest in Europe, so it is
not surprising that the shift toward communicative language teaching
arose the earliest and most prominently in Europe (see, e.g., Council for
Cultural Co-operation of the Council of Europe, 1975). As this new stage
of global capitalism expands and develops, the ELT profession will face
new challenges. In the 21st century, three consequences of informa-
tionalism are likely to affect ELT: (a) the growth of global Englishes, (b)
changing employment patterns, and (c) the development and spread of
technology.
GLOBAL ENGLISHES
Globalization is unfolding in a two-stage manner. In the first stage,

global media and businesses extend their reach into new domains
throughout the world. In a second stage, these same businesses and
media are relocalized in order to best meet the economic and social
imperatives of functioning in different regions of the world (see the
512 TESOL QUARTERLY

discussion in Graddol, 1997). An example of this phenomenon is seen in
the global spread of the music television network MTV, which first
broadcast a single version internationally but now is increasingly devel-
oping regional versions in a variety of languages and dialects. As Castells
(1996) put it, “We are not living in a global village, but in customized
cottages globally produced and locally distributed” (p. 341).
Just as businesses and media have experienced globalization and
relocalization, so has the English language. The past few decades have
seen a growth in the role of English around the world as the lingua
franca for economic and scientific exchange. According to information
gathered by Crystal (1997), 85% of international organizations in the
world make official use of English, at least 85% of the world’s film market
is in English, and some 90% of published articles in some academic
fields, such as linguistics, are written in English.
But the very growth of English has shifted the balance of forces within
it, with L2 speakers by some accounts now outnumbering L1 speakers
(Crystal, 1997). This explains in part the shift to a communicative
approach in ELT mentioned above: It would be rather odd to insist that
all learners adapt to a British or North American model when L2
speakers increasingly use English to speak to other L2 speakers rather
than to native speakers of the language. At the same time, the impera-
tives of international communication demand that some level of mutual
intelligibility be upheld.
Global Networks Versus Local Identity
This situation, then, is the linguistic equivalent of the more general

dynamic mentioned above: the struggle between global networks and
local identity. Increasing numbers of people around the world turn to
English as a requirement of international communication, but in order
to project their identity and values, they emphasize their own local
variety of English rather than submit to colonial standardized norms.
This is true in many countries, such as Singapore, Malaysia, Nigeria, and
the Philippines, where English is spoken as a L2, that is, as an additional
language of communication among citizens of the country. Perhaps most
interestingly, a rejection of Anglo-American English is also emerging in
what have traditionally been thought of as expanding circle countries (i.e.,
where English is spoken as a foreign language rather than as an L1 or L2;
see Kachru, 1986) as they become integrated into regions where English
is an L2. When I taught English in the Czech Republic in 1992, one of my
university students complained about having to learn U.S. styles of polite
language use (e.g., I hope you don’t mind my asking, but I wonder if . . .; see
Jones & von Baeyer, 1983, p. 17), telling me that she seldom spoke
CHANGING GLOBAL ECONOMY AND FUTURE OF ENGLISH TEACHING 513

English to Americans or even to people from Britain but rather spoke it
to German, Italian, and French people. Similarly, Crystal (1999) reports
on the emergence of a Euro-English not only with its own lexical patterns
but also with a more syllable-based intonation pattern (as opposed to the
stress-based intonation patterns of British and American English). And
where I worked in Cairo, Egyptian colleagues regularly revised the
English-language written correspondence of Americans to help ensure
that it met the standards of pragmatics and politeness of English
language communication in Egypt, even if that communication was
directed from one American to another.
Implications for English Language Educators
The growing prominence of regional and local varieties of English has

several implications for English teaching in the 21st century.
Language and Culture
First, English teachers will need to reconceptualize how they conceive

of the link between language and culture. As a Taiwanese educator
proclaimed at a conference of English teachers in Taipei in 1997,
Why is it that our students learn in their English classes to talk about the
British parliament but not about our local government institutions? Why do
they learn to talk about British media and cultural artifacts, but not about
Chinese forms of media and cultural expression? (quoted in Warschauer, in
press-a)
Culture remains an integral part of language learning, but the

approach toward culture must become multifaceted, taking into account
the diverse cultures of the many people who speak English around the
world. There is no single formula for how to handle issues of culture in
teaching. Teachers will need to vary their approach depending on the
particular audiences being taught and their purposes in learning English.
Respect for Bidialectalism and Multidialectalism
The growing role of different varieties of English will also necessitate

a new respect for bidialectalism and multidialectalism, again taking into
account the needs of the learners. Japanese university students prepar-
ing to take the Test of English as a Foreign Language will need and want
to study standard American English. But primary students in Calcutta,
secondary students in Hong Kong, and adult workers in Dubai may all
514 TESOL QUARTERLY

need to master more than one dialect. Multidialectalism will be espe-
cially important for receptive communication (see Crystal, 1999) but
occasionally may be needed for language production as well. Even native
speakers may need to learn new dialects, not only to fully understand
what people are saying in different parts of the world, but also to
communicate effectively in international settings where the use of North
American, British, or Australian colloquialisms may be inappropriate.
“Correct” Language
This change in the role of different varieties of English will affect the
way teachers think about syntactical, lexical, and phonetic standards and
the great importance placed on use of “correct” language. In the 21st
century, speakers of English may increasingly need to diverge from what
they have been taught is correct in order to make themselves understood
to interlocutors from around the world. In such circumstances, narrow
emphases on the observance of decontextualized rules will serve learners
poorly.
In summary, in the 21st century there will be a growing basis for
learners around the world to view English as their own language of
additional communication rather than as a foreign language controlled
by the “Other.” Teachers would do well to exploit this situation by
creating opportunities for communication based on the values, cultural
norms, and needs of learners rather than on the syllabi and texts
developed in England and the United States.
The Spread of English: Good, Bad, or Neutral?
English language educators must also come to grips with the social,
economic, cultural, and linguistic consequences of the global spread of
English. There has been much debate about the desirability and impact
of this phenomenon (recent examples include Berns et al., 1998, 1999;
Crystal, 1999, 2000; Pakir, 1999; Phillipson, 1999a, 1999b). The spread of
English has its strong critics, such as Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas
(1996), who view global English as a medium for linguistic imperialism
(Phillipson, 1992) or even genocide (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1999). Others,
such as Crystal (1999), take a more balanced view, pointing out the
advantages of a lingua franca while also expressing concern about
linguistic diversity.
My own view, paraphrasing Kranzberg’s (1985) first law of technology,
is that English is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral. To declare that
English is unequivocally harmful or beneficial is to deny the human
agency that shapes how English is used in different circumstances.

However, it would also be naive to think that English is a completely
neutral tool without weight of its own. Rather, as Pennycook (1995)
points out, English carries a set of ideologies, values, and norms based on
the history of its development and use. The spread of English thus
privileges certain groups of people (including native speakers and
nonnative elites who have the opportunity to master it) and may harm
others who have less opportunity to learn it. The spread of English can
also be one of many factors contributing to the tragic loss of indigenous
languages around the world (Phillipson, 1992). But it can also be
deployed as a weapon of the dispossessed, as occurred in the South
African liberation struggle (Peirce, 1989). This notion of the colonized
using English to their own ends was expressed well by a Singaporean
student in a discussion on Phillipson’s notion of linguistic imperialism:
Although it was definitely unpleasant to be colonized by another country, I

have to say that the British in one way or another paved the way for the
development of Singapore and have educated us in English and have enabled
us to benefit from all its advantages and its standing as a global language.
However, we have not by any means lost our cultural heritage. Multilingual-
ism is prevalent and we are rich in the use of different languages and dialects,
which we speak and use whenever the situation calls for it . . . .
One thing I would like to clarify is that we do not view and value the
language in a mercenary sense—we have gone way beyond that. We study and
use the language because it has developed into a language of our own that is
used comfortably among ourselves. (quoted in Berns et al., 1998, p. 278)
Singapore’s successful adoption of English as a medium of communi-

cation in a multilingual society is not necessarily the norm; English has
played a more divisive role in countries such as India and the Philip-
pines. And even in Singapore, struggle continues over which variety of
English will predominate: the highly colloquial version known as Singlish
or the more formalized version, closer to international varieties, known
as Standard Singaporean English (see Pakir, 1997). In Singapore, as
elsewhere, the continued use and spread of English—and whom it
benefits and whom it harms—will be a site of ongoing struggle.
English language educators can lend their support to those working
for worldwide language ecology (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996) by
providing linguistic and pedagogical respect for a range of English
dialects; by offering professional and human support for the mainte-
nance and use of other languages besides English; and by introducing
critical language awareness into the curriculum so that students can
better understand the interrelationship of language, discourse, and
power (Fairclough, 1999; Morgan, 1995). These efforts will be enhanced
by the increased respect and support given to the role of nonnative-
speaking ELT professionals, and it is welcome and timely that there is a
516 TESOL QUARTERLY

growing level of organization (e.g., the TESOL association’s recently
formed Nonnative English Speakers in TESOL Caucus) and research on
this issue (e.g., Braine, 1999).
EMPLOYMENT
A second major way that informationalism will affect ELT in the 21st
century relates to trends in employment. Simply put, the jobs that
existed in the industrial era are disappearing and are being replaced by
new types of job and work requirements.
Redefined Employment Categories
By 1990, fully 47.4% of the employed population in the United States,

45.8% in the United Kingdom, 45.1% in France, and 40.0% in West
Germany was involved in information-processing activities, and the
proportion is continually rising (Castells, 1993). Many developing coun-
tries are also experiencing growth in information-based employment, as
witnessed by the growth of information technology industries in coun-
tries as diverse as India and Egypt.
These demographics are based on both a shift from manufacturing to
service industries and a shift within manufacturing and service toward
jobs that require information-processing and analytic skills rather than
brute force (Castells, 1996). Thus even in countries where manufactur-
ing industries are growing, the nature of manufacturing is changing. The
new forms of manufacturing and service that are arising depend on
careful application of science and technology; customized production,
marketing, and distribution; access to real-time, networked information;
and a high level of national and international communication among
teams (Carnoy et al., 1993).
According to Reich (1991), the categorization of employees into blue-
collar factory workers and white-collar office workers is no longer
meaningful. Rather, employees in the United States and other developed
countries now fall overwhelmingly into one of three categories:
1. Routine-production service workers include factory workers but also
routine information workers, such as data processors and payroll
clerks.
2. In-person service workers include workers such as janitors, hospital
attendants, and taxi drivers.
3. Symbolic analysts, as Reich calls them, spend much of their time
analyzing symbol-based (numerical and textual) information. These

workers include software engineers, management consultants, strate-
gic planners, lawyers, real estate developers, and research scientists.
(Reich offered no opinion as to where teachers fall in this hierarchy, but
he did suggest that university professors are symbolic analysts. As is
discussed below in the section on distance education, I believe that
educators, including those at the university level, face the threat of
having their work “de-skilled” and shifted into the service categories.)
The number of symbolic analysts is rising in developed countries,
though how quickly is disputed (see, e.g., Apple, 1996). What is undis-
puted, though, is that income, status, and career opportunities are rising
for symbolic analysts but are falling for the other two categories of
employees. It is also recognized that symbolic analysts play a critical role
in helping societies compete in the international economy (Castells,
1996). Their role is thus especially important in developing countries
even though their number might be smaller. In many developing
countries, academic secondary and tertiary education is geared princi-
pally to a relatively small elite in preparation for careers as symbolic
analysts.
Thus new work skills of symbolic analysis are emerging as crucial for
success in the 21st century. These skills include critical analysis, evalua-
tion, experimentation, collaboration, communication, abstraction, sys-
tem thinking, and persuasion (Reich, 1991). And, as a result of globaliza-
tion, these skills are increasingly applied in English language contexts.
Not only U.S. and British firms but also many other transnational firms
based in Europe and Asia use English for international communication
and even for national communication. Thus Swedes working for the
high-tech Swedish firm Ericsson communicate with other Swedes using
English, which is the company’s language of communication (Azzam
Premji, personal communication, November 2, 1998; see also Hollqvist,
1984). And growing numbers of symbolic analysts use English daily to
gather information or communicate with colleagues on the Internet.
Implications for English Language Educators

What do these trends in employment mean for ELT? First, as already
mentioned, they underscore the role of English as an international
language for global communication. Secondly, they signal a change in
the types of communication required in English. A large and increasing
number of people, even if they never set foot in an English-speaking
country, will be required to use English in highly sophisticated communi-
cation and collaboration with people around the world. They will need
to be able to write persuasively, critically interpret and analyze informa-
tion, and carry out complex negotiations and collaboration in English.
518 TESOL QUARTERLY

Apparently, the need for highly advanced communication skills in
English is also shaping adult education in the United States. Recently,
ESL surpassed Spanish as the main language taught at U.S. branches of
Berlitz (Rosen, 1999). The expensive Berlitz courses are not taken by
immigrant workers, who are the main clientele of adult government-
funded ESL programs in the United States. Rather, the enrollees are
foreign executives, managers, and scientists working in the United
States, who can usually communicate on a functional basis without
problem but now find that they need more sophisticated communication
skills to carry out their work.
It is because of the needs of symbolic analysts that many countries
have been trying to increase “thinking skills” in their education (see the
discussion in Warschauer, in press-b). But, as Fairclough (1999) points
out, it is perhaps more useful “to conceive of teaching people to think
[than] teaching people to argue” (p. 78), in other words, of equipping
them with the skills to communicate clearly and forcefully enough to
convince others of their views. Sophisticated skills of argumentation and
persuasion may not readily emerge from the syntactic syllabi or basic
functional syllabi evident in most English classes. Instead, teachers will
have to find new, project-based approaches that give students the
opportunity to learn and practice the kinds of analytic problem solving
and argumentation that they will need in English if they are to compete
for the better jobs in society.
Beyond the situation of symbolic analysts is that of the much larger
group of employees in in-person service and routine production work.
Their needs for English will vary greatly depending on local circum-
stances. As a result of increased tourism, international business travel,
and the use of telecommunications to farm out routine work (i.e., U.S.
firms sending data-processing jobs to the Caribbean or South Asia),
there will be an increasing need for English among workers in these
sectors as well. However, the types of English required are far more
restricted than those for symbolic analysts. One probable outcome is the
growth of the English for occupational purposes (EOP) industry, a
branch of English for specific purposes dedicated to the needs of
particular vocational groups. EOP courses will focus on basic conversa-
tion skills for hotel workers, basic reading skills for certain factory
workers, and business writing skills for secretaries. These kinds of skills
will also increasingly be incorporated into vocational secondary schools
that train such workers and be offered by employers at work sites.
It may seem unpleasant to ponder a future world of English teaching
in which a privileged group of students learns how to critique literature
and produce sophisticated multimedia reports while the bulk of students
focus on narrow vocational skills, but that is the unequal state of
education in the informational era. For example, as Tollefson (1986,

1995) has pointed out, functional English programs for Indochinese
refugees traveling to the United States in the 1980s were in part designed
to prepare them for menial jobs. English language educators need to be
aware of this inequality and to consider how to challenge it by promoting
curricula that allow all learners of English the opportunity to think
critically about their environment and express their own identity and
views. Although much has been written about empowering teaching
approaches in community ESL courses (Auerbach, 1995; Morgan, 1998),
less has been said about the possibilities of such critical approaches in
occupational programs, either in vocational schools or at work sites. This
issue will be important for ESOL educators concerned with critical
pedagogy in the new century.
TECHNOLOGY
The final consequence of informationalism, and the one that under-

lies all the other changes discussed in this article, is the development and
spread of information and communications technology (ICT). The
rapid development and diffusion of ICT is both a contributor to and a
result of the broader socioeconomic changes discussed in this article,
and it affects the entire context and ecology of language teaching today.
In this section, I address three important ICT issues for educators:
technology and literacy, the digital divide, and distance education.
Technology and Literacy
In 1998, 3.4 trillion e-mail messages, or more than 10,000 for every
man, woman, and child, were sent in the United States alone (eMarketer,
1999). According to one study, e-mail has begun to surpass face-to-face
and telephone communication as a frequent means of business commu-
nication (American Management Association International, 1998). More
than 95% of university students in the United States use the Internet to
conduct research, search for jobs, and stay in touch with friends
(Diederich, 1998).
Although the United States has been a world leader in Internet use,
other industrialized countries are catching up. And the fastest growth on
the Internet is occurring in the emerging economies of Asia, the Middle
East, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. According to one estimate,
China will have more Internet users than the United States by the year
2010 (“Chinese Users to Outnumber US Users,” 1999). When the
Internet first emerged, the early tendency among ESOL educators was to
see how it could be employed as a tool for helping teach English (see
520 TESOL QUARTERLY

Warschauer, 1995). This is in line with traditional approaches to com-
puter-assisted language learning, which see the computer as an optional
tool among many to be exploited for language learning purposes. Today,
however, the significance of information technology for language use
and learning must be seen as broader. Simply put, information technol-
ogy is rapidly posing itself as the medium of a fourth revolution in
human communication and cognition, matched in significance only by
the prior three revolutions of language, writing, and print (Harnad,
1991). Information technology will affect how people interact, access
information, and share information as greatly as did the Gutenberg
revolution 500 years ago. What is more, the impact will occur much more
quickly. The full impact of the invention of printing had to await the
conclusion of the Industrial Revolution several hundred years later. In
contrast, modern information technology is developing simultaneously
with informationalism and globalization, thus ensuring a much quicker
impact on literacy and communication practices.
The following are some of the new language and literacy skills that are
required by the extensive use of information technology, divided into the
broad categories of reading/research and writing/authoring.
Reading/Research
Reading practices are shifting from the page to the screen (Reinking,
McKenna, Labbo, & Kieffer, 1998; Snyder, 1998), especially among
young people who grow up with computers (Tapscott, 1998). This shift
will necessitate different psycholinguistic processes related to decoding
information from a screen instead of a page (especially when the screen
will decode words for the reader at the click of a mouse) and will change
how educators teach skills like skimming, scanning, and guessing words
from context (Anderson-Inman & Horney, 1998; McKenna, 1998). It will
also force English language educators to think more about how texts
combine with graphics, images, and audiovisual content to communicate
a message (Bolter, 1998; Kress, 1999; Lemke, 1998).
But reading is more than a psycholinguistic act of decoding letters and
words. Rather, it is a social practice that takes place in particular
sociocultural contexts (de Castell & Luke, 1986; Gee, 1996). In this sense
the shift of reading from the page to the screen, and the new socioeco-
nomic circumstances in which the shift takes place, has an even greater
impact. Reading from the screen is less a passive act of decoding a
message from a single, authoritative author than a self-conscious act of
creating knowledge from a variety of sources (Bolter, 1991; Landow,
1992). The following skills are central to the ability to read from the
screen (adapted from Shetzer & Warschauer, 2000; Warschauer, in
press-a):

• finding the information to read in the first place (e.g., through
Internet searches)
• rapidly evaluating the source, credibility, and timeliness of informa-
tion once it has been located
• rapidly making navigational decisions as to whether to read the
current page of information, pursue links internal or external to the
page, or revert to further searching
• making on-the-spot decisions about ways to save or catalogue part of
the information on the page or the complete page
• organizing and keeping track of electronic information that has
been saved
These may seem like esoteric skills for English learners, but as English
expands as a language of international communication in the 21st
century, the number of learners who master basic English skills will grow.
Increasing numbers of learners throughout the world will find them-
selves in the situation of secondary students in many European countries
today, for whom the challenge is not so much to achieve basic decoding
skills but rather to use English for the types of complex global communi-
cation discussed earlier in this article.
None of these types of skills is completely new, of course. The need for
critical, active, and interpretive reading has been an important part of
print literacy as well. Nevertheless, the vast amount of information
available on the Internet and its hypertextual organization speed up
changes in the nature of reading that were already occurring in the age
of print and make these kinds of critical reading skills all the more
important.
Writing/Authoring
Similar changes are occurring, and will continue to occur, with respect
to writing (Bolter, 1996; Faigley, 1997). In much of the world, writing has
been given little emphasis in English language courses and, if empha-
sized at all, is seen as synonymous with putting grammatically correct
sentences on paper (see the discussion in Raimes, 1991). Indeed, this
approach may have been sufficient for most learners’ needs prior to the
information revolution of the 1970s. However, the rise of informationalism,
and the widespread use of computers and the Internet, dramatically
raises the profile of writing and the need for effective written communi-
cation (see, e.g., American Management Association International, 1998).
New types of writing/authoring skills that are required include the
following (adapted from Warschauer, in press-a):
522 TESOL QUARTERLY

• integrating texts, graphics, and audiovisual material into a multi-
media presentation
• writing effectively in hypertext genres
• using internal and external links to communicate a message well
• writing for a particular audience when the audience is unknown
readers on the World Wide Web
• using effective pragmatic strategies in various circumstances of
computer-mediated communication (including one-to-one e-mail,
e-mail discussion lists, and various forms of synchronous [real-time]
communication)
I will illustrate the importance of new types of writing by briefly
discussing a case that arose in an earlier research study (Warschauer,
1999). The study involved an ESL writing course in an intensive English
program in Hawai‘i. One of the students in the course was a graduate
student from China. This student, whom I will call Zhong, had previously
conducted some research in China with co-researchers from Sweden.
Agreements had been made about who would have the rights of
authorship for the data collected. Zhong was surprised to learn that his
Swedish co-researchers were going to usurp all the data under their own
authorship. He attempted to write them an e-mail message protesting
the situation. The first draft of his e-mail message, however, was highly
inappropriate and would not have conveyed his message. Zhong worked
with the teacher of the course intensively (over e-mail) to complete two
more drafts of the e-mail message until it effectively communicated what
Zhong wanted to say. As a result, the problem was resolved in an
amicable manner.
The writing challenges that Zhong faced were not due solely to the
new medium of e-mail. They were also due to the long-distance collabo-
rative research that he was involved in. But, this, too, is part of the point.
Reading, like writing, takes place not in a psycholinguistic vacuum but in
particular sociocultural circumstances. And the Internet, together with
the broader information revolution of which it forms a part, is rapidly
shifting the terrain of writing as well as reading practices. Not all students
will be performing sophisticated sociological research with international
scholars for publication in scholarly journals, but many will need to carry
out some form of collaborative long-distance inquiry and problem
solving as part of their jobs and community activities. It will be incum-
bent on English language educators to teach the writing skills necessary
for these kinds of tasks, including the pragmatics of written interaction as
well as the hypermedia authoring and publishing skills needed for the
effective presentation of material.
The challenge that Zhong faced—in communicating a particular

point to a particular Swedish correspondent in a text-based medium—
necessitated that he adhere closely to specific norms of communication.
But the opposite situation also rises in new forms of on-line writing,
which frequently involve not so much the making of a single textual
point but the marshaling, remaking, and orchestration of varied multi-
media resources (Kress, 1998). An example is the international
ThinkQuest competition (http://www.thinkquest.org), in which groups
of teenage students from around the world develop educational Web
sites in English on themes from the humanities and sciences. Large
numbers of native and nonnative speakers of English from throughout
the world participate in ThinkQuest (including, e.g., more than 100
students from Egypt who took part in the contest in 1999). Students who
participate in ThinkQuest cannot follow any set rules of communication,
for ideas on Web site design are evolving rapidly. Learners in such a
situation not only author texts, or even only multimedia documents, but
are also helping author the new rules of multimodal communication
(Kramsch, A’Ness, & Lam, in press; Kress, 1999), and they can impose all
of their levels of authorship on the outside world through on-line
publishing. As noted by Kramsch et al., these new possibilities thus bring
language learning full circle from an original emphasis on authenticity
(i.e., following native speaker norms), to a later emphasis on authorship
(i.e., creating texts within structured environments), to new opportuni-
ties for agency (defined by Murray, 1997, as “the satisfying power to take
meaningful action and see the results of our decisions and choices,” p.
126). The pleasure of agency “is much more than the pleasure that
comes from clicking on hotlinks or even being the author of your own
sentences” (Kramsch et al., in press); it is rather “the power to construct
a representation of reality, a writing of history, and to impose reception
of it by others.”
The Digital Divide
The possibilities of Internet-based communication are available to

only a minority of the world’s people. Less than 5% of the world’s
population had access to the Internet in 1999, according to one report
(United Nations Development Programme, 1999). The increased impor-
tance of telecommunications is thus creating a digital divide between the
information haves and have-nots both within and across nations (Novak,
Hoffman, & Project 2000 Vanderbilt University, 1998; Schiller, 1996;
Wresch, 1996). Inequality is reflected not only in who has access to
computers but also in how computers are used, at least in the United
States. Research has indicated that Black, Hispanic, and poor students
spend more time on computer-based drills whereas White, Asian, and
524 TESOL QUARTERLY

wealthy students engage in more computer applications involving higher
order thinking skills (Wenglinsky, 1998).
Educators in schools and communities lacking computer access will
need to resist two false prophets: technoinfatuation and technocynicism.
Those infatuated with technology would say that every educational
problem can be solved through computers and Internet connections
and that any delay in doing so will cause communities to fall desperately
behind. Unfortunately, in the rush, computer-based instruction in poor
communities and countries is often ill-planned (Cuban, 1993; Osin,
1998), drawing resources away from more urgent educational needs and
achieving limited results. A few computers, or even a single computer
with an Internet connection, may make an important difference to a
school or department, but only if appropriate resources are devoted to
maintenance, software, curriculum development, teacher education,
and technical support.
Technocynics make the opposite mistake, claiming that the computer
is just a tool and an expensive one at that, and should yield to other
pressing concerns. But computers are more than a benign, optional tool
for language learning. The ability to communicate and conduct research
in English using computers can have an important impact on a student’s
life opportunities. And it is precisely students with limited economic
resources who will have less opportunity to use computers and the
Internet in home environments. Thus computers in schools might
provide these students with their only access to socially valuable literacy
practices that wealthier students get at home.
Both technoinfatuation and technocynicism stem from the same
problem: downplaying the significance of human agency in shaping
technology’s use. Agency in this context refers again to the power to
design on-line environments, but this time in an even broader sense, that
is, to help bring about—through analysis, collaboration, and action—
greater access to computer and Internet resources and the effective use
of these resources with diverse populations. Techno-optimists believe
that computers themselves will solve problems, regardless of human
action. Technopessimists feel that computers cannot be used to solve
problems no matter what people do. In contrast, technorealists recog-
nize that the impact of information technology is a site of struggle and
that human agency is the deciding factor determining the educational
value of technology.
There are many positive examples of language teachers and learners
making good use of limited resources to help bridge the digital divide,
including intergenerational e-mail exchanges among immigrants in
California (Gaer, 1995); collaborative Internet projects in Romania
carried out with a single laptop computer (Livesy & Tudoreanu, 1995a,
1995b); and efforts by indigenous peoples to promote their languages

on-line (Almasude, 1999; Benton, 1996; Ka’awa & Hawkins, 1999;
Miyashita & Moll, 1999; Office of Technology Assessment, 1995; War-
schauer & Donaghy, 1997). Rather than panic in the face of the digital
divide or burying our heads and ignoring it, ESOL educators and admin-
istrators should learn from these examples and seek creative pedagogical
and technical approaches for reducing technological inequality.
Distance Education
No discussion of technology’s impact on English teaching would be

complete without analyzing the state of distance education. Universities
and the private sector are rushing into distance education, seeking to
reach new markets and achieve economies of scale. This is part of a
broader process of the commercialization of higher education, which
began in the area of research (with production and sale of patents and
exclusive licenses) and has now shifted to education (with production
and sale of copyrighted videos, courseware, CD-ROMs, Web sites, and
packaged courses; see the discussion in Blumenstyk, 1999; Noble, 1997).
The expansion of distance education will undoubtedly provide new
opportunities for learners of English to study from the convenience of
their homes, and ESL teachers will find a growing number of on-line
certificate and graduate courses (Warschauer, Shetzer, & Meloni, 2000).
However, the commercialization of distance education poses significant
dangers. The types of distance education courses that are most effective
for language learning (as well as for teachers’ professional development)
involve a good deal of personal interaction and are thus expensive to set
up and teach (Feenberg, 1999a, 1999b; Warschauer et al., 2000).
Universities and schools will be under constant pressure to cut corners in
favor of cheaper alternatives based on individual access to prepackaged
materials with limited opportunities for student-teacher communication.
Thus quality educational programs involving extensive personal interac-
tion—whether in the classroom or on the Internet—will face mounting
economic competition from inexpensive but pedagogically unsound
programs (see Blumenstyk, 1999).
The same commercial pressures may also threaten ESOL educators’
professional standing and livelihood. As has happened at York University
in Canada (Young, 1997), Drexel University in the United States (Young,
1999), and elsewhere (Carnevalle & Young, 1999), administrators will
seek intellectual property rights over instructors’ materials to reuse them
in distance education programs (or even in on-site programs delivered
via technology). This can eventually lead to a bifurcated system whereby
the development of courses is separated from their delivery, with the
educators fulfilling each role (either development or delivery, and
526 TESOL QUARTERLY

especially the latter) working under part-time, temporary contracts.
ESOL educators may be especially vulnerable to this threat because so
many already lack full-time, permanent status. Not surprisingly, the rush
toward commercialization of instruction is especially strong in university
extension programs—home of ESOL programs on many campuses in
the United States—not only because of extension programs’ involve-
ment in distance and nontraditional learning but also because “they are
typically staffed by the most vulnerable instructors, people who have little
job security and would thus be most ready to comply with university
demands” (Noble, 1998, n.p.).
Distance education is thus another realm in which the role of
technology, in either hindering or benefiting education, will be a site of
struggle. At the pedagogical level, instructors will need to strive to make
sure that distance education programs are developed on sound peda-
gogical principles, which will usually necessitate a good deal of personal
interaction (Feenberg, 1999a; Quality on the Line, 2000). At the
professional level, instructors will need to carefully protect their rights to
their own intellectual property, including their course materials, lec-
tures, and discussions, whether used in the classroom or on-line. In some
cases these rights can be protected individually—by scrutinizing work
contracts and thinking very carefully about what one signs away. In many
cases, these rights can be defended only by collective action in profes-
sional associations and unions. The expansion of on-line education may
well become a key battleground for the professional standing of tertiary
educators. Let us hope that ESOL educators seize this opportunity to
organize better to defend their rights.
A PEDAGOGICAL RESPONSE
The spread of world Englishes, changes in employment patterns, and

the emergence of new technological literacies are mutually enforcing
trends of the global informational economy, and I believe some common
approaches can be adopted to respond properly to them.
Multiliteracies
A key pedagogical concept that responds is multiliteracies, put forth by

a group of specialists in education, critical literacy, and discourse analysis
(New London Group, 1996; see also Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). The
multiliteracies concept recognizes the inadequacy of educational ap-
proaches that limit themselves to “page-bound, official, standards forms
of the national language” (New London Group, 1996, p. 61) and

suggests instead that students should learn to negotiate a multiplicity of
media and discourses. Any pedagogical approach that can meet this
challenge should include the following elements, which are discussed in
more depth by the New London Group (1996):
• Immersion in situated practice: Practice in authentic communicative
situations is required for students to learn how to collaborate with
partners, negotiate complex points, and critically evaluate informa-
tion as it applies to particular meaningful contexts. At the same time,
such authentic situations can give students the opportunity to
develop new technological literacies in meaningful contexts.
• Overt instruction: The kinds of sophisticated communication skills
required in the 21st century will seldom develop through practice
alone. Students need the opportunity to step back under the guid-
ance of a teacher or mentor to critically analyze the content, coher-
ence, organization, pragmatics, syntax, and lexis of communication.
• Critical framing: Effective cross-cultural communication and collabo-
ration, including making effective use of information found in on-
line networks, necessitates a high degree of critical interpretation.
The instructor’s overt role thus should extend beyond narrow
language items to help students learn to critically interpret informa-
tion and communication in a given social context.
• Transformed practice: Transformed practice allows students to hone
their communication skills by raising their practice to new levels
based on prior practice, instruction, and critical framing. This
involves working toward higher quality outcomes within particular
contexts and applying what has been learned in new social and
cultural contexts.
Project-Based Learning
Such a framework goes far beyond the linguistic syllabi that are most
common today, based on collections of syntactic or functional items. It
also goes far beyond the notion of task-based learning if such learning is
interpreted as consisting of a progression of narrow tasks designed
principally to assist learners in grasping particular grammatical forms. A
better framework for a new pedagogy is project-based learning (e.g., Stoller,
1997). Projects themselves may include many individual tasks, but the
umbrella of the project allows opportunities to critique and transform
practice in ways that individual tasks do not.
Projects can take many guises and should be based in large measure
on students’ backgrounds, needs, and interests. When possible, they may
involve electronic communication and collaboration to increase stu-
528 TESOL QUARTERLY

dents’ on-line literacy skills. They may also provide opportunities to
grapple with cultural and identity issues emerging in the new global era.
Projects might include long-distance exchanges in which students debate
and discuss issues related to cultural identity (see, e.g., Kern, 1996),
service learning projects in which students use their knowledge of
English and technology to assist their local communities (see, e.g.,
Warschauer & Cook, 1999), or multimedia creation and publishing
projects in which students collaboratively experiment with new genres
(Sokolik, 1999).
Project-based work of this type will, of course, not be suitable in all
educational contexts. Holliday (1992, 1994) has written eloquently about
the mismatch between the pedagogical values of BANA educators (from
British, Australasian, or North American settings, often working with
highly motivated adult learners in small classes) and the actual contexts
of TESEP (in tertiary, secondary, and primary) English teaching in the
rest of the world, which may comprise poorly motivated students in large
classes. Most BANA TESOL programs favor student-centered group work
and “learning festivals” (Holliday, 1994, p. 36) whereas most TESEP
institutions value educators with strong disciplinary knowledge (e.g., of
linguistics or literature), firm control of the classroom, and the ability to
deliver captivating lectures (“teaching spectacles,” p. 36). Educators in a
number of countries, such as Singapore, are trying to change their
educational system to allow higher degrees of collaboration, group work,
and projects (Warschauer, in press-b), but such changes cannot be
imposed from the outside and are not always desirable.
CONCLUSION
I predict that the trends mentioned in this article will intensify in the
21st century. According to demographic projections, the number of
English native speakers will decrease relative to the population of the
world (or to the number of native speakers of other fast-growing
languages, such as Spanish, Hindi, or Arabic; see Graddol, 1997) whereas
the number of speakers of English as an additional language will rapidly
increase. So whereas a century ago native speakers of English greatly
outnumbered L2 speakers of English, a century from now the relation-
ship will be reversed (Graddol, 1997).
The shift toward a global informational economy will intensify as well,
integrating more countries and regions into the global market and
further spurring the need for workers worldwide in diverse occupations,
from Webmaster to food server, to learn English. The most far-reaching
changes will come in the area of technology, with the Internet becoming
ubiquitous in the developed world and commonplace in urban areas

elsewhere (see the discussion of Internet growth in United Nations
Development Programme, 1999). The expansion of the Internet and its
convergence with telephony and video will allow a growing number of
people to read, write, speak, and listen to English on a daily basis; to shop
and sell; to learn and teach; to collaborate and struggle.
If there is a key concept that should motivate TESOL professionals’
understanding of English teaching in the 21st century, I believe it is that
of agency. As a result of changes in globalization, employment, and
technology, L2 speakers of English will use the language less as an object
of foreign study and more as an additional language of their own to have
an impact on and change the world. They will use English, together with
technology, to express their identity and make their voices heard. There
is no need to choose between an integrative discourse, which views English
as a door to international commerce, tourism, technology, and science,
and an empowering discourse, which views English as an ideological
instrument of unequal power relations (Cox & Assis-Peterson, 1999).
English is both these things and more. English is what its speakers make
of it, and those speakers are increasingly going to be from developing
and newly industrialized countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and
Latin America. English, even more so than today, together with technol-
ogy, will be a carrier of inequality, which is precisely why increasing
numbers of people will use English to challenge that inequality, either by
breaking down doors or by rewriting rules. As a group of Brazilian
scholars wrote, “The learning of English, considering its hegemonic role
in international exchanges . . ., can contribute to the formulation of
counter-discourses in relation to inequalities between countries and
social groups” (Secretaria de Educação Fundamental, cited in Cox &
Assis-Peterson, 1999, p. 434). And we, as English teachers, can promote
students’ ability to formulate such counterdiscourses by assisting learners
in developing critical literacies in multiple media and genres.
In summary, if the central contradiction of the 21st century is between
global networks and local identities, English is a tool of both. It connects
people around the world and provides a means to struggle and to give
meaning to those connections. If English is imposing the world on our
students, we as TESOL professionals can enable them, through English,
to impose their voices on the world.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Larraine Denakpo, Richard Kern, Maha El Said, Heidi Shetzer,
and two anonymous TESOL Quarterly reviewers, all of whom provided very thoughtful
comments on a previous version of this article.
530 TESOL QUARTERLY

THE AUTHOR
Mark Warschauer is director of educational technology on an international develop-
ment project in Egypt and the editor of Language Learning & Technology. His recent
books include Electronic Literacies: Language, Culture, and Power in Online Education
(Erlbaum, 1999), Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (Cambridge
University Press, 2000), and Internet for English Teaching (TESOL, 2000).
REFERENCES
Almasude, A. (1999). The new mass media and the shaping of Amazon identity. In
J. Reyhner, G. Cantoni, R. N. St. Clair, & E. P. Yazzie (Eds.), Revitalizing indigenous
languages (pp. 117–128). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.
American Management Association International. (1998). E-mail tops telephone, say HR
execs at 69th annual human resources conference. New York: Author. Retrieved
February 1, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.amanet.org/survey
/hrc98.htm.
Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers.
In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of
literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 15–43).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Apple, M. W. (1996). Cultural politics and education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Auerbach, E. R. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power in
pedagogical choices. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in language
education (pp. 9–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barber, B. R. (1995). Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Ballantine Books.
Benton, R. (1996). Making the medium the message: Using an electronic bulletin
board system for promoting and revitalizing Mäori. In M. Warschauer (Ed.),
Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 187–285). Honolulu: University of
Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Berns, M., Barrett, J., Chan, C., Chikuma, Y., Friedrich, P., Hadjidimos, O.-M.,
Harney, J., Hislope, K., Johnson, D., Kimball, S., Low, Y., McHenry, T., Palaio-
logos, V., Petray, M., Shapiro, R., & Shook, A. R. (1998). (Re)experiencing
hegemony: The linguistic imperialism of Robert Phillipson. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 8, 271–282.
Berns, M., Barrett, J., Chan, C., Chikuma, Y., Friedrich, P., Hadjidimos, O.-M.,
Harney, J., Hislope, K., Johnson, D., Kimball, S., Low, Y., McHenry, T., Palaio-
logos, V., Petray, M., Shapiro, R., & Shook, A. R. (1999). Hegemonic discourse
revisited. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 138–142.
Blumenstyk, G. (1999, April 9). The marketing intensifies in distance learning.
Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A27.
Bolter, J. D. (1991). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bolter, J. D. (1996). Ekphrasis, virtual reality, and the future of writing. In G. Nunberg
(Ed.), The future of the book (pp. 253–272). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bolter, J. D. (1998). Hypertext and the question of visual literacy. In D. Reinking,
M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and
technology: Transformations in a post-typographical world (pp. 3–13). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Braine, G. (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Carnevalle, D., & Young, J. R. (1999, December 17). Who owns on-line courses?
Colleges and professors start to sort it out. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A45.
Carnoy, M., Castells, M., Cohen, S. S., & Cardoso, F. H. (1993). The new global economy
in the information age: Reflections on our changing world. University Park: The
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Castells, M. (1993). The informational economy and the new international division
of labor. In M. Carnoy, M. Castells, S. S. Cohen, & F. H. Cardoso (Eds.), The new
global economy in the information age: Reflections on our changing world (pp. 15–43).
University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Chinese users to outnumber US users by 2010. (1999, November 9). Nua Internet
Surveys. Retrieved November 20, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://www
.nua.ie/surveys/?f=VS&art_id=905355392&rel=true.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design
of social futures. London: Routledge.
Council for Cultural Co-operation of the Council of Europe. (1975). The threshold
level in a European unit/credit system for modern language learning by adults. Strasbourg,
France: Author.
Cox, M. I. P., & de Assis-Peterson, A. A. (1999). Critical pedagogy in ELT: Images of
Brazilian teachers of English. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 433–484.
Press.
Crystal, D. (1999). The future of Englishes. English Today, 15(2), 10–20.
Crystal, D. (2000). On trying to be Crystal-clear: A response to Phillipson. Applied
Cuban, L. (1993). Computer meets classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College Record,
95, 185–210.
de Castell, S., & Luke, A. (1986). Models of literacy in North American schools:
Social and historical conditions and consequences. In S. de Castell, A. Luke, &
K. Egan (Eds.), Literacy, society, and schooling (pp. 87–109). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Diederich, T. (1998, August 31). Web use among students continues to climb.
Computerworld. Retrieved January 1, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://cnn
.com/TECH/computing/9808/31/opstud.idg/index.html.
eMarketer. (1999). eMarketer tallies the number of e-mail messages sent in 1999.
eStats. Retrieved May 25, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://www
.emarketer.com/estats/020199_email.html.
Faigley, L. (1997). Literacy after the revolution. College Composition and Communica-
tion, 48, 30–43.
Fairclough, N. (1999). Global capitalism and critical awareness of language. Language
Awareness, 8, 71–83.
Feenberg, A. (1999a). Distance learning: Promise or threat? Retrieved May 30, 1999,
from the World Wide Web: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg
/TELE3.HTM.
Feenberg, A. (1999b, September/October). No frills in the virtual classroom.
Academe, 85(5). Retrieved November 20, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://
www.aaup.org/SO99Feen.htm.
Friedman, T. (1999). The Lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalization. New York:
Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Gaer, S. (1995). Folktales around the world. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual
connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 146–
148). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum
Center.
532 TESOL QUARTERLY

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies. London: Taylor & Francis.
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English. London: The British Council.
Harnad, S. (1991). Post-Gutenberg galaxy: The fourth revolution in the means of
production and knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 2(1), 39–53.
Holliday, A. (1992). Tissue rejection and informal orders in ELT projects: Collecting
the right information. Applied Linguistics, 13, 404–424.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hollqvist, H. (1984). The use of English in three large Swedish companies (Studia
Anglistica Upsaliensia 55). Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsalienis.
Jones, L., & von Baeyer, C. (1983). Functions of American English: Communicative
activities for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ka’awa, M., & Hawkins, E. (1999). Incorporating technology into a Hawaiian
language curriculum. In J. Reyhner, G. Cantoni, R. N. St. Clair, & E. P. Yazzie
(Eds.), Revitalizing indigenous languages (pp. 151–157). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona
University.
Kachru, B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non-native
Englishes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Kern, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail exchanges to
explore personal histories in two cultures. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration
in foreign language learning (pp. 105–119). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, Second
Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Kramsch, C., A’Ness, F., & Lam, E. (in press). Authenticity and authorship in the
computer-mediated acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning & Technology,
4(2).
Kranzberg, M. (1985). The information age: Evolution or revolution? In B. R. Guile
(Ed.), Information technologies and social transformation (pp. 35–54). Washington,
DC: National Academy of Engineering.
Kress, G. (1998). Visual and verbal modes of representation in electronically
mediated communication: The potentials of new forms of text. In I. Snyder (Ed.),
Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 53–79). London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (1999). “English” at the crossroads: Rethinking curricula of communication
in the context of the turn to the visual. In G. E. Hawisher & C. Selfe (Eds.),
Passions, pedagogies, and 21st century technologies (pp. 66–88). Logan: Utah State
University Press.
Landow, G. P. (1992). Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and
technology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In
D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy
and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 283–301). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Livesy, R., & Tudoreanu, E. (1995a). Organizing primary school pupils for e-mail as
a TESL aid. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects
for networking language learners (pp. 116–117). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i,
Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Livesy, R., & Tudoreanu, E. (1995b). A project-based approach to children’s e-mail
exchange. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects
for networking language learners (pp. 221–224). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i,
Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
McKenna, M. C. (1998). Electronic texts and the transformation of beginning
reading. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.),
Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp.
45–59). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Miyashita, M., & Moll, L. A. (1999). Enhancing language material availability using
computers. In J. Reyhner, G. Cantoni, R. N. St. Clair, & E. P. Yazzie (Eds.),
Revitalizing indigenous languages (pp. 113–116). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona Uni-
versity.
Morgan, B. (1995). Promoting and assessing critical language awareness. TESOL
Journal, 5(2), 10–14.
Morgan, B. (1998). The ESL classroom: Teaching, critical practice, and community
development. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.
Noble, D. F. (1997). Digital diploma mills (Part I): The automation of higher education.
Retrieved May 30, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://communication.ucsd
.edu/dl/ddm1.html.
Noble, D. F. (1998). Digital diploma mills (Part II): The coming battle over online
instruction. Retrieved May 30, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://
communication.ucsd.edu/dl/ddm2.html.
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Project 2000 Vanderbilt University. (1998). Bridging
the digital divide: The impact of race on computer access and Internet use. Retrieved
May 30, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu
/papers/race/science.html.
Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Telecommunications technology and Native
Americans: Opportunities and challenges (Report No. OTA-ITC-621). Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Osin, L. (1998). Computers in education in developing countries: Why and how?
World Bank Educational and Technology Series, 3(1), 1–14.
Pakir, A. (1997). Education and invisible language planning: The case of the English
language in Singapore. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & Ho Wah Kam (Eds.), Education
in Singapore (pp. 57–74). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Pakir, A. (1999). Connecting with English in the context of internationalisation.
Peirce, B. N. (1989). Toward a pedagogy of possibility in the teaching of English
internationally: People’s English in South Africa. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 401–420.
Pennycook, A. (1995). English in the world/The world in English. In J. W. Tollefson
(Ed.), Power and inequality in language education (pp. 34–58). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1999a). Linguistic imperialism re-visited—or reinvented: A rejoinder
to a review essay. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 135–137.
Phillipson, R. (1999b). Voice in global English: Unheard chords on Crystal loud and
clear. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 265–276.
Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1996). English only worldwide or language
ecology? TESOL Quarterly, 29, 429–452.
Quality on the Line. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based
distance education. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.
Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st century capitalism. New
York: Knopf.
Reinking, D., McKenna, M. C., Labbo, L. D., & Kieffer, R. D. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook
of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
534 TESOL QUARTERLY

Rosen, B. (1999, October 19). Why English is big business: Fluency a must for
executives. International Herald Tribune, p. 15.
Schiller, H. I. (1996). Information inequality: The deepening social crisis in America. New
York: Routledge.
Shetzer, H., & Warschauer, M. (2000). An electronic literacy approach to network-
based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based
language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 171–185). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1999). Linguistic human rights—are you naive, or what?
TESOL Journal, 8(3), 6–12.
Snyder, I. (Ed.). (1998). From page to screen. London: Routledge.
Sokolik, M. (1999). Digital storytelling, memory, and second language learning. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Stoller, F. L. (1997). Project work: A means to promote language content. English
Teaching Forum, 35(4), 2.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net generation. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Tollefson, J. W. (1986). Functional competencies in the US refugee program:
Theoretical and practical problems. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 649–664.
Tollefson, J. W. (Ed.). (1995). Power and inequality in language education. Cambridge:
United Nations Development Programme. (1999). Human development report 1999:
Globalization with a human face. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Warschauer, M. (1995). E-mail for English teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Warschauer, M. (in press-a). Millennialism and media: Language, literacy, and
technology in the 21st century. In Proceedings of the 1999 World Congress of Applied
Linguistics. Tokyo: Waseda University.
Warschauer, M. (in press-b). Singapore’s dilemma. The Information Society.
Warschauer, M., & Cook, J. (1999). Service learning and technology in TESOL.
Prospect, 14(3), 32–39.
Warschauer, M., & Donaghy, K. (1997). Leoki: A powerful voice of Hawaiian
language revitalization. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10, 349–362.
Warschauer, M., Shetzer, H., & Meloni, C. (2000). Internet for English teaching.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute?: The relationship between educational technology
and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Wresch, W. (1996). Disconnected: Haves and have-nots in the information age. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Young, J. R. (1997, October 3). Canadian university promises it won’t require
professors to use technology. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A28.
Young, J. R. (1999, April 9). A debate over ownership of on-line courses surfaces at
Drexel U. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A31.

THE FORUM
TESOL Quarterly invites commentary on current trends or practices in the TESOL
profession. It also welcomes responses or rebuttals to any articles or remarks
published here in The Forum or elsewhere in the Quarterly.
Academic Language Learning, Transformative

Pedagogy, and Information Technology:
Towards a Critical Balance
JIM CUMMINS
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
■ The title of Murray’s article in this issue aptly captures the difficulty,
and perhaps futility, of attempting to chart policy to guide the evolution
of information technology (IT) and its impact on education. Like
Proteus, IT assumes different shapes in different contexts and when
viewed from different perspectives.
Some see IT as a new educational deity, a potential messiah set to
rescue society from a moribund educational system staffed by lethargic
teachers. The missionary zeal to develop students’ computer literacy
echoes the pious beliefs of literacy educators past. In the early 19th
century, public education and literacy for the masses were justified as a
means of enabling the unschooled to read the Holy Book and save their
eternal souls. On the pews facing the altar of computer literacy we find a
predictable group of believers: corporate leaders and politicians genu-
inely anxious to ensure that the educational system delivers the intellec-
tual resources to fuel the engines of the “knowledge society”; other
corporate and educational leaders, with lean and hungry looks, inter-
ested in using IT as the lever to turn a profit on a privatized educational
system; and many in the public, primarily from the middle classes and
including many educators, who have been convinced that computer
literacy is the key to their children’s social and economic advancement.
For all these groups, the time to prepare for the state of grace that

Negroponte (1995) termed being digital is now. To divert resources from
other educational priorities in order to prepare students for the future
that is already here is not only nonproblematic, it is long overdue.
Outside the temple of the faithful, however, a noisy crowd of social
activists and academics has gathered. They carry banners denouncing
the disinformation superhighway (Barlow & Robertson, 1994), silicon snake
oil (Stoll, 1995), technopoly (Postman, 1992), and myriad other corporate
plots to control the world (Noble, 1995). Those assembled under the
critical pedagogy banner warn that IT represents yet another means of
squeezing critical perspectives from the curriculum and increasing the
efficiency of top-down control and surveillance to ensure that the official
texts are followed to the letter (e.g., Apple, 1993). Others expostulate
with passion about the disinvestment in the arts and literature that is a
direct consequence of diverting scarce resources to computers and other
technological fads (Armstrong & Casement, 1998). Under a banner
tattered from the reading wars that have raged unabated for more than
a decade throughout the land, a defiant group of whole-language
educators insists that we look at the empirical data: There is not a shred
of empirical evidence that the massive investment in computer hardware
and software has improved achievement levels; by contrast, there is
overwhelming evidence of significant gains in reading simply by increas-
ing the amount of time that students spend reading at school and at
home; to the few who listen, this evidence shows convincingly that much
more will be gained through investment in school and public libraries
that increases students’ opportunities to read than by pursuing the
mirage of computer literacy (Krashen, 1993, 1999).
Against this background of claims and counterclaims, the IT revolu-
tion marches on. As Murray documents clearly, the degree of access to IT
varies dramatically among countries and within countries along predict-
able lines. The digital divide is clearly visible. Furthermore, IT comes
packaged with its own codes of power (Delpit, 1988), which make no
claim to neutrality. The English language and its speakers are privileged,
affluent populations—Dick and Jane have computers in their bed-
rooms—and more subtle gender expectations mean that Dick will be
encouraged to become computer literate at a faster pace than Jane.
These realities may disturb us, but they should not surprise us. All
technological changes (e.g., the automobile, telephone, television) have
been accessed by and have served the interests of the affluent countries
and classes before they have been extended to those less privileged.
These technological advances have generally increased the comfort
levels of privileged classes and their access to information and wealth;
however, neither happiness, nor wisdom, nor insight has come with the
package. There is little reason to expect the IT revolution to be any
different.
538 TESOL QUARTERLY

THE TASK OF LANGUAGE EDUCATORS
In this context, I suggest that our task as educators in general, and as
language educators in particular, should be to assess the potential of IT
to improve the human condition. As educators, we are committed to
drawing out the potential of the students we teach; as language educa-
tors, we strive to increase students’ capacity to use language to fulfill their
personal goals and contribute to their societies. We work in global and
domestic contexts where the unequal distribution of power, in the form
of access to both material and symbolic resources, is painfully evident
and is increasing rather than decreasing. To assume a posture of
innocence in relation to the social contexts in which we teach is naive at
best. Our commitment is not only to the individual student who sits in
front of us but also to the social fabric into which our individual realities
are woven.
This perspective implies that language educators should examine the
potential of IT not only to increase the linguistic power of the individual
student but also to harness that power in critical and constructive ways to
strengthen the social fabric of our local and global communities. Rather
than dismissing IT as another corporate plot, as many critical educators
have tended to do, or lamenting its perverse impact on educational
priorities, we should acknowledge the fundamental changes that IT is
bringing to our societies and seek ways to use its power for transformative
purposes. Dennis Sayers and I argued some years ago that resolution of
the contentious issues regarding the educational merits or otherwise of
IT will derive from a focus on pedagogy rather than on technology. We
documented the potential for Internet-based sister-class networks to
promote collaborative critical inquiry among students from diverse
cultural, linguistic, and national backgrounds (Cummins & Sayers, 1995;
see also Brown, Cummins, Figueroa, & Sayers, 1998; de Klerk, 1998,
Warschauer, 1999). I believe that IT also has considerable potential to
promote language learning in a transformative way when it is aligned
with a pedagogy oriented towards promoting collaborative relations of
power in the classroom and beyond.
Murray documents that IT is not in any sense a neutral tool but does
not pursue in detail the pedagogical implications of this reality. Can IT
itself be harnessed to combat the social inequities which its use reflects?
Can we as language educators articulate a pedagogy within which IT
plays a central role that will be effective in developing students’ language
and literacy abilities, and their awareness of how language and literacy
are implicated in relations of power? Can we demonstrate that use of IT
amplifies the impact of this pedagogy beyond what would be achieved
without the use of IT? Can IT serve as a tool for promoting collaborative
relations of power?
THE FORUM 539

The field is not yet in a position to answer any of these questions in a
definitive way. However, descriptions of projects that have been under-
taken during the past 15 years suggest that IT can be harnessed for
transformative educational purposes that have the potential to develop
language and literacy abilities more effectively than projects that make
minimal use of IT. In the sections below, I outline a framework for
promoting academic language learning (Cummins, 2000) and describe
how IT can facilitate access to people resources and information resources
relevant to extending and deepening students’ knowledge of academic
language. A transformative pedagogical orientation is built into all
phases of this framework. Transformative pedagogy aims to create
patterns of educator-student interaction that effectively challenge and
transform the ways in which schools have traditionally reproduced social
and economic inequalities (Cummins, 1996; Nieto, 1999).
A FRAMEWORK FOR ACADEMIC LANGUAGE LEARNING

When applied to IT, this framework for academic language learning
(Figure 1) occupies an intermediate position between the uncritical
boosters of IT as the new educational panacea and those who dismiss
virtually any educational applications of IT as educationally retrograde.
The framework suggests that educational applications of IT should be
judged not only by the extent to which they transmit information and
increase skills; equally relevant are the social purposes to which these
skills and information will be applied. Specifically, IT can and should be
employed to develop insight among students about human relationships
at both individual and societal levels and to increase students’ linguistic
and intellectual power to effect positive changes in these human
relationships. The framework sketches the instructional conditions nec-
essary to harness IT in the service of these educational goals.
FIGURE 1
Instruction for Language Learning and Academic Achievement
Focus on . . .
Use
Language
Meaning Using language to
• Awareness of
• Making input language forms • Generate new
comprehensible and uses knowledge
• Developing critical • Critical analysis of • Create literature
literacy language forms and art
and uses • Act on social
realities
540 TESOL QUARTERLY

In discussing academic language learning among English language
learning (ELL) students in school, it is important to be clear on what is
meant by academic language. This issue has been discussed in detail
elsewhere (e.g., Cummins, 2000), and here it is sufficient to define
academic language operationally as the sum of the vocabulary, grammati-
cal constructions, and language functions that students will encounter
and be required to demonstrate mastery of during their school years
(kindergarten to Grade 12). This will include the literature and exposi-
tory texts that students are expected to read and discuss in both oral and
written modes. This operational definition clearly limits the scope of the
current discussion to students in elementary and secondary school.
The framework suggests that in order to develop students’ access to
and mastery of academic registers, instruction must focus on meaning,
language, and use. It assumes that for optimal progress to occur, cognitive
challenge, intrinsic motivation, and promotion of critical literacy must
be infused into the interactions between teachers and students.
Focus on Meaning
The starting point is to acknowledge that effective instruction in an L2
must focus initially on meaning or messages. Virtually all applied
linguists agree that access to sufficient comprehensible input in the
target language is a necessary condition for language acquisition; most
applied linguists, however, also assign a role to (a) a focus on formal
features of the target language, (b) development of effective learning
strategies, and (c) actual use of the target language. These components
are incorporated in the focus-on-language and focus-on-use components
of the framework.
Comprehensible input in the context of academic language learning
necessitates extensive reading, as Krashen (1993, 1999) has persistently
argued. Large-scale research on reading comprehension (e.g., Postle-
thwaite & Ross, 1992) demonstrates conclusively that reading compre-
hension is predicted far more powerfully by variables associated with the
amount of reading that students engage in and their opportunities to
read (e.g., access to well-stocked school and classroom libraries) than by
the school’s emphasis on teaching phonics. As Corson (1995, 1997) has
emphasized, the Graeco-Latin lexicon that students must acquire for
academic success is found only in books and curriculum materials. If
ELL students are not reading extensively and understanding what they
read, they have little hope of bridging the gap in academic language
proficiency between themselves and native speakers of English.
The focus-on-meaning component in Figure 1 argues that the inter-
pretation of the construct of comprehensible input for academic language
learning must move beyond just literal comprehension. Depth of
THE FORUM 541

understanding of concepts and vocabulary as well as critical literacy is
intrinsic to the notion of comprehensible input in the development of
academic language proficiency. This implies a process whereby students
relate textual and instructional meanings to their own experience and
prior knowledge (i.e., activate their cognitive schemata), critically ana-
lyze the information in the text (e.g., evaluate the validity of various
arguments or propositions), and use the results of their discussions and
analyses in some concrete, intrinsically motivating activity or project
(e.g., making a video or writing a poem or essay on a particular topic).
Interpretation of comprehensible input as critical literacy implies that
the interactions between educators and students must focus not only on
the literal meaning of the text but also on what is written between the
lines. Reading between the lines allows students to understand how
power is exercised through various forms of discourse (e.g., advertise-
ments, political rhetoric, textbooks). The focus is on understanding not
only what is said but also whose perspectives are represented and whose
have been excluded (for discussion, see Ada, 1988; Cummins, 2000;
Nieto, 1999).
There is ample case study documentation that project-based learning
can be greatly enhanced when students use technology to connect with
people resources (e.g., a sister class with whom the project is being
carried out) and information resources (e.g., on the World Wide Web)
that provide access to multiple perspectives beyond those provided in
the class textbook or potentially limited school library resources (see,
e.g., Brown et al., 1998; de Klerk, 1998). These projects stimulate
students to read extensively in a wide variety of genres and to process
what they read in such a way that alternative perspectives are analyzed,
inconsistencies identified, and problems resolved. Students gain access
to comprehensible input, and they use higher-order thinking skills to
transform this input into critical literacy.
Focus on Language
The focus-on-language component in Figure 1 attempts to put contro-
versial issues such as the appropriate time and ways to teach L2 grammar,
the role of phonics in reading instruction, and so on under the umbrella
of language awareness. The development of language awareness includes
not just a focus on formal aspects of the language but also the
development of critical language awareness, which encompasses explora-
tion of the relationships between language and power. Students, for
example, might carry out research on the status of different varieties of
language (e.g., colloquial language versus formal “standard” language)
and explore critically why one form is considered by many educators and
the public to be “better” than the other. They might also research issues
542 TESOL QUARTERLY

such as code switching and the functions it plays within their own lives
and their bilingual communities. Or they might analyze letters to the
editor on controversial issues such as immigration or bilingual education
and examine how the language used in these letters positions and
potentially stereotypes English language learners such as themselves and
their parents.
In short, a focus on formal features of the target language should be
integrated with critical inquiry into issues of language and power. Also, to
be effective, a focus on language must be linked to extensive input in the
target language (e.g., through reading) and extensive opportunities for
written and oral use of the language.
A number of scholars and educators have focused on the importance
of developing language awareness not only as a means of demystifying
language and how it works but also as a way of reinforcing students’ sense
of identity. Delpit (1998), for example, talks about encouraging African
American speakers of Ebonics to become language detectives investigating
similarities and differences between their own vernacular and other
forms of English, such as that found in school texts. For example, groups
of students can work together to create bilingual dictionaries of their
own language forms and standard English. A significant goal is to
reinforce students’ understanding that their language is legitimate and
powerful in its context of use but that other forms of English are
necessary in different contexts of use.
Figure 2 outlines what constitutes a focus on language for students
learning English as an additional language. These activities clearly go
beyond just the teaching of forms and functions of the language. The
goal is to develop among students a culture of inquiry into language and
how it works in different social situations.
A systematic focus on developing critical language awareness requires
that teachers organize instruction to enable students to harvest the
language so that it becomes available for their use. Computer technology
can be useful in helping students (either individually or in groups) to
collect, internalize, and consolidate their knowledge of language and
then use it powerfully to extend their intellectual horizons and personal
identities. For example, extrapolating from the paper-and-pencil activi-
ties suggested by McWilliam’s (1998) word-weaving project, students
could set up templates in computer files to enter words that they have
come across in their reading or everyday experiences that they want to
explore. The templates might include categories such as synonyms, L1
equivalents, proverbs and idioms in which the word appears, advertisements,
puns, jokes in which the word appears, and relevant grammatical information.
Once again, IT provides a wealth of both people resources and
information resources for students and educators working to develop
critical language awareness. A good place to start in locating these
THE FORUM 543

FIGURE 2
Collaborative Inquiry to Develop Critical Language Awareness
• The structure of language systems (e.g., relationships between sounds and spelling,
regional and class-based accents, grammar, vocabulary)
• Ways of accomplishing different functions and purposes of language
• Conventions of different musical and literary forms (e.g., rap, rock, folk music, poetry,
haiku, fiction)
• Appropriateness of expression in different contexts (e.g., cultural conventions of
politeness, street language versus school language, the language of everyday speech versus
the language of books, language variety as a badge of identity in groups as diverse as
gangs, political parties, fraternities)
• Ways of organizing oral or written discourse to create powerful or persuasive messages
(e.g., speeches, influential written documents, political rhetoric, advertisements)
• Cross-lingual comparison of languages (e.g., cognates, proverbs, orthography)
• Diversity of language use in both monolingual and multilingual contexts (code switching
in bilingual communities, language maintenance and loss in families, political
controversies surrounding language [e.g., bilingual education, status and acceptability of
different varieties of language, the spread of English as a global lingua franca])
language-related resources is the Human-Languages Page (Chambers,

2000).
Focus on Use
The focus-on-use component is based on the notion that L2 acquisi-
tion will remain abstract and classroom-bound unless students have the
opportunity to express themselves—their identities and their intelli-
gence—through that language. There is convincing evidence that target
language use can contribute to language acquisition (Swain, 1997), but
the focus here is on the importance of language use for overall literacy
development and identity affirmation among ELL students.
In order to motivate language use, there should ideally be an
authentic audience that encourages two-way communication in both oral
and written modes. The three examples of language use presented in
Figure 1 (generate new knowledge, create literature and art, act on social
realities) are intended to illustrate important components of critical
literacy. Language must be used to amplify students’ intellectual, aes-
thetic, and social identities if it is to contribute to student empowerment,
understood as the collaborative creation of power. Unless active and
authentic language use for these purposes is promoted in the classroom,
students’ grasp of academic (and conversational) English is likely to
remain shallow and passive.
544 TESOL QUARTERLY

There is little question that IT can provide many of the components
required to stimulate active written language use. Collaborative sister-
class projects, publication of student work on classroom or school Web
pages, and simply the use of computers to lay out and print newsletters
or other forms of publication all facilitate access to wider audiences than
would otherwise be possible. IT can dramatically expand the communi-
ties of inquiry to which students have access and provide immediate
outlets for communicating the results of students’ intellectual and
artistic work.
Brown (1999), for example, describes a project dubbed “New Places”
by the participating classes, in which students who had moved to new
communities described their experiences. Students who had not moved
interviewed peers at their school about how they were received in their
new schools and communities. Students from a dozen countries were
involved in this project, including those who had moved from rural
China to Beijing, African Americans who had moved from the South to
the North within the United States, and immigrant students who had
moved from many countries to the United States. Students investigated
what motivates migration and how people from different cultural, racial,
and linguistic backgrounds were received by their new communities.
Brown concludes,
One of the outcomes of this project was that together the students analyzed
the linguistic, cultural, and institutional barriers at their schools and drew up
guidelines for teachers and students about how to make their schools better
places for newcomers. The idea that collaborative problem solving might
make the world a better place motivates much online learning. (p. 312)
As in many examples of sister-class collaboration, the power of this

project derives from its dual and complementary focus on knowledge
generation and identity negotiation. Clearly, depending on the sophisti-
cation of the equipment available to learners, video and audio compo-
nents can be integrated into such projects, but the essential pedagogical
groundwork for this type of technology-enhanced, transformative educa-
tion was established in the work of French educator Célestin Freinet long
before computers were even dreamt of (see Cummins & Sayers, 1995;
Lee & Sivell, 2000).
CONCLUSION
I suggest that we as educators have choices in how we use IT. Although
there are many societal forces that would limit IT to the transmission of
sanitized information and skills, there is also ample evidence that IT can
be employed to build community across geographical, ethnic, and
THE FORUM 545

linguistic divides and to enable collective social action to address social
inequities (Brown et al., 1998; Cummins & Sayers, 1995). Case study
evidence also shows that IT can promote literacy and language learning
in effective and powerful ways (e.g., Warschauer, 1999).
There is no stopping the IT revolution that is underway and, as the
critics of this revolution rightly emphasize, it may threaten the integrity
of our education systems. Many of the educational applications of IT
have been aligned implicitly with what Freire (1983) termed banking
education, in which supposedly neutral information and skills are depos-
ited in students’ memory banks with no analysis of whose perspectives
are represented in the information or whose interests are served. By
rendering banking education more efficient and pervasive, IT can
contribute to the reproduction of the societal status quo, complete with
its myriad inequities and violations of social justice.
However, critics of the regime of IT seldom explore the extent to
which technology might be used to challenge coercive social forces. Just
as IT can reinforce social inequities when aligned with a banking
orientation to pedagogy, so can it challenge these same inequities when
it is aligned with a transformative pedagogical orientation. As noted
above, the central issue concerns pedagogy rather than technology.
Critics of the disinformation superhighway appropriately warn us to be
vigilant about the hidden curriculum that often comes packaged with
the technology. However, skepticism about the educational value of the
Internet and technology generally should not imply that language
educators should abandon the playing field to corporate or any other
dominant group interests. The same corporate interests that control the
advance of technology also control the publishing industry, but no one
has suggested that people refuse to publish books or articles or refrain
from buying books for themselves or their children because these actions
contribute to corporate profits. To make technology the villain is as naive
as viewing it as an educational panacea. As language educators, we
should learn from the growing number of case studies that illustrate how
IT can amplify the power of transformative pedagogy to develop stu-
dents’ academic language and critical literacy.
THE AUTHOR
Jim Cummins teaches in the Department of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning at
the University of Toronto. His research has focused on the education of bilingual
students and on issues related to technology in education.
REFERENCES
Ada, A. F. (1988). The Pajaro Valley experience: Working with Spanish-speaking
parents to develop children’s reading and writing skills in the home through the
546 TESOL QUARTERLY

use of children’s literature. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (Eds.), Minority
education: From shame to struggle (pp. 223–238). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Apple, M. W. (1993). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New
York: Routledge.
Armstrong, A., & Casement, C. (1998). The child and the machine: Why computers may
put our children’s education at risk. Toronto, Canada: Key Porter Books.
Barlow, M., & Robertson, H.-J. (1994). Class warfare: The assault on Canada’s schools.
Toronto, Canada: Key Porter Books.
Brown, K. (1999). Global learning networks: Heartbeats on the Internet. In J. V.
Tinajero & R. A. DeVillar (Eds.), The power of two languages 2000 (pp. 309–319).
New York: McGraw-Hill School Division.
Brown, K., Cummins, J., Figueroa, E., & Sayers, D. (1998). Global learning networks:
Gaining perspective on our lives with distance. In E. Lee, D. Menkart, &
M. Okazawa-Rey (Eds.), Beyond heroes and holidays: A practical guide to K–12 anti-
racist, multicultural education and staff development (pp. 334–354). Washington, DC:
Network of Educators on the Americas.
Chambers, T. (2000). Human-languages page. Retrieved July 20, 2000, from the World
Wide Web: http://www.june29.com/HLP.
Corson, D. (1995). Using English words. New York: Kluwer.
Corson, D. (1997). The learning and use of academic English words. Language
Learning, 47, 671–718.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society.
Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural illiteracy
through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
de Klerk, G. (Ed.). (1998). Virtual power: Technology, education, and community. Long
Beach, CA: Pacific Southwest Regional Technology in Education Consortium.
Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.
Delpit, L. (1998). Ebonics and culturally responsive instruction. In T. Perry &
L. Delpit (Eds.), The real Ebonics debate (pp. 17–26). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking
Schools.
Freire, P. (1983). Banking education. In H. Giroux & D. Purpel (Eds.), The hidden
curriculum and moral education: Deception or discovery? (pp. 283–291). Berkeley, CA:
McCutcheon.
Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Krashen, S. D. (1999). Three arguments against whole language and why they are wrong.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lee, W. B., & Sivell, J. (2000). French elementary education and Ecole Moderne.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
McWilliam, N. (1998). What’s in a word? Vocabulary development in multilingual
classrooms. Stoke-on-Trent, England: Trentham Books.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf.
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Noble, D. F. (1995). Progress without people: New technology, unemployment, and the
message of resistance. Toronto, Canada: Between the Lines.
Postlethwaite, T. N., & Ross, K. N. (1992). Effective schools in reading: Implications for
educational planners. An exploratory study. The Hague: International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
THE FORUM 547

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage
Books.
Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon snake oil: Second thoughts on the information highway. New York:
Doubleday.
Swain, M. (1997). Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language
learning. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 115–132.
Will Corpus Linguistics Revolutionize

Grammar Teaching in the 21st Century?*
SUSAN CONRAD
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa, United States
■ In the final decades of the 20th century, exciting developments began

taking place in grammar teaching and research. First, there was renewed
interest in an explicit focus on form in the classroom; publications
argued that students benefit from grammar instruction (e.g., Celce-
Murcia, 1991a, 1991b; Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, & Thurrell, 1997; Ellis,
1998; Master, 1994) and suggested new approaches to grammar peda-
gogy, such as teaching grammar in a discourse context (Celce-Murcia,
1991a, 1991b) and designing grammatical consciousness-raising or input
analysis activities (e.g., Ellis, 1993, 1995; Fotos, 1993, 1994; Rutherford,
1987; Sharwood Smith, 1988; Yip, 1994).
At the same time, computer technology was making it possible to
conduct grammar studies of unprecedented scope and complexity. This
research is part of corpus linguistics, the empirical study of language
relying on computer-assisted techniques to analyze large, principled
databases of naturally occurring language. Although only one aspect of
corpus linguistics—concordancing—tended to be emphasized for class-
rooms (see, e.g., Cobb, 1997; Johns, 1986, 1994; Stevens, 1995), most
ESL grammarians would agree that, by the end of the 20th century,
corpus linguistics was also radically changing grammar research. Com-
pare, for example, Longman’s two reference grammars. The first,
published in 1985 (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik), contained
limited reports of corpus studies to supplement traditional intuition-
based description whereas the second, published in 1999 (Biber,
*
A version of this commentary was presented at the Second North American Symposium on
Corpus Linguistics and Language Teaching, Flagstaff, Arizona, April 2000.
548 TESOL QUARTERLY

Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan), was based entirely on empirical
data from corpus-based analyses. In other publications, corpus-based
grammatical research ranged from examinations of certain varieties,
such as description of the features of spoken British English (Carter &
McCarthy, 1995; McCarthy, 1998) to book-length treatments of particular
structures (e.g., Mair, 1990, on infinitival clauses; Meyer, 1992, on
apposition; Tottie, 1991, on negation).
By the end of the 20th century, however, little connection had been
made between the grammatical research of corpus linguistics and the
rejuvenated interest in grammar teaching. In the 21st century, I will
argue, three changes prompted by corpus-based studies of grammar
have the potential to revolutionize the teaching of grammar:
1. Monolithic descriptions of English grammar will be replaced by
register-specific descriptions.
2. The teaching of grammar will become more integrated with the
teaching of vocabulary.
3. Emphasis will shift from structural accuracy to the appropriate
conditions of use for alternative grammatical constructions.
I illustrate each of these areas with examples condensed from large-scale
corpus-based projects (Biber, Conrad, & Reppen, 1998; Biber et al.,
1999).1 I conclude with speculation on variables that may affect whether
or not these potential changes do, in fact, take place.
REGISTER-SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIONS OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Corpus-based research has consistently shown that grammatical pat-
terns differ systematically across varieties of English. In the past, such
systematic variation was examined across socially defined varieties (e.g.,
Black Vernacular English vs. Standard Midwestern English). However,
corpus research has shown that consistent, important differences also
occur across varieties within standard English—most notably across
registers, varieties determined by their purposes and situations for use
(e.g., fiction writing vs. academic prose vs. newspaper writing). Given the
results of most corpus-based studies, it is often misleading, if not
impossible, to make global generalizations about the use of a particular
1
Specifically, the results reported here come from studies reported in full as follows: linking
adverbials—Biber et al. (1999, chapter 10); to- and that-complement clauses—Biber et al. (1998,
chapter 4); that-subject clauses—Biber et al. (1998, chapter 3) and Biber et al. (1999, chapter
9). These publications also provide detailed descriptions of the corpora used: the Longman
Spoken and Written English Corpus, the Longman-Lancaster Corpus, and the British National
Corpus. British and American English are included. Space limitations prevent further descrip-
tion here.
THE FORUM 549

grammatical structure in English. Thus, as findings from corpus linguis-
tics are incorporated into grammar pedagogy, register variation will
become an important part of grammar tasks and materials.
The use of linking adverbials—words and expressions such as however,
therefore, and in other words that explicitly connect two units of discourse—
is one aspect of English grammar that demonstrates register variation.
Because these adverbials are important for textual cohesion, they are
covered in many ESL writing textbooks (e.g., Greenberg, 1992; Jenkins,
1986; Raimes, 1992).2 Students generally are urged to use these expres-
sions appropriately but to avoid overuse, which can make written English
sound awkward.
The question is, what is appropriate use of linking adverbials? Corpus-
based research into linking adverbials shows that their use varies widely
across registers. As one might expect, linking adverbials are most
common in academic prose (see Figure 1). Surprisingly, however, they
are also used frequently in conversation but much less frequently in
newspaper writing. Thus, even on the basic level of frequency, the use of
linking adverbials differs greatly by register—and it turns out that they
are used more similarly in conversation and academic prose than in the
two written registers.
Analysis of the semantic categories of the linking adverbials adds
additional complexity. From this perspective the two written registers
appear more similar: They exhibit more diversity in the semantic
categories of adverbials, although result/inference, contrast/concession,
and apposition make up the greatest proportions. Conversation, on the
other hand, emphasizes result/inference and contrast/concession to the
near exclusion of the other categories.
In corpus-based research, these patterns in frequency are interpreted
relative to the purposes and situational characteristics of the registers.
For example, the higher frequency of use and larger variety of semantic
categories in academic prose correspond to the register’s emphasis on
developing, supporting, or countering arguments and leading readers
through logical steps to a conclusion, as in the following excerpt:
Now all these plants had an abundance of water; therefore all should have
made equal growth had nothing more been needed. The amount of growth,
however, increased with the impurity of the water. (acad)3
Newspaper writing, on the other hand, is more often organized by

chronological sequence, and certain cause-effect sequences are assumed
2
Linking adverbials are covered under a variety of terms in textbooks, for example,
conjunctive adverbs, logical connectors, signal words, transition expressions.
3
Examples are taken from the corpora cited in Note 1. Register designations are as follows:
acad = academic prose, news = newspaper writing, conv = conversation.
550 TESOL QUARTERLY

FIGURE 1
Frequency of Linking Adverbials in Three Registers
800
Frequency per 100,000 words
Transition a
600
Contrast/concession b
400
Result/inferencec
200 Apposition d
Enumeration/addition/summation e
0
Conversation News Academic
Register
a
Examples are first, in other words, in addition, and in conclusion. bExamples are for example and in
other words. cExamples are therefore and thus. dExamples are in contrast, however, and though. eAn
example is by the way.
rather than explicitly marked. For instance, a police investigation is the

result of a robbery, but it would be unusual to see this relationship
marked with therefore. In conversation, the interactive nature of the
discourse is apparent in the choice of linking adverbials. For example,
the referential adverbial then and the concessive adverbial though are
frequently used because they mediate the face-to-face communication as
well as serving connective functions. Though is commonly used as a
speaker disagrees with the last speaker; rather than making a blunt
counterstatement or opening a response with an abrupt, contrasting but,
speakers soften the disagreement with though:
A: . . . I would love a nice new car! We won’t be able to afford one for a
couple years yet.
B: You could afford a Mini though. (conv)
Then is also commonly used in exchanges to show an inference based on

the previous utterance:
A: I think she’s stealing stuff as well . . . stealing stuff. From the house.
B: Does she still live at home then? (conv)
THE FORUM 551

This brief illustration shows that the use of linking adverbials varies
depending on the purposes and context of registers and that it would be
difficult to make generalizations about their use even for the three
registers discussed here. (For further discussion of linking adverbials
across registers see Biber et al., 1999, chapter 10; Conrad, 1999.) The
implication of corpus research for pedagogy is that grammatical study
needs to take place within the context of a register or by comparing
registers. For instance, having students write a newspaper or analyze
newspaper articles does not necessarily provide practice in the appropri-
ate use of linking adverbials in academic writing. Furthermore, linking
adverbials should not be neglected in conversation courses even though
they are rarely covered in conversation textbooks; instead, courses need
to teach conversation-specific uses and items.
INTEGRATION OF GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY

Corpus-based analysis of adverbials demonstrates the connection
between grammar and lexical items because of, for example, the
particular linking adverbials repeatedly used in conversation. Corpus-
based studies of other grammatical features suggest even more complex
connections between grammar and the lexicon. This lexicogrammatical
connection is illustrated by the association between particular verbs (a
lexical choice) and two kinds of complement clauses (a grammatical
choice) in conversation.
That- and to-complement clauses are both used to complete the
meaning of verbs, but some verbs, such as want and show, are grammati-
cal only with one type of complement clause:
I wanted to make sure she pays us for all these too. (conv)
Some dude showed that you could write down conversation like musically.4
(conv)
Other verbs, such as know, say, and think, are grammatical with both types
of clauses:
. . . you knew that Dad couldn’t take care of it anymore . . . . (conv)
He knows to sit down to eat this breakfast. (conv)
You said it’s open till 2, right?5 (conv)
4
In the passive voice, show can also take a to-clause (e.g., shown to be).
5
That-complement clauses include those in which that is omitted from the beginning of the
clause (e.g., You said [that] it’s open till 2, right?).
552 TESOL QUARTERLY

He said to say hello to you. (conv)
I think it’s real cute. (conv)
I never thought to ask you. (conv)
Corpus-based research shows, however, that even for the verbs that can
take both types of clauses, the clause types are not equally distributed;
each verb shows a strong association with one of the types of comple-
ment clause (Table 1). Think, say, and know are common only with that-
complement clauses.
Lexicogrammatical findings such as these suggest that certain gram-
matical constructions ought to be taught in relation to lexical items; in
this case, the complement clause should be associated with its preferred
verbs.6 Of course, even traditional grammar books often give students
lists of verbs that can be used with different complement structures.
Corpus-based research, however, offers a substantial improvement over
these lists because information no longer has to be based on intuition or
anecdotal evidence. Lists based on the empirical results of a well-
designed corpus study will not omit important items. In contrast, one
popular grammar book (Azar, 1989, p. 168–169) listed 37 verbs that are
followed by infinitives (to-clauses); try and like, two of the most common
verbs in conversation, were not on the list. In addition, frequency
information can help a teacher decide which items to emphasize, for
example, to provide low-level students practice with the items they are
most likely to hear outside class.
TABLE 1
Verbs Controlling that- and to-Complement Clauses in Conversation
Verba that-clause to-clause
think ********************
say ************
know *********
see **
want **********
try ***
like **
Note. * = 100 times per million words.
a
Occurring at least 200 times per million words.
6
It also turns out that the associations vary by register; see Biber et al. (1998, chapter 3).
THE FORUM 553

The results of lexicogrammatical studies are also valuable for design-
ing appropriate activities. For instance, corpus research indicates that
that-clauses are a common type of complement clause in conversation,
and their primary purpose is to express opinions and ideas or report the
opinions and ideas of others. This is commonly accomplished with the
verbs think, say, and know (see the examples above). A logical activity for
ESL conversation students, then, would be to practice talking about
opinions and ideas using these complement clauses. Instead, however,
many textbook activities about expressing opinions pay little or no
attention to these structures (e.g., Tanka & Most, 1996) or sometimes
encourage less common structures—for example, I agree/I disagree (Papa
& Iantorno, 1986).
CONCERN ABOUT THE APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS FOR

ALTERNATIVE GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTIONS
One common frustration for ESL teachers is explaining to students
why something that is grammatically acceptable “just doesn’t sound
right.” In the past, teachers have rarely had the means to analyze the
factors associated with grammatical intuition, but now corpus linguistics
makes it possible to describe the factors associated with the appropriate
use of alternative structures when more than one structure is grammati-
cally acceptable. As a consequence, the third change facilitated by corpus
linguistics is that grammar teaching will become more focused on
conditions of use.
As an example, consider another form of the that-clauses introduced
in the last section. These clauses can also be used in an extraposed
construction, with it as the subject of the sentence:
It should be recognized, however, that not everyone wishes to display power.

(acad)
An alternative is to place the that-clause in subject position:
That not everyone wishes to display power should be recognized. (unat-

tested)
Many grammar books note that this position is possible, but little is said
about appropriate conditions for its use (e.g., Azar, 1989; Jenkins, 1986;
Spack, 1990). In the past, authors who wanted to address its use could
make only vague statements; for example, Danielson and Porter (1990)
note that “The it-pattern usually seems more natural with that-clauses”
(p. 278).
In contrast to the grammar textbooks, corpus-based work shows that
although subject-position that-clauses are rare in all registers and virtually
554 TESOL QUARTERLY

absent from conversation, certain conditions are strongly associated with
their use (Biber et al., 1998, chapter 3; Biber et al., 1999, chapter 9).
First, the that-clause tends to convey information that has been previ-
ously established. It is a restatement of given information, placed in the
subject position, while the predicate presents new information. These
structures thus follow the pattern of given-new information that is typical
of English. An example is the following excerpt from a discussion of the
radioactive dating of geologic formations:
Figure 2-30 shows the kind of geologic map that has been worked out for
Precambrian rocks in Canada. The provinces are drawn on the basis of
radioactive ages. . . . The same general kind of map can be made for other
Precambrian areas of the world, such as those in Scandinavia or Africa. That
such maps can be made on the basis of radioactive dating alone is a triumph
of the method. (acad)
A second condition corresponding to the use of that-subject clauses is a

long or complex predicate, often another complement clause. In these
cases, an extraposed structure would be very difficult to understand. For
example,
That labor power is a commodity means that the worker functions as a thing
. . . . (acad)
For many occurrences of that-subject clauses, both conditions hold.

Much more could be written about the use of that-subject clauses, but
even with the brief evidence reviewed here, teachers and texts could give
students a much clearer understanding of typical uses. Importantly, such
evidence is available in both ESL and EFL settings. Results of corpus-
based studies are published in journals that are available internationally
(e.g., Applied Linguistics, ELT Journal, International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, System). In addition, teachers and students with computer
access can analyze English language corpora themselves, particularly as
corpora become increasingly available on the World Wide Web.7 Thus,
TESOL professionals do not have to rely purely on judgments of
grammatical accuracy or on native speakers’ intuition about what sounds
natural. Corpus-based research makes it possible for all TESOL profes-
sionals to analyze factors associated with the use of particular structures—
7
For classroom projects as well as larger research studies, the design of the corpus is an
important issue, as results will vary depending on the language varieties represented in the
corpus. For further discussion of important elements in corpus design, see Aston and Burnard
(1998), Biber (1993), Biber et al. (1998, especially Methodology Boxes 1 and 2), Kennedy
(1998), McEnery and Wilson (1996), and Sinclair (1991). Future empirical investigations of
corpus size, representativeness, and sampling are important for the advancement of corpus
linguistics.
THE FORUM 555

and to conduct such analyses or use them for classroom teaching without
access to native speakers.
WILL THESE CHANGES TAKE PLACE?

None of the three changes that I have presented is a new idea in
grammar pedagogy. For instance, the very existence of a field and
journal entitled English for Specific Purposes suggests that single, mono-
lithic descriptions of English are insufficient. The importance of
lexicogrammatical associations and formulaic language has also been
noted in pedagogically oriented publications (see, e.g., Celce-Murcia et
al., 1997; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992) and emphasized in the Collins
Cobuild grammar series (e.g., Francis, Hunston, & Manning, 1996;
Hunston & Francis, 2000). However, if the majority of grammar text-
books are an accurate indication, most grammar teaching remains
unaffected to any significant extent by the advances brought about by
corpus linguistics. In principle, corpus linguistics should have a wide-
spread impact because it can give teachers access to the empirical
evidence necessary for making these changes. However, whether or not
the potential of corpus linguistics is realized will depend on several
factors.
Will Corpus-Based Research Reach the Right Audiences?

One factor will be the forums in which corpus-based research is
presented. Current corpus work has many practical applications, but—as
noted earlier—only concordancing has gained wide classroom recogni-
tion. Corpus grammarians must strive to reach more audiences that
include teachers and must emphasize concrete pedagogical applications
(see, e.g., Conrad, 1999; McCarthy & Carter, 1995). Teachers-in-training
are also an important audience. In fact, the strongest force for change
could be a new generation of ESL teachers who were introduced to
corpus-based research in their training programs, who appreciate the
scope of the work, and who have practiced conducting their own corpus
investigations and designing materials based on corpus research.
How Will the Research Applications Be Presented?

When described to teachers and teachers-in-training, the pedagogical
applications of corpus research need to be presented in a thoughtful
manner. Frequency data alone cannot dictate pedagogy. The finding that
a particular grammatical structure is rare does not mean that all teachers
should necessarily neglect it. As described previously, that-subject clauses
are rare, but under certain conditions they are an effective tool for
556 TESOL QUARTERLY

creating a coherent written text, so relatively advanced students in classes
focused on written language may well benefit from being introduced to
them. Other rare grammatical features can have important discourse
functions in particular registers as well. Thus, decisions about pedagogy
should apply corpus linguistics by taking into account functional descrip-
tions and frequency information as well as analyses of students’ needs.
How—and How Much—Will Corpus-Based Research Be

Incorporated Into Materials?
Another factor affecting the impact of corpus linguistics will be the
extent to which and the manner in which new grammar teaching
materials incorporate the results of corpus-based research. Lists of
corpus findings are not necessarily useful for ESL students, but materials
writers can use results subtly—for instance, as suggested above in
designing activities that ask students to use the most common verb + that-
clause combinations for the same purposes that corpus research has
revealed among native speakers. Furthermore, corpus research comple-
ments many suggested innovations in grammar pedagogy; results can,
for example, help a teacher decide on the content of consciousness-
raising activities. (See Carter & McCarthy’s 1997 textbook, which asks
students to notice aspects of corpus data, although the analyses are not
fully developed as tasks.)
How Will Teachers React to the Use of Corpus Research?

Finally, changes in grammar pedagogy will depend on teachers’
willingness to deviate from traditional grammar syllabi. Sometimes
corpus research raises questions about long-held grammar teaching
practices: Why, for example, should students orally practice a structure
such as that-subject clauses (Azar, 1989, p. 271) when they are virtually
never used by native speakers in conversation? Why was the progressive
aspect traditionally considered important for beginning conversation
students when it accounts for only a very small proportion of verbs and
functions in conversation (Biber et al., 1999, chapter 6)? My point is not
to criticize textbooks of the 20th century but to emphasize that textbooks
of the 21st century can be based on a more accurate analysis of language
use. Because teachers cannot cover everything in an ESL grammar class,
principled decisions about content are crucial. With the growth of
corpus linguistics, principles can be based on large-scale empirical
information about language use—and if this leads to books that do not
conform to traditional ideas about what should be covered at each level,
we as teachers need to be willing to accept the changes and try them with
students.
THE FORUM 557

CONCLUSION
Corpus linguistics offers the field of TESOL a new view of grammar.
This view describes variation in the frequency and use of grammatical
constructions and acknowledges the complexity involved in grammatical
choices, which are not simply decisions about formal accuracy. Further-
more, corpus linguistics reveals that the variation in use of grammatical
constructions is highly systematic: The ways that native speakers typically
exploit their grammatical resources follow strong patterns, with system-
atic associations between grammatical choices and features of the social
and linguistic context. Corpus linguistics leads to a description of
grammar that is consistent with native speaker use, accounts for variation
in a systematic way, and is useful for English language teachers and
students. Incorporating this view of grammar into teaching will require a
concerted effort on the part of researchers, materials writers, and
teachers, but it is a logical, realistic, and beneficial outcome of corpus
linguistics.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Douglas Biber and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful
comments on a previous draft of this commentary. I also thank the audience at the
Second North American Symposium on Corpus Linguistics and Language Teaching
for a stimulating discussion.
THE AUTHOR
Susan Conrad is an assistant professor in the Department of English at Iowa State
University. She is coauthor of Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English
(Pearson Education) and Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language, Structure, and Use
(Cambridge University Press). Her work on corpus linguistics has appeared in
journals including Linguistics and Education and System.
REFERENCES
Aston, G., & Burnard, L. (1998). The BNC Handbook. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh
University Press.
Azar, B. (1989). Understanding and using English grammar (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Comput-
ing, 8, 1–15.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language
structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman
grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied
558 TESOL QUARTERLY

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1997). Exploring spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991a). Discourse analysis and grammar instruction. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 459–480.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991b). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 135–151.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 in-
struction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly,
31, 141–152.
Cobb, T. (1997). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing?
System, 25, 301–315.
Conrad, S. (1999). The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers.
System, 27, 1–18.
Danielson, D., & Porter, P. (1990). Using English, your second language. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87–
105.
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness and noticing through focus on form: Grammar tasks
performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385–407.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use
through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323–351.
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1996). Cobuild grammar patterns 1: Verbs.
London: HarperCollins.
Greenberg, K. (1992). Effective writing: Choices and conventions (2nd ed.). New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the
lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jenkins, M. (1986). Writing: A content approach to ESL composition. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Johns, T. (1986). Micro-Concord: A language learner’s research tool. System, 14, 151–
162.
Johns, T. (1994). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in
the context of data-driven learning. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical
grammar (pp. 293–313). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, G. (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Longman.
Mair, C. (1990). Infinitival complement clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Master, P. (1994). The effect of systematic instruction on learning the English article
system. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 229–252).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. (1998). Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1995). Spoken grammar: What is it and how can we
teach it? ELT Journal, 49, 207–218.
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (1996). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh
University Press.
Meyer, C. (1992). Apposition in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
THE FORUM 559

Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Papa, M., & Iantorno, G. (1986). Turning points: Communicating in English. New York:
Addison-Wesley.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of
the English language. London: Longman.
Raimes, A. (1992). Exploring through writing: A process approach to ESL composition (2nd
ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Rutherford, W. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London:
Longman.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1988). Consciousness raising and the second language student.
In M. Sharwood Smith (Ed.), Grammar and second language teaching (pp. 51–60).
New York: Newbury House.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spack, R. (1990). Guidelines: A cross-cultural reading/writing text. New York: St. Martin’s
Press.
Stevens, V. (1995). Concordancing with language learners: Why? When? What?
CAELL Journal, 6, 2–10.
Tanka, J., & Most, P. (1996). Interactions 1: A listening/speaking skills book (3rd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tottie, G. (1991). Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Yip, V. (1994). Grammatical consciousness-raising and learnability. In T. Odlin (Ed.),
Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 123–138). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Machine Translation: The Alternative

for the 21st Century?
V. MICHAEL CRIBB
Kansai Gaidai University
Osaka, Japan
■ In charting the rise of English in his recent book English as a Global

Language, Crystal (1997) noted that English “has repeatedly found itself
in the right place at the right time” (p. 110). The implication is that at
the beginning of the 21st century English is once again well placed, this
time to take advantage of the electronic revolution and establish itself in
an “impregnable” (p. 22) position as the international language. Accord-
ingly, the prospects for the TESOL profession are overwhelmingly
positive, as English is seen as the key for participation in the global
community. Interestingly, Crystal only devotes a couple of pages to the
topic of machine translation (MT), in which he prophesies the coming
battle between it and English as the global language:
560 TESOL QUARTERLY

It will be very interesting to see what happens then—whether the presence of
a global language will eliminate the demand for world translation services, or
whether the economics of [machine] translation will so undercut the cost of
global language learning that the latter will become otiose. It will be an
interesting battle 100 years from now. . . . we may well be approaching a
critical moment in human linguistic history. (p. 22)
Crystal puts the battle some 100 years in the future, but this prediction
was made before one could see the reality of the spread of the Internet.
Estimates are that by 2005, 57.3% of all Internet users will be non-English
speaking(Transparent Language, 2000), a 150% increase from 1999. The
technological infrastructure for global communication requires the
associated linguistic support systems. The assumption that the linguistic
systems will consist of the L2 English capabilities of nonnative speakers of
English needs to be reexamined. Internet communication may be better
served by MT.
A comparison between progress in computer technology and that in
second language acquisition (SLA) dramatically favors the former.
Progress in computer technology follows Moore’s law—doubling in
speed and capacity every 18 months (Port, 1997). In comparison, new
breakthroughs in SLA and teaching methodology are few and far
between. There are no prospects for SLA to be significantly quicker or
less painful 50 years from now. A second factor influencing MT is that
more and more content is appearing in electronic form, including
newspapers and magazines as well as discussion and chat groups.
Electronic books are starting to appear, and journals such as TESOL
Quarterly are available in electronic form, either on CD-ROM or on the
Internet. As the volume increases, MT systems become more useful and
therefore more financially viable.
A third factor is that, in the past, interlingual communication at an
international level (e.g., for business or academic study) was usually
reserved for persons with several years of foreign language schooling
behind them. But the Internet allows immediate access to the global
village to anyone with a computer and modem. Such a revolutionary
change in the way the world interacts necessitates a new algorithm for
the way the world communicates. It is imprudent to believe that
newcomers with little foreign language competence will embark on long-
term programs in English or that competence will develop simply as a
result of surfing the World Wide Web. Rather, the companies and
organizations that form the backbone of the Internet will need to supply
content to the users in their native language, not English. That some
companies have already recognized this requirement is evident in the
number of major Internet companies offering multilingual services to
their customers (e.g., Yahoo! Inc., http://www.yahoo.com).
THE FORUM 561

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MT
MT research started in earnest after World War II with the advent of
the computer (Slocum, 1998), but it was not until the 1980s that
processing speeds were high enough to allow for commercial applica-
tions. Nowadays, a multitude of Web companies offer translation services
based on MT with a variety of language pairs (see the Appendix).
Commercial packages for use with personal computers are also available
though less well recognized by the public. Hutchins (1996) estimates
that in 1996 about 1,000 such packages were available.1
MT has been employed in a number of domain-specific areas for some
time, the most widely known being the Meteo system, which has been
used in Canada since 1977 for weather forecast translations from English
to French (Hutchins, 1998). The European Commission also uses MT
for translations between 17 language pairs, with an estimated 260,000
document pages being translated in 1997 (Blatt, 1998, p. 13).
The need for MT outside of such domain-specific areas might never
have materialized had it not been for the growth of the Internet and
electronic commerce, which highlighted the language gap between the
people of the world. O’Hagan (1996) explains how this prominence
arose:
In the past, distance and the lack of a sophisticated telecommunications

infrastructure acted to block cross-cultural communication. At the same time
this worked as a kind of buffer, sheltering people from the reality of the
language gap. . . . Although the actual language barrier is not any greater
now, the perceived barrier is, because of the ease of communication access
afforded by advancement of technology. (p. 4)
Effectively, barriers to communication such as cost, poor quality, and

distance have “declined over time with the implementation of technol-
ogy” (O’Hagan, 1996, p. 4), thus propelling the language barrier to the
forefront. Hence the need to develop a solution that is acceptable to the
whole world has never been more urgent. For many scholars, the
solution has always resided with the English language and the implicit
assumption that its worldwide penetration will continue. Many of those
who see MT capabilities as inadequate for supporting communication
have accepted this solution uncritically.
In fact, MT as it exists now has only a limited ability to produce fully
automated, high-quality translations between languages. Internet com-
panies providing such services frequently use terminology such as gisting
to explain that MT can provide only a general outline of a text so the
user can see if it is worth seeking a higher quality translation. But
1
See Hutchins (2000) for a compendium of translation software for desktop computers.
562 TESOL QUARTERLY

researchers predict that over the coming years quality is likely to improve
with the help of example-based MT (Brace, 1993) and statistical MT
(Brown, Della Pietra, Della Pietra, & Mercer, 1993). In example-based
MT, a bank of bilingual phrases and sentence pairs is stored in memory
and accessed when required, thus alleviating the need to translate the
more idiosyncratic elements of the language word-for-word. Statistical
MT attempts to move away from encoding explicit linguistic knowledge,
instead relying on probabilistic heuristics to determine, for example, the
likelihood that a lexical item in the source language corresponds to a
lexical item in the target language.
These solutions may cause some who adhere to rule-based theories of
language to wince, but they are likely to form the basis of future systems.
Nagao (1992), an authority on MT systems, draws an analogy with birds
and airplanes: There is a fundamental difference in the way they fly, yet
both can fly (p. 14). Moreover, quality is a subjective notion, as Slocum
(1988) notes: “The abstract notion of ‘quality’ is undefinable, hence
immeasurable. In its place, we must substitute the notion of evaluation of
translation according to its purpose, judged by the consumer” (p. 35). In
other words, the consumer rather than the linguist or human translator
will judge whether MT output is of sufficient quality to justify its use. And
if the customer is the non-English-speaking user who has entered the
global arena through the back door, so to speak, with little preparation
for the task at hand, then practical concerns (i.e., the need to communi-
cate) may be more important than precision.
AN EXAMPLE: TRANSLATION ON THE INTERNET

The best way to judge the quality of typical MT services, such as
AltaVista Babel Fish on the Internet (http://babelfish.altavista.com), is
to examine the quality of their translations. AltaVista’s service is based on
the SYSTRAN MT system (see SYSTRAN, 2000), which uses an auto-
mated direct MT architecture (Watters & Patel, 1999, pp. 153–154).
Translation of text between five different language pairs is currently
available: English into French, German, Italian, Portuguese, or Spanish,
and vice versa. To explore AltaVista Babel Fish, I wrote a letter in English
as a test case and used the service to translate it into French. To
determine the quality of the translation, I then used the service to back-
translate the letter into English. The original letter, French translation,
and back-translation are given below.
Original letter:
Dear President of France,

I am an Englishman who is currently looking for employment in your
country. I was made redundant after the collapse of the language teaching
THE FORUM 563

profession around the world. I don’t speak a word of French but have used
machine translation techniques over the last six months very successfully with
many foreign people. I therefore believe I will have no problems communi-
cating with French people and integrating into your culture. I’d be grateful if
you would look at my attached resume and let me know your answer in due
course.
Yours sincerely,
V. Michael Cribb
French translation:
Cher président de la France,

Je suis un Anglais qui recherche actuel l’emploi dans votre pays. J’ai été
licencié après l’effondrement de la profession de l’enseignement des langues
autour du monde. Je ne parle pas un mot du français mais ai utilisé des
techniques de traduction automatique au cours des six derniers mois avec
beaucoup de succès avec beaucoup de personnes étrangères. I croient donc
que je n’aurai aucun problème communiquant avec les français et intégrant
dans votre culture. Je serais reconnaissant si vous regarderiez mon résumé
joint et me faisiez savoir votre réponse en temps opportun.
Bien à vous,
V. Michael Cribb
Back-translation:
Dear president of France,

I am an English who seeks current employment in your country. I was laid
off after the collapse of the profession of the language teaching around the
world. I do not speak a word about French but used techniques of machine
translation during last six months with much of success with much of foreign
people. I thus believe that I will not have any problem communicating with
French and integral in your culture. I would be grateful if you would look at
my joined summary and let me know your response in convenient time.
Yours sincerely,
V. Michael Cribb
The back-translation preserves most of the semantic content of the

original although a few inaccuracies have been introduced at the lexical
and phrasal levels. The most noticeable of these are listed below:
Original letter Back-translation

a word of French a word about French
very successfully with much of success
integrating into your culture integral in your culture
attached resume joined summary
564 TESOL QUARTERLY

However, what is apparent in the back-translation is that, despite the
semantic inaccuracies introduced at the phrasal level by the MT process,
the discourse as a whole is coherent, and the text still functions
adequately as a letter. Indeed, an EFL speaker who had produced such a
text might well have received praise for the effort.
The back-translation above is the result of the text having gone
through the MT process twice. Most real-world applications only require
a single step from source to target language. Such a translation from
French to English of a Luxembourg-based newspaper article (“Marc
Petry,” 2000) is given below.
Original article:
A la recherche de nouveaux talents, Aart’s Masters Paris/Monaco avait

organisé un concours auquel douze artistes européens ont été sélectionnés.
L’artiste-peintre Marc Petry a représenté le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
parmi soixante artistes (peintres et sculpteurs) du monde entier à la Grande
Finale New York 2000 du 26 au 29 janvier à la Golding Gallery, 8 Bond Street
(quartier Soho) à New York.
English translation:
With the search for new talents, Aart’ S Masters Paris/Monaco had organized
a contest to which twelve European artists were selected. The artist-painter
Marc Petry represented the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg among sixty artists
(painters and sculptors) of the whole world to the Great Finale New York
2000 from the 26 to January 29 in Golding Gallery, 8 Jump Street (Soho
district) in New York.
Here, the quality of the output is excellent, and the English translation
could, with a few minor modifications, be taken for an original.
Not all translations are so successful. The system produces high-quality
translations for texts conveying denotative meanings, but results are less
impressive for those whose connotative meanings are equally important.
German-English translations frequently produce poor output (see Blatt,
1998, p. 13), and, because of SYSTRAN’s reliance on a direct translation
algorithm, the system is frequently unable to translate nonliteral word
meanings (e.g., in proverbs) correctly (Watters & Patel, 1999, p. 160).
Despite the current weaknesses of MT output, current capabilities
warrant its serious consideration as a bridge across the global language
gap.
THE FORUM 565

MT, ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE,
AND THE TESOL PROFESSION
If MT becomes widespread as a means for individuals to communi-
cate, what will this mean for the future of English as a global language
and the TESOL profession? The term global here is something of a
misnomer. Although the majority of intercultural encounters between
people who do not share a common tongue probably take place in
English (even when English is the L1 of neither), such encounters do
not represent a significant proportion of the total verbal interaction
around the globe. The vast majority of this interaction, in fact, is carried
out in native tongues by people who share a common language, whether
Chinese, French, or Wolof, for that matter (Loonen, 1996). This
interaction includes most common, day-to-day activities, such as dia-
logues, media broadcasts, and the reading of literature. In practice,
English as a second or foreign language, when compared to an L1,
carries little significance in the lives of the greater part of the world’s
population. Even when English is required for communication, people
use a reduced set of functions compared with the range of functions they
use in other languages. English perhaps should more correctly be called
a link language in that it allows the people of the world to communicate
with each other.
From this perspective, English is situated on a fragile foundation.
Kachru (1985, p. 12) has grouped English users around the world into
three categories: the inner circle, in which English is the primary lan-
guage; the outer circle, in which English has status as an L2 (e.g., India,
Singapore); and the expanding circle, in which where English is taught as
a foreign language (e.g., Japan, China). Crystal (1997, pp. 53–54) has
added the number of people in each group together, arriving at a figure
of 1,200–1,500 million people as a “middle-of-the-road” estimate for the
number of people who have “reasonable competence” (p. 61) in English.
However, this figure includes a large percentage of people who have not
elected to use English as a mode of communication (i.e., EFL users).
Rather, they use English because they do not have a choice in the matter
as yet. They must use English to get on in their careers and have access
to the “global village.” Given a choice, though, between a technology
(MT) that allows quick and easy access to the written and spoken words
of the world or a long-term course in EFL, many people will choose, and
demand, the former. For whereas some view the pursuit of foreign
language competence as an admirable expenditure of effort, others may
see it as unnecessary if an effective alternative exists.
MT may provide such an alternative, which through widespread
application might render the expanding circle a diminishing circle in
the future. In the outer circle, where English is used regularly as an
566 TESOL QUARTERLY

official language, its position may be more stable, but still its L2 status
does not guarantee its future. If MT became the choice for these ESL
users, only the inner circle of native-English-speaking countries would
remain—not a small number, but a far cry from the sole lingua franca
that English is sometimes forecasted to be.
Development of MT notwithstanding, English will no doubt remain
influential for the foreseeable future, but it may be destined as a
“vehicular” (Guédon, 1997, p. 78) language of the world (along with
perhaps Chinese, Arabic, and Spanish) rather than the global language.
If the rise of English as a global language is put into reverse by MT, then
it follows that the TESOL profession will see a similar decline. Many of
the massive EFL education programs at the secondary and tertiary levels
could be scaled back, language teachers will move on to other employ-
ment, and the people of the world will be able to communicate with each
other on even terms, leading to true “linguistic emancipation” (Eastman,
1983, p. 101).
Obviously, nobody can accurately predict the future, but, as with Latin
and French, which were once thought destined to become global
languages, we have to be prepared for the time when English too may
become redundant in this role. That time may be approaching. In the
words of Crystal (1997), “linguistic history shows us repeatedly that it is
wise to be cautious, when making predictions about the future of a
language” (p. 113).
THE AUTHOR
Michael Cribb taught English in South Korea for 9 years before completing
postgraduate studies at the University of Leeds, England. He currently lectures in
linguistics and ESL at Kansai Gaidai University, Japan.
REFERENCES
Blatt, A. (1998). Workflow using linguistic technology at the Translation Service of
the European Commission. In Translation technology: Integration in the workflow
environment. Proceedings of the 1998 European Association for Machine Translation
Workshop (pp. 7–18). Geneva, Switzerland: European Association for Machine
Translation. Retrieved June 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www
.lim.nl/eamt/archive/geneva.pdf.
Brace, C. (1993, September/October). Focus on Japan. Language Industry Monitor.
Retrieved June 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.eamt.org/archive
/japan.html.
Brown, P. F., Della Pietra, V. J., Della Pietra, S. A., &.Mercer, R. L. (1993). The
mathematics of statistical machine translation: Parameter estimation. Computa-
tional Linguistics, 19, 263–311.
Press.
THE FORUM 567

Eastman, C. M. (1983). Language planning for special purposes. In Language
planning: An introduction (pp. 96–102). San Francisco: Chandler & Sharp.
Guédon, J. (1997). Internet and global communication technologies: Toward a new
linguistic ecology. TEXT Technology, 7(3), 65–87.
Hutchins, J. (1996, December). Computer-based translation systems and tools. ELRA
Newsletter. Retrieved June 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.lim.nl
/eamt/archive/hutchins_intro.html.
Hutchins, J. (1998, April). Translation technology and the translator. Machine
Translation Review, 7, 7–14. Retrieved July 1, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.bcs.org.uk/siggroup/nalatran/nalamtr7/nalamt76.htm.
Hutchins, J. (Ed.). (2000, April). Compendium of translation software, commercial machine
translation systems and computer-aided translation support tools. Geneva, Switzerland:
European Association for Machine Translation. (Available from http://www.lim.nl
/eamt/compendium.html)
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The
English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.),
English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30).
Loonen, P. (1996). English in Europe: From timid to tyrannical. English Today, 12(2),
3–9.
Marc Petry: Un luxembourgeois à New York. (2000, February 4). Tageblatt. Retrieved
July 1, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tageblatt.lu/article.asp
?articlenum=3789.
Nagao, M. (1992). MT technology: Its application and future. In Kikai honyaku
sisutemu no jitsuyouka ni kansuru chosakekka [Research findings on utilization of MT
systems] (pp. 10–16). Tokyo: Japanese Electronic Industry Development Association.
O’Hagan, M. (1996). The coming industry of teletranslation. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Port, O. (1997, June 23). Essay: Gordon Moore’s crystal ball. Business Week Interna-
tional Edition. Retrieved July 1, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www
.businessweek.com/1997/25/b353225.htm.
Slocum, J. (1988). A survey of machine translation: Its history, current status, and
future prospects. In J. Slocum (Ed.), Machine translation systems (pp. 1–47).
SYSTRAN. (2000, June). Machine translation. Retrieved July 1, 2000, from the World
Wide Web: http://www.systransoft.com/mt_arch.htm.
Transparent Language. (2000, January). Machine translation and the power and purpose
of “gisting” in the Internet era: A white paper from Transparent Language. Merrimack,
NH: Author. Retrieved July 1, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www
.transparentlanguage.com/ets/about/mtwhitepaper.htm.
Watters, P. A., & Patel, M. (1999). Semantic processing performance of Internet
machine translation systems. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and
Policy, 9, 153–160.
APPENDIX
Selected Machine Translation Sites on the Internet
Following are the Internet addresses of selected offer machine translation services. Free services
usually restrict the length of the text to be translated. In general, translations between Indo-
European language pairs yield better results than those between Indo-European and non-Indo-
568 TESOL QUARTERLY

European languages. English-French translation yielded the best results. Of the free services
tested, AltaVista Babel Fish gave the best results with the fictitious letter and newspaper article
discussed in this article. With the English-Japanese services, reducing sentence length and
simplifying input improved the quality of the translation.
Service and Internet address Languages Comments
ALIS Gist-In-Time English ÷ Spanish, French, Free service available

http://www.alis.com/cgi-bin Italian, Portuguese, German,
/transdemo.pl Japanese, simplified Chinese,
traditional Chinese
AltaVista Babel Fish English ÷ Spanish, French, Free service available
http://babelfish.altavista.com Italian, Portuguese, German
FreeTranslation.com English → Spanish, French, Free service available
http://www.freetranslation.com German, Italian, Norwegian,
Portuguese; Spanish, French,
German → English
InterTran English ÷ Brazilian Portuguese, Free service available
http://www.tranexp.com:2000 Japanese, Latin American
/InterTran Spanish, and a whole range of
European languages
Language Engineering English ÷ Japanese Small demo available
Corporation at http://www.lec.com
http://www.lec.com /demo/frame.html
SPANAM® and ENGSPAN® English ÷ Spanish Software purchasing fee
http://www.paho.org/english required (Microsoft
/ags/mt-home.htm Windows version
available soon)
T-Mail English ÷ Spanish, French, Free service available
http://www.t-mail.com Italian, Portuguese, German
Some Thoughts on Globalization:

A Response to Warschauer
NUMA MARKEE
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, Illinois, United States
■ As someone who is interested in the linguistic dimensions of interna-

tional development and the increasingly important role that technology
plays in both development and ESL/EFL, I found Warschauer’s article in
this issue both timely and well argued. Of course, one of Warschauer’s
central arguments—that ESL/EFL methodology is shaped by broader
socioeconomic circumstances—is not new (see, among others, Kennedy,
1988; Markee, 1997a; Richards, 1985; all have made the same argument).
However, the ESL/EFL profession needs to constantly reexamine how
THE FORUM 569

ESL/EFL teaching fits into its broader societal context. In my experience
as a teacher educator, teachers and teachers-in-training rarely pay much
attention to the larger sociocultural factors that often determine what is
possible or desirable in a given classroom. These factors include cultural
views on language and dispositions to particular types of learning,
explicit or implicit language policies, economic and demographic fac-
tors, and educational and institutional policies relating to the curricu-
lum or timetabling. A narrow focus on classrooms is understandable
because people tend to focus on what they can directly control. Nonethe-
less, it is important for us as ESL/EFL specialists to remember that
sociocultural factors influence what we do, particularly when we engage
in any kind of educational innovation.
Warschauer’s article makes it abundantly clear that the ESL/EFL
profession is going through a period of rapid change on a number of
different fronts. First, and perhaps most fundamentally, what ESL/EFL
teachers teach—the English language—is itself undergoing changes in
its form and function. English is by no means the only language in the
world that finds itself in this situation (e.g., Hindi also fulfills some
official functions in India), but as the world’s leading language of wider
communication, it is distinguished from all other languages (Crystal,
1987), and as Warschauer points out, this distinction complexifies the
task of teaching English in a global context.
Second, the importance of English as the world’s leading language of
wider communication means that it often becomes a tool of social
divisiveness, as the symbol that differentiates between the economic
haves and have-nots. Developing good English skills is often a prerequi-
site to obtaining good employment, and therefore, as Warschauer
emphasizes, ESL/EFL practitioners need to consider the practical and
ethical implications of English teaching to develop socially relevant
pedagogies.
Third, and intimately linked with the global spread of English, is the
rapid diffusion of information technology (IT) throughout the world.
Not only is a knowledge of English important in terms of developing this
technology, but the technology itself helps diffuse English throughout
the world at an ever-growing pace, through communication on the
Internet. Furthermore, the use of IT is broadening the rhetorical range
of English by promoting the development of new hybrid genres of
communication, as Murray (this issue) describes. Warschauer raises
issues about the excitement and controversy associated with the spread
of IT, as it opens up all kinds of new possibilities in ESL/EFL instruction
while potentially widening the gap between the rich and the poor, both
inside and outside education.
Warschauer’s article, then, is in many ways a sensitive and informed
review of the complex interrelationships among language, technology,
570 TESOL QUARTERLY

and social context. It also offers some insightful comments about the
implications of globalization for ESL/EFL instruction in the 21st cen-
tury. At the same time, however, as I read the article, I found myself
constantly wondering, What is globalization in a technical sense? Further-
more, is there a coherent way of understanding how globalization occurs
that can also help us understand the actual and desired changes
occurring in the field of ESL/EFL teaching?
GLOBALIZATION
Warschauer provides the following definition of informationalism,
which I use as the starting point of my discussion:
The industrial societies of the past are giving way to a new postindustrial
economic order based on globalized manufacturing and distribution; flex-
ible, customized production; the application of science, technology, and
information management as the key elements of productivity and economy
growth; and increased inequality between those who control technological
and media resources and those who lack technological access and know-how
(Carnoy, Castells, Cohen, & Cardoso, 1993). This new global economic order,
termed informationalism by Castells (1996), first emerged in the 1970s
following advances in computing technology and telecommunications.
Informationalism has given rise to economic, social, and cultural dynamics
that are very different from those of the industrial area and that are shaped by
an overriding contradiction between the power of global networks and the
struggle for local identity (Barber, 1995; Castells, 1996; Friedman, 1999).
What I find interesting about this definition of informationalism is

that, in many respects, it evokes many of the themes evoked by Friedman’s
(1999) book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, with the important difference
that, for Friedman, informationalism is just a subset of globalization.
More specifically, for Friedman, globalization is the dynamic global
system that has replaced the rigid structures of the Cold War era. Its
underlying ideology is one of free-market capitalism, whose principal
cultural manifestations are the all-too-familiar icons of U.S. popular
culture, such as Disney World, Ronald McDonald, and MTV. Finally, its
defining technologies are computerization, miniaturization, digitization,
satellite communications, fiber optics, and the Internet. Thus, according
to this view, globalization minimally has to be understood in terms of its
economic, political, and cultural dimensions as well as its technological
manifestations.
Whether or not one agrees with Friedman (who, incidentally, is the
foreign affairs correspondent of the New York Times), this definition
seems to suggest that globalization is perhaps an even more complex
phenomenon than Warschauer implies. It is also more bluntly stated,
THE FORUM 571

which has the merit of crystallizing the important issues for ESL/EFL
professionals dramatically. More specifically, as individuals who are
involved in an inherently global enterprise, how do we really feel about
consciously or unconsciously participating in the diffusion of free-market
capitalism? How do we view the worldwide spread of U.S. popular culture
and, by extension, its vector, the English language? Do we accept this as
a desirable goal, or do we view such phenomena as an instance of
cultural and linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992)? How do we
position ourselves in relation to the use and value of technology in
second language acquisition research and ESL/EFL instruction? Are we
Luddites, or technoenthusiasts convinced of the inherently empowering
potential of technology?
These are questions that all ESL/EFL professionals need to discuss
and that will doubtless provoke an impassioned debate. This is all to the
good. However we position ourselves in relation to these issues—and, as
Warschauer implies, many people will probably situate themselves some-
where in between the polar positions outlined above—we need to
understand how the global ESL/EFL enterprise is going to change in the
next few years. But what are the specific mechanisms that drive change
forward?
THE NEED TO UNDERSTAND SOCIAL CHANGE

Warschauer gives some interesting examples of change happening,
such as the nativization of MTV, “which first broadcast a single version
internationally but now is increasingly developing regional versions in a
variety of languages and dialects.” Beyond positing that this particular
example of social change involved a two-stage process of diffusion,
Warschauer does not provide a theoretical framework that might help us
conceptualize how social change happens. Friedman (1999) is again
helpful here. He compellingly argues that one of the most important
strengths of globalization as a world system is its emphasis on the
constant need for innovation. This suggests to me that if we are truly to
understand the processes of globalization in general and the kinds of
concomitant changes that ESL/EFL practitioners in particular will face
in the coming years, we need to understand how innovations of all kinds
diffuse.
Lack of space precludes a detailed discussion of these issues here, so I
limit myself to providing some important references and briefly summa-
rizing how the process of diffusion might be conceptualized. A number
of disciplines, including sociology, law, medicine, education, anthropol-
ogy, urban planning, and language planning, have rich, well-established
traditions of diffusion research. More recently, this type of research has
572 TESOL QUARTERLY

also begun to be conducted within the field of applied linguistics. The
most influential scholar writing on diffusion issues today is the sociolo-
gist Rogers, whose 1995 book, The Diffusion of Innovations, is the standard
reference in the field. Within applied linguistics, Henrichsen (1989),
Kennedy (1988, 1999), Kennedy, Doyle, and Goh, (1999), Li (1998),
Markee (1993, 1997a, 1997b), Rea-Dickens and Germaine (1998),
Salaberry, 1999, Stoller (1994, 1997), and Wall (1996) have all contrib-
uted to the development of this perspective as it pertains to the areas of
curriculum design and language testing. In my own work, for example,
which is closely based on the pioneering work of the language planner
Cooper (1989), I approach the question of how to plan, implement, and
evaluate curricular innovation by asking the multidimensional question,
“Who adopts, what, where, when, why, and how?”
Who-type questions address the range of social roles played by stake-
holders. Adopts-type questions focus on the various stages of adoption
potential adopters traverse as they decide whether to accept or reject
innovation X. What-type questions focus on different types of change and
the interactions that occur between primary (academic) and secondary
(administrative) innovations. Where -type questions attempt to situate
innovations in their sociocultural context. When-type questions highlight
the time-bound nature of change. Why -type questions focus on the
psychological profiles of different types of adopters, the nature of
ownership, and the attributes of innovations. Finally, how-type questions
are concerned with understanding the advantages and disadvantages of
different approaches to making change happen.
Thus, this framework not only situates innovation processes in their
sociocultural context, as Warschauer attempts to do in his article, but
also potentially suggests at least six other lenses through which a
correspondingly richer, ecological perspective on globalization may be
developed. In sum, although I applaud Warschauer’s article as a very
worthwhile contribution to a discussion on globalization that needs to
take place in ESL/EFL teaching and applied linguistics, I suspect that
the way in which we as ESL/EFL professionals frame these questions will
be much more complex than either Warschauer (or indeed I) can now
imagine.
THE AUTHOR
Numa Markee teaches applied linguistics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. His intellectual interests include the diffusion of curricular innovations,
language in development work, and conversation analysis. His most important
publications in these areas include Managing Curricular Innovation (Cambridge
University Press) and Conversation Analysis (Erlbaum).
THE FORUM 573

REFERENCES
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Friedman, T. L. (1999). The Lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalization. New
York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Henrichsen, L. E. (1989). Diffusion of innovations in English language teaching: The
ELEC effort in Japan, 1956–1968. New York: Greenwood Press.
Kennedy, C. (1988). Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects.
Kennedy, C. (Ed.). (1999). Innovation and best practice. London: Longman.
Kennedy, C., Doyle, P., & Goh, C. (Eds.). (1999). Exploring change. London:
Macmillan Heinemann.
Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’
perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South
Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677–703.
Markee, N. P. P. (1993). The diffusion of innovation in language teaching. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 229–243.
Markee, N. P. P. (1997a). Managing curricular innovation. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Markee, N. P. P. (1997b). SLA research: A resource for changing teachers’ profes-
sional cultures? Modern Language Journal, 81, 80–93.
Rea-Dickins, P., & Germaine, K. P. (1998). Managing evaluation and innovation in
language teaching: Building bridges. Harlow, England: Longman.
Richards, J. C. (1985). The context of language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). The diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Salaberry, R. (1999). The research-pedagogy interface in L2 acquisition: Implications
for language program directors. In L. K. Heilenman (Ed.), Research issues and
language program direction (pp. 39–59). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Stoller, F. L. (1994) The diffusion of innovations in intensive ESL programs. Applied
Stoller, F. L. (1997). The catalyst for change and innovation. In M. A. Christison &
F. L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 33–48).
Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center.
Wall, D. (1996). Introducing new tests into traditional systems: Insights from general
education and from innovation theory. Language Testing, 13, 334–354.
574 TESOL QUARTERLY

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES
TESOL Quarterly invites readers to submit short reports and updates on their work.
These summaries may address any areas of interest to Quarterly readers. Authors’
addresses are printed with these reports to enable interested readers to contact the
authors for more details.
Edited by CAROL A. CHAPELLE

Trends in Computer Use

Among International Students
CAROL TAYLOR
Educational Testing Service
Princeton, New Jersey, United States
JOAN JAMIESON
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, Arizona, United States
DANIEL EIGNOR
Educational Testing Service
Princeton, New Jersey, United States
■ The increasing use of computers in North American higher education

as well as in language instruction and assessment raises concerns about
access and equity for many international students, who may be caught on
the wrong side of the digital divide. As Warschauer (this issue) points
out, a very small percentage of the world’s population (5% by a 1999
estimate) has access to the Internet, but for English language teaching
the figures of greater interest are those indicating the level of computer
access among English language learners globally. This report presents a
profile of the computer familiarity of a subset of English language
learners—students hoping to participate in higher education in North
America—and examines whether this profile has changed within a
relatively brief period. Computer familiarity was defined as frequency of
any kind of computer use, frequency of use of English word-processing
programs, and frequency of use of the Internet. The results provide
concrete data on an issue of particular importance to English for
academic purposes (EAP) teachers.

PATTERNS OF COMPUTER FAMILIARITY
It has been difficult to obtain a clear picture of how familiar students
around the world are with computers. First, data on computer familiarity
are not available for every country, and the information that is available
describes computer familiarity from a variety of perspectives and reflects
a variety of data collection procedures. Second, some studies report on
educational systems whereas others report on telecommunication infra-
structure. Still, not surprisingly, a pattern has seemed to emerge in which
countries are divided into “haves” and “have nots.” Among those
countries described as having the infrastructure for computers and
having a number of computers in classrooms are Australia, Austria,
Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and
the United States. Africa, Bangladesh, Chile, China, India, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Ven-
ezuela, among other regions, have been described as lacking infrastruc-
ture and tending not to have many computers available in schools. (See
Bell, Adam, & Lowe, 1996; Hamelink, 1997; Nakayama & Greik, 1998;
Pelgrum, Janssen Reinen, & Plomp, 1993.)
Also not surprisingly, a second pattern emerging from a review of
studies on computer use was that each country’s or region’s status in
terms of computer use was changing rapidly (Durndell & Lightbody,
1993; Hamelink, 1997; Nakayama & Griek, 1998; U.S. Department of
Education, 1998). The case of Japan is illustrative. In 1993, the survey by
Pelgrum et al. of 10 countries ranked Japan among the lowest in
computer use in schools, reporting that 42% of Japanese students in
elementary school, 44% in lower secondary school, and 35% in upper
secondary school did not use computers. However, 3 years later the
picture was very different. According to Tabata, Suzuki, and Iwasaki
(1998), by 1996 the percentage of schools in Japan with computers
installed was 84.7% at the elementary level, 99.7% at the lower secondary
level, and 100.0% at the upper secondary level. Even though one study
examined the number of students who used computers in school
whereas the other study reported on the number of computers in school
(thus highlighting the difficulty with this type of literature review), the
data pointed toward a change in computer availability for school-aged
children in Japan and the need to investigate both access to and actual
use of computers.
Such broad strokes, however, do not really clarify the current status of
students internationally who may be involved in English language
learning. The students of particular interest in this study are those
planning to leave their home countries to study in North America. These
learners might form a select subgroup that is not representative of the
general student population in their respective countries. Therefore,
576 TESOL QUARTERLY

knowledge about computer use in the national educational systems of
various countries or their technological infrastructure may not necessar-
ily reveal the status of the subgroup of international students who intend
to pursue higher education in English-speaking North America.
A 1998 survey of college freshmen in the United States (Higher
Education Research Institute, 1999), which asked questions about com-
puter use, might serve as the basis for comparing the computer familiar-
ity of English learners outside North America with that of students in
North America. The survey reported that 82.9% of new freshmen used
the Internet for homework and research, and 80.1% had used e-mail
during their last year in high school. Although the survey did not ask if
students were international, it did ask if they were U.S. citizens, perma-
nent residents (i.e., possessing a green card), or neither. An analysis of
first-time, full-time freshmen who responded neither to the citizenship
status question (W. Korn, personal communication, June 25, 1999)
indicated that 84.5% of these respondents used the Internet for research
or homework occasionally or frequently.
Breaking the entire data set out by type of institution revealed
markedly different patterns for private, public, and public African
American colleges, leading the founding director of the survey to
remark,
These findings suggest strongly that access to educational technology still is

not equal for certain segments of the incoming student population . . . . As
they incorporate technology into instruction and campus life, colleges and
universities should be aware of the differing levels of computing experience
for incoming freshmen. (Higher Education Research Institute, 1999, p. 1)
This caution applies to international students. Are all international

students equally familiar with computers? Do these students know how to
use an English word-processing application? Do all of these students
arrive on campus already knowing how to use the Internet? In addition
to English proficiency, international students will increasingly need
computer skills to be ready for college. Are such expectations realistic for
all matriculating international students? This report attempts to address
these questions.
METHOD
Participants
The participants in the study were Test of English as a Foreign
Language (TOEFL) examinees. Because the TOEFL is required for
admission to most graduate and undergraduate colleges and universities
in North America and because most TOEFL examinees indicate that
BRIEF REPORTS 577

they are taking the test for college admission, this sample should provide
insight into the computer sophistication and readiness of international
students planning to attend North American colleges and universities.
A total of 191,493 examinees participated in this study—90,629 in the
first administration of the questionnaire and 100,864 in the second. Of
these, 97,364 reportedly were males, and 90,059 were females. The
majority of the examinees were between 20 and 30 years old: 41,450
reported that they were under 20, 122,294 were between 20 and 30, and
24,840 were over 30. Not all examinees provided responses to queries
about gender and age.
Instrument
A survey instrument developed as part of another study (for details,
see Kirsch, Jamieson, Taylor, & Eignor, 1998; Taylor, Kirsch, Jamieson, &
Eignor, 1999) contained 23 questions grouped into four areas of
computer familiarity often referred to in the literature: (a) access to
computers, (b) self-assessment of attitudes toward computers and ability
to use them, (c) use of and experience with computers, and (d) use of
and experience with related technologies. For this report on basic
computer use, use of English word processing, and Internet use, we
focused on three questions from the survey:
1. How often do you use a computer?
2. How often do you use word processing in English?
3. How often do you use the Internet?
Individuals responded to the questions on a frequency scale ranging
from never to once a week or more often. Those who answered never to “How
often do you use a computer?” were instructed to skip the other two
questions. For all of these people, any blank responses were treated the
same as a response of never.
Administration
The survey instrument was administered twice: to all TOEFL examin-
ees in April 1996 (except for Chinese examinees, who filled out the
questionnaire in May 1996) and again to all TOEFL examinees in fall
1997, approximately 20 months after the first administration. The
administration took about 10 minutes. Test supervisors were given
detailed written procedures for administering the questionnaires and
returning them to Educational Testing Service.
578 TESOL QUARTERLY

RESULTS
We examined the distributions of international students’ responses to
the questions about their preparedness for computer use in college and
compared the results from the spring 1996 survey with those from the
fall 1997 survey. Because the large number of participants would lead to
statistically significant findings that might not be meaningful in a
practical sense and because the purpose of this study was descriptive, we
present the data only as percentages.
Responses to the survey were examined by test center region (i.e.,
where the examinees took the TOEFL) and then by selected Asian
language groups. The respondents took the TOEFL in seven main
regions: Africa; Asia; Europe; Latin America; the Near East; the Pacific
Islands, Australia, and New Zealand; and the United States and Canada.
This breakdown permitted us to analyze the responses of students who
were already in the United States and Canada. Because so many of the
survey respondents were from Asian countries representing a variety of
languages, we analyzed the data separately by seven native language
groups (and by country for the Chinese language) as follows: Chinese—
People’s Republic of China (PRC), Chinese—Taiwan, Chinese—Hong
Kong, Hindi/Urdu, Japanese, Korean, and Thai.
Responses by Test Center Region

In spring 1996, 60.3% of the TOEFL examinees reported using a
computer once a week or more often (Table 1). In fall 1997, this per-
centage was 69.1%, representing an increase of 8.8 percentage points
over the 20-month period between the two administrations of the survey.
More than 83% of the fall 1997 examinees and approximately 77% of the
spring 1996 examinees responded that they used computers at least once
a month, which might indicate the percentage of students who were at
least moderately prepared to use computers in college.
Computer use was highest among the TOEFL examinees in Latin
America, where in fall 1997, 88.4% of participants responded that they
used a computer at least once a week, and only 1.5% reported never
having used a computer. Computer use was lowest among TOEFL
examinees in Africa, where in fall 1997 only 44.1% claimed to use
computers weekly, and 24.5% reported never having used a computer.
All regions showed an increase between spring 1996 and fall 1997 in
examinees indicating that they had used a computer at least once a week.
The increases ranged from 4.9 percentage points in Africa to 14.1
percentage points in the Pacific Islands, Australia, and New Zealand.
Other regional increases ranged from approximately 7 percentage
points to slightly over 10 percentage points.
BRIEF REPORTS 579

TABLE 1
580
TOEFL Examinees’ Reported Computer Use by Test Center Region (%)
Category
Basic computer use Use of English word processing Internet use

Region and
administration N 1 2 3 4 N 1 2 3 4 N 1 2 3 4
All
Spring 1996 90,629 9.3 13.3 17.1 60.3 87,333 17.3 19.2 23.8 39.7 88,670 53.1 15.9 12.0 19.0
Fall 1997 100,864 5.9 10.7 14.2 69.1 97,703 13.3 19.5 24.1 43.1 99,614 24.6 16.5 16.5 42.5
Africa
Spring 1996 1,129 32.2 15.0 13.6 39.2 1,097 40.4 15.4 12.7 31.5 1,089 81.1 9.2 4.6 5.1
Fall 1997 1,650 24.5 16.1 15.3 44.1 1,599 32.6 15.1 17.6 34.6 1,613 67.0 12.3 7.7 13.0
Asia
Spring 1996 44,821 9.3 13.9 16.5 60.3 43,038 17.9 21.9 24.5 35.8 43,742 58.0 15.8 10.0 16.1
Fall 1997 53,805 5.9 12.1 14.6 67.3 51,978 13.9 23.0 24.9 38.3 53,075 28.2 18.6 15.8 37.4
Europe
Spring 1996 9,669 6.8 10.3 15.9 66.9 9,368 22.9 21.8 22.8 32.5 9,579 51.4 15.5 13.9 19.2
Fall 1997 8,897 4.5 6.4 12.3 76.8 8,678 17.6 19.7 24.3 38.4 8,860 22.2 16.0 20.0 41.8
Latin America
Spring 1996 2,673 2.7 3.9 11.5 81.9 2,609 11.1 17.5 23.5 47.9 2,653 43.3 16.5 14.6 25.6
Fall 1997 4,738 1.5 2.6 7.5 88.4 4,647 10.3 15.8 24.9 49.0 4,729 12.1 13.1 19.2 55.7
Near East
Spring 1996 3,490 15.1 13.9 15.6 55.5 3,341 23.3 16.2 20.8 39.7 3,380 69.7 11.8 8.0 10.5
Fall 1997 2,824 8.3 11.3 14.8 65.7 2,694 16.0 16.1 21.9 46.0 2,765 41.7 15.3 14.6 28.4
Pacific Islands, Australia, New Zealand
Spring 1996 365 15.6 16.4 19.5 48.5 358 22.1 17.6 20.1 40.2 361 60.1 16.3 11.9 11.6
Fall 1997 962 8.2 13.0 16.2 62.6 934 13.2 17.8 21.2 47.9 953 26.7 18.7 15.9 38.7
United States, Canada
Spring 1996 28,482 8.9 13.9 19.3 57.8 27,522 13.3 14.9 24.0 47.8 27,866 43.6 16.7 15.0 24.7
Fall 1997 27,988 5.6 10.3 15.1 69.0 27,173 10.1 14.1 23.0 52.8 27,619 16.2 13.4 17.0 53.3
TESOL QUARTERLY
Note. 1 = never; 2 = less than once a month; 3 = between once a week and once a month; 4 = once a week or more often.
The next question asked about examinees’ use of English word
processing. In spring 1996, 39.7% of examinees in all test center regions
reported using English word processing programs once a week or more
often; 43.1% did so in fall 1997 (see Table 1). Across time and regions,
the data indicate only a very modest shift in frequency of use in this
category. The greatest increase was among TOEFL examinees in the
Pacific Islands, Australia, and New Zealand (7.7 percentage points),
followed by those in the Near East (6.3 percentage points), Europe (5.9
percentage points), the United States and Canada (5.0 percentage
points), Africa (3.1 percentage points), Asia (2.5 percentage points),
and, finally, Latin America (1.1 percentage points).
From the first to the second administration of the questionnaire, the
greatest change in the three areas of computer use examined was in
responses at the two ends of the scale for Internet use. For the entire
group, those who responded never decreased from 53.1% in spring 1996
to 24.6% in fall 1997, representing a change of 28.5 percentage points.
At the other end of the scale, those in the entire group who responded
once a week or more often increased 23.5 percentage points; in fall 1997,
42.5% were using the Internet at least once a week compared with 19.0%
in spring 1996. The highest Internet use among TOEFL examinees in
fall 1997 was reported in Latin America (55.7%). Latin America also
showed the greatest increase (30.1 percentage points) in this category
from spring 1996 to fall 1997. Other increases were found among
examinees in the United States and Canada (28.6 percentage points);
the Pacific Islands, Australia, and New Zealand (27.1 percentage points);
Europe (22.6 percentage points); Asia (21.3 percentage points); the
Near East (17.9 percentage points); and Africa (7.9 percentage points).
Responses by Language Groups in Asia

In the Asian-region language groups with the greatest numbers of
TOEFL examinees, Chinese speakers in Hong Kong and Taiwan, Hindi/
Urdu speakers, and Thai speakers used computers somewhat more
frequently than their Japanese and Chinese—PRC counterparts did
(Table 2). The largest shift over time was evident in the once a week or more
often category, in which there was an average increase of slightly under 10
percentage points across the language groups. In this category Japanese
respondents showed the greatest increase (15.0 percentage points),
followed by Hindi/Urdu speakers (14.5 percentage points). The most
modest rate of increase was observed for Chinese—PRC respondents
(2.7 percentage points).
Although most Asian TOEFL examinees reported having used English
word-processing programs, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese—PRC re-
spondents reported using them less frequently than students in the other
BRIEF REPORTS 581

582
TABLE 2
Asian Region TOEFL Examinees’ Reported Computer Use by Selected Native Languages (%)
Category
Basic computer use Use of English word processing Internet use

Language and
administration N 1 2 3 4 N 1 2 3 4 N 1 2 3 4
Chinese—PRC
Spring 1996 12,903 7.6 16.1 17.6 58.6 12,150 14.1 22.6 24.7 38.5 12,431 59.5 17.6 9.5 13.4
Fall 1997 16,966 6.5 16.4 15.8 61.3 16,453 12.7 24.6 24.5 38.2 16,966 38.2 21.2 13.3 27.2
Chinese—Taiwan
Spring 1996 5,031 4.4 12.3 18.3 65.0 4,846 9.2 19.5 27.4 43.9 4,945 36.2 22.1 14.7 27.0
Fall 1997 8,431 2.2 10.4 15.3 72.1 8,179 7.9 23.5 27.1 41.5 8,346 9.1 16.7 17.8 56.5
Chinese—Hong Kong
Spring 1996 4,930 5.4 11.5 18.0 65.2 4,833 8.4 13.9 25.5 52.1 4,908 54.5 15.7 11.3 18.4
Fall 1997 3,282 2.3 7.5 12.2 77.9 3,244 4.4 10.7 23.7 61.3 3,282 16.4 14.3 15.1 54.3
Hindi/Urdu
Spring 1996 1,636 13.7 12.5 14.5 59.4 1,576 19.9 13.7 19.1 47.3 1,574 62.7 14.4 9.4 13.5
Fall 1997 2,590 6.3 8.7 11.2 73.9 2,502 12.0 12.9 19.4 55.8 2,558 28.0 17.1 14.1 40.9
Japanese
Spring 1996 15,525 15.9 17.6 17.2 49.3 15,030 25.9 19.4 21.6 33.1 15,194 59.2 13.4 10.3 17.2
Fall 1997 14,795 9.5 12.3 13.8 64.3 14,366 19.0 19.9 22.0 39.1 14,546 24.4 16.4 17.3 42.0
Korean
Spring 1996 10,319 7.2 11.9 18.0 62.9 9,955 14.5 23.0 27.1 35.5 10,078 46.9 17.0 14.6 21.6
Fall 1997 13,310 4.3 10.7 16.4 68.6 12,873 11.1 23.5 27.1 38.3 13,069 16.4 15.2 19.4 49.0
Thai
Spring 1996 5,056 3.7 13.0 20.7 62.6 4,961 9.2 19.0 30.2 41.6 5,012 43.6 18.6 14.6 23.2
Fall 1997 4,345 1.7 9.0 17.6 71.7 4,284 6.0 18.1 30.4 45.4 4,319 13.0 16.2 18.7 52.1
Note. 1 = never; 2 = less than once a month; 3 = between once a week and once a month; 4 = once a week or more often.
TESOL QUARTERLY
language groups. In the category once a week or more often, Chinese-
speaking respondents from Hong Kong (9.2 percentage points), Hindi/
Urdu-speaking respondents (8.5 percentage points) and Japanese-
speaking respondents (6.0 percentage points) showed the greatest
increase between spring 1996 and fall 1997. Thai and Korean respon-
dents showed modest increases in the same category (3.8 and 2.8
percentage points, respectively). English word processing was the first
area of computer use to show slight decreases. Although the percentage
of Chinese-speaking respondents in the PRC and Taiwan reporting that
they had never used English word processing decreased slightly (1.4 and
1.3 percentage points, respectively), the percentage reporting that they
used English word processing once a week or more often also decreased
(0.3 and 2.4 percentage points, respectively). These slight changes may
be too small to be meaningful in view of the unequal sample sizes from
the two survey administrations.
Finally, respondents from the Asian region used the Internet much
less frequently than they used the computer either in general or for
English word processing. Across the Asian language groups, the percent-
age of respondents who reported never having used the Internet
decreased greatly, and the percentage reporting frequent use increased
greatly. For example, in spring 1996, 54.5% of Hong Kong Chinese
responded that they had never used the Internet compared with 16.4%
in fall 1997, a decrease of 38.1 percentage points. For this same group, in
spring 1996 only 18.4% responded that they used the Internet once a
week or more often compared with 54.3% 20 months later, an increase of
35.9 percentage points.
CONCLUSION
The results indicated increased use of computers, English word
processing, and, most notably, the Internet in just over 11/2 years. If the
participants are assumed to be representative of international students
studying at universities in the United States and Canada, the results are
dramatically different from what Hicks (1989) found 10 years earlier: In
1987, 72.0% of international students attending two U.S. universities
reported that they had never used a computer. By fall 1997 only 5.6% of
international students who took the TOEFL in the United States or
Canada said that they had never used a computer, and 69.0% reported
using a computer at least once a week.
Although useful for providing information about trends in computer
use by an important segment of the ESL population, the results pre-
sented here should be considered in view of the limitations of the
questions posed in the survey. The questions are very general; they tell
nothing about the types of word-processing programs used or about the
BRIEF REPORTS 583

content or focus of the activities for which students were using the
computer. More importantly, the results should not be considered in
summary form to indicate an overall high level of computer familiarity
worldwide because access to technology is not equal for subgroups. For
example, although the survey respondents in most of the test center
regions showed an increase in computer use in just a 20-month period,
that use and the amount of increase were markedly less for African
respondents. This difference may be attributed to a lack of technological
infrastructure and trained teachers (Jegede & Okebukola, 1992; Lubbe,
Heaney, & Swank, 1997; Van der Wal & Pienaar, 1996/1997). Whatever
the cause, this survey illustrates that one quarter to one half of the
students from most regions of the world will likely need help learning
how to use English word-processing programs and the Internet once they
arrive at North American colleges and universities.
The data reported in this study are already dated. The situation today
can only be extrapolated; although it seems safe to assume that com-
puter use among international students has increased, teachers in EAP
programs should continue to assess, rather than assume, the computer
familiarity of their students.
THE AUTHORS
Carol Taylor and Daniel Eignor are researchers at Educational Testing Service. Joan
Jamieson is a professor in the applied linguistics group at Northern Arizona
University.
REFERENCES
Bell, T., Adam, J., & Lowe, S. (Eds.). (1996, January). Communications. IEEE
Spectrum, pp. 30–41.
Durndell, A., & Lightbody, P. (1993). Gender and computing: Change over time?
Computers in Education, 21, 331–336.
Hamelink, C. J. (1997, June). Digital technologies and development. In New
information and communication technologies, social development and cultural change
(Discussion Paper No. 86). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Research Insti-
tute for Social Development. Retrieved May 11, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.unrisd.org/engindex/publ/list/dp/dp86/dp86-07.htm.
Hicks, M. (1989). The TOEFL computerized placement test: Adaptive conventional measure-
ment (TOEFL Research Report 31). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Higher Education Research Institute. (1999). 1998 CIRP press release. Los Angeles:
University of California. Retrieved May 4, 1999, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/press98.html.
Jegede, O., & Okebukola, P. (1992). Adopting technology in third world classrooms:
Students’ viewpoint about computers in science teaching and learning. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 20, 327–335.
Kirsch, I., Jamieson, J., Taylor, C., & Eignor, D. (1998). Computer familiarity among
584 TESOL QUARTERLY

TOEFL examinees (TOEFL Research Report 59). Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Lubbe, S., Heaney, L., & Swank, K. (1997). Implementing information technology at
the Border Technikon in South Africa. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 45, 124–129.
Nakayama, S., & Griek, L. (Eds.). (1998). Teacher education for the effective use of new
information media in schools. Innovation and reform in teacher education for the 21st
century in the Asia-Pacific region. 1997 report. Higashi-Hiroshima City, Japan:
UNESCO-APEID Associated Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 418 697)
Pelgrum, W., Janssen Reinen, I., & Plomp, T. (Eds.). (1993). Schools, teachers, students,
and computers: A cross-national perspective (IEA-Comped Study Stage 2). Enschede,
Netherlands: University of Twente, Center for Applied Educational Research.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 372 734)
Tabata, Y., Suzuki, M., & Iwasaki, H. (1998). Computers in schools: The present
situation in Japan. In S. Nakayama & L. Griek (Eds.), Teacher education for the
effective use of new information media in schools. Innovation and reform in teacher
education for the 21st century in the Asia-Pacific region. 1997 report (pp. 91–98).
Higashi-Hiroshima City, Japan: UNESCO-APEID Associated Center. (ERIC Docu-
ment Reproduction Service No. ED 418 697)
Taylor, C., Kirsch, I., Jamieson, J., & Eignor, D. (1999). Examining the relationship
between computer familiarity and performance on computer-based language
tasks. Language Learning, 49, 219–274.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1998).
Chapter 7: Learning resources and technology. In Digest of Education Statistics 1997
(NCES No. 98-015). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved
May 11, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/digest97
/d970007.html.
Van der Wal, R. W. E., & Pienaar, A. J. (1996/1997). Bringing computers to Qwaqwa,
South Africa. Learning and Leading With Technology, 24, 12–14.
Authors’ address: Educational Testing Service, Mailstop 17-E, Rosedale Road,

Princeton, NJ 08541 USA.
Electronic Texts in ESOL Classrooms

CARLA MESKILL and JONATHAN MOSSOP
University at Albany, State University of New York
Albany, New York, United States
■ During the past decade, a great deal of faith has been placed in
technologies as a means of shoring up perceived weaknesses in U.S.
education. This is seen especially in the amount of technology-based
activity around and software development for ESOL. Promises to take
care of an implied problem have subtly accompanied the mass marketing
of ESOL-specific technology products. Too often, budget items associ-
ated with the training, hiring, professional development, and retention
BRIEF REPORTS 585

of first-class language professionals to teach English language learners
have suffered in the rush to acquire hardware and software.
Exactly what are the promises of technology for children of limited
English proficiency in U.S. schools? This study first set out to gain a
broad view of the practices of ESOL professionals with regard to
technology and their assessments of its value. We then examined in close
detail contexts where electronic texts (e-texts)1 were being used effec-
tively to support the L2 and literacy development of children in
kindergarten through eighth-grade classrooms. Both research activities
have produced informative findings that we briefly outline in this report.
(For a full report of the findings, see Meskill & Mossop, 2000; Meskill,
Mossop, & Bates, 1999.)
BACKGROUND
The short history of e-text in language education has been replete
with acclaim for certain of its characteristics, most notably speed and
efficiency, patience, convenience, motivational aspects, and, more re-
cently, the many possibilities of communications connectivity for teach-
ing and learning. The research community in turn has examined these
and other features of computer technology to understand their influ-
ence on reading, writing, syntax, comprehension, speaking, listening,
and other skills in an L2 (see Meskill & Mossop, 2000, for a summary).
Even though research in L2 literacy development consistently under-
scores the importance of the mentored, event-rich literacy environment
and of instructional practices and behaviors that provide continual
support for learners en route to L2 literacy (August & Hakuta, 1998;
Edelsky, 1996; Huss, 1995, Johnson, 1995; Rigg & Allen, 1989; Toohey,
1998), parallel research that examines such environmental characteris-
tics with e-texts is notably absent in the literature. The few earlier studies
of technologies in classrooms suggest that computers do not simply
affect individual learning but tend to reshape classroom processes
overall (Cazden, Michaels, & Watson-Gegeo, 1987; Meskill & Swan,
1999). This study is concerned with the day-to-day practices of ESOL
teachers in their classrooms: what they do with technologies and how
their actions shape L2 and literacy instruction. It is responsive to the
current need to extend inquiry beyond the attributes of the machine to
study how the use of technology-based tools can change—in many cases
for the better—the contexts and processes of a given instructional
environment (Warschauer, 1998, 1999).
1
The term electronic text (e-text) refers to any information displayed on a computer, including
audio, video, graphics, and the written word.
586 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHOD
Initially, we queried K–12 practitioners regarding if and how they used
e-texts with their ESL learners. Data from our statewide survey and
follow-up telephone interviews revealed a great deal of activity in ESOL
that was supported in a variety of ways by e-texts (see Meskill & Mossop,
2000). From this initial data collection activity, two reporting teachers
from the same district became the focus of an intensive, 2-year study of
the dynamics of ESOL classrooms when e-texts were integrated into L2
and literacy learning. To select these teachers from the more than 150
reporting language educators, we applied the criteria of (a) length of
time a technology component had been in place, and (b) training and
expertise in instructional technology and TESOL. In addition to substan-
tial expertise in both areas, these two teachers enjoyed unusually positive
support from their districts for their work with ESOL learners.
Data concerning these environments and their participants consisted
of videotaped classes (30); interviews with teachers, students, and
administrators; video talk-back sessions;2 and student products. To cap-
ture the dynamic of the learning and activity around e-texts, we tran-
scribed the videotaped data using a two-step, audio-then-visual process.
Data were coded and analyzed using the qualitative research tool, QSR
NU*DIST (1997).
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Our surveys and interviews of ESOL practitioners regarding technol-
ogy in their work, and the long-term study of two technology-using ESOL
classrooms, have yielded a number of instructive findings.
• A good portion of ESOL professionals reported using technologies
as part of their L2 and literacy instruction.
• Teachers reported that learners were motivated by doing tasks with
the computer (though not by self-study drills).
• In exemplary uses of technologies, teachers designed and imple-
mented precomputer and postcomputer tasks that optimize focus on
and use of L2 and literacy skills.
• The role of the instructor tended to shift from being central to being
a sideline support.
• Evidence of learner achievements with e-texts was continual.
• Mastery of the computer translated into higher status.
2
In these sessions, teachers reviewed videotapes of their classes and were prompted to
comment on their students’ and their own thoughts and actions.
BRIEF REPORTS 587

Use of computer technology. Forty-nine percent of the nearly 800 survey
respondents reported using some form of computer technology with
their students. They saw tools such as word-processing software and
content-rich applications such as simulations as especially supportive of
their goals and practices. Like the majority of the survey respondents,
our two focal teachers chiefly used two genres of software: enhanced
text-processing tools and content-rich simulations. Use of the former in
the elementary context consisted of children creating their own stories
with the software Once Upon a Time (1995)—a multimedia product that
allows children to hear and use semantically grouped vocabulary items
and manipulate accompanying illustrations to build stories. Use of
content-rich simulations such as MECC’s Oregon Trail series and the
Sim- series published by Maxis was frequent in both classrooms. Teachers
pointed to the generative aspects of these software genres, for example,
the amount and quality of literacy opportunities, the content richness
and relevance, and the degree to which the software could be exploited
for opportunities to practice the language and literacy needed for
school.
The computer as motivator. For questions regarding use, survey and

interview responses consistently cited the motivational feature of tech-
nology. Teachers observed that children were especially responsive when
they were able to create products of their learning to share with others.
Tremendous enthusiasm for learning with e-texts pervaded the class
sessions observed and interviews with students. One of the focal teachers
in the long-term study noted the degree to which this excitement for
learning extended into both the mainstream classroom and beyond:
It does excite them. I just think it’s funny when I hear “Oh my God! Wow!
Cool!” . . . you don’t usually hear a lot of excitement like that over some of the
assignments you give in class. It definitely works as a motivating tool. They
motivate each other because one person will do something and another
person will build on that idea and say, “Oh, I think I can do it even better.”
(interview, focal middle school teacher, spring 1999)
Task design. Activities most often described in the survey/interview

portion of the study, as well as those observed in the two focal classrooms,
shared a common overall structure characterized by a smooth stream of
off-line, to on-line, to off-line activity. Before working on the computer,
language professionals spent a focused period of time ranging from 5 to
15 minutes doing off-line preparatory work. Both focal teachers felt this
component was essential to the successful integration of e-texts. The
focal elementary school teacher told us, “For every time we use the
computer we prepare [off-line], do our work, then review what we did
588 TESOL QUARTERLY

[off-line]” (interview, fall 1997). Children were first coached to aware-
ness of the forms and ideas they would be working with on the computer.
In some cases this coaching consisted of preparing a print (handwritten
or drawn) language guide or a paper-based task for the learners to
complete during their on-line work.
Teacher’s role. In all of the videotaped classroom sessions, we observed

e-texts being used as tools through which and around which language
use was supported by carefully crafted sociocollaborative contexts. With
moment-by-moment teacher support, learners took the bulk of responsi-
bility for initiating and following through on the computer-supported
tasks they had been assigned. Guidance in the way of genuine, task-
oriented questions (with agendas of language and literacy skills acquisi-
tion consistently underlying them) was continual. The locus of thought,
action, and talk was learners and their learning. Teachers provided
ongoing, moment-by-moment supportive talk and behavior while the
children worked through on-line tasks and materials.
Learner achievement. Because of the public nature of e-text activity,

children could share their minute-by-minute successes with teachers and
peers: “Look, look, Ms. E! I make!” (newly arrived ESL learner in a
fourth-grade classroom, spring 1998). Their finished work, whether a
word-processed, desktop-published document, an animated story, a
multimedia presentation, or a fully functioning city of their own design,
was consistently a source of great pride and, among peers and family
members, admiration. In one telephone interview, an ESOL teacher
reported that her students had designed and had a hand in producing a
two-page, illustrated supplement to the local newspaper. That supple-
ment presented aspects of the students’ home culture and their adjust-
ment to life in the United States. Learners’ achievements extended from
moment-to-moment successes in editing their own work or making
decisions to demonstrating to the larger school and community what
they could do with technology.
The computer as status builder. Throughout the study, many anecdotal

accounts connected status and ability with computers. Children who had
received a great deal of hands-on computer experience as part of their
ESOL classes were frequently called upon by adults and peers in their
schools for assistance in setting up hardware and software, troubleshoot-
ing, and teaching others. The ESOL children became experts in their
classes and school. The district technology specialist told us,
One of the students in Calcium did her report that she did, each of the ESOL
children in foruth grade did a report and the slide show feature again. They
BRIEF REPORTS 589

scanned pictures from their home country. Where they live. This one little
girl was from Thailand and she had a picture of her house. It was made of
sticks, that’s the type of house they had. And she had scanned pictures of
money, costumes, whatever she had taken from her own stuff at home. She
put it in the slide show to explain what it was like in her home country and
then the ESOL teacher had her do a presentation for all the other fourth-
grade kids in her classroom. The fourth-grade kids watched the slide show,
and they were like, “Did you do this?” And she explained. They asked her all
these questions about, well, how did you get the picture of your mother onto
the computer. And so the little girl explained how she did it and how it
worked, and the ESOL teacher said that the kids were very jealous of the fact
that here she could do this, and they wanted to learn. It really elevated her
among her peers. (interview, spring 1998)
In addition to excellent teachers, the two focal ESOL classrooms

enjoyed a great deal of support from the immediate and extended
school community. The central district office was very active in procuring
state funds to support the acquisition and maintenance of computer
products and to provide training for the ESOL program. Moreover, the
district strongly encouraged the use of technologies as tools to support
thinking, talking, and writing across the content areas.
DISCUSSION
The goal for nonnative-English-speaking children in U.S. schools is to
become full participants in the academic or mainstream discourses.
Principally, they need to be able to read, write, and understand English
sufficiently to master the content of their regular classes and, like their
native speaker counterparts, do well in school and succeed on tests. Both
our survey data and the results of our 2-year classroom study indicate that
many ESOL professionals are using technologies well in supporting
these goals and processes. The L2 and literacy activities reported and
observed take advantage of specific features of e-texts in ways that
optimize learners’ engagement in the spoken and written work. The
results are not only local, moment-by-moment achievements but also the
attainment of the skills students need to achieve in the larger context of
school (Meskill et al., 1999). A consistent aspect of this process is that
e-texts are viewed not as primary curricula that drive learning. Rather,
they are viewed as tools that can be called into the service of learners’
immediate needs through careful task design and continuous exploita-
tion of teachable moments.
This study provides some evidence that examining what teachers do
with technologies yields insights on the realities and potential of the
medium. Studies from outside the discipline also support this notion
(see Cohen, Levin, & Souviney, 1986; Garner & Gillingham, 1998;
590 TESOL QUARTERLY

Mergendoller, 1996). As Edelsky (1996) aptly points out, what good
teachers do “requires perceptiveness and courage but no unusual
materials” (p. 78). Turning to the courageous and perceptive teachers
who are using technologies to support their L2 and literacy instruction,
researchers can begin to learn what works best for e-texts in TESOL.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (Award No. R305A60005). The views
expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views
of the department.
THE AUTHORS
Carla Meskill is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Theory and
Practice at the University at Albany. She also directs the university’s Center for
Electronic Language Learning and Research (CELLAR).
Jonathan Mossop is a PhD candidate in educational theory and practice at the

University at Albany. His interests include second language acquisition and uses of
techology in TESOL.
REFERENCES
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1998). Educating language-minority children. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Cazden, C., Michaels, S., & Watson-Gegeo, K. (1987). Microcomputers and literacy project
(Final report, Grant No. G-83-0051). Washington, DC: National Institute of
Education.
Cohen, M., Levin, J. A., & Souviney, R. (1986). Exemplary educational computer use:
Coping with rapid changes in technology (Interactive Technology Laboratory Report
No. 12). San Diego: University of California. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 311 875)
Edelsky, C. (1996). With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking the social in language and
education. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Garner, R., & Gillingham, M. (1998). The Internet in the classroom: Is it the end of
the transmission-oriented pedagogy? In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, &
R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-
typographic world (pp. 221–231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Huss, R. (1995). Young children becoming literate in English as a second language.
Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Mergendoller, J. (1996). Moving from technological possibility to richer student
learning: Revitalized infrastructure and reconstructed pedagogy. Educational
Researcher, 25(8), 43–46.
Meskill, C., & Mossop, J. (2000). Technologies use with ESL learners in New York
State: Preliminary report. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22, 265–284.
BRIEF REPORTS 591

Meskill, C., Mossop, J., & Bates, R. (1999). Electronic text and English as a second
language environments. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learn-
ing and Achievement. Retrieved June 26, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://cela.albany.edu/esl/index.html.
Meskill, C., & Swan, K. (1999). Response-based multimedia: A pilot study of Kidspace
in four elementary classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18, 339–
367.
Once Upon a Time [Computer software]. (1995). Redmond, WA: Compu-Teach.
(Available from http://www.compu-teach.com)
QSR NUD*IST (Version 4.0) [Computer software]. (1997). Melbourne, Australia:
Qualitative Solutions & Research. (Available from http://qsr.latrobe.edu.au
/QSRHome.htm)
Rigg, P., & Allen, V. (1989). When they all don’t speak English. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Toohey, K. (1998). “Breaking them up, taking them away”: ESL students in Grade 1.
Warschauer, M. (1998). Researching technology in TESOL: Deterministic, instru-
mental, and critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 757–761.
Authors’ address: Department of Educational Theory and Practice, ED115,

University at Albany, Albany, NY 12222 USA.
Does Popular Speech Recognition Software

Work With ESL Speech?
TRACEY M. DERWING
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
MURRAY J. MUNRO
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
MICHAEL CARBONARO
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
■ Current research (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Spada & Lightbown, 1993)
suggests that L2 learners can benefit from explicit error correction
under at least some circumstances. If computers are to play an effective
role in providing corrective feedback on errors in learners’ spoken
language, automatic speech recognition (ASR) software must be able to
(a) recognize nonnative language and (b) identify errors similar to those
592 TESOL QUARTERLY

identified by human listeners. This study used these two criteria to
evaluate the effectiveness of a popular ASR package for ESL speech.
ASR FOR ESL

Although several software packages include an ASR component
designed specifically for use within the language classroom, little rel-
evant information is available about the suitability of general-use, com-
mercial ASR packages for ESL speakers. Also, despite the recent atten-
tion given to automatic recognition of foreign-accented speech (e.g.,
Price, 1998), little work has directly compared computer speech recogni-
tion with the comprehension of human listeners. In the most pertinent
study dealing with this issue, Coniam (1999) evaluated the accuracy of
Dragon Systems’ Naturally Speaking for 10 Cantonese speakers by having
them read a passage of about 1,000 words aloud into the computer. He
assessed the software’s ability to recognize Cantonese-accented speech by
counting the number of words, clauses, and other units correctly printed
out by the computer. The software was considerably less effective at
recognizing the Cantonese-accented speech than at recognizing native
English speech, an issue that has important implications for pedagogical
uses of the software. Although Coniam concluded that the software was
not yet usable by ESL learners, he suggested that it might have future
pedagogical value as a means of giving corrective feedback. In particular,
he proposed that when a more highly developed version of the software
incorrectly recognized a word, students might view the computer’s error
as an indication of a mispronunciation needing correction.
The software used in Coniam’s (1999) research is a readily available
ASR package. The user dictates the desired text into a microphone
connected to the computer, which then transcribes the oral input. Upon
completion of the task, the speaker manually edits any errors produced
by the program. Obviously, the more errors the software makes, the more
onerous the editing task. Although this package was not designed
specifically for ESL speakers, ESL students sometimes purchase it for
their own use, hoping it will help them with writing assignments and
general word-processing needs. Moreover, it is not unusual for those
responsible for purchasing software for computer labs to be tempted to
try ASR software whether or not it was designed with the classroom in
mind—a temptation that is likely to occur more often as technology
becomes even more prominent in classrooms. In the current climate,
careful attention needs to be given to the methods and results of ASR
software evaluation.
BRIEF REPORTS 593

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ASR FOR ESL
We propose two criteria for evaluating the usefulness of ASR software
in providing corrective feedback to ESL speakers. First, the software must
recognize the oral language of ESL speakers at an acceptable level.
Second, to have the potential to identify areas in which learners have
production difficulties, the software’s identification of L2 speech errors
must resemble that of native listeners. For instance, a serious mispronun-
ciation of a word would presumably result in a mismatch between the
intended word and the computer’s transcription. To be useful in
pedagogical situations, then, the software should highlight for the L2
speaker the speech production problems that would cause difficulties for
a human listener.
Human listeners’ performance in reacting to L2 speech has been
documented in a number of perceptual studies. Several such studies
(Brennan & Brennan, 1981; Derwing & Munro, 1997; Ryan, Carranza, &
Moffie, 1977) have shown that even inexperienced human listeners can
rate the degree of accent (accentedness) and ease of understanding
(comprehensibility) of L2 speech with an acceptable degree of reliability.
Intelligibility (how much of a message is actually understood) can be
reliably measured through dictation tasks (Brodkey, 1972) or through
sentence verification tasks, in which listeners determine the truth value
of accented utterances (Munro & Derwing, 1995). Such studies have
revealed phonological bases for intelligibility that are independent of
attitudinal variables (Anderson-Hsieh, Johnson, & Koehler, 1992; Magen,
1998). Also, human listeners can often understand a heavily accented
utterance perfectly (Munro & Derwing, 1995), likely because not all the
pronunciation errors made by L2 learners are of equal weight. The
usefulness of ASR software as a means of giving feedback to ESL speakers
depends on how well it reflects this crucial characteristic of native
listeners’ processing of L2 speech.
Our goals in this study were to assess the accuracy of the ASR software
Dragon NaturallySpeaking Preferred (1997) for high-proficiency English
speakers whose native languages are Cantonese and Spanish, and to
determine whether the software would identify the problems in pronun-
ciation that affect humans’ understanding of nonnative speech.
METHOD
Participants
Two types of participants, speakers and listeners, were included in the
research. The speakers (24 women, 6 men) were 10 native speakers each
of Cantonese, Spanish, and Canadian English, ranging in age from 17 to
50 years (M = 37.5 years). The Cantonese and Spanish speakers had
594 TESOL QUARTERLY

arrived in Canada after age 18 and had lived there for an average of
8 years. Their scores on the Test of English as a Foreign Language
(TOEFL) ranged from 543 to 650 (M = 604). All reported extensive daily
contact with English. The listeners were 41 native speakers of Canadian
English (16 men, 25 women), ranging in age from 18 to 40 years (M =
27.5). Twenty had no or extremely limited contact with nonnative
speakers, 12 had little to moderate contact, and 9 reported extended
contact.
Procedure
The data for the research consisted of speech produced by the 30
speakers. The research included three phases: (a) training the ASR
software (Dragon NaturallySpeaking Preferred, 1997) to recognize the
speakers’ language, (b) creating ESL speech samples and obtaining
recognition scores from the software, and (c) having the listeners
transcribe and rate the speech samples.
The first phase involved training the ASR software to recognize the
language of the individual speakers. To ensure the participants’ comfort
with the training phase, we conducted a preparatory session during
which each ESL speaker read three chapters from 3001: The Final Odyssey
(Clarke, 1997) silently while listening to a recording of the same. A
graduate assistant encouraged the participants to circle unfamiliar words
and practice them. All participants then completed the full training
session according to the publisher’s instructions as follows (although the
software allows people to stop before the end of the three chapters): The
participants were shown the chapters in short sections. Each wearing a
headset, they read the chapters aloud; when the software did not accept
a rendition, it asked the speaker to reread the material in question.
The average native speaker took 45 minutes to read the passage. In
contrast, one Cantonese speaker was unable to complete the training
task at all, and another took over 3 hours. Although all the nonnative
speakers required longer training than did the native speakers, the
Cantonese speakers had to repeat themselves more often than the
Spanish speakers did. Even though the software’s requests for repetitions
sometimes coincided with staccato speech, it was not always evident to us
where the difficulty lay because some of the renditions for which the
software requested repetition seemed nativelike.
The second phase entailed creating ESL speech samples and obtain-
ing recognition scores from the ASR software. After reading the training
material into the computer as just described, the speakers read 60 true/
false sentences aloud into the microphone attached to the computer.
The carefully designed sentences have been used extensively in other
studies of the intelligibility of accented speech (see Munro & Derwing,
BRIEF REPORTS 595

1995). All contain high-frequency words and simple syntax. False sen-
tences were included to ensure that the listeners could not rely on world
knowledge to predict unclear elements. As the speakers read these
sentences, the computer attempted to recognize them and created an
on-screen transcription (in standard spelling) for later analysis. We
placed a cloth over the computer monitor to hide the on-screen material
from the speakers and prevent distraction. The productions were simul-
taneously audiotaped and later phonemically transcribed. We then
generated materials for a listening experiment by selecting two sentences
(one true, one false) from each speaker for a total of 60 distinct,
randomized sentences.
In the third phase, the listeners participated in a small-group session
lasting 35 minutes. In a quiet room, they transcribed the 60 sentences in
standard spelling and rated them for comprehensibility and accentedness.
Comprehensibility (defined as “how difficult the utterance was to
understand”) was assessed using a 9-point scale labeled 1 = extremely easy
to understand and 9 = impossible to understand. The listeners’ perception of
foreign accentedness (“how strong the speaker’s foreign accent was”)
was measured using another scale ranging from 1 = very little accent to 9 =
very strong accent. The listeners were told only that some of the utterances
were produced by nonnative speakers and others by native speakers, and
they were asked to use the entire range of the scales. We played three
sample items to demonstrate the range of voices. A researcher controlled
the presentation to keep the listeners in step.
Data Analysis
We carried out a sentence-by-sentence analysis of what the software
recognized (i.e., the computer’s printed output) when presented with
the ESL speakers’ sentences. For each sentence, we computed a recogni-
tion score (the number of words correctly recognized by the software).
To calculate an intelligibility score for the human listeners, we carried
out a parallel analysis of the listeners’ transcriptions by calculating the
percentage of words they transcribed correctly (Derwing & Munro,
1997). The listeners’ ratings of accentedness and comprehensibility were
tallied, and group means and standard deviations were calculated. We
compared mean software recognition scores and human intelligibility
scores, and calculated correlations between the software’s recognition
scores and (a) the listeners’ intelligibility scores and (b) the listeners’
ratings of comprehensibility and accentedness. Finally, we compared the
computer’s output with phonemic transcriptions of the speakers’ utter-
ances so that we could examine in detail the nature of the computer’s
errors.
596 TESOL QUARTERLY

RESULTS
Recognition, Intelligibility, and Ratings
Overall, the software performed less well than the human listeners
(Table 1). The software recognized native English utterances at the
advertised accuracy level (90% of the words); this score was only 9%
lower than the intelligibility scores calculated for the human listeners.
However, the computer program was much less successful in interpreting
accented speech (see Figure 1). For the Cantonese- and Spanish-
accented speech, the software’s recognition scores were 24% and 26%
lower, respectively, than the intelligibility scores calculated for the
human listeners. The difference between the software’s recognition
scores for the Cantonese and Spanish speakers’ utterances was nonsig-
nificant, t(18 df ) = .275, p > .05. We also observed considerable within-
group variability in the software’s recognition scores. They ranged from
70% to 100% for the English speakers’ utterances, from 48% to 90% for
the Cantonese speakers’, and from 49% to 92% for the Spanish
speakers’.
An examination of the accentedness and comprehensibility ratings
assigned by the listeners revealed that (as expected) they consistently
rated the native English speech near 1 on both scales. (Lower ratings
indicate less accentedness and higher comprehensibility.) We calculated
the interrater reliability for each set of ratings (accentedness and
comprehensibility) using the method recommended by Hatch and
Lazaraton (1991). This approach entailed computing mean intercor-
relations among all 41 listeners for each item rated. The Pearson
coefficient (r) for interrater reliability was .76 for both scales. We
consider this an acceptable level of agreement, as it compares favourably
with findings in related research (e.g., Derwing & Munro, 1997).
TABLE 1
Speakers’ Utterances as Perceived by ASR Software and by Listeners (%)
Listeners’ ratingsa
Software Compre-
recognition Intelligibility Accentedness hensibility
scores scores ratings ratings
Speakers’ L1b M SD M SD M SD M SD
Cantonese 72.45 11.88 94.99 3.24 4.53 1.20 3.53 0.82
Spanish 70.75 15.50 95.71 2.44 4.64 1.21 3.35 0.85
English 90.25 11.02 99.70 0.45 1.31 0.47 1.29 0.31
a
41 listeners. bFor each L1 group, N = 10.
BRIEF REPORTS 597

FIGURE 1
Listeners’ Intelligibility Scores and Software Recognition Scores (M), by Speakers’ L1
100
Words correct (%)
75
50 ASR software
25 Listeners
0
English Spanish Cantonese
Speakers’ L1
Although the listeners rated the Spanish speakers’ speech as more

accented than the Cantonese speakers’, a paired t-test comparing the
mean ratings assigned to the two speaker groups (pooling over speakers)
indicated that this difference was nonsignificant, t(40 df ) = 2.01, p > .05.
A parallel comparison of comprehensibility ratings revealed that the
listeners rated the Cantonese speakers’ utterances as less comprehen-
sible than the Spanish speakers’, t(40 df ) = 2.39, p < .05. However, the
listeners’ intelligibility scores for the two nonnative groups did not differ
from each other, t(40 df ) = 1.39, p > .05.
Relationship Between Computer Recognition and Human Judgment

We next computed Pearson correlations to reveal the degree of
relationship between the software’s recognition scores and the listeners’
intelligibility scores, accentedness ratings, and comprehensibility ratings
(Table 2). None of the correlations was significant (p > .05); in fact, all
correlations were close to zero, indicating that the software’s recognition
of the nonnative speech was unrelated to human judgment.
Phonemic Accuracy
All utterances were transcribed phonemically by the first author and
an assistant. We computed phonemic error percentages by dividing the
number of errors by the number of phonemes in the sentence. The
mean error rates for the Cantonese and Spanish speech were 13% and
7% respectively. We then phonemically transcribed the printed output
from the computer as though it had been spoken by a native speaker of
598 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 2
Relationships Between the ASR Software’s Recognition Scores and
Listeners’ Perceptions of Accented Speech (Pearson r)
Listeners’ ratings
Software recognition Intelligibility Accentedness Comprehensibility

score for scores ratings ratings
Spanish speakers ⫺.13 ⫺.06 .01

Cantonese speakers .20 .06 ⫺.17
Canadian English. This allowed us to make direct comparisons with the

actual productions of the speakers in order to determine what types of
recognition errors the software had made.
The Pearson correlation between the phonemic error rates (for the
Cantonese and Spanish speakers taken together) and the corresponding
software recognition scores was nonsignificant (r = ⫺.159). In contrast,
the phonemic error rates were significantly correlated with the human
listeners’ intelligibility scores (r = ⫺.330, p < .05) and their comprehen-
sibility ratings (r = .411, p = < .05). We did not compute any correlations
for the native English speakers because they made no performance
errors.
Finally, we compared the phonemic analyses of the nonnative produc-
tions with the corresponding analyses of the computer output. A number
of common patterns emerged (Table 3). The most frequent recognition
error made by the software involved segmental substitutions, followed by
normalizing errors, in which an incorrectly produced word was repaired.
Word boundary errors were also relatively common.
TABLE 3
Software Recognition Errors
Error type Frequency Examples
Segment substitution 33 breathe → breed; glasses → classes

Normalization 17 sof → soft; erf → earth
Incorrect word boundary 14 gas to → Gaston; clothes are → closer
Omission 10 think → thing; find → fine
Extra syllables 5 enjoy → angina
Extra segments 3 turn → turned; work → worked
BRIEF REPORTS 599

DISCUSSION
To be useful to an ESL audience, ASR software should recognize
proficient nonnative speech at a level comparable to the level at which it
recognizes the speech of native speakers. The software examined here
was less accurate than human listeners, although it performed at the
advertised success rate (90%) on native English speech. However, the
human listeners and the software differed more in their ability to
recognize the speech produced by nonnative speakers than in their
ability to recognize native speech. The software’s recognition of the
nonnative speech was only 71–73% accurate (i.e., the computer tran-
scribed more than one of every four words inaccurately) even though the
Cantonese and Spanish speakers who participated in this study were all
highly proficient, educated speakers of English. Although we cannot
precisely specify a necessary level of accuracy for nonnative speakers, the
observed levels would frustrate a user hoping for reliable feedback on
intelligibility.
To be useful in classrooms, speech recognition software should
perform similarly to human listeners in regard to L2 speech. Consider a
scenario in which an ESL learner provides oral input to the computer. If
the student is to learn from computer feedback on errors, that feedback
should be as humanlike as possible. Specifically, the software should
misunderstand the learner’s input whenever a human listener would
misunderstand and in the same way that a human would. For instance,
the sentence Mosquitoes have soft pink fur was problematic for the software
and human listeners alike. The Spanish speaker who produced this
sentence substituted an unaspirated voiceless labial stop for the required
aspirated initial /p/ and substituted /i/ for /I/. The software misinter-
preted the sentence as Mosquitoes have soft been fur, but the human
listeners recognized that the mispronounced word pink had to be an
adjective and substituted forms such as big and green. The computer’s
output might be confusing to ESL students, causing them to attribute the
error to incorrect syntax rather than to a mispronunciation of the
adjective.
We carried out several analyses to identify parallels between the
computer’s and the human listeners’ responses to the L2 speech.
Although phonemic error counts were somewhat predictive of the
human listeners’ ability to understand utterances and of their compre-
hensibility ratings, there was no significant correlation between the
software’s recognition and its phonemic error counts. Of course, this
result does not mean that the software was not affected by phonetic as
opposed to phonemic errors. In fact, it very clearly was, because all
speech recognizers must rely heavily on bottom-up information. An
examination of differences across the Spanish and Cantonese speaker
600 TESOL QUARTERLY

groups yielded further evidence that problems with individual pho-
nemes were of limited importance to the software’s success. The listeners
rated the Spanish speakers as more comprehensible, and this group
made fewer phonemic errors than the Cantonese speakers did. Nonethe-
less, the software recognized both accents with the same level of success.
In this study we also observed that the reading materials used in
training had an adverse effect on the software’s ease of use. Even
extremely proficient ESL speakers found the training component very
difficult, not only because the recognizer performed relatively poorly,
requiring the speakers to repeat the input to the point of frustration, but
also because the reading material was culturally bound. The choices for
training were limited to two humorous essays and the book chapters that
we opted for. Expository writing, based on highly accessible content,
would be preferable to selections containing dialogue and subjective
material. In this study the speakers read and heard the training material
in a preparatory session, which encouraged the best possible perform-
ance from the speakers. Given that the recognizer performed poorly
under these circumstances, it is clearly unsuitable for the less controlled
atmosphere of the classroom; it also appears to have limited value for
individual use by ESL speakers.
Our rating and intelligibility data from the listeners bore little
relationship to the software’s success in recognition. These findings
demonstrate that the properties of ESL speech that adversely affect the
software tend not to interfere with comprehensibility and intelligibility
for human listeners. The ESL speakers in this study were very proficient:
Their speech was only slightly less intelligible to human listeners than
native English speech was. Moreover, this group represents a target
endpoint for L2 learners: Further experience with English is unlikely to
lead to any appreciable change in their accents. For speech recognition
software to be useful in the ESL classroom or in business or personal
settings, it must handle the productions of people like our participants in
both the training and the recognition phases with a level of success
roughly equivalent to that for native speakers.
CONCLUSION
The possibilities for using ASR software in the L2 classroom are
intriguing. It could provide helpful negative feedback in a nonthreaten-
ing context. At a time when many ESL teachers are being encouraged to
use technology in their classrooms, ASR software might appear to be
potentially useful in focusing students’ attention on persistent produc-
tion errors. In fact, a variety of commercially available language teaching
packages include a speech recognition component that is intended to
provide feedback. We suggest that software of this type be carefully
BRIEF REPORTS 601

evaluated using the two criteria identified in this research, namely,
reasonable accuracy levels to avoid frustration and humanlike recogni-
tion patterns. In our view, until ASR software satisfies these criteria, it
cannot be considered to be of benefit to ESL speakers either in the
classroom or in business and personal contexts.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Kama Jamieson, Martha Gibson, and Marian Rossiter for their assistance.
The study was funded by a Support for the Advancement of Scholarship grant,
University of Alberta, and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada grant awarded to the first author.
THE AUTHORS
Tracey Derwing coordinates the TESL program in the Department of Educational
Psychology at the University of Alberta. Her primary research interests are in
communication between native and nonnative speakers, particularly the effect of
both parties’ production on intelligibility.
Murray Munro is an associate professor in the Department of Linguistics at Simon

Fraser University, where he directs the TESL program. His chief area of interest is
applied phonetics, and his published work deals with issues in ultimate attainment,
cross-language vowel production, and the intelligibility of L2 speech.
Mike Carbonaro is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Psychol-

ogy at the University of Alberta. His interests focus on the application of computer
technology in the area of teaching and leaning as well as the relationship between
computational cognitive modeling and human learning.
REFERENCES
Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K. (1992). The relationship between
native speaker judgements of non-native pronunciation and deviance in segmentals,
prosody and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42, 529–555.
Brennan, E., & Brennan, J. (1981). Accent scaling and language attitudes: Reactions
to Mexican American English speech. Language and Speech, 24, 207–221.
Brodkey, D. (1972). Dictation as a measure of mutual intelligibility: A pilot study.
Language Learning, 22, 203–220.
Clarke, A. C. (1997). 3001: The final odyssey. New York: Ballantine Books.
Coniam, D. (1999). Voice recognition software accuracy with second language
speakers of English. System, 27, 49–64.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility:
Evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1–16.
Dragon NaturallySpeaking Preferred (3rd ed.) [Computer software]. (1997). New-
ton, MA: Dragon Systems. (Available from http://www.dragonsys.com)
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied
linguistics. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
602 TESOL QUARTERLY

Lyster, R., & Ranta. L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation
of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19,
37–61.
Magen, H. (1998). The perception of foreign-accented speech. Journal of Phonetics,
26, 381–400.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility and
intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45,
73–97.
Price, P. (1998). How can speech technology replicate and complement skills of
good language teachers in ways that help people to learn language? In Proceedings
of StiLL, Speech Technology in Language Learning (pp. 81–86). Marholmen, Sweden:
European Speech Communication Association.
Ryan, E., Carranza, M., & Moffie, R. (1977). Reactions toward varying degrees of
accentedness in the speech of Spanish-English bilinguals. Language and Speech, 20,
267–273.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions
in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–224.
Authors’ address: Educational Psychology, 6-102 Ed. N., University of Alberta,

Edmonton, AB T6G 2G5 Canada.
Web-Based Technology as a Resource for

Form-Focused Language Learning
DOUGLAS MILLS
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, Illinois, United States
■ In many parts of the world where the World Wide Web has become an
established fact in classrooms, whether or not technology will be used for
language teaching is no longer an issue. The Web is used for a variety of
forms of computer-mediated communication, such as e-mail, chat,
bulletin boards, instant messaging, various types of virtual environments,
and audio- or videoconferencing, as described by Murray (this volume),
and as a resource for electronic texts on a broad range of topics. Despite
the importance of these resources for language teaching, the critical
question for TESOL in the 21st century appears to be whether or not
Web-based learning activities can be used in ways that guide learners to
process language for form and meaning and to activate and expand their
grammatical resources for language development. Drawing on inter-
actionist SLA theory and computer-assisted language learning (CALL)
research, Chapelle (1999) suggests that types of interactions in CALL
may be beneficial for language development if they focus learners’
BRIEF REPORTS 603

attention on input form, allow for modification so learners can focus on
input form and meaning, and draw learners’ attention to the form of
their linguistic output in a way that leads to self-correction.
The first of these, focusing learners’ attention on the linguistic form
of the input, was offered by Schmidt (1990) as the noticing hypothesis. In
contrast to Krashen’s (1981) view that the acquisition of an L2 is largely
an unconscious process, Schmidt concluded from a survey of psychologi-
cal work on consciousness that “subliminal language learning is impos-
sible, and that noticing is the necessary and sufficient condition for
converting input to intake” (p. 129). Robinson (1995) also argues that
noticing “is necessary to learning” (p. 318). Empirical research oper-
ationalized through CALL has supported this hypothesis. Based on her
study of the acquisition of relative clause constructions through three
different computer-based pedagogical approaches, Doughty (1992) con-
cluded that “it is apparent that the visual direction of the learners’
attention to the elements of the relative clause construction influenced
their learning of the relativisation system” (pp. 150–151). If, as theory
and research suggest, noticing linguistic form is critical for activating and
expanding grammatical resources, how can materials on the Web help?
This report introduces some of the software tools that will be available
for developers of form-focused Web activities in the near future. Begin-
ning with Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), which is widely used
for Web documents, it introduces the concept of marking up texts to
direct learners’ attention to grammatical form and then describes
expansions of this technology to more flexible systems. Development of
form-focused audio materials is also discussed.
MAKING FORM NOTICEABLE IN WRITTEN INPUT

Basic tools that could be used to highlight particular linguistic
characteristics, such as noun phrases or relative clauses, in texts on the
Web have existed at least since 1994, but they have been seldom used for
this purpose. HTML, a system for annotating texts, allows authors to
display portions of texts in color, in italics, or with underlining, for
example. However, the future holds more flexible options that will allow
authors to specify highlighting upon the learner’s request and to mark a
single document with a variety of different highlighted forms.
Highlighting a Text With HTML

The simplest approach to highlighting target forms in written input is
to specify font styles or colors directly in the document using any basic
604 TESOL QUARTERLY

Web page creation software,1 as illustrated in Figure 1.2 This is accom-
plished through the use of HTML, the original instruction set underly-
ing almost all text documents on the Web. In the text in Figure 1, the
opening and closing HTML tags ( and , respectively; see Figure
2) demarcate the segments to be italicized when displayed by the Web
browser.3
This approach is simple and useful, but it is limited in two ways. First,
from the readers’ perspective, the display of the text is static, meaning
that all readers will see adjective clauses in italics whether or not they
FIGURE 1
Text Displayed in Web Browser, With Relative Clauses Highlighted Through HTML Coding
FIGURE 2
HTML Coding for Browser Display in Figure 1
This is a simple sample text which relies solely on the

HyperText Markup Language (HTML) to highlight adjective
clauses. Adjective clauses that occur in this example
appear in italicized text. On the web they might also be
highlighted using colors!
1
One free, readily available tool for computers running either Microsoft Windows or
Macintosh Operating System is Netscape Composer, a component of Netscape Communicator
(2000). Users of Netscape Communicator may already have Composer installed on their
computers; to check, start Netscape Communicator and click “Communicator” to see if
“Composer” is listed.
2
All examples are available on-line in Mills (2000b).
3
Browsers are software programs, such as Netscape Navigator (a component of Netscape
Communicator, 2000) or Microsoft Internet Explorer (2000), that are used to access Web-based
resources. Throughout this article the term refers primarily to these two mainstream browsers,
which together account for 95% or more of Web traffic.
BRIEF REPORTS 605

need to focus on that grammatical form. In other words, despite the
electronic form of the text, the highlighting is exactly the same as if the
text were printed on paper. Second, from the author’s perspective, the
document is inflexible, which means that targeting different grammati-
cal forms in the text requires recoding the HTML. Recent software for
the Web offers solutions to these limitations.
Dynamic Display of Text Features

Dynamic Hypertext Markup Language (DHTML) is a more powerful
permutation of HTML that became available in Version 4 of the two
mainstream browsers in 1997. Like HTML, DHTML instructs the browser
how to display a Web page, but it can also give instructions on what to do
with a Web page once it has been displayed. With DHTML, an author
can thus create conditional highlighting by defining an action (e.g., a
change of color) that will take place when the cursor moves over marked
areas of the text and specifying which areas of the text the action should
apply to. In TESOL materials, for example, the author could display the
text initially without any highlighting to encourage the reader to
concentrate on meaning but allow for the highlighting of a grammatical
form at the learners’ request. The learner requests this modification by
clicking a button or moving the cursor over the target form (see Fig-
ure 3).4
FIGURE 3
Text Displayed in a Web Browser, With Conditional Highlighting of Adjective Clauses
Through DHTML Coding
Note. Adjective clauses become italicized when the learner moves the cursor over them.
4
The example in Figure 3 can be viewed only in Microsoft Internet Explorer, Version 4 or
higher. To date, the most frustrating limitation of working with DHTML has been the lack of
compatibility in its implementation by Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator.
Both Microsoft Corporation and Netscape Communications, however, have made a commit-
ment to adhere much more closely to industry standards in future releases of their software.
606 TESOL QUARTERLY

DHTML’s conditional highlighting addresses the first limitation of a
document prepared with simple HTML: the display of static, unchanging
pages. However, any document coded this way is still inflexible in that the
learner can be directed only to the particular set of forms marked in that
particular text. Ideally, an author would mark up a document once and
then select, or invite learners to select, any of the grammatical forms in
the text.
A Customized Markup Language for Grammar

A text can be made more flexible through the combined use of
DHTML and Extensible Markup Language (XML). XML allows the
author to develop a customized markup language for text features that
are of interest to users, such as nouns and verbs for ESOL learners.
Unlike HTML, which makes available only a fixed set of tags (e.g., the
italics tags in Figure 2) that instruct a Web browser how to display a Web
page, regardless of its purpose or content, XML allows developers,
industries, and professions to define their own set(s) of tags—called
document type definitions (DTDs)—specific to the purposes and content of
the resources to be delivered. A DTD for language learners could
identify, for example, all the subordinate clauses and other grammatical
structures in a text and provide information about each.
Figure 4 shows a detailed XML markup of a simple sentence. The level
of complexity is far beyond what is justified by the sentence illustrated (I
am writing a sample paragraph), and much simpler DTDs can be created,
but this example demonstrates some of the power and flexibility of using
XML to create customized DTDs.5 For instance, the markup identifies
the fact that the pronoun I in the sentence is the subject of the clause, a
noun phrase and a pronoun. The DTD also specifies that any pronoun
not explicitly labeled otherwise is a subjective case pronoun, so that
information can also be inferred about I in this sentence.
XML also offers greater flexibility than HTML in the way text is
displayed. In XML, content information (i.e., the actual tags) is sepa-
rated from display information (e.g., the colors and font styles). The
DTD itself says nothing about how the document should be displayed; it
simply defines the tags. Furthermore, once created, a DTD can be made
available to language instructors everywhere so that they do not have to
replicate the work of creating the tag set.
5
See Mills (n.d.-a) for a copy of the DTD behind the example discussed here; an
explanation of the syntax used to create DTDs is beyond the scope of this report.
BRIEF REPORTS 607

FIGURE 4
Detailed XML Markup of a Sentence Using a Prototype Document Type Definition (DTD)
Note. The sentence shown is I am writing a sample paragraph; see Figure 6 for a browser display of
this text. The prototype DTD allows the identification of parts of speech and many of their
attributes, such as the tense, aspect, and time frame of verbs and the case of pronouns.
Although the style sheet used in the figure enables identification of only subjects, verb phrases,
adverbs, and noun phrases, anything specified in the DTD, such as past perfect verbs, could be
targeted for highlighted display by a style sheet.
One Marked-up Text, Many Displays

Because the DTD does not specify how the browser should display the
marked segments of text in the DTD, an additional set of instructions,
called a style sheet, is needed. A given DTD might have any number of
style sheets associated with it. For example, one style sheet accompanying
the DTD illustrated in Figure 4 might instruct the browser to highlight
all the verbs of a particular tense by underlining them; another style
608 TESOL QUARTERLY

sheet for documents created by the same DTD might instruct the
browser to highlight the adjective clauses in red and the noun clauses in
blue.
Any number of documents might be created by using the specialized
tags defined in a DTD but highlighting different structures through the
application of different style sheets. Figure 5 shows a schematic diagram
of how the DTD, individual text files, and style sheets work together. Style
sheets can contain the code necessary for the dynamic highlighting of
target content, as discussed above. Figure 6 shows the browser display of
the document partly shown in Figure 4 with one such style sheet applied
to it.
When geared to the needs of language learners, a DTD and its related
style sheets would make it possible to prepare collections of texts in
which various linguistic features would be highlighted according to the
teacher’s or student’s choice. For example, in reading a collection of on-
line newspaper articles dealing with a topic discussed in class, one group
of learners would see all of the adjective clauses highlighted in yellow to
direct attention to one form of modification of noun phrases. Another
group of learners could use exactly the same texts, but a different style
FIGURE 5
Interplay of DTD, Texts, and Style Sheets in Customizing Browser Displays
BRIEF REPORTS 609

FIGURE 6
Browser Display of XML Prototype in Figure 4 With Style Sheet Applied
SIMPLE SAMPLE PARAGRAPH

I am writing a sample paragraph but it is very simple. I will work with more complicated structures later.
KEY:
When you point to them,
Subjects will be highlighted in blue
Verbs will be highlighted in red
Adverbs will be highlighted in yellow
Noun Phrases will become italicized
Note. The prototype style sheet contains DHTML instructions that highlight various structures as
the cursor is moved over them. Highlighting of the relevant structures could just as easily be
delivered statically when the page is loaded or a button is clicked.
sheet would be applied to display all the clausal subjects in blue and the
verbs in red to raise awareness of subject-verb agreement issues. Through
the dynamic selection of style sheets, which would alternate the target
forms to be highlighted, learners might even be allowed to change their
view of the text. Teachers who wanted to take advantage of such a tool to
customize texts they had chosen would be able to use the DTDs and style
sheets created by others in the profession and made available on the Web
for academic use.6
Given the transportability of DTDs and style sheets, it is likely that one
or more collections of markup languages and style sheets for language
learners will become publicly available on the Web. Tools for creating
DTDs, devising style sheets, and marking up documents have been under
development for some time and, as has been the case with HTML tools,
should become increasingly easy to use. With a basic understanding of
XML and the right tools, most TESOL professionals who are comfort-
able working with HTML will be able to mark up their own documents
using existing DTDs and style sheets. Many will also be able to create
their own style sheets and DTDs. (See the Appendix for XML resources.)
6
For a simple prototype of this kind of interaction, illustrated in Figures 4 and 6, see Mills
(n.d.-b). XML is an emerging technology supported only by Microsoft Internet Explorer 5
(2000) and by the prerelease version of Netscape 6 (2000) at the time of writing.
610 TESOL QUARTERLY

MAKING FORM NOTICEABLE IN AUDIO INPUT
XML, DTDs, and style sheets are confined to highlighting written text
on the Web, but it is equally important for learners to notice linguistic
form in aurally presented materials. At least two current technologies
have the potential to draw learners’ attention to the language of Web-
based audio or audio-video texts. One of these is Apple’s QuickTime
(2000) technology for Macintosh computers or computers running the
Microsoft Windows operating system, which can include a visual “text
track” or control the synchronized display of Web pages. The other is
Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL—pronounced
“smile”), an agreed-upon Web standard like HTML, which was imple-
mented by RealNetworks in the software RealPlayer (1998). SMIL and
QuickTime both allow for the synchronized presentation of audio, video,
and text. With either of these technologies, the user can highlight
specific features of a spoken text delivered via the Web through the
simultaneous presentation of visual cues, such as some of the aurally
presented words. For example, learners listening to a prerecorded
academic lecture via the Web might see transition words appear before
their eyes as they hear the words in the lecture. Or learners listening to
a native speaker telling a story may see every adjective clause appear in
context, highlighted in red.
Figure 7 illustrates one such prototype application created in Quick-
Time and available on the Web (see Mills, 2000a). (For more informa-
tion on SMIL, see the Appendix.) As the narrative progresses, a special
synchronized track in the movie tells the browser to display new Web
documents in a separate portion of the browser window. The text of
these documents corresponds to the utterances in the narrative that
contain adjective clauses, and the adjective clauses themselves are
displayed in red (for the sake of readability, in Figure 7 the adjective
clause appears in italics). The noun phrases modified by the adjective
clauses are underlined. The written text disappears from the screen after
a delay of approximately 10 seconds, or when another utterance contain-
ing an adjective clause occurs. In one sentence of this unscripted
narrative, four adjective clauses appear, three of them in succession.7 In
this case the same complete sentence appears for all four clauses, but the
highlighting shifts from one clause to the next in synchronization with
the audio.
Assuming that a video clip in QuickTime format is already available,
the tools required to create this activity are a text processor and the
7
The sentence is So I had ballet, which they chose, and I had acrobatics and tap dance, which I chose,
which I felt was much more suitable to the things that I wanted to do.
BRIEF REPORTS 611

FIGURE 7
Frame From QuickTime Movie on a Web Page With Synchronized Visual Cues
Note. As the movie plays, the Web page displays the text corresponding to utterances containing
adjective clauses. The adjective clauses are in italics, and the modified noun is underlined.
QuickTime Player Pro (2000) software distributed with QuickTime and

activated when the software is registered for a small fee (see the
Appendix for more information). With QuickTime technology, teachers
could create a video on a Web page. Learners could click the mouse on
the video when they do not understand something in the input, and the
written text of the segment clicked on would appear in another portion
of the browser window. Users could also click to request repetition.
These and other creative uses of the QuickTime format or similar
technologies should go a long way in enabling language learners to
notice form in audio texts on the Web.
CONCLUSION
In the 21st century, the ongoing development of user-friendly software
tools for working with Web technologies will continue to make the Web
more accessible to TESOL professionals. Through creative, thoughtful
uses of such technologies as HTML, DHTML, XML, style sheets, and
QuickTime, the Web can move beyond its role of mediating communica-
tion and supplying authentic materials to serve as a means of stimulating
612 TESOL QUARTERLY

language learning opportunities through focus on grammatical form.
However, the availability of such tools is only the first step. Texts need to
be marked by authors who understand the needs of language learners.
Marked texts need to become an integral part of meaning-focused tasks
designed to develop learners’ language and strategies for ongoing
learning through electronic texts. This glimpse of existing and emerging
technologies is intended to help stimulate the development of useful,
Web-based pedagogical materials necessary for the additional research
needed on language learning through the Web.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Thomas Gould and Carol Chapelle for their encouragement to
stretch a little further.
THE AUTHOR
Douglas Mills is the computer-assisted language learning coordinator and Webmaster
for the Division of English as an International Language and the Intensive English
Institute at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
REFERENCES
Chapelle, C. A. (1999). Technology and language teaching for the 21st century. In
J. E. Katchen & Y.-N. Leung (Eds.), The proceedings of the Eighth International
Symposium of English Teaching (pp. 25–36). Taipei, Taiwan: Republic of China
English Teachers’ Association.
Doughty, C. (1992). Computer applications in second language acquisition research:
Design, description, and discovery. In M. Pennington & V. Stevens (Eds.),
Computers in applied linguistics: An international perspective (pp. 127–154). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Microsoft Internet Explorer (Version 5) [Computer software]. (2000). Redmond,
WA: Microsoft. (Available from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE; http://
www.microsoft.com/mac/ie/default.asp)
Mills, D. (2000a). Adjective clause listening activity. Retrieved June 21, 2000, from the
World Wide Web: http://deil.lang.uiuc.edu/tq/qt.
Mills, D. (2000b). Helping learners “notice” on the Web. Retrieved June 21, 2000, from
the World Wide Web: http://deil.lang.uiuc.edu/tq.
Mills, D. (n.d.-a). Sample DTD. Retrieved June 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://deil.lang.uiuc.edu/xml/sampleDTD.html.
Mills, D. (n.d.-b). Simple sample paragraph. Retrieved June 21, 2000, from the World
Wide Web: http://deil.lang.uiuc.edu/xml/TEXT4.xml.
Netscape Communicator (Version 4) [Computer software]. (2000). Mountain View,
CA: Netscape Communications. (Available from http://home.netscape.com
/browsers)
BRIEF REPORTS 613

Netscape 6 (Prerelease version) [Computer software]. (2000). Mountain View, CA:
Netscape Communications. (Available from http://home.netscape.com/browsers)
QuickTime (Version 4.1.2) [Computer software]. (2000). Cupertino, CA: Apple
Computer. (Available from http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download)
QuickTime Pro (Version 4.1.2) [Computer software]. (2000). Cupertino, CA: Apple
Computer. (Available from https://apple-order1.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects
/qtupgrade)
RealPlayer (Version G2) [Computer software]. (1998). Seattle, WA: RealNetworks.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language
Learning, 45, 285–331.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.
APPENDIX
Resources for Further Learning8
Dynamic Hypertext Markup Language (DHTML)
DHTML is a version of HTML that became available with Version 4 of both mainstream
browsers. Unfortunately, the implementation of DHTML across the two browsers has been
largely incompatible, which has hampered its development. There is the promise of greater
standardization with the Version 5 and later browsers.
DHTML, HTML & CSS. (2000). MSDN online Web workshop. Redmond, WA: Microsoft.
Retrieved June 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://msdn.microsoft.com
/workshop/c-frame.htm# /workshop/author/default.asp.
This site presents Microsoft Corporation’s tutorials on its implementation of DHTML, which
currently tends to be closer to the accepted standard for the Web than that of Netscape Communica-
tions. The release of the new version of Communicator is expected to reduce this gap.
Dynamic HTML. (2000). Web Review. Retrieved June 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://Webreview.com/wr/pub/Dynamic_HTML.
This is a list of on-line articles from Web Review, a very good on-line publication dealing with
Web-based technologies.
Dynamic HTML developer central. (1999). DevEdge Online. Mountain View, CA: Netscape
Communications. Retrieved June 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://developer.netscape.com/dhtml.
This is a list of resources from Netscape Communications; obviously the resources entail a bias
toward Netscape’s implementation of DHTML.
QuickTime
QuickTime is Apple Computer’s digital video and streaming media format.
Adding HREF text tracks with QuickTime Player. (2000). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer.
Retrieved June 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.apple.com/quicktime
/authoring/hreftrack.html.
This gives instructions for creating an HREFTrack—the track in a QuickTime movie that
controls the synchronous display of Web pages in the browser, as in the application illustrated in
Figure 7.
8
This appendix is available on-line; see Mills (2000b).
614 TESOL QUARTERLY

Mills, D. (2000). QuickTime. Retrieved June 22, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://deil.lang.uiuc.edu/qt.
My QuickTime page consists of a growing collection of links to presentations, demonstrations, and
resources for learning more about QuickTime and the World Wide Web.
Mills, D. (n.d.). QuickTime with subtitles demonstration. Retrieved June 22, 2000, from the World
Wide Web: http://deil.lang.uiuc.edu/QT3demo/Movie1.html.
This video is an early experiment demonstrating the addition of subtitles to QuickTime video clips
as a way of helping learners notice form. The subtitles move across the screen too quickly to be of
much use to any but the fastest readers, but the speed could be adjusted and is not a limitation of
the technology itself. A more helpful use of this capability would be to simply subtitle target
structures so that stationary—rather than scrolling—text appears only when a particular learner
focus is desired.
QuickTime. (2000). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer. Retrieved June 21, 2000, from the
World Wide Web: http://www.apple.com/quicktime.
Apple’s QuickTime home page offers lots of information, free downloads, and links to plenty of
sample content. Also included are links to information on tools for working with QuickTime and
examples of more advanced applications, including QuickTime Virtual Reality.
Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL)
SMIL is a Web-based protocol like HTML that is designed to do just what the name implies:
allow developers to synchronize the presentation of multiple media over the Web.
Bouthillier, L. (1998). Larry Bouthillier’s SMIL demo page. Retrieved June 22, 2000, from the
World Wide Web: http://www.people.hbs.edu/lbouthillier/smil.
This multimedia demo of the use of SMIL (though not for language learning purposes specifically)
includes an explanation of how the demo was created.
Just SMIL. Streaming Media World. Retrieved July 11, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://
smw.internet.com/smil.
This very good introductory site on SMIL includes links to discussion groups and other resources.
Michel, T. (2000). Synchronized multimedia. World Wide Web Consortium. Retrieved June 22,
2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo.
This page by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the group that established the SMIL
protocol, includes an annotated list of relevant resources.
Extensible Markup Language (XML)
XML is a newer, more powerful big brother to HTML. It is expected to revolutionize the Web
in a number of ways.
Mills, D. (n.d.). XML and language learning: What’s in store? Retrieved June 22, 2000, from the
World Wide Web: http://deil.lang.uiuc.edu/xml.
This site, which is related to my conference presentations on XML, includes more information on
how XML might be used for language learners; links to the demonstrations cited in this report,
among others; and links to many relevant resources.
BRIEF REPORTS 615

REVIEWS
TESOL Quarterly welcomes evaluative reviews of publications relevant to TESOL
professionals.
Edited by DAN DOUGLAS

Computers and Pedagogy
New Ways of Using Computers in Language Teaching.

Tim Boswood (Ed.). Alexandria, VA: TESOL, 1997. Pp. xii + 309.
CALL: Media, Design and Applications.

Keith Cameron (Ed.). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1999.
Pp. 321.
WorldCALL: Global Perspectives on Computer-Assisted

Language Learning.
Robert Debski and Mike Levy (Eds.). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets &
Zeitlinger, 1999. Pp. 363.
CALL Environments: Research, Practice, and Critical Issues.

Joy Egbert and Elizabeth Hanson-Smith (Eds.). Alexandria, VA:
TESOL, 1999. Pp. xi + 523.
Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Context and

Conceptualization.
Mike Levy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Pp. xv + 298.
Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice.

Mark Warschauer and Richard Kern (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000. Pp. 256.

Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom.
Rupert Wegerif and Peter Scrimshaw (Eds.). Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters, 1997. Pp. xi + 252.
■ It is safe to say that the lives of nearly all language teachers are now
affected in some way by the new technologies of computers, video,
telecommunications, and the Internet. Even in areas of the world where
there is no electricity, there are no modems, and the nearest telephone
is a day’s walk away, teachers (and students perhaps more so) may feel
that they are losing out on something and that they should be eagerly
awaiting the arrival—imminent, surely—of the digital age in their
community.
The new technological age is filled with uncertainty and challenge,
and we all need guidance from inside and outside our own profession, be
it TESOL, foreign language teaching, bilingual education, or education
in general (as well as other personal and professional pursuits). Some of
these resources the technology itself has made available, in the form of
newsgroups in which teachers exchange ideas and share experiences
(e.g., TESLCA-L), a growing number of on-line and on-the-shelf techni-
cal journals, and World Wide Web sites put together by enterprising
individuals or collaborating groups of teachers.
Another source of guidance comes in traditional book form, and in
this essay I look at a few recent books that address some of the main
topics I hinted at above. In recent years the number of publications on
topics related to computer-assisted language learning (CALL) has in-
creased exponentially, and it is impossible in one review to include all
relevant or important recent publications. The selection here is by no
means complete and certainly leaves out important new (and not so
new) publications.
Only one of the seven books (Levy’s Computer-Assisted Language Learn-
ing) is a single-authored volume; the rest are edited collections. Levy’s
book is referred to frequently by many of the authors in the other
volumes and is clearly an influential historical and conceptual treatise of
the field. His elaboration of the tutor-tool framework serves as a point of
departure for many discussions of the role of the computer in language
learning.
The focus of Wegerif and Scrimshaw’s Computers and Talk in the Primary
Classroom is on classroom research, particularly on interaction in elemen-
tary school classrooms where computers are used in various ways.
Notions familiar from sociocultural theory, such as exploratory talk,
group work, and scaffolding, receive much attention in the studies
included here. Contributors include several leading researchers of the
Open University (in addition to the editors, Neil Mercer, Joan Swann,
618 TESOL QUARTERLY

Janet Collins, and Madeleine Watson) as well as teacher-researchers who
work in various schools in Britain.
Debski and Levy’s WorldCALL: Global Perspectives on Computer-Assisted
Language Learning consists of contributions based on presentations at the
first WorldCALL conference held in Melbourne, Australia, in 1998. This
collection distinguishes itself by including contributions from many parts
of the world, including Hong Kong, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, and
Ireland. It touches on all aspects of CALL in thorough, in-depth ways and
represents the state of the art at a global level.
Cameron’s collection, CALL: Media, Design and Applications, seems very
much a sibling to that of Debski and Levy. Indeed, both volumes were
published by Swets & Zeitlinger at about the same time and include
papers by some of the same contributors. However, Cameron’s volume
includes a number of studies that go into various areas of CALL in detail,
such as corpus CALL, grammar checkers, and speech recognition.
Design issues and research procedures receive special attention. One
especially intriguing contribution, by Gerard Kempen, describes his use
of animated little spooks to illustrate grammatical structures visually.
Warschauer and Kern’s Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and
Practice is oriented toward second language acquisition (SLA) research.
It focuses on on-line communication in different contexts (e.g., e-mail,
electronic literacy, collaborative writing, chat) and addresses underlying
theoretical concerns as well as research design issues. Its focus and scope
are reminiscent of an earlier pioneering volume on network-based
language teaching by Bruce, Peyton, and Batson (1993). This earlier
work is still very relevant and should not be overlooked as a precursor to
Warschauer and Kern’s important new collection.
New Ways of Using Computers in Language Teaching takes the reader to a
very practical, hands-on level of work. Boswood has collected teaching
ideas from teachers all over the world, similar to the other volumes in
TESOL’s highly successful New Ways series (see also Warschauer, 1995).
It is an indispensable resource for teachers who wish to incorporate
computers in their lessons.
The final volume is CALL Environments, edited by Egbert and Hanson-
Smith, and I suppose one could say I am saving the best for last, although
that would not really be fair to the other books because they are all
equally valuable in their own ways. However, CALL Environments is clearly
a strong candidate for a basic all-round textbook in CALL teacher
education courses (I am using it in that way at the time of writing). It is
comprehensive, well produced, readable, and well organized. The mix of
theoretical and practical aspects of the work is admirable, and all
students and their instructors should find numerous suggestions for
research projects and discussions. Egbert and Hanson-Smith include
REVIEWS 619
28 contributions organized around eight basic themes in SLA: (a)
interaction; (b) authentic audience; (c) authentic task; (d) opportuni-
ties for exposure and production; (e) time and feedback; (f) intentional
cognition, learning styles, and motivation; (g) atmosphere; and (h)
control. One cannot, of course, judge the usefulness of a particular book
as a textbook until after it has been used as such in an actual class, but
reactions to date from the field (e.g., in on-line discussion forums) have
been very promising.
I now comment on these works in more detail by distinguishing three
broad topic areas: in front of the computer screen: classrooms and labs,
interaction, curriculum, design, and classroom management; the computer
and its software: hardware and software, platforms, applications, and
commercial courseware; and beyond the computer screen: e-mail, chat, the
Internet, on-line materials and courses, and Web sites.
IN FRONT OF THE COMPUTER SCREEN

The traditional image of computer use in language teaching is that of
a lab (not unlike the language lab of old) in which row upon row of
individual students work in solitary fashion, all at their own individual
screens, on tasks or exercises of various kinds. The only interaction is
that between the learner and the machine, and possibly between teacher
and learner if assistance is needed. This image is still a dominant one if
one looks at the designs of most computer labs that are installed in
schools today. Clearly, such labs fulfill some useful function as, for
example, drop-in labs for homework and individual practice, but as
classroom spaces for the sorts of communicative, task-based and project-
based language learning that are advocated these days, they are virtually
useless. They almost force the lesson back into the “drill-and-kill” modes
familiar from earlier days of teacher-fronted mechanical practice.
In the volumes under review, the issue of classroom or lab design
receives most explicit attention in Egbert and Hanson-Smith’s CALL
Environments and in Wegerif and Scrimshaw’s Computers and Talk. In the
latter volume, and probably more generally in the elementary school
context, the format consists of one or a few workstations in the regular
classroom (Wegerif & Scrimshaw, p. 152). Elementary schools often also
have a “shared area” (Wegerif and Scrimshaw, p. 115) in which learners
can work individually or in groups, and a number of the schools’
computers may be placed in that area. Such arrangements have their
perceived advantages and disadvantages. Students have to share, and one
student may dominate and monopolize the keyboard, thus promoting
inequities or worsening existing inequities. Further, in the case of larger
groups, it may be difficult for everybody to see the monitor. However,
virtue is often made of necessity, and collaborative arrangements may be
620 TESOL QUARTERLY

set up in which interaction at and around the computer can flourish.
New Ways of Using Computers includes many activities that use one
computer for the whole class (see also Roerden, 1997) or one computer
per two or more students.
Egbert and Hanson-Smith devote the first section of CALL Environ-
ments to interaction and include one chapter describing an innovative
language classroom in which the monitors are placed below the desktop
(pp. 41–51; see also Rogan, 1997; van Lier, 1998) so that interaction and
collaboration are enhanced. Another very useful section in the book is
called “Atmosphere,” with three contributions that stress the surround-
ings in which students work. The studies in Computers and Talk focus
entirely on classroom interaction in a computer-assisted environment
(see also Scrimshaw, 1993). Many of the other discussions about interac-
tion in the various books refer to interaction with a computer program
or with people in other locations by means of the computer (see below).
In general, a significant number of the contributions to the various
books refer to the potential of computers to enhance interactive,
collaborative learning (e.g., Debra Hoven’s paper in WorldCALL; Carla
Meskill and Krassimira Ranglova’s paper in Network-Based Language
Teaching). References to social interaction in the classroom (and to
influences from Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, John Dewey, and others)
are common. This means that a substantial focus among educators is the
role of the computer in task-based (Carol A. Chapelle in CALL Environ-
ments; Christoph Zähner, Agnès Fauverge, and Jan Wong in Network-Based
Language Teaching), learner-centered (Hoven in CALL Environments), and
content-based curricula (Hanson-Smith in CALL Environments). One can
thus note a shift from computer as tutor, to computer as tool, to use Levy’s
useful distinction (pp. 178–214; see also Crook, 1994).
THE COMPUTER AND ITS SOFTWARE

In the days when the computer was primarily seen as tutor, the focus
of much writing about CALL was on the software that was available and
on the things that learners could do with that software. With the advent
of networking and the Internet, all this has changed radically. To be sure,
software (whether commercially produced or homegrown) remains an
important issue, namely, the discussion of materials production in
Flanders by Wilfried Decoo and Jozef Colpaert in CALL: Media, Design
and Applications and Terry Phillips and Peter Scrimshaw’s description of
the interaction around the use of adventure games in Computers and Talk.
The desirable properties of good CALL software are discussed by
Elizabeth Boling and Keng-Soon Soo in CALL Environments. Teachers
express a great deal of interest in CD-ROM programs, particularly in
areas that are not so easily dealt with in class, such as pronunciation, and
REVIEWS 621
any programs suitable for self-study and homework assignments. Many of
such products have traditionally been somewhat mechanical, in fact not
very different from standard worksheets. However, more sophisticated
products are beginning to appear, such as the Collins Cobuild series of
CD-ROMs (see http://titania.cobuild.collins.co.uk) for vocabulary work
and the pronunciation program BetterAccent Tutor (1999), which
allows students to compare stress and pitch patterns visually.
Much more prominent today, though, is the focus on open software,
ranging from word processors to concordancers to the computer lan-
guage Logo. In addition, applications used for designing exercises and
activities are popular, with examples such as BASIC, Dasher (Otto &
Pusack, 1994), HyperCard (2000), MacLang (1990), and others (see
Levy’s volume for an overview; for a comprehensive list of CALL
software, see Healey & Johnson, 1999). Similar to the CALL survey
reported in Levy’s volume, I have found that only a minuscule propor-
tion of teachers regularly use commercial (often called closed) software.
Overwhelmingly—often for financial reasons—teachers use whatever
comes bundled with the computer, plus the Internet. If anything else is
bought, it is most likely to be a flexible design program such as
HyperStudio (2000).
The current wave is toward anything that relates to networking. First
are local or in-class networks such as the InterChange module of
Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment (1997) (see Jean Marie
Schultz’s paper in Network-Based Language Teaching). Second, the old
favorites such as HyperCard are being replaced by JavaScript, common
gateway interface (CGI) scripts, Shockwave technology, and other tech-
nologies that can work interactively on Web sites. It is at this point
debatable if the creativity and flexibility of the earlier programs is
matched by the newer Internet-based programs. As Douglas Mills points
out in WorldCALL, “working with web-based interactivity currently means
a step backward in programming sophistication” (p. 118). Third, a lot of
language work is now project-based, in which learners design Web pages
or multimedia projects using browsers and programs like HyperStudio.
Fourth, there is a great increase in the uses of e-mail, chat, and various
other synchronous and asynchronous forms of communication. Fifth
and last, the vast resources of the Internet are used as authentic material
for treasure hunts, research for projects and presentations, and ideas for
lessons and courses.
With all this variety, the future of technology would seem to look rosy
indeed. However, there are also simultaneous tendencies toward homog-
enization and reduction of creativity. An example of this occurs when
institutions (for financial reasons and ease of support) purchase large
numbers of computers bundled with software as standard packages
622 TESOL QUARTERLY

without taking the needs or interests of teachers and students into
account.
It is to be hoped that pedagogical diversity and creativity can be
preserved, even though it often clashes with bureaucratic, administra-
tive, and corporate convenience. Here the pedagogical and the techno-
logical forces in schools, districts, and colleges are often in conflict:
Decisions about technology are routinely made without the slightest
apparent concern for pedagogical value. This is an area (which might be
called critical CALL) that I consider of the utmost importance in the long
term (Warschauer, 1999) but that is unfortunately not treated in depth
in any of the volumes under review.
BEYOND THE COMPUTER SCREEN

Above I suggested that a shift has been taking place from software
resident on a workstation to resources available on-line. One of the main
resources is communication with people in the same room or in other
locations. For teachers and researchers, this has meant vastly improved
means of communication with one another and with professional
organizations. In addition, teachers can find inexhaustible authentic
resources on the Internet, sometimes with ready-made lesson templates
and ideas for activities. New Ways of Using Computers includes numerous
ideas for activities and lessons of this kind, but the other books
(particularly CALL Environments) also offer many suggestions. So far, the
overwhelming majority of materials on the Internet are in English,
although other languages are increasingly being represented (see John
Mugane’s article in WorldCALL for a site for African languages). Script
issues (accents, non-Roman scripts) remain an area in which technology
is lagging seriously and in which the Internet has meant a step backward
since the early days of HyperCard. Newer operating systems do offer
better language support, but serious incompatibilities across applications
and e-mail systems persist. None of the volumes under review devotes
much attention to this problem (but see major linguistics resource sites
such as those maintained by the Summer Institute of Linguistics, http://
www.sil.org; the Yamada Language Center, http://babel.uoregon.edu;
the Center for Applied Linguistics, http://www.cal.org; and the National
Foreign Language Center, http://www.nflc.org).
Common distinctions in network-based communication are local
versus distant and synchronous versus asynchronous. In Network-Based
Language Teaching, Schultz describes how local synchronous communica-
tion was incorporated in process writing classes in French (see also Kern,
1995) and systematically compared with face-to-face communication.
Schultz’s study raises several important points that need further careful
REVIEWS 623
investigation. I was particularly intrigued by the suggestion that net-
worked communication tends to be linear and perhaps more superficial
in terms of processing, whereas face-to-face communication may have
deeper effects and is less linear. Furthermore, she reports that the time
required for on-line chat is greater than for face-to-face communication,
raising doubts about the presumed greater efficiency of on-line
communication.
The other books being reviewed here also give a range of examples of
networked teaching and learning. There are some papers on using chat
rooms or MOOs (Lonnie Turbee in CALL Environments; Lesley Shield
and Markus Weininger in WorldCALL; the latter includes a useful list of
things that may go wrong when collaborating with faraway groups); a
description of a comprehensive set of networked tools (by Dorothy Chun
and Jan Plass in Network-Based Language Teaching); an account of the
Leverage Project, which involved videoconferencing across several Euro-
pean countries (by Zähner, Fauverge, and Wong in Network-Based Lan-
guage Teaching); and a study of various aspects of distance language
learning (by Robin Goodfellow, Patricia Manning, and Marie-Noëlle
Lamy in WorldCALL).
CONCLUSION
The seven books I have used to inform this brief overview are all
valuable additions to the growing field of CALL. It is particularly
encouraging that all of them devote as much, if not more, attention to
the pedagogical aspects of CALL as to technological features themselves.
This is a healthy development, though it often stands in contrast to the
decision-making forces that are much more interested in equipment,
labs, and Web sites that are bigger, faster, and newer than the next
person’s and that are closer to corporate interests than to classrooms.
All the volumes discussed are essential additions to the libraries of
teaching and research institutions in the TESOL field. Some of them
should also become well-thumbed volumes on the shelves of educators
and researchers (budgets permitting, of course). I am pleased to report
that these books suggest a positive way forward, putting pedagogy before
technology and the interests of the learners before those of the corpora-
tions. I hope that the diversity of tools and media, the creativity in the
applications and activities, and the sound judgment of educators and
learners illustrated in these books will continue to dominate in the
TESOL field in the years to come.
624 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES
BetterAccent Tutor [Computer software] (1999). San Carlos, CA: BetterAccent
Tutor. (Available from http://www.betteraccent.com)
Bruce, B., Peyton, J. K., & Batson, T. (Eds.). (1993). Network-based classrooms: Promises
and realities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London:
Routledge.
Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment [Computer software]. (1997). Austin, TX:
The Daedalus Group. (Available from http://www.daedalus.com)
Healey, D., & Johnson, N. (Eds.). (1999). 1999 TESOL CALL Interest Section software
list. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
HyperCard (Version 2.4) [Computer software]. (2000). Cupertino, CA: Apple
Computer. (Available from http://www.apple.com/hypercard)
HyperStudio 4 [Computer software] (2000). El Cajon, CA: Roger Wagner. (Available
from http://www.hyperstudio.com)
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers:
Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language
Journal, 79, 457–476.
MacLang (Version 4) [Computer software]. (1990). Roanoke, VA: Gessler Educa-
tional Software.
Otto, S. E. K., & Pusack, J. P. (1994). Dasher [Computer software]. Iowa City:
University of Iowa, Project for International Communication Studies. (Available
from http://newhorizsoft.com)
Roerden, L. P. (1997). Net lessons: Web-based projects for your classroom. Sebastopol, CA:
Songline Studios and O’Reilly & Associates.
Rogan, P. (1997). The CLEW multimedia language classroom. In P. Lewis &
S. Tadashi (Eds.), CALL: Basics and beyond (pp. 123–127). Tokyo: Japan Associa-
tion for Language Teaching CALL N-SIG.
Scrimshaw, P. (Ed.). (1993). Language, classrooms and computers. London: Routledge.
van Lier, L. (1998). All hooked up: An ecological look at computers in the classroom.
In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Festschrift for Kari Sajavaara on his sixtieth birthday (Studia Anglica
Posnaniensia No. 33, pp. 281–301). Poznan, Poland: Wydawnictwo Nakom.
Warschauer, M. (1995). E-mail for English teaching: Bringing the Internet and computer
learning networks into the language classroom. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
LEO VAN LIER

Monterey Institute of International Studies
Monterey, California, United States
Language, Literacy, Politics, and Access
Literacy, Access, and Libraries Among the

Language Minority Population.
Rebecca Constantino (Ed). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1998.
Pp. viii + 252.
REVIEWS 625
Language and Politics in the United States and Canada:
Myths and Realities.
Thomas Ricento and Barbara Burnaby (Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,
1998. Pp. xv + 357.
Dialects in Schools and Communities.

Walt Wolfram, Carolyn Temple Adger, and Donna Christian.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1999. Pp. xi + 239.
■ As the 21st century begins, TESOL is poised to widen its influence and
expand its scope regarding both language education issues and human
rights issues for minority linguistic groups. In the past, TESOL and its
affiliates have taken proactive stances on controversial issues such as
educational standards, educational and linguistic rights of minority
groups, rights of immigrants, bilingual education, English-only move-
ments, World Englishes, and Ebonics. In addition, TESOL has addressed
such issues at conferences and through its publications, most recently in
TESOL Journal’s special issue on language policies and the rights of
learners (DeVillar & Sugino, 1999) and TESOL Quarterly’s special-topic
issue on critical approaches to TESOL (Pennycook, 1999). In this
century, these and other issues of social justice will increasingly intersect
with what we do as TESOL professionals and as individuals. It is therefore
important that TESOL continue to provide forums for research and
debates on such issues; educate its members, government officials, the
media, and the public; and be an advocate for the language rights of all.
Here I review three books that offer an expanded view of this work
and its impact on individuals, society, and the world. None of the three is
written strictly for a TESOL audience, yet all affect the teaching of
English. In Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and
Realities, editors Ricento and Burnaby make a valuable contribution to a
growing literature on language planning and language policy (e.g.,
Herriman & Burnaby, 1996; Phillipson, 1992; Tollefson, 1991). In the
preface, the editors identify the audience as policy makers, individuals
with a general interest in the role of language in the United States and
Canada, and academics in various fields. Contributors come from a
variety of fields: law, sociology, education, geography, political science,
linguistics, urban studies, and bicultural-bilingual studies. The volume
makes fascinating reading, and the references at the end of each chapter
are informative. Selections provide historical information (e.g., the
development of language attitudes and policies in the United States and
Canada, the politics of language conflict in each country); case studies
(e.g., indigenous languages and the effect of national language policies
and attitudes, World War I–era English-only policies and the use of
626 TESOL QUARTERLY

German in North America, French language services in Ontario); and a
unique analysis of language policies in the two countries.
In the conclusion, Ricento and Burnaby identify their goals in
compiling the volume: show the interdisciplinary nature of the study of
language policy, contribute to theory building in the field, and stimulate
discussion. They are successful in meeting these goals through the 14
chapters in the volume. Each chapter offers much to ponder, but certain
ones I found most compelling. For example, Ronald Schmidt, Sr., in
“The Politics of Language in Canada and the United States: Explaining
the Differences,” provides a framework for analyzing the language
politics of individual countries. He argues that language conflicts are not
about language per se but about ethnic conflicts and power relationships
(p. 39). In “Endangered Native American Languages: What Is to Be
Done and Why?”, James Crawford provides statistics about moribund
languages and lays out the common arguments for and against working
to preserve and revitalize endangered languages, refuting some (e.g., the
analogy of linguistic diversity and biodiversity) and concluding that
social justice is the most cogent argument for saving languages. He
concludes, as do Schmidt and others in the volume, that issues of
language survival and language acceptance are about politics rather than
about language itself (p. 161).
Whereas Language and Politics in the United States and Canada lays out
broad issues as well as examples of language and politics, Literacy, Access,
and Libraries Among the Language Minority Population focuses on specific
results, albeit unplanned, of language attitudes and policies in the
United States and offers suggestions for change. The book provides
much for community activists, librarians, and individuals involved with
the education of language minority children and adults, as well as ESL
and bilingual educators. Each of the 11 chapters is based on several
premises: (a) that L1 literacy development is important for L2 (i.e.,
English) literacy; (b) that children learn to read by reading (Smith,
1988); (c) that children who have easy access to reading material will
read more; and (d) that the more people read, the better readers they
will become (i.e., that free, voluntary reading helps literacy develop-
ment) (Krashen, 1993). The introduction by Krashen and several other
chapters review research and report on studies regarding access to books
through libraries and reading achievement, arguing that libraries can
provide both access to books and a good place to read. Unfortunately, as
several authors document, libraries often have few materials in languages
other than English and provide few services that encourage language
minority readers to use the libraries. Moreover, individuals in language
minority communities often do not have a quiet, comfortable place to
read and have not experienced the pleasures of reading. Thus, the
problem is how to provide students access to materials and help them
REVIEWS 627
realize what libraries and reading have to offer. The titles and contents of
two chapters bring home these points: Constantino’s “‘I Did Not Know
You Could Get Such Things There!’: Secondary ESL Students’ Under-
standing, Use and Beliefs Concerning the School and Public Library”
and Daniel Brassell’s “‘Meastro, Can We Go to the Library Today?’ The
Role of the School Library in the Improvement of Reading Attitudes and
Achievement Among Bilingual Elementary Students.” In her survey,
Constantino found that students had little knowledge of what libraries
offer, whereas Brassell found that the simple act of taking his students to
the library every day changed his bilingual second graders. Other
chapters offer descriptions of programs involving public libraries, schools,
and communities that improve access to and use of libraries by language
minority communities; other chapters present successful teaching meth-
ods for helping students learn to read in their home language and in
English. Especially helpful to someone wishing to start a library of
Spanish books is the chapter by Julia Fournier and Cecilia Espinosa
(“Tierra Fertil: Making the Soil Rich for Discussion for Young Children
in Spanish”), as it provides an extensive, categorized list of children’s
books, explains the authors’ criteria for choosing literature, and dis-
cusses how they use each book in class. The chapters, however, are
uneven, with some seeming dry and lifeless and others filled with
immediacy, allowing the reader to feel the wonder of children and adults
discovering the pleasures of reading.
Like the other two books reviewed here, Dialects in Schools and
Communities addresses language rights, specifically the rights of children
who come to school speaking dialects other than the ones society
considers standard. How can TESOL practitioners respect the children’s
language varieties and at the same time teach them standard English?
Building on Wolfram and Christian’s previous book, Dialects and Educa-
tion: Issues and Answers (1989) and on questions from practitioners and
teacher educators, the authors have written a resource book for those
who are or will be dealing with dialect variations in educational settings
(e.g., education students, practicing K–12 teachers, and other special-
ists). In the preface the authors describe the book as “a kind of
translation and interpretation work in which we attempt to bring
together the practical concerns of educators and the vantage point of
sociolinguistics” (p. ix). They do this by assuming that readers have little
or no background in linguistics and thus are unfamiliar with basic
linguistic terms, such as dialect, language, and standard English, and basic
issues, such as deficit versus difference, and by providing practical
suggestions and specific lessons for the classroom. For example, one
chapter deals with teaching the skill areas of oral language, written
language, and reading. The chapter “Communicative Interaction” dis-
cusses how language and cultural variation may cause different class-
628 TESOL QUARTERLY

room behaviors and lead to misunderstandings. The authors provide a
set of classroom rules that can help students practice appropriate
classroom behaviors. Several chapters, especially the last (“Dialect Aware-
ness”), suggest ethnographic activities for students to do in the classroom
and community. These activities can build dialect awareness and appre-
ciation in teachers, students, and their families. Other attractive features
are a short annotated bibliography at the end of each chapter, “Further
Study,” and an appendix, “A Selective Inventory of Vernacular Struc-
tures.” This would be an excellent book for students in a credential
program, especially those with a concentration in language arts.
Although these books focus on the United States and Canada, issues
of language rights, which they each address, are international. Language
conflict and related issues will become even more crucial in this century
as individuals, peoples, and information move from place to place more
freely than ever before and countries are more diverse linguistically and
culturally. Yet the public, the media, and even we as professionals are
often confused about the real issues and are unaware of the implications
of policies and actions. Books such as the three reviewed here can give us
guidance as we try to understand these issues and their implications for
our teaching and for our community and the world.
REFERENCES
DeVillar, R. A., & Sugino, T. (Eds.). (1999). Language policies and the rights of
learners [Special issue]. TESOL Journal, 8(3).
Herriman, M., & Burnaby, B. (Eds.). (1996). Language policies in English-dominant
countries. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Pennycook, A. (Ed.). (1999). Critical approaches to TESOL [Special-topic issue].
TESOL Quarterly, 33(3).
Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the
community. London: Longman.
Wolfram, W., & Christian, D. (1989). Dialects and education: Issues and answers.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
JOHNNIE JOHNSON HAFERNIK

University of San Francisco
San Francisco, California, United States
REVIEWS 629
INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS
EDITORIAL POLICY
TESOL Quarterly, a professional, refereed journal, encourages submission of
previously unpublished articles on topics of significance to individuals
concerned with the teaching of English as a second or foreign language and
of standard English as a second dialect. As a publication that represents a
variety of cross-disciplinary interests, both theoretical and practical, the
Quarterly invites manuscripts on a wide range of topics, especially in the
following areas:
1. psychology and sociology of language 3. testing and evaluation
learning and teaching; issues in research 4. professional
and research methodology preparation
2. curriculum design and development; 5. language planning
instructional methods, materials, and 6. professional standards
techniques
Because the Quarterly is committed to publishing manuscripts that contrib-
ute to bridging theory and practice in our profession, it particularly
welcomes submissions drawing on relevant research (e.g., in anthropology,
applied and theoretical linguistics, communication, education, English
education [including reading and writing theory], psycholinguistics, psy-
chology, first and second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, and sociol-
ogy) and addressing implications and applications of this research to issues
in our profession. The Quarterly prefers that all submissions be written so
that their content is accessible to a broad readership, including those
individuals who may not have familiarity with the subject matter addressed.
TESOL Quarterly is an international journal. It welcomes submissions from
English language contexts around the world.
GENERAL INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS

Submission Categories
TESOL Quarterly invites submissions in five categories:
Full-length articles. Contributors are strongly encouraged to submit manu-
scripts of no more than 20–25 double-spaced pages or 8,500 words (includ-
ing references, notes, and tables). Submit three copies plus three copies of
an informative abstract of not more than 200 words. If possible, indicate the
number of words at the end of the article. To facilitate the blind review
process, authors’ names should appear only on a cover sheet, not on the title
page; do not use running heads. Submit manuscripts to the Editor of TESOL
Quarterly:
INFORMATION FOR
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. CONTRIBUTORS
34, No. 3, Autumn 2000 631
Carol A. Chapelle
Department of English
203 Ross Hall
Ames, IA 50011-1201 USA
The following factors are considered when evaluating the suitability of a
manuscript for publication in TESOL Quarterly:
• The manuscript appeals to the general interests of TESOL Quarterly’s
readership.
• The manuscript strengthens the relationship between theory and prac-
tice: Practical articles must be anchored in theory, and theoretical articles
and reports of research must contain a discussion of implications or
applications for practice.
• The content of the manuscript is accessible to the broad readership of the
Quarterly, not only to specialists in the area addressed.
• The manuscript offers a new, original insight or interpretation and not
just a restatement of others’ ideas and views.
• The manuscript makes a significant (practical, useful, plausible) contri-
bution to the field.
• The manuscript is likely to arouse readers’ interest.
• The manuscript reflects sound scholarship and research design with
appropriate, correctly interpreted references to other authors and works.
• The manuscript is well written and organized and conforms to the
specifications of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Associ-
ation (4th ed.).
Reviews. TESOL Quarterly invites succinct, evaluative reviews of professional
books. Reviews should provide a descriptive and evaluative summary and a
brief discussion of the significance of the work in the context of current
theory and practice. Submissions should generally be no longer than 500
words. Submit two copies of the review to the Review Editor:
Dan Douglas
Department of English
203 Ross Hall
Ames, IA 50011-1201 USA
Review Articles. TESOL Quarterly also welcomes occasional review articles,
that is, comparative discussions of several publications that fall into a topical
category (e.g., pronunciation, literacy training, teaching methodology).
Review articles should provide a description and evaluative comparison of
the materials and discuss the relative significance of the works in the context
of current theory and practice. Submissions should generally be no longer
than 1,500 words. Submit two copies of the review article to the Review
Editor at the address given above.
632 TESOL QUARTERLY

Brief Reports and Summaries. TESOL Quarterly also invites short reports on
any aspect of theory and practice in our profession. We encourage manu-
scripts that either present preliminary findings or focus on some aspect of a
larger study. In all cases, the discussion of issues should be supported by
empirical evidence, collected through qualitative or quantitative investiga-
tions. Reports or summaries should present key concepts and results in a
manner that will make the research accessible to our diverse readership.
Submissions to this section should be 7–10 double-spaced pages, or 3,400
words (including references, notes, and tables). If possible, indicate the
number of words at the end of the report. Longer articles do not appear in this
section and should be submitted to the Editor of TESOL Quarterly for review. Send
one copy of the manuscript to each of the Editors of the Brief Reports and
Summaries section:
Rod Ellis Karen E. Johnson
Institute of Language 305 Sparks Building
Teaching and Learning Pennsylvania State University
Private Bag 92019 University Park, PA 16802 USA
Auckland, New Zealand
The Forum. TESOL Quarterly welcomes comments and reactions from
readers regarding specific aspects or practices of our profession. Responses
to published articles and reviews are also welcome; unfortunately, we are not
able to publish responses to previous exchanges. Contributions to The
Forum should generally be no longer than 7–10 double-spaced pages or
3,400 words. If possible, indicate the number of words at the end of the
contribution. Submit two copies to the Editor of TESOL Quarterly at the
address given above.
Brief discussions of qualitative and quantitative Research Issues and of
Teaching Issues are also published in The Forum. Although these contri-
butions are typically solicited, readers may send topic suggestions or make
known their availability as contributors by writing directly to the Editors of
these subsections.
Research Issues: Teaching Issues:
Patricia A. Duff Bonny Norton
Department of Department of
Language Education Language Education
University of British Columbia University of British Columbia
2125 Main Mall 2125 Main Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4
Canada Canada
Special-Topic Issues. Typically, one issue per volume will be devoted to a
special topic. Topics are approved by the Editorial Advisory Board of the
Quarterly. Those wishing to suggest topics or make known their availability as
guest editors should contact the Editor of TESOL Quarterly. Issues will
generally contain both invited articles designed to survey and illuminate
central themes as well as articles solicited through a call for papers.
INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS 633

General Submission Guidelines
1. All submissions to the Quarterly should conform to the requirements of
the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.),
which can be obtained from the American Psychological Association,
Book Order Department, Dept. KK, P.O. Box 92984, Washington, DC
20090-2984 USA. Orders from the United Kingdom, Europe, Africa, or
the Middle East should be sent to American Psychological Association,
Dept. KK, 3 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2E 8LU,
England. For more information, e-mail [email protected] or consult http://
www.apa.org/books/ordering.html.
2. All submissions to TESOL Quarterly should be accompanied by a cover
letter that includes a full mailing address and both a daytime and an
evening telephone number. Where available, authors should include an
electronic mail address and fax number.
3. Authors of full-length articles, Brief Reports and Summaries, and Forum
contributions should include two copies of a very brief biographical
statement (in sentence form, maximum 50 words), plus any special
notations or acknowledgments that they would like to have included.
Double spacing should be used throughout.
4. TESOL Quarterly provides 25 free reprints of published full-length
articles and 10 reprints of material published in the Reviews, Brief
Reports and Summaries, and The Forum sections.
5. Manuscripts submitted to TESOL Quarterly cannot be returned to
authors. Authors should be sure to keep a copy for themselves.
6. It is understood that manuscripts submitted to TESOL Quarterly have not
been previously published and are not under consideration for publica-
tion elsewhere.
7. It is the responsibility of the author(s) of a manuscript submitted to
TESOL Quarterly to indicate to the Editor the existence of any work
already published (or under consideration for publication elsewhere)
by the author(s) that is similar in content to that of the manuscript.
8. The Editor of TESOL Quarterly reserves the right to make editorial
changes in any manuscript accepted for publication to enhance clarity
or style. The author will be consulted only if the editing has been
substantial.
9. The views expressed by contributors to TESOL Quarterly do not necessar-
ily reflect those of the Editor, the Editorial Advisory Board, or TESOL.
Material published in the Quarterly should not be construed to have the
endorsement of TESOL.
Informed Consent Guidelines

TESOL Quarterly expects authors to adhere to ethical and legal standards for
work with human subjects. Although we are aware that such standards vary
among institutions and countries, we require authors and contributors to
634 TESOL QUARTERLY

meet, as a minimum, the conditions detailed below before submitting a
manuscript for review. TESOL recognizes that some institutions may require
research proposals to satisfy additional requirements. If you wish to discuss
whether or how your study met these guidelines, you may e-mail the
managing editor of TESOL publications at [email protected] or call 703-535-7852.
As an author, you will be asked to sign a statement indicating that you have
complied with Option A or Option B before TESOL will publish your work.
A. You have followed the human subjects review procedure established by
your institution.
B. If you are not bound by an institutional review process, or if it does not
meet the requirements outlined below, you have complied with the
following conditions.
Participation in the Research
1. You have informed participants in your study, sample, class, group, or
program that you will be conducting research in which they will be the
participants or that you would like to write about them for publication.
2. You have given each participant a clear statement of the purpose of your
research or the basic outline of what you would like to explore in
writing, making it clear that research and writing are dynamic activities
that may shift in focus as they occur.
3. You have explained the procedure you will follow in the research project
or the types of information you will be collecting for your writing.
4. You have explained that participation is voluntary, that there is no
penalty for refusing to participate, and that the participants may
withdraw at any time without penalty.
5. You have explained to participants if and how their confidentiality will
be protected.
6. You have given participants sufficient contact information that they can
reach you for answers to questions regarding the research.
7. You have explained to participants any foreseeable risks and discomforts
involved in agreeing to cooperate (e.g., seeing work with errors in
print).
8. You have explained to participants any possible direct benefits of
participating (e.g., receiving a copy of the article or chapter).
9. You have obtained from each participant (or from the participant’s
parent or guardian) a signed consent form that sets out the terms of
your agreement with the participants and have kept these forms on file
(TESOL will not ask to see them).
Consent to Publish Student Work
10. If you will be collecting samples of student work with the intention of
publishing them, either anonymously or with attribution, you have
made that clear to the participants in writing.

11. If the sample of student work (e.g., a signed drawing or signed piece of
writing) will be published with the student’s real name visible, you have
obtained a signed consent form and will include that form when you
submit your manuscript for review and editing.
12. If your research or writing involves minors (persons under age 18), you
have supplied and obtained signed separate informed consent forms
from the parent or guardian and from the minor, if he or she is old
enough to read, understand, and sign the form.
13. If you are working with participants who do not speak English well or are
intellectually disabled, you have written the consent forms in a language
that the participant or the participant’s guardian can understand.
Statistical Guidelines
Because of the educational role the Quarterly plays modeling research in the
field, it is of particular concern that published research articles meet high
statistical standards. In order to support this goal, the following guidelines
are provided.
Reporting the study. Studies submitted to the Quarterly should be explained
clearly and in enough detail that it would be possible to replicate the design
of the study on the basis of the information provided in the article. Likewise,
the study should include sufficient information to allow readers to evaluate
the claims made by the author. In order to accommodate both of these
requirements, authors of statistical studies should present the following.
1. a clear statement of the research questions and the hypotheses that are
being examined;
2. descriptive statistics, including the means, standard deviations, and
sample sizes, necessary for the reader to correctly interpret and evaluate
any inferential statistics;
3. appropriate types of reliability and validity of any tests, ratings, ques-
tionnaires, and so on;
4. graphs and charts that help explain the results;
5. clear and careful descriptions of the instruments used and the types of
intervention employed in the study;
6. explicit identifications of dependent, independent, moderator, inter-
vening, and control variables;
7. complete source tables for statistical tests;
8. discussions of how the assumptions underlying the research design were
met, assumptions such as random selection and assignment of subjects
and sufficiently large sample sizes so that the results are stable;
9. tests of the assumptions of any statistical tests, when appropriate; and
10. realistic interpretations of the statistical significance of the results
keeping in mind that the meaningfulness of the results is a separate and
important issue, especially for correlation.
636 TESOL QUARTERLY

Conducting the analyses. Quantitative studies submitted to TESOL Quarterly
should reflect a concern for controlling Type I and Type II error. Thus,
studies should avoid multiple t tests, multiple ANOVAs, and so on. However,
in the very few instances in which multiple tests might be employed, the
author should explain the effects of such use on the probability values in the
results. In reporting the statistical analyses, authors should choose one
significance level (usually .05) and report all results in terms of that level.
Likewise, studies should report effect size through such strength of associa-
tion measures as omega-squared or eta-squared along with beta (the
possibility of Type II error) whenever this may be important to interpreting
the significance of the results.
Interpreting the results. The results should be explained clearly and the
implications discussed such that readers without extensive training in the
use of statistics can understand them. Care should be taken in making causal
inferences from statistical results, and these should be avoided with correla-
tional studies. Results of the study should not be overinterpreted or
overgeneralized. Finally, alternative explanations of the results should be
discussed.
Qualitative Research Guidelines

To ensure that Quarterly articles model rigorous qualitative research, the
following guidelines are provided.
Conducting the study. Studies submitted to the Quarterly should exhibit an
in-depth understanding of the philosophical perspectives and research
methodologies inherent in conducting qualitative research. Utilizing these
perspectives and methods in the course of conducting research helps to
ensure that studies are credible, valid, and dependable rather than impres-
sionistic and superficial. Reports of qualitative research should meet the
following criteria.
1. Data collection (as well as analyses and reporting) is aimed at uncovering
an emic perspective. In other words, the study focuses on research
participants’ perspectives and interpretations of behavior, events, and
situations rather than etic (outsider-imposed) categories, models, and
viewpoints.
2. Data collection strategies include prolonged engagement, persistent
observation, and triangulation. Researchers should conduct ongoing
observations over a sufficient period of time so as to build trust with
respondents, learn the culture (e.g., classroom, school, or community),
and check for misinformation introduced by both the researcher and
the researched. Triangulation involves the use of multiple methods and
sources such as participant-observation, informal and formal interviewing,
and collection of relevant or available documents.
Analyzing the data. Data analysis is also guided by the philosophy and
methods underlying qualitative research studies. The researcher should
engage in comprehensive data treatment in which data from all relevant

sources are analyzed. In addition, many qualitative studies demand an
analytic inductive approach involving a cyclical process of data collection,
analysis (taking an emic perspective and utilizing the descriptive language
the respondents themselves use), creation of hypotheses, and testing of
hypotheses in further data collection.
Reporting the data. The researcher should generally provide “thick descrip-
tion” with sufficient detail to allow the reader to determine whether transfer
to other situations can be considered. Reports also should include the
following.
1. a description of the theoretical or conceptual framework that guides
research questions and interpretations;
2. a clear statement of the research questions;
3. a description of the research site, participants, procedures for ensuring
participant anonymity, and data collection strategies, and a description
of the roles of the researcher(s);
4. a description of a clear and salient organization of patterns found
through data analysis—reports of patterns should include representative
examples, not anecdotal information;
5. interpretations that exhibit a holistic perspective in which the author
traces the meaning of patterns across all the theoretically salient or
descriptively relevant micro- and macrocontexts in which they are
embedded;
6. interpretations and conclusions that provide evidence of grounded
theory and discussion of how this theory relates to current research/
theory in the field, including relevant citations—in other words, the
article should focus on the issues or behaviors that are salient to
participants and that not only reveal an in-depth understanding of the
situation studied but also suggest how it connects to current related
theories.
638 TESOL QUARTERLY

Vol 34 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol 34 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol 34 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUARTERLY Volume 34, Number 3 䊐 Autumn 2000

A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

SPECIAL-TOPIC ISSUE: TESOL IN THE 21st CENTURY

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES

cccxc TESOL QUARTERLY

Information for Contributors 631

OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2000–2001

394 TESOL QUARTERLY

IN THIS ISSUE 395

Computer-mediated communication (CMC), which began in propri-

I n trying to predict changes in higher education as a result of

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 34, No. 3, Autumn 2000 397

398 TESOL QUARTERLY

CMC SPEECH COMMUNITIES

Linguists have posited the construct of speech community as an organiz-

PROTEAN COMMUNICATION 399

Examination of four linguistic characteristics reveals the nature of

Spoken or Written Language?

400 TESOL QUARTERLY

Simpliﬁed registers result from particular features of the context;

PROTEAN COMMUNICATION 401

Structure of CMC Conversations

Speech communities have developed norms—such as openings, clos-

402 TESOL QUARTERLY

Topic Thread Cohesion

E-mail is often used as a vehicle for multiple threads of discourse

PROTEAN COMMUNICATION 403

CMC as Part of Speech Communities’ Repertoire

Much discussion of computer-based technology speaks to its inevitabil-

404 TESOL QUARTERLY

PROTEAN COMMUNICATION 405

CRITICAL ISSUES IN CMC USE

No technology is neutral or value free. Historical evidence demon-

406 TESOL QUARTERLY

The Dominance of English

Research revealing the hegemony of English, especially one or two

PROTEAN COMMUNICATION 407

408 TESOL QUARTERLY

Differential Access to the Technology

“Virtual space is inﬁnite, but it does not promise universality or equity”

PROTEAN COMMUNICATION 409

410 TESOL QUARTERLY

Region Internet users per 1,000 people

In Gujarat, India, for example, Dalit (lower caste) or OBC (Other

Region Internet users (%)

United States 43.0

PROTEAN COMMUNICATION 411

Control of the Discourse of CMC

412 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISTANCE EDUCATION: A PEDAGOGICAL

One growing application of CMC in education has been its incorpora-

PROTEAN COMMUNICATION 413

Historical Context of Distance Education

Although the particular characteristics of distance education deliv-

414 TESOL QUARTERLY

The impetus for the proliferation of distance-learning courses, pro-

The Value of Distance Learning?

Although virtual distance learning is proliferating, there is little