Extending the Dialogue: Using Electronic Mail and the

Donna C. Van Handle and Kathryn A. Corl
Extending the Dialogue: Using
Electronic Mail and the Internet to
Promote Conversation and Writing in
Intermediate Level German Language
Courses
Donna C. Van Handle
Mount Holyoke College
Kathryn A. Corl
The Ohio State University
ABSTRACT
This article presents and analyzes the results of a cooperative E-mail project
conducted at Mount Holyoke College and The Ohio State University. The
project was designed to determine whether an E-mail exchange between
two intermediate level German classes at both institutions would help
improve students’ speaking and writing in German. Suggestions and practical tips are also offered to instructors who wish to conduct a similar Email exchange with their students.
KEYWORDS
Cooperative E-mail Project, Intermediate Level German Class, Speaking,
Writing
INTRODUCTION
The use of E-mail and the Internet has exploded over the past few years,
perhaps most dramatically on college and university campuses, where students communicate regularly via E-mail with faculty, family, and friends
all over the world. Instructors of foreign languages and cultures may well
be in the ideal position to make use of E-mail technology in their teaching.
By having foreign language students participate in asynchronous E-mail
exchanges with other students or partner classes in countries where the
Volume 15 Numbers 1-3
129
Extending the Dialogue
target language is spoken, instructors can extend the learning community
beyond the confines of the classroom and offer their students at least a
metaphorical window on the world. The immediacy of the medium makes
intercultural exchanges, once constrained by the delays involved in the
use of “snail mail,” feasible and convenient for classes that meet for only a
10 week quarter or 15 week semester. Cross-cultural E-mail exchanges
benefit students immensely by giving them the opportunity to test out
their hypotheses about the target culture and to obtain first-hand information from native informants. A number of on-line intercultural exchanges
have been documented in compendia such as Warschauer’s (1995) Virtual
Connections.
E-mail exchanges among students of language and culture in the same
country can also offer benefits to students and instructors alike. As Riel
(1990, p. 448) has noted, “the educational power of telecommunications
… lies … in its potential to enable new forms of group interactions.” In
same-culture exchanges, the use of E-mail can open new avenues for learners to engage and practice their emerging communicative language skills
with real audiences which go beyond those normally provided by the instructor and others in the class and, in so doing, can partially address a
problem commonly found in intermediate German classes at the
postsecondary level. In many intermediate level classes, the instructor is
confronted with a heterogeneous group of students with varying levels of
linguistic experience, preparation, and competence. Some students are
continuing their study of German begun in high school, others have already gone abroad to German speaking countries, and yet others have
come up through the college’s or university’s elementary language sequence.
It can be difficult to find a middle ground on which these students can
fruitfully interact with one another, especially those with weaker backgrounds who are often reluctant to participate in class discussions. The
challenge faced by the instructor is to speak to the needs of the less advanced (or more reticent) students without completely alienating or boring the more advanced students of the class. E-mail—a “conversational”
writing medium which is distanced from face-to-face interaction—provides an excellent first step to help students prepare for the face-to-face
classroom discussions as well as the more carefully conceived and polished written compositions instructors ultimately expect from their students.
A cooperative E-mail project conducted in spring 1993 between intermediate German classes at Mount Holyoke College (MHC) and The Ohio
State University (OSU) offered at least a partial solution to this dilemma
and suggested some methods that may help promote participation and
language skill development in the intermediate level classroom.
130
CALICO Journal
Donna C. Van Handle and Kathryn A. Corl
THE PILOT PROJECT
The MHC/OSU project was an outgrowth of successful pilot work using E-mail in a special intermediate language and culture class conducted
at MHC in spring 1992. For part of each weekly assignment, students in
this class were required to read a German language periodical or newspaper article and write an “electronic diary” entry in German commenting
on what they had read. Students’ entries were sent to a distribution list set
up for the class by the college’s networking and technical services manager. Thus, students not only wrote and sent messages to others in the
class but also received and read all of the entries composed by their classmates. Students’ entries then served as a point of departure for discussion
in subsequent class meetings. In addition, students were also required to
describe a classmate’s entry that they found particularly interesting but
were not permitted to report on an entry previously described by another
classmate.
Results of the pilot project were encouraging; class discussions seemed
much more lively than they had been in previous semesters, presumably
due to the fact that students were required to read all of the entries of
their classmates before class. This conclusion supports the observations
of Lunde (1990, p. 76) who found that E-mail motivated students in his
Chinese language classes “to use their target language creatively” and helped
“promote interaction in their target language, enhance the cultural and
intellectual component of foreign language study, and improve the students’ ability to read Chinese characters.”
THE MOUNT HOLYOKE-OHIO STATE PROJECT
Based on the results of the pilot project, instructors at OSU and MHC
decided to embark on a cooperative project involving two intermediate
level classes, one at each institution. Students in these classes participated
in an asynchronous E-mail discussion with a new twist: all students in
both classes read the same texts and then reacted to them by sending
written comments via E-mail to both classes. The mechanics of the E-mail
exchange were fairly straightforward since the instructor at each institution had only to create and maintain a mailing list for the class at his or
her institution. Student entries intended for the entire group were sent to
the home institution’s mailing list, and a copy was sent to the cooperating
institution’s mailing list.
Since the instructors were also included on the mailing list, they received all messages sent to both groups and were able to monitor students’ participation in the project. In addition, students were shown how
to send private messages to individuals in either class or to the instructor.
Volume 15 Numbers 1-3
131
Extending the Dialogue
They were also encouraged to use E-mail at any time if they wished to ask
questions or to make additional comments on assigned readings, written
work, oral reports, vocabulary, or grammar points. For most students,
participation in the project entailed visiting a computer laboratory on their
campus at least once a week. In order to motivate students to participate
in this outside-of-class activity, a portion of the grade was based on the
regular and timely submission of the weekly Kommentare.
Students were informed that their contributions to the E-mail project
would not be graded or corrected for linguistic accuracy because their
primary focus was to be on communication with their peers. They were
encouraged to write as much as possible, as freely as possible, and not to
worry about language errors or instructors’ responses to their entries.1 As
the instructors monitored students’ electronic contributions, they took note
of common errors, particularly those that involved misunderstandings or
misuse of new vocabulary and structures. They then addressed these errors in subsequent class meetings as a regular part of the instruction, thereby
keeping the focus of the electronic communication on the exchange of
messages. The instructors were also able to monitor the discussions, intervening if necessary to clarify a point, and to use the information exchanged
in messages as bases for subsequent class discussions.
The students’ first assignment was to write a short message in which
they introduced themselves to the students at the partner institution. Most
introductory messages were conversational in tone and represented the
students’ attempts to establish personal contacts with the students at the
other school. For example, communications such as Ich interessiere mich
für alle Fremdsprache [sic]. Wofür interessieren Sie sich? ‘I’m interested
in all foreign languages. What are you interested in?’ were fairly common.
The two assignments subsequent to this “get acquainted” activity followed
a similar pattern. These assignments formed the first part of a longer instructional sequence that began with E-mail discussions of a common text,
followed by in-class discussions, and ended with the more rigorous challenge of developing the ideas that had been discussed into cohesive, polished writing assignments.
For the first assignment, students read a selection from the intermediate
reading textbook, PRISMA. This first reading selection, “Tele-Visionen,”
was a collection of the reactions of young Germans (16-20 year olds) to
the offerings on German television. The young people commented on the
programs they found good or not so good and described the kind of programming they preferred. This type of text was an ideal first assignment
since the language used could be appropriated directly and immediately
by the students to formulate their own opinions about television. To initiate the E-mail discussion, the instructors sent a message to the groups
asking students to focus their E-mail comments on the statements made
by the young Germans, identifying the person whose opinion they shared
132
CALICO Journal
Donna C. Van Handle and Kathryn A. Corl
and explaining why they shared that opinion. The instructors also asked
the students to compare programs on German television with those on
American television. As could be expected, this topic elicited some strong
opinions from the participants, as the following (unedited) examples demonstrate. It is interesting to note that the students reacted not only to the
content of the texts they had read (one-way communication) but also to
the comments and reactions of their fellow students (two-way interaction).
Hallo! Ich heisse Christina, und ich bin in das erste Jahr an
Mt. Holyoke. Ich habe zwei Jahre Deutsch studiert in die
Schule, und ich bin ein Sommer in Bayern geblieben. Da
habe ich Fern gesehen, und meine Gastfamilie hat eine
Satelite, also ich konnte MTV zugeschauen. Normaleweise
haben die Bayerischer vier Sendungen, aber es gibt nicht
so viel Programme. Wir haben Spielfilme, aus Italien,
Amerika, und Deutschland gesehen, auch Nachrichten,
Serien und Tennis. Es war nicht so anders als Fernsehen in
die USA. Ich finde Fernsehen langweilig, und ich schaue
nur ein Paar Programme zu—Star Trek, Cheers, und
manchmal Sport Programme. Ich mag Programme die Natur
und Kultur, aber meistens gibt es nichts interessant, und es
gibt zu viele Werbungen, manchmal mehr Werbungen als
Programme! Tschau!
[Christina, MHC student]2
Christina! Findest du “Star Trek” auch sehr gut?! Toll! Ich
bin ein “Trekker!” Schauen Sie “The Next Generation?!”
Ein toll Sendung!
[Benjamin, OSU student]3
The entry below is a further example of the interactions elicited by this
particular task and the extent to which the participants attended to the
comments of others, even to the point of making references to them in
their own responses. It is also evident from these excerpts that the writers
were still struggling to distinguish among (das) Fernsehen ‘watching television,’ fernsehen ‘to watch television,’ and (der) Fernseher ‘television set.’
The instructors of both courses used this information to design additional
instructional activities to help students work with these new words.
Als viele Studentinn gesagt hatten, glaube ich auch dass
viele Amerikanerin Fernsehen sehen. Als Rachel [MHC student] gesagt hat, viele Eltern Fernsehen als “babysitter”
denken. Ich hatte einmal ein Amerikanische Kind “babysit”
Volume 15 Numbers 1-3
133
Extending the Dialogue
hatte, und die Eltern hatte gesagt, “oh, sie hat viel Fernsehen
gern … du kannst mit ihr die Fernsehen, bis wir zurueckkommen.” Ich sehe wenige Fernsehen … manchmal gehe
ich zu Fernsehen Zimmer ins unsere Studentenwohnheim,
und ich sehe die News oder alte schwarze und weisse Filme
… ich finde viel Kinder Programme zu “violent.” In Japan
haben wir das gleiche Problem. Ich glaube, dass wir miteinander mehr Spass haben … Fernsehen ist manchmal gut
fuer “relaxing your brain,” aber nicht immer wie viele Leute
machen … Dies ist ein wichtiges Subjekt …!!
[Kyoko, MHC student]4
The E-mail exchanges also gave the instructors concrete evidence of the
students’ attempts to use some of the formulaic phrases learned in class
(jemandem zustimmen ‘to agree with someone’) or garnered from the
original texts (sich die Waage halten ‘to balance one another, each other’),
as shown in these examples:
Nachdem ich diese Lesetext las, fand ich aus, dass ich mit
die meisten Meinungen zu stimme. Alle sehen aus, als sie
glauben, dass es beim Fernsehen keine Waage zwischen
Information und Unterhaltung gibt. Und das, ich glaube,
stimmt. Karina hat das gesagt. Ich stimme auch mit Joerg
zu. Er sagte, dass die Leute haben kein Verhaeltnis mehr
zueinander. Fernsehen vielleicht hat mit dem geholfen. Ich
glaube auch, dass es mehr “denken-machen” Sendungen
und Filme geben soll. Wenn Fernsehen hilft man zu denken,
dann vielleicht gibt es keine “Sofakartoffeln!” ... Wer stimme
mit mir zu?
[Vladimir, OSU student]5
In his evaluation of the E-mail exchanges related to this text, the instructor of the course at OSU commented that he had had the most successful class discussion ever, “about 45 minutes of straight student talk,” a
level of participation he had not previously experienced. He also noted
that the discussion in this class contrasted sharply in quantity of participation and quality of content with that of a parallel section that had read the
same texts but not engaged in the E-mail discussions. He remarked that
“it added a lot to have read the Mount Holyoke letters and to be able to
talk about them, too.” The act of “pre-discussing” the texts, formulating
opinions, and reacting to those of others proved to be a powerful form of
preparation for actual class discussion. This type of preparation, involving a real interaction with other readers of the text, stands diametrically
opposed to the response instructors usually encounter when they ask stu134
CALICO Journal
Donna C. Van Handle and Kathryn A. Corl
dents how they prepare for class discussions.6 The instructor at OSU also
reported that students used the various conversational gambits in classroom discussions that had appeared in their E-mail entries. The same results were observed at MHC.
A reading on the “Bildungswesen” ‘education system’ was the next assignment from PRISMA assigned to both classes. This text offered a traditional explanation of the German school system and included statements
by three Germans (a university student, a pupil at a Hauptschule ‘vocational secondary school,’ and a postal employee) who were reflecting on
their schooling. This time the students at OSU and MHC were asked to
express their opinions on the German school system and to compare the
German system to the American system. The following unedited examples
demonstrate the differences between the types of comments elicited by a
familiar topic such as television and the more abstract theme of the reading on the Bildungswesen:
Das Schulsystem in Deutschland ist sehr komplex. Erst,
haben Sie 13. Schuljahrgangen. In Amerika haben wir nur
12. Schuljahrgangen. In Deutschland, nach 4. klasse die
Kindern waren getrennt. Nach 13. Schuljahrgangen gehen
die Studentinnen zu Hochschule oder Fachhochschule. In
Amerika gehen Sie zur Universitaet oder “Community College.” Wie lang geht man in dem Hochschule? Haben Sie
eine Auswahlen fur das Hochschule? Kann man selbst die
Auswahl treffen?
[Raj, OSU student]7
Nach meiner Meinung ist das Schulsystem Deutschlands
zu reguliert. Sehr junge Leute muessen sehr grosse
Entscheidung machen, die wichtig fuer das Zukunft der
junge Leute wuerde. Die deutsche Jungen mussen ihren
Berufziel wissen, als die 14 Jahre alt sind. Wie viele Leute
weisst du, die um 14 Jahre alt, ihren Berufziel haben? Auch
haben viele Studenten in Deutschland schlechte Noten
bekommen, und kann in das Gymnasium nicht gehen. Die
Schulsystem Deutschlands ist wie eine Falle. Die Studenten
mussen fruh wahlen und kann die Entscheidung nicht
wechseln. Ich denke, dass 14 Jahre alt ist zu jung fuer dieses
Entscheidung zu machen. Aber vielleicht gibt dieses System die Studenten einen Ziel, damit sie in Grundschule
konzentriert. Vielleicht sind sie fertig diese Entscheidung
zu machen.
[Chris, MHC student]8
Volume 15 Numbers 1-3
135
Extending the Dialogue
Ich fand diesen Lesetext sehr interessant. Ich interessiere
mich fuer die deutsche Schueler und Studenten und auch
fuer das ganze deutsche Schulsystem. Es ist sehr anders als
das amerikanische System, denn sie muessen ein
Fachbrennpunkt sehr frueh haben. Ich bin nicht sicher, ob
das gut oder nicht ist. Was passiert, wenn man in die
Hauptschule geht aber in Wirklichkeit besser in dem Gymnasium wuerde? Ein Schueler kann sein Brennpunkt nicht
leicht aendern.
Ich glaube, das ist ein Problem. In Amerika kann man sein
Hauptfach ohne zu viele Probleme aendern. In Deutschland
ist das anders.
[Rachel, MHC student]9
Ich habe die Briefe gelesen und ich stimme zu Vladimir
[OSU student]. Schule ist nicht nur die einige Bestandteil.
Auch gibt es Regierung, Leute, Stelleforderungen, das Land
… u.s.w. … Ich kann nicht sagen, dass das deutsch
Schulsystem fuer die deutsche Leute schlecht ist. Aber ich
glaube es ist nicht so gut fuer die amerikanische studenten,
weil mann um ein freuh Alter den Beruf wahlt. Vielleicht
ist das deutsch Schulsystem fuer die deutsche Studenten
gut. Mann sollte die antworten. Ich denke das amerikanisch
Schulesystem ist gut fuer mich aber ich wunche dass die
Unerversitaet frei war, als im Deutschland! Spaeter …
[Jeff, OSU student]10
Students’ E-mail contributions on the Bildungswesen reading were more
focused (e.g., addressing specific questions) than their contributions in
earlier E-mail exchanges and contained fewer personal reactions and interesting side discussions. Although some students asked questions at the
end of their E-mail entries, they directed these questions for the most part
to the instructors and not to the other students. Two explanations for the
noticeable change in response by students to this text and topic are possible. First, the topic of the Schulwesen had already been covered extensively in earlier courses at both institutions and, therefore, represented a
topic already discussed by most students. Second, as noted earlier, the
education topic was more abstract and academic than the television topic,
and, consequently, students may have perceived it as further removed from
their immediate interests and concerns.
136
CALICO Journal
Donna C. Van Handle and Kathryn A. Corl
RESPONSE TO THE PROJECT
At the end of the project, students were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding the use of E-mail in their German classroom. (See the
student questionnaire in the appendix to this article.) Results of the survey indicated that most students were positive about the experience, although some complained about the inconvenience of having to go to a
public computer laboratory to complete the activities. Instructors also
commented on four benefits of the project: 1) a noticeable increase in
students’ use of risk-taking strategies in language learning activities in
class, 2) richer—though not necessarily more accurate—oral exchanges,
3) increased use of new vocabulary and structures that had appeared in
the readings, and 4) demonstrably better compositions that benefited from
the additional communicative opportunities. Moreover, both the students
and the participating instructors agreed on the value of the increased awareness of audience and the motivational benefits that the expanded learning
community created for the students at both institutions.
PRACTICAL TIPS FOR SETTING UP A CLASS-TO-CLASS E-MAIL
EXCHANGE
For instructors who wish to extend the dialogue in their classes by organizing similar exchanges, the following list offers a few practical suggestions based on experience gained from the MHC-OSU project:
• Before beginning the project, investigate the scope and limitations of
listserves and mailing lists available at your institution.
• Consider the academic calendar of the participating institutions when
planning the length and placement of assignments. (In this project,
OSU was on the quarter system, and MHC was on the semester system. This difference in academic calendars had implications for the
length of the assignments and their placement within both curricula.)
• Carefully select texts that fit the curricula of the partner institutions
and that are likely to elicit opinions and reactions that go beyond the
surface level of the text.
• Make sure that the guiding questions are carefully prepared. (Although instructors may wish to insert comments from time to time,
they should remain in the background as moderators once the discussion is underway.)
Volume 15 Numbers 1-3
137
Extending the Dialogue
• Assure regular participation in the e-mail exchanges by making provisions for the exchanges in the course syllabus so that students know
that the exchange is an integral part of the course.
• Inform students how their E-mail exchanges will affect their course
grade. (Students need to understand whether or not their E-mail
exchanges will be graded, and, if so, how they will be graded, e.g.,
for content, linguistic accuracy, cohesion.)
• Set clear deadlines for submission of entries by students in the group
with perhaps minor penalties for late submissions. (In the MHCOSU project, students were required to submit their entries by 5:00
p.m. two days before the text was to be discussed in class. This deadline ensured that all students would have time to read the texts, submit their response, and read the responses of others by the time of
the class discussion.)
• Schedule special laboratory training sessions at the beginning of the
project for those students who are not familiar with E-mail technology.
To find German students with whom to conduct exchanges similar to
the one described here, interested parties may consult the homepage of
the Intercultural E-mail Classroom Connections (IECC) based at St. Olaf
College (http://www.stolaf.edu/network/iecc/). This free service is designed
“to help teachers and classes link with partners … for E-mail classroom
pen-pal and project exchanges.” To find a postsecondary partner class,
send an E-mail message containing the word <subscribe> to: [email protected]; for a K-12 partner class, send an E-mail message containing the word <subscribe> to: [email protected]. The eMail
Classroom Exchange program also provides a service similar to that offered by IECC (http://www.iglou.com/xchange/ece/index.html). The organization, Das Translatantische Klassenzimmer (http://
www.tak.schule.ed/), allows students to participate in E-mail discussions
on topics such as teenage life and German culture. Finally, ROIBL-L (http:/
/marvin.uni-trier.de/Tandem/email/deueng/deueng.html) offers additional
opportunities for students to participate in electronic discussions (in German or English) with other students from around the world. To subscribe
to this listserve, send an E-mail message to: [email protected] with
the message <SUB RIBO-L> and <your name>.
138
CALICO Journal
Donna C. Van Handle and Kathryn A. Corl
APPENDIX
Questionnaire (Use of E-mail in German 210)
Please answer the following questions as honestly and completely as possible! I am very interested in your reactions/input! This is a anonymous
survey.
1) Had you ever used electronic mail (E-mail) before taking this
course? If yes, please answer question #2. If no, move on to question #3!
2) WHEN AND WHY did you learn to use E-mail? For personal reasons or for a class?
3) Did you find the use of E-mail in German 210 useful in helping
you prepare for class discussions? Why/why not? PLEASE BE
HONEST!
4) Would you have liked your comments to have been corrected (i.e.,
grammar, style, etc.)? Why/why not? PLEASE BE HONEST!
5) Where did you use E-mail? In your room? In a computer lab? Did
you find it inconvenient to write your comments via E-mail? Would
you have preferred to write out your and hand them in before each
class? Why/why not?
6) Did you find it useful/interesting to read other students’ comments?
Why/why not? Did you read the other contributions regularly (before each class)? Why/why not? Did you feel that writing and reading others’ comments better prepared you to discuss the readings/
assignments in class? Why/why not?
7) Would you like to use E-mail in other classes as it was used in
German 210? Would you envision using E-mail in other ways in
this or in other German classes? HOW?
8) General comments about the use of E-mail in German 210? Disadvantages/advantages?
I very much appreciate your honest answers to these questions. They will
help me in deciding whether or not to continue using E-mail in my classes.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
Volume 15 Numbers 1-3
139
Extending the Dialogue
NOTES
1
Zamel (1987, p. 699) commented on the importance of “individual student
perceptions about and attitudes toward instruction” and called them “critical determinants in [students’] performance as writers.” Greenia (1992, p. 35) also
stated that “a focus on writing for exchanging and engaging ideas puts students
with varying language strength on a more nearly equal footing since it is their
ideas that count most here, not the quality of their grammar.” Greenia also found
that “content-centered as opposed to structure-oriented activities helped students
in a group to collaborate on the basis of its members’ individual gifts.”
2
Hello! My name is Christina, and I’m a first year student at Mount Holyoke. I’ve
studied German for two years, and I spent a summer in Bavaria. There I watched
TV, and my host family had a satellite dish. That meant that I was able to watch
MTV. Normally, there are four TV channels in Bavaria, but there aren’t as many
programs (as there are in the US). We watched Italian, American, and German
movies; also news, TV series, and tennis. It wasn’t that different from TV in the
US. I think TV is boring, and I only watch a couple of programs (in the US)—Star
Trek, Cheers, and sometimes sports. I like programs about nature and cultural
programs, but most programs are not very interesting, and there are too many
commercials, sometimes more commercials than there are programs.
3
Christina! You also like “Star Trek?!” Great! I’m also a “Trekker!” Do you
watch “The Next Generation?!” A great program!
4
As a lot of students have mentioned, I also believe that many Americans watch
TV. As Rachel [MHC student] said, many parents think of TV as a babysitter. I
once babysat for an American child and the parents said, “Oh, she likes TV … you
can watch TV with her until we come back.” I watch very little TV … sometimes
I go to the TV room in our dorm and watch the news or old black-and-white films
… I think programs for children are too “violent.” In Japan, we have the same
problem. I think that we [should] have more fun with each other. TV is sometimes good for “relaxing your brain,” but not the way many do (i.e., people watch
too much TV today) … This is an important subject … !!!
5
After I read this text, I found out that I agree with most people. It appears that
everyone believes that there is no balance between information and entertainment programming on TV. And that is true, I think. Karina said that. I also agree
with Joerg. He said that people don’t have any relationships with each other anymore. Perhaps TV is responsible for that. I also believe that there should be more
programs and films shown “that make people think.” If TV helps us to think, then
there wouldn’t be so many “couch potatoes!” … Who agrees with me?
6
Typically, students state that they read a text or “look over” the material by
themselves. Few take time to discuss the text with their peers in advance of class,
and even fewer still think through and articulate their opinions in writing.
7
The school system in Germany is very complex. First of all, you have 13 grades.
In America, we only have 12 grades. In Germany, children are separated after the
fourth grade. After grade 13, students either go to the university or to specialized
colleges. In America, they go to college or to “community college.” How long do
they (the Germans) attend college? Do they get to choose their college? Do they
get to choose themselves?
140
CALICO Journal
Donna C. Van Handle and Kathryn A. Corl
8
In my opinion, the school system in Germany is too regulated. People who are
very young have to make big decisions which are important for their future. Young
people in Germany have to make a career choice when they’re 14 years old. How
many 14 year olds do you know who know what they want to do when they grow
up? There are also many students in Germany who have gotten bad grades and
aren’t allowed to attend a Gymnasium ‘secondary school for university bound
students.’ The school system in Germany is like a trap. The students have to
choose their future career paths at an early age and then they can’t change their
minds. I think that 14 year olds are too young to make such a decision. But perhaps this type of system gives students a goal so that they will concentrate in
grammar school. Maybe they’re ready to make this decision then.
9
I found this text very interesting. I’m interested in German students and also in
the entire German school system. It’s very different from the American school
system because they must have an idea of what they want to do very early on. I’m
not sure whethis this is good or not. What happens when a student is attending a
vocational school but would be better off (should be) in a school that is preparing
him/her for the university? It is not easy for a student to change his/her mind.
I believe that this is a problem. In America, we change majors without any problem. In Germany, it’s different.
10
I read the E-mail letters and agree with Vladimir [OSU student]. School is not
the only thing to think about. There’s also the government, people, requirements
of a job, the country … etc. … I can’t say that the German school system is bad for
Germans. But I believe that it [the German school system] wouldn’t be good for
American students because you have to choose your career path at a very early
age. Maybe the German system is good for German students. One should answer.
I think the American school system is good for me, but I wish the university was
free as it is in Germany.
REFERENCES
Brock, M. N. & Pennington, M. C. (1992). Process and product approaches to
computer-assisted composition. In M. C. Pennington & V. Stevens (Eds.),
Computers in applied linguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bump, J. (1990). Radical changes in class discussion using networked computers.
Computers and the Humanities, 24, 49-65.
Cohen, M., & Riel, M. M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students’
writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 143-159.
Coleman, D. W., Crookall, D., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). Computer-mediated language learning environments. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 5,
93-120.
Esling, J. (1991). Researching the effects of networking: Evaluating the spoken and
written discourse generated by working with CALL. In P. Dunkel (Ed.),
Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and
practice. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Volume 15 Numbers 1-3
141
Extending the Dialogue
Faigley, L. (1990). Subverting the electronic workbook: Teaching writing using
networked computers. In A. Daiker & M. Morenberg (Eds.), The writing
teacher as researcher. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.
Greenia, G. D. (1992). Computers and teaching composition in a foreign language.
Foreign Language Annals, 25, 33-45.
Greenia, G. D. (1992). Why Johnny can’t escribir: Composition and the foreign
language curriculum. ADFL Bulletin, 24, 30-37.
Jennings, E. (1990). Paperless writing revisited. Computers and the Humanities,
24, 43-48.
Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25,
441-454.
Levin, J. A., & Riel, M. M. Building electronic communities: Success and failure in
computer networking. Instructional Science, 19, 145-169.
Lunde, K. R. (1990). Using electronic mail as a medium for foreign language study
and instruction. CALICO Journal, 7, 68-78.
Osterholm, K. K. (1986). Writing in the native language. In B. H. Wing (Ed.),
Listening, reading, and writing: Analysis and application (pp. 117-143).
Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference.
Paulson, D. L. (1993). Evaluation of FL learners’ writing ability. Northeast Conference Newsletter, 34, 12-15.
Riel, M. M. (1990). Cooperative learning across classrooms in electronic learning
circles. Instructional Science, 19, 445-466.
Riel, M. M. (1989). Four models of educational telecommunications: Connections
to the future. Education and Computing, 5, 261-274.
Scott, V. M. (1990). Task-oriented creative writing with Systéme-D. CALICO Journal, 7, 58-67.
Steinberg, E. R.(1992). The potential of computer-based telecommunications for
Instruction. ADCIS Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19, 42-46.
Terry, R. M. (1989). Teaching and evaluating writing as a communicative skill.
Foreign Language Annals, 22, 43-54.
Underwood, J. (1987). Correo: Electronic mail as communicative practice. Hispania,
70, 413-414.
Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1995). Virtual connections. Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawaii.
Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21,
697-715.
AUTHORS’ BIODATA
Donna C. Van Handle is Lecturer in German Studies at Mount Holyoke
College in South Hadley, Massachusetts, and a former member of the Executive Committee of the American Association of Teachers of German
142
CALICO Journal
Donna C. Van Handle and Kathryn A. Corl
(AATG). Her research interests include contemporary German and Austrian Landeskunde and literature, second language acquisition, CALL and
multimedia applications in foreign language teaching, and use of Internet
resources in foreign language teaching and research. She is co-author of a
forthcoming book entitled Using the Internet in instruction: A guide for
German teachers and is developing the Technology-Enhanced Language
Instruction (TELI) distance learning module for German teachers in the
US as part of the AATG/Goethe Institute Going the Distance project. She
has given numerous workshops on creating standards oriented teaching
units using Internet resources and continues to focus her energies on developing web-enhanced courses for all levels of German instruction.
Kathryn A. Corl (Ph.D. in Foreign Language Education) is Assistant Professor of German in the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures at The Ohio State University. As Director of Undergraduate Language Instruction in German, she is responsible for the training and supervision of the department’s Graduate Teaching Associates. She is coauthor of Sprechen Wir Deutsch!, a first-year college German textbook
and Übergänge: Texte verfassen, a post-intermediate German composition textbook. Dr. Corl has contributed to several major grant-funded research and development projects at the Ohio State University Foreign
Language Center and National Foreign Language Resource Center, including the “Collaborative Articulation and Assessment Project” (Fund for the
Improvement of Postsecondary Education) and “Predicting Success in
University Basic Language Courses (Ohio State University Center for Teaching Excellence). Dr. Corl is currently co-director of the Ohio State University MultiCAT project (Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education) to develop a multimedia computer-adaptive foreign language proficiency test in French, German, and Spanish.
AUTHORS’ ADDRESSES
Donna C. Van Handle
Department of German Studies
Mount Holyoke College
South Hadley, MA 10175-6433
Phone: 413/538-2207
Fax:
413/538-2127
E-Mail: [email protected]
Kathryn A. Corl
Department of German Languages and Literatures
314 Cunz Hall
1841 Millikin Road
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210
Volume 15 Numbers 1-3
143
Extending the Dialogue
Come see why we were visited
over 5000 times last month
AGORA
LANGUAGE
MARKETPLACE
www.agoralang.com
for comprehensive listings of language publishers,
schools, study abroad, learning center services,
and other professional language services
144
CALICO Journal