some limitation of cultura

When reading Cultura article, I find an interesting thing, using of L1. By advocating CLT(Communicative Language Teaching), language teachers consider using L2 a must in language class. They also encourage students to use L2 as much as possible out of the class. However, Culturaallows learners to use L1 for posting messages in the forums with the consideration of different target langauge proficiency, nuanced culture information, and creation of student-generated authentic texts(Bauer etal,p.34). My concern is if students from U.S don't understand Chinese, cultural information might not be effectively exchanged due to Chinese students' English proficiency. Maybe this is a limitation of Cultura.

Another problem is caused by Chinese writing system. I have noticed that some computers on campus cannot display Chinese characters( a problem I have encountered many times). When adopting Cultura in English class in China, can the teacher make sure that students' conversation partners use computers that can display Chinese characters accurately?

The idea of using L1 in term of cultural information exchange is good, but some limitations still exist due to some language and technology constrains.

NS-NNS vs. NNS-NNS chatting

During the chatting with Penn State last Wednesday, someone in my group brought up the issue about NS-NNS vs. NNS-NNS. We didn't dig into deep because we ran out of time. After reading Zheng etal's article, I have some thoughs about this issue.

It seems that NS-NNS chatting is the most beneficial chatting format for language learning in that the NS acts as the more experienced partner who can transfer intentions to the other one (NNS) through action ( ' the Intentional Spring' metaphor in Zheng etal's article). However, some NNSs still feel frustrated when talking with NSs in the target language.

Then what about NNS-NNS chatting. Two sicuations need to be considered. If they do not share the same L1, they are kind of 'forced' to use the targe language they are both learning to communicate and to be understood. Under this circumstance, meaning is more emphasized and developed than form. Partners take turns to hold the 'Intentional Spring'. However, when neither of them take in charge of controlling the spring ( like neither of them are familiar with the target culture), more negiotations for meaning occur (more misunderstanding, might be).

What I concern more is the situation that partners speak the same mother language. Do they become more willing or mor reluctant to chat in the target language? My own experiences told me that this kind of chatting does not work well because 1) limited vocabulary. Most of the time, L1 vocabulary embedded in L2 sentences; 2) face issue. I remember that one of my classmates in university has really good pronuncaition with American accent. I feel stressful and inferior when chatting with her in English.(kind of lose face, huh?)

So what I am interested in is how to use tech to stimulate Chinese students to speak in English out of English class because I will encounter EＦＬsituation when teaching back in China. Telling my Ss "remember to practice in English out of class" but they don't have much access to chat with NS, or NNS(different L1) (should the teacher find NS for the Ss?). How can I make sure they keep on practicing and speaking in English with their classmates in their daily life?

Is chatroom good for oral communication development?

Blyth discussed some benefits of applying CMC in foreign language learning, such as great students participation, great L2 production, improved quality L2 discourse (Kern, 1995), and explicitly error correction, and decreased L1 use (Beauvois, 1998). I do notice these advantages when we had our group discussion done via chatroomlast Tuesday. I feel more comfortable than I do during face-to-face communication in that I have more time to think before speaking up. Now, here comes my question. How can learners practice their oral communication skills via chatroom?
For some students who are visual learners, chatting online might be a better way than interact person-to-persoan. They are motivated and become more confident in communicaing in L2. It seems that they "speak up" more, but is this the real "speak up"? In other words, listening and oral skills are less emphasized. Suppose that students communicate effectively via chatroom, but they still cannot be easily understood due to their poor listening skill and incorrect pronunciation when communicating face-to-face. I assume that learners have to acutally say the language, not just write in that language, in order to develop their communicative competence.
How to use CMC to improve students' oral communication skills? Do you come up with some opinions, or possible solutions?

something about ytalk

When I read Pellettieri's article, I am quite interested about ytalk. The author says that "ytalk software presntes users with a split screen: in the top half they view their own messages as they type them in the bottom half they view replies from their interlocutors, letter by letter as they are typed"(p.60). I think "letter by letter as they are typed" would greatly promote the simultaneous interaction. When I chat online via MSN or other chatting software, I only know my interlocutor is typing something because of the words poping in the screen "XX is wrting/typing....", but I have no idea about what he/she is writing about, or whether he/she is still talking about the previous topic. Sometimes, before I send my words about the previous topic, my interlocutor has sent me something else, so I have to erase what I have written and respond to the new topic or question. I would say "letter by letter" instead of the whole sentence is more like real life communication.
Another thing is about the language form during the chatting via ytalk or similar chatting tools. When Pellettieri discusses "research background", she claims that L2 learners would focus on form of their output while negotiating meanings. Is it true with ytalk? I am concerned that learners would ignor the form of language, such as omitting articles, using abbreviation, rather than produce well constructed sentences which strictly stick to the grammar rules. In this case, ytalk promotes more the meaning than the form of the target language. What is the language teacher supposed to focus on, form or meaning of the target language, while applying such talking tools?