When They Talk About CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class

376
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
CALICO Journal, 27(2), p-p 376-392. © 2010 CALICO Journal
When They Talk About CALL:
Discourse in a Required CALL Class
Greg Kessler
Ohio University
ABSTRACT
This study investigates preservice teachers’ discourse about CALL in a required CALL class which combines theory and practice. Thirty-three students in a Linguistics MA program CALL course were observed over a 10-week quarter. For all of these students, it was their first formal exposure to CALL as a discipline. Communication in the class consisted of student-led in-class discussions, web-based wiki, chat, and discussion fora. All communication during the course was recorded for the purpose of investigating teachers’ emerging perceptions of CALL and the role it plays in language teaching and learning. All the preservice teachers were new to CALL and consequently had a lack of awareness of the breadth of the topic. They were initially apprehensive about the notion of CALL. A lack of awareness of the potential for CALL and negative experiences with poorly designed technology accounted for much of this apprehension. There was also an overwhelming sense that CALL threatened the teacher in myriad ways. Competent with technology for personal purposes, these teachers did not easily transfer skills to CALL contexts. When faced with the opportunity to discuss CALL in depth they began to appreciate the potential for technology use in language teaching. However, they expressed sustained concern over a potential loss of control over the teaching environment and students. Suggestions for cultivating a student-centered CALL classroom address these concerns.
KEYWORDS
Teacher Preparation, Classroom Discourse, Teacher Attitude, First Generation of CALL Teachers
INTRODUCTION
CALL teacher preparation is an area of increasing interest. Recent edited collections have addressed CALL teacher preparation through insights gained from CALL professionals, administrators, teachers confident with CALL use, and educators who prepare CALL teachers (Hubbard & Levy, 2006; Kassen, Lavine, Murphy-Judy, & Peters, 2007). These collections offer a foundation upon which further research into CALL teacher preparation can be constructed. They suggest that there is an overall lack of CALL teacher preparation (Kessler, 2006; Oxford & Jung, 2007), an insufficient breadth of CALL preparation (Peters, 2006), and limited contextualization (Egbert, 2006). Much of this research is based upon the perceptions and practice of graduates of masters level language teacher preparation programs who are reflecting upon both their learning and teaching experience.
The current study examines the perceptions of Linguistics students throughout a required CALL course. An entire 40-hour quarter long course was recorded to examine student discourse. As they explored CALL theory, principles, and practices, they shared their thoughts through in-class discussions, question and answer sessions, various forms of CMC, and a collaborative CALL wiki. The manner of participation and language used in these tasks reflect
377
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
students’ preconceptions, evolving attitudes, and cumulative thoughts about CALL and its role in language learning. Contextualized details about what students found most useful and rewarding as well as what they found challenging, unanticipated, or unnecessarily complicated are identified and discussed. The collaborative construction of their CALL understanding is explored and provides valuable insight into how we might better conduct CALL teacher preparation. The evolution of their CALL-oriented thinking helps illuminate the most salient aspects of their CALL preparation.
CALL TEACHER PREPARATION
While it has recently been noted that CALL teacher preparation is often perceived as lacking in both quantity and quality, there appears to be an increased focus on CALL preparation in recent years (Kessler, 2006). This increased attention may result partly from previous studies that have proposed approaches to enhance CALL teacher preparation. Many of these studies have relied on surveying and interviewing teachers about their ongoing CALL preparation, subsequent use of CALL in the language classroom, and perceived needs for further CALL preparation. The recent growth in this area has resulted in varied programmatic descriptions. Hubbard (2008) provides an overview of approaches to CALL teacher preparation, including breadth-first, depth-first, online, and programmatically integrated orientation to CALL. The various processes involved in CALL preparation include autonomous self-directed learning (Robb, 2006), communities of practice (Hanson-Smith, 2006), situated learning (Egbert, 2006) and mentoring (Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker-VanStrander, Tseng, & You, 2006).
Hubbard and Levy (2006) present a diversity of approaches to CALL teacher preparation. Of particular interest are the institutional and functional roles, including CALL specialists, CALL professionals, CALL practitioners and classroom teachers. They suggest that language teachers who use CALL not be referred to as CALL teachers since CALL is likely only one aspect of their overall role, albeit an important one that may involve promoting, managing, or assessing students’ learning. Hubbard and Levy suggest that these teachers simply be called classroom teachers, suggesting that all language teachers need a fundamental set of CALL competencies.
Much of the focus in CALL-related teacher preparation is derived in a top-down manner. CALL trainers have reflected upon their own use of CALL, their observations of CALL practice, and the anticipated needs of practitioners in the future. For the purposes of this study the intention was to familiarize teachers with the background in CALL materials, practice, and thought. In the conventions established by Hubbard and Levy (2006), these teachers should be expected to be capable of functioning as classroom teachers by the end of the course. Those who desire to be CALL specialists, CALL professionals or CALL practitioners will require additional professional development such as that available in the follow-up elective courses offered in our program and others.
Graduate students in a CALL teacher preparation program are likely to fall into each of the four categories of classroom teacher, CALL specialist, CALL professional, and CALL practitioner. In fact, they may shift from one category to another throughout the course of their careers. It may be easy to identify those who will be CALL specialists and professionals through the language that they use to describe CALL as they are first exposed to the field. It is less obvious which teachers will be competent CALL users since some may appear to be less interested or even reluctant in this new and unfamiliar arena.
378
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
Teachers’ Perception of CALL Preparation
Kessler (2007) found that teachers who had graduated from MA language teacher preparation programs felt there was a dearth of attention to CALL teacher preparation. He further found that teachers perceived their informal CALL preparation to be more beneficial than formal preparation to their development of CALL. This seems to be the result of a general dissatisfaction with the type of training they are receiving. Slaouti and Motteram (2006) recognized a number of characteristics important to teachers engaged in CALL teacher preparation. The teachers they worked with talked about the value of skills and knowledge as well as the importance of context. These teachers also expressed their appreciation for a solid theoretical foundation upon which they could build CALL practice. Further, the teachers expressed an increased awareness of their teaching abilities in relation to CALL along with a willingness to try new technology-related teaching tasks.
Egbert (2006) noted that required asynchronous discussion in a CALL course allowed teachers to share their own teaching experience in a context where they felt knowledgeable and valued. Hegelheimer (2006) surveyed students in a required CALL course and found that as teacher educators become aware of the expectations of a CALL course they are likely to prepare their instruction in a manner that presumes familiarity with certain skills and knowledge. He also suggests CALL training has resulted in increased confidence and use of technology in peripheral teacher preparation and language classes within an institution and also in disappointment when technology was not effectively integrated. In the general realm of TESOL teacher preparation, some have noted that the addition of a required CALL component has enhanced teachers’ “instructional repertoire in the ESL classroom” (Snow, 2005, p. 266) as well as improving their job prospects.
The ability to utilize, create, and manage CALL environments for integrated language skill development is a critical foundation upon which CALL teacher autonomy rests. Further, it is important that teachers utilize the potential that technology offers rather than mimic activities from paper-based texts. However, it seems that teachers may be ill prepared for this progression. Kessler (2007) found that teachers felt less confident working with audio and video than any other type of technology-based media. Teachers were not confident using digital audio and video materials in the classroom, but they were even less confident creating such materials for their students. The use of audio and video in a language learning context may be considered critical for successful CALL integration.
RESEARCHING CLASSROOM DISCOURSE
Early investigation into university classroom discourse focused on the discourse of lectures (Flowerdew, 1994), listener expectations (Tauroza & Allison, 1994), note taking (Chaudron, Loschky, & Cook, 1994), signaling cues (Dunkel & Davis, 1994), and lecture variation across disciplines (Dudley-Evans, 1994). In recent years, linguists have begun to investigate various forms of communication that occur in the university classroom, including reflexivity (Mauranen, 2001), linguistics variation (Csomay, 2005), and the use of discourse markers (Swales & Malczewski, 2001). Research in this area has typically focused on either specific lexical items or grammatical features (Csomay, 2005).
Observing the discourse of the university classroom is inherently difficult. Buzzelli and Johnston (2001) identify the complex nature of classroom discourse, concluding that the authority of the teacher often dominates the nature of discourse and subsequent perspectives of students. Further, it may be difficult to target the most valuable exchanges in the classroom. Bannink and van Dam (2006) suggest that much of what is potentially most interest379
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
ing in classroom discourse is often left unstudied. They focus upon the whispers, muttering, body language, and other discreet aspects of communication. Thus far there has been no discourse-based investigation in the CALL teacher preparation classroom.
CURRENT STUDY
Research Questions
1. What does discourse about CALL in a required CALL course reveal about language teachers’ and preservice teachers’ understanding of CALL?
2. As teachers learn more about CALL, does their discourse reflect a shift in their understanding?
3. How can teachers’ emerging discourse about CALL inform teacher preparation?
Methodology
By focusing on the perspective of teachers in training, we have learned a great deal about the needs for this type of preparation. However, previous studies have relied upon surveys or interviews with students either engaged in CALL preparation or as a follow-up debriefing. This study utilizes the body of language produced by the students in a required CALL course as the data. Thus, we are able to observe perceptions not only at the very beginning and end of the first course exposing teachers to CALL thought, but also throughout the process of their learning about CALL. Extending Chapelle’s (1990) proposal for discourse analysis of student and computer interaction, this study relies upon extensive documentation of all spoken and written interaction among preservice teachers in a required CALL course. Focus was placed upon discourse that revealed assumptions, attitudes, or expectations about CALL and connected aspects of methodology and second language acquisition (SLA). Each class meeting involved a 30-minute discussion around a CALL-related article intended to serve as an introduction to various topics in CALL (see reading and discussion list in Appendix A). By allowing students to lead class discussions and guide the initial coverage of these topics themselves, teacher bias was reduced. During these discussions, all students participated. Much of the discourse that was observed functioned as a guiding force for the focus of class discussions, allowing opportunities for discussion that would otherwise be impossible to anticipate. The discourse that followed the anticipated, intended, or guided course of instruction was not included in this analysis.
The Course
The course in which this study was conducted is required for all Linguistics MA students. The course is divided equally among three areas: general computer skills and knowledge, CALL oriented skills and knowledge, and introductory CALL and related SLA theory. Each day of the course combines foci on these aspects. Throughout the course CALL is presented in a manner that recognizes the caution that should be exercised when considering its use; the instructor does not promote CALL universally or as an off the shelf solution. Students are responsive to this thoughtful treatment, which may contribute to the overall acceptance of CALL’s usefulness. Further, the mere fact that this degree program requires a CALL course may provide enough endorsement for some students.
380
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
The course is built around a project-based breadth approach. Students are introduced to CALL theory and practices as they also learn various skills relevant to the use of CALL. Fotos and Browne (2004) serves as the central text for the course, but additional readings from various CALL journals and edited volumes are used to supplement the central text. Each meeting involves a student-led discussion centered around one of the readings for the course. These discussions resulted in a large portion of the data for this study. Additional data were garnered from discussion fora from the Moodle-based CMS that supported the course.
While the course is intended to prepare what Hubbard and Levy (2006) describe as classroom teachers, 71% of the students who have completed this course have taken at least one of the four elective CALL courses that comprise our CALL sequence. Many continue to use, and expand upon, the skills and knowledge gained from these classes by using CALL in their own language classes. However, this positive response is not indicative of all students who take the course. While some students who enter the course are skeptical about the potential of CALL develop a great appreciation for CALL, others avoid any further exposure to CALL. This study is intended to develop a better understanding of this divide.
The Students
The 33 participants in this study were from three different groups: 19 graduate students in the second quarter of a first-year Linguistics MA TESOL program from a variety of cultural and educational backgrounds, 10 American undergraduate students from a variety of disciplines with interest in language teaching, and 4 doctoral students from the College of Education with background and interest in language teaching. The MA Linguistics students were concurrently enrolled in a course in syntax and a course in methods and had all taken a linguistics survey course as well as a course in SLA prior to this course. All of the students in the study can be described as ‘first generation CALL teachers:’ those who are using or intend to use CALL as teachers despite the fact that they did not use it as students. They may have had some exposure to instructional technology as students, but no previous exposure to CALL as language teachers or learners. In general the students considered CALL to be limited to broadly distributed self-study commercial offerings such as Rosetta Stone or Berlitz.
Data Collection and Analysis
In this study the entirety of classroom discourse was videotaped in order to capture the central points of discussions as well as the discreet asides and subtleties of communication identified by Bannink and van Dam (2006). The students interacted in varied ways. Student-led in-class discussions, a wiki, discussion fora, and spontaneous in-class communication were all recorded over the course of 10 weeks. This collection was organized and coded as themes emerged. Per the guidelines of Bogdan and Biklen (2003), the data were organized, broken into smaller units, synthesized, and then generalized out to larger concepts. Coding began with a preliminary coding scheme that included X codes based on the students’ communication, leading to a refined coding scheme including Y codes. While other codes were found in addition to the ones included in this article, the codes chosen for deeper analysis were those that indicated a change in students’ attitudes/perceptions of CALL. Primary focus was placed upon discourse that reflected initial perceptions, any change in perception between the beginning and end of the quarter, and final perceptions. Themes were also organized by student and week in order to observe individual and group characteristics.
381
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
FINDINGS
Initial Understanding of CALL
During the first week of the course, there were numerous indications that many did not choose to be in this class. As two students commented, “I only use computers when I need to” and “I don’t think we will ever have computers in the classroom in my country.”
At the beginning of the course, students were asked to assess their own technology-related skills (see technology self-assessment in Appendix B). Students in the course tended to identify themselves as either very strong or very weak in this regard with few ranking their abilities in the middle. These skills seemed to directly reflect their disposition toward CALL.
However, previous research has suggested that mere technology proficiency may not be the best predictor of innovative or integrated CALL instruction (Kessler & Plakans, 2008). Even the most technology proficient students had never explored the potential of using computers to teach language beyond the use of self-study CD-ROMs for their own language study. The majority of students recognized some benefit of self-access autonomous CALL use for extensive exposure to tasks such as grammar correction. Four students began the class with a positive attitude toward CALL within language teaching outside of the realm of self-access drill-and-practice material.
The most obvious initial observation involved awareness of CALL as an area of investigation. Nearly all of the students expressed a lack of awareness of anything related to CALL. It is interesting that this was not a reflection of students’ previous technology knowledge or experience. In fact, it was those students who claimed to be most comfortable with technology in general who expressed the most surprise that CALL itself existed as an area of investigation.
Despite this dearth of awareness, a few of the students began with a perspective of the inevitability of an increase in CALL in the language teaching environment. As Jenna1 stated early in the class, “The next generation of teachers should not only know what to teach, but also how to use technology to teach effectively. They don’t have to be computer freaks, but they have to understand technology at some basic level.” This quote was the inspiration for the notion of ‘first generation CALL teachers.’
Apprehension
An overwhelming sense of apprehension dominated the class at the beginning of the quarter. In many cases it was deemed a threat to the teacher’s status or ability to manage the delivery of content. A statement by George reflected this concept, “We need to keep them under control … the more the students use the computers the less control I have over the classroom, and it seems that there are some students who use a lot of internet resources to learn language and they watch videos on youTube and then they are ahead of the other students and they complain.”
To some extent this apprehension may have been a reflection of perpetuating the teaching style of one’s favorite language teacher. Numerous in-class statements suggested that this reverence may influence a language teacher’s behavior more than their explicit study of methodology. As Jenna said at the end of the first week, “I never used any computer in my classes and I learned Spanish well. I think my students can do the same.”
382
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
Apprehension presented itself as a threat to the role of teachers as well. At the beginning of the course a number of students identified CALL as a replacement for teachers. This was evident in the forum posting of Hiromi, “Since teachers are not teaching in class but computers, teachers do not have to lead class, rather their roles are more like ‘Engineer people’.”
There was also evidence that students of all ages were reluctant to use CALL as teachers. As a 25-year-old native English speaking Caucasian male student shared, “I’ve only used computers when I absolutely have to.”
Very early on, some students revealed an understanding of the importance of having control over all aspects of the CALL environment (in fact, before the term ‘CALL environment’ was introduced). This is evident in Jenifer’s forum posting, “Teachers need to pay attention to the needs of the students. They also need to make time to pay attention to difficulties that students may have. They need to make the learning environment fun and inclusive for all of the students.” These students were often overwhelmed by the current potential of CALL and consequently uninterested and even confused about the evolution of CALL materials: “I really don’t get what a MOO is from this article, but it sounds like Second Life without the virtual reality.”
However, student-generated discussions about teacher control and apprehension led to students’ recognition of the inevitability of the use of online language material. Jeremy concluded, “There is so much material available on the internet that our students are going to use it, we should learn how to help them make the most of these things.”
Change in Understanding of CALL
The students in the course generally demonstrated an increased appreciation for CALL as well as recognition of the inevitable role that it will play in language teaching in their future careers. However, students demonstrated a shift in their attitude toward CALL throughout this course in some unanticipated ways. While it was anticipated that students who felt threatened by CALL would likely leave the class with more appreciation for the field as a whole, it seems that some who began the class with more advanced skills did not benefit as much from the pedagogical contextualization. These individuals showed little reflection on the pedagogical implications of CALL. Rather, their comments focused on the technological functions. As Randy said in a discussion about interactive online activity creation, “I can’t imagine why anyone would not use cascading style sheets.” While his attention to technological aspects of the creation of an activity was impressive, he demonstrated little awareness of the linguistic context or needs of the target students. However, even these highly technology proficient individuals expressed appreciation for exposure to the field. As Steve said at the end of week two, “Even though I have a BA in IT, this stuff is all new to me.”
The majority of altered perspectives seemed to result from student interaction during in-class discussions and hands-on activities. In-class discussions often resulted in students discussing their own teaching contexts (or anticipated future contexts) as they explored the potential for CALL. Evidence from turn taking in these discussions indicated that it was not the predisposed individuals who had the greatest influence, but rather the students who initially felt that CALL was a threat to their profession. When these students began to question their own preconceptions in the public context of discussions, other students took notice.
383
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
Topics Reflecting Change
The methodology of this course presumes that an integrated presentation of skills and topics will benefit teachers in their developing understanding of CALL. We have seen that teachers in the course developed a greater appreciation for CALL over the 10-week period. The following section presents the topics and discussions that contributed to this shift.
Control
Control over all aspects of the learning process was a major concern among the preservice teachers in this course. While there was an overwhelming sense of a loss of control in many regards in the initial observations, numerous signs showed that teachers developed a greater appreciation for CALL as they developed a greater appreciation for student-centered learning. This acceptance of a contextualized sense of control was recognized by Shelly, who early in the quarter expressed anxiety over students getting lost in the vastness of the internet. In week eight she commented, “Today’s teacher should not fear the technological advancements but rather embrace them to the fullest extent. In using CALL as a classroom tool, the instructor can really take control of the types of information that the students will focus on; as well as providing an organized space for the students to work with. She does not need to control everything.”
Also early in the class, Jessica shared her overwhelmingly negative experience participating in poorly managed and unorganized CMS-based discussions: her sole previous exposure to instructional technology. During the final week as discussion returned to issues of control, Jessica responded, “Just because we are using computers does not mean we let the students do whatever they want.” Further discussion revealed that most of the students felt that if they introduced CALL into their classrooms, particularly internet-based activities, they would lose even a modicum of control over the classroom.
Repurposing resources
One of the major foci of this course is on the potential of extant technologies and content and how these may be repurposed for language learning. While the more tech savvy students generally demonstrated an understanding and appreciation for the potential language learning contribution of CMC technologies, interactive web activities, and resources and communities of learners, they tended to view this entire domain as a self-access zone. Unless software was specifically designed and distributed in a manner that suggested a role of centrality to a course (e.g., traditional courseware packages), these students did not recognize the potential such resources had for a teacher to effectively integrate and manage. This recognition of the potential for repurposing materials and technologies was evident in many discussion, but two particular situations provide a clear illustration.
Sharon had defined CALL early in the class as, “Software that people buy to teach themselves a language, like Rosetta Stone.” During week seven she expressed her excitement about using authentic materials via YouTube and constructing mash-ups with Google maps, “I can see how I might build an entire class around my students making and collecting videos and mapping them together.”
Tomo suggested during the first week that the only useful computer resources for language teaching were dictionaries or translating tools for individual use. After learning how to collect, archive, and organize digital images into a searchable database, Tomo’s perspective
384
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
shifted. As she shared a vocabulary-focused activity organized around such a collection of images, she said, “I can imagine that we can use all kinds of things that are on the internet in these same ways. I can use videos, pictures and even news to help my students.”
In some cases this repurposing extended into areas that the students considered to be potentially threatening or socially inappropriate. Many avid users of social networking sites were disturbed by the suggestion that such sites might serve as extensions of enhancements to the language classroom. In response to a program alumnus (Dave Laurence, Chubu University) conferencing with us about his use of Facebook as a CMS, Gerald’s comment summarized the feelings of this group with, “Facebook is for students, not teachers.”
Teacher developer
Class discussions reinforced the preparation of teacher as developer. If teachers are going to effectively utilize CALL, they need to be as comfortable with the creation of CALL activities as they are with creating traditional activities. An appreciation of this need was reflected in a number of comments. Jenna began a discussion, “It seems that if the teacher doesn’t create materials for her own class, then she will always kind of be an outsider.” Erin expanded on this idea as she guided the discussion to courseware, “If we are going to design our own courseware, we would need to have training and support. We would need to have some software that allowed us to create materials in a way that didn’t require coding. I think we would also need ongoing training.” John introduced issues of context, “The class levels and needs are always different among students so it depends upon the teacher to address these needs. Of course your point of view of the students’ needs is totally different form the one who made the textbook.” Finally, Mandy summarized the topic, “It is important for us to be able to make materials to meet our particular students’ needs.”
Potential of CMC
The students in this course recognized the value of CALL as beginning language teachers. In particular they identified with the extensive exploration of CMC within the literature. Nearly all of them were familiar with various forms of CMC for personal purposes. Some initial comments that addressed the potential of CMC for language teaching include Crystal’s comment, “The ability to communicate with people all over the world in any language is very valuable. I have used it myself, but have never had a teacher tell me to use it.” However, students had an overwhelming sense that CMC is underused or ineffectively used in instruction. Nearly all of the students had some experience using CMC, primarily discussion fora as students, but not for learning language. Some recognized the potential for discussion boards, as noted by Jessica, “A lot of teachers could set up more interactive communication with their students as well as between students for understanding materials,” but they generally felt that fora had either been used inappropriately or too little in their experience. Ying suggested that, “few of them function that well. On one hand, it is hard to manage and collaborate. On the other hand, students seldom find it motivating.” Mandy added, “In my limited experience, the classes I’m taking don’t really use them. Like I said in another post, I sort of find discussion boards boring! I would prefer a real conversation.” Jenna added, “I feel that they are somewhat boring and I usually just try to complete them as quickly as possible so maybe it is not being used to its full advantage because I don’t read others’ responses most of the time.”
Reflecting on their experience using CMC as students, we were able to identify ways that such communication could be used more effectively for the language classroom. As
385
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
Mandy stated, in defense of being accused of being a technophobe, “I’m totally down with making my students use discussion boards. I just don’t want to bore them.” Others began to recognize less obvious benefits of forms of CMC. John said, “At first, I never thought of the assortment of advantages pertaining to the discussion boards. I have always thought that they were just used to answer a question that someone posted. Discussion boards or other forms of communication can be used within a class, outside of class or as a way of extending access to native speakers in an EFL setting.”
Materials design
In response to a discussion about the topic of student feedback in materials design, guided by Kessler and Plakans (2001), many students expressed interest in involving target students to a greater degree into the materials design process. Henry wrote, “It is important to have other viewpoints of how to approach certain learning tasks so it would be easier for the CALL material developers.” Students liked the idea of the think aloud protocol employed by the authors. Mandy wrote, “I like the idea of TAP [Think Aloud Protocol] because it’s so easy for the students providing the feedback—they just say exactly what they’re thinking as they are going through the program.”
Others shared a similar appreciation for reflection on CALL materials and their use. Susan said, “Of course it is important to observe and ask students about how they interact with technology, or even any materials for that matter.” John added, “We need to remember that our point of view may be different from the students, particularly when we use something like software or are working in our native language.” Another shared, “Sometimes teachers don’t even know how the materials work. Sometimes the students are more confident with technology than the teacher.”
Finally, these students began to demonstrate an understanding of the importance of instructional design. As Jenna remarked in a surprised tone, “I’m really beginning to see that the problems I have had using the internet for learning in the past have not been my fault.”
Creation, use, and management of CALL environments
The course presents the creation, use, and management of CALL environments as areas of importance for teachers. The students in the class had many things to share about this topic. Initially, many of these comments reflected teacher control, but as the class progressed they shifted toward more opportunity for student practice and feedback. Stacy, during the first week of class, said, “If we use CD-ROMS instead of internet-based materials we can have more teacher control.” Toward the end of the quarter, Stacy said, “I think it may be more important for us to develop our own materials that allow students to work collaboratively.”
The notion of developing CALL environments rather than seeing CALL as simply collections of isolated tasks was reflected in the evolution of student thought. We heard early on from Mike, “I like the idea of using CALL to replace the drill and kill work that takes up so much classroom time.” Toward the end of the course he said, “We need to get away from pattern drills to allow CALL to focus on more communicative experiences.”
386
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
Influence on Other Units
As Hegelheimer (2006) observed, CALL teacher preparation can have profound influence upon other units within an institution. In this study there were many situations in which language teachers began to integrate CALL into their own classes and peripheral language programs. One example illustrates the potential of this kind of diffusion of technology into other units. One of the members of the class was concurrently enrolled in a course in Wolof (a language spoken in Senegal, Gambia, and Mauritania) with a TA from outside the Linguistics department. Upon hearing the instructor’s complicated instructions for an out-of-class speech-recording assignment, the student came up with a solution: he offered to create a web-based voice board for the class using Gong (a Java-based technology used to facilitate discussions in our class). This particular student had expressed frustration with the Gong software during week three, “I wish it could be less difficult to use,” but faced with a less elegant solution his appreciation became evident. After creating this solution for his Wolof class, this individual was determined to continue using it for student recordings in the future.
DISCUSSION
Initial Understanding of CALL
While the discourse observed in this course reveals a noticeable positive shift in perception of CALL during this class, at the end of the course it was still generally conceived of as supplementary and potentially threatening. In fact some students who chose to enroll in the subsequent elective courses did so precisely in response to feeling threatened. The predominant theme throughout the student-generated discourse revolved around attention to issues of control over the learning process, the environment, and their students. The students discussed concern for a general lack of control over their own students as those students progress in language learning. This sense of a lack of control, along with a general sense of apprehension about the use of CALL, dominated much of the discussion throughout the course.
Students seemed inclined to gravitate toward teaching practices and materials similar to those they utilized as language students. CALL does not fall into this realm and may consequently raise apprehension. This increased apprehension is magnified by limited, but generally negative, previous experience with ineffective (and often incidental) integration of CALL, a problem which reinforces the need for formal CALL teacher preparation.
Shift in Understanding of CALL
The majority of altered perspectives seem to result from student interaction during in-class discussions and hands-on activities. In-class discussions often drifted toward discussing individual teaching contexts (or anticipated future contexts) as they explored the potential for CALL. Again, evidence from turn taking in these discussions indicates that it was not the predisposed students who had the greatest influence, but rather the students who initially felt that CALL was a threat to their profession. When these students begin to question their own preconceptions in the public context of discussions, other students take notice.
Pedagogical Implications
Discussions of control over the learning environment dominated the course. Despite having both SLA and methodology courses prior to this course, students still seem to require an ori387
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
entation to student-centered learning in a CALL context. Primarily intended to assuage concerns over a potential lack of control, this orientation can also help to raise awareness of design and usability. The students in the course recognized that student-centered constructivist practices could be assisted through the informed use of CALL solutions. It may be beneficial to have students engage in CALL-based constructivist activities that help them to recognize the unanticipated roles they may assume as well as the potential for language practice.
The students in the class tended to think of CALL as a collection of supplemental or peripheral resources rather than an organized environment instrumental to language teaching. Students who demonstrated critical exploration of linguistic-oriented topics did not transfer these critical skills to the CALL domain. In many cases it seemed as though technology itself threatened the students’ confidence; as though they were so overwhelmed by the technical skills that they lost interest in critical analysis. Without the ability to critically evaluate CALL within SLA, teachers are likely to adhere to their technology-oriented preconceptions rather than pedagogically sound practices that happen to benefit from technological enhancement. CALL teacher preparation should be grounded on sound pedagogical practices rather than specific forms of technology.
The shift in understanding of CALL among the students reflected thoughtfulness about the pedagogical implications of CALL solutions. Participants recognized the benefits of exploiting universal and transferable technology skills. They also demonstrated an appreciation for addressing specific issues within various CALL contexts. These skills required explicit discussion and contextualized practice. Preparing teachers to identify the available resources and apply them to their self-defined contexts provided the students with exposure to learning opportunities that the instructor had not been able to anticipate. Such context specific practice may be further enhanced by collaborative internships in real-world settings.
CONCLUSION
Teachers who are less confident with technology feel threatened by CALL, in spite of some recognizing it as an effective means of instruction. Initially, this threat is largely based upon the fact that these students are all first generation CALL teachers. The threat that CALL presents may manifest itself in the form of a computer that teaches students directly (eliminating the need for teachers), a student who is more adept with technology than the teacher, or a sense that technology moves too rapidly for a bystander to keep pace. As a consequence, they share a general lack of awareness of the potential of CALL, but they are interested in the potential once they are exposed to the field.
First generation CALL teachers who are confident using technology in their personal lives tend to recognize the potential for CALL, but they tend to overlook very simple or obvious solutions or contexts in which extant technology may enhance language learning. Even those with extensive technology skills may not easily transfer these skills to CALL contexts, or any teaching purposes for that matter. Those who are generally uncomfortable with technology may focus more attention on the development of skills to develop a sound foundational understanding of the field. Focusing instruction on a student-centered, constructivist environment helped all students to recognize the contributions that CALL can make to teaching.
Further investigation into the needs and expectations of all language teachers needs to be conducted. As novice teachers develop increased familiarity with a broader range of CALL-related skills, their needs will shift. It is important that this development be studied in order to design teacher preparation programs that are relevant and meaningful for these teachers.
388
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
NOTE
1 The names of the students are pseudonyms.
REFERENCES
Bannink, A., & van Dam, J. (2006). A dynamic approach to classroom research. Linguistics and Education, 17, 283-301.
Bauer-Ramazani, C. (2006). Training CALL teachers online. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 183-202). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Group.
Buzzelli, C., & Johnston, B. (2001). Authority, power, and morality in classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 873-884.
Chapelle, C. (1990). The discourse of computer-assisted language learning: Toward a context for descriptive research. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 199-225.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chaudron, C., Loschky, L., & Cook, J. (1994). Second language listening comprehension and lecture note-taking. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 75-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csomay, E. (2005). Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus based perspective. Linguistics and Education, 15, 243-274.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 146-158). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dunkel, P. A., & Davis, J. N. (1994). The effects of rhetorical signaling cues on the recall of English lecture information by speakers of English as a native or second language. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 55-74). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Egbert, J. (2006). Learning in context: Situating language teacher learning in CALL. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 167-181). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Flowerdew, J. (1994). Research of relevance to second language lecture comprehension: An overview. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 7-29). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fotos, S., & Browne, C. M. (Eds.). (2004). New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hanson-Smith, E. (2006). Communities of practice for pre- and in-service teacher education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 301-315). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hegelheimer, V. (2006). When the technology course is required. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 117-133). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO Journal, 25, 175-188. Retrieved October 11, 2009, from https://calico.org/page.php?id=5
Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2006). The scope of CALL education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 3-20). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
389
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
Kassen, M. A., Lavine, R. Z., Murphy-Judy, K., & Peters, M. (2007). Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better? In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 23-42). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kessler, G. (2007). Formal and informal CALL preparation and teacher attitude toward technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 173-188.
Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2001). Incorporating ESOL learners’ feedback and usability testing into instructor-developed materials. TESOL Journal, 10, 15-20.
Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 269-282.
Mauranen, A. (2001). Reflexive academic talk: Observations from MICASE. In R. C. Simpson & J. M. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America (pp. 165-178). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Meskill, C., Mossop, J., DiAngelo, S., & Pasquale, R. K. (2002). Expert and novice teachers talking technology: Precepts, concepts, and misconcepts. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 46-57. Retrieved October 11, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/meskill
Meskill, C., Anthony, N., Hilliker-VanStrander, S., Tseng, C. H., & You, J. (2006). Expert-novice teacher mentoring in language learning technology. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 283-291). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Milbrath, Y., & Kinzie, M. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 373–396.
Oxford, R., & Jung, S. H. (2007). National guidelines for technology integration in TESOL programs: Factors affecting (non)implementation. In M. A. Kassen, R. Z. Lavine, K. Murphy-Judy, & M. Peters, M. (Eds.), Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers (pp. 23-48). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Peters, M. (2006). Developing computer competencies for pre-service language teachers: Is one course enough? In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 153-165). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Robb, T. (2006). Helping teachers to help themselves. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 335-347). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Slaouti, D., & Motteram, G. (2006). Reconstructing practice: Language teacher education and ICT. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 81-97). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Snow, M. A. (2005). Key themes in TESOL MA teacher education. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Second language teacher education: International perspectives (pp. 261-272). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swales, J., & Malczewski, B. (2001). Discourse management and new-episode flags in MICASE. In R. Simpson & J. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America (pp. 145-164). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Tauroza, S., & Allison, D. (1994). Expectation-driven understanding in information systems lecture comprehension. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 35-54). New York: Cambridge University Press.
390
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
APPENDIX A
Reading and Discussion List
(Note: “Chapter” Readings are from Fotos S. and Browne, C.M. (2004). New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.)
Week One
• Levy, M. and Hubbard, P. (2005) Why call CALL “CALL’’? CALL Journal 18(3), 143-149.
• Chapter 1 The development of CALL and Current Options
Week Two
• Chapter 3 The New language Centers and the Role of Technology: New Mandates, New Horizons
• Chapter 4 Learner training for Effective Use of CALL
Week Three
• Monday (Holiday –no Class)
• Chapter 8 Teaching WELL and Loving IT.
Week Four
• Chapter 14 Evaluation of ESL/EFL instructional web sites
• Kessler, G & Plakans, L. (2001). Incorporating ESOL Learners’ Feedback and Usability Testing Into Instructor-Developed CALL Materials, Spring 2001, TESOL Journal, 15-20. Alexandria: VA
Week Five
• Chapter 10 Setting up and Maintaining a CALL Laboratory
• Chapter 11 Implementing Multimedia in a University EFL Program: A Case Study in CALL
Week Six
• Chapter 7 Writing as Talking: E-mail Exchange for Promoting Proficiency and Motivation in the Foreign Language Classroom.
• Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer-Assisted Language Learning. In C. Chapelle (ed.), Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press: NY.
Week Seven
• Chapter 9 Creating Course–Specific CD-ROMS for Interactive Language Learning
• Bikowski, D. & Kessler, G. (2002). Making the most of discussion boards in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Journal, 11(3) 27-30
Week Eight
• Chapter 13 Toward a Theory of E/valuation for Second Language Learning Media
• Chapter 5 Electronic Media in Second Language Writing: An Overview of Tools and Research Findings
Week Nine
• Chapter 12 A Collaborative Model for Online Instruction in the Teaching of Language and Culture
• Chapter 2 Technological Change and the Future of CALL
Week Ten
• Chapter 15 The Language Teacher in the 21st Century
391
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
APPENDIX B
Technology self-assessment Name
1. How often do you use a computer?
2. For what do you primarily use a computer?
For each of the following, select 0-3 according to this scale:
0 = I don’t know anything about this
1 = I have heard of this, what is it exactly?
2 = I do this occasionally
3 = I do this very often
Skill
Using Microsoft PowerPoint
Using Microsoft Word
Using multimedia
Using Email
Using Course Management Systems (Blackboard, WebCT, Moodle)
Using Internet browsers (Explorer, Netscape)
Finding Internet resources (search engine)
Saving Internet URLs on disk
Making web pages (using DreamWeaver, Netscape Composer, etc.)
Making web pages (html or other code)
Making instructional materials for the web
Burning a CD or DVD
Using a digital camera
Editing digital pictures
Scanning photographs and text
Recording sound or video
Using a digital video camera
Editing video on a computer
Converting audio/ video from analog to digital
Collecting online images
Collecting text from the internet
Collecting audio files
Collecting video files
Training others to use technology
Overseeing instructional technology use
Diagnosing software problems
Diagnosing hardware problems
392
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
AUTHOR’S BIODATA
Greg Kessler is an assistant professor of CALL and director of the Language Resource Center at Ohio University. His research interests include CALL teacher preparation, CALL use in innovative pedagogical contexts, and student and teacher autonomy in CALL contexts.
AUTHOR’S ADDRESS
Greg Kessler
155 Gordy Hall
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701
Phone: 740 593 4321
Email: Kessler@ohio.edu

Can Language and Culture Go Hand in Hand? Cross- Linguistic Influence in the L2 Acquisition Process

Can Language and Culture Go Hand in Hand?
Cross- Linguistic Influence in the L2 Acquisition Process
Danièle ALLARD,a Riichiro Mizoguchi,a Jacqueline Bourdeaub
a ISIR, Osaka University, 8-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka, 567-0047, Japan
b LICEF, Télé-université, 100 Sherbrooke O., Montreal, Quebec, H2X 3P2, Canada
allard@ei.sanken.osaka-u.ac.jp
Abstract:
Can Language and Culture go Hand in Hand? Using examples of Japanese as L1 and English as
L2, we seek to demonstrate how transfer and interference from one’s native language can impact
expression in a language being acquired. We make some suggestions as to how to tackle transfer
and interference, and briefly discuss the potential of further research to this effect in CALL.
言葉と文化は手と手を取り合うことができるか？この発表では日本語を母語とする人が
第二言語として英語を習得するケースを例にその習得過程においてどのように日本語の
バックグラウンドが英語表現に影響を及ぼしているかを検証し，その問題への取り組み
方を提案します．またコンピュータ支援言語学習の分野におけるこの研究課題の可能性
にも言及します．
Introduction:
Especially in the earlier stages of acquiring another language (L2), the transfer of patterns
from one’s native language (L1) can be a major source of errors in learner language
(Lightbown and Spada, 1999).1 Such errors reflect the fact that there are multiple ways
of viewing the world and talking about it; they also show that language, considered as a
social practice, is imbued with culture. People communicate in relation to each other,
and in relation to their prior experience. Their voice is not only individual, but collective:
they regularly express the knowledge and social patterns accepted within their native
community (Kramsch 1993). Whereas ways of speaking may be predictable between
native speakers, such is not always the case when communication involves non-native
speakers. The former often don’t share with the latter a common pool of knowledge,
memory, culture and linguistic patterns. This certainly does not prevent communication,
but it may sometimes lead to misunderstandings.
This paper builds on examples chosen within the context of Japanese students learning
English. It seeks to demonstrate ways in which L2 can bear traces of L1. It also
addresses the question of how language teachers might begin to tackle the difficulties and
interferences stemming from such influence. Finally, it proposes the use of CALL
(Computer-Assisted Language Learning) as a potentially useful tool to this effect.
Cross-linguistic Influence:
Cross-linguistic influence, which is also referred to as transfer, is the process by which
L1 can impact L2 in its process of acquisition. That is to say: “the influence resulting
from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that
has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired” (Odlin, 1989, p.27). This
influence can have two facets: “Transfer is both a facilitating and limiting factor which
provides one basis for the learner to form and test hypotheses about the second language
he or she is learning” (Ringbom, 1985, abstract). In other words, transfer can be viewed
as positive or negative. Positive transfer is the transfer of a skill inspired from L1 (or any
other previously acquired language) that facilitates the learning of a skill in L2, given
similarities between the two skills at hand. Negative transfer is the transfer of a skill that
is different from that used in L2, and as such may actually impede learning (Noor, 1994).
Interferences, which are related to negative transfer, are “errors in the learner’s use of the
foreign language that can be traced back to the mother tongue” (Lott 1983, p. 256). 2
Learner errors can of course be traced to various different sources, as second language
learning involves more than a process of making use of L2 words to be placed in L1
sentence structures. Yet, interferences do account for many errors learners make (Ellis,
1997, Lightbown and Spada, 1999). Concepts of interference and transfer are related to
research in contrastive analysis, which has roots in behaviorism, and was especially
popular in the last half of the previous century. Given eventual shifts of paradigms in
language acquisition research, namely away from behaviorist views, this type of research
came to meet with resistance. In the words of Gregg: “contrastive analysis, error analysis,
etc. are not simply unrelated to linguistic theory in particular, they are dead meat in
general.” (qtd. in Swan, 1997). And yet, recent research has shown that overall patterns
of error do tend to be language specific, which explains why English might sometimes be
called “Thai English” or “Greek English.” “There is less disagreement than there used to
be about how far interlanguages are influenced by learners’ native languages, and most
linguists would probably now agree that the mother tongue can affect learners’ English in
several ways.” (Swan and Smith, 2001, p. xi)
Learners actually bring a tremendous amount of knowledge to the task of tackling L2
acquisition, among which is knowledge of L1. In the early stages of the acquisition
process, especially, it is expected they draw on L1 knowledge (Ellis, 1997). In fact, “the
learner tends to assume that the system of L2 is more or less the same as in his L1 until
he has discovered that it is not” (Ringbom, 1987, p. 135). Concurrently, if L1 and L2 are
related, it will be easier for the student to acquire proficiency, but if they are unrelated,
the process, especially in the earlier stages of acquisition, will prove more difficult and
time-consuming (Ringbom, 1987).
Our study focuses on “Japanese English.” Based on observation and teaching experience
in Japan, we, like others before us, have noticed that Japanese students tend to make
certain types/patterns of errors on a regular basis, and several among these can be traced
to influence from L1. We have found that identifying the source of an error, then
providing explanations along with practice drills that are based on a comparison of the L2
problem area with corresponding L1 patterns seems to be of benefit in such cases. This is
not to say that we always compare English to Japanese in explanations given to students,
nor that such explanations need to be made in Japanese. Rather, we are proposing that an
analysis of the cause of interference may reveal aspects explaining L2 usage that are
otherwise left implicit in generic explanations. Making these aspects explicit, and using
them to target usage explanations in such a way that the student might more readily
understand, seems to bear fruit. In the process, we thus try, when possible, to promote
positive transfer, encouraging students to make use of knowledge they already have,
albeit with some necessary adjustments.
We will provide two examples to this effect: usage of come and go, and usage of had
better. Our examples will not be expanded into extensive comparisons between both
languages, which are beyond the scope of this paper, but rather aim at highlighting some
illustrative key points in terms of L1 transfer and its potential impact. We will assume
the position of an English teacher who has little knowledge of Japanese and little
experience in teaching to Japanese students. The reason for these assumptions is to
illustrate how explanations of a language point may potentially gain from adding
elements linked to knowledge of corresponding L1 patterns.
Appropriate Usage of Come and Go:
In a conversation between a native English speaker and a native Japanese speaker, it is
not uncommon, in response for example to (1) “Will you come to my home on
Saturday?” to get a response from the Japanese speaker such as “Yes, I’ll go” or “Yes,
I’ll go in the afternoon” (inappropriate usage) as opposed to “Yes, I will” (come is
implied) or “Yes, I’ll come in the afternoon.”
In explaining generic rules of usage for come and go, a language teacher might consider
the following: come is used for movements to the place where the speaker or hearer is,
and go for movement to other places (Swan, Practical English Usage, 2005). In example
(1) above, movement flows in the direction of the speaker, and the answer thus follows
accordingly. The teacher might provide the following examples to further illustrate
(Swan, 2005):
(2) When did you come to live here?
(3) Can I come see you?
(4) I want to go and live in Greece.
(5) In 1577, he went to study in Rome.
(6) Let’s go and see Peter and Diane.
Analysis of usage in Japanese, on the other hand, shows that come and go varies
essentially according to speaker (not speaker and hearer), which explains the mistake
Japanese students might make in example (1), in fact a direct translation from Japanese.
In Japanese, come indicates a movement in the direction towards the speaker or the
speaker’s viewpoint, and go expresses movement away from the speaker or the speaker’s
viewpoint (Makino and Tsutsui, 1986). Consequently examples (2), (4), (5), and (6)
would essentially call for the same verbs as in the English examples, but (1) would imply
a different answer, and (3) would require go instead of come.3 Given both similarities
and differences in usage, English usage of come and go is often quite confusing for
Japanese students.
In view of this situation, can anything be supplemented to generic explanations to help
facilitate student understanding and awareness of appropriate usage? In addition to
English usage explanations, raising awareness of what one does in L1 as a comparison
appears to be useful in this particular case. To begin with, the following graphic
illustration can be considered: whereas Japanese is speaker-oriented, English is both
hearer and speaker oriented.
Japanese
来る（come） 行く（go）
English
Come Go
This difference in perspective leads to usage differences, especially with respect to come.
More specifically, we have observed that Japanese students often make L1-related
mistakes when answering questions, in reply to a prompt, or when making statements
using the first person (“I”). Other situations calling for come and go show that
inappropriate usage does not usually occur, though there may be underlying nuances in
intended meaning.4
The above diagram can therefore be shown to students, followed by an explanation of
how usage differs in English, firstly when answering questions or replying to prompts.
Simply put, in English, if the direction of the movement is the same in both question and
answer, the same verb will be used. For example, if someone asks: “What time are you
coming on Friday?” the answer could be “I’m coming at noon.” (not, as in Japanese, I’m
going at noon). We extrapolate to third person situations: “When will your brother come
see me? He will come after lunch (not: he will go after lunch).5 “When are you going to
Italy? I am going in July.” (here, usage is the same in both languages). Inappropriate
usage can also be seen in reply to a prompt: if A and B who live together have decided to
go shopping, but A, tired of waiting for B, states “I’m going!”on the doorstep, then B,
who wants to accompany A, would reply “I’m coming!” (not: I’m going!).
Using the diagram once again, explanations of the above paragraph can be summarized
using the following approximation: go is used in statements or questions when the goal of
the movement is not towards either the hearer and/or speaker. If it is, the statement or
question calls for come.6 Besides answers to questions or reply to prompts, Japanese
students must also pay attention to usage of come in terms of “I.” For example, in
English, appropriate usage would call for: “May I come see you this afternoon?” (not:
May I go see you?). Wrapping up, an example of a situation in which movement is
different between the question and the answer can be provided. This implies that the
choice of the verbs will vary: Did you come to the university on Tuesday after all? No, I
didn’t. I went to City Hall. Usage is similar to Japanese, but this example is used to
reinforce understanding of the above approximation.7
Carefully going over such an explanation, which in some respects parallels and contrasts
usage in Japanese, along with targeting examples and practice so that students become
more keenly aware of the mechanics of English usage in relation to what they know, in
our experience, facilitates the acquisition process. Though generic explanations of rules
of usage and generic exercises may certainly bring students to the same end result, if
targeted explanations and practice takes them there faster, we believe the latter will then
have been of benefit.
“Linguistic differences between L1 and L2 may not automatically mean learning
problems, but if the learner is able to perceive structural lexical similarities between L1
and L2 there will be an absolutely essential absence of some important learning problems
at the early stages, especially as far as comprehension and vocabulary learning are
concerned” (Ringbom, 1987, p.60). That is to say, if the learner is able to root his (her)
understanding of L2 in the understanding he has of L1, learning can be facilitated.
Though this will be easier to do in cases of obvious similarities between L1 and L2, it can
also apply to cases of dissimilarities provided the student develops a sense of what is
similar to L1 and what is not.
Appropriate Usage of Had better:
Our second example centers on the English modal had better. Consider the following
statements: (1) “You had better take your umbrella.” (2) “You had better go to Osaka
Castle to see the beautiful cherry blossoms.” (3) “You had better read this book.”
Though these are not uncommon in English used by Japanese native speakers, they have
sometimes struck English native hearers to whom they were addressed as somewhat odd,
if not inappropriate. The Japanese speaker who reported example (1) was eventually told
by his foreign visitor that this type of advice was not completely appropriate: the visitor
was able to decide for himself whether or not he needed to bring an umbrella – to the
surprise of the Japanese speaker. Similarly, though comments were not voiced, (2) and
(3) elicited reactions from native English speakers to the effect of: “What if I don’t go to
the castle – or read this book? Do I need to worry about something?” Of course,
depending on the context, usage of had better may not necessarily bring about such
reactions, but the fact that it can, we believe, needs to be addressed.
In questioning Japanese speakers/students, it appears that had better is essentially seen as
an equivalent for the Japanese expression ほうがいい. It is offered as a possible
translation in various Japanese-English dictionaries, and is translated as such by Makino
and Tsutsui (1986) in their dictionary of Japanese grammar. These linguists explain ほう
がいいit in the following way: “it is strongly suggested that someone do something.” In
Practical English Usage, Swan (2005) explains had better in terms of strong advice, or
telling people what to do (including ourselves) (Swan, 2005). ほうがいいand had
better therefore appear, at first glance, to be equivalent expressions.
Other English grammar books add to Swan’s explanation that usage of had better can
also imply that if the advice given is not followed, there is the possibility of a problem or
a danger (Murphy 2004, Azar 2002). Bearing this in mind, it might then be explained to
students that in example (2) for instance, usage of “had better” is not the best choice since
there is not any particular problem or danger in view of not seeing cherry blossoms at
Osaka Castle. Barker (2003) stresses this point using a similar example in 英語と仲直り
できる本 (Coming to Terms with English: A Reference Book).8
When examining the issue more closely, however, it seems that there are deeper issues at
stake, which stem from cultural differences. Informal discussions with Japanese speakers
have revealed that ほうがい also carries the implication of negative consequences. This
is actually the reason for giving the advice, and demonstrates concern for the hearer’s
welfare, or at least for the possibility of missed opportunities. Should the severity of the
consequence then be considered in terms of usage of had better? Makino, Tsutsui, and
Swan all refer to the idea of “strong” advice in their respective explanations of the
Japanese and the English expression. How strong, then, is strong? Cultural perspectives,
it appears, vary in this respect.
The relative strength of ほうがいい and had better appears to gravitate at opposite ends
of a spectrum when compared to other advice expressions in each respective language. In
English, had better is stronger than might/could, but weaker than have to/have got
to/need to; the negative form had better not is ranked as the strongest possible modal of
negative advice (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman,1999). In comparison, ほうがいい
is ranked as the weakest Japanese expression of advice (Makino and Tsutsui,1986).9 This
seems to confirm that “strong advice” is indeed culturally dependent.
The English hearer who reacted to the suggestions of bringing an umbrella highlights
another important issue: sensitivity to advice. Japanese people are generally receptive to
advice, even viewing it as normal, if not desirable. This is probably linked to the
Japanese proclivity towards maintaining group harmony which rests upon a series of
socially accepted rules. These serve as guidance towards maintaining harmony, and as
such, are necessary and useful. They in turn contribute to generating a strong sense of
duty, as well as, generally speaking, a sense of ease with respecting and following rules,
as well as an openness towards various forms of advice from other group members with a
similar concern for harmony. Westerners, on the other hand, tend to value individualism
and the capacity to decide for oneself, and as such, may react negatively to advice,
especially if it is perceived as unsolicited. In other words, whereas “strong” advice using
ほうがいいwould likely not ruffle a Japanese hearer, “strong” advice using had better
may not always be well received by an English-speaking hearer. We acknowledge that
the preceding explanation is a series of generalizations. We further acknowledge that
“cultural generalizations are necessarily statements of likelihood and potential, not of
certainty” (Storti, 3). Yet, it is not possible to talk about culture, about groups of people,
without making generalizations. As these do contain a kernel of truth, used wisely, along
with discrimination, generalizations can at least set a way towards clearer mutual
understanding. (Storti, 1999)
The context, tone of voice and relationship of speaker and hearer when expressing /
receiving advice need of course to be taken into consideration. Depending on these, had
better can take on different connotations. To this effect, a Japanese speaker may
consciously articulate had + better when uttering a statement, rather than use the
(pronoun)’d better abbreviation more common to everyday English. Furthermore, the
rhythm of the sentence may end up making the advice sound stronger/more threatening
than it is actually intended to be because it is stated by a non-native speaker not used to
English rhythm / inflection / pronunciation.
How does an English teacher then deal with explaining had better to Japanese students?
To begin with, one might emphasize that the English modal is not a translation for ほう
がいい, while explaining issues of sensitivity to advice in view of comparative cultural
considerations -- at least in terms of impact on a Western hearer. In the process, the
teacher can provide relevant examples of use, and situate had better in relation to other
advice modals in terms of relative strength -- the point might also be made that had better
and ほうがいいtend to be at opposite ends of a strength spectrum in each respective
language. The teacher might also show how the examples given at the beginning of this
section can be toned down, for instance by expressing them using might, could or should.
In fact, a good review of modals and advice expressions, along with targeted exercises
and drills in view of potential L1 interference, accompanied by discussion of impact on a
potential hearer should prove useful.
The study of modals can further lead to practice in the usage of imperatives, which
Japanese students find difficult to apply in English. “Bring your umbrella!” said in a
casual tone is not a forceful statement, but in Japanese, it is comparatively much stronger,
regardless of the tone of voice, which likely explains reluctance on the part of Japanese
speakers to use English imperatives. We shall not enter here into a comparative
discussion of imperatives, but we raise the issue to show how attention to cross-linguistic
influence and the difficulties they may cause can suggest instructional sequences that
may facilitate acquisition and understanding while following an order that might not
otherwise be taken in generic teaching methodologies. That is to say, linking the study of
imperatives to that of modals may facilitate understanding of their usage for Japanese
students.
.
Towards Tackling L1 Interference in L2:
One of the first steps in dealing with L1 interferences is to begin identifying them.
Personal experience in the classroom and with students can certainly be a valuable source
of information, as are exchanges with seasoned teachers on the subject. Published
literature on the topic may also be helpful. To this effect, we recommend two works of
reference. The first is Learner English – A teacher’s guide to interference and other
problems, edited by Michael Swan and Bernard Smith. This is a collection of essays,
each covering relevant features of a given language in relation to English, including
Japanese. It lists various typical mistakes that learners are apt to make, while providing
cultural notes. It does not provide teaching strategies or targeted exercises.
The second work is David Barker’s 英語と仲直りできる本 (Coming to Terms with
English: A Reference Book). The book is written in Japanese but it features indexes both
in Japanese and English. The work is an extensive collection of problem areas that
Barker has encountered in the course of over ten years teaching English to Japanese
students. Though it may not be accessible to teachers of English unfamiliar with
Japanese, it nevertheless remains a valuable tool: Japanese students may consult the work
as they see fit, or be advised to read about specific problem areas. Not only does Barker
explain appropriate English usage, he also makes several comparisons with Japanese,
which help clarify some of the points he makes. A few useful practice exercises are
interspersed within the book.
In a different article, Barker (2003) stresses the importance for English teachers who are
in Japan for an extended period of time to learn Japanese. Among various points, he
emphasizes that “a teacher with a detailed knowledge of the differences between the L1
and the target language will be better equipped to anticipate and overcome problems […]
the students are likely to face.” In this sense, a working knowledge of Japanese on the
part of the English teacher can indeed be useful. This is however not always possible.
Japanese teachers of English familiar with Japanese, for their part, have not necessarily
examined the phenomena of cross-linguistic influence closely, and may not have ready
access to concise information concerning the sources of difficulties they create, in
addition to possible strategies to overcome them. Our research is therefore concerned not
only with highlighting cross-linguistic difficulties, but with making such information
available to both teachers and students. More specifically, we are working towards the
design of a CALL system that helps identify difficulties related to cross-linguistic
influence, while providing relevant instructional strategies and activities to overcome
them. That is to say, a teacher working with such a system could access information on
such difficulties, for example when preparing a course or a given lesson, in addition to
teaching suggestions, targeted exercises and drills. The student working on an activity
might be prompted by the system concerning an area of difficulty, and directed to
specific explanations and activities for further practice.
We have been especially concerned with drawing out categories that have roots in
cultural differences. For instance, we have shown that the use of come and go is guided
by speaker/hearer perspective. We can therefore begin to deal with a concept called
“speaker/hearer perspective,” and examine whether other interferences might follow a
similar pattern and establish significant links. Usage of had better, as we have seen, can
also be linked to “speaker/hearer perspective,” as can the use of the imperative.
The mapping of cross-linguistic difficulties in our CALL system then does not follow
grammatical or linguistic categories, but considerations related to culture. Languages, as
we mentioned in our introduction, are imbued with culture. Cultural understandings, as
our examples have shown, are embedded within language use, and differences to this
effect can not only lead to errors in L2, but to potential misunderstandings, as the
example of had better has demonstrated. We therefore seek to not only reduce the impact
of cross-linguistic influence, but also to raise awareness in view of cultural similarities
and differences in the course of an L2 acquisition process. Furthermore, we hope the
concepts we identify will enable eventual comparison of different sets of L1 and L2 in
terms of cross-linguistic difficulties using similar parameters. We hope to elaborate on
the progress of our research in the near future.
Concluding remarks:
There is a Japanese pub on the outskirts of Kyoto with a most interesting name – at least
to an English speaker. It is called: Bar -- Sushi and Men. Is that to say – with a touch of
humour – that the Japanese like their men raw? As most foreigners living in Japan are
well-aware, roman characters and English words are commonly used in advertising, store
signs, stationary, fashion items, etc. In this particular case, the owner(s) of the bar linked
two Japanese words with an English conjunction, words which were written in roman
characters instead of characters used in Japanese. The result? L1 interference with an
interesting twist. To begin with, a bar generally does not serve meals, so to call the place
a “bar” was not completely appropriate. And for those not familiar with Japanese, “men”
in Japanese stands for “noodles.” Thus, what we had seen was a place to eat sushi and
noodles, while having a drink.
The process of acquiring L2, especially in the early stages, is not without challenges,
many of these stemming from L1 influence. In this presentation, we have given
examples of cross-linguistic influence and interference, illustrating potential difficulties
in bridging Japanese and English. We have also made some suggestions towards tackling
L1 interference in L2, while briefly examining the possibility of using CALL applications
to overcome some of the problems they create, with a focus on cultural considerations.
We hope to further elaborate on the results of our research in future presentations.
Acknowledgements:
This paper was one of three presentations within the Teacher Education SIG Forum: Can
Language and Culture Go Hand in Hand? It is dedicated to co-presenters, Anthony
Robins Brian Cullen. We are also indebted to Nicolas Gromik, Tohoku University for
valuable comments, Michael Swan, for kindly answering linguistic questions, especially
in terms of usage of come and go, and to students at Osaka University and Doshisha
Women’s College of Liberal Arts for relevant feedback when approaching the topics of
come and go and that of expressing advice.
References:
Azar, B. S. (2002). Understanding and Using English Grammar. New York: Longman.
Barker, D. (2003). 英語と仲直りできる本 (Coming to Terms with English: A
Reference Book). Tokyo: ALC (アルク) Press.
Barker, D. (2003). Why English Teachers in Japan Need to Learn Japanese. The
Language Teacher, 27 (2), 7-11.
Bourdeau, J. and Mizoguchi, R. (2002) Collaborative ontological engineering of
instructional design knowledge for an ITS authoring environment. Proceedings of the
6th International Conference, ITS 2002, Biarritz, France. IOS Press. 399-409.
Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language:
Exploratory case studies of native language interference with target language usage.
International Education Journal, 1 (1), 22-32.
Celce-Murcia, M. Larsen-Freeman D. (1999) The Grammar Book, An ESL/EFL
Teacher’s Course, 2nd Edition. USA: Heinle and Heinle.
Ellis, Rod. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lightbown P. and Spada N. (1999). How Languages are Learned. 2nd Edition. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Lott, D. (1983). Analysing and counteracting interference errors. ELT Journal. 37 (3),
256-261
Makino S., Tsutui M. (1986). A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar. Tokyo: The
Japan Times.
Makino S., Tsutui M. (1986). A Dictionary of Intermediate Japanese Grammar. Tokyo:
The Japan Times.
Murphy, R. (2004). English Grammar in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noor, Hashim H. (1994). “Some Implications of the Role of the Mother Tongue in
Second Language Acquisition.” Linguistica Communicatio. Vol. 6, no. 1-2, 97-106.
Odin, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ringbom, H. (1985). Transfer in Relation to Some Other Variables in L2 Learning.
Abstract. Retrieved November 2005 from http://eric.ed.gov. ERIC # ED270967.
Ringbom, H. (1987). The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning.
Clevedon, Philadephia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Storti, C. (1999). Figuring Foreigners Out. Yarmouth (USA): Intercultural Press.
Swan, M. (1997) “The Influence of the Mother Tongue on Second Language Vocabulary
Acquisition and Use.” In. Schmitt N. and Mc Carthy M. (Eds). Vocabulary: Description,
Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 156-180.
Swan, M. (2005) Practical English Usage. Third Edition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Swan, M. and Smith, B., Ed. (2001). Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference
and other problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1 We concur with the definition of L2 as explained by Ellis. In the context of second language acquisition,
“second’ can refer to any language that is learned subsequent to the mother tongue. Thus, it can refer to the
learning of a third or fourth language. Also, ‘second’ is not intended to contrast with ‘foreign.’ Whether
you are learning a language naturally as a result of living in a country where it is spoken, or learning it in a
classroom through instruction, it is customary to speak generically of ‘second’ language acquisition [or …]
‘L2 acquisition.’ (Ellis, 1997)
2 We are aware that students may have learned other L2 which may be influential in the process of
acquiring the language at hand. This being said, we shall assume in the course of this paper that L2 is
English and L1 is Japanese, as Japanese native students acquiring English as L2 are the focus of our study.
This is also a population which, especially at the high school level, has generally not yet been exposed to
another L2.
3 We indicate “essentially,” because in Japanese, some of these examples would not need to be expressed
using come or go. For example (4) might be expressed as ギリシャへ移住したい (I want to
emigrate/settle in Greece), in order to convey the English idea of “go and live.” Otherwise, the movement
of going to Greece would be expressed using go in Japanese as well. Similarly, (5) might be translated as
1577 年にローマーへ留学しました（In 1577 he went to study in Rome）; in Japanese there is a specific
expression for the idea of “go to study,” and as such go is not required.
4 Let us consider an example: B and C are discussing A’s upcoming party (A is not present). In English, if
B asks C: “Are you coming to the party?” it generally implies that B is attending the party, without
necessarily being a comment on the relationship between B and A. In Japanese, if B uses the verb come in
the same question, it not only implies that B is going to the party, it also shows some kind of a positive
feeling towards A, more so than it would in English. If B felt little connection to A, then B would likely
say in Japanese: “Are you going to the party?” This being said, both come and go can be used in either
English or Japanese in this situation. There are some nuances in underlying meaning, but as they do not
lead to usage mistakes, we do not usually bring these issues up with students.
5 Objects that are related to speaker and / or hearer (in this case the hearer’s brother) can be considered,
both in English and in Japanese, to be an extension of either of them, so to speak. In other words, though
the brother is not physically present in this exchange, he is considered as if he were.
6 We are grateful to Michael Swan for corroborating that this is a valid approximation.
7 The same explanations also help in explaining usage of bring and take, another problematic area for
Japanese students.
8 The example of misuse that Barker gives is: If you go to London, you had better go to the British Museum.
He explains that if this is friendly advice, usage of had better is not appropriate. Had better should be
thought not only in relation to した方がいい, but also した方がいい、そうしないと嫌なことがある
(had better otherwise something undesirable might/will happen). (p. 111)
There are many possible English translations for the title of Barker’s book. The one suggested is one
among several possibilities.

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS “Networks in Nursing Science: Creating our Future”

WESTERN INSTITUTE OF NURSING

42nd Annual Communicating Nursing Research Conference / 23nd Annual WIN Assembly

April 22-25, 2009

Salt Lake City Hilton Downtown – Salt Lake City, Utah

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS

“Networks in Nursing Science: Creating our Future”

The Western Institute of Nursing (WIN) will hold its 42nd Annual Communicating Nursing Research Conference on April 22 - 25, 2009 at the Salt Lake City Hilton Downtown – Salt Lake City, Utah. WIN cordially invites you to submit an abstract in research, project or theoretical/conceptual format to be considered for presentation at the conference. Papers may be presented in podium, poster, or symposium sessions.

TABLE OF CONTENTSGENERAL INFORMATIONDEFINITIONSSELECTION CRITERIA

ABSTRACT SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONSSUBMISSION FOR AWARD CONSIDERATION

INFORMATION AFTER ABSTRACTS ARE SELECTEDCONFERENCE INFORMATION

QUESTIONS?

ONLINE ABSTRACT SUBMISSION FORM

GENERAL INFORMATION

Submission Deadline

Materials must be received by WIN by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, October 15, 2008. No extensions

will be granted. Acknowledgement that materials arrived on time will be sent via email.

Submission Format

All abstracts, not to exceed one page, are to be submitted via WIN’s on-line abstract submission site.

Links to the submission sites are located on the bottom of the flyer.

Abstract Selection and Notification

The Program Committee will meet in early December 2008 to review and select abstracts and to

finalize the conference program and schedule. The Program Committee will assign the time and date of

presentation for each podium, symposium, and poster abstract on the conference schedule. The

Program Committee reserves the right to accept abstracts as a podium or poster presentation.

If your abstract is accepted for presentation, you will be notified by email of your presentation date and

time. This notice is sent to the contact person for each symposium and to the presenting author of each

individual podium or poster session. If the study has more than one author, the contact person is asked

to share the information with the other author(s).

(See section on “Information After Abstracts Are Selected” below for more details about procedures

following the selection process.)

Conference Registration

ALL PRESENTERS ARE REQUIRED TO REGISTER FOR THE CONFERENCE AND TO

PAY THE APPLICABLE REGISTRATION FEE NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 6, 2009.

Members of WIN receive a registration fee discount. Individuals may join WIN at the time of

registering for the conference to take advantage of the discount.

If the primary author is unable to attend the conference and has made arrangements for someone else

to present the paper or poster, that person must register for the conference and pay the applicable

registration fee.

The conference schedule and registration form will be available in January 2009 on WIN’s website

(www.winursing.org). The registration form will list the conference registration fees.

DEFINITIONS

Podium Session

A podium session is a session consisting of presentations of completed research, completed projects,

methodology papers and/or theory development/conceptual analysis papers. There are two kinds of

podium sessions:

• Individual Papers Podium Session: Consists of papers on similar or related topics grouped together

by the Program Committee from abstracts accepted for presentation.

• Symposium Podium Session: Consists of an overview abstract and three (minimum) to five

(maximum) abstracts, and is organized by the submitters to present a set of planned papers related

to a specific topic. Methodological and theoretical papers may be included in addition to completed

research and/or completed project papers. Research results or project outcomes must be described

in these latter abstracts. The symposium overview is not counted in the 3-5 abstracts but will be

allotted time for presentation on the conference schedule. The number of presenters should be

equal to the number of papers in the symposium, excluding the overview.

Poster Session

A poster session is a visual display of work completed or in-progress. In-progress work will be

considered only for poster presentations. Individual abstracts and symposium abstracts are eligible for

poster sessions. Symposiums will be allocated one poster space for each presenter, plus the overview.

WIN will provide 4’ X 8’ posters boards for poster displays. Tables will not be available.

SELECTION CRITERIA

General:

Abstracts of all papers should reflect or include:

■ Internal consistency of purpose/aims and methods;

■ Clarity of presentation;

■ Implications and significance of the study/project/theory for the discipline and nursing practice.

Specific:

In addition, the Program Committee will use the following specific criteria when selecting abstracts for

podium or poster sessions:

■ Research papers (including instrument development and other methodological studies)*:

■ Purposes/Aims

■ Rationale/Conceptual Basis/Background

■ Methods

■ Results

■ Implications

■ Theory Development/Concept Analysis papers:

■ Purposes/Aims

■ Description of theory or definition of concept to be discussed

■ Internal consistency of the theory developed; concept analysis approach or process used

■ Logic linking the theory or concept to nursing practice or research problem

■ Conclusions, including a statement about the utility of the theory or concept for nursing

practice or research.

■ Project papers

■ Purposes/Aims

■ Rationale/Background

■ Brief description of the undertaking, including the approach, methods, or process used

■ Outcomes achieved/documented

■ Conclusions, emphasizing implications for clinical or educational practices, and

recommendations for research or future undertakings

*A word about Literature Reviews as Research:

On occasion, abstracts of literature reviews have been submitted. The abstract reviewers have generally

not accepted the abstracts since they have lacked scientific merit. To assist abstract submitters, the

Program Committee offers this additional information:

• Meta-Analysis involves calculation of a summary statistic (effect size) across empirical studies

with the same design (RCTs, descriptive or epi) and research questions.

• Literature Review does not involve calculation of a summary statistic but is based on the

reviewers’ conclusions/opinions about the quality, grade or level of evidence across empirical

studies. Abstracts for literature reviews must demonstrate a systematic review and include search

methodology.

• Meta-Synthesis is used to describe the evaluation of research findings (meta-interpretation),

research methods (meta-method), or theoretical frameworks (meta-theory) across qualitative

studies.

The methods you used and the results need to be clearly presented as with any research abstract

consistent with forms of literature review listed above.

Eligibility

■ The paper has not been presented or accepted for presentation at a regional or national meeting

or accepted for publication by the abstract submission deadline.

■ Research, projects, and theory development/concept analysis undertakings must be completed

by the abstract submission deadline to be eligible for podium presentation either as individual

papers or as part of a symposium. Papers that include statements such as “results will be

presented” or “data will be analyzed” or “outcomes will be described” will not be

considered for podium presentations. However, these papers will automatically be

considered for poster presentation.

■ In-progress research or projects are eligible for poster presentation. Completed research,

projects, and theory development/concept analysis papers are also eligible for poster

presentation.

ABSTRACT SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Please note: Only those submissions which fully comply with the instructions will be reviewed.

All completed applications received by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 will be

independently and blindly reviewed by the Program Committee and WIN member volunteers.

Selection of abstracts for presentation at the Annual Research Conference will be based on scientific

merit.

Abstract Submission Form

WIN is utilizing an on-line abstract for submissions in 2008. The link to the on-line form is at the end

of this document.

Abstract Preparation

1. Selection Criteria

ALL ABSTRACTS should address the appropriate selection criteria (Please refer to “Selection

Criteria” on page 3.)

2. Content

As appropriate for the abstract, including research, project or theory development/concept analysis

projects, the Program Committee asks that you include content related to the specific implications

and significance of the study for the discipline of nursing and how the results can be implemented

in practice.

3. Format

● Abstracts will be uploaded in Word (.doc) file format.

● Length/Format: The abstract shall not exceed one page, single-sided, and shall be formatted in

portrait orientation (8 ½” X 11”).

● Margins: Use only the following margin settings: Top: 0.375”; Bottom: 0.5”; Left: 1.25”; and

Right: 1.125”.

● Type Styles: Use letter quality, 12 point size type. The preferred type face is Times New

Roman, but others will be accepted.

● Titles: Abstract titles should be centered and in upper case letters and may not exceed 75

characters.

● Authors: If there is only one author, center the author’s name, degree(s), title, department,

organization, city, and state under the title of the paper. If there are three or more authors,

alternate names as shown below. Do not abbreviate and do not include zip code or telephone

number. You may include your email address if you would like readers to be able to contact

you about your paper. ALL individuals involved in the study must be listed.

● Grant: IF the study was supported in full or in part by a grant, cite the grant number and

granting organization at the end of the abstract. In addition, for symposium presentations, cite

the grant number and granting organization for any papers supported in full or in part by a

grant.

● References: References are optional. Use a standard format for references. APA format is

recommended.

A sample of the paper format is found below.

SAMPLE

TITLE OF PAPER

(centered, upper case)

Name of First Author, Degree(s)

Title

Department

Organization

City, State (expressed as two letters, e.g., “OR”, rather than “Oregon”) (No Zip Code)

Name of Second Author, Degree(s) Name of Third Author, Degree(s)

Title Title

Department Department

Organization Organization

City, State (no zip code) City, State (no zip code)

Begin abstract.

If appropriate, footnote the study funding at the end of the abstract

4. Symposium Submissions

Symposium submissions must include an overview that sets the stage for the symposium.

Information common to all papers, such as a model and introductory comments, should be

incorporated into the overview. The abstracts should not repeat the information contained in the

overview.

Abstracts for each paper in the symposium are to be submitted as separate forms. The maximum

number of abstracts for a symposium is five, plus the overview. Authors should follow the format

instructions listed above.

5. CE Application Information: We collect the needed information for the CE application form for

accepted abstracts only. You will be notified via email with instructions. There are two forms: 1)

Objectives/Content Grid: When you submit your abstract, there are fields in which you are asked

to: provide one objective for each paper; specify the related content; and give information on the

presentation methods you will use if your paper is selected for presentation. A sample of an

objectives/content grid is located below. We are also providing some guidelines to assist you in

preparing the objective(s)/content; and 2) Bioform: The CE application process requires that we

have each author sign and return a Bioform with a Conflict of Interest acknowledgement and

signature. The CE documents will be made available online after submitters are notified about

whether their abstracts have been accepted for presentation. It will take less than 5 minutes to

complete the form, so please do not delay. Your abstract submission will not be considered

complete until the signed Bioforms from all presenters in your symposium are returned to WIN.

SUBMISSIONS FOR AWARD CONSIDERATION

Individuals who are notified that their abstracts have been accepted for presentation as completed

research have two opportunities to have their papers considered for an award. Those interested in being

considered either for the Carol A. Lindeman Award for a New Researcher or the Pat A. Perry Award

for Biological Research should check the appropriate button on the WIN on-line abstract submission

form.

Individuals who wish to be considered for the awards and who have their abstracts accepted for

presentation will submit a paper of up to five pages on the competed research by the deadline of

Friday, January 23, 2009. The papers being submitted must not have been accepted for presentation at

a regional or national meeting or for publication. The papers for the Lindeman Award will be reviewed

by the Program Committee, which will make the selection of an award recipient. The papers for the

Perry Award will be reviewed by the Pat A. Perry Award Selection Committee, which will make the

selection of an award recipient. Further instructions regarding the awards will be sent with the

notification of acceptance of the abstract for presentation at the 2009 conference.

Carol A. Lindeman Award for a New Researcher

Candidates for consideration as a recipient of the Carol A. Lindeman Award for a New Researcher

must:

1. Be a new researcher (defined as a graduate student) or a nurse researcher no more than two years

post highest degree;

2. Have assumed primary responsibility for conceptualization, design and conduct for the report

studied; and

3. Have an abstract for completed research selected by the Program Committee for podium

presentation or as part of a symposium.

Pat A. Perry Award for Biological Nursing Research

Candidates for consideration as a recipient of the Award for Biological Nursing Research must:

1. Be a doctoral student, post-doctoral fellow or nurse researcher not more than two years post

doctoral degree;

2. Have assumed primary responsibility for the conceptualization, design and conduct of the study

reported;

3. Have conducted a study dealing with biological phenomenon, preferably basic science questions;

and

4. Have an abstract for the completed research selected by the Program Committee for a podium

presentation.

INFORMATION AFTER ABSTRACTS ARE SELECTED

Presentations:

In general, each abstract in a podium session is allotted 10 minutes for presentation, with 5 minutes for

audience questions. Posters will be on display for an entire morning or an entire afternoon. Presenters

are asked to be available for the time designated in the conference schedule.

Conference Brochures and Registration Form:

Abstracts accepted for podium or poster presentation will be listed in the program schedule posted to

the WIN website and handed out at the conference. The program schedule and registration form will be

available on the WIN Website in January 2009.

The onsite program will include the specific time for each abstract presentation, the name of the

moderator for each session and meeting room assignments. Abstracts may list multiple study authors.

The conference brochures will list a maximum of two authors with an asterisk to indicate that

additional authors will be listed with the abstract in the conference proceedings.

Proceedings:

All abstracts for podium, symposium and poster sessions accepted by the Program Committee will be

printed in the Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Communicating Nursing Research Conference/23rd

Annual WIN Assembly or included in a CD/DVD of the document. We are investigating a less

expensive way of distributing the proceedings beginning in 2009. The proceedings will also include

the invited plenary session addresses, the paper by the Distinguished Research Lecturer, and the papers

by the recipients of the Carol A. Lindeman Award for a New Researcher and the Pat A. Perry Award

for Biological Nursing Research. The proceedings will not be copyrighted. You may publish your

paper elsewhere. However, we request that you include a notation that the paper was presented at the

42nd Annual Communicating Nursing Research Conference of the Western Institute of Nursing.

Commitment

When submitters receive word about the Program Committee decision regarding the abstract and its

schedule, a confirmation form will be sent asking submitters to affirm their participation. We ask that

presenters take very seriously their commitment to present, except in cases of true emergency.

There is a charge of $60 if a presenter notifies WIN that they will not participate after the proceedings

are finalized. WIN publishes an errata sheet to be distributed with the proceedings indicating the names

of individuals and their abstract titles that appear in the book but who did not present at the conference.

Poster presenters will be required to submit a registration fee deposit of $55 no later than Friday,

January 16, 2009. The deposit will be applied to the registration fee due by February 6, 2009. The

deposit will be forfeited if the presenter fails to attend the conference and does not notify WIN in

sufficient time to cancel the poster board reserved for that individual.

CONFERENCE INFORMATION

Conference Hotel

The conference hotel is the Salt Lake City Hilton Downtown – Salt Lake City, Utah. Sleeping room

rates are as follows:

Type Rate

Single or double occupancy $ 149.00

Executive Level $ 179.00

Suites $ 259.00 and up

Additional Person $ 15.00

All room rates will be charged state and local taxes, fees and assessments, currently 12.67%.

Room Reservations

A personalized online group page is being developed by the Salt Lake City Hilton Hotel for WIN

conference attendees through which room reservations may be made. Please watch the WIN webpage

for information. The reservation cut-off date is Monday, March 23, 2009.

QUESTIONS?

Western Institute of Nursing, SN-4N

3455 SW Veterans’ Hospital Road

Portland, OR 97239-2941

Phone: 503-494-0869; FAX: 503-494-3691; Email: win@ohsu.edu; Website: www.winursing.org

To submit an individual abstract for Podium or Poster presentation, use this link:

http://win.confex.com/win/2009/general/papers/index.cgi

For symposium submissions, use this link:

http://win.confex.com/win/2009/symposia/sessions/index.cgi