71

研究ノート

Changes in Learners’ Perception of Language Learning Environments
HIGUCHI, Takuya(Rikkyo Ikebukuro Senior High School)

1. Introduction
From the beginning of the 21st century, the proliferation of information andcommunication technology (ICT) devices, such as smartphones and computers, has had
a huge impact on our lives and education. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs
and Communications (MIC, 2020), in 2019, 83.4% of the total population of Japanpossessed smartphones and 69% possessed computers. In 2019, An initiative of theJapanese government called “GIGA school” was launched to provide computers/tablets
to all students to promote ICT-based education (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology, 2020). Today, all schoolchildren in Japan are equipped withpersonal computers/tablets, which facilitate learning with technology. Moreover, since
the internet has become ubiquitous, online learning, including through massive open
online courses (MOOCs) and collaborative online international learning (COIL), ishighly promoted and utilized. This has had the effect of changing people’s learning
styles and their perceptions of online learning.
The restriction of face-to-face teaching because of the new coronavirus(coronavirus disease of 2019 [COVID-19]) highlights the significance of ICT-basedteaching. Since COVID-19 began to spread worldwide, the unprecedented global
closure of schools was requested by various governments; as a result, online-based
educational systems had to be used in primary, secondary, and tertiary institutions(UNESCO, 2020). A survey conducted by The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT) in June 2020 demonstrated that approximately 60% of
universities offered online learning under COVID-19 (MEXT, 2020).
It is apparent that the societal changes exemplified in the advancement oftechnology and the “side effects” of COVID-19 have altered people’s learning styles andhabits. In response to such phenomena from a macro perspective, the traditional
concept of online and offline learning has been questioned and redesigned. Bothlanguage learners and teachers have been considering how to make the best use ofoffline and online learning environments. In other words, the environment that should
be utilized for teaching a language in a given context has become a central issue forpractitioners. Therefore, this article explores the learners’ perception of the offline andonline learning environments using the event model, a communication modelHIGUCHI, Takuya

72

developed in the field of linguistic anthropology, discussing the merits of eachenvironment as identified by language learners. Students’ interview data are analyzed
using this robust communication model. Based on the results, this article calls into
questions the traditional separation of offline and online learning; it then reconstructs
and redefines the language learning environment under language learners’ changed
perceptions.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Online, Offline, and In Between
Online learning refers to the type of learning that takes place using ICT.
Common features of online learning are that the teachers and learners are separated
by space, time, or both, and that online resources, such as media and technology, areused. Another characteristic of online learning is successful communication andinteraction in the learning process despite the separation of the teacher and learner intime and/or space (UNESCO, 2020). In contrast, offline learning, also referred to as
face-to-face learning, refers to learning in a physical environment. Offline learning
mainly takes place in a classroom where the teachers and learners are physicallypresent; this is often described as “traditional” learning (see Charles, 2012; Powell etal., 2015).
In academic research, the online and offline learning relationship is notviewed as a strict dichotomy. Indeed, researchers have investigated environments thatlie between the only online and only offline contexts. One such instance is blended, or
hybrid, learning. Blended learning refers to learning taking place in an environment
where both online and offline learning approaches are combined (Charles, 2012; Powell
et al., 2015). Charles (2012) elucidated that, with the emergence of ICT, the traditional
face-to-face learning domain is being encroached on by the computer-mediatedlearning domain. For instance, ICT has enabled synchronous interactions that takeplace in real time, at almost the same level as in a face-to-face environment. Also,
Wellman (2001) argued that “the cyberspace-physical space comparison is a false
dichotomy. Many ties operate in both cyberspace and physical space, using whatevermeans of communication is convenient and appropriate at the moment” (p. 248). Thissuggests that with the development of ICT-based learning, the boundaries between
online, offline, and hybrid have become blurred, calling for the necessity ofreconsidering the dynamic nature of the learning environments.
The definition of online/offline environments outlined above has beendeveloped from a traditional perspective in that it focuses solely on a difference inspace. That is, other elements—such as lag time and non-verbal cues—are notincluded or well discussed. Although Charles (2012) presented a continuum of fourChanges in Learners’ Perception of Language Learning Environments73

critical dimensions of interactions—namely, space, time, fidelity, and humanness—therelationships among those four elements are still unclear. Moreover, this framework
does not reflect social perspectives on how technology advancement, for instance,
influences people’s change in perception over those learning environments at themacro level. Hence, the current research introduces the event model, a communication
model developed in the field of linguistic anthropology and semiotics, to overcome thedefects of the previous definition of online/offline environments.
2.2 The Event Model
The model employed in this research is the event model, a semiotics-based
communication framework advanced by Koyama (2008, 2012). The event model sees
communication as an event, and in a sociocultural context, its focus is on
human–human, human–object, and object–object encounters (Koyama, 2012). Context
is expanded and developed from a deictic center, the place or the time where theinteraction takes place, and out of countless numbers of social and natural phenomena,
only a few phenomena related to the deictic center emerge; these do so rather
coincidentally, and they are sublimated into the context. In other words, context is
contextualized from the perspective of a communication act or event, which happens at
the deictic center.
Figure 1. Event model
Body of belief (world view, cosmology)・Knowledge of culture
Social background (e.g., participants’ identity, power relationships)

Setting

Participants of communication

Communication as an act or event

Micro sociocultural context

Macro sociocultural context(Retrieved from Koyama, 2008; translated and modified by the author)

Figure 1 illustrates the event model and some important concepts necessary
to comprehend it. As stated above, this model views communication as a social act orevent, and its meaning is indexically defined in both micro and macro contexts. The
context starts from the oligo (i.e., dietic center), which is indexed and contextualized by

HIGUCHI, Takuya

74

the preceding background, and then the preceding background will be transformed to a
new context triggered by what is happening at the oligo. In other words, thepresupposed sociocultural background is altered by the event or act at the deictic
center, and the event per se becomes a new text that is meaningful as a sociocultural
creation (cf. Figure 2). The model regards communication as a dynamic, rich process inwhich meaning that arises later also modifies the meaning of the previous context(Koyama & Ayabe, 2009).
Figure 2. Interactive process of contextualization and textualization
alteredPresupposed micro & macro

Presupposed micro & macrosociocultural context is altered bysociocultural context that precedes

the act or event & act and event

act or event happening at the deictic

itself is also transformed as acenter(background)meaningful text (figure)contextualization

altered
Act/Eventtextualization(Retrieved from Koyama & Ayabe, 2009, translated and modified by the author)

In brief, communication is always generated in a sociocultural–historical
sphere. The events and interactions that occur in the deictic center are contingent
happenings and encounters that resemble amorphous sparks, and as such, they haveno formal order that can be given meaning in a sociocultural context. However, in theprocess of contextualization and textualization, contingent events are transformed into
“texts of interaction” (i.e., forms that have sociocultural–historical meaning). In
communication, the process of context creation occurs via one event after another in achain of events, and the text created by one event is presuppositionally indexed andtransformed by the next act or event (Koyama, 2008).
The event model has been adopted as a theoretical framework for this paper
for two reasons. First, when considering learners’ perceptual change as a process, it is
helpful to apply a lucidly theorized framework like the event model, which deals with aChanges in Learners’ Perception of Language Learning Environments

75

macro–micro world process, represented by contextualization, and a micro worldprocess, represented by textualization, to help analyze learners’ perceptual process indetail. Second, the model is suitable for analyzing the social context in which a certain
conversation occurs. Koyama and Ayabe (2009) stated that the event model places
more emphasis on social relations as opposed to information content per se as done in
the Shannon model (Shannon, 1948) or functions of communication as done in the
Jacobson six-function model (Jakobson & Sebeok, 1960). Thus, this model best
describes the rich and dynamic nature of learners’ perceptual changes from both themacro and micro perspectives.
3. Methods
3.1 General Overview
In this research, semi-structured interviews were employed. The interview
data of the present study were provided by the preceding study of Higuchi (2021), andthis article utilizes the same data, analyzing it from a different perspective.
Six college and university students from among the 414 online survey
respondents were selected by convenience sampling to explore how learners’
perceptions of each sphere of learning have changed over recent years. Althoughconvenience sampling is considered unreliable in that it produces a limited amount of
information (Merriam, 1998), the participants’ diversity in college/university, gradelevel, and foreign language study history allows for a more diverse small sample toproduce findings that would generate important common patterns used as a basis forothervariouscases.

Fiveinterviews

wererecorded

via

Zoom,

an

onlinevideo-conferencing application, whereas one interview was conducted offline andrecorded via smartphone.
3.2 Interviews and ParticipantsSemi-structured interviews were conducted following a prewritten interview
script. The researcher could ask follow-up questions to probe the participants’ answers.
All the interviews were transcribed and analyzed.
The interviews were carried out with six participants. Pseudonyms were
utilized to protect the interviewees’ privacy. They were all college or university
students when the interview was recorded. “Interview length” indicates the recordingtime, and the English proficiency was self-declared based on the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Table 1 gives general information
about the participants, and more detailed descriptions are provided below.

HIGUCHI, Takuya

76

Table 1. Interview participants
Pseudonym

Year

Gender

Date

Interview length

English proficiency

YoshidaFreshman

Female2020/7/10

49:23

N/A

Imai

FreshmanMale

2020/8/2

1:13:35

B2(IELTS 5.5)

Komori

SeniorMale

2020/11/14

40:29

B1

Komiyama

SeniorMale

2020/11/23

25:15

B2-C1

Kato

FreshmanMale

2020/11/23

34:53

B2

Taguchi

SophomoreMale

2020/11/23

1:04:37

B1

Yoshida was a first-year college student who was eager to learn English. She
attended a private two-year college in Tokyo and had studied abroad in the UnitedStates for about a month when she was in high school. She was chosen as aninterviewee because she was one of the few two-year college students who responded to
the Google survey and used several online learning tools. She was also a former
student of the researcher.
Imai was a freshman majoring in communications at a private university inTokyo. He had been a student of the researcher when he was in high school. He learned
languages using Duolingo, YouTube, Spotify, VK, and HelloTalk. He was nominated as
an interviewee because he had learned Russian and English via YouTube, and theresearcher wanted to know how he perceived the learning process online.
Komori was a senior at a private university in Japan. A law major, he hadtaken German and English classes during his freshman year, but he had not taken alanguage class since his sophomore year. He sometimes used Facebook to contact
musicians when he had a music-related question. Unlike the other interviewees,
Komori said he had few opportunities to learn languages. Since the Google survey
included responses from people who were not really interested in learning languages,
he was chosen to find out if such people use any technology to handle foreign languages.
He and the researcher were in the same brass band club in high school.
Komiyama was a senior at a public university in Osaka. He was enrolled at auniversity in Tokyo, but he had transferred during his junior year. He was chosen as aninterviewee because he had studied abroad for a year and was fluent in English. The
researcher belonged to the same brass band club as Komiyama when they were
university students. The interview was conducted offline because of an unstableinternet connection when attempting to record it online.
Kato was a first-year student at a university in Tokyo. He was enthusiastic
about learning languages and studied independently for about one hour per day. He
learned English in a variety of ways and was chosen as an interviewee because theChanges in Learners’ Perception of Language Learning Environments

77

researcher wanted to know how he conceptualized learning. He was a member of the
TEDx club, which the researcher previously belonged to.
Taguchi was a sophomore at a university in Tokyo; he was the only sophomore
who agreed to be interviewed. He was not taking any language classes at the time, but
he had a cousin in Hong Kong with whom he would chat in English and Japanese. He
was majoring in communications and planned to study abroad starting in September
2020. The researcher wanted to know how he had continued his online language
learning under the COVID-19 outbreak. The researcher was a member of the samebrass band club as Taguchi in high school.
4. Interview Results and Discussion
This section describes the data from the six-interviews. From theinterviewees’ comments, a dynamic relationship between learning environments andparticipants was observed.
Yoshida said that she liked the online class because she felt it was moresecure to take classes online:(R: Researcher, Y: Yoshida)
R: 対面でやってるものもあるじゃない英会話とか。なんか、どう違うとか全体的にどっちがいいとかさなんかある？
Y: そらもう断然対面の方が圧倒的に有利ではあるけど、オンラインのメリット
は例えばその初対面で怖くないのは良いなって。
R: なるほどちょっと詳しく。
Y: えっとなんだっけ。世の中って結構危ないじゃないですか。変なことしてきたりとか。初めて対面でかしこまって会うかよりは。普通にリラックスして落ち着いて受けたほうが私は結構いいかな。
R: There are some things you do face-to-face, like English conversation.
Which do you prefer, online or offline? Do you have any comments on that?
Y: Well, I mean, face-to-face meetings are definitely more advantageous, but
the advantage of online is that you don’t have to be afraid of meeting people,
for example.
R: Okay, can you give details about that?
Y: Well, what can I say? The world is a dangerous place, isn’t it? Like doing
something strange to me. Rather than a formal in-person meeting for the firsttime, I’d rather have a normal, relaxed environment to take a language
learning class. (Translated by the author)
While Yoshida liked some parts of the online class, she also admitted that offline
learning was better for learning a language than online learning because she wanted
to listen to pronunciation carefully. She complained that in online classes, she could
not ask for help, and the lectures went on without her understanding the content. She
attributed this to a bad internet connection.

HIGUCHI, Takuya

78

Yoshida’s attitude toward the online learning environment was notstraightforward. Moreover, it was ambivalent in that she preferred certain aspects of
online learning but did not like other aspects. Her attributing her negative view of
online learning to a bad internet connection indicated that her view of online learning
could change moment by moment because the quality of the internet connection couldchange rapidly. Her comments show that the relationship between the learning
environment and humans is rather dynamic. Moreover, the meaning-making process of
how language learners interact with and perceive the learning environment isconstantly changing.
Komori described his experience with offline language school and explained
his preference for online as follows:(R: Researcher, K: Komori)K: なんか俺が通ってたその英語スクールは全員先生が外人なんだよね。でも優しくはしてくれたけど威圧感あるし、意味が分かんなかったらこっちイライラす
るだけなんで、対面はねそこまでいい印象がないんですね。まあでも個人塾だったんですけどね。オンライン、オンラインねぇ。なんかそのね YouTube のもの
どういうものかあまり分からないですけど、対面に比べたらオンラインの方がや
ろうとは思いますね
R: あ、そう。それはなんで？
K: 適度な距離感を取れるから
R: なるほど
K: なんかいきなりその外人と目の前に、外人って言い方良くないけど、外人が目の前にいて威圧感でこられてもこっち萎縮しちゃうんで。なんか最初に慣れるまでのしゃべるのに慣れるまでの間は、なんか、こういうオンラインの方がみん
な気負わずできるかなって感じですね
K: At the English school I went to, all the teachers were foreigners. They werekind to me, but they were intimidating, and if I didn’t understand what they
meant, I would just get annoyed. Well, it was a private tutoring school. Online,
online, you know, I don’t really know what YouTube is like, but I think I’drather do it online than in person.
R: Oh, yes. Why is that?
K: Because you can keep an appropriate physical distance.
R: I see.
K: I don't know if it’s good to say gaijin [foreigner], but if a gaijin is suddenlyin front of me, I feel intimidated, so until I get used to talking with a gaijin, I
feel that online is easier for everyone. (Translated by the author)
Komori’s negative experience with offline language school made him feel intimidated
when talking with a foreigner offline. His statement that “online is easier for everyone”
until “I get used to talking with a gaijin” indicates a similar message to that of Yoshidain that both participants regarded the offline environment as a more relaxing,

Changes in Learners’ Perception of Language Learning Environments

79

comfortable, and secure atmosphere. Here, out of countless experiences Komori had
undergone, the experience at the offline language school was selected and became thepreceding context of the conversation.
Komiyama had a different reason for liking online learning, articulating his
preference for online learning as follows:
真面目に受けてないから正直分からないっていうのがまあ一番だけど。強いて言うだったら、オンラインの方が、個人的にはしっかり、授業を聞いているような気がする。個人的にはね。なんでかって言うと、対面だとその授業に行って、俺
大抵あの言語の授業を真面目に聞いてないから内職みたいなのやりながら授業を受けるんだけど、対面でやってると結構ビビリだから。内職やってるっていう
この罪悪感とバレたらどうしようって言うビビリーをやりながら対面でやってると内職に集中する、バレないようにやる、授業聞いてる風にやるって言うので
結局授業の方の中身入ってないんだけど、オンラインでやると安心して内職できるからかえって内職もはかどるし授業もなんとなく聞けるし。なんかね、オンラ
インの方が俺は聞いてる気がする。
To be honest, I don’t know because I haven’t taken it seriously. If I had to saysomething, I personally feel that I listen to lessons better online. Personally,
though, the reason for this is that when I go to an in-person class, you know, I
usually don’t take the language class seriously, so I work on something else
while I am in class. When I go to an in-person class, I’m a chicken; when I’mattending offline class, I feel guilty that I’m doing something else, and I’mscared of being caught. So I concentrate on whatever I’m working on, try not
to get caught, and try to act like I’m listening to the class. But when I attend
class online, I can do my other activity with peace of mind, and I can listen to
the class much better. I feel like I listen more online. (Translated by theauthor)
The reason Komiyama listened more to the online class was unique, but it clearly
showed the differences between online and offline learning in terms of how theenvironment affected the students. The online environment was comfortable andrelaxing for Komiyama, whereas the offline environment was scary and made him feelguilty.
Gibson (1977, 1986) used the term “affordances” to describe the relationshipwhere the environment interacts with humans and affords them certain feelings or
acts. An affordance of anything is defined as “a specific combination of properties of its
substance and its surfaces taken with respect to an animal” (Gibson, 1977, p. 67).
Hammond (2009) explained that the concept of affordance “suggests a way of seeing
the world as a meaning-laden environment offering countless opportunities for actions
and countless constraints on actions. The world is full of potential, not of things” (p.
206). In Komiyama's case, for instance, the offline environment affords him comfort

80

HIGUCHI, Takuya

and focus, while the offline affords him guilt. It indicates that such opportunities andconstraints provided by each environment define the dynamic relationship between theenvironment and the person who enjoys the opportunities and the constraints.
Some interviewees expressed the view that there is no difference between
online and offline instruction when it comes to learning a foreign language. To
illustrate, Imai did not make a clear distinction between online and offline learning:(R: Researcher, I: Imai)
R: 対面の学習と比べてさどうですか、そのオンラインの学習っていうのは？
I: あんまり変わってる気がしないですね。
R: How do you feel about online learning compared with offline learning?
I: I don’t feel like there is much difference. (Translated by the author)
Kato stated that he perceived online and offline learning contexts as similar
in some situations, but he also expressed that they are not always similar:
オンラインだとディスカッションとかディベートとかはラグが発生するんでちょっとやりづらい部分もあります。リーライ(Reading & Writing)とかはただ読むだけなので大丈夫ですけどやっぱ喋るってなるとちょっとラグが気になります ※()は筆者加筆
Online discussions and debates in class are a bit difficult to handle because of
the lag time between when someone speaks and when others react. Reading
and writing are fine since they are just textual, but when it comes to speaking,the lag time is a bit of a problem. (Translated by the author)
This suggests that how students perceive online/offline instruction depends on whatkind of communication act is happening at the oligo. Although Komiyama preferred
online learning, he claimed that letting students choose the environment they want tolearn in leads them to be motivated:
正直どれでもそんなに変わらないなーっていう風に思っていて、でもこのオンラインにするかオフラインにするかハイブリッドにするかっていう選択肢を選ばなきゃいけない状況っていうのが言語学習を意欲的にさせるとは思っている。どれがいいかっていうよりはどれかを選ばなきゃいけないっていうこの状況が言語学習に良いような気がする。
To be honest, I don’t think there’s much difference between them, but I think
the situation where you have to choose between online, offline, and hybrid iswhat motivates language learning. Rather than thinking about which one isbetter, this situation in which you have to choose between online, offline, or
hybrid is good for language learning. (Translated by the author)
He expressed that the online, offline, and hybrid categorizations for classes are notsuch important distinctions in terms of language learning. Rather, it is the choice ofthe environment in which the learner takes the initiative that allows the learner toactively participate in the class. It can be said that it is in the macro context ofChanges in Learners’ Perception of Language Learning Environments

81

technological development and COVID-19’s influence that online and hybrid options
have emerged as new forms.
Reflecting on online learning he had experienced in the COVID-19 context,
Taguchi expressed a similar opinion to that of Komiyama in that he saw online
learning—representing a new form of learning environment—as normal andestablished as a new option for learning:
なんかこういうオンラインっていう新しい形ができたからこそ、そのディスカッションとかは、その、できる形が増えたじゃないか。全然オンラインでも問題な
く自分はやれるかなと思ってて。その人によっては生じゃないと、対面じゃないと、オンライン、あ、対面じゃないとディスカッションしづらいとか言ってる人
結構いるんですけど、まあ自分的にはそのオンラインでも一応コミュニケーショ
ン自体はだいぶ思ったよりもとりやすいなって思ってて、そこは逆に今年の春学期に分かった一つのなんか、まあコロナ禍でもできる、その強みと言うか、コロナ禍でも関係なくディスカッションできるよっていう新しい発見があったと思います。
I think that the new online format has increased the number of ways in which
discussions can be held. I think I can have a discussion online without any
problems at all. Some people say that it is difficult to have a discussion
without face-to-face meetings, but I think that online communication is mucheasier than I had expected. I think this is one of the strengths of online
communication, which I learned in the spring semester of this year.
(Translated by the author)
By analyzing online and offline learning environments while considering thesocial context in which the event of the interview was based, it becomes possible tounderstand which environment facilitates learning more for which person in whichsituation. Until now, online and offline learning have been distinguished by comparing
cyberspace to physical space. Thus, many prior studies have focused solely on (static)
space when distinguishing between online and offline learning. However, such
distinctions do not help us understand the inherently dynamic nature of how learners
perceive the learning environment.
The interviews allowed us to see how the definition of online instruction has
taken on a public nature in a macro and micro context. From this perspective, online
and offline learning can be viewed as dynamic, presupposing students’ experiences andsocial conditions. As a result, it is being transformed and reinterpreted fromhere-and-now communication.
5. General Discussion
As stated in the Introduction, COVID-19 and the advancement of technology
have played significant roles in changing peoples’ learning styles in the last few years.
In fact, the data from the six interviews provided insight into offline/offline learningHIGUCHI, Takuya

82

and participants' perceptions of their respective environments, and revealed that therelationship between them is constantly changing within macro and micro contexts. In
addition, based on the theory of affordance, the interview data offered a perspective on
what each environment affords participants and vice versa. It is also suggested thatthe relationship between each environment and the participants should be perceived
in a dynamic relationship. Based on such findings, in this section, the interview results
are further deepened by considering the event model.
Figure 3 is a modified version of the event model; interview results and thesurrounding macro-micro perspective are adapted. Changes from Figure 1 are noted inbold.
Figure 3. Event model in this research
Advancement of technology / COVID-19 side-effects
Social background (participants’ identity, power relationships)

Setting

Participants of communication

Communication as an act or event

Micro sociocultural context

Macro sociocultural context

A micro sociocultural context that included but was not limited to technologicaldevelopment and the COVID-19 pandemic was presupposed in the interview setting;this was borne out in that all the interviewees had experience with online language
learning and supported in terms of Higuchi’s (2021) finding that many university
students use online language services. This macro change in the language learning
situation has brought the notion of the online/offline dichotomy to the next level. Thatis, online learning has become as normal as offline learning; indeed, several
interviewees affirmed that they saw no difference between online and offline learning,
and these choices had become parallel options for them. In the context of such aworldview, the interviewees described how each environment provided them with
opportunities or constraints to learn and options to choose. As for the macrosociocultural perspective, although it is not sufficient to address only two
phenomena—namely, the advancement of technology and the side effects of
COVID-19—from the interviews, it was evident that these two phenomena played aChanges in Learners’ Perception of Language Learning Environments

83

key role in shaping the view of the online/offline dichotomy in today’s society.
In terms of social background, the participants and researcher have known
each other for some time; although the participants come from diverse background (i.e.,college/university, grade level, and foreign language study history), they are all
younger than the researcher, indicating a certain power relationship. This implies thatinterviewees’ response might have been inadequately elicited by the researcher. Hence,
more research will be needed to deepen the understanding of dynamic nature oflanguage learning environments, and how certain communication events are
textualized and contextualized.
Communication events were outlined in the Interview Results and Discussionsection. During the event (i.e., the interview session), the dialogue that theparticipants and the researcher created was textualized at the deictic center. Moreover,it was triggered and indexed by the micro and macro contexts. In addition, thepresupposed contexts were altered as the communication continued, transforming thedefinition of online/offline from a static perspective to the dynamic nature of theprocess. As stated in the Literature Review section, the traditional definition of
online/offline environments mainly focused on a difference in space. Such a definition,
however, was altered gradually in the interview process because how interviewees
perceived online/offline environments presupposed rather dynamic and fluid nature,including their personal experiences and social conditions.
The event model can vividly depict how communication is textualized andcontextualized while capturing social changes at the macro and micro levels. The
results of the interviews showed that online learning has become a more normal option.
A distinction between offline and online certainly exists in terms of what eachenvironment affords; some interviewees preferred a gradual transition, favoring thepsychological safety of the online environment until they were comfortable with theconversation. In contrast, the distinctions between learning environments were
blurred in some learners’ perspectives, and they did not see a difference between themwhen learning.
Based on the analysis performed using the event model, the relationshipbetween offline and online learning is rather fluid, encompassing the social
relationships of each moment and the learner’s previous experiences. As Jewitt (2016)
suggested, “meaning [can be] understood as arising in the iterative connection between
the meaning potential of a material semiotic text (e.g., a worksheet or website) or
artifact (e.g., a tool); the meaning potential of the social and cultural environment
where it is encountered (e.g., at home or in a museum); and the resources, intentions,and knowledge that people bring to that encounter” (p.69). In this sense, it is critical toview the relationship as a communication act in society rather than as a dichotomous

HIGUCHI, Takuya

84

relationship or a relationship based on such concepts as time and space.
Conclusion
The aim of this research was to overcome the defects of the traditional
definition of online/offline (and hybrid) environments by utilizing interview data andthe event model. The results showed that the presupposed, societal, or individual
experiences of the interviewees were reflected and transformed into a modified context
via contextualizing and textualizing. Each learning environment afforded somepossibilities and constraints to the language learner in the background indexed as aprecondition, bringing new social meaning (i.e., textualization) and transforming thecontext in the here-and-now communicative act of interviewing.
As mentioned in the General Discussion section, this paper analyzed thecommon patterns of perceptions shared by a small sample of more diverse individuals
at the macro and micro levels based on the event model. However, to capture wider
range of perceptions of online and offline learning environments based on
ever-changing communication, more research with different group of people will beneeded. In the consideration of social change, perspectives other than just thedevelopment of information technology and the coronavirus pandemic must also betaken as the experience of the participants in the premise on which communication
occurs.
This research is prominent in that it contributes to academia in two ways.
First, environmental differences were analyzed in depth through macro and micro
perspectives with a solid communication model. The analysis of learners’ interviews
based on the event model sheds light on societal change and how the meaning-making
process is constantly changing in response. Second, the study bridged prior gaps in theliterature between the views of linguistic anthropology and language learning, as wellas theory and practice. Communication models rooted in semiotics or anthropology are
rarely incorporated into or discussed in English education (Koyama & Ayabe, 2009).
However, this study aimed to utilize such a communication model to illustrate thedynamic nature of communication from both the macro and micro perspectives.
References
Charles, G. R. (2012). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future
directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham, The handbook of blended learning:

Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). Pfeiffer.
Jakobson, R., & Sebeok, T. A. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics.

Semiotics: An introductory anthology, 147-175.
Jewitt, C. (2016). Multimodal analysis. In Georgakopoulou, A & Spilioti, T, (Eds.), TheChanges in Learners’ Perception of Language Learning Environments

85

Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication (pp. 69-84).
Routledge.
https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Language-and-DigitalCommunication/Georgakopoulou-Spilioti/p/book/9780367466459
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.),

Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Erlbaum.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Hammond, M. (2009). What is an affordance and can it help us understand the use of
ICT in education? Education and Information Technologies, 15(3), 205–217.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-009-9106-z
Higuchi, T. (2021). Consuming online language learning services by Japanese

university students: An implication for English education in Japan. [Unpublishedmaster’s thesis]. Waseda University.
Koyama, W. (2008). Kigou no keifu. [Genealogy of signs and semiotic anthropology].
Sangensya.
Koyama, W. (2012). Komyunike-syonron no manazashi. [A window of communication
studies]. Sangensya.
Koyama, W., & Ayabe, Y. (2009). Syakai Bunka Komyunike-syon, bunpou, eigokyouiku:

gendaigenngojinruigaku to kigouron no syatei [Sociocultural communication,
grammar, and English education: The projection of modern linguistic anthropology
and semiotics]. In Y. Ayabe, W. Koyama, & T. Enomoto (Eds.), Gengo-jinruigaku

karamita eigokyouiku (pp. 9–85). Hitsuji Shobo.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.

Revised and Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.". Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2020, April 10).

Shingata koronauirusu kansenshataisaku ni kansuru daigakuto no taiojokyo ni
tsuite. [About universities’ response to COVID-19].
https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20200413-mxt_kouhou01-000004520_2.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2020, August). White paper on

information and communications in Japan.
https://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/wp_eng.html
Powell, A., Watson, J., Staley, P., Patrick, S., Horn, M., Fetzer, L, Hibbard, L., Oglesby,
J., & Verna, S. (2015, July). Blended learning: The evolution of online andface-to-face education from 2008-2015. International Association for K-12 Online

Learning. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560788.pdf
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system

86

HIGUCHI, Takuya

technical journal, 27(3), 379-423.
UNESCO. (2020). ICT in education. https://en.unesco.org/themes/ict-education
Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking.

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227–252.
https://search-proquest-com.ez.wul.waseda.ac.jp/scholarly-journals/physical-placecyberplace-rise-personalized/docview/60444785/se-2?accountid=14891