Task Design for Language Learning in an Embodied Environment - Teaching through Multi-User Virtual Environments - page 262

and how their latest stage of development-highly
flexible, interactive, voice-enabled immersive
spaces-provides enormous potential for this field.
It considers the affordances of MUVEs relating
this to how the learner is embodied in a MUVE
and specific benefits of this for language learning.

form, negotiation of meaning, task-based learning
(Beauvois, 1992; Blake, 2005).
Chun (1994) found that language learners who
used synchronous text-chat between scheduled
face-to-face sessions became more confident
about speaking the target language.
They further outlined the learning benefits
under three headings-metacognitive, cognitive
and socialisation / empowerment, which are still
relevant today within the synchronous text chat
capabilities of MUVEs.

From CALL to mUVes

CALL to MOOs and MUDs

Within the field of Computer Assisted Language
Learning (CALL), first coined in the 1960's, the
most relevant precedent for MUVEs are the uses
of asynchronous, text-based computer-mediated
communications (CMC) within what Warschauer
(1996) called Integrative CALL (Multimedia and
Internet).
There are many studies on the successful use
of this type of technology for language learning
from mid 90's onwards. Shield, Weininger, and
Davies (1999) report examples of email tandem
exchanges, bulletin boards and discussion lists as
tools to promote reflective aspects of language
learning.

Metacognitive Learning Strategies

• Activity may be recorded or “logged” to be

accessed later and encouraging reflection

• Users can finish a comment/post without

being interrupted.

• Scrolling back through text on the screen

allows learners are able to consider
their responses, even in a synchronous
environment.

• Engaging in multi-threaded discussions

also lends itself to using metacognitive
strategies in real-time: this would be im-
possible in a face-to-face encounter.

Text MOOs & MUDS • Learners can use research tools to find in-

formation pertinent to a discussion without
interrupting the discourse. From mid 90's onwards teachers began to make

use of Multiple-User Domain, Object Oriented
(MOO). MOOs were text-based virtual reality
environment where users interacted in real time
using only text. They offered advantages over
other text-based synchronous chat programs as
they allowed participants to describe themselves.
This, as Donaldson and Kötter (1999) point out,
formed the basis of the personality which partici-
pants assume in any discussion and, therefore,
enabled relationships. Interactions could take
place within personal spaces created by users.
'Entering' a text-based room could nonetheless
have a visual impact through the available descrip-
tion of the room. CALL research acknowledges
the strengths of the medium: pair work, focus on

Cognitive Strategies
Text-based discussions tend to be slower than
in face-to-face but can be more reflective even
though they require responses in real time. Real
time exchanges provide learners with immediate
feedback on their performance in L2: if the effect
of the communication is not what was intended,
then the communication was unsuccessful, and
the learner will have the opportunity to rephrase
that communication. Further, keeping a log of
the exchange allows the learner to return to that
exchange later and to reflect on why it was/was
not a successful communicative event.