There are attempts to incorporate virtual learning environment (VLE) into second-language learning, given the highly engaging character of VLE. However, the lack of expertise of both tutors and learners often compromise the effectiveness of VLE as a language learning tool. This article seeks to identify the prominent weakness present in existing VLE systems and suggest possible solutions to enhance L2-learners’ learning experience.
Introduction
Born in a digital age, millennials harness the unprecedented benefits brought about by technology. One prominent area that has seen great changes is education. Scientists and educators seek to enhance the learning of language through incorporating Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), a Web-based platform for the digital aspects of courses of study, in teaching.
Benefits of VLE in 2L learning
VLE benefits 2L learning through elements of gamification and the inherent ability to engage Learners by imitating real-life situations. Instead of using text chat only, learners, represented by self-designed avatars, can express multimodal messages through the movement of avatars, text chat, and audio chat. In this condition, learners are braver to practice the unfamiliar second-language and initiate a conversation with others for the presence of avatars allows learners to feel safer and ‘face-saving’ (Peterson, 2010). The presence of social graphs also contributes to a richer environment, where learners can interact with other language learners crossing geographical boundaries. Besides, learners often feel more motivated and emotionally engaged when elements of gamification are involved(Marcos, 2018), strengthening the learning process. Furthermore, language is tightly linked with the culture of its origin, it is believed simulating the real-life situations would facilitate the learning of the meaning of language and boost thinking process (Canto, De Graaff, & Jauregi, 2014; Clark, 2009).
Existing Systems
Leading online virtual worlds that can be served to facilitate learning include Second Life (SL) and Mondly, where users can create their avatars and interact with other users freely, which can be employed for distance language sessions. This article would mainly discuss measures targeting as weaknesses of existing online virtue worlds, using SL as a case study. By incorporating a synchronous text chat with audio chat, tutors can correct the Non-Target Language (NTL) uses without interrupting the ongoing conversations, more effectively correcting the language use of students. Moreover, SL allows numerous conversations to proceed at the same time, at the same place in the virtual world, offering language learners the opportunity to engage in different conversations easily and conveniently. Additionally, being more student-centered compared to face-to-face environments, the interaction in SL involves more frequent exchanges among students (Chun, 1994), the increasing frequency of communication using L2 language is likely to have a positive correlation with the acquirement of the language. All the above-mentioned features encourage language learners to overcome the fear of getting wrong and provide an environment to simulate the learning of languages.
Weaknesses of Second Life
However, there are certain constraints of using Second Life for L2 learning awaiting improvements. Firstly, revisions to the message that is obvious to other interlocutors cannot be made midway through the construction of the text message since the text message is posted as a coherent block (Payne & Whitney, 2002), conflicting with how real conversation behaves. This results in accumulation of inappropriate language use, hence undermining the effectiveness of feedback offered by language tutors and rendering the learning process less useful.
Another weakness is that training of tutors is needed to ensure effective use of Second Life. In recent research conducted by Ciara and Thierry, students in English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) and French-as-a-foreign-language (FFL) behaved differently. The EFL students were found using the text chat more frequently than the FFL learners. The research later found that the difference in behavior was not due to the inherent differences lying in cultural or social dissimilarities, but a result of the deliberate guidance of EFL tutors, which was absent from the FFL tutors, hence showing the importance of cautious guidance of language tutors (Wigham & Chanier, 2013). However, given Second Life is still amateur as a learning tool, the training of tutors is often faulty and ineffective, compromising the effectiveness of L2 learning. This is shown in the above-stated research, where FFL students are keen to use the text chat, but the use is suppressed without the proper guidance of the tutors. On top of that, the use of VLE hands over the control from tutors to the students, as students are now in charge of initiating conversations and taking actions. While the hand-over increases students’ engagement in language learning, it also means tutors can provide less advice. It becomes increasingly important for tutors to know how to provide suggestions on appropriate occasions using the text chat without interrupting students’ communication.
Lastly, some students suggest that the interface is not user-friendly, compromising the simulation of real-life situations. For example, students researched by Mayrath implied that “the controls were a little clunky, the user interface was a little cumbersome.” (Mayrath, Traphagan, Jarmon, Trivedi, & Resta, 2010). The user experience is constrained by the technology available and students’ prior experience with computer use, students who play games show a more positive attitude towards SL(Mayrath, Traphagan, Jarmon, Trivedi, & Resta, 2010). However, the unintuitive user interface may undermine the effectiveness of L2 learning as students cannot fully benefit from the simulation of reallife situations. Moreover, the communicative interactions within these environments currently omit naturalistic visual and non-verbal cues that influence conveyed meaning, as a result of technology restrictions (Duncan, et al., 2012, p. 12). Fail to convey the accurate meaning going contrary to the ultimate purpose of language learning.
Possible Improvements to Enhance L2 Learning
Revision of pedagogical sessions and introducing floating dialogue boxes
To ensure all feedbacks for NTL uses are properly addressed, a revision session can be conducted by language tutors after learning sessions conducted in VLE. The cooperation of online and offline sessions allow L2 learners to review and rethink the mistakes they have made and make full use of each VLE session. For better stimulating real-life situation, the text can be expressed through the dialogue boxes, instead of in a block, located next to the avatars. The dialogue boxes can better imitate real interaction among people as they connect the text chat directly with the avatars, the virtual characters representing learners themselves, hence facilitating the communication.
Establish a comprehensive training system for tutors
A real-life stimulating training system could be established through VLE for tutors. The training system would be divided into different affordances, such as constructing a building or simply interacting with other users. The division of difficulty level of different tasks is necessary to equip corresponding tutors with crucial skills, given students face difficult challenges in different task-based language learning. For example, there was a considerable difference in responses of students involved in the Analysis of IT Research activity and the Interdisciplinary Collaboration activity regarding the level of engagingness of SL. Students asked to construct a building also indicated more training and help from tutors are needed than others (Mayrath, Traphagan, Jarmon, Trivedi, & Resta, 2010). A comprehensive training system allows tutors to be familiar with SL and the difficulties students would face, thus better design their courses to target these problems.
Use of artificial reality simulators (ARS)
Students can gain an immersion experience through the use of ARS such as Oculus Rift headset. The headset can detect the head movements and orientation and ordering the avatar to give the corresponding reaction as if the virtual character is the user himself. The use of ARS can reduce the inconvenience brought by the unintuitive user-interface largely by offering learning experiences that approach real-life circumstances.
Evaluation
There are certain limitations of above-provided solutions. Firstly, there will be a large amount of financial resources needed for the establishment of the training system and purchase of the artificial reality simulators, which normal training organizations or schools are unlikely to be able to offer. Schools can ask for government subsidies, for the program benefits education, an important tool to ensure social mobility. Another limitation is that session revisions only provide delayed feedback, that is not as effective as spontaneous ones. One possible modification is to post whatever students typed directly in the floating dialogue boxes, omitting any changes of changing or correcting, to simulate the real-life conversations where no changes can be made to output words and the interlocutors can offer suggestions along the way.
Conclusion
In conclusion, VLE is a delicate tool for L2 language learners to engage in real-life situations and learn the language under corresponding social and cultural background. The emergence of VLE allows language learners all around the world to communicate with each other, neglecting the geographical constraints present. However, due to the incomplete training system for tutors and imperfection of user-interface, the learning outcome is usually compromised. Given the above-stated problems arise because VLE is still new, more resources should be directed to train language tutors and L2 learners to fully explore the benefits of VLE systems.
References
Peterson, M. (2010). Learner participation patterns and strategy use in Second Life: An exploratory case study. ReCALL, 22(3), 273–292. doi:10.1017/S0958344010000169
Tenório M.M., Reinaldo F.A.F., Góis L.A., Lopes R.P., dos Santos Junior G. (2018) Elements of Gamification in Virtual Learning Environments. In: Auer M., Guralnick D., Simonics I. (eds) Teaching and Learning in a Digital World. ICL 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 716. Springer, Cham
Canto, S., De Graaff, R., & Jauregi, K. (2014). Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercul- tural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. In M. Gonzalez-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology and tasks: Exploring technology-mediated TBLT (pp. 183– 212). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Clark, G.B. (2009). These horses can fly! and other lessons from Second Life: The view from virtual hacienda. In R. Oxford & J. Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the Net Generation (pp. 153–172). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Payne, S. & Whitney, P. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Out- put, working memory and interlanguage development. CALICO, 20(1), 7–32.
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networks to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17–31.
Ciara R. Wigham & Thierry Chanier (2015) Interactions between text chat and audio modalities for L2 communication and feedback in the synthetic world Second Life, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28:3, 260-283, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2013.851702
Mayrath, M. C., Traphagan, T., Jarmon, L., Trivedi, A., & Resta, P. (2010). Teaching with Virtual Worlds: Factors to Consider for Instructional Use of Second Life. Journal of Educational Computing Research,43(4), 403-444. doi:10.2190/ec.43.4.a
Duncan, I., Miller, A., & Jiang, S. (2012). A taxonomy of virtual worlds usage in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 949–964. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01263.x