The Non-Neutrality of Technology: A Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Study of Computer Mediated Communication Technologies

Arguing against the common perception of technology as passive, neutral, and universal, this article presents a theoretical analysis of a commonly used and frequently studied technology—Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)—to illustrate how a technology that is often undistinguished in practice and research is indeed active, biased, and specific. We then report two exploratory studies that attempt to test the proposed framework with empirical evidence. The findings suggest that differences in the features of two CMC sub-technologies result in different effects on student-student interactions and vocabulary learning. We are able to both theoretically and empirically demonstrate that CMC technology can be realized in multiple forms and shapes, each of which has its own individual characteristics. These different characteristics are distributed across four different dimensions: temporality, spatiality, identity, and modality. Depending on their relative location on these dimensions, these characteristics have significant impact on student online behaviors in terms of social, linguistic, and psychological expressions. Although the two empirical studies were preliminary due to their sample size and quasi-experimental nature, they did positively confirm the view that each technology has unique features that actively shapes potential uses and users.

[1]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge , 1978 .

[2]  Isabel Borrás Developing and assessingPracticing Spoken French: A multimedia program for improving speaking skills , 1993 .

[3]  M. Warschauer Comparing Face-To-Face and Electronic Discussion in the Second Language Classroom , 2013, CALICO Journal.

[4]  G. Whitney Computer‐mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross‐cultural perspectives , 1998 .

[5]  Nancy Sullivan,et al.  A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom , 1996 .

[6]  Dorothy M. Chun Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence , 1994 .

[7]  Susan C. Herring Interactional Coherence in CMC , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[8]  T. Brooks Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart , 1999 .

[9]  Carol A. Chapelle,et al.  Call activities: Are they all the same? , 1994 .

[10]  Richard G. Kern Restructuring Classroom Interaction with Networked Computers: Effects on Quantity and Characteristics of Language Production , 1995 .

[11]  P. Shalit The Silent Language , 1964 .

[12]  Dorothy M. Chun,et al.  Effects of Multimedia Annotations on Vocabulary Acquisition , 1996 .

[13]  R. Schmidt Attention and awareness in foreign language learning , 1995 .

[14]  Stephen G. Sheldon,et al.  Conditions for Classroom Technology Innovations , 2002, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[15]  Arthur Evans THE PALACE , 2019, The House of Augustus.

[16]  Susan M. Gass,et al.  Input, interaction, and the second language learner , 1994 .

[17]  M. Rafael Salaberry,et al.  L2 Morphosyntactic Development in Text-Based Computer-Mediated Communication , 2000 .

[18]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[19]  C. Werry Linguistic and interactional features of Internet relay chat , 1996 .

[20]  Mike Levy,et al.  Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization , 1997 .

[21]  Dorothy M. Chun,et al.  Network-based Language Teaching: Networked multimedia environments for second language acquisition , 2000 .

[22]  K. Holyoak Mental representations. , 1982, Science.

[23]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Information Technology and Education: Computer Criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking , 1987 .