36 TESOL JOURNAL VOL. 11 NO. 3

Internet Chat: Collaborating andLearning via E-ConversationsMark R. Freiermuth

Computer-assisted instruction has struggled tolegitimize itself as a viable force in languagelearning circles. In some cases, the criticisms

leveled against computer-assisted language learning havebeen justified. Generally speaking, the problems stem fromtwo sources:

1. technology versus language development2. student interaction deficiency

Hence, language teachers in the computer lab need toconsider two questions before implementing tasks as partof a curriculum. First, did the tasks offer the studentsufficient opportunities to learn language, or were theymerely an opportunity for the learners to enhance theirtechnological savvy? Certainly, tasks can encompass thelearning of language and the development of technologicalskills simultaneously, but the latter should not be gained atthe expense of the former.

Second, did the tasks offer the students interactionwith other students? This is not to say that all tasks usingcomputers need to incorporate student-to-student interac-tion. Just as there is value in doing something as prosaic asgrammar exercises in a workbook, there is also value inusing software that allows the learner to practice languageforms independent of other learners, alone with the com-puter. However, from a functional perspective, it is impor-tant that language learning in the computer classroom alsoinclude ample opportunities for interaction with others.

Collaborative Language LearningCollaborative learning, which is at the core of mostconstructivist theories, addresses the need for studentinteraction. In the computer classroom, collaborativelearning has often taken the form of a small group ofstudents gathering around one computer and resolvingproblems together. In other words, the collaboration isdone outside of the computer hardware; the computerbecomes the tool for summarizing collaborative efforts. Forexample, the teacher might ask students to make a Webpage that summarizes their experiences on a recent fieldtrip. As a group, the students work together and developthe pages together; they discuss how best to achieve theirgoals, and they analyze the final product to see howsuccessful they have been. Language learning is enhancedvia the interaction that takes place around the computerand through the development of the language issues that

must be addressed to meet the general requirements of thetask. For language teachers, this means creating andincorporating collaborative tasks within the confines of thecomputer lab—a place where language teachers may ormay not feel particularly comfortable.

Although this kind of collaboration can be very effec-tive, there may be limitations. For instance, the previousexample makes certain assumptions about the students:

• They can communicate in the target language tothe degree that they can easily resolve problems asa group.

• They are fair and allow all opinions to beconsidered.

• They have equivalent language skills (more or less)and will naturally contribute about the sameamount of information.

• They feel comfortable speaking to one another(in the target language or even in theirnative language).

• They come from a variety of different languagebackgrounds, so that the target language becomesthe medium of natural communication.

• They are culturally in tune with one another, sothey are able to effectively handle such tasks.

• They all have sufficient technological abilitiesto contribute adequately and equally to thefinished product.

Clearly, failure on any one of these fronts for an individualstudent has the potential to seriously curtail languageacquisition, not to mention dampen any positive languagelearning experience. Although these are issues that must befaced in any collaborative student venture, Internet chattasks, well planned and executed, may offer the teacher yetanother tool to overcome these barriers to language learning.

Internet ChatInternet chat has produced measurable language gains bystudents while providing them with satisfying languagelearning experiences (Freiermuth, 1998, 2001; Kelm, 1992;Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996, 1997). The Internet acts asa natural link to anyone who is online, allowing peers toexchange e-mail messages, for example, or to carry on a live(synchronous) conversation through text—similar tonormal conversation, only without verbalization. Internetchatting may be better at fostering interaction than online

37VOL. 11 NO. 3 TESOL JOURNAL

discussion in a time-delayed (asynchronous) mode becauseInternet chat mimics actual conversation more closely(although there are a number of differences). A chatresponse is, relatively speaking, immediate and tends to betopically driven. Since chat groups can have their owndistinct channels, the language teacher can have smallgroups online discussing topics that he or she believes arefitting for the class, just like in any other small-groupactivity in a traditional classroom setting. In addition, withthe recent innovations in Internet chat software technol-ogy, teachers have the means to keep unwelcome, outsideWeb-channel surfers from joining students’ groups unin-vited and interrupting their activities.

Hardware and SoftwareIn the past decade, the incorporation of Internet chat intothe classroom has gone from being quite awkward andintimidating to being relatively painless. Previously, one ofthe problems for teachers using Internet chat for collabora-tive exercises in the classroom was that the technologyoften created as many problems as it solved. Networkaccess may still be a problem in some settings; however,most computers purchased within the past 2–3 yearspossess the capabilities to access the World Wide Webmuch more efficiently than their predecessors. These days,any teacher who is comfortable using the World WideWeb can manage the chat software that is now available.

Besides better hardware, software has also improved.My personal favorite is the free, Web-based LanguageEducational Chat System (L.E.C.S., 1999–2000), whichwas artfully and logically designed with language teachersin mind. Navigating the L.E.C.S. site (http://home.kanto-gakuin.ac.jp/~taoka/lecs/) is as easy as a few clicks of amouse button (Figure 1).

The beauty of this Web-based software lies in itsflexibility and ease of use. The teacher and the studentssimply need to register their names. The teacher then hasthe ability to create as many chat groups as desired. Figure2 shows that the teacher, in this case, has created sevendifferent chat groups under the broad topic “love.”

The teacher can assign each student to a group andgive each group a specific task to perform. If the topichappens to be “love,” each student may be required tothink of his or her own best example of real love andexpress it to the group. Then, the group could discusswhich example of real love is the best and why. Studentsuse the computer keyboard to type their ideas into adialogue box, then they click the “Send” button to sendtheir messages, which can be read almost instantaneouslyby everyone who is logged onto the same channel. Onecomment leads to another in rather rapid succession,dependent upon the keyboarding skills of students. Figure3 illustrates how conversation appears using L.E.C.S.; themost recent entry always appears at the top of the screen.

Students can choose their own aliases. In the examplein Figure 3 the aliases “Rose” and “MJ” have been chosen.

Figure 1. L.E.C.S. opening screen. (From L.E.C.S., 1999–2000. Copyright © 1999–2000 by Tomohiro Yasuda andTaoka Harada. Reprinted with permission. Microsoft®Internet Explorer Copyright © 2002 by Microsoft. Reprintedwith permission from Microsoft Corporation.)

In this example, we are viewing the e-conversation fromMJ’s monitor screen; however, Rose, the teacher, andanyone else logged onto the same channel would see anidentical screen. This freedom of choice is also extended tocolor of text, which can be changed with a mouse-click.When students chat using different colors, students andteachers can easily identify when a new turn has begun.

Figure 2. Sample of a session with multiple groups. (FromL.E.C.S., 1999–2000. Copyright © 1999–2000 by TomohiroYasuda and Taoka Harada. Reprinted with permission.Microsoft® Internet Explorer Copyright © 2002 by Microsoft.Reprinted with permission from Microsoft Corporation.)

38 TESOL JOURNAL VOL. 11 NO. 3

Chat CollaborationWhat can become a reality in well-planned chat sessions istrue collaboration and often wider participation than canbe expected in face-to-face group conversations (cf.Freiermuth, 1998, 2001; Warschauer, 1996). Below is anexample of an e-conversation among three U.S. universitystudents (Korean, Turkish, and Chinese) involved in acollaborative task. In their role as city council members,their objective was to decide (using online chat) what kindof business would be best to start in the U.S. city in whichthey were residing. In this excerpt of an e-conversation,they are discussing whether or not a computer companywould be the most suitable business venture:

S: we contact computer programmer and talk toabout our company

M: S and X I agree your idea.X: M and S we have another problem - high salary -

to solveM: S and X, I am following your opinion carefully.X: we can hire some students to do a part job. It is a

good idea.S: we don’t worry about salary. the reason is we just

hire 20 student or some more.X: But work position can not keep stableS: of course X. but we rotation student.X: we need also some full time positions and

work stablly.S: where is the M?S: i agree X.

M: I am supporting you.

S: i think half and half.S: thanks M.X: S yes, I agree. But where can we find these full

time employee?M: to depend on students studying is a big risk.M: We can attent a fair at OSU for choosing

graduate studentsX: S and E how about making a big ad for hiring full

time people?

What becomes immediately apparent is the kind of nego-tiation that can occur in online discussion. In this interac-tion, we witness the actual give-and-take of real conversa-tion, but in a forum in which everyone is taking part.Clearly, all three discussants are actively participating intask resolution. It is interesting to note that when M hasfailed to respond to the propositions contributed by S andX, S (without any pretask prompting from the teacher)asks where M is as a way of making sure that M is not offtask or feeling left out. Teachers will also find that studentsask many open-ended questions during online chat ses-sions, which can lead to further collaboration and, conse-quently, wider discussion, thereby resulting in high-qualitytask resolution (Freiermuth, 2001).

In my experience, such dialogue is not unusual,although these are fairly high-level students. However, thekind of collaborative interaction that occurs in onlinediscussion is a direct reflection of the quality of the taskthat students need to resolve. If the teacher has preparedthe task well, online discussion can be quite successful andinteresting. A quality task must present the students with aconundrum of sorts, so that students truly must engageone another in a collaborative effort to try to resolve theproblem presented. An attractive characteristic of onlinechat is that the teacher can adjust the tasks easily accordingto the students’ language skills; the lower the level, the lesscomplex the task. Students will often surprise the teacherwith the skill they use in discussing the situation presented.

In the aforementioned chunk of e-conversation,students were able to communicate effectively even thoughthey hailed from different countries with different culturaland language experiences. Homogeneous groups presenttheir own problems, such as reliance on the native lan-guage. In most cases, students opt to use the target lan-guage exclusively while online; however, this certainly maynot be the case in every language learning situation. It maydepend upon a number of factors, such as the homogeneityof the group, the L1 of the learners, and whether or notthe native language uses the Roman alphabet.

One benefit of using Internet chat (especially usingL.E.C.S.) is that it allows language teachers to look atstudents’ language easily. Portions of dialogue from the chatsessions can be copied from the browser window and pastedinto word-processing documents (the “Copy” and “Paste”features can be found under the “Edit” feature on the menubar for most browsers), enabling teachers to analyze thetexts. Teachers can look for consistent problems of indi-

Figure 3. Sample interaction. (From L.E.C.S., 1999–2000.Copyright © 1999–2000 by Tomohiro Yasuda and TaokaHarada. Reprinted with permission. Microsoft® InternetExplorer Copyright © 2002 by Microsoft. Reprinted withpermission from Microsoft Corporation.)

39VOL. 11 NO. 3 TESOL JOURNAL

vidual students, such as the misspelling of particular wordsor student-specific grammatical problems. The teacher canalso easily find common errors made by students anddevelop activities to work on those trouble spots. Besidesthis, teachers may wish to advise students about pragmaticissues in language learning. Do students address oneanother with the appropriate politeness? Are there betterways to make a point? Have the appropriate issues beenconsidered while resolving the task? Students usually seemeager to know the answers to these questions and are inmost cases more than pleased to let the instructor save theevidence, print the transcripts, and analyze them beforeoffering suggestions for improvements to the students.

On the collaborative front, students can learn languagefrom one another. Of course, this occurs naturally incollaborative negotiation in the target language, but incertain instances students have been known to focusspecifically on language, for example, to discuss the mean-ing of a word online using the target language as well astheir native language (in Romanized fashion). Nevertheless,it is important to reiterate that the task must be welldesigned if successful collaboration is to occur. It is unwiseto rely solely upon the software to make up for any defi-ciencies in the overall plan. Students may enjoy exploringthe capabilities of the software, but at the core of the taskthere must be a language learning objective. Students willlose interest in chat tasks that lack purpose or direction asquickly as they would any other poorly planned languagetask. Without clear direction to students, tasks will not beresolved collaboratively or equitably, and the kinds ofadvantages discussed here will not materialize.

With a well-structured task, on the other hand,students consistently demonstrate their ability to collabo-rate effectively to resolve language tasks online. Whengroup members understand the objectives of the task, theytend to proceed only when there is general consensus fromgroup members (Freiermuth, 2001). In essence, groupleaders do allow for the consideration of others’ opinions.What this means is that group members who are unlikelyto contribute much in face-to-face conversation are af-forded the opportunity to contribute online.

Additionally, online collaboration often provides acomfort zone of communication for the less vocal. In fact,online chatting can be used as a tool of communication tobreak down cultural and social barriers that tend torestrict natural conversation in the target language.Groups of students are able to resolve tasks together,whether or not they share the same L1 and culture. Chatis especially appealing to those of us teaching in EFLsettings (and even some ESL and English for specificpurposes settings), where the cultural and social experi-ences of language learning students cause them to befearful of making spoken errors with their peers, whichcan lead hesitant students to avoid use of the targetlanguage when the native language presents such a conve-nient and easy alternative.

Yet another plus of online collaboration is that students

who are less technologically savvy when compared to theirpeers are not put at a disadvantage because of the task (seethe following section for the exceptions to this notion).Because the software is relatively easy to use, students witheven basic keyboarding skills should feel comfortable with alittle practice. Put another way, technology becomes thetool rather than the test.

Benefits and DrawbacksUsing Internet chat has a number of practical side benefits.Of most importance to many of us, especially thoseworking in EFL settings, is how to manage collaborativelearning within the framework of a large class (e.g., morethan 15 students). Because Internet chatting allows theteacher to join the same chat session as students, it be-comes easy to monitor all of the groups. The teachersimply needs to open multiple windows in the Webbrowser to see what each group is doing. If the teacher seesthat a group is drifting from the task or appears to bestuck, he or she can add a quick comment to refocus theconversation. The following example shows how such acomment by the teacher (“C”) gets the students back ontrack in the target language.

I: wood ko apnee gand me lo!Z: we will bring down the un-employmentC: Speak English!I: i am sorry c

In the example above, the teacher was worried that the onegroup member whose native language was Spanish mightfeel left out if the conversation turned even briefly toRomanized Urdu. The students got back on task in thetarget language immediately following the teacher’s interjec-tion and, moreover, remained focused for the remainder ofthe chat session. Being able to monitor the students fromone location allows the teacher to participate in and guidethe class inconspicuously, which encourages students towork more openly and independently.

Another, perhaps less evident, benefit is that moststudents are able to contribute to the conversation. Anyonewho has studied a foreign language knows that in a face-to-face conversation, if learners miss one or two words, theentire conversation can become incomprehensible to them.In the online chat environment, students always have thetext before them. They can even scroll down the screen tosee a comment that was made earlier in the e-conversation.This ability to view the conversation as it unfolds helpskeep students engaged, focused, and contributing.

Of course there are drawbacks to using online chat aswell. Generally speaking, newer computers have fewerproblems, but it is still advisable, when possible, to checkthe equipment before a class begins to make sure thatstudents can log onto the chat software. Also, whenimplementing an online course, it is prudent to establishongoing rapport with computer technicians, who willensure the machines operate properly.

40 TESOL JOURNAL VOL. 11 NO. 3

Another difficulty teachers may face is a lack ofcomputer skills among some students. A number ofsoftware programs can help students improve their key-boarding skills (e.g., the “Mavis Beacon” series), in additionto providing them with appealing graphics and interestinggames. Teachers may find it helpful to pair students whoare better keyboarders with those who are less adept.However, because of the camaraderie that often developswhen students collaborate online, the better keyboarderswill generally wait patiently for their peers to contribute. Inface-to-face collaboration, such patience is less exercised.

Additionally, the teacher may need to address the issueof the quality of the language output. Students anxious torespond to others’ propositions may produce disjointedchunks of discourse. In addition, they may adopt the habitof incorporating language shortcuts, such as BTW, URn’t ☺RU? (which stands for “By the way, you aren’t happy areyou?”). It is up to the teacher to try to curb these practices.Knowing that their output is going to be examined by theteacher usually encourages students to avoid using shortcutsand to minimize their errors prior to sending their messages.

It is also imperative that group size remain relativelysmall. If group size is too large online, students will havefewer opportunities to contribute and there will be greaterpotential for confusion. When greater numbers of peopleare chatting online, following the conversation can bedifficult, especially for language learners. Additionally,when there are too many in one group, it is quite probablethat the discussion will fragment into more than oneconversation, with some learners drifting off into socialconversations.

Another problem associated with certain publiclyavailable chat software is the possibility that intruders mayenter the chat space uninvited. This can be more than anannoyance; intruders are sometimes rude and often draglanguage learners off task. Fortunately, L.E.C.S. has moreor less eliminated this problem by requiring learners toenter their teacher’s username to log onto the specificchannels designated by the teacher.

With careful planning and technical support, most ofthe potential problems mentioned above can be avoided orresolved prior to the language activities. If the purpose ofthe task and learner expectations are made clear from thestart, fewer problems will be encountered.

ConclusionInternet chat has become quite popular globally as acommunication tool. Popular chat channels are jammedwith people trying to send messages. Thus, it should not besurprising that Internet chat can be a useful tool forcollaborative activities in the language learning classroom.When online language learning tasks are designed withcollaborative objectives in mind, they can be very successfulin helping learners achieve language learning goals. Online

chat also makes it easier for teachers to monitor students,examine language output, and manage a successful collabo-rative venture. By incorporating the objectives ofconstructivist theories in online instruction, students can bemotivated and empowered to assume more control of theirown learning. The following statements (Freiermuth, 1998,p. 22) reflect students’ positive reactions to online chat:

• “Let us feel when we use computer and try speakEnglish correct …”

• “No pressure, real ‘free’ talk.”• “It was very helpful for me to express English

without embarrassing.”• “I did not have to worry about my pronunciation

when chatting on computer.”• “Chatting have advantage both composition and

conversation without face.”

These statements indicate that students are aware of theadvantages of Internet chat. Should this method of instruc-tion replace spoken collaborative activities in the classroom?Of course not. However, Internet chat does providelanguage teachers with creative opportunities for promotingcollaborative learning tasks and environments.

References

Freiermuth, M. (1998). Using a chat program to promote groupequity. CAELL Journal, 8(2), 16–24.

Freiermuth, M. (2001). Native speakers or non-native speakers:Who has the floor? Online and face-to-face interaction inculturally mixed small groups. Computer Assisted LanguageLearning, 14(2), 169–199.

Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks insecond language instruction: A preliminary report. ForeignLanguage Annals, 25, 441–454.

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction withnetworked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristicsof language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457–476.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronicdiscussion in the second language classroom. CALICOJournal, 13(2), 7–26.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborativelearning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81,470–481.

Yasuda, T., & Haruda, T. (1999–2000). L.E.C.S. [Computersoftware]. Retrieved from http://home.kanto-gakuin.ac.jp/~taoka/lecs/

Author

Mark R. Freiermuth obtained his PhD in applied linguistics fromOklahoma State University, in the United States. Presently, heteaches English language courses in an English for specific purposessetting at the University of Aizu, in northern Japan. His most recentresearch interests include Internet chat, spoken communication, andlanguage learning simulations.