Persons, bodies and minds inhabit language-- Ludwig Wittgenstein (in Heaton & Groves, 118)
MOOs break through dichotomies. While not actually spoken - though clearly in the form of discourse - nor written - though keyboarding skills are essential and the medium is text-based - nor listened to - though the mind's ear and imagination are constantly involved in the equation - nor read in the traditional linear sense of the word, they are a multilateral bridge to and through the four skills. MOOs invite complete interaction, in the sense that the actors are both other and self. Users discover self through interaction with other users, and through the design and planning of personal MOOspace. Rather than perpetuating dichotomous relationships, MOOs are circular continua, leading learners to learn and following them in their learning.
In the light of the broad strokes we have just used, it is obvious that new approaches to the work involved in learning is what we, as educators, have as our new task.
What puzzles us is this: given that MOO is only limited by human imagination, many MOO 'builders', that is people (or teachers) who can program changes in the MOO, are seeking to replicate the (language) classroom. In this paper then, our purpose is to ask, rather bluntly: Why bother? Especially when, with a little lateral thinking (de Bono, 1982), there are many more interesting things to do... After all, Berge & Collins (1995:4) assure us that "(t)he paradigm shift is from a teaching environment to a learning environment."
We approach MOOing elsewhere (Davies, Shield, Weininger, 1998) with the view that learning is an autonomous act, which does require outside interlocutors, but in which the interlocutors cannot learn for the learners. Gattegno (1976:vii.) specifically reminds us:
Teachers must be concerned with what the students are doing with themselves rather than with the language, which is the students' concern. Teachers and students work on different subjects.
Yet, in visiting several "educational" MOOs, there is evidence that this is just what many "communicative approach" instructors are attempting to do - learn the language for the learners.
Another important, and still often overlooked, area concerns the sociocultural skills that MOOs can foster. To date, there is little in the literature about this subject. MOOtiquette, MOO's version of netiquette, varies from MOO to MOO, but, just as from culture to culture, the skills if improperly followed, lead to marginality for the inexperienced. This marginality and failure to observe situations properly is also often neglected in the literature, and in instructor use of MOOspace, and can result in unsatisfactory learning experiences.
With sociocultural skills, comes the idea of the on-line learning community, as described for IRC chat and discussion lists by - among others - Bernhart (1997), Davis (1997), Fernback & Thompson (1995) and Rheingold (1993). Again, this is an aspect of MOOing which is often neglected. Yes, MOOing involves individuals logging into a database from terminals located all over the world - usually on a whim - during time out of classes, or sometimes within a language teachers' class... but, with more thought, focus and construction on the instructors' part, and the chance of integrating project work into language curricula becoming an even more acceptable part of curriculum development, there exists a real life [RL] chance of bringing geographically, socially, psychologically, intellectually and politically disparate learners together to form a cohesive community. Indeed, as Davis (1997:14) concludes from his experience, there is a danger that:
...we can become mesmerised by the technology and we can become encouraged to assume that its magical qualities will overcome the behaviours that often make communication and collaboration in (face to face encounters) so troublesome.
This paper will show how MOOs can be ReTOOled to meet the needs of learning communities as described above, both in the text-based form under which most MOOs currently operate, and in anticipation of the more graphically- and televideo-based MOOs of the very near future. It will also illustrate the added value of internet-based material of this type to the learning experience as a whole.
MOOs - a brief overvOO
More recently, around the middle of the 90's, MOOs in educational settings have become popular. Virtual universities (Diversity University), virtual conferences (TCC) and virtual workshops (Neteach-L MOO discussions) are among the several applications that have integrated a MOO element.
Language learning MOOs such as SchMOOze (English), Mundo Hispano (Spanish) and MOO Francais (French) have also emerged. In addition to basic chat facilities, these MOOs contain tools such as on-line dictionaries, thesauri, and other reference materials programmed into their databases, as well as offering the user specific language games, language-based treasure and scavenger hunts, and regular meeting times for various interest groups.
The authors of this paper have used MOOspace as a collaborative workspace to plan and create a multi-function website that has been used in various workshops and presentations over the course of the past year. A new branch of the current site attempts more specifically to create a project-based supplemental website for language learners brought together from four different continents (Shield and Weininger, 1998). Here, learners will be able to experience life on the Northeast Coast of England through a hot-linked, text-based area of SchMOOze, and to view and interact with web-based images, sounds, texts and tools. Finally, students will create their own versions of the space, either building on the current database, or creating a new, collaboratively-described area including hyperlinks to the Web.
* What are the tools and how can they be used?
1. The virtual Whiteboard serves a similar function to a real whiteboard, but with some improvements. Students can read, write or erase items on the board through the use of simple keyboard command, much as they do in RL. The board, like a real whiteboard, is fixed in a certain space (in the MOO) and so is accessible by any player - although its use can be restricted to specific users if so required. Although many MOO-objects are for the sole use of their programmers, anyone in the virtual room has the power to use this resource This tool, then, would work well in a brainstorming session, for listing ideas, problems, considerations and other caveats of a project. Users can either read the whiteboard to themselves, or to the group, depending on the command employed. Individual items can be erased leaving other items intact. Unlike a RL whiteboard, however, the virtual MOO whiteboard can be programmed with the ability to send its contents as an email message, either to an individual, or a group of individuals - in fact, to any email configuration (Davies, 1997) that is now currently possible. This provides thorough archiving of data, and ensures that all participants are kept informed of new developments.
These are just four of many more examples of how we have retooled schMOOze. A more in-depth view of all these, and other, tools may be found at: http://halley.yadata.com.br/schMOOze/MA/inmoo.htm
If we are to meet the new challenges of persona, body and mind in new language, we must use our knowledge of pedagogy to push the limits of the technology to fit the lateral thought processes that drive our curricular decision-making. We see how MOOs have the rhizomic richness and flexibility to do so, and we encourage future explorations into their use.
Berge, Z.L., & Collins, M.P., eds. (1995). Computer Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom. Volume III: Distance Learning. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.
Bernhardt, B. (1997). On Using Computers as a Tool for Learning.
JALT Learner Development N-SIG Electronic Newsletter. On-line:
Bollier, D. (1995). The Future of Community and Personal Identity. Washington: Aspen Institute.
Bruckman, A. (1994). Programming for Fun: MUDs as a Context for Collaborative Learning. In Recreating the Revolution. Proceedings of the Annual National Educational Computing Conference (Boston, Massachusetts, June 13-15, 1994)
Davies, L., (1997). Collaborative E-mail and Web Learning.
Davies, L., Shield, L., & Weininger, M.J. (1998) Godzilla Can
MOO, Can You?: MOOs for Construction, Collaboration & Community
and Research. The Language Teacher: JALT. (22)2:13-17.
Davis, M. (1997). Fragmented By Technologies: A Community in
Cyberspace.Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic
Journal for the 21st Century. (5)1-2:7-18.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Bono, E. (1982). de Bono's Thinking Course. New York, New York: Facts on File, Inc.
Diversity University. [On-line].
Fanderclai, T. (1995). MUDs in Education: New Environments, New
Pedagogies. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, vol. 2 no. 1,
Fantini, A (ed.). (1997). New Ways in Teaching Culture. Alexandria, VA.:TESOL, Inc.
Fernback, J. & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual Communities:
Abort, Retry, Failure?
Gattegno, C. (1976). The common sense of teaching foreign languages. NewYork, New York: Educational Solutions.
Heaton, J., & Groves, J. (1994). Wittgenstein for Beginners. Trumpington, Cambridge: Icon Press.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New York, New York: Addison-Wesley.
Steen, D.R., Roddy, M.R., Sheffield, D. & Stout, M.B. (1995).
Teaching with the Internet: Putting Teachers Before Technology.
Bellevue, WA: Resolution Business Press, Inc.
Teaching in the Community Colleges (TCC) On-line Conference.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: the Development of Higher
Psychological Processes. Ed. Michael Cole, Bera John-Steiner, Sylvia
Scribner, and Ellen Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
TCC Online Conferences