While tidying up my bookshelf, I found a paper that caught my eye due to its title, so I gave it a quick read.

Hampel, R., Hauck, M. (2006). Computer-mediated language learning: Making meaning in multimodal virtual learning spaces, The JALT Journal, 2(2), 3-18

According to this paper:

・The acts of “writing” and “speaking” language occur in different contexts and form different meanings.

・Historically, Europe has placed great importance on linguistic literacy, with a focus on communication through “writing” (likely letters, etc.), making research on “written” language the mainstream (the author seems to use the term literacy to mean “reading and writing ability” in this paper, as they contrast it with orality).

However,

・With the advent of the telephone and television, attention shifted toward “spoken” language, making it a subject of research in language education.

・Recent developments in information and communication technology have weakened the dominant mindset that prioritizes “writing,” leading to equal attention being paid to the act of “speaking.”

Because of this, the paper argues that attention has begun to shift toward multimodality.

Furthermore, regarding why multimodal tools are increasingly being used in Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) recently, the paper suggests there are three main points:

1: Humans convey information to others by “speaking” and “writing” language, but meaning is formed and conveyed through media such as visual information and physical cues (facial expressions and gestures).

2: While the meaning created by language changes depending on the various media (which I assume refers to communication tools) used, the media organizes this into a single foundation (in other words, the meaning conveyed and received changes depending on the medium used, but it is also the medium that synthesizes these into one).

3: The casualization of communication (taking mobile phones as an example, people increasingly prefer text-based communication over voice calls, and even in text communication, there is an increase in the use of “spoken language” similar to face-to-face interaction).

The paper suggests that these three perspectives offer significant hints for the effectiveness and future prospects of multimodality in CALL. It then uses the Open University’s Lyceum system as an example to explain the move toward multimodality in Lyceum (though I believe it has since transitioned to a newer system).

Since there are quite a few papers published on the practical use and effects of Lyceum, I recommend referring to the following. Many papers have been published on this for a long time. There are also papers that discuss points that must be considered specifically because it is the Open University.

Hampel, R. & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classroom: Training tutors to teach languages online. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 18(4). 311-326

Hauck. M (2005). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive strategies, and CALL, In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (Eds.), CALL Research Perspectives (pp.65-86). New Jersey, Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

It was a good learning experience for me, as I was previously unaware of the various triggers for the discussion on multimodality. I read Hampel’s papers quite often, and this was very informative.

However, I felt that we must distinguish between multimodality in communication media and multimodality in teaching materials. When discussing communication media, I believe it is necessary to consider combinations of synchronous/asynchronous communication tools, text/voice communication tools, and tools that display or hide the other party’s video. If one were to make all of these possible on a single screen, it would be a problem that precedes facilitating meaning-making through communication or promoting interaction; from the perspective of system usage, the cognitive load would be too high, and it would likely be impossible to concentrate on learning activities. It wouldn’t be very well-designed from a system architecture perspective, would it?

Personally, I do not think the idea of enabling several communication media on a single screen is very good. Since communication media are the parts that govern output, which is extremely important for learners, I believe a simple and focused form is desirable. Also, since this paper states that the meaning-making of language differs depending on the medium, if you pack too many complex elements in, it becomes unclear what you are trying to cultivate. If the system allows for switching communication media based on learning objectives, that would be a good thing, though.

I think the idea of multimodality as a teaching material or learning support tool has many positive aspects. Features such as sharing whiteboards or text-based documents, adding functions to draw lines, or sharing user markers—incorporating various functions that enable different learning methods—are good in the sense that they support what the learner wants to do or convey. However, I believe it is essential that the functions do not become overly complex and that the usage remains intuitive (though this is quite difficult).