同步與非同步線上交談：文本特色與對寫作的影響

Abstract

以電腦為媒介的溝通方式(CMC)近年來使用於語言學習的課堂討論之用。先前的研究指出文本媒介(text mediation)是這種溝通方式的特色，並且可做為思考工具(thinking device)，幫助學習者思考、反思並修改他們的意見。CMC有兩種模式: 同步和非同步的線上交談。這兩個模式的差別主要在於時間的延宕(time delay)與否，進而造成不同的文本特色。大體而言，同步線上交談較近於口語，而非同步線上交談較近於書寫的語言。 雖然先前有許多關於CMC的研究，它們大部分都著重在CMC和面對面的溝通之間的不同，或是CMC對於語言學習的影響。較少有研究比較同步和非同步線上交談文本特色之異同。此外，也少有研究線上溝通的過程，例如：輪流說話(turn-taking)、語意協商(meaning negotiation)和主題發展(topic development)。因此，本研究旨在比較同步和非同步線上交談的文本特色以及這兩種線上交談模式對之後的論說文寫作(essay writing)的影響。此外，本研究亦探討學生對於使用CMC的態度。 共有四十七名大一英文閱讀班的學生參與本研究。他們每兩人為一組，先以電子郵件(email)再以線上即時交談(MSN)為媒介進行討論。討論完後，學生填寫一份問卷，之後再寫一篇主題與討論問題相關之論說文。本研究所收集的資料包括這兩種討論模式下的對話記錄(text-based conversations)的文字檔、問卷、論說文。此部分的資料以量化分析的方式，檢視電子郵件和線上即時交談的文本特色，包括：文字量、字彙範圍、句法的複雜度、口語表達(conversational expressions)、副語言特徵(paralinguistic cues)、有聲化的使用(vocalization)、表情符號(emoticons)的使用等。此外，也分析線上討論的過程中想法的管理(idea management)，包括輪流說話、語意協商、指涉之前所提過的訊息的言談策略(the discourse strategy of referring to previous messages)、主題發展、和立場表達(stance expressions)。學生的作文用於分析線上討論產生的想法是否有助於產生寫作題材。本研究所使用的問卷包含八個李克式量表(Likert scale)的問題和五個開放式(open-ended)問題，作為研究學生對於線上討論的態度。 研究結果顯示非同步線上交談所使用的字彙比同步線上交談略為正式，前者的句法結構也比後者複雜。但是，同步線上交談中所使用的口語化表達方式、有聲化的使用、副語言特徵、表情符號的使用都比非同步線上交談多。這顯示同步線上交談比非同步線上交談更口語化。對於想法的管理，非同步線上交談較同步線上交談少使用到輪流說話和語意協商。相反的，非同步線上交談卻比同步線上交談常使用到指涉之前所提過的訊息的言談策略，參與者在非同步線上交談中也有較多的機會發展主題。在這兩種模式中，學生多表達謹慎和謙遜的立場並且積極說服他人以接受自身的觀點。 研究並發現CMC對於學生的論說文寫作有正面的影響，因為寫作中所使用的想法有超過百分之六十來自同步與非同步的線上交談。至於學生對於使用線上交談的看法，大部分的學生都覺得用英文做深度討論有困難，這顯示教師如欲使用CMC作為課堂討論的媒介時，要注意學生的語言程度並適時提供足夠的指引。其他教學上的啟發包括CMC可以是一個好的課堂討論工具，因為與面對面的討論比較起來，學生在CMC的環境之下能較自在的表達己見。CMC也可以作為寫作前的暖身階段，協助學生產生寫作想法。此外，同步線上交談可以有助於學生透過頻繁的交談和語意協商來發展言談能力。

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has been used for classroom discussion in language learning. Previous studies have indicated that the feature of text mediation of CMC can function as a “thinking device,” helping learners think, reflect, and revise their ideas. CMC has two modes: synchronous CMC and asynchronous CMC. The feature of time delay distinguishes these two modes, resulting in different textual features. In general, synchronous CMC is similar to oral language, but asynchronous CMC is akin to written language. Although many studies have explored CMC, most of them focus on differences between CMC and face-to-face communication or the effects of CMC on language learning. Few of them compare the textual differences between synchronous and asynchronous CMC. In addition, little research has examined the process of electronic discussion such as turn-taking, meaning negotiation, and topic development. This study, therefore, aims to compare synchronous and asynchronous CMC in terms of their textual features and effects on subsequent essay writing. It further analyzes the process of the two electronic discussion modes. Students’ attitudes towards CMC are also accessed. Participants are 47 freshmen taking an English reading course. They are paired into dyads and engage in email discussion and MSN discussion. After the electronic discussions, students fill out an attitude questionnaire and write an essay. After data are collected, including the text-based conversations of both discussion modes, questionnaires, and essays, quantitative analysis is first conducted. The textual features of MSN and email discussions in terms of word production, vocabulary use, syntactic complexity, conversational expressions, paralinguistic cues, vocalization, and emoticons are examined. Then, the process of the electronic discussions is analyzed with respect to idea management, including turn-taking, meaning negotiation, the discourse strategy of referring to previous messages, topic development, and stance expressions. Students’ essays are used to examine the effects of the discussions on idea generation for writing. A questionnaire, consisting of eight 7-point Likert scale questions and five open-ended questions, is used to investigate students’ attitudes towards electronic discussions. The results show that vocabulary used in asynchronous CMC is slightly more formal than that in synchronous CMC and that the former is syntactically more complex than the latter. There are more occurrences of conversational expressions, vocalization, paralinguistic cues, and emoticons in synchronous CMC than in asynchronous CMC. This suggests that synchronous CMC is more like oral language than asynchronous CMC. For idea management, asynchronous CMC shows few occurrences of turn-taking and meaning negotiation while synchronous CMC has a lot of them. In contrast, in asynchronous CMC students use more frequently the discourse strategy of referring to the previous messages and have more opportunities to develop topics. The stance expressions in both modes are mainly used to show students’ caution and modesty; in addition, students mainly tend to persuade others to accept their ideas when they use stance expressions. It is also found that CMC can have a positive effect on students’ essay writing because more than 60 % of the ideas used in essays are originated from the discussions. As for students’ attitudes toward CMC, it is found that most students feel it difficult to discuss an issue in English and in depth through CMC, which suggests that language teachers have to take into account students’ language proficiency and provide sufficient guidance when tending to use CMC as classroom discussion. Other pedagogical implications include that CMC can be a good medium for class discussion because students feel more comfortable to express their ideas in that environment than in face-to-face situation and that CMC may be used as a pre-writing activity to facilitate idea generation for writing. In addition, synchronous CMC can be used to develop students’ discourse competence through frequent turn-taking and meaning negotiation in English.