Working Papers
in Language Education and Research
http://eliworkingpapers.org/

The role of chatting in the language classroom
Jo Mynard
Corresponding author: joanne-m@kanda.kuis.ac.jp
Publication date: August, 2013

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  ISSN 2187-4972	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

To cite this article
Mynard, J. (2013). The role of chatting in the language classroom.
Working Papers in Language Education and Research, 1 (2), 4457.

Scroll down for article	  Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57

THE ROLE OF CHATTING IN THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOMJo Mynard
Kanda University of International Studies
ABSTRACT
Synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) is more commonly
known as “chatting” and has become a commonplace mode of communicationin recent years. This paper begins by briefly reviewing the literature in
relation to digital literacies and makes a case that language educators have a
responsibility to help students to understand the nature of this kind ofinteraction. The author then gives a brief overview of some of the benefits ofincorporating chat activities into a language curriculum and along with some
practical suggestions.

1. INTRODUCTION

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) within language education was an
emerging area of research in the 1990s as more people began to have access totechnology that enabled this kind of interaction. There has been ongoing interest in
online communication discourse patterns in general, but this paper focuses on ways inwhich this increasingly ubiquitous mode of communication impacts language
learners. The scope of the paper is to focus only on text-based synchronous CMC(henceforth “chatting”) and its potential role in the language classroom. The author ofthis paper takes the view that chatting has an important place in the language
classroom for two main reasons. Firstly, drawing on the developing work on
multiliteracies and digital literacies, language educators have a responsibility to teachdigital literacy skills to learners in order for them to be able to communicate
appropriately while engaging in a unique yet popular communication mode.
Secondly, there are certain affordances of chatting as an activity; i.e. chatting is
	
  

44	
  

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57

beneficial for helping learners to develop confidence and fluency in the target
language, while also providing opportunities for experimentation with language andnoticing language in context. The following sections will briefly outline the literature
related to digital literacies.

1.1 Literacy, multiliteracies and digital literacies
A general understanding of the term “literacy” is the ability to read and write
standard language forms; however, this concept now needs to be extended in order toinclude the interpretation of different multimedia representations and diverse culturaland language forms. The term “multiliteracies” was created by the New London
Group (1996) and includes the ability to interpret new and different forms of literacies
that are emerging as the ways in which people communicate change. These changes
are due to the emergence of new technologies, and also due to shifts in the usage oflanguage within different cultures. A new pedagogy is being developed in order toaccount for these shifts:“A pedagogy of multiliteracies… focuses on modes of representation muchbroader than language alone. These differ according to culture and context,
and have specific cognitive, cultural, and social effects” (New London Group,
1996, p. 64).

The term ‘digital literacies’ is “used to describe semiotic activity mediated byelectronic media” (Thorne, 2013, p. 193). Using electronic media influences the ways
in which we do things and also the nature of social relationships (Jones & Hafner,2012) and may be defined as “practices of communicating, relating, thinking and‘being’ associated with digital media” (Jones & Hafner, 2012, p. 13).

	
  

45	
  

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57

Although it has been argued that the younger generation (sometimes referred
to as “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001), although this term has recently undergone
scrutiny – see Dudeney, 2009; Thomas, 2011) are proficient in using newtechnologies, digital literacies goes beyond being able to simply being able to use
technology, or, as Jones and Hafner argue, they “involve not just being able to‘operate’ tools like computers and mobile phones, but also the ability to adapt theaffordances and constraints of these tools to particular circumstances” (Jones &Hafner, 2012, p. 13). This will involve using the tools in creative ways in order to dodifferent things through mediation (i.e. using tools to facilitate action. See Scollon,
2001; Wertsch, 1993 on mediated action). Dudeney (2009) makes the distinction
between “tech-comfy” and “tech-savvy” users of digital tools and suggests that there
is a need for language educators to equip learners with skills to be able to use
technology tools to mediate learning.
1.2 Texting literacy
There is an emerging debate on the nature and place of texting literacy or
netspeak, textspeak or txtspk (Dudeney, Hockley, & Pegrum, 2013) which is the formof written communication used in chatting online and in text messaging on a mobile
device. This kind of communication has a unique linguistic register which has
evolved due to the focus on speed and word economy (due to costs of sending text
messages). This kind of communication blurs features of spoken and written
discourse (Crystal, 2008) and is enhanced with the use of emoticons. Some empiricalresearch shows a positive correlation between textspeak and standard literacy skills(see Kemp, 2011 for a review of some research) and indicates that young people areaware of the difference between types of discourse (Crystal, 2008). The next section
will discuss whether this kind of language has a place in the language classroom.
	
  

46	
  

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57

2. DIGITAL LITERACIES AND THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

So far, this paper has suggested that there are benefits for incorporating digital
literacy skills into the language classroom, but to what extent should textspeak be
actually taught? Proponents of multiliteracies pedagogies might argue for explicit
teaching of different forms of language (see Kalantzis & Cope, 2008), but someeducators might have reservations about overtly teaching textspeak in a language
classroom. Unless the course being taught is specifically related to a type of new
media, it may not be appropriate for a teacher to teach such forms. Instead, explicit
teaching might more appropriately involve helping students to notice patterns and to
apply a metalanguage to the texts that they source themselves. Thorne (2013) and
Thorne and Reinhardt (2008) describe this approach as “bridging” and suggest
involving learners in a cycle such as the following: (1) students source examples oftexts that they are interested in (for example an interaction within Facebook or an
online game); (2) students are guided in their analysis of the texts; (3) students
participate in an activity where similar language is needed. This kind of focus can bevery engaging, can enhance digital literacies, and could be appropriately introduced
into a language classroom as project work. For example, a group assignment might be
to identify a piece of real textspeak in context and prepare a presentation forclassmates including some of the following information:

	
  

•

Where is this interaction taking place?

•

Why did the group choose this example to study?

•

Who are the participants?

•

What is the purpose of the interaction?

•

What unique forms do the participants use to express information?

47	  Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57•

How would you write these forms in standard English?

•

Why do the participants use unique forms?

•

How could you continue the discussion if you were participants?

The focus of the activity is on noticing ways in which language occurs inauthentic contexts, on understanding the ways in which the language differs fromstandard forms of the language, and on mimicking/appropriating the kind of language
used. This section has given practical examples of how analysis of textspeak could beincorporated into a course in a way which enhances digital literacies. The following
section focuses on incorporating actual chat activities into a language course.

3. CHATTING AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

This section will focus on some of the benefits of incorporating chat into aclassroom in order to facilitate language development more generally. Jones & Hafner(2012) note that digital literacies involve the use of technology tools in order to do
things (in a virtual space) that we would not be able to otherwise do. An example ofthis is to purposefully use chatting to facilitate language learning with a focus on
accuracy and fluency. This kind of chatting does not normally use textspeak because
the purpose is different (although students need to be aware of this and understand
why the register is different). The following paragraphs will give a brief summary ofsome of the benefits of chatting for language learners.
One of the often-cited reasons for incorporating chatting into a language
classroom is that the act is so engaging for learners. Due to its engaging nature,studies suggest that real time chat activities maximize student participation (e.g. Card
& Horton, 2000; Warschauer, Turbee, & Roberts, 1996) and there are several possible

	
  

48	
  

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57

reasons for this: being comfortable with the electronic learning environment;
providing opportunities for interlocutors to participate equally regardless of age or
status; and enhancing interactivity, which can be said to enhance motivation in
general (Irani, 1998).
Another benefit of chatting in the language classroom is that it provides
language learners with access to a wider range of interlocutors than normally found ina physical space. This means that there are more opportunities for learners toparticipate in engaging discussions that not only stretch their linguistic skills, but also
help them to shape their worldview.
Chatting provides opportunities for learners to practice both receptive(reading) and productive (writing) language skills. In order to participate in a chatexchange, interlocutors have to read and process text at rapid speeds in order to
respond. Through practice, students become skilful at skimming and scanning the text
in order to follow the conversation thread. This might be difficult for beginning level
learners, but having access to the text both during and after the session provides
opportunities to re-read and analyse the text with help from peers and the teacher, andnotice language.
In terms of productive skills (writing), language learners have the opportunity
to develop writing skills through chatting. Chat transcripts at first glance may appear
confusing, particularly those featuring contributions by lower level language learners.
However, there are two main benefits to bear in mind. The first is that chatting is alegitimate and unique interaction type and has its own conventions and practices (seethe above points about multiliteracies), so will never appear as a polished text such as
an essay – even by proficient speakers of the language. Secondly, chatting provides
authentic writing practice and opportunities to think in the target language and to

	
  

49	
  

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57

practice constructing coherent structures. Thirdly, in traditional writing classes,
students are sometimes asked to write about topics on which they have very little
authority or confidence. Chatting gives the language learners chances to explore thetopic by discussing it with others, which is likely to increase their writing confidence(Day & Batson, 1995).
Even though chatting is a specific written interaction type, it may also promotecompetencies that could be transferred to other interaction types, including spoken
interaction. Chun (1994) argues that interactional speech acts used in a range of
discourse types (such as turn-taking, taking initiative, asking questions and so on) aredeveloped through chatting.

4. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONSThis section will look at practical ways in which teachers can incorporate
language focussed chat activities into the classroom.

4.1. Resources and practical considerations
In order to facilitate the activities suggested in this section, students all needaccess to chat software, apps or a purpose-built chat room (some examples are given
in Appendix 1). Ideally, students should have access to a device (i.e. PC or tablet)
each. The activities assume that learners are familiar and comfortable with chatting. If
any of the learners are new to chatting, then it is worthwhile for the teacher to dosome preliminary activities first in order to develop students’ comfort levels.
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

50	
  

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57

4.2 Activity purpose
As with any task in the language classroom, the teacher should first consider
the needs of the students and the aims of the lesson. This will determine whether
chatting is appropriate and, if so, how the activity can best be facilitated. For example,
perhaps chatting can be used for one of the following: (1) to focus on form by either
introducing a new language point, reviewing a previously introduced language point,
or providing opportunities to practice a particular point; (2) to provide general fluency
practice; or (3) to function as a warm up. The next section will provide details foreach of three focus areas.

4.3 Providing opportunities to focus on form
4.3.1. Practice
A chat room provides an ideal opportunity for students to practice a newly
introduced form. A task that provides intentional practice for certain forms might be
one where the discussion topic or task requires students to use a particular form. For
example, teachers could introduce a task where students are asked to find out what
their classmates had for dinner the previous evening and this would necessitate theuse of the past tense. This is just one example of how engagement can be enhanced if
the topic relates to the students interests and lives (or if the topic is suggested by thestudents). See Appendix 2 for further examples.
4.3.2.Noticing
Chatting provides opportunities for learners to notice language use in context.
Learners do this either by noticing language during the activity or by focused
attention on the form using the transcript after the activity has finished. A teacher
might further enhance this teaching opportunity by providing carefully selected

	
  

51	
  

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57

examples or by asking students to continue to work on a particular form after the
online discussion has ended. For example, the teacher could ask students to re-write atext or to imagine that they are continuing the discussion (and using similar forms inorder to practice them).
4.4 Providing general fluency practice
A chat task might be useful for providing opportunities for learners to develop
speaking fluency and confidence. Students could first discuss a topic in a chatenvironment and then repeat the same discussion face-to-face. This could also bedone in reverse order. The topics could be set in advance – ideally by the students
themselves.
4.5 Warm up
A chat task might be useful for facilitating communication between learners,
between the teacher and the learners, or between people based in different locations.
Research shows that shy or reticent learners may be more inclined to participate inthis form. Chatting might be an ideal warm up to ensure that all the learners are
involved and engaged. A warm-up task could be a game, an interview or brief
discussion to introduce the theme of the class.
4.6 Task phases
Once the teacher has ensured that all of the students are comfortable withchatting and has discovered a potential purpose for chatting within the lesson plan, heor she can then design the activity. Ideally the activity will have three phases: preactivities / chatting / post-activities. A worksheet that could be used to navigate thetasks is provided in Appendix 3.

	
  

52	
  

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57

4.6.1 Pre-chat activities
This phase is needed in order for learners to prepare for the task and for it tobe maximally beneficial. The pre-chat activities could be set for homework in
advance. Examples of pre-activities might be: reviewing language forms, learning
relevant vocabulary, thinking about the task or topic and writing notes orbrainstorming ideas, researching topics, preparing an argument, or imagining a role.
These activities might be done individually or with other students.
4.6.2.ChattingThis interactive phase takes place mainly within the virtual space, but mightalso involve interacting with people in the physical space. Details of some activities
are provided in Appendix 2.
4.6.3 Post-chat activities
This is an important and often overlooked phase. It is more effective if this isdone in class when learners have access to the teacher and other learners. Post-chatactivities will depend on the other phases, the purpose of the task and the learners
themselves, but may include: reflecting on one’s performance during chatting,noticing language, summarizing information discussed, posing follow-up questions,relaying a summary to a partner, noticing vocabulary, or correcting errors. Appendix
4 provides some post-chat activity cards that teachers can distribute to learners andfurther ideas and included on these cards.

	
  

53	
  

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57

5. CONCLUSION

The main points discussed in this paper are that chatting is a useful addition toa language classroom as it involves learners in developing both digital literacies andlanguage skills. The activity suggestions should be adapted carefully to different
contexts, with the learners involved as much as possible with the design of tasks, theselection of texts, and in understanding and reflecting on the use of language. This
paper has not dealt with other potential benefits of chatting such as the developmentof learner autonomy or the development of learning communities, but these are otherpowerful affordances of the available technology.

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is grateful to RILS&LE funding which enabled her to present elements ofthis paper as a practical workshop at The Language Show, Kensington Olympia in
London, UK. 19-21 October, 2012

	
  

54	
  

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57

7. REFERENCES
Card, K., & Horton, L. (2000). Providing access to graduate education using
computer-mediated communication. International Journal of Instructional
Media, 27 (3), 235-245.
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition ofinteractive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and thedesign of social futures. New York, NY: Routledge.
Crystal, D. (2008). Txtng: The gr8 db8. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Day, M. & Batson, T. (1995). The network-based writing classroom: The ENFI idea.
In M. Collins, and Z. Berge, (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication and theonline writing classroom volume two: Higher education (pp. 25-46). Cresskill,
NJ: Hampton Press.
Dudeney, G. (2009). The luddite codex. That’s life. Retrieved fromhttp://slife.dudeney.com/?p=238
Dudeney, G., Hockley, N., & Pegrum, M. (2013). Digital literacies. Harlow, UK:
Pearson Education.
Irani, T. (1998). Communication potential, information richness and attitudes: A
study of computer mediated communication in the ALN classroom. ALNMagazine 2(1). Accessed fromhttp://www.aln.org/publications/magazine/v2n1/irani.asp
Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C.A. (2012). Understanding digital literacies. London, UK
and New York, NY: Routledge.
Kemp, N. (2011). Mobile technology and literacy: Effects across cultures, abilities
and the lifespan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1), 1–3.
The New London Group, (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social
futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5). fromhttp://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Scollon,	
  R.	
  (2001).	
  Mediated	
  discourse:	
  The	
  nexus	
  of	
  practice.	
  London,	  UK:	  Routledge.	
  	
  Thomas, M. (2011). Deconstructing digital natives: Young people, technology, andthe new literacies. New York, NY and London, UK: Routledge.

	
  

55	
  

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57

Thorne, S. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). “Bridging activities,” New media literacies andadvanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 558–572.
Thorne, S. L. (2013). Digital Literacies. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Framing languages
and literacies: Socially situated views and perspectives (pp. 192-218). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Warschauer, M., Turbee, L. & Roberts, B., (1996). Computer learning networks andstudent empowerment. System, 24(1), 1-14.
Wertsch, J.V. (1993).Voices of the mind: Sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

	
  

56	
  

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 44- 57

Appendices	
  Appendix	
  1:	
  	
  Examples	
  of	
  Chat	  Software	
  and	  Apps	  	  Available from: http://tinyurl.com/mynard2013-appendix1
	  Appendix	
  2:	
  Sample	  Tasks	
  for	
  Chat	  Rooms	  	
  Available from: http://tinyurl.com/mynard2013-appendix2
Appendix 3: Example Task Sheet
Available from: http://tinyurl.com/mynard2013-appendix3	  Appendix	
  4:	
  Reflection	
  Activities	  	
  Available from: http://tinyurl.com/mynard2013-appendix4
	
  

	
  

	
  

57