<%BANNER%>

Comparing the Language of Intermediate Learners of French in Asynchronous Electronic Communication vs. Face to Face Comm...

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101119_AAAAEA INGEST_TIME 2010-11-19T23:06:07Z PACKAGE UFE0012180_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1837 DFID F20101119_AACRRX ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH guillo_c_Page_39.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
1be0476477ab5db84aede65b5a9455b3
SHA-1
abf860e934c36e17344a9ac1a4a5144ec61a40bc
68526 F20101119_AACRKC guillo_c_Page_36.jpg
3ba64548e6ac9f92128aba7c92ae0f8d
0ea8abcb3e95830afbd53d2adbfa01c5767adecd
2018 F20101119_AACRRY guillo_c_Page_40.txt
c15e9a047add024034c35fd34fff2417
eb44dc5ff5b101a604b0cd7a7ff53412aa3f0604
53128 F20101119_AACRKD guillo_c_Page_37.jpg
7283a76fd7660a14c4b73944527d8a1d
828253632e53c0b8733a209e0e1b68721313784e
50354 F20101119_AACRPA guillo_c_Page_12.pro
d165cf8d6bdccb5993175c391788d97a
90f97797fe65598d0cdf7f1fec302daa3f42b2e5
2479 F20101119_AACRRZ guillo_c_Page_41.txt
930c6697160593b923a57cf0203046d9
4f4736071d8f1507b008f23105c030ae811ad2a7
71908 F20101119_AACRKE guillo_c_Page_38.jpg
5f9f5cd7ad7a9a2c7a515d03cd621893
8dc0c6a03e0bad340ca336b5325e22ef2511f77b
56416 F20101119_AACRPB guillo_c_Page_13.pro
fff8d15c45ba3479241437256a0df2b3
f7e8de6fd6e7dcb92098ad08e2e041dc1ef75b2b
67781 F20101119_AACRKF guillo_c_Page_39.jpg
31ced7d44bcb24e6934c7cbf67d807dd
40fed9304279a3436606c8a88b69cf07cfda2f44
50896 F20101119_AACRPC guillo_c_Page_14.pro
d2daa2a794d72550a3e5172b89d5b36b
4f33ffe5a9d97e59c63970398d0d2f94d5aaa10d
69585 F20101119_AACRKG guillo_c_Page_40.jpg
c3967e3de66397b5db538c12497303ca
6f85e4473de1206df22e2f4d7fdd450ebeed42fa
21128 F20101119_AACRUA guillo_c_Page_21.QC.jpg
3d633ca531975fee5e50cf3c55b7c4f5
7477336c127ebee945778d0bcc13c6a05f5d79f8
51204 F20101119_AACRPD guillo_c_Page_15.pro
cdde941ff5550f4b796b76c12e05ae46
4d550cee06e5c75b8faaa063b5ddd238ee6b2274
5920 F20101119_AACRUB guillo_c_Page_21thm.jpg
54ed1ebe6cc334f28e2a220066bbbc75
9f230f34ab4740d90d41e2b592f86f8beda7cdc7
50520 F20101119_AACRPE guillo_c_Page_16.pro
c32f3166d6d4f67c0411973792638646
cfccc3a2fee071019f21d674b75bca648d0c24bc
74822 F20101119_AACRKH guillo_c_Page_41.jpg
c1814154afc0aace50078529ffb17043
ffa8bd604cd2383ca0746a67862dadfee7bab726
6678 F20101119_AACRUC guillo_c_Page_22thm.jpg
35d4a6e517a1f04d721cecd99e09ca36
6a580f9291900ca2e6dfd7049388b6733b407171
45645 F20101119_AACRPF guillo_c_Page_17.pro
8727721f688b0f5007c98852f8ef58d1
e4ade34e677ed0e1ec0b28ba6c1688b950bc1a6f
73799 F20101119_AACRKI guillo_c_Page_42.jpg
d8cf6bafcc8b3f1d249c1c2341ce566a
97bee432988047bb44207bd5de19987f9c41e0fb
3787 F20101119_AACRUD guillo_c_Page_23thm.jpg
7bf24ac9ad493c8703b74bdfd5691229
1535cddb8c3d2ccffbd6f33b47e4f89c6110a5f2
4026 F20101119_AACRPG guillo_c_Page_18.pro
8ce50ff47ae205bdcfa595e3fc625dcb
536e853973c7cdfc16a34137a1abbc32e8c53586
83358 F20101119_AACRKJ guillo_c_Page_43.jpg
5c0206a72aad57529f06bdf17b22b70c
d457123f66fe55d434d7518f3a1a6d643d322175
20788 F20101119_AACRUE guillo_c_Page_24.QC.jpg
5d9bcb459964d22656912d7c92b990cd
a390dfdc02b3df72109fb6c5c2f514a6cc429c2a
38330 F20101119_AACRPH guillo_c_Page_19.pro
9b0f624a02966a046878711f122845ef
4253723d1d5806e4f78336dcf3bd53287a9c140b
39958 F20101119_AACRKK guillo_c_Page_44.jpg
6e1a0680431470d608bcf046e97b1c74
fea357e9ff53c6538c9a65aefd7d21ff4ca0cb8d
5734 F20101119_AACRUF guillo_c_Page_24thm.jpg
f78da930bf276fcf4597712bf62e3db2
a03d8a25ad768204e2ca895db3fa020f2de855a4
49210 F20101119_AACRPI guillo_c_Page_20.pro
4efc235ca4dedfe3003f316b698a54ff
248e4f8a6b8e4183b941f456ab47d2161ffd0efe
63896 F20101119_AACRKL guillo_c_Page_45.jpg
6142a8f53f36a7852ec3c46572c65967
c55eb65ce96be49b0500cfc00a0868de9a106226
22822 F20101119_AACRUG guillo_c_Page_25.QC.jpg
1e6206018e098cb8a8dc7293a7fe5812
863f4e8e1aab15e18b4cfaf6f17057196d28c0d1
52887 F20101119_AACRPJ guillo_c_Page_22.pro
e2ec86c4edb9085b4012462b40b93cc7
6723e3f9995b61f85a4008dfebb6f446ff8b8224
68515 F20101119_AACRKM guillo_c_Page_46.jpg
203af112e0ef8d9bf345b624ca3ada38
f0ac9620833a879b59a73ebcc735f6e458ab7375
6249 F20101119_AACRUH guillo_c_Page_25thm.jpg
986cc2a6a45b0069c19d42be499d371c
7e2368f090f12e7eb8d6ce440075aa45f2c602d1
48708 F20101119_AACRPK guillo_c_Page_25.pro
5ce84829f927932ae78bf4835b15c583
60c58404b556743dbd90b702879a308574e8f751
13668 F20101119_AACRKN guillo_c_Page_47.jpg
174c3118f3152b4168d3e0f8c2e5125e
cf16ccbb3417a5c6c4d8ee370d217dfa92f54554
25198 F20101119_AACRUI guillo_c_Page_26.QC.jpg
451ad4ff0d01a76e8e4916decbd4f77e
9b10877dea0c7f3e3ee75057b4638378a8a3381a
59767 F20101119_AACRPL guillo_c_Page_26.pro
ea7ab753236e2d94427456f708f90a98
b3e26afa9f1d1e8e49ecc7d707bb6e900a3601c3
77944 F20101119_AACRKO guillo_c_Page_48.jpg
794c83be35322bfd54bf22cd55807d8f
764defbceb033f33157fa8ebea5951804ba1c9ab
6702 F20101119_AACRUJ guillo_c_Page_26thm.jpg
880c4b03d04a379de54fbd50a378e436
3215bad8bb4f92b4a1e0d8e87db899c8a6e6228f
62266 F20101119_AACRKP guillo_c_Page_49.jpg
c243f2316cbe207a5f6d98d76259a8e5
131f56abcac77375e9b074572a3f1ca93e472ab7
13991 F20101119_AACRUK guillo_c_Page_27.QC.jpg
e8499ac113b5e3d5961fb20578ea2e22
f505a4a072a83a90b69631be8690d0a8c86ad9d8
28995 F20101119_AACRPM guillo_c_Page_27.pro
71dd602a093f010280f0720492890e7a
a98a6322d594ec5e0ddb9e655e0216596617544e
74367 F20101119_AACRKQ guillo_c_Page_50.jpg
21ce67392994487e73306cc9f56659d4
6232dd56574c831e6f3d1f18ce5c1f7d6b24b08e
4124 F20101119_AACRUL guillo_c_Page_27thm.jpg
5be12c2c0fc3df6c50902eee1580add9
57a38c43370bae4a92f4d460767c9f297453c474
54670 F20101119_AACRPN guillo_c_Page_28.pro
32aa07dcb6ac26587dfe9ca22cd5482a
712495d9a5e618df3e2d9fea9c9126371e69fd87
60240 F20101119_AACRKR guillo_c_Page_51.jpg
5ae6ad659653da7972d62118f40bad70
0c55806058bb8ac6bfcd22e730d9bf8287cf8585
24465 F20101119_AACRUM guillo_c_Page_28.QC.jpg
57553952112d6fda054878b4d1fb9c47
b656f6d28bd89bbed51a98fa06bfe69072136330
51183 F20101119_AACRPO guillo_c_Page_29.pro
2e62017bea68d4912454a5dbefbf6e9c
3affe09cfe3165d10363b1993627b274ab96a1d8
55639 F20101119_AACRKS guillo_c_Page_52.jpg
e0b49d6f21ba9fe4298728d2670b33d8
7d207e065481e041f524f4fc0d5362d32e4b6a21
6634 F20101119_AACRUN guillo_c_Page_28thm.jpg
70eaebab679b3c7d9c8fb82d9b127974
ade3c60964fd1125f145a2789c6802c9f40791d1
49821 F20101119_AACRPP guillo_c_Page_30.pro
67a6399b82c2e9b4c97e7d3599632250
2662f242d8ae91ef6328edc7a002349e8d4ab34f
54386 F20101119_AACRKT guillo_c_Page_53.jpg
e2e398405aee776c837cfb342672d9cb
352ef8adcf3a2357f832db8844aabaefc3f62cc0
23850 F20101119_AACRUO guillo_c_Page_29.QC.jpg
3a2db8862b515f8a366a6c1a82dbc6b6
39d3a7cf1e1004178e22f58e3a7e3bbb8d430c1a
48807 F20101119_AACRPQ guillo_c_Page_32.pro
cb50a3b0ba1789082de197375d4862f6
b04817298f75c732caec38b8a2ea4e824ab10b71
73884 F20101119_AACRKU guillo_c_Page_55.jpg
815b7d9e71bcc85dd0d61a2c8740bd68
c46ac01672434b3cb5f3655a2ef8b2ad6862d656
6517 F20101119_AACRUP guillo_c_Page_29thm.jpg
c0cea7cf971872c415fb19df556c78d6
a6f4f778e0889a3950553aebfde4613825d74e97
52203 F20101119_AACRPR guillo_c_Page_33.pro
1e6699de1e221c5bdcbf04ea58c98341
be937fc2d9d46d788c851a3b592270be9a852e14
17999 F20101119_AACRKV guillo_c_Page_57.jpg
414859bccd3ea31a62fff0e0e9db2913
46c4b888e7eb83f0457c0776a4a888d4d44a57c4
21025 F20101119_AACRUQ guillo_c_Page_30.QC.jpg
1f7a2a15cb329a4297a02a513db0e9c9
cae65ccdd2c7faf411af0b5e3b49a69acc92eac9
50378 F20101119_AACRPS guillo_c_Page_34.pro
f6f11affa90e1225da65a67d68ecdd19
dad9e41c0a41e5b115100401a6d9c34cb2452d60
25778 F20101119_AACRKW guillo_c_Page_02.jp2
5f200d16efb44eccedaf04abc487f830
1f0197571c572f738ab734b44c55e279f8faeb43
50609 F20101119_AACRPT guillo_c_Page_35.pro
67f311593fc0a5f09b8003de287b2248
0fa69a6c7c5de5890210f9b9cffb2b8527d236de
1051972 F20101119_AACRKX guillo_c_Page_03.jp2
4392c3a9ead9da552026ef7d6eb3acc4
94b95998c0fb642952a903fcccaa233f21eb3350
23662 F20101119_AACRUR guillo_c_Page_31.QC.jpg
d0e25ba5c301aa24e8b8417f0c40e204
fdb15b1b66771919b1b3d2ac6b082f36a75bc9b3
48785 F20101119_AACRPU guillo_c_Page_36.pro
9d9ec86b889dab5960aa3d83e7079c36
89d96c9d004f6a8982672e83fabd28be3617dcba
85719 F20101119_AACRKY guillo_c_Page_06.jp2
bbdfceb74cc065f7a53af1035e82a9ab
7fc2d1198bbf8e76c8979109979eff511e3a517b
6519 F20101119_AACRUS guillo_c_Page_31thm.jpg
385f1eb539e45c86075a20c8afd9dda5
930a03069a2e3c0bdbbe20680c6123608c2011f4
36796 F20101119_AACRPV guillo_c_Page_37.pro
c2967f937e67e7a7d0175968cd5f0459
c221da808df9ff7e78549ab2e5f761697704a063
393847 F20101119_AACRIA guillo_c_Page_05.jp2
b40d3724bc8a718ec8c32cd4a735b88c
617e69f50e6602937960e0af5f4a367d97321222
107679 F20101119_AACRKZ guillo_c_Page_10.jp2
71d3bb94c9ed0428127c5b42dc787e61
bd35440f5bd02e1ad13a5f995a803a115c55d4e3
22291 F20101119_AACRUT guillo_c_Page_32.QC.jpg
af333f1a9a600c1d4843aae339bc63fb
94defaea6b737c456dc52123818359b804274527
51844 F20101119_AACRPW guillo_c_Page_38.pro
abfbf068cf79549771c36c578a2acfd1
ab6876cc921a2bef2fcce13fb936cbcabff72440
22350 F20101119_AACRIB guillo_c_Page_09.QC.jpg
4f0b70653ddb1589186e64790f5a2c14
012739c792c2a3692fa5219c0598ab1d7dec400d
6156 F20101119_AACRUU guillo_c_Page_32thm.jpg
5e989d265d9fe301a2cf1f052bb955ed
45361909b645ada23e05a5b76b74aeb71189fcc7
46472 F20101119_AACRPX guillo_c_Page_39.pro
2c9755264917e6e5ac96dc7072857b6a
e9b74cca5f77a230197af728c049df03220c872e
23836 F20101119_AACRIC guillo_c_Page_23.pro
52b22c5f0d60a92148ebd6b2f7235c73
1894b86476416635daa8a404e37adf43cce7f197
6655 F20101119_AACRUV guillo_c_Page_33thm.jpg
b177b9e6033681e0ce58e7aa074911c1
a9b374bc4599e7570e37d805b58c61941c34245f
1053954 F20101119_AACRNA guillo_c_Page_11.tif
a63244dd84616a99dc8433d6412d7316
39cf9c356691aebbc88ce2b8d97c32e6abbd7dba
49844 F20101119_AACRPY guillo_c_Page_40.pro
db9070970468f93876d9c652eab8d796
d1e81aaa90b162cace5533430b6c19757a04d133
45239 F20101119_AACRID guillo_c_Page_21.pro
a4f6cf64b2c2f8a67464cda1ddbec041
eb8047a7ebf44fa7d6ba973ecc06863270dd3ae5
23329 F20101119_AACRUW guillo_c_Page_35.QC.jpg
20b270ca3784abbdb2e6e7c0dc0ac05f
41ac51b95301957163b86c6704bbed39175e8c0c
F20101119_AACRNB guillo_c_Page_12.tif
7250ba3d5788cab723301f065ec7c7a0
9520ce95e43154fa9b68fd470b65c1e907888a46
59826 F20101119_AACRPZ guillo_c_Page_41.pro
c78efe9d5095026dce1b0f29a1884b47
e7fe8ed5ae731280cd7be14fbc0505b87de52502
2008 F20101119_AACRIE guillo_c_Page_29.txt
a14025ebb91ab44c23d7ebfe96f619dd
d2ab4dfebec0c1a628b006d10ed759438e0b0379
6474 F20101119_AACRUX guillo_c_Page_35thm.jpg
7911041ce62ca77a69a3c0d54ecc9d36
afc3a4293357739fa0b0f2f85b7f3dfa29b1017f
F20101119_AACRNC guillo_c_Page_13.tif
c5d41ac17f55b414f5bffa3d5047e0cd
0c426acd66b77d8ecd5a2568aaff5bf2139f5aaa
23215 F20101119_AACRUY guillo_c_Page_36.QC.jpg
cfd09f5fca9b99032812a714e5bf5e66
6c0dec4e86c3d638da46383020cb671bf9465edc
F20101119_AACRND guillo_c_Page_14.tif
decc3b5c5e1afb8df3b38da147699806
a95fef2338f730fd568121909f8a050c03e86604
3827 F20101119_AACRIF guillo_c_Page_44thm.jpg
4194c7013f0070c998d1214e980dc06c
07fe30994a71a0b18c0ca82eda5d842dd12f6781
2086 F20101119_AACRSA guillo_c_Page_42.txt
fbb74e7dc6f2ba5ea4c2f847984907b8
745fbdd5aa4a8e35b1b212d45026af1bbf3857b4
17792 F20101119_AACRUZ guillo_c_Page_37.QC.jpg
ce92bacccdfb459603053642b062a746
af4987aa53b9e23663515cdd6e7e7e5454cd8aa4
F20101119_AACRNE guillo_c_Page_15.tif
430ed3cd8d141894ecf4bace515125e3
52b02a250459e7204e97a0cef0a57e0fa1b904e0
56542 F20101119_AACRIG guillo_c_Page_54.jpg
c5bf61a63da73217ceb286b0c712ac69
cb560f0e12d48d25f30f33fe369f79c65afa3db1
2581 F20101119_AACRSB guillo_c_Page_43.txt
176bd09dc066d0bd443829ebd9a8a5ef
7834e624a337937e5ba2fc5304b066be51668603
F20101119_AACRNF guillo_c_Page_16.tif
7bc94c7db4792191b4e79162236b4cd2
de784599dc5d4f6209b703c8253d7eab63e0f1d2
51188 F20101119_AACRIH guillo_c_Page_10.pro
42e37d4189a54f6cf733c933cef2eb4a
4fbe30263fdf777a95f2c6cbfcd9d64f70cf070d
1019 F20101119_AACRSC guillo_c_Page_44.txt
54d9bb9f41e15e71c6f032c8d3341251
5ebb8c9e4366b47a18ef02bf0fcac983d5654c98
F20101119_AACRNG guillo_c_Page_17.tif
d2b73df9f3c106152abb5f7ff6b95a92
ee755338244a3138062a0fed099dad9b5c396de5
107942 F20101119_AACRII guillo_c_Page_12.jp2
577ea90f19e03adbb70615d54cea94ea
4ea0a6c4dd097f7d66678532371326e3210ee0e3
1810 F20101119_AACRSD guillo_c_Page_45.txt
d012169af22cdfbc192e5431e0f18f3f
60964c9f925edb60916ea1f105c4df6e16636fd3
F20101119_AACRNH guillo_c_Page_18.tif
d526de6156a8e67054a33292e0f49f7c
c7dc423be2ae4d8980f465f94868210a7bc1bf57
15467 F20101119_AACRIJ guillo_c_Page_53.QC.jpg
86569c5f971b2db6d93b5060912358d4
c2d55d8334950b03841b6111d93040224c3c3330
1899 F20101119_AACRSE guillo_c_Page_46.txt
d15c95aa4ae304521773d45ea7d538e0
b0961ba0a344c80df99e6eaf7d5935aaaaf95bee
F20101119_AACRNI guillo_c_Page_19.tif
193e90fc001c08b6be4ab854ab1b938e
74ad48ba16e5179d8a8e8da08d3d427d44b356fe
928898 F20101119_AACRIK guillo_c_Page_49.jp2
c7fb5c0834f480cada18bcffc51cea70
680966260b2a7fd4106a7f803b4979cc0532faa6
211 F20101119_AACRSF guillo_c_Page_47.txt
77cdc0bc362c808c80957048adedd9ab
a8787f6903d11f017263bc1082fd377aac782ad4
F20101119_AACRNJ guillo_c_Page_20.tif
bbf8d1c331962596bfadebe1db945896
9e764249db29b4a36232100575dcfbca333c6c7a
44147 F20101119_AACRIL guillo_c_Page_45.pro
c498f96be447069ed44ed65d1e9b46b8
f2e40dfa45cfc973f4780cf17209284219d92700
2249 F20101119_AACRSG guillo_c_Page_48.txt
9bb562c45a4f1f33919cef9fcc1fa108
0c2616f6cca1f07746d3c089833ec1dd73674fb0
23216 F20101119_AACRIM guillo_c_Page_34.QC.jpg
c616a31452ca4ea9983804e9f935d099
06ee5daa145afa4d2467aef34c0fa6b5f939ebc8
1541 F20101119_AACRSH guillo_c_Page_49.txt
675eb7e61df223fa245304442688951d
1d80688ef9fd92c584bbe040939d6c377e6d1aae
F20101119_AACRNK guillo_c_Page_22.tif
41c86dc54a0a597837836d0788ec63ab
120220d91f3892c12e140db479a9324dda40c22f
1686 F20101119_AACRIN guillo_c_Page_18thm.jpg
790f7fecf7f3ec213706755d43a67192
12a8c2c82d9aef5c89000ce6423050af318923e0
1944 F20101119_AACRSI guillo_c_Page_50.txt
2097c538d14c80251c2b90771b1ff1c2
a49986418d8df051156c1f0ab8957283cb1301b7
F20101119_AACRNL guillo_c_Page_23.tif
a3692dd30e558edab52624876197e1d5
c10f319203b8424313326ad4cb3ec8f42069fd39
20355 F20101119_AACRIO guillo_c_Page_56.jpg
8d7d743b71207aa6a5c9db081a23efb7
0779d4d3343c538678d84cb071aa431f75a22e8d
2024 F20101119_AACRSJ guillo_c_Page_51.txt
8ea6bbad90c36219a55f99b8bbdc90ba
571353dd687db2bbb44e17a7cce90ed969b5c787
F20101119_AACRNM guillo_c_Page_25.tif
5706a6c27167525d7dc0d54c67124dc9
e05dca0952b15bb0a8aaf90cc4a998037f6d2d2e
6175 F20101119_AACRIP guillo_c_Page_30thm.jpg
e26a5696500163320a365f08348a05a5
e1be12691ef7827e1615c92370f7f86270d3f2c0
3004 F20101119_AACRSK guillo_c_Page_52.txt
eada32d275b3f2faca8301509138172d
70d9b46214bf790f6ec93c9152c6a33a75429de6
25271604 F20101119_AACRNN guillo_c_Page_26.tif
7c8ae694ae1d67fc7e726f231e44f58e
dc929a471630cee3136d522e368438b570225376
98954 F20101119_AACRIQ guillo_c_Page_17.jp2
e09713310ab0e2826755715919c271bc
dcb0d0e0563cbf9a379377508100c052eb0408f3
2539 F20101119_AACRSL guillo_c_Page_53.txt
a90ce24032d51a1bf1b7b64aefaf8f06
f7ebd330e04bd7673c2242e13abf7f43c45ac7b6
F20101119_AACRNO guillo_c_Page_27.tif
c58443ba12f677151d2c7bdd59aa8985
738491a236e8c032ab463c7adde0b3749007bed6
99451 F20101119_AACRIR guillo_c_Page_08.jp2
c5d35c07231ef06c7ad5ec7e7f84fb92
b23c15f610b3b867e29d56a6f992135e709406b6
3332 F20101119_AACRSM guillo_c_Page_54.txt
781f9130a2d90f0bd59babecd6d1e2ee
5639e68795408844399edf11cb8f38efb86150c9
F20101119_AACRNP guillo_c_Page_28.tif
241c3ef725832a0ac4bbe6fb96612142
84b0239e3f8486eb14d1f93db742cba7e8774a98
87977 F20101119_AACRIS UFE0012180_00001.xml FULL
6cd676464705ad7e99d673c6647f78d6
2be501d22dc0b092cbe1831fd78b0925089244cb
383 F20101119_AACRSN guillo_c_Page_56.txt
03dfd15b2d30b5de6a7adee6112b6174
70946b08e19c687bc079b0a3a6bc39bc135c5708
F20101119_AACRNQ guillo_c_Page_29.tif
ea1b4068dfd924a6df40de243d653ef5
a9995162c4764772f460b74f9b2531b5e73f7d77
313 F20101119_AACRSO guillo_c_Page_57.txt
1ee9b4228221993464d341b8f64f3d29
8854df32a1f05bebb49ded6237ba82057663ba58
F20101119_AACRNR guillo_c_Page_30.tif
04647c9ac6346b382c3411c5823c8399
006e895da2d604e084b904246e9369b58c1cbbaf
F20101119_AACRNS guillo_c_Page_31.tif
58fdab5188122c81dd6d800d77de530b
03f339a2d6092e3868919ffe4f03188230d5270a
26685 F20101119_AACRIV guillo_c_Page_01.jpg
10e80ba7f1ea4d0256c6978aabcb05ba
5c92200d9b5b9fa5afa44fcf0c87c66751b22300
2176478 F20101119_AACRSP guillo_c.pdf
ddf27fa66d8134f882c1246e99ec100d
cd398441189e384c13779fca0a682c216f7a62af
F20101119_AACRNT guillo_c_Page_32.tif
b906342bcbbfe45c0fb2aa38f8363d5d
fdba3d815b372bc8ab5e4088711dbf0588161c0e
22368 F20101119_AACRIW guillo_c_Page_02.jpg
e6ad7086aeeace355224aff6a5e4c2c9
ab69e6e97d098f18006d1f30947503643e380cc1
2521 F20101119_AACRSQ guillo_c_Page_01thm.jpg
7defb4a48ec12fd53a079b18ead0ca86
2dccb056ea2e0b4f93a618435fabc776348397c4
F20101119_AACRNU guillo_c_Page_33.tif
943f7186f612585cb26fbb5438135b0a
c7187efaaf081737a597816a183fd44a1afb66ff
55715 F20101119_AACRIX guillo_c_Page_03.jpg
27e15e807ce59621b7ecf9d1883720aa
995ed8b5e2420dec2e0199a76b43d219cb01eae7
7967 F20101119_AACRSR guillo_c_Page_01.QC.jpg
ecbfe7a4e1b3f119646643619e46bd32
f26a72eb59abf34f70f8a205bfa5dda97ac6c050
F20101119_AACRNV guillo_c_Page_34.tif
9e546745cb6919c7c6050b1873cdd55c
1600417fddb9f6abcf81a70a4c747887d637e73c
17490 F20101119_AACRIY guillo_c_Page_04.jpg
f9ef8f700cf236a669bb0b7f5dc93d8a
6dc4dd88a89fe7efe2eb628e54ffde9eaf2d2dbe
7283 F20101119_AACRSS guillo_c_Page_02.QC.jpg
8109cfee96c19b08e706355a7b849fe2
6617ecfbf00b3f5926ba4388b7ccad11e9697ca8
F20101119_AACRNW guillo_c_Page_35.tif
e9367467b6f3ccff41d0a5c0e7ba5c3f
b217dce84fc0e15d52559ad7610236a3000304ba
59916 F20101119_AACRIZ guillo_c_Page_06.jpg
8b45c5518934084245e21eaef74ae3b3
f7a39e7ef70950f852c3b0f0927792c5fdb2ba51
2552 F20101119_AACRST guillo_c_Page_02thm.jpg
7f543427495883418624dd93a44ac21c
76e5a59c3cd973d6ab23eb502bf6ac0041956713
16015 F20101119_AACRSU guillo_c_Page_03.QC.jpg
23e119c8559bbf89fe66d1b577ba9c5e
f97ff1685a8668c1b2cdf54c714db33649d6abc6
F20101119_AACRNX guillo_c_Page_36.tif
40c7668eb75cde7721b580215b2077e9
0c38f194ec2dee246d82a40bdf05bf0325237ca1
4494 F20101119_AACRSV guillo_c_Page_03thm.jpg
666b74085568d849ab59b5f9e76eaeed
f182fc4a7239efeae78d29d816b4a5c4ccbda32a
106093 F20101119_AACRLA guillo_c_Page_11.jp2
8a429449162d2ab770195f496ebf8c95
e6074c3b2a6f6191461472c38d77c162f7a5baff
F20101119_AACRNY guillo_c_Page_37.tif
d4bdcef8aa6b9c124571efdeb9ddcdd4
18e7d1089b6646dc8032f5c590a60b2273bd4bb2
5649 F20101119_AACRSW guillo_c_Page_04.QC.jpg
eda42dbc3b7c83b87d5d5604ad0888dc
680d1f9869f0b07bf048d1ada6993c67bc858343
118272 F20101119_AACRLB guillo_c_Page_13.jp2
c403e7223524d0606a9442033edf85d4
d5d14fe7531cb38c2ab4806ed092f47a8adb73ec
F20101119_AACRNZ guillo_c_Page_38.tif
e01713a4ba1ff1a9ea58b11581164f2e
5f10c91b2c0852aae295ef0ddd5168b270ef59ad
2072 F20101119_AACRSX guillo_c_Page_04thm.jpg
c504ec184f2b6d46e61c00db9abdd7a6
31659f6d316400b5412600f6221fa54a1576e444
109060 F20101119_AACRLC guillo_c_Page_14.jp2
d5762f00a3c2fe36dfb88ae7281b8d72
f58ba4b181bf2f649c19a28b86737531b5c851d5
52900 F20101119_AACRQA guillo_c_Page_42.pro
5f6d0975560648d90f91d8e20f760e13
ed3ef85c6b4bc212fe6b6404a1838c58ef4be386
2187 F20101119_AACRSY guillo_c_Page_05thm.jpg
65ac8a6aa9cd5f207e9e008cbe479210
690a63448c587073fba78cdf302093da9f7a5f5c
109546 F20101119_AACRLD guillo_c_Page_15.jp2
d4ea9688c988441231deb9d23dba225d
a8bcfbb702b64394be2849da299424e2424b8d8f
63753 F20101119_AACRQB guillo_c_Page_43.pro
574ad10f50071ad3b9be33a187fba77c
0bc2f5cc4c9c56f1bd18323c152c4a5fd21d9171
18583 F20101119_AACRSZ guillo_c_Page_06.QC.jpg
caaa4b0aefee3567e88398fa3dd8b304
7f61d5a3bc0f8e419ba14dbe354068e76ca9275c
108769 F20101119_AACRLE guillo_c_Page_16.jp2
58704e2ca86446d5191c2ec653d8f122
94b9f0c2734e3abff95e95a91d28bd373054a12e
25645 F20101119_AACRQC guillo_c_Page_44.pro
00a7f011926da45e68d8984dd10cf3ab
9d94b75df9fc7dab6448b5d7992c1a3ac47b2df4
12024 F20101119_AACRLF guillo_c_Page_18.jp2
82d28a31623c0f241539ca3cbb59cdba
db72bfd281bb0ee2c8de7661811d226a7b19e4d2
48068 F20101119_AACRQD guillo_c_Page_46.pro
1909e63abfbfdd1a97a61d658462f09c
5595fbe2a144f74e6d01f79dd77d2a17c04e5515
83861 F20101119_AACRLG guillo_c_Page_19.jp2
2c2f0928a34fd9cd5a0dd62788759a4e
5678e0d13edd394269802dc24183faf2f4819452
5138 F20101119_AACRVA guillo_c_Page_37thm.jpg
c1dbbf491daf3e148ded483c4efd4efd
7abb2f53b9c0bd5e6118ef0b0424175bfb420adc
4260 F20101119_AACRQE guillo_c_Page_47.pro
5d4bd03ca49db84a16402b2cf3cd13d0
aa7d79bc7e7d09e912788536143ae1913d81bf6d
102789 F20101119_AACRLH guillo_c_Page_20.jp2
6cae43330c19c062247ea9b8703d6651
757976d35dbd41a28fd3e9e32de564c2ab9d2d9e
23492 F20101119_AACRVB guillo_c_Page_38.QC.jpg
b03bf04938c69662ba63bb98c04a1ba3
f490d6245b4cf4440f5a9a9f18e73ef09b3e00da
56587 F20101119_AACRQF guillo_c_Page_48.pro
d7c7a2517846080576ca002cf5619a20
17bb11e07453d011f8c0b5cb20b04f1b917bcec4
6503 F20101119_AACRVC guillo_c_Page_38thm.jpg
6deeacc8921e6b42ba37c2295f332468
5ec1001082af4564f2684129b5fbc8e8b8b9bd5b
45234 F20101119_AACRQG guillo_c_Page_50.pro
469f943e5dd080794236faa7fff14484
f106963d77b4e5e2999c191b48450a7b870306c4
97666 F20101119_AACRLI guillo_c_Page_21.jp2
870374ac5c90e1321bf4c2779c427d41
f84c9ae6c6d67ce4e8848b6792f1e18092314ae0
21578 F20101119_AACRVD guillo_c_Page_39.QC.jpg
130c4b97c3502b908d71a3f0c394c51f
d0013df613b33ab614426976751b06cec1bf9540
44615 F20101119_AACRQH guillo_c_Page_51.pro
de1a9bfbf3712ae8924dd3da2345c398
6c4b43528770f34b36d850a3d46bffc7bf27b24c
112271 F20101119_AACRLJ guillo_c_Page_22.jp2
b3aa0d1f97393e09d9c353b421d7220e
ea71052cf4f1dd583478457f9306da0f329a46be
6199 F20101119_AACRVE guillo_c_Page_39thm.jpg
2b3576c60204f4f096919184dff1e0a0
033ca293928aad7e2fb80ed86ed993026edbb6e6
58784 F20101119_AACRQI guillo_c_Page_52.pro
611ede22ac78a42d1ea86338ee1b85e5
2fdd2978ef2639084487e21b285a589fa09bd1ef
53367 F20101119_AACRLK guillo_c_Page_23.jp2
148a30be1503b5f39b0e1cff7fcdab76
9652e4bb556e33fddc6ae75b3b789b6d41d62c9a
22852 F20101119_AACRVF guillo_c_Page_40.QC.jpg
1f9b620724f5aaff36e0e8dc8515ac6d
b1faff801abc7b5b5ee91c8c8121e4d92dfbc132
54378 F20101119_AACRQJ guillo_c_Page_53.pro
eacdbeda8f5b204b559fa81e2380f7c8
a7912339933be6194d64a21a4cf3e184134cb062
94968 F20101119_AACRLL guillo_c_Page_24.jp2
2dbdcfef0f8b983bd26c8bc579cb8170
3094531a856a6dd8e678eaa12d94e86f6fefe431
6484 F20101119_AACRVG guillo_c_Page_40thm.jpg
76a8655502ca705f25da5ab662acf333
da9fea8bdde84a9c6b91dace39a4ae9cb330493a
72647 F20101119_AACRQK guillo_c_Page_54.pro
5ec8bce27bda9741ce9cf205574c2859
4b7488ff17895d7e4842f4c5170e6eb026fb79a1
103248 F20101119_AACRLM guillo_c_Page_25.jp2
c61111d09a269f7deb1dd3747e03e000
6bca426cc776e4aa200c9cee3ed4219eed8da759
22121 F20101119_AACRVH guillo_c_Page_41.QC.jpg
7a721962d10be9a29e32db86e528d9ed
aad5edbc2be1249bc8e4c92c73f0e17460209860
47334 F20101119_AACRQL guillo_c_Page_55.pro
54ceed929558aea944bf2ca487f1e8f0
a4cfb5df7b3cf532d800c1e2b867ee45cbf62996
1051955 F20101119_AACRLN guillo_c_Page_26.jp2
c0123e4b17872ab43ccac1abe2714cbd
72e2f49f760f167ba99e4d30a6660511000900cf
5863 F20101119_AACRVI guillo_c_Page_41thm.jpg
564905a889a23420ae2f96044b6cd221
6c958ffe1f99173248a9c53877a02156355a547c
8387 F20101119_AACRQM guillo_c_Page_56.pro
c1088ff7c833392a14ea152e4fe805a7
62bee5c4e7a86af903ce9b4289ccef459a578b45
60205 F20101119_AACRLO guillo_c_Page_27.jp2
18cc221a99e8a4f330b9684c4eaf3db0
7b6c8701678a1312331fa161fd48f841e0c7fb0d
24265 F20101119_AACRVJ guillo_c_Page_42.QC.jpg
5ec926963f804bbff02731d79461ad5a
ed658d491b51e469fc2e4d59bc2ea07c189db2d3
114135 F20101119_AACRLP guillo_c_Page_28.jp2
b725039f63abfa13ddcf3733ffb345a4
26a424d9ea4651107800a16a7346c979ed83d140
6598 F20101119_AACRVK guillo_c_Page_42thm.jpg
0e70658142a6c1df44ac40b3eb7f5aa9
b97936693fcf41262bc78f3ff4abf01a11edb4d3
6648 F20101119_AACRQN guillo_c_Page_57.pro
fed582904507741628d5efae48eb6022
7b58111572de1c8a11eaaa9962ffe446b1598970
109706 F20101119_AACRLQ guillo_c_Page_29.jp2
873f1c8f1ea288e5e12b34fdfbadedce
baa2e2a6bd371dfe064a3f47d81a50e676b218b7
25841 F20101119_AACRVL guillo_c_Page_43.QC.jpg
ba4190640ced1faf4174e89846983e57
858bf57f2abe4cbf00425439109dbf66d0bdeddf
517 F20101119_AACRQO guillo_c_Page_01.txt
ba63803eb7cb35c5dd031b93dde323c8
f8d47f5e9a4848be21de5cf264d9e1be7b6b23f3
102946 F20101119_AACRLR guillo_c_Page_30.jp2
76048e7fd047b28b7bc746e30a97e260
2d2bfb7346c3b7846752ac5556a3045e37a8137d
6791 F20101119_AACRVM guillo_c_Page_43thm.jpg
39bdb1995d194c466b3ce697a7a3695c
f4cb8bc728e09c8e4cf69844207e9f9470d7b4fd
2547 F20101119_AACRQP guillo_c_Page_03.txt
ad4b24e3e7ce409fd52bacfd8ec40a27
7983cbaa048aea124265ef261d4912487a0d6495
112185 F20101119_AACRLS guillo_c_Page_31.jp2
fe604324be76e10c16f921d2c824d877
99d5661310a99be6b99ba67f31a33f465ce4fd0c
13328 F20101119_AACRVN guillo_c_Page_44.QC.jpg
46fe126943feff640e51468186e7ee70
50fe5469f87ae9584e8b12a336924c3253cd13f0
500 F20101119_AACRQQ guillo_c_Page_04.txt
4489f5a7e5ab288b89dfac8672b1dd1a
06950d7681332050d4732f8567ebe9ff08307079
103273 F20101119_AACRLT guillo_c_Page_32.jp2
00db7fd5c81a2b04a67777f477943fac
303fbead7d9e86452ba70345c803d954264ce055
20581 F20101119_AACRVO guillo_c_Page_45.QC.jpg
f1de022eff0c0d86152dc88a8b2616ba
3b21a82d1a9b79f822772a2fe4afe7c9d67f9df0
79577 F20101119_AACRGW guillo_c_Page_37.jp2
c0381158785577139702c6dec38b9df8
abf526568f29b605e506d6ccddd1380c714580a0
554 F20101119_AACRQR guillo_c_Page_05.txt
6da5971dee3cae2153d2f12d00953530
d4d405e05e5da920fa51b754a8a9b3dfc656c66f
109640 F20101119_AACRLU guillo_c_Page_33.jp2
48716449480cab89a04352b7396f3595
8b70cf920e3a5ff4ab30e20d7be1a0d1635c5b3e
5785 F20101119_AACRVP guillo_c_Page_45thm.jpg
bff0bcee4a82e88b79d07a5d2d480097
4ad20c53b21c3d5475b91df614a947fd73abc457
52050 F20101119_AACRGX guillo_c_Page_31.pro
b24e0a924415e4c34d1b57c36eaab672
ab91289b6ddf746e093e0887b30817479c56fec3
1707 F20101119_AACRQS guillo_c_Page_06.txt
7b28ad25eacfca70b060fa0befe0b216
938b3a6aaa8a5b49ce92632839a68ff76f21d0ca
107176 F20101119_AACRLV guillo_c_Page_34.jp2
37f50d4a12590ee3fea94c80f36a79d5
fe1b0905462f3490787c63fc941dc586fa325e0c
22203 F20101119_AACRVQ guillo_c_Page_46.QC.jpg
d1d77ad78b0b5f4afdef312ddc72f3d6
76f2c210deebe1f521e7efca1d043321a42eeb15
1943 F20101119_AACRGY guillo_c_Page_55.txt
115b2c549c380706fdf3bb68fe0f1659
be582e078b715ae930ac2d7034e89ea45d8a4666
109561 F20101119_AACRLW guillo_c_Page_35.jp2
18045a10e831a0d8144c30702a8c32b8
01a9e904d1b15db1a42c66b4abc362b61a894193
6293 F20101119_AACRVR guillo_c_Page_46thm.jpg
23bdea066c205edf89725a1b01e2d9dc
217e16a87f54b56c76400bc1942d997bc32c9695
6361 F20101119_AACRGZ guillo_c_Page_36thm.jpg
1bebad38cbc6cc6e7fbb21407285cfa1
04cb0a629810e53e9376d0f520973c9c0433b6d1
2007 F20101119_AACRQT guillo_c_Page_07.txt
6ab81d79cb0f0456a71b17dbe861812b
cef8980c1978984bc8880e792439caa3aecada04
102721 F20101119_AACRLX guillo_c_Page_36.jp2
ff859c62bb01cbb9b5142649e8a26fc7
46e0ea79d386367cd05142ae76f8a3ce284c2cb5
1860 F20101119_AACRQU guillo_c_Page_08.txt
5b673aa640f1956e5ebbaaa95b80aab3
e67f9a44421158ff773385ae72ae62ad63322015
71401 F20101119_AACRJA guillo_c_Page_07.jpg
368cc96795d3ce6bff2644c7a947bf2b
f8595598fa8f2d5f4e506cfe9735b0acf96e198c
104851 F20101119_AACRLY guillo_c_Page_38.jp2
256566b53377440e8becf4680b331558
b817cf3a22747a07603f465311a73214b3d699dd
4727 F20101119_AACRVS guillo_c_Page_47.QC.jpg
70714e81b5f48f626653ffa1dc930226
ebc0fb8add2f9a59c74dc7ad38759bd3e37f069d
1863 F20101119_AACRQV guillo_c_Page_09.txt
0340df1c6e2761361663d403d4bbc266
84a3ac27db550108f15282dd67c09f84bffabd92
66602 F20101119_AACRJB guillo_c_Page_08.jpg
86d0f39eb56eb4bab25a101011bfc847
b9ef1b5d967305287a380d43ed55d05574de71e1
101507 F20101119_AACRLZ guillo_c_Page_39.jp2
ada76fbf9199282baa7ae04fe3386322
2177425cc82417bbbc65074fd6307531763c4477
22528 F20101119_AACRVT guillo_c_Page_48.QC.jpg
6793b4909f81a15bffb4d74008bdf0c1
124f02aeb024d6efbcb320175c9460b87a28f183
2139 F20101119_AACRQW guillo_c_Page_10.txt
09d66631873fe7d9f7f217dce27d327e
eac243fc9f40ff6f16970396ad5fcf0e04c862ec
67767 F20101119_AACRJC guillo_c_Page_09.jpg
2591da5b357c3c17b047422ff0a8d671
399ad7153ddf2d6a084a8b1ec5b1a34a73ea3979
5975 F20101119_AACRVU guillo_c_Page_48thm.jpg
f1ed7940646032c1377901867f999aa6
1ba9b4df0ce464a53a4079121db391f6a9d5cdd5
1936 F20101119_AACRQX guillo_c_Page_11.txt
cc9c824cf25737ac20ea4fcb0e440cca
3d325c97f2242c7a8c226cfffdda1ed942047ab7
72416 F20101119_AACRJD guillo_c_Page_10.jpg
10feba4e86007ea8a429818fd336b64e
93903cdc73a13d9ebaeb96fcadcabea09c02c65a
18595 F20101119_AACRVV guillo_c_Page_49.QC.jpg
9b184d253c05e6f78f2f0b08cae0fc04
f7f23d5c4ebf92e5f8b4ed886f4c646866ad3339
F20101119_AACROA guillo_c_Page_39.tif
d7ba148cd8277014c0fd92cc77bbfd0e
655e50d463991343fc36b2da151672be4cc86122
1983 F20101119_AACRQY guillo_c_Page_12.txt
9bda6c61d8be22ddd61e24d4986f0795
24b8f198205f76659f09c13332d58e9ff297c1f2
70018 F20101119_AACRJE guillo_c_Page_11.jpg
7a99471299453c25ce3cd0c983236cb8
194f4329696ccdb230bdc9c951a8039cdcc1183d
5460 F20101119_AACRVW guillo_c_Page_49thm.jpg
42d8686cb02a8056906289c3e6898f73
771de6c0fefbc624345f20377db3364f52578b77
F20101119_AACROB guillo_c_Page_40.tif
130db552dc7c88bc11566d273f3c0e7c
6d8415855f7073ef28b6fdb60810c652da1536de
2247 F20101119_AACRQZ guillo_c_Page_13.txt
cd54a45567dff30e54937a5af7fa885d
3881c5998c8049bb3cce7f41588b3772d6e708df
70253 F20101119_AACRJF guillo_c_Page_12.jpg
086b33cf14461806ecd6a8b9c6490afd
03a1eb15586fa7d335be7c44b3f353c6c32397e6
6125 F20101119_AACRVX guillo_c_Page_50thm.jpg
fc0203c096260590d8bf56dfbfb65796
7828519b74b49dfaf4fd971d149cb1387a9753ef
F20101119_AACROC guillo_c_Page_41.tif
0ae253e22c03cb002e143abfd2aa93f6
3f3d2663bedab7f921633db666dbc826b974b6c2
F20101119_AACRTA guillo_c_Page_07.QC.jpg
eb0017fdd5279cf6468f149ef76a53ca
779f340b39bfafc69b0b5d59a56b502f9a4507d3
17465 F20101119_AACRVY guillo_c_Page_51.QC.jpg
d1679faaef91898af16187c23ab62ba9
306173144e2ad9665b4ee36460584e6d481dd842
F20101119_AACROD guillo_c_Page_42.tif
067a8b424c21215d5e3a4472a593eb4b
7ae94ef6dc2a7609de113ece48b7e6227edf4af0
6511 F20101119_AACRTB guillo_c_Page_07thm.jpg
b28c77de8079da54ee126868ddb3728f
a67b2f60077daf528a2632c36c1924220853a09c
4967 F20101119_AACRVZ guillo_c_Page_51thm.jpg
635cb2323c3ef893f410cfab61dbda5b
d7af5b3f13f13a8a3d05ed35ff19779c2adc86fa
F20101119_AACROE guillo_c_Page_44.tif
a5c41988539e41c3f58f5cad7892ce88
507c8740fdce9b189a788ae91b725cee6adbcf77
77872 F20101119_AACRJG guillo_c_Page_13.jpg
87188c6ae0275e6faf788c286f9a82c7
93f162943bf0602068948f3c9b33461b4ee99462
21719 F20101119_AACRTC guillo_c_Page_08.QC.jpg
25d57156960aac260a1e3295bc5573c0
4135cad54db11a3c92fc923e3c7c92fc3d7d3979
F20101119_AACROF guillo_c_Page_45.tif
c31cb6b19f59d4a1be2ff1d8dd00a5e3
b07c509207860dca3ede6bd1abf2f0073d39e6ab
71542 F20101119_AACRJH guillo_c_Page_14.jpg
bef2be11d0a82cddfef4d8328e1533ec
8a6362d915ed5b95360865f410a1b0acc35a92cb
6091 F20101119_AACRTD guillo_c_Page_08thm.jpg
4a19a3d9a1b0b0d5f693f6dfad9f606e
a3c7d8efff67dbae71872ee9c7acd12446b893d0
F20101119_AACROG guillo_c_Page_47.tif
fa73eecc2260a4be803692737faca173
08128a63990761831366719f0e4d10bddb4a6183
71501 F20101119_AACRJI guillo_c_Page_15.jpg
1c900feed212c3fba97ed1833b0294fb
d51c9b916bdc74eafe6041a1c5199a4bc2e02892
6148 F20101119_AACRTE guillo_c_Page_09thm.jpg
8eecb38e9643c7840f4ee3f480938867
8f68c0d1d4a003687b65fbe11da4b06439c4f2db
F20101119_AACROH guillo_c_Page_48.tif
6381d8004f9038b578e0643ea3b48725
5ef6267a6cb85f766d4bf048b423793687f8dcb1
71605 F20101119_AACRJJ guillo_c_Page_16.jpg
59ebcbd73144f9e6aa25ed7cea51fccd
99be7874e5dcd179ad47ec6469a35886806fd14d
22135 F20101119_AACRTF guillo_c_Page_10.QC.jpg
8c19a6c294e0e7a2d106f3851335e2d1
ba1b7e2292db1de604ca008f48420a488eb3ac21
F20101119_AACROI guillo_c_Page_49.tif
952611b8cb414d1d2d9253d4077a6e9a
747c87ec9df39c826a43b7a93bd7d38f14dde2cb
65266 F20101119_AACRJK guillo_c_Page_17.jpg
93ccb7197e890bd95d307c159fb2cc1a
55072f2e3acac397ac3d5407f88971605ed35b3c
6029 F20101119_AACRTG guillo_c_Page_10thm.jpg
8faace649631947f7aa6a8b3e3317ceb
7231c7b7eeb7b385fb21314265480c92701482a2
F20101119_AACROJ guillo_c_Page_50.tif
feb800cd15d293715fd5d93d554bd29a
2875bb15fcc6f2c2ef19a30f654b3f0e511a61a4
13614 F20101119_AACRJL guillo_c_Page_18.jpg
5d595c263efc30e34513a8fa14bea8ca
027bbe9a240123e5cef1f30a6727525975e063b4
22857 F20101119_AACRTH guillo_c_Page_11.QC.jpg
67be5752aa11ea41ddc30895cac21959
635668ef5501a9754be08c42915ff6d1d3c003e8
F20101119_AACROK guillo_c_Page_51.tif
6cc354dc69f4dc73f47a151bc0fb489d
579604e1156d6644ecbd5725230bf5d490fb2883
69089 F20101119_AACRJM guillo_c_Page_20.jpg
059beeaaab21cb7984d34114878d84c0
dbe897b7bbab46966ac198395d520c7e8e542077
6464 F20101119_AACRTI guillo_c_Page_11thm.jpg
2cae98a1cfe7f678998652f1ae312e5e
cd85269a1e48254966df7b786c9b15aec58486f6
64910 F20101119_AACRJN guillo_c_Page_21.jpg
a85b271953e8a84956f3a31c6e5403f8
e0af2e7709c3c88a2e2102f4dd116ac32e5705ff
23045 F20101119_AACRTJ guillo_c_Page_12.QC.jpg
0b5575bdfaed5d80cac5082c438ab0a4
ee7e043b0a5559842cc42c91e378af85ed30f7dd
F20101119_AACROL guillo_c_Page_52.tif
2f7ef732b77c22cdca9814978273e69a
9e6f5b2da0592578d053a6df7cebf6f4838aa3b0
74802 F20101119_AACRJO guillo_c_Page_22.jpg
86222c6315e390c26d9baf14fc9da9b8
117d421dc97f1dff65e3c6b26ce3fa013f75898f
6458 F20101119_AACRTK guillo_c_Page_12thm.jpg
1732c780a7ebcc1fd68c3428d00e4cc7
d66ef9f9260f0db1aeb624eb596ff576bae3ef7d
F20101119_AACROM guillo_c_Page_53.tif
440594398ad3eff1e64fda0a16a71d32
ed3b00bd0f794e486913753c50a8c2891df972d5
38022 F20101119_AACRJP guillo_c_Page_23.jpg
c4fd7b870ea74f9f8deb4104a2e09764
a0122530a19cdf8e9229f009a153729a58e8d1dc
24451 F20101119_AACRTL guillo_c_Page_13.QC.jpg
f149277dad5ba9b39f8c1ff6d44b22fe
07cb95c1d421f2c76cf847e48725555abddeb2ab
F20101119_AACRON guillo_c_Page_55.tif
4f6e8d0adf1a0d94abad6bea55def39a
07de40978f14c649f6b175671b07ca3f4f51de9c
63209 F20101119_AACRJQ guillo_c_Page_24.jpg
ffdadd8c80e91282ec849dabd4e8c977
026708e6fe09e42a3b9c37527276fcf2791a74f8
6709 F20101119_AACRTM guillo_c_Page_13thm.jpg
24020bad307fe96c7443ca071fe35409
2d85f7603b0e8cfc3d412d71640a86d745915a6a
F20101119_AACROO guillo_c_Page_56.tif
4368f2aa14ea8e762d867badf809087e
1f840b3e3660659a81d927c4ca1a62930c532224
68500 F20101119_AACRJR guillo_c_Page_25.jpg
0ee59215a2606f74f9a4d32d22828e07
c1f837a7e80937572995f52499be346ce135d0ff
23434 F20101119_AACRTN guillo_c_Page_14.QC.jpg
54d8f64414bcc1c83fbf2e10f72059fc
9231e816673a9d789f75cb468155c8e1d405e77d
F20101119_AACROP guillo_c_Page_57.tif
a65272435d607427920874fde613ae93
bd66dce22c4e6b26e47c62cc5410a43dcf1872d2
85423 F20101119_AACRJS guillo_c_Page_26.jpg
c01e28dc9a0920e7d620a57bf054fd39
be30fc078ae77a6f04497c06dfbd108d6b2f6670
6531 F20101119_AACRTO guillo_c_Page_14thm.jpg
7e1b0b455626e727689a6bf3784358e1
e5817c4f7b418bf4b28a4870f863f7beb7d68c11
9287 F20101119_AACROQ guillo_c_Page_01.pro
a5f655d0bb8a4d3a3d38ab9619a04284
6a18c016cb742a429bbdbfaa7371c93708a894a5
41174 F20101119_AACRJT guillo_c_Page_27.jpg
08c58eb7300b9f007274a3182fc23531
32cb0284ba49ac41b664b591297e835a5ff4214e
23580 F20101119_AACRTP guillo_c_Page_15.QC.jpg
bd87e554b22032b9a4484def35498eae
72d3de44f2c2718e6fdf1403e034db01245402b2
10203 F20101119_AACROR guillo_c_Page_02.pro
ed47f74a2d987104c635d581cfbf6052
fee6e17cef409a8ceed38c61677c38d001a17993
74447 F20101119_AACRJU guillo_c_Page_28.jpg
0da37748fc94c43d904d0f1ad03b6823
91d40893dde4b84365fbf91f93d8d5e87698ebb9
63676 F20101119_AACROS guillo_c_Page_03.pro
11aa8673a9ec45fa8b4c683f037435da
9e72e5e31e88823b6d7af8e436e2fbd990ad8dca
72895 F20101119_AACRJV guillo_c_Page_29.jpg
7f83a018ad740e2d71c30ae9a5c965f5
16a8c4e91cd8f52a5146eeea50c74ecee841cb44
10813 F20101119_AACROT guillo_c_Page_04.pro
91e470af1e1250930075b684ca530626
40e420ce79a034ba81e2d8fe59adaa0e5ba04ddb
65836 F20101119_AACRJW guillo_c_Page_30.jpg
dc13f349bac7ba15a3c2642cc09a2784
f1a0fe0955e3dab2a18c91df43c285bc355ecb32
6522 F20101119_AACRTQ guillo_c_Page_15thm.jpg
84e848099a3fc91ff9d19fe53db9556d
6c6d97b4d3b2b466bce16f28d20556e9528a08bc
11938 F20101119_AACROU guillo_c_Page_05.pro
3f93f96b99de85342129ed001d116f2f
2218c14d3cf53222fcf148a280a26fd336b329ee
73524 F20101119_AACRJX guillo_c_Page_31.jpg
c1500ea52350cf6527c162fece8eb3d6
cca50798e1dc6c707dd0959a5f252e4b39bc87e1
23731 F20101119_AACRTR guillo_c_Page_16.QC.jpg
d0e892eabd7bce04d11b8769aa2ad84c
f158c36d49e8186df83a2461b0ed49702258eab5
38491 F20101119_AACROV guillo_c_Page_06.pro
15ecf1b8573a6a1d514dd01f65392eee
631d3c8875414f5421a330bb6fbb891f6307c582
F20101119_AACRHA guillo_c_Page_24.tif
789958a4172d15c2928db538dc4174e5
ceea92de5d6221d5c9e3b58bbede5332fcb7f59f
68631 F20101119_AACRJY guillo_c_Page_32.jpg
67aad8f94572ea899a27c2b7409e716b
3989f20edf215a2ff6e1a94180c2a0d15aafeb3c
6437 F20101119_AACRTS guillo_c_Page_16thm.jpg
81cd96c018d49fca8e779b9a94fbdd67
7a8ce498c92adec6092206f2170583a3fb506a7e
50921 F20101119_AACROW guillo_c_Page_07.pro
6498ccdd1a6b5d1626f795f04b7bb92b
6355e07bc9eddcad06555e56fe43c5c206907dda
15492 F20101119_AACRHB guillo_c_Page_54.QC.jpg
4422b9c958a90f31fe585746bebac229
7e23f3e4cc3a98c2f4cabb52f3204bb020cc148b
72563 F20101119_AACRJZ guillo_c_Page_33.jpg
70206cb74191c989d29eddd367fb6397
213d365db864c9ed4f1e990778994cf81fdd3232
21041 F20101119_AACRTT guillo_c_Page_17.QC.jpg
f3ae497e5b4c60d4b5a9a8b60d54815c
3c069fdb46a2addad1abc46b499e77225253568b
45583 F20101119_AACROX guillo_c_Page_08.pro
dff1155370db67052a80bd1e767b085e
67f531f54e221a44208def2b6e230641a8598935
107517 F20101119_AACRHC guillo_c_Page_07.jp2
3932d5005224f0be1b290ac7c66bff99
fee688cd858402948345fa70d43e2a1ee4b98090
6292 F20101119_AACRTU guillo_c_Page_17thm.jpg
34f678c5130a6fc208f3b913b1dfb49b
412f26a74bb48f00ffea997b7754be1d316d6410
106167 F20101119_AACRMA guillo_c_Page_40.jp2
30b208baf606f0e589bba26651059015
9da4e85afe7865a092eeb95820ea4a0f0355bbf1
47279 F20101119_AACROY guillo_c_Page_09.pro
35edfbbc3669e78e44ccf2d3ff122292
5daba2aba1142bd5b4d030a07345f20476d71add
23767 F20101119_AACRHD guillo_c_Page_33.QC.jpg
0bdda663093bdb307adfe61b039bfa03
c54a8fd2db0d9fb6371e45a16bcac9c40a0b0512
4716 F20101119_AACRTV guillo_c_Page_18.QC.jpg
e2ebfd7f4c4ed33495f89d44495a753c
b4a76e18c61118841f1ccafc4e01af9b6d25d8a7
111042 F20101119_AACRMB guillo_c_Page_42.jp2
75c47bb1f949af4d4e5a813a62e08097
a38a62080fd0cc62d6f14cd0ffc5b02278256007
49141 F20101119_AACROZ guillo_c_Page_11.pro
24d08dfadb186dc2694c779392fbb0a3
8384dd869f68e7c415bd11454a3e8e5e53c912bb
18198 F20101119_AACRTW guillo_c_Page_19.QC.jpg
0942f94ee42471f2a445a6228bc3a2a7
cc5362f32d5bd14bca600d2a438df8c6a43e9276
128430 F20101119_AACRMC guillo_c_Page_43.jp2
478ea5968a67f774b61acb9e463bcb62
34e56e881e1e6897ade3ceb9a116bee2023ae455
22314 F20101119_AACRHE guillo_c_Page_50.QC.jpg
480aaf3cf0408d225d92538ddfbbbdd7
a258bda4b25b5811ca889fc411cc55b236e5b889
5330 F20101119_AACRTX guillo_c_Page_19thm.jpg
adfc2beeee8c41473c36818f5ea54b66
d870244c01e93594798b4eef706cdea378851203
27492 F20101119_AACRHF guillo_c_Page_01.jp2
4f23e88e55aeb39063f1e6b6870c97c3
f8584663c69ba3a0282a66558eb5c157cbf62d63
2003 F20101119_AACRRA guillo_c_Page_14.txt
d9d997ae7d30c79cce9e1a1f04a48a37
6b620227a9b21a3623571bec7a2108f7b65f75f1
21773 F20101119_AACRTY guillo_c_Page_20.QC.jpg
79731e79742bcda16c107fbd7dc42830
087232578b557ff2ea699b07f9389b941cb09335
56735 F20101119_AACRMD guillo_c_Page_44.jp2
b93825b9aa05a46770a4cae0f21a6934
40cc37b1e51e50f2a21f64b691933182ad1f44ce
1716 F20101119_AACRHG guillo_c_Page_47thm.jpg
674cd54a13a9cbc805da71d7af22da36
8bf992390170a40f8a171b56eaa95cbdb8aa6850
2009 F20101119_AACRRB guillo_c_Page_15.txt
7f9653622526f96f30ad63a9686534ab
48261c0d1ef3aaacba6bbf655530160436b32f8c
6242 F20101119_AACRTZ guillo_c_Page_20thm.jpg
4860e3e88821809f0f8b45bb0e6108cb
ee63817a8734e4328eed735ff1eac059276ef249
95004 F20101119_AACRME guillo_c_Page_45.jp2
11af9020b5de72e75cf28032a81cba90
b04a8dbb043cc4b69a4e3cbaf1c95ca006dc8840
122863 F20101119_AACRHH guillo_c_Page_41.jp2
ab40f7ded0347467f09ae107c1a6450f
4021796e57ed592ab138ce04eedc04ff3e6d7694
1984 F20101119_AACRRC guillo_c_Page_16.txt
1ffd36d1f897fb6ca470472ad0abf35c
8add2501197cb2ab8a614bddc052923e3a8da33c
102138 F20101119_AACRMF guillo_c_Page_46.jp2
08e07db573621fe8f2e384ddaa6bd343
047862382e1333f17b3cf01716cda8120ea5f1aa
16579 F20101119_AACRWA guillo_c_Page_52.QC.jpg
feca882cdc8d4305d9625bae033a3d6b
45da7b6b39304ffdbc3bd41cfdf486df90419010
37958 F20101119_AACRHI guillo_c_Page_49.pro
436adbec84c04117a771eec2fae2ca27
a021cab88e495486246cc71a6eff3b036758efd6
1812 F20101119_AACRRD guillo_c_Page_17.txt
45e8739ac0f115cb26c03a258778ab3b
6e4750d83b269e5683ca81775451ea1128b454ec
12529 F20101119_AACRMG guillo_c_Page_47.jp2
1e3e123ce3b107c498460cf3e0546c6a
61ce41b5f6f9f4cc2adbb0a1a9e8170376254067
4620 F20101119_AACRWB guillo_c_Page_53thm.jpg
0d7825f72ce5ab869ba1720665c182d6
74984909fd22a5a4110a71b454c31a55149bc27e
57834 F20101119_AACRHJ guillo_c_Page_19.jpg
d6caa78017e21cbc2b790853c1c078a9
9a7c4412bdc46bf69ed27030c052c8d3b9389901
203 F20101119_AACRRE guillo_c_Page_18.txt
1092327bf1da8e9102488cd9b809c9b0
692c634e15d19835285998d865c1b110626f6367
113916 F20101119_AACRMH guillo_c_Page_48.jp2
fff8f900068a1692ba6b16a0acaabfae
17a605f81dff02563bc2974356b300d656a5409b
4290 F20101119_AACRWC guillo_c_Page_54thm.jpg
067534585118d66b5503b41f67ec4252
fb7c098dfaf060f6e375fa287e9ea8c614ab405c
101639 F20101119_AACRHK guillo_c_Page_09.jp2
c0112ca0808608acdc6b962baead100e
c1e800efe49c57f03d1596d4234961ac62b0c2c3
1662 F20101119_AACRRF guillo_c_Page_19.txt
95fdf44b3ffd5a057ecd1b066fff1c29
1e886a759881f9efb3232f657002bc730fee91ac
1051943 F20101119_AACRMI guillo_c_Page_50.jp2
a89babaffbd0a6e325aac4d9dc359494
4f3d544aa1d9e873267e29dade9a63d1a917304f
20842 F20101119_AACRWD guillo_c_Page_55.QC.jpg
345155a3e89c28614ee3c0198e1e2ea1
0df4625c98e8fea12d9b1ffbc3b81f96ec12a2af
6524 F20101119_AACRHL guillo_c_Page_05.QC.jpg
aaa3d1c8438ac0874f91f9f7e9e1934c
6c90efc3d546ce9c138c0a0e4319e3ed9314f4c7
2004 F20101119_AACRRG guillo_c_Page_20.txt
df9f2ab1f33b19ddd79d2e6395738de1
238c4a68eda8f02915d7740929b881ec330168e6
5696 F20101119_AACRWE guillo_c_Page_55thm.jpg
c7a29d72dce6bc34ddc0032135707831
8bff92ddc9b3a090f989f8d992195d641d4beec6
24135 F20101119_AACRHM guillo_c_Page_22.QC.jpg
c4abf6131b2be796a47e8ae4d433e515
2e6599244b862aa930b9ea040e03eaf4c58ece9a
1796 F20101119_AACRRH guillo_c_Page_21.txt
01e96d4a30f425876907095e18e1ac1d
d93005d9d247f16ed5824d2b6bf27dbb013f7012
82811 F20101119_AACRMJ guillo_c_Page_51.jp2
43b5028235f26bfbc4c365b764a567df
be9b020e733e2e7f2dc2e3e6df17618eaaeb1edb
5964 F20101119_AACRWF guillo_c_Page_56.QC.jpg
d11f1f254075a16c3ec2b41233c14dfe
02d223ad3d49f290c56f3940b0eebbe25a78acb5
F20101119_AACRHN guillo_c_Page_54.tif
958fcf6ff4f34312cbb32adb0007076d
b01deb41a13ecd65eb0f4550705a676ea46a4f05
2114 F20101119_AACRRI guillo_c_Page_22.txt
25a2f07bdb49656698289dea7bac28a9
71e6ee0b8a855de663dfd7e878ab27bfb065d9a4
1051984 F20101119_AACRMK guillo_c_Page_52.jp2
9b87e13b5880d8bfa46bb5f18a0c5ed3
865d67677c90c9eabcbf500f13394b7b4508af46
2037 F20101119_AACRWG guillo_c_Page_56thm.jpg
3b5616b08888311aaf0aaa4826f77209
61581b3a610316dde0e26512caf5295652d5084c
473 F20101119_AACRHO guillo_c_Page_02.txt
a6fe1eb71048703ba0c0aa6d0172b09a
11b109d36e258e29f10dbff76f11ecabced1d408
947 F20101119_AACRRJ guillo_c_Page_23.txt
7224766ef9f1523a20d8dcd99a2d1454
fe222e39dcd1a084eecb82bd0eb5376d1040c2b8
1051971 F20101119_AACRML guillo_c_Page_53.jp2
7db31ab5197cb349398399e8ec980fb4
62ec4a1d93ad562c2d627946cb1b2dcd983e1ebf
5748 F20101119_AACRWH guillo_c_Page_57.QC.jpg
b3494f73b26dafa8434ef087372153c3
c2f58e0fa22272e59fa4f77b493fe0d2cb2885dd
5234 F20101119_AACRHP guillo_c_Page_06thm.jpg
74ca9476478791a5f2182d890162fd12
6326ee31012fa7d29adf138b42c41c4aed7f1cb8
1832 F20101119_AACRRK guillo_c_Page_24.txt
ac8e6edd05f6894a15aef15c40b39311
578bb28be28b81e171d96e940d5eb4f4467ebbf5
1051872 F20101119_AACRMM guillo_c_Page_54.jp2
df51923b4dbe808a53c55805560cbcfb
db29d526cba0be76ea324add5ea8976958911691
2050 F20101119_AACRWI guillo_c_Page_57thm.jpg
53a226dbd13115f65bdbb4a5e05adc35
33ccbdfdc7fbfe45b6f4c1b03e657284fb3d47b8
43951 F20101119_AACRHQ guillo_c_Page_24.pro
c8ef9f7e9150682d52b752ebea40eee1
f6871b651094be1a067da52ff1133921acb8611b
2708 F20101119_AACRRL guillo_c_Page_26.txt
c81b1063c0e67ab90bc979f070f209a0
37001f5c17ef155e3b76fe0d1bcaf511a747675f
107647 F20101119_AACRMN guillo_c_Page_55.jp2
148b0904451147d9c4de66f36cbc1cb4
79da1328fd0bf109f2ab6baa0c75ed8e18ce5b58
68357 F20101119_AACRWJ UFE0012180_00001.mets
728a55b8d46f2ddc1d7952dcf3e5a697
7598af256a53808f95c8cbf976b594084b48a8aa
F20101119_AACRHR guillo_c_Page_46.tif
e803cc10ea31bc38b7680457b47ea13e
61d8a2bc18add4f5c8372ff615eaa570d943d989
1986 F20101119_AACRRM guillo_c_Page_27.txt
f5a3eaf614f4c9e84f077b54140413a4
23141bf6b739f1078960649f83a79f24879457d4
22494 F20101119_AACRMO guillo_c_Page_56.jp2
10e2d5d73fc30009bf2a892f7ad56a3e
745458c9b07489c66e2d3844ae5ef4d36e11242d
12671 F20101119_AACRHS guillo_c_Page_23.QC.jpg
3ff29e141b3a812eb3393b654d024f76
c3e0cece7b0e371219d03be03465fc647604d9e6
2189 F20101119_AACRRN guillo_c_Page_28.txt
ea26b2acbe6e0fd9b863edd7f4a636cd
0d4f2000b19499ff7c4cc2bdf230e2d3df553c78
17745 F20101119_AACRMP guillo_c_Page_57.jp2
6986cfba4b3b2938164180809f327329
7bcb816091867161aabf14b840673bc33a97d195
21708 F20101119_AACRHT guillo_c_Page_05.jpg
afc6fcb1ab62111f1871ee02d93d8e0c
f571f86d716c0081645d05ea8448ea5fbbf3dc03
F20101119_AACRMQ guillo_c_Page_01.tif
38b18911da4806bc17616dbaf866993e
42d91dbc5ddccfee65e5d931d5bb484cab547c4a
6333 F20101119_AACRHU guillo_c_Page_34thm.jpg
29fbcf4c026efa8ec45254468ea54817
353b0dc990b24a686a8162b0ecfe930ec39ea168
2022 F20101119_AACRRO guillo_c_Page_30.txt
a4bd3428c0b4cbb52d100fd77fa7a23a
b2e96ee2a687e93a85cfa8adf9ddd13b86e3b6a1
F20101119_AACRMR guillo_c_Page_02.tif
931f1afb4c67c44396e1e8923995d025
f9fda6165ef4fc26a057e8ab577e0381d309edde
278951 F20101119_AACRHV guillo_c_Page_04.jp2
e89b1a2df8cda7567c3857ebe8b64e24
465669cf8a52b1e7221e975518dfedff46b79eb6
2047 F20101119_AACRRP guillo_c_Page_31.txt
ec1973a79909c1edb3fd3fc76282ff17
a344de65afe37cde3d51bd77c4be0b4bf1e4f0d7
F20101119_AACRMS guillo_c_Page_03.tif
90958010a8eba3c3d4d1b0343ed77e19
25e643ffe66d4b2a6bd4a5e6ce2b90efe486f5f7
1931 F20101119_AACRHW guillo_c_Page_25.txt
c380ce4f335449efbac7a3c6c4838a3a
9b42a9bc3d6cf23f7ec517168e4f66801ea03aff
1929 F20101119_AACRRQ guillo_c_Page_32.txt
2c2a5f6f86988e23d08f17c4beaca65e
1935881a6db8a8352449b27c9dc416197c5ab732
F20101119_AACRMT guillo_c_Page_04.tif
f37301bf31eb98494d64d81e39ef76c2
197beb210be81d7a286a1417c9a018606c18a8f1
4657 F20101119_AACRHX guillo_c_Page_52thm.jpg
1caab2695bb85426a6879b71b2828120
169921dcd0eb433d9cc22befcc7ce5d9fb0e78cf
F20101119_AACRRR guillo_c_Page_33.txt
3d5529416a5ac1f406b3fa97d8c1a7ee
5197bf5b3ec5faaf68ffe0b68b885db5d5e1089a
F20101119_AACRMU guillo_c_Page_05.tif
d9953b390a7d35d9c8e8415bb8fc9461
391014655e8710948a1cc0fc6fdb994707609529
F20101119_AACRHY guillo_c_Page_21.tif
438413a9ce036d88d63f6df5f0a9da0e
71534f2a3869669838635418f2fae7b68c4525ac
F20101119_AACRRS guillo_c_Page_34.txt
7244273d18ab086577516be0642c32e9
98e884b19a5c4181b0ac5e1a751453e8bcf1ff29
F20101119_AACRMV guillo_c_Page_06.tif
32fd18aa069fd7c414c1c6c966643f09
1d903d6c898ec6d2b336ce4f4fd087f8b2199a53
F20101119_AACRHZ guillo_c_Page_43.tif
55d4ffd7b36f242ae2ffeea0f8993b65
13e96aa4194a033ac2d468d8b7e47ca75efeec71
1991 F20101119_AACRRT guillo_c_Page_35.txt
bb068c868bea7f966a12cdb041961c8c
5f76e7d37bb43d0bb5038c8a1e99a55cb610fbbb
F20101119_AACRMW guillo_c_Page_07.tif
18f81d4ff2e5b67cb8a9a463528a87e1
54dc2a533a72dba0848ce6f3ec7280cff54d1938
1955 F20101119_AACRRU guillo_c_Page_36.txt
9ea1f403192a5b4ce2957b3c7ee27f21
f3ccffb60dd0222d0668d839da8d30b34f3e3a3b
F20101119_AACRMX guillo_c_Page_08.tif
3a8b764ee29bfdb330121775a21f182f
2a3121cb79179b7751b93ec07da54382099e5d25
1466 F20101119_AACRRV guillo_c_Page_37.txt
3981e2e0fa12f9f6a359fc2008dead40
a9acbdafc2098bd978d3d6e7e37be9192190dcc9
70882 F20101119_AACRKA guillo_c_Page_34.jpg
82da161412f1d47789ccfa4726e5f8b0
a6dfd52ce332f0201e340893a04f3be61388ca16
F20101119_AACRMY guillo_c_Page_09.tif
53038d5358132ee3a572478addf192f3
5ef9304bedfce4afe261dcf455dfaf9dce1ea56e
2263 F20101119_AACRRW guillo_c_Page_38.txt
f4b0260752d7cc53da2758cea40942ea
73ff7b65578c6e0f01f16066f76a779e018d52b7
71659 F20101119_AACRKB guillo_c_Page_35.jpg
4ec375c23dbc23cb9688eb4caf97c51d
88270b960350885b352f62cee7d1981652a70c79
F20101119_AACRMZ guillo_c_Page_10.tif
40459049adf2eaf5e2c36c9dd3db7d10
cff56f09ce4d48633886457a5ac461d7599c24ff



PAGE 1

COMPARING THE LANGUAGE OF INTERMEDIATE LEARN ERS OF FRENCH IN ASYNCHRONOUS ELECTRONIC COMMU NICATION VS. FACE TO FACE COMMUNICATION By CYRILLE GUILLO A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Dr. Antes and Dr. Lord for their constant support and greatest patience. I thank Dr. Shoaf for suggesting and letting me use the language laboratory. I thank my parents for always loving me and being supportive of me even though we were so far apart. I thank my grand-parents as well for their encouragement and for having been so good to me all my life. ii

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Upage TACKNOWLEDGMENTST..................................................................................................ii TLIST OF TABLEST.............................................................................................................iv TLIST OF FIGUREST.............................................................................................................v TABSTRACTT.......................................................................................................................vi TINTRODUCTIONT...............................................................................................................1 TPREVIOUS WORKT.............................................................................................................3 TMETHODOLOGYT............................................................................................................12 TResearch QuestionsT.....................................................................................................12 TParticipantsT.................................................................................................................12 TTaskT.............................................................................................................................13 TAnalysisT......................................................................................................................15 TRESULTS AND CONCLUSIONST...................................................................................17 TSyntactic ComplexityT.................................................................................................17 TLexical ComplexityT....................................................................................................29 TImplicationsT................................................................................................................33 TCONCLUSIONT..................................................................................................................38 TPROJECT DESCRIPTIONT................................................................................................41 TFORUM SCREENSHOTST................................................................................................45 TLIST OF REFERENCEST...................................................................................................48 TBIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHT.............................................................................................50 iii

PAGE 4

LIST OF TABLES UTable U Upage U T3.1 : Summary of findings according to the CIT..................................................................19 T3.2 : Total number of threadsT.............................................................................................20 T3.3 : Summary of the TTRT.................................................................................................31 iv

PAGE 5

LIST OF FIGURES UFigure U Upage U T1: Screenshot of the forum homepage.T.............................................................................45 T2: Screenshot of the Project threaded discussions.T...........................................................46 T3: Screenshot of a thread including (1) emoticons (2) avatars and (3) personalized signatures.T.................................................................................................................47 v

PAGE 6

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts COMPARING THE LANGUAGE OF INTERMEDIATE LEARNERS OF FRENCH IN ASYNCHRONOUS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION VS. FACE TO FACE COMMUNICATION By Cyrille Guillo December 2005 Chair: Theresa Antes Cochair: Gillian Lord Major Department: Romance Languages and Literatures As technology permeates in the foreign language classroom, teachers have to determine whether any technology they intend to use can be beneficial to their students. Electronic forums are a recent technology that teachers may consider using. This researchs purpose is to compare students language production on an electronic forum to face-to-face communication. A study group used an electronic forum outside of the classroom to complete a project based on the cognitive approach; at the same time a control group performed the same task using in-class face-to-face communication. The first research question of this study aimed at comparing the grammatical complexity of the language produced by two groups of students. One group produced their language on an electronic forum and the other communicated orally. In order to compare these two groups grammatical complexity, the Coordination Index (CI), which compares the number of dependent clauses over the total number of clauses, was compounded. The vi

PAGE 7

results for this variable suggest that the language produced on an electronic forum tends to be more complex than the language produced orally. The written nature of the language used on the electronic forum accounts for this result. However, the CI does not take into account the types of dependent clauses and the data revealed that there was a similar number of completive clauses in the language produced with both media. The second research question of this study aimed at comparing the lexical complexity of the language produced using both media. In order to compare the language complexity, the Type Token Ratio (TTR), which measures the number of different words over the total number of words, was used. While it was expected that the TTR of the language used in the electronic forum would be higher than the one used in the F2F environment, it was not the case for this research. Indeed, the TTR for both media were almost identical. Thus, these data suggest that more research be performed in order to compare both media again with data coming from various tasks. The third and final question of this research aimed at whether other patterns could be discovered from this type of data. First of all, it revealed that students display interesting behaviors on an electronic forum. The first student to write a thread is more likely to become the leader of the group and the last student to write a thread is more likely to be the student who will participate the least. Students reported that they did not enjoy working on the electronic forum claiming that it was not convenient for negotiation and, indeed, most of them ended up using other media for communication. On the other hand, most students in the F2F group reported that they enjoyed communicating in the language laboratory. They enjoyed the new environment and felt that negotiating meaning among other aspects of the task was beneficial. vii

PAGE 8

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Technology in the foreign language classroom is not a new phenomenon. The first teacher to have used a tape player or a tape recorder brought technology into her/his classroom. However, when one speaks of technology in the foreign language classroom nowadays, one speaks of CDs, DVDs, computers and the most recent global phenomenon associated with computers, that is the World Wide Web. New technology is exciting and there will always be a teacher or a researcher who will try to incorporate it into his or her teaching practices. The difficulty becomes to optimize the use of this technology so that its benefits outweigh or supplement existing practices. Such has been the case for Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). CMC is the use of a Wide Area Network (WAN) or a Large Area Network (LAN) to allow communication between two or more computers. CMC can take the shape of students chatting together from computer to computer in the same room, such as is used in language laboratories, or it can be students communicating from remote locations. CMC can be synchronous when students chat simultaneously with the use of a chatting interface such as instant messengers (AOL Instant Messenger also called AIM, MSN Messenger or ICQ) or with the use of voice over IP (Internet Protocol), which allows for voiced conferences over the Internet thanks to software like Netmeeting Synchronous CMC via chat software displays similar characteristics to Face-to-Face (F2F) communication. For instance, there is an important amount of turn-taking and turns are short in general (Warschauer 1996, Beauvois 1996). CMC can also be asynchronous, meaning that every message will have 1

PAGE 9

2 a delay and that people will be able to have access to those messages in their own time. Asynchronous communication is typically associated with written communication as users can take the time to organize their writing before making it available to its recipient. Examples of asynchronous CMC include email, email lists (or newsgroup or listservs) or the use of electronic forums also called Bulleting Boards (BB). Electronic forums differ from other asynchronous communication as they archive and thread all writing so that participants can access, select and retrieve any written message at any time, regardless of the topic or when it was written as long as the discussion is stored on its host. Messages on electronic forums can be displayed chronologically but, most commonly nowadays, they are displayed first according to topic and then chronologically (see appendix B). The present thesis intends to examine the use of an electronic forum to complete a class project as opposed to a F2F alternative. The goal of this thesis is not to determine whether one approach is better than the other. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages that influence students performance differently. Therefore, the goal of this thesis is to compare students performance using both approaches so as to provide pedagogical input for teachers. Thus, a project was designed and administered to two classes of students of intermediate French at the University of Florida. One class was asked to use a bulletin board software as means of communication while the other communicated orally in class. The two classes language production were compared using the Coordination Index (CI) and the Type Token Ratio (TTR) as variables. The results and a more detailed explanation are presented below.

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 2 PREVIOUS WORK The following articles have been selected from a more complete list concerning technology in the classroom because of the limited amount of research regarding the use of bulletin board software as a means of communication. In order to compare F2F and Electronic discussion, Warschauer (1996) asked the following questions: 1) do second language students participate more equally in small group discussions held electronically than those held in a traditional F2F manner? 2) if so, who benefits from this more equal participation? In particular, how are differences in participation for a F2F mode or an electronic mode related to factors such as gender, nationality, and age and language proficiency? 3) what are students attitudes toward participating in electronic and F2F discussion and how do these attitudes correlate with changes in amounts of participation? 4) does electronic discussion include language that is lexically or syntactically more complex than F2F? 5) what other differences are noted in the language use and interaction style in the two modes? (p. 10) Warschauer studied the language production of 16 students of various ages and nationalities enrolled in an advanced ESL course in a community college in Hawaii. The F2F data was transcribed and all the transcripts were entered in the Computerized Analysis Program (CLAN) of the Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES); which was used to count the number of words per speaker and to calculate the Type Token Ratio (TTR). The transcripts were analyzed to calculate the number of clausal coordinations and subordinations. He found that there was an increased participation in the computer mode. The language was also more complex in the electronic mode when comparing the CI and the TTR. The turn-taking in the conversation mode was more numerous with short turns and many confirmation checks. The computer exchanges 3

PAGE 11

4 displayed less direct levels of interaction and students expressed their own ideas as opposed to directly answer questions. The electronic communication showed more formal expressions such as transition words. In his conclusion, Warschauer suggested that further research be performed according to nationality, according to the speaking fluency of the learners. This article is relevant for the present research as it presented the two variables that were used in this study. In other words, it presented the coordination index, which provides information on the complexity of sentences and the Type Token Ratio, which provides information on lexical complexity. Beauvois (1997) examined the affective and social benefits that students can derive from LAN (Large Area Network) communication. The purpose of her research was to examine, in controlled conditions, whether a link between written synchronous communication, via the Daedalus software, and oral communication could be established. She wanted to measure the transfer of skills that operated. Her participants consisted of 83 fourth semester students of French at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville (UTK) in 1995. The students were randomly assigned with half the class in a PC laboratory and the other half in a regular classroom. There were 49 females and 34 males. Classes were instructed using a communicative approach. Students were assigned the completion of tasks based on their readings from the Petit Nicolas a childrens book written by Andr Gosciny. At mid-semester and again at the end of the semester, all students took an oral examination, the grading of which was used to compile a T-test used to compare the study group and the control group. She found that the LAN group exceed the control group in grades and that not only was the LAN group better but also

PAGE 12

5 more homogeneous. According to Beauvois, the synchronous communication carried elements similar to conversation such as a high amount of turn-taking. Furthermore, she posited that there was a compelling character of the PC message with flashing visual prompts, which kept students focused. She also noticed that Vygotskys scaffolding theory applied to the synchronous communication, that is to say students benefited from one anothers input thus creating a peer teaching environment. Thus, she concluded that there was a significant amount of transfer of skills from one medium to the other and suggested that further research be performed at different levels of instruction in addition to investigating other language skills. The article is relevant to the present research as it offered several suggestions. First of all, the variables she had chosen to study were interesting as using grading as a variable to measure student achievement was considered. One of the problems that grading pofses is subjectivity. Furthermore, grading cannot provide an accurate illustration of the type of language that is used in both media. Therefore, the idea of using grading as a variable was rejected for the present study. Boyd, Davis, and Ralf Thiede (2000) examined what happens to different features of discourse when English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners must choose to function in an ESL situation as shown by the changes that occur in their writing in asynchronous electronic forums. Thus, Davis and Thiede studied the style shifting of students of ESL in response to native speaking participants accommodation to the experience of creating a learning community online. By pairing native speakers and ESL learners the researchers tried to emulate mimetism. They found that investigating social practices such as politeness, authority status or distance is not always simple. Students

PAGE 13

6 participating in asynchronous communication present themselves exclusively in a positive and polite manner. They can enter the conference at any point, read as little or as much as they wish, and choose to reply to whomever they want. The conventions on the forum included exaggerated politeness and signals of approbation with compliments that showed alignment more than partisanship. In order to measure the replication of language researchers studied lexicosyntactic indicators of stylistic emulation. In other words, they looked at an acquisition scale and at lexical density, which they defined as the number of lexical words divided by the total number of words. The two variables that they used were extremely interesting. On the one hand, the acquisition scale was not applicable as measuring acquisition was not the goal of the study and native speakers were not introduced as a factor. On the other hand, the definition for the lexical density was the exact same one as the definition for the Type Token Ratio that Warschauer (1996) had used. In Davis and Thiedes case, however, it was used to measure the production of language learners versus that of native speakers on the same medium, i.e., bulletin board software, which was used for the present study. In her article, Pellettieri (2000) studied the interaction and the negotiation of meaning in synchronous CMC. Her research questions included: 1) does the negotiation of meaning occur in task-based synchronous CMC? 2)do the negotiations facilitate mutual comprehension? 3) do the negotiations push learners to output modifications that are both meaning and form-focused? 4)do the negotiated interactions foster the provision of corrective feedback and the incorporation of target-forms in the subsequent turns? (p. 64) Her participants were 20 students of Spanish at the University of California at Davis. They were all native speakers of American English enrolled in intermediate Spanish. Students' interactions were observed as they functioned in dyads. She found that negotiation via synchronous CMC facilitated mutual communication and that

PAGE 14

7 negotiations pushed learners to output modification encouraging corrective feedback. Her conclusion offered pedagogical suggestions on tasks to be designed so that all participants are required to request and obtained information from one another for successful task completion so that communication is goal-oriented. This article offered the perspective of performing a research from a theoretical point of view. Pellettieri chose to perform her research from the interactionist point of view. The present research was based on the Cognitive point of view as Skehan (2001) defines it. The Cognitive approach also calls for goal oriented tasks and includes some interactionist elements. It is described in greater detail below. Bhlke (2003) designed his study to verify that participation in a CMC is more equalizing than F2F participation as was suggested by Kern and Warschauer (2000) whom he cited. His participants were fourth semester students of German as a foreign language using a communicative approach. The students participating in chats and F2F produced discourse from two activities presented on worksheets. Half of the students used CMC and the other half F2F communication. Contrary to Warschauer who used broader units of meaning, called T-units, in order to measure students language participation, Bhlke used C-units that he considers to be the fundamental elements of communication, i.e., a C-unit can represent one word only or a whole sentence. Consequently, the C-unit does not require a verb nor does it require a predicate, it is more inclusive than the T-unit. He found that group size has to be factored into the equalizing effect of CMC. Groups of 5 students did not tend to be optimal whereas groups of 4 offered a positive impact. He also measured students language competencies according to a scale of stages defined by Tschirner. He found that CMC is indeed more equalizing

PAGE 15

8 at certain stages of language than others. For future research, he suggested that the chat room should set the ground work for in-class discussion, and that more research should be performed on the ideal number of students within a group as well as further investigated Tschirners stages. His discussion on the C-unit was extremely interesting, however, using the C-unit may be too encompassing as it includes utterances of only one word such as yes or no as a unit of meaning. Particularly since in F2F communication turn-taking is much more important, and using C-units as a construct would create an imbalance with CMC communication. Therefore, it was necessary to perform the present research on units that would include a verb and a predicate. Tschirners stages are also interesting, however, they only apply to the German language and such a scale was not found for a research using French. Bhlke claims that chat room should set the ground work for in-class discussion, however, doing so seems redundant. How useful would it be for students to carry the same conversation twice? His approach to literature in CMC was also interesting. Indeed, he was the first to offer opposing views to most of the litterature. For instance, he offered an alternative explanation for the transfer of skills that Beauvois had suggested, expressing doubts that the implementation of chat does not imply transfer of skills since there is no immediate cause and effect relationship with increased speech proficiency (p. 70). Bhlke also voiced concerns for using CMC. Such concerns were expressed by Beauvois (1992) who claimed that students become increasingly indifferent to the appropriate use of the target language the longer they use the chatroom. Yet, the present research by Guillo also showed how some students in F2F started speaking in their native language in the language laboratory. Therefore, it is a concern to

PAGE 16

9 be had in both media. He further quoted Kelm who saw a disadvantage when students copy incorrect form from another students message (p. 71). It is a right claim although not only true to CMC since the lack of feedback both from a peer or a native speaker may lead a learner to acquire an erroneous form of language. Finally, he quoted Bremp (1990) it gets frustrating sometimes when a conference gets really busy and you would have no time to type anything if you worried about reading absolutely everything (p. 72). Although chatting takes on a form that allows one to realize that we may not be fast enough or have enough time to read every thing when we are communicating, it is also true to the oral language. It is not suggested that these concerns should be dismissed for the present research, on the contrary, they may be used for all communication purpose. As far as the present research is concerned, an electronic forum was prefered to a chat software. Ann, Chenoweth, and N. K. Murday (2003) noticed that students at Carnegie-Mellon Universtity were interested in taking a foreign language course but could not do so because of scheduling issues. Therefore, they designed an online class to meet those needs. Thus they wanted to measure whether this online course using CMC would be as efficient as a regular course. The participants for this research included students enrolled in French 1. They were all undergraduate students, 12 of them participated in the F2F evaluation and 8 participated in the online course. On the SAT II French exam, the online participants averaged 581 points and the F2F participants averaged 556. They all filled out a General Background Questionnaire (GBQ) and a Technical Background Questionnaire (TBQ). The students oral production was measured by interviews conducted after 5 weeks and at the end of the semester. The researchers gathered data

PAGE 17

10 from a focus group and an interview from one student. They found that in all the testing done there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Thus, students registered in the online course made similar progress but they offered more mitigated satisfaction feedback than students in the conventional course. As with the research done by Beauvois, the manner in which students performance could be used as a variable to compare two media was intriguing. To solve the question of subjectivity, Chenoweth and Murday had several impartial graders. Doing the same was not feasible within the limits of the present research. Therefore using grades as a variable even with impartial graders was abandonned. This literature review offers information on how the use of technology can be compared to conventional teaching practices. Most of the articles dealt with the use of synchronous communication as opposed to F2F communication. The researchers interests varied from theoretical approaches to systematic statistical research. In the end their concern is the same, how efficient can CMC technology be in the language classroom? Overall the current literature did not present many articles on electronic forums or other asynchronous communication. No article offered any comparison between electronic forums and F2F communication. That is because electronic forums are asynchronous communication and F2F is synchronous. This fundamental difference makes them difficult to compare. Yet as asynchronous communication can often be presented as an alternative to in-class F2F communication, it is important to examine how different those two media are when student language production is concerned.

PAGE 18

11 Understanding these differences will allow teachers to make appropriate pedagogical decisions about which medium to use and how to use them.

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research Questions We know that CMC is different from F2F communication. Additionally, we know that asynchronous communication is different from F2F communication. However, we do not know to what extent these modes of communication are different nor do we know if there exist similarities between them for foreign language learners. For these reasons, the following research questions were asked: 1. How does language produced in an electronic forum compare to that of F2F communication in terms of grammatical complexity? 2. How does language produced in an electronic forum compare to that of F2F communication in terms of lexical complexity? 3. What patterns, if any, can be noted from both modes of communication? Participants The participants in this study consist of two classes of students enrolled in a French grammar class at the intermediate level at the University of Florida. The University of Florida code and title for this class is: FRE 2200 Intermediate Grammar. The project was a class assignment but each student volunteered for the research and signed an informed consent form approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board 02 under the protocol number 2005-U-0295 for use through 06/4/2006. All the data was kept anonymous. There were 22 students who participated in the protocol, 17 of whom were women. No other ethnographic data was requested. The textbook used in FRE 12

PAGE 20

13 2200 was UInteractions U; chapters 4 and 5 of this textbook provided the language and cultural impetus for the activity used in this study and detailed in Appendix A. Task The activity was created with Skehans model in mind (Skehan 2001). At the center of Skehans Cognitive approach is the action of Noticing, which first integrates input into the working memory and into the long term memory. Noticing occurs when input takes on several qualities, namely frequency and salience. The teachers task is to create focused input. A particularly interesting aspect of Skehans model is that it takes into account learners internal factors (readiness and individual differences), forcing a teacher to also take the various learning styles into account. The application of this model in the classroom requires task-based instruction. In other words, the CMC activity will follow these guidelines provided by Skehan (2001 pp. 121-152): Meaning is primary; There is some communication problem to solve; There is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities; Task completion has some priority; The assessment of the task is in terms of the outcome. Furthermore, Skehan (2001 p. 152) specifies that tasks: Do not give learners other peoples meanings to regurgitate; Are not concerned with language display; Are not conformity-oriented; Are not practice-oriented; Do not embed language into materials so that specific structures can be focused upon. With all these guidelines in mind, a series of communication-driven tasks for a CMC activity was created (appendix A). The project is also designed to provide students with an opportunity to use their language skills through negotiation as well as to develop an understanding of French culture through the media. The media in question are

PAGE 21

14 television and advertising, particularly how commercials fit into French television programs. Commercials provide an idea of the target audience the marketers are trying to reach. The positioning of the advertising also provides information on this target audience as it occurs at the particular time when this target audience is most likely watching television. Some information the advertising provides about the target audience includes demographics, such as age group, income bracket, geographical location, education, values, etc. Once the marketer has drawn a sketch of the target audience, he/she will identify the programs this target audience is the most likely to watch on television in order to position the advertising so as to maximize the reach, i.e., the proportion of the target audience that will be sensitive to the advertising message. For students it translates into an exploration of French television programs and particularly what French people watch and how this compares to US programming. Students performed a CMC activity that helped them draw conclusions about French programs as well as the make-up of the audience for these programs. According to Skehan, an activity is more efficient if students are provided with an adequate background and are given a role. For this activity, students were told that they were members of a marketing company, The Famille Guillo Advertising Agency, whose CEO was offering them an opportunity to lead a project related to the marketing of a product and particularly, to the positioning of the advertising of that product. Appendix A contains a detailed description of the project the students accomplished, for both the CMC and F2F groups.

PAGE 22

15 Analysis The present research was performed using two different classes of FRE 2200. The first class consisted of 15 students distributed within 4 groups, one group of 3 students and 3 groups of 4 students, who were instructed to use the electronic forum to perform all their communications. They will be referred to as the Computer Mediated Communication group or CMC group. The second class consisted of 7 students who met in the language laboratory twice in the course of the project during regular class sessions. They will be referred to as the Face to Face group or the F2F group. Data from the CMC group was retrieved directly from the electronic forum using the copy/paste functions. They were then compiled in a Microsoft WordPTMP document in order to perform the analysis of the data by hand on printed material. The data from the F2F was collected on the computers of the language laboratory of the University of Florida using the Divace software. The data from this group consisted of audio files that was transcribed afterwards on a written Microsoft Word document. Thus, this data was subjected to the researchers interpretation. Furthermore, on the second session of the project, eroneous manipulations to save the data were performed by the researcher and the entire session was lost. Therefore, only half of the data expected to be used was analyzed. The data was analyzed in relation to two variables. The first variable was used to identify the syntactic complexity of sentences uttered or written by students according to a ratio called the Coordination Index (CI). Warschauer (1996) defined this ratio as the number of dependent clauses divided by the number of total clauses. Further information is provided in the Results and Conclusions section of the present thesis. The second variable measured the lexical complexity displayed by students in the form of another ratio called the Type Token Ratio (TTR). Warschauer defined the TTR as the amount of

PAGE 23

16 different words produced divided by the total number of words produced. As for the CI, further information about the TTR is provided in the Results and Conclusions section of this thesis. Both ratios are similar to averages or probabilities. An average is the part divided by the whole and a probability is the number of desired outcomes divided by the total amount of outcomes. Thus both variables will provide us with a general idea of the patterns, if there are any, present in students communication as well as allowing us to make predictions on such behaviors. Another advantage to both variables is that they can easily be applied to both communication media. As previously stated, one medium is asynchronous while the other is synchronous, therefore we expect differences. The goal of this study is to measure these differences and derive pedagogical implications related to these findings.

PAGE 24

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Syntactic Complexity In order to determine the coordination index for the two types of samples that were collected, I first removed all the utterances that were produced in the native languages of the students. Second, the utterances that pertained to the task demands that requested a written preparation, particularly the first part of the project, which consisted of providing a summary and a description of the advertising were eliminated. Since students were provided with guidelines in the form of questions, they created a written sample and since the spontaneous language that students created was the object of this research, a written sample was not desirable. For the CMC groups, it consisted of their first participation to the thread for the most part. For the F2F groups it consisted of any part that was read from their course preparation. Any single word feedback such as oui, non etc., repetitions, etc., were eliminated. Thus, only the most spontaneous language that they produced while negotiating for the one commercial each group was going to analyze, the type of program during which they would place their advertising, as well as any off-topic discussion, was left. Once, the utterances were narrowed down to usable samples, each clause of the samples were outlined. The clauses were separated into two categories: Dependent clauses (D) and Independent clauses (I). A independent clause is a clause that has a meaning by itself. A dependent clause is a clause that has no meaning by itself. For example, if we analyze the following sentence I met her at the restaurant where we had 17

PAGE 25

18 our first date there is one independent clause, I met her at the restaurant, which would be meaningful by itself, and a dependent clause where we had our first date, which is meaningless by itself. In this sentence all the verbs are conjugated and the relative clause introduced by where is easy to determine. However, dependent clauses also include clauses where the verbs are not conjugated. These clauses include participial clauses and infinitive clauses. No participial clauses in the samples collected were found, however there were a few infinitive clauses. Although attention was paid to the types of dependent clauses present in the data, this analysis did not reflect these various types. In other words, the coordination index does not discriminate between relative clauses, completive clauses or other subordinate clauses. Instead, it offers an insight on the general syntactical complexity of samples. The coordination index is a ratio of the amount of dependent clauses over the total amount of clauses. Therefore, the higher the ratio the more complex the sample. Once, dependent clauses are separated from the independent clauses, each were counted separately and computed in an Excel chart according to the following formula for the CI: CI= number of dependent clauses/total number of clauses Table 3.1 summarizes the results of this data. D represents the dependent clauses, I represents the independent clauses and CI is the Coordination Index. The data is presented on a per student basis, a per group basis, and finally the totals were compounded. Each student was studied in his/her order of appearance for the threaded participation or the oral exchanges. For every group a total, an average and a standard deviation was calculated in order to identify individual patterns. Finally, the total,

PAGE 26

19 average and standard deviation were calculated for the two different means of communication so as to identify general patterns. The data highlighted in gray represents the students whose production was also used for the TTR. Table 3.1 : Summary of findings according to the CI The last factor to take into account for this analysis is that the CI does not reflect language accuracy. In other words, all clauses were counted, regardless of whether they were grammatically correct. They may not have been introduced by the right pronoun or the verb may have been incorrectly conjugated. Therefore, when the CI is determined and compared, the tendencies for students to formulate complex sentences are compared, without comparing their degree of language accuracy. Interestingly, as the data shows for every group who used CMC except for group CMC3, the first person to participate on the forum for each group is also the person who provided the most data. CMC Student 1 has a total of 101 clauses, CMC student 4 a total

PAGE 27

20 of 90, and student 12 has 97; each one of these students far exceeded the amount of total clauses of all the other members of their group. This accounts for the very high standard deviations among the total number of clauses and thus shows a very uneven distribution of production. The total amount of clauses is roughly correlated to the total number of threads that each student wrote. Table 3.2 below summerizes the amount of threads that each students wrote: Table 3.2 : Total number of threads # o f threads Gp 1 1 10 2 4 3 3 Total 17 Gp 2 4 24 5 10 6 13 7 17 Total 64 Gp 3 8 5 9 6 10 8 11 3 Total 22 Gp 4 12 9 13 4 14 9 15 4 Total 26 Not only did these students participate more and thus provide a larger quantity of data but they also proved to be the decision-makers and the leaders of each group. They were the students who prompted their peers to provide feedback. They were also the motivators to solicit actual work and meet deadlines. Finally, after consulting with their

PAGE 28

21 peers they made the final decisions as to which commercials and programs were going to be used. Below is an example of student 12s motivational input: -T Je pense que nous devons choisir ou la pub de Axe ou la pub de Peugot, les deux sont faciles. Mais il faut que nous choisisions une pub ASAP!!!! I think that we must either choose the Axe commercial or the Peugeot commercial, both are easy. But we must choose a commercial ASAP!!!! The pattern was true to all the groups except for group CMC3. If we examine the data a little closer we can see that the first student to participate was not the one who provided either the most data nor the one who wrote the more threads. CMC Student 10 actually did, and CMC student 10 was the leader of her group and made the decisions in her group. However, this was not always the case within this group. When we look at the dynamics for this group we observe that CMC student 8, who actually started the thread, was the initial leader. The leadership was then taken over by CMC student 10. This data suggests that when a teacher offers a communicative task where students will be participating on a forum, the first students of each group will be very likely to become the leaders of their group. Furthermore, the teacher will also be able to expect that the leader of a group will generally be the one who will participate the most. What one cannot predict is whether the leader of a group will also be the student whose language skills are the best. The coordination index is an average that represents language complexity. In other words, it will show students tendencies to express themselves in a more complex form of language. Yet, of all the students that qualified as group leaders only one, CMC student 1, had a higher CI then the rest of his/her group. CMC students 4 and 10, with CIs of .300 and .357, respectively were even below their group averages of .340 and .395, respectively. They were also below the class average and means of .381 and .362, respectively. What does this suggest? For one, leadership

PAGE 29

22 does not equal language complexity or skills. Second, it may suggest that leaders tend to offer straight to the point communication. Inversely, the last student to participate on the forum was also generally the one who participated the least and thus provided the least data with the exception of CMC student 7 of group CMC2. This an interesting predictor and, therefore, it is worthwhile examining what could be the reasons for this pattern. Bhlke (2003) suggested a correlation between group size and participation. For him, CMC has an equalizing effect provided that the group size does not exceed five and not be lower than four. He also suggested that more research be performed on the matter. From the present data one can conclude that as long as an electronic forum is used as a CMC group size does not appear to be relevant. Three groups comprised four students whereas one consisted of three students. Even though group CMC1 consisted of three students, the last one to participate, CMC student 3 hardly communicated and most of the work was done by CMC student 1 and 2. In group CMC3 and CMC4 CMC student 11 and CMC student 15 also communicated far less then their peers with 27 and 18 total clauses, respectively. Their CI was also below average with .333 and .389 respectively albeit not as much below the average of the groups, which used CMC. Thus group size was not a relevant predictor nor did it have an equalizing effect in the present data. The slightly below average CIs of those students who participated the least may suggest that their language skills may be a corrolary to explain their level of participation. Other factors may include motivation for performing the task as well as their familiarity and motivation with the means of communication. However, no questionnaire was offered to inquire about their familiarity with the technology used, no question was asked about their affective

PAGE 30

23 response to the same technology either. Therefore, no conclusion can be definitely drawn at this time. Leadership patterns can not be derived as easily for students who participated in groups in the F2F tasks. In fact, none can be derived whatsoever. The first students to participate in both groups did not display more of a leadership ability as the students in the CMC tasks. Furthermore, it appeared that leadership was more diluted and more democratic. All students of group 1 offered their opinion agreed together as to what commercial was going to be used to complete the task. In group F2F2, two students, F2F students 5 and 6, seemed to argue but the final decision was taken between F2F students 4 and 5. F2F Student 7 participated minimally as is shown in the table: he/she only provided 7 clauses. Although CMC students were specifically instructed to conduct all communication on the forum, the researcher discovered that some of the communication was conducted via other means such as telephone, email and oral in-class meetings. No data pertaining to the amount of communication that was performed outside of the forum was collected, therefore it is impossible to determine what percentage it represented. Testimonies in students participation suggested that they had actually communicated by other means. Below are examples of threads suggesting other means of communication. -Comme nous avons dit en classe, stade 2 et cd ajourd'hiu sont bons programmes pour passer nitre pub. -As we decided in class, Stade 2 and CD aujourdhui are good programs to position our commercial -Je suis confondu de que notre groupe fait pour le rapport final. [] quel est votre e-mail. Quelqu'un s'il vous plat m'envoie un e-mail [] -I am confused about what our group should do for the final report. [] what is your email? Please someone, send me an email at []

PAGE 31

24 This explains the discrepancy among all the groups that participated. Students behavior can also be analyzed by looking at other factors, such as the amount of threads that they wrote combined with their CI. The Bulletin Board software used provided data that included the amount of threads, the time and the date of each thread and other statistical data. For instance group CMC1, CMC3 and CMC4 totaled 17, 22 and 26 threads respectively. Their total clauses were 136, 129 and 229 respectively and the average amount of clauses per person was 45, 32 and 57. On the other hand, group CMC2 had 64 total threads for 288 total clauses and an average of 72 clauses per person. These figures give us some insight on the use of the forum for communication. Either all groups managed to effectively make decisions, without much negotiation or they used other means of communication to come to those decisions. The latter is what happened in reality. As for group CMC2, they used the forum to communicate often. One of the consequences of participating on an electronic forum is the community building effect. Many Internet businesses use that effect to create a community around their products and also to create brand loyalty. Consequently, community software such as an electronic forum has developed devices to create loyalty. Such devices are the use of emoticons (smilies) and avatars (personnal pictures that appear on their profile every time they post a thread) along with the necessity to register for a forum before participating and the use of attractive Graphic User Interfaces (GUI). One of the goals of the researcher was to create a community around the French class that he taught using the Forum. Group CMC2 who displayed the necessary characteristics of community building was a success. Their enthusiasm and their use of the forum was evidence of that effect. They enjoyed identifying themselves with avatars already provided in the forum,

PAGE 32

25 and they even actively sought additional avatars to include. They also registered on the forum as indicated using pseudonyms that did not disclose their identity but identified them through other traits. They also used emoticons extensively to express feelings that cannot be expressed in the written form. Finally, they continued communicating on the forum after the project was completed. Other students from the other groups did the same but not to the extent of the students in group CMC2. Finally, as we look at the averages for all the groups, we notice that the standard deviations from the means are pretty high. The dispersion from the amount of total clauses and the amount of dependent versus independent clauses as indicated by the standard deviation, indicate a wide variety among those students. On the other hand, this variety is not reflected in the average CI for all groups. This average is .381 with a mean at .362 and a standard deviation of .093, which shows a certain homogeneity in the type of utterances, which is to be expected as all the students were approximately at the same level in the same class. The amount of participation for the F2F groups cannot be measured by or with turn-taking as on the forum. Indeed, many turns only comprise of one word, indicating acquiescence or feedback, which is one of the fundamental differences between a written and an oral performance. On the other hand, we can derive participation with the amount of total clauses. Group F2F1 is homogeneous at every level. The CI of each student is very similar and, as the standard deviation revealed, they all participated equally and produced a language of an equal level of complexity. Their average CI is .228 and their mean is exactly that as well, with a standard deviation of .003, which is very narrow. This group

PAGE 33

26 displayed quite an efficient level of communication that would be labeled as synergy in the business world. Synergy is the ability to create seamless communication for the most efficient business practices. Although such homogeneity is ideal, it is also suspect for it could be abnormal. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to know accurately whether or not it is natural, given the amount of data. Additional data would definitely help in defining the statistical validity of this pattern. However, when we look at the data, the CI for F2F students 4 and 5 of group F2F2 with .240 and .246 respectively are not far removed from the average CI of group F2F1, which is .228. In fact, they are very close, which suggests that we could predict a certain homogeneity for the oral medium and that we need to treat F2F Students 6 and 7 separately. As the researcher was also the teacher for this class, he felt that there were certain significant differences that were not measured. For instance it was striking that two of the students did not participate as much as they did in a regular class setting. These students may have been influenced by the Novelty Effect (Kern, Warschauer 2000). In FRE 2200 at the University of Florida, students do not typically use the language laboratory, thus creating motivation for students who find themselves in a new environment while using new technology. In this case the language lab offered the novelty, the technology and the new environment. The novelty effect predicts that students will react positively to a new environment and that the effect will dwindle as this environment becomes more and more familiar. In the case of the present research, however, students did not have time to experience such familiarity, thus the novelty effect carried over the duration of the task. On average, the researcher felt that all students in general, and certain students in particular, participated more than they usually

PAGE 34

27 did in class. The Novelty Effect of the language lab was also more equalizing than on the forum. F2F student 7 of group F2F2 was the only students who maintained the same level of participation, which was quasi inexistent in general. This group did not show as much homogeneity and its dynamics were far different. For instance, although F2F student 6 is the student who shows the most complex language in the classroom, she was also the students whose production was eliminated for the most part. Indeed, she produced many utterances in her native language, i.e., English, and even though the researcher was monitoring the class, he realized afterwards that she spoke English when he was not monitoring her group. There were some attempts from her peers to make her speak French. However, Group Think was not powerful enough to change her behavior. Group Think is when a deviant members behavior is reduced or stopped altogether under the tacit influence of a group majority. The effect was first identified under the Kennedy administration when dissenting politicians were stopped under penalty of being excluded from the group. In a language laboratory, it is difficult for an instructor to maintain a certain level of discipline for the simple reason that every group also requires help and attention. That is when group dynamics can help. For the present research, groups were randomly assigned. Perhaps assigning students according to criteria that include language skills and personality types would have helped in assuring discipline. F2F student 7 is a very interesting case as she is also the student that present the highest CI of the oral groups, with .492. This number is extremely high compared to the other students in the oral groups. Furthermore, when comparing this result with the results of the CMC group, we notice that it is much higher than the average for all the

PAGE 35

28 groups. It may suggest that this student has a tendency to express herself with more complex sentences. A good way to measure if that is the case would be to compare her native speech with the second language speech or/and to extract additional data from her or his daily language production. Then we could also determine whether her lack of discipline can be attributed to frustration or lack of confidence in her oral skills. We expect the language in both media to be different. Whether synchronous or asynchronous, CMC carries elements of the written language. About synchronous CMC, Chun (cited in Bhlke 2003) suggests that the CMC environment is less stressful than oral discussion, because students have more time to think about their utterances and do not have to worry about their pronunciation. It is all the truer for asynchronous CMC where the pressure of spontaneity is completely eliminated. Warschauer (1996) showed that synchronous CMC chat was more complex than face-to-face communication among his advanced students of English as a second language at the University of Hawaii. The Hawaii CI for the face-to-face group was .182 and for the CMC group was .475. As a result we can expect CMC communication to be more syntactically complex than oral communication. As far as the present research is concerned, the electronic discussions were completely devoid of negotiation of meaning, which occurred a few times with the oral groups. As expected, the average CI for the CMC groups was higher than that of the oral groups, .381 and 278 respectively. When we look a little closer at the types of dependent clauses produced, we notice that elements of the oral language permeated almost as much in the forum. One particular element is the amount of dependent propositions introduced by a variation of je pense que or je crois que, both translated as I think. These clauses are

PAGE 36

29 completive clauses and they are part of the oral language because in the written language students are instructed not to use the first person of the singular je or I. Furthermore, when one writes an argument one does not use personnal opinion or conjecture, instead one supports ones argument with tangible evidence. There were 62 out of 298 such completive clauses in the CMC data and 18 out of 98 in the F2F data. Proportionately, both results are very close with a ratio of .208 for the CMC and a ratio of .184 for the oral production, the difference is only .014. This suggests that the proportion of dependent clause types will be maintained in student language from oral production to CMC production. In order to determine that this proportion is not just an effect of the CMC sharing elements of oral production, it would be interesting to compare individual students written production to the present data, both for the CMC group and the control F2F group. Lexical Complexity The Type Token Ratio provides allows to determine the semantic diversity students display. It is determined by identifying all the different words in a given sample and comparing those words to the total amount of words. Thus we obtain the following formula: TTR=Amount of different words/total amount of words In order to determine the TTR, random samples of 200 word productions from students in the two media were retrieved. In the interest of time, a limited sample size allowed for easier analysis. The sample size was determined by three factors. First of all, the TTR is not a typical ratio like the CI, which resembles a probability or an average more than the TTR does. Indeed, the TTR requires that each different word be counted, yet the bigger the sample the less diverse the vocabulary, and an individuals vocabulary

PAGE 37

30 capacity will eventually be reached. Secondly, the data available did not allow for samples much higher than 200 words (particularly in the oral production groups). Finally, in the interest of time the samples were reduced to a workable size as the analysis was going to be performed by hand. To clarify what is meant by amount of different words it is best to use an example. The sentence the cat eats the mouse contains five words total but four different words as the is repeated. Thus, the TTR for this sentence is 4 over 5 or .80. The difficulty is in determining what constitutes a different word. One particular rule was kept: only words that were semantically different were counted and therefore morphological or syntactical variations were eliminated. For example, all the variations of the French definite articles le, la, les, l were eliminated after one of them was encountered once, however, I had to make sure that those words except for l were not variations of the direct or indirect object complements, which would be considered differently. Other examples included conjugated variations of a verb, for instance, I eliminated pensons, the first person plural of the verb penser (= to think) after having seen pense first person of the singular. The importance was to remain consistent when retrieving all the data. Table 3.3 below summarizes the findings of the TTR:

PAGE 38

31 Table 3.3 : Summary of the TTR CMC # o f different word Total TTR F2F # o f different word Total TTR Student 1 92 200 0.460 Student 1 79 200 0.395 Student 4 83 200 0.415 Student 2 61 200 0.305 Student 5 71 200 0.355 Student 3 72 200 0.360 Student 6 77 200 0.385 Student 4 84 200 0.420 Student 8 78 200 0.390 Student 5 82 200 0.410 Student 10 87 200 0.435 Student 6 88 200 0.440 Student 12 59 200 0.295 Total 547 1400 0.391 Total 466 1200 0.388 STDEV 0.054 STDEV 0.049 The same considerations as for the CI applies to the TTR. The TTR does not reflect language accuracy. In other words, it does not say whether vocabulary is employed relevantly, nor whether it is spelled or pronounced correctly. Unlike for the CI, a per group analysis was not performed since not all students yielded a sufficient amount of workable data. As for the CI, data considered workable included, any data that was spontaneous, therefore all the written samples that were requested by the project were excluded. The written samples that were excluded were the summary and description of the commercial, the rationale on where to position the commercials, and the final report (see Appendix A). Thus, data from students 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the CMC group was used. Overall, they were all very consistent and ranged from .295 to .460. The average was .391 with a standard deviation of .054, which indicates a limited dispersion from the mean. This consistency and limited dispersion suggest a marked homogeneity among the students semantic diversity. Students in the F2F groups showed consistency as well. Their TTR ranged from .305 to .440, with an average of .388 and a standard deviation of .049, which again indicated a limited dispersion from the mean. As for the CMC groups this consistency

PAGE 39

32 and limited dispersion suggest a marked homogeneity among the students semantic diversity. Since both media are different and since the CMC carry similarities with written production, one would expect the TTR to also be different for the two media. The CMC groups should show a higher TTR, thus a higher semantic diversity than the F2F groups. Warschauer (1996) also determined the TTR for his advanced students of English as a foreign language at the University of Hawaii. The F2F group yielded a lower TTR of .262, compared to the synchronous CMC groups of .301, as expected. Perhaps this difference can be attributed to the task Warschauer gave. Students in his research were supposed to answer two counterbalanced questions (p. 12). However, one would reasonably expect to find the same pattern with the present research. Yet, both media yielded a similar consistency, as we have seen in the group analyses above. This similarity ended up being much more striking than expected since the two groups displayed a margin of only .003 between the two TTR of .388 for the F2F group and .391 for the CMC group. This is reinforced by the two standard deviation of .049 for the F2F group and .054 for the CMC group. These numbers allow us to conclude that intermediate students of French at the University of Florida display the same level of semantic diversity both orally and using asynchronous CMC communication. It further suggests that students language on an electronic forum is similar in semantic diversity to F2F communication contrary to previous affirmations that asynchronous communication is more diverse than face-to-face communication within the context of the task provided to the students. However, this may be because students

PAGE 40

33 had used all the vocabulary requested by the task, since the task was specific and encompassed the vocabulary of two chapters from the students textbook. Implications None of this data suggests that one medium is better than the other. However, there are some pedagogical benefits to both of them that will be discussed herein. Then, some suggestions about running the same project or any other that would be similar will be offered in light of students behaviors and also in light of their feedback. The above data suggests that running the project on an electronic forum did offer some of the benefits that were stated in the introduction. All of the students respected the rule about posting threads in French. The messages they posted included both characteristics from the oral language and the written language. Having their messages posted on the Internet certainly influenced their behavior. None of them required any particular training as to how to use the forum and most actually used it instinctively. A few students were even so familiar with the software that they developed their own profile and adopted interesting behaviors. Some of these behaviors included using a different colored font for every message that they posted (see appendix B), or the use of avatars and emoticons. The majority of the students only performed what was asked of them and, albeit, they did not necessarily find using the forum practical for the duration of the project. One can deduce that by looking at the number of threads they posted as well as their messages suggesting other means of communication. Their final feedback on the project was more obvious. Here are some examples of positive and negative feedback: -Pour la plus part je pense que je n'ai pas apprci ce projet en raison du format de forum. Mais, le travail tait assez facile, seulement je desteste des ordinateurs.

PAGE 41

34 -For the most part I think that I did not appreciate this project because of the format of the forum. However, tasks were rather easy, I just hate computers. -Je suis aussi pas bon avec les ordinateurs et comprendre le site tait au dbut trs dur. Mais c'est plus facile crire le franais pendant qu' un ordinateur parce que c'est plus rapide pour chercher des mots que vous ne savez pas. -I am not very good with computer and understanding the site was very difficult at first but it is easier to write in French with a computer because it is faster to find words that you do not know. Overall students reported that they did not particularly enjoy working on the forum. All the groups agreed that they needed time in class to coordinate better. Yet, members of group 2 still maintained communication on the forum after the project was over. As for the F2F group, they enjoyed working in the language laboratory very much. Here are examples of their feedback: -Je pense que ce projet a t intressant. Jaimais utiliser les couteurs. Je prfre travailler dans le laboratoire de langues que dans la salle de classe. [] -I think that this project was interesting. I liked using the headphones. I prefer working in the language lab than in the classroom. -Nous pouvions aussi pratiquer nos comptences de grammaire et commuication. Le projet tait une bonne ide -we could also practice our communication and grammatical skills. The project was a good idea. -Le projet a t trs bon pour practiquer le francais. Nous avons utilis beaucoup les mots uniques de la projet. Il a t difficile comprendre les autres personnes dans le group quand nous avons dcriv les pubs. Mais, ctait un bon exercice pour nous parce que nous avons du comminquer nos ides entre eux. Quand quelquun ne comprendait pas les choses quun autre disait, cette personne a d chercher un autre manire dexprimer son ide. -The project was very good for practicing French. We used many unique words of the project. It was difficult to understand the other people in the group when we described the commercials. But, it was a good exercise for us because we had to communicate our ideas to one another. When someone did not understand the

PAGE 42

35 things that someone else was saying, this person had to look for another way to express his/her ideas. The overall feedback on the F2F version of the project was much more positive than that of the forum. Students did indeed negotiate meaning often, which was a very beneficial exercise for all of them. The only problem was to accommodate the project and the time in the language laboratory within a pretty heavy syllabus. One of the advantages of running the project with a forum was to offer the possibility to do work outside of the classroom. Thus it was easier to accommodate the project within the syllabus. On the other hand, having to do extra work outside of class may have been a reason why students did not enjoy the electronic forum. The final product of the project was equally satisfactory with both media. However, since so many students ended up not using the forum for actual negotiation, but only to post their final thoughts, and since so many groups ended up using other means of communication, it is not clear that they actually benefited as much from the project as the F2F group did in the laboratory. Furthermore, although the forum offered controlling possibilities such as time and date when the thread was posted, it did not allow to control the rest of the students negotiations. These negotiations offer the best opportunity to improve students language skills therefore it is imperative for the teacher to be present to offer feedback and control the exchanges. The forum was indeed not as beneficial partly because the teacher did not add threads to encourage students to participate more. If the teacher had been more involved and encouraged students to post replies by asking questions for instance, perhaps students would have used the forum better. The forum could also be used in combination with a F2F medium. For instance, using the forum for posting work such as the description of the commercial and for completing the final project would be

PAGE 43

36 beneficial. Students are then at liberty to review what the other groups are doing and can also check on their progress. This is what a student wrote when she/he was worried that her team had not yet made a decision as to which commercial to use: -Vous n'avez pas choisi une pub. Mais c'est 11:52, et puis je vais choisir une pub pour le group. J'ai regarde les autres groups et il y a un group qui a choisi "le sculpteur" et il y autre group qui n'a pas choisi une pub mais ils peuvent choisir la pub de Axe mais je pense que il n'ont pas la choisi. Donc, je vais choisir la publicite de AXE pour notre group. Si, on peut changer plus tard quand vous avez repondre, nous changons. Si, non, donc j'ai choisi la pub de AXE pour le group. -You did not choose a commercial. But it is 11:52pm, and then I am going to choose a commercial for the group. I looked at the other groups and there is a group that chose le sculpteur (=the scupltor) and there is another group that did not choose a commercial but they may choose the Axe commercial but I think they did not choose it yet. So I am going to choose the commercial AXE for our group. If we can change later when you answer, we will change. If not, then I chose the commercial Axe for the group. Finally, pairing students with native speakers from a French speaking university to add a cultural exchange component to the project should be considered. Insight from native speakers would help students understand certain cultural subtleties related to the media. It is all the more important as we live in an era of global communication. The CI helped determine that there is a difference in complexity between CMC and F2F communication, whereby CMC offer more syntactically complex communication. However, they both proved to be as varied in lexical terms. As one of the students in the F2F group pointed out, it is possible that negotiation of meaning pushes students to be more creative in an oral setting. In order to obtain more insight into both media and the languages produced therein research should be performed using additional data, such as written samples, to compare both groups so as to find out whether the type of dependent clause (such as those introduced by je pense que (I think that)) is maintained proportionately in the written samples, on the forum and in F2F samples. Thus we would be able to determine whether this proportion is more a factor of the oral

PAGE 44

37 language while using CMC or not. Furthermore, future research on the matter could include additional variables that pertain to language accuracy. It is important that we look at variables that can be consistent with both media. In other words, we cannot look at spelling errors as the oral language in F2F communication does not offer such insight. Yet we can look at patterns in errors such as preposition mistakes that students would typically make. We could also look at morphological errors such as verb conjugations, particularly with the use of the auxiliary tre ou avoir (to be or to have) in analytical tenses such as the pass-compos. Finally, we could collect additional data to determine whether the homogeneity that was found with the TTR variable during the F2F exchanges was an abnormality or not. This could be done by performing the research using different tasks that would vary in specificity in order to elicit a larger variety of vocabulary.

PAGE 45

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION The first research question of this study aimed at comparing the grammatical complexity of the language produced by two groups of students. One group produced their language on an electronic forum and the other communicated orally. In order to compare these two groups grammatical complexity, the CI, which compares the number of dependent clauses over the total number of clauses, was compounded. The results for this variable suggest that the language produced on an electronic forum tends to be more complex than the language produced orally. The written nature of the language used on the electronic forum accounts for this result. However, the CI does not take into account the types of dependent clauses and the data revealed that there was a similar number of completive clauses in the language produced with both media. This suggests that more research be performed in order to compare the quantity of the various types of clauses between the two media and written and spoken samples of the native language of the students. The second research question of this study aimed at comparing the lexical complexity of the language produced using both media. In order to compare the language complexity, the TTR, which measures the number of different words over the total number of words, was used. While it was expected that the TTR of the language used in the electronic forum would be higher than the one used in the F2F environment, it was not the case for this research. Indeed, the TTR for both media were almost identical. One reason for this result may be the fact that at the intermediate level of their language 38

PAGE 46

39 apprenticeship and for this particular task, students had reached and used the extent of their vocabulary bank. Thus, this data suggests that more research be performed in order to compare both media again with data coming from various tasks. The third and final question of this research aimed at whether other patterns could be discovered from this type of data. First of all, it revealed that students display interesting behaviors on an electronic forum. The first student to write a thread is more likely to become the leader of the group and the last student to write a thread is more likely to be the student who will participate the least. Students reported that they did not enjoy working on the electronic forum claiming that it was not convenient for negotiation and, indeed, most of them ended up using other media for communication. It is possible that students did not enjoy the extra work to be performed outside of the classroom in addition to other factors, thus they did not enjoy using the forum as much as if they had had to perform the task in class. One group of students, however, enjoyed the community building characteristic of the electronic forum. Most students in the F2F group reported that they enjoyed communicating in the language laboratory. They enjoyed the new environment and felt that negotiating meaning among other aspects of the task was beneficial. In fact, some students even participated much more than in the regular class setting. Learning about the differences between the types of language produced using an electronic forum and F2F communication can help teachers make informed pedagogical decisions on when alternative to use an alternative and how to use it when they design a task. This research revealed some of these differences and perhaps similarities.

PAGE 47

40 However, additional research is necessary to examine more of these differences for teachers to be able to make better informed pedagogical decisions.

PAGE 48

APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION FRE 2200: Activit mdiatique Dear employees, You are my best team of advertising executives, here at Famille Guillo Advertising Agency. and I am proud of the work you did on our last campaign. I have been contacted by several French clients who would like to use your talents for their campaign. Your job will be fairly easy, as our clients have already shot the commercials. This will be your first time working in an international environment so be aware of cultural differences and Uall your production must be in FRENCH (including the meetings U). Your first task will be for each one of you to choose a commercial and to analyze it according to our usual guidelines. The most important thing of course will be the identification of the target audience. Then, as a team, you will have to decide on a single commercial from the ones that each one of you will have chosen. Then, individually you will have to research TV programming and choose two shows that the target audience is most likely to watch so that we reach as much of that target audience as possible. We want our clients messages to be as effective as possible. Once each one of you will have identified the two shows, as a team, you will have to decide on which two shows will best suit your commercial. Your budget is limited, that is why I am only allowing two shows. Finally, you will have to give me a report on all of your progress and all the decisions you made and why. This report will be no longer than two pages. Attached, you will find a timeline, a copy of our guidelines, links to the 2 French TV channels with the largest viewership and the guidelines for the final report. I almost forgot Since you are so busy, you will not be able to meet at the same time. That is why I have requested that a forum be created on our web site. Each one of you is required to post all of your work on it as well as your team communication. You will also find the link to the forum as well as guidelines on how to register. Go ahead and make me and all of the Famille Guillo Advertising Agency proud of you again. 41

PAGE 49

42 Respectfully, Cyrille Guillo President Directeur General UTimeline for the CMC groups: All of your communication and production will have to be posted on the forum at the following website: HThttp://www.familleguillo.com/forumTH You will have to register in order to be able to post. To register click on Register at the top of the page. Then go to FRE 2200 Projet mediatique find your group and click on reply in order to post. Do not start another thread! 1. Pour UVendredi 25 Mars U: Individually, choose a commercial: Go to the following link where you may have to register (it is free): HThttp://www.pubstv.comTH Analyse the commercial according to the advertising guidelines attached. 2. Pour ULundi 28 Mars U: Discuss which commercial your team will choose. You will have to tell your teammates why you decided on the commercial you chose. As a group you will choose the commercial that appeals to the team the most 3. Pour UMercredi 30 Mars U: Individually, explore these 2 French TV web site to find their programming in order to identify 2 shows that would best fit your commercial. Your goal is to reach the largest target audience possible. HThttp://www.tf.frTH HThttp://www.france2.frTH Write a paragraph for each show explaining your rationale. See the advertising guidelines below. 4. Pour UVendredi 1 Avril U: As a team, decide on which 2 shows will best reach your audience for your ad campaign. 5. Pour ULundi 4 Avril U:

PAGE 50

43 As a team, work on the final report, the guidelines of which are provided below. UTimeline for the F2F groups: 6. Pour UMercredi 30 Mars U: Individually, choose a commercial: Go to the following link where you may have to register (it is free): HThttp://www.pubstv.comTH Analyse the commercial according to the advertising guidelines attached. 7. UMercredi 30 Mars U EN CLASSE au Turlington Language Lab: Discuss which commercial your team will choose. You will have to tell your teammates why you decided on the commercial you chose. As a group you will choose the commercial that appeals to the team the most 8. Pour UVendredi 1er Avril U: Individually, explore these 2 French TV web site to find their programming in order to identify 2 shows that would best fit your commercial. Your goal is to reach the largest targetted audience possible. HThttp://www.tf.frTH HThttp://www.france2.frTH Write a paragraphe for each show explaining your rationale. See the advertising guidelines below. 9. UVendredi 1 Avril U EN CLASSE au Turlington Language Lab: As a team, decide on which 2 shows will best reach your audience for your ad campaign. 10. Pour ULundi 4 Avril U: As a team, work on the final report the guidelines of which are provided below. NO LATE WORK WILL BE ACCEPTED. Failure to provide work will result in personal grade penalties. UAdvertising Guidelines: In order to analyse a commercial properly you have to first identify the product, the brand, and the message, then you will provide a short summary describing the commercial and finally, you will provide a profile of your target audience. For the target audience profile, use the following major demographic variables and suggested breakdowns:

PAGE 51

44 Age Sex Revenu (x1000) Education Occupation Statut Marital Nombre denfants Georgraphie -18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-60 60+ Masulin Feminin -15 15-30 31-50 51-70 71-90 91-100 100+ -Brevet des colleges -Lycee ou BEP -Bac -Bac +2 ou plus -Professionel et Technique -Cadre -Agriculteur -Profession liberale -Etudiant -Sans emploi -autre Marrie(e) Celibataire 1-2 3-4 5+ Rural Urbain In addition, describe the possible interests and hobbies of the target group. Most of the time, interests, and hobbies can be derived from the commercial itself. Is it shot in an artistic manner? Is it showing sports of any kind? If yes which type? Is it showing wealth? Is it humorous? If yes, what kind of humor? Etc If you watch the commercial closely you will learn many things about the people targeted, be attentive and creative! Finally, according to your findings, anticipate and tell us what type of shows the target audience is most likely to watch and when. UReport Guidelines: The report will include 4 parts. In the first part you will describe the commercial and why your team decided to choose it. In the second part you will provide your rationale for the 2 shows you chose for your advertising campaign. In the third part you will discuss the cultural differences or similarities you found while choosing a commercial and while examining French TV programming. For instance, would your commercial be efficient in the US? Why or why not? What are the differences or similarities between French and US shows. Finally, what did you think of this project? Write one paragraph.

PAGE 52

APPENDIX B FORUM SCREENSHOTS 1 Figure 1: Screenshot of the forum homepage. Students need to enter the threaded topic related to their class project in order to have access to the threaded discussion (1). As the administrator, I am can maintain students privacy by denying the access to the forum to any one who is not registered on the forum and in the class. 45

PAGE 53

46 2 1 Figure 2: Screenshot of the Project threaded discussions. After students have clicked on the topic all they have to do is click on the threaded discussion of their assigned group. A little flag on the left side (1) indicates if there is a new message they have not read yet and a comment on the right side (2) tells them who was the last person to post a comment.

PAGE 54

47 3 2 1 Figure 3: Screenshot of a thread including (1) emoticons (2) avatars and (3) personalized signatures. Notice the different color fonts.

PAGE 55

LIST OF REFERENCES Beauvois, Margaret (1997), Write to Speak: the Effects of Electronic Communication on the Oral Achievement of Fourth Semester French Students, New Ways of Learning and Teaching: Focus on Technology and Foreign Language Education, Heinle and Heinle Publishers, pp 93-115. Beauvois, Margaret H., and J. Eledge (1996), Personality Types and Megabytes: Student Attitudes Towards Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) in the Language Classroom," Calico Journal, Volume 13 Numbers 2 and 3, pp 27-45. Bhlke, Olaf (2003), A Comparison of Student Participation Levels by Group Size and Language Stages During Chat Room and Face to Face Discussions in German, Calico Journal, Volume 21 Number 1, pp 67-87. Chenoweth, Ann, and N. K. Murday (2003), Measuring Student Learning in an Online Course, Calico Journal, Volume 20 Number 2, pp 285-314. Davis, Boyd, and Ralf Thiede (2000), Writing into Change: Style Shifting in Asynchronous Electronic Discourse, Concepts and Practice, Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp 87-120. Kern Richard, and M. Warschauer (2000), Introduction Theory and Practice of Network-Based Language Teaching, Concepts and Practice, Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp 1-19. Lantolf, James (Ed) (2000), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Pellettieri, Jill (2000), "Negotiation in Cyberspace: The Role of Chatting in the Development of Grammatical Competence," NBLT: Concepts and Practice, Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp 59-86. Prez, Luisa C. (2003), Foreign Language Productivity in Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication, Calico Journal, Volume 21 Number 1, pp 89-104 Skehan, Peter (2001), A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford University Press. 48

PAGE 56

49 Warschauer, Mark (1996), Comparing Face-to-Face and Electronic Discussion in the Second Language Classroom," Calico Journal, Volume 13 Numbers 2 and 3, pp 7-27. Warschauer, Mark (2000), "Online Learning in Second Language Classrooms," NBLT: Concepts and Practice, Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp 41-58.

PAGE 57

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Cyrille Guillo obtained a Master of Arts in English as a Second Language from the Universit de Haute Bretagne, Rennes, France. He also obtained a Master of Business Administration from the University of Missouri, Columbia. 50


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0012180/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparing the Language of Intermediate Learners of French in Asynchronous Electronic Communication vs. Face to Face Communication
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0012180:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0012180/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparing the Language of Intermediate Learners of French in Asynchronous Electronic Communication vs. Face to Face Communication
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0012180:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












COMPARING THE LANGUAGE OF INTERMEDIATE LEARNERS OF FRENCH IN
ASYNCHRONOUS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION VS. FACE TO FACE
COMMUNICATION















By

CYRILLE GUILLO


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Dr. Antes and Dr. Lord for their constant support and greatest patience.

I thank Dr. Shoaf for suggesting and letting me use the language laboratory.

I thank my parents for always loving me and being supportive of me even though

we were so far apart.

I thank my grand-parents as well for their encouragement and for having been so

good to me all my life.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................. .......................... ii

L IST O F T A B L E S ............................................................................. ................ ......... iv

L IST O F FIG U R E S ............................................................................ ....................... v

A B ST R A C T ..................................................... ...................................................... .. vi

IN T R O D U C T IO N ........................... ...............................................................................

PREVIOUS WORK......................................................................................................

M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................ ...........................12

R research Q uestions............................................ ............................................... 12
P artic ip an ts ................................................................................. ........................... 12
T ask ............... ............ ........... ....................................................... ............. .. 13
A analysis .............. .............. ....................... ........ 15

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................... ......................17

Syntactic Complexity...............................................................17
L exical C om plexity ................................................................... ....................... 29
Im p licatio n s ................................................................................ ...........................3 3

C O N C L U SIO N ......................................................................... ....................................38

PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................41

FORUM SCREENSHOTS ............................................................... .......................45

LIST OF REFERENCES ......................................... ................................................48

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..................... ....................................50
















LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3.1 : Summary of findings according to the CI................................. ......................19

3.2 : Total num ber of threads............................................................. ........................ 20

3.3 : Sum m ary of the TTR ............................................................ ...................31
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1: Screenshot of the forum homepage. ........................................ ....................... 45

2: Screenshot of the Project threaded discussions. ...........................................46

3: Screenshot of a thread including (1) emoticons (2) avatars and (3) personalized
signatures.................... ............................................. 47















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

COMPARING THE LANGUAGE OF INTERMEDIATE LEARNERS OF
FRENCH IN ASYNCHRONOUS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION VS. FACE TO
FACE COMMUNICATION


By

Cyrille Guillo

December 2005

Chair: Theresa Antes
Cochair: Gillian Lord
Major Department: Romance Languages and Literatures

As technology permeates in the foreign language classroom, teachers have to

determine whether any technology they intend to use can be beneficial to their students.

Electronic forums are a recent technology that teachers may consider using. This

research's purpose is to compare students' language production on an electronic forum to

face-to-face communication. A study group used an electronic forum outside of the

classroom to complete a project based on the cognitive approach; at the same time a

control group performed the same task using in-class face-to-face communication. The

first research question of this study aimed at comparing the grammatical complexity of

the language produced by two groups of students. One group produced their language on

an electronic forum and the other communicated orally. In order to compare these two

groups' grammatical complexity, the Coordination Index (CI), which compares the

number of dependent clauses over the total number of clauses, was compounded. The









results for this variable suggest that the language produced on an electronic forum tends

to be more complex than the language produced orally. The written nature of the

language used on the electronic forum accounts for this result. However, the CI does not

take into account the types of dependent clauses and the data revealed that there was a

similar number of completive clauses in the language produced with both media.

The second research question of this study aimed at comparing the lexical

complexity of the language produced using both media. In order to compare the

language complexity, the Type Token Ratio (TTR), which measures the number of

different words over the total number of words, was used. While it was expected that the

TTR of the language used in the electronic forum would be higher than the one used in

the F2F environment, it was not the case for this research. Indeed, the TTR for both

media were almost identical. Thus, these data suggest that more research be performed in

order to compare both media again with data coming from various tasks.

The third and final question of this research aimed at whether other patterns could

be discovered from this type of data. First of all, it revealed that students display

interesting behaviors on an electronic forum. The first student to write a thread is more

likely to become the leader of the group and the last student to write a thread is more

likely to be the student who will participate the least. Students reported that they did not

enjoy working on the electronic forum claiming that it was not convenient for negotiation

and, indeed, most of them ended up using other media for communication. On the other

hand, most students in the F2F group reported that they enjoyed communicating in the

language laboratory. They enjoyed the new environment and felt that negotiating

meaning among other aspects of the task was beneficial.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Technology in the foreign language classroom is not a new phenomenon. The first

teacher to have used a tape player or a tape recorder brought technology into her/his

classroom. However, when one speaks of technology in the foreign language classroom

nowadays, one speaks of CDs, DVDs, computers and the most recent global phenomenon

associated with computers, that is the World Wide Web. New technology is exciting and

there will always be a teacher or a researcher who will try to incorporate it into his or her

teaching practices. The difficulty becomes to optimize the use of this technology so that

its benefits outweigh or supplement existing practices. Such has been the case for

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). CMC is the use of a Wide Area Network

(WAN) or a Large Area Network (LAN) to allow communication between two or more

computers. CMC can take the shape of students chatting together from computer to

computer in the same room, such as is used in language laboratories, or it can be students

communicating from remote locations. CMC can be synchronous when students chat

simultaneously with the use of a chatting interface such as instant messengers (AOL

Instant Messenger also called AIMTM, MSN Messenger or ICQTM) or with the use of

voice over IP (Internet Protocol), which allows for voiced conferences over the Internet

thanks to software like Netmeeting TM. Synchronous CMC via chat software displays

similar characteristics to Face-to-Face (F2F) communication. For instance, there is an

important amount of turn-taking and turns are short in general (Warschauer 1996,

Beauvois 1996). CMC can also be asynchronous, meaning that every message will have









a delay and that people will be able to have access to those messages in their own time.

Asynchronous communication is typically associated with written communication as

users can take the time to organize their writing before making it available to its recipient.

Examples of asynchronous CMC include email, email lists (or newsgroup or listservs) or

the use of electronic forums also called Bulleting Boards (BB). Electronic forums differ

from other asynchronous communication as they archive and thread all writing so that

participants can access, select and retrieve any written message at any time, regardless of

the topic or when it was written as long as the discussion is stored on its host. Messages

on electronic forums can be displayed chronologically but, most commonly nowadays,

they are displayed first according to topic and then chronologically (see appendix B).

The present thesis intends to examine the use of an electronic forum to complete a class

project as opposed to a F2F alternative. The goal of this thesis is not to determine

whether one approach is better than the other. Both approaches have advantages and

disadvantages that influence students' performance differently. Therefore, the goal of

this thesis is to compare students' performance using both approaches so as to provide

pedagogical input for teachers. Thus, a project was designed and administered to two

classes of students of intermediate French at the University of Florida. One class was

asked to use a bulletin board software as means of communication while the other

communicated orally in class. The two classes language production were compared

using the Coordination Index (CI) and the Type Token Ratio (TTR) as variables. The

results and a more detailed explanation are presented below.














CHAPTER 2
PREVIOUS WORK

The following articles have been selected from a more complete list concerning

technology in the classroom because of the limited amount of research regarding the use

of bulletin board software as a means of communication. In order to compare F2F and

Electronic discussion, Warschauer (1996) asked the following questions:

1) do second language students participate more equally in small group discussions
held electronically than those held in a traditional F2F manner? 2) if so, who
benefits from this more equal participation? In particular, how are differences in
participation for a F2F mode or an electronic mode related to factors such as
gender, nationality, and age and language proficiency? 3) what are students'
attitudes toward participating in electronic and F2F discussion and how do these
attitudes correlate with changes in amounts of participation? 4) does electronic
discussion include language that is lexically or syntactically more complex than
F2F? 5) what other differences are noted in the language use and interaction style in
the two modes? (p. 10)

Warschauer studied the language production of 16 students of various ages and

nationalities enrolled in an advanced ESL course in a community college in Hawaii. The

F2F data was transcribed and all the transcripts were entered in the Computerized

Analysis Program (CLAN) of the Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES);

which was used to count the number of words per speaker and to calculate the Type

Token Ratio (TTR). The transcripts were analyzed to calculate the number of clausal

coordinations and subordinations. He found that there was an increased participation in

the computer mode. The language was also more complex in the electronic mode when

comparing the CI and the TTR. The turn-taking in the conversation mode was more

numerous with short turns and many confirmation checks. The computer exchanges









displayed less direct levels of interaction and students expressed their own ideas as

opposed to directly answer questions. The electronic communication showed more

formal expressions such as transition words. In his conclusion, Warschauer suggested

that further research be performed according to nationality, according to the speaking

fluency of the learners.

This article is relevant for the present research as it presented the two variables that

were used in this study. In other words, it presented the coordination index, which

provides information on the complexity of sentences and the Type Token Ratio, which

provides information on lexical complexity.

Beauvois (1997) examined the affective and social benefits that students can derive

from LAN (Large Area Network) communication. The purpose of her research was to

examine, in controlled conditions, whether a link between written synchronous

communication, via the DaedalusM software, and oral communication could be

established. She wanted to measure the transfer of skills that operated. Her participants

consisted of 83 fourth semester students of French at the University of Tennessee in

Knoxville (UTK) in 1995. The students were randomly assigned with half the class in a

PC laboratory and the other half in a regular classroom. There were 49 females and 34

males. Classes were instructed using a communicative approach. Students were assigned

the completion of tasks based on their readings from the Petit Nicolas a children's book

written by Andr6 Gosciny. At mid-semester and again at the end of the semester, all

students took an oral examination, the grading of which was used to compile a T-test

used to compare the study group and the control group. She found that the LAN group

exceed the control group in grades and that not only was the LAN group better but also









more homogeneous. According to Beauvois, the synchronous communication carried

elements similar to conversation such as a high amount of turn-taking. Furthermore, she

posited that there was a compelling character of the PC message with flashing visual

prompts, which kept students focused. She also noticed that Vygotsky's scaffolding

theory applied to the synchronous communication, that is to say students benefited from

one another's input thus creating a peer teaching environment. Thus, she concluded that

there was a significant amount of transfer of skills from one medium to the other and

suggested that further research be performed at different levels of instruction in addition

to investigating other language skills.

The article is relevant to the present research as it offered several suggestions. First

of all, the variables she had chosen to study were interesting as using grading as a

variable to measure student achievement was considered. One of the problems that

grading pofses is subjectivity. Furthermore, grading cannot provide an accurate

illustration of the type of language that is used in both media. Therefore, the idea of

using grading as a variable was rejected for the present study.

Boyd, Davis, and Ralf Thiede (2000) examined what happens to different features

of discourse when English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners must choose to function

in an ESL situation as shown by the changes that occur in their writing in asynchronous

electronic forums. Thus, Davis and Thiede studied the style shifting of students of ESL

in response to native speaking participants' accommodation to the experience of creating

a learning community online. By pairing native speakers and ESL learners the

researchers tried to emulate mimetism. They found that investigating social practices

such as politeness, authority status or distance is not always simple. Students









participating in asynchronous communication present themselves exclusively in a

positive and polite manner. They can enter the conference at any point, read as little or as

much as they wish, and choose to reply to whomever they want. The conventions on the

forum included exaggerated politeness and signals of approbation with compliments that

showed alignment more than partisanship. In order to measure the replication of

language researchers studied "lexicosyntactic indicators of stylistic emulation." In other

words, they looked at an acquisition scale and at lexical density, which they defined as

the number of lexical words divided by the total number of words.

The two variables that they used were extremely interesting. On the one hand, the

acquisition scale was not applicable as measuring acquisition was not the goal of the

study and native speakers were not introduced as a factor. On the other hand, the

definition for the lexical density was the exact same one as the definition for the Type

Token Ratio that Warschauer (1996) had used. In Davis and Thiede's case, however, it

was used to measure the production of language learners versus that of native speakers on

the same medium, i.e., bulletin board software, which was used for the present study.

In her article, Pellettieri (2000) studied the interaction and the negotiation of

meaning in synchronous CMC. Her research questions included:

1) does the negotiation of meaning occur in task-based synchronous CMC? 2)do
the negotiations facilitate mutual comprehension? 3) do the negotiations push
learners to output modifications that are both meaning and form-focused? 4)do the
negotiated interactions foster the provision of corrective feedback and the
incorporation of target-forms in the subsequent turns? (p. 64)

Her participants were 20 students of Spanish at the University of California at

Davis. They were all native speakers of American English enrolled in intermediate

Spanish. Students' interactions were observed as they functioned in dyads. She found

that negotiation via synchronous CMC facilitated mutual communication and that









negotiations pushed learners to output modification encouraging corrective feedback.

Her conclusion offered pedagogical suggestions on tasks to be designed so that all

participants are required to request and obtained information from one another for

successful task completion so that communication is goal-oriented.

This article offered the perspective of performing a research from a theoretical

point of view. Pellettieri chose to perform her research from the interactionist point of

view. The present research was based on the Cognitive point of view as Skehan (2001)

defines it. The Cognitive approach also calls for goal oriented tasks and includes some

interactionist elements. It is described in greater detail below.

B6hlke (2003) designed his study to verify that participation in a CMC is more

equalizing than F2F participation as was suggested by Kern and Warschauer (2000)

whom he cited. His participants were fourth semester students of German as a foreign

language using a communicative approach. The students participating in chats and F2F

produced discourse from two activities presented on worksheets. Half of the students

used CMC and the other half F2F communication. Contrary to Warschauer who used

broader units of meaning, called T-units, in order to measure students' language

participation, B6hlke used C-units that he considers to be the fundamental elements of

communication, i.e., a C-unit can represent one word only or a whole sentence.

Consequently, the C-unit does not require a verb nor does it require a predicate, it is more

inclusive than the T-unit. He found that group size has to be factored into the equalizing

effect of CMC. Groups of 5 students did not tend to be optimal whereas groups of 4

offered a positive impact. He also measured students' language competencies according

to a scale of stages defined by Tschirner. He found that CMC is indeed more equalizing









at certain stages of language than others. For future research, he suggested that the chat

room should set the ground work for in-class discussion, and that "more research should

be performed on the ideal number of students within a group as well as further

investigated Tschimer's stages.

His discussion on the C-unit was extremely interesting, however, using the C-unit

may be too encompassing as it includes utterances of only one word such as "yes" or

"no" as a unit of meaning. Particularly since in F2F communication turn-taking is much

more important, and using C-units as a construct would create an imbalance with CMC

communication. Therefore, it was necessary to perform the present research on units that

would include a verb and a predicate. Tschimer's stages are also interesting, however,

they only apply to the German language and such a scale was not found for a research

using French. B6hlke claims that chat room should set the ground work for in-class

discussion, however, doing so seems redundant. How useful would it be for students to

carry the same conversation twice? His approach to literature in CMC was also

interesting. Indeed, he was the first to offer opposing views to most of the literature.

For instance, he offered an alternative explanation for the transfer of skills that Beauvois

had suggested, expressing "doubts that the implementation of chat does not imply

transfer of skills since there is no immediate cause and effect relationship with increased

speech proficiency" (p. 70). B6hlke also voiced concerns for using CMC. Such concerns

were expressed by Beauvois (1992) who claimed that students become increasingly

indifferent to the appropriate use of the target language the longer they use the chatroom.

Yet, the present research by Guillo also showed how some students in F2F started

speaking in their native language in the language laboratory. Therefore, it is a concern to









be had in both media. He further quoted Kelm who saw a disadvantage "when students

copy incorrect form from another student's message" (p. 71). It is a right claim although

not only true to CMC since the lack of feedback both from a peer or a native speaker may

lead a learner to acquire an erroneous form of language. Finally, he quoted Bremp

(1990) "it gets frustrating sometimes when a conference gets really busy and you would

have no time to type anything if you worried about reading absolutely everything" (p.

72). Although chatting takes on a form that allows one to realize that we may not be fast

enough or have enough time to read every thing when we are communicating, it is also

true to the oral language. It is not suggested that these concerns should be dismissed for

the present research, on the contrary, they may be used for all communication purpose.

As far as the present research is concerned, an electronic forum was preferred to a chat

software.

Ann, Chenoweth, and N. K. Murday (2003) noticed that students at Camegie-

Mellon Universtity were interested in taking a foreign language course but could not do

so because of scheduling issues. Therefore, they designed an online class to meet those

needs. Thus they wanted to measure whether this online course using CMC would be as

efficient as a regular course. The participants for this research included students enrolled

in French 1. They were all undergraduate students, 12 of them participated in the F2F

evaluation and 8 participated in the online course. On the SAT II French exam, the

online participants averaged 581 points and the F2F participants averaged 556. They all

filled out a General Background Questionnaire (GBQ) and a Technical Background

Questionnaire (TBQ). The students' oral production was measured by interviews

conducted after 5 weeks and at the end of the semester. The researchers gathered data









from a focus group and an interview from one student. They found that in all the testing

done there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Thus,

students registered in the online course made similar progress but they offered more

mitigated satisfaction feedback than students in the conventional course.

As with the research done by Beauvois, the manner in which students' performance

could be used as a variable to compare two media was intriguing. To solve the question

of subjectivity, Chenoweth and Murday had several impartial graders. Doing the same

was not feasible within the limits of the present research. Therefore using grades as a

variable even with impartial graders was abandoned.

This literature review offers information on how the use of technology can be

compared to conventional teaching practices. Most of the articles dealt with the use of

synchronous communication as opposed to F2F communication. The researchers'

interests varied from theoretical approaches to systematic statistical research. In the end

their concern is the same, how efficient can CMC technology be in the language

classroom?

Overall the current literature did not present many articles on electronic forums or

other asynchronous communication. No article offered any comparison between

electronic forums and F2F communication. That is because electronic forums are

asynchronous communication and F2F is synchronous. This fundamental difference

makes them difficult to compare. Yet as asynchronous communication can often be

presented as an alternative to in-class F2F communication, it is important to examine how

different those two media are when student language production is concerned.






11


Understanding these differences will allow teachers to make appropriate pedagogical

decisions about which medium to use and how to use them.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Research Questions

We know that CMC is different from F2F communication. Additionally, we know

that asynchronous communication is different from F2F communication. However, we

do not know to what extent these modes of communication are different nor do we know

if there exist similarities between them for foreign language learners. For these reasons,

the following research questions were asked:

1. How does language produced in an electronic forum compare to that of F2F
communication in terms of grammatical complexity?

2. How does language produced in an electronic forum compare to that of F2F
communication in terms of lexical complexity?

3. What patterns, if any, can be noted from both modes of communication?

Participants

The participants in this study consist of two classes of students enrolled in a French

grammar class at the intermediate level at the University of Florida. The University of

Florida code and title for this class is: FRE 2200 Intermediate Grammar. The project

was a class assignment but each student volunteered for the research and signed an

informed consent form approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board

02 under the protocol number 2005-U-0295 for use through 06/4/2006. All the data was

kept anonymous. There were 22 students who participated in the protocol, 17 of whom

were women. No other ethnographic data was requested. The textbook used in FRE









2200 was Interactions; chapters 4 and 5 of this textbook provided the language and

cultural impetus for the activity used in this study and detailed in Appendix A.

Task

The activity was created with Skehan's model in mind (Skehan 2001). At the

center of Skehan's Cognitive approach is the action of "Noticing," which first integrates

input into the "working memory" and into the "long term memory." "Noticing" occurs

when input takes on several qualities, namely frequency and salience. The teacher's task

is to create focused input. A particularly interesting aspect of Skehan's model is that it

takes into account learners' internal factors (readiness and individual differences), forcing

a teacher to also take the various learning styles into account.

The application of this model in the classroom requires task-based instruction. In

other words, the CMC activity will follow these guidelines provided by Skehan (2001 pp.

121-152):

* Meaning is primary;
* There is some communication problem to solve;
* There is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities;
* Task completion has some priority;
* The assessment of the task is in terms of the outcome.
Furthermore, Skehan (2001 p. 152) specifies that tasks:
* Do not give learners other people's meanings to regurgitate;
* Are not concerned with language display;
* Are not conformity-oriented;
* Are not practice-oriented;
* Do not embed language into materials so that specific structures can be focused
upon.
With all these guidelines in mind, a series of communication-driven tasks for a

CMC activity was created (appendix A). The project is also designed to provide students

with an opportunity to use their language skills through negotiation as well as to develop

an understanding of French culture through the media. The media in question are









television and advertising, particularly how commercials fit into French television

programs.

Commercials provide an idea of the target audience the marketers are trying to

reach. The positioning of the advertising also provides information on this target

audience as it occurs at the particular time when this target audience is most likely

watching television. Some information the advertising provides about the target audience

includes demographics, such as age group, income bracket, geographical location,

education, values, etc. Once the marketer has drawn a sketch of the target audience,

he/she will identify the programs this target audience is the most likely to watch on

television in order to position the advertising so as to maximize the reach, i.e., the

proportion of the target audience that will be sensitive to the advertising message. For

students it translates into an exploration of French television programs and particularly

what French people watch and how this compares to US programming.

Students performed a CMC activity that helped them draw conclusions about

French programs as well as the make-up of the audience for these programs. According

to Skehan, an activity is more efficient if students are provided with an adequate

background and are given a role. For this activity, students were told that they were

members of a marketing company, The Famille Guillo Advertising Agency, whose CEO

was offering them an opportunity to lead a project related to the marketing of a product

and particularly, to the positioning of the advertising of that product. Appendix A

contains a detailed description of the project the students accomplished, for both the

CMC and F2F groups.









Analysis

The present research was performed using two different classes of FRE 2200. The

first class consisted of 15 students distributed within 4 groups, one group of 3 students

and 3 groups of 4 students, who were instructed to use the electronic forum to perform all

their communications. They will be referred to as the Computer Mediated

Communication group or CMC group. The second class consisted of 7 students who met

in the language laboratory twice in the course of the project during regular class sessions.

They will be referred to as the Face to Face group or the F2F group. Data from the CMC

group was retrieved directly from the electronic forum using the copy/paste functions.

They were then compiled in a Microsoft WordTM document in order to perform the

analysis of the data by hand on printed material. The data from the F2F was collected on

the computers of the language laboratory of the University of Florida using the DivaceTM

software. The data from this group consisted of audio files that was transcribed

afterwards on a written Microsoft WordTM document. Thus, this data was subjected to

the researcher's interpretation. Furthermore, on the second session of the project,

eroneous manipulations to save the data were performed by the researcher and the entire

session was lost. Therefore, only half of the data expected to be used was analyzed.

The data was analyzed in relation to two variables. The first variable was used to

identify the syntactic complexity of sentences uttered or written by students according to

a ratio called the Coordination Index (CI). Warschauer (1996) defined this ratio as the

number of dependent clauses divided by the number of total clauses. Further information

is provided in the "Results and Conclusions" section of the present thesis. The second

variable measured the lexical complexity displayed by students in the form of another

ratio called the Type Token Ratio (TTR). Warschauer defined the TTR as the amount of









different words produced divided by the total number of words produced. As for the CI,

further information about the TTR is provided in the "Results and Conclusions" section

of this thesis. Both ratios are similar to averages or probabilities. An average is the part

divided by the whole and a probability is the number of desired outcomes divided by the

total amount of outcomes. Thus both variables will provide us with a general idea of the

patterns, if there are any, present in students' communication as well as allowing us to

make predictions on such behaviors. Another advantage to both variables is that they can

easily be applied to both communication media. As previously stated, one medium is

asynchronous while the other is synchronous, therefore we expect differences. The goal

of this study is to measure these differences and derive pedagogical implications related

to these findings.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Syntactic Complexity

In order to determine the coordination index for the two types of samples that were

collected, I first removed all the utterances that were produced in the native languages of

the students. Second, the utterances that pertained to the task demands that requested a

written preparation, particularly the first part of the project, which consisted of providing

a summary and a description of the advertising were eliminated. Since students were

provided with guidelines in the form of questions, they created a written sample and since

the spontaneous language that students created was the object of this research, a written

sample was not desirable. For the CMC groups, it consisted of their first participation to

the thread for the most part. For the F2F groups it consisted of any part that was read

from their course preparation. Any single word feedback such as "oui, non etc.,"

repetitions, etc., were eliminated. Thus, only the most spontaneous language that they

produced while negotiating for the one commercial each group was going to analyze, the

type of program during which they would place their advertising, as well as any off-topic

discussion, was left.

Once, the utterances were narrowed down to usable samples, each clause of the

samples were outlined. The clauses were separated into two categories: Dependent

clauses (D) and Independent clauses (I). A independent clause is a clause that has a

meaning by itself. A dependent clause is a clause that has no meaning by itself. For

example, if we analyze the following sentence "I met her at the restaurant where we had









our first date" there is one independent clause, "I met her at the restaurant," which would

be meaningful by itself, and a dependent clause "where we had our first date," which is

meaningless by itself. In this sentence all the verbs are conjugated and the relative clause

introduced by "where" is easy to determine. However, dependent clauses also include

clauses where the verbs are not conjugated. These clauses include participial clauses and

infinitive clauses. No participial clauses in the samples collected were found, however

there were a few infinitive clauses.

Although attention was paid to the types of dependent clauses present in the data,

this analysis did not reflect these various types. In other words, the coordination index

does not discriminate between relative clauses, completive clauses or other subordinate

clauses. Instead, it offers an insight on the general syntactical complexity of samples.

The coordination index is a ratio of the amount of dependent clauses over the total

amount of clauses. Therefore, the higher the ratio the more complex the sample.

Once, dependent clauses are separated from the independent clauses, each were

counted separately and computed in an ExcelM chart according to the following formula

for the CI:

CI= number of dependent clauses/total number of clauses

Table 3.1 summarizes the results of this data. D represents the dependent clauses, I

represents the independent clauses and CI is the Coordination Index. The data is

presented on a per student basis, a per group basis, and finally the totals were

compounded. Each student was studied in his/her order of appearance for the threaded

participation or the oral exchanges. For every group a total, an average and a standard

deviation was calculated in order to identify individual patterns. Finally, the total,








19



average and standard deviation were calculated for the two different means of


communication so as to identify general patterns. The data highlighted in gray represents


the students whose production was also used for the TTR.


Table 3.1 : Summary of findings according to the CI
l I U1 01 11 Tol:l I -ll II F F DII F 1i Tolal I ,I


Gp 1 7 44 101 0 f6l
S 1
? 11 1 _1 -
Toilal'Gp i 1 0 00

STDCa :: : 0_ :i" i 1
op 2 4 27 63 90 0 300

6 1; 23 16 0 28
__ .i J () 1
Toall'Gp j 1 Jii 0 JO

STOie if'0 1) : 0 i :
,.p ? 16 0 421

11 1 1 1
Tol1d.'Gp -1 -. 1_ J 0

STI e' i0'1 I 0 :' ii 0
Gp i 12 36 61 91 0 371

11 .- '. 1 .
___ 1. 1 il i
T Inal Gp 1 14 ii -

STi I )i 1ii % i _ii 0100


Gp 1 2 1 dl E3 0 226
2 14 4S 62 0 226
3 12 40 c2 0 21
Toial:. p 1 1 i 0

STDes. 1i:: J : 0 00
1p 2 4 12 38 50 0 240
5 156 V 0 .2 6
6 ?2 22 65 0 492
'7 IIU I" I' IZI IIII, II ,)1
TlIOI Ii p II"0 1_ 1 I 0 -

STDeI. 1 : 1I 1. : I. ... ... I1 01 l


TotiI 2;i l2Il 2I:2 0.?3 1 T0o i 2"." ?J29 0., 2 l

STID \e, ..l.. \t.27. ,;i. ).0",? __STDe. ]._i.; l 1..4 ; 1,.i.i2 0.141


The last factor to take into account for this analysis is that the CI does not reflect


language accuracy. In other words, all clauses were counted, regardless of whether they


were grammatically correct. They may not have been introduced by the right pronoun or


the verb may have been incorrectly conjugated. Therefore, when the CI is determined


and compared, the tendencies for students to formulate complex sentences are compared,


without comparing their degree of language accuracy.


Interestingly, as the data shows for every group who used CMC except for group


CMC3, the first person to participate on the forum for each group is also the person who


provided the most data. CMC Student 1 has a total of 101 clauses, CMC student 4 a total









of 90, and student 12 has 97; each one of these students far exceeded the amount of total

clauses of all the other members of their group. This accounts for the very high standard

deviations among the total number of clauses and thus shows a very uneven distribution

of production. The total amount of clauses is roughly correlated to the total number of

threads that each student wrote. Table 3.2 below summerizes the amount of threads that

each students wrote:

Table 3.2 : Total number of threads
# of
threads
Gp 1 1 10
2 4
3 3
Total 17
Gp2 4 24
5 10
6 13
7 17
Total 64
Gp3 8 5
9 6
10 8
11 3
Total 22
Gp 4 12 9
13 4
14 9
15 4
Total 26


Not only did these students participate more and thus provide a larger quantity of

data but they also proved to be the decision-makers and the leaders of each group. They

were the students who prompted their peers to provide feedback. They were also the

motivators to solicit actual work and meet deadlines. Finally, after consulting with their









peers they made the final decisions as to which commercials and programs were going to

be used. Below is an example of student 12's motivational input:

-" Jepense que nous devons choisir ou la pub de Axe ou la pub de Peugot, les deux sontfaciles.
Mais ilfaut que nous choisisions unepub ASAP!!!!

I think that we must either choose the Axe commercial or the Peugeot commercial, both are easy.
But we must choose a commercial ASAP!!!!

The pattern was true to all the groups except for group CMC3. If we examine the

data a little closer we can see that the first student to participate was not the one who

provided either the most data nor the one who wrote the more threads. CMC Student 10

actually did, and CMC student 10 was the leader of her group and made the decisions in

her group. However, this was not always the case within this group. When we look at

the dynamics for this group we observe that CMC student 8, who actually started the

thread, was the initial leader. The leadership was then taken over by CMC student 10.

This data suggests that when a teacher offers a communicative task where students

will be participating on a forum, the first students of each group will be very likely to

become the leaders of their group. Furthermore, the teacher will also be able to expect

that the leader of a group will generally be the one who will participate the most.

What one cannot predict is whether the leader of a group will also be the student

whose language skills are the best. The coordination index is an average that represents

language complexity. In other words, it will show students' tendencies to express

themselves in a more complex form of language. Yet, of all the students that qualified as

group leaders only one, CMC student 1, had a higher CI then the rest of his/her group.

CMC students 4 and 10, with CI's of .300 and .357, respectively were even below their

group averages of .340 and .395, respectively. They were also below the class average

and means of .381 and .362, respectively. What does this suggest? For one, leadership









does not equal language complexity or skills. Second, it may suggest that leaders tend to

offer straight to the point communication.

Inversely, the last student to participate on the forum was also generally the one

who participated the least and thus provided the least data with the exception of CMC

student 7 of group CMC2. This an interesting predictor and, therefore, it is worthwhile

examining what could be the reasons for this pattern. B6hlke (2003) suggested a

correlation between group size and participation. For him, CMC has an equalizing effect

provided that the group size does not exceed five and not be lower than four. He also

suggested that more research be performed on the matter. From the present data one can

conclude that as long as an electronic forum is used as a CMC group size does not appear

to be relevant. Three groups comprised four students whereas one consisted of three

students. Even though group CMC1 consisted of three students, the last one to

participate, CMC student 3 hardly communicated and most of the work was done by

CMC student 1 and 2. In group CMC3 and CMC4 CMC student 11 and CMC student

15 also communicated far less then their peers with 27 and 18 total clauses, respectively.

Their CI was also below average with .333 and .389 respectively albeit not as much

below the average of the groups, which used CMC. Thus group size was not a relevant

predictor nor did it have an equalizing effect in the present data. The slightly below

average CI's of those students who participated the least may suggest that their language

skills may be a corrolary to explain their level of participation. Other factors may include

motivation for performing the task as well as their familiarity and motivation with the

means of communication. However, no questionnaire was offered to inquire about their

familiarity with the technology used, no question was asked about their affective









response to the same technology either. Therefore, no conclusion can be definitely drawn

at this time.

Leadership patterns can not be derived as easily for students who participated in

groups in the F2F tasks. In fact, none can be derived whatsoever. The first students to

participate in both groups did not display more of a leadership ability as the students in

the CMC tasks. Furthermore, it appeared that leadership was more diluted and more

democratic. All students of group 1 offered their opinion agreed together as to what

commercial was going to be used to complete the task. In group F2F2, two students, F2F

students 5 and 6, seemed to argue but the final decision was taken between F2F students

4 and 5. F2F Student 7 participated minimally as is shown in the table: he/she only

provided 7 clauses.

Although CMC students were specifically instructed to conduct all communication

on the forum, the researcher discovered that some of the communication was conducted

via other means such as telephone, email and oral in-class meetings. No data pertaining

to the amount of communication that was performed outside of the forum was collected,

therefore it is impossible to determine what percentage it represented. Testimonies in

students' participation suggested that they had actually communicated by other means.

Below are examples of threads suggesting other means of communication.

"Comme nous avons dit en classes, stade 2 et cd ajourd'hiu sont bons programmes pour passer
nitre pub. "

-As we decided in class, Stade 2 and CD aujourd'hui are good programs to position our commercial



"Je suis confondu de que notre groupefaitpour le rapportfinal. [...] quel est votre e-mail.
Quelqu'un s'il vous plait m'envoie un e-mail a [...] "

-I am confused about what our group should do for the final report. [...] what is your email? Please
someone, send me an email at [...]









This explains the discrepancy among all the groups that participated.
Students' behavior can also be analyzed by looking at other factors, such as the

amount of threads that they wrote combined with their CI. The Bulletin Board software

used provided data that included the amount of threads, the time and the date of each

thread and other statistical data. For instance group CMC1, CMC3 and CMC4 totaled

17, 22 and 26 threads respectively. Their total clauses were 136, 129 and 229

respectively and the average amount of clauses per person was 45, 32 and 57. On the

other hand, group CMC2 had 64 total threads for 288 total clauses and an average of 72

clauses per person. These figures give us some insight on the use of the forum for

communication. Either all groups managed to effectively make decisions, without much

negotiation or they used other means of communication to come to those decisions. The

latter is what happened in reality. As for group CMC2, they used the forum to

communicate often.

One of the consequences of participating on an electronic forum is the community

building effect. Many Internet businesses use that effect to create a community around

their products and also to create brand loyalty. Consequently, community software such

as an electronic forum has developed devices to create loyalty. Such devices are the use

of emoticons (smilies) and avatars personall pictures that appear on their profile every

time they post a thread) along with the necessity to register for a forum before

participating and the use of attractive Graphic User Interfaces (GUI). One of the goals of

the researcher was to create a community around the French class that he taught using the

Forum. Group CMC2 who displayed the necessary characteristics of community

building was a success. Their enthusiasm and their use of the forum was evidence of that

effect. They enjoyed identifying themselves with avatars already provided in the forum,









and they even actively sought additional avatars to include. They also registered on the

forum as indicated using pseudonyms that did not disclose their identity but identified

them through other traits. They also used emoticons extensively to express feelings that

cannot be expressed in the written form. Finally, they continued communicating on the

forum after the project was completed. Other students from the other groups did the

same but not to the extent of the students in group CMC2.

Finally, as we look at the averages for all the groups, we notice that the standard

deviations from the means are pretty high. The dispersion from the amount of total

clauses and the amount of dependent versus independent clauses as indicated by the

standard deviation, indicate a wide variety among those students. On the other hand, this

variety is not reflected in the average CI for all groups. This average is .381 with a mean

at .362 and a standard deviation of .093, which shows a certain homogeneity in the type

of utterances, which is to be expected as all the students were approximately at the same

level in the same class.

The amount of participation for the F2F groups cannot be measured by or with

turn-taking as on the forum. Indeed, many turns only comprise of one word, indicating

acquiescence or feedback, which is one of the fundamental differences between a written

and an oral performance. On the other hand, we can derive participation with the

amount of total clauses.

Group F2F 1 is homogeneous at every level. The CI of each student is very similar

and, as the standard deviation revealed, they all participated equally and produced a

language of an equal level of complexity. Their average CI is .228 and their mean is

exactly that as well, with a standard deviation of .003, which is very narrow. This group









displayed quite an efficient level of communication that would be labeled as "synergy" in

the business world. Synergy is the ability to create seamless communication for the most

efficient business practices. Although such homogeneity is ideal, it is also suspect for it

could be abnormal. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to know accurately whether or

not it is natural, given the amount of data. Additional data would definitely help in

defining the statistical validity of this pattern. However, when we look at the data, the CI

for F2F students 4 and 5 of group F2F2 with .240 and .246 respectively are not far

removed from the average CI of group F2F 1, which is .228. In fact, they are very close,

which suggests that we could predict a certain homogeneity for the oral medium and that

we need to treat F2F Students 6 and 7 separately.

As the researcher was also the teacher for this class, he felt that there were certain

significant differences that were not measured. For instance it was striking that two of

the students did not participate as much as they did in a regular class setting. These

students may have been influenced by the Novelty Effect (Kern, Warschauer 2000). In

FRE 2200 at the University of Florida, students do not typically use the language

laboratory, thus creating motivation for students who find themselves in a new

environment while using new technology. In this case the language lab offered the

novelty, the technology and the new environment. The novelty effect predicts that

students will react positively to a new environment and that the effect will dwindle as this

environment becomes more and more familiar. In the case of the present research,

however, students did not have time to experience such familiarity, thus the novelty

effect carried over the duration of the task. On average, the researcher felt that all

students in general, and certain students in particular, participated more than they usually









did in class. The Novelty Effect of the language lab was also more equalizing than on the

forum.

F2F student 7 of group F2F2 was the only students who maintained the same level

of participation, which was quasi inexistent in general. This group did not show as much

homogeneity and its dynamics were far different. For instance, although F2F student 6 is

the student who shows the most complex language in the classroom, she was also the

students whose production was eliminated for the most part. Indeed, she produced many

utterances in her native language, i.e., English, and even though the researcher was

monitoring the class, he realized afterwards that she spoke English when he was not

monitoring her group. There were some attempts from her peers to make her speak

French. However, Group Think was not powerful enough to change her behavior. Group

Think is when a deviant member's behavior is reduced or stopped altogether under the

tacit influence of a group majority. The effect was first identified under the Kennedy

administration when dissenting politicians were stopped under penalty of being excluded

from the group. In a language laboratory, it is difficult for an instructor to maintain a

certain level of discipline for the simple reason that every group also requires help and

attention. That is when group dynamics can help. For the present research, groups were

randomly assigned. Perhaps assigning students according to criteria that include

language skills and personality types would have helped in assuring discipline.

F2F student 7 is a very interesting case as she is also the student that present the

highest CI of the oral groups, with .492. This number is extremely high compared to the

other students in the oral groups. Furthermore, when comparing this result with the

results of the CMC group, we notice that it is much higher than the average for all the









groups. It may suggest that this student has a tendency to express herself with more

complex sentences. A good way to measure if that is the case would be to compare her

native speech with the second language speech or/and to extract additional data from her

or his daily language production. Then we could also determine whether her lack of

discipline can be attributed to frustration or lack of confidence in her oral skills.

We expect the language in both media to be different. Whether synchronous or

asynchronous, CMC carries elements of the written language. About synchronous CMC,

Chun (cited in B6hlke 2003) suggests that the CMC environment is less stressful than

oral discussion, because students have more time to think about their utterances and do

not have to worry about their pronunciation. It is all the truer for asynchronous CMC

where the pressure of spontaneity is completely eliminated. Warschauer (1996) showed

that synchronous CMC chat was more complex than face-to-face communication among

his advanced students of English as a second language at the University of Hawaii. The

Hawaii CI for the face-to-face group was .182 and for the CMC group was .475. As a

result we can expect CMC communication to be more syntactically complex than oral

communication. As far as the present research is concerned, the electronic discussions

were completely devoid of negotiation of meaning, which occurred a few times with the

oral groups. As expected, the average CI for the CMC groups was higher than that of the

oral groups, .381 and 278 respectively.

When we look a little closer at the types of dependent clauses produced, we notice

that elements of the oral language permeated almost as much in the forum. One

particular element is the amount of dependent propositions introduced by a variation of

"je pense que" or "je crois que," both translated as "I think." These clauses are









completive clauses and they are part of the oral language because in the written language

students are instructed not to use the first person of the singular "je" or "I." Furthermore,

when one writes an argument one does not use personal opinion or conjecture, instead

one supports one's argument with tangible evidence. There were 62 out of 298 such

completive clauses in the CMC data and 18 out of 98 in the F2F data. Proportionately,

both results are very close with a ratio of .208 for the CMC and a ratio of. 184 for the oral

production, the difference is only .014. This suggests that the proportion of dependent

clause types will be maintained in student language from oral production to CMC

production. In order to determine that this proportion is not just an effect of the CMC

sharing elements of oral production, it would be interesting to compare individual

students' written production to the present data, both for the CMC group and the control

F2F group.

Lexical Complexity

The Type Token Ratio provides allows to determine the semantic diversity students

display. It is determined by identifying all the different words in a given sample and

comparing those words to the total amount of words. Thus we obtain the following

formula:

TTR=Amount of different words/total amount of words

In order to determine the TTR, random samples of 200 word productions from

students in the two media were retrieved. In the interest of time, a limited sample size

allowed for easier analysis. The sample size was determined by three factors. First of

all, the TTR is not a typical ratio like the CI, which resembles a probability or an average

more than the TTR does. Indeed, the TTR requires that each different word be counted,

yet the bigger the sample the less diverse the vocabulary, and an individual's vocabulary









capacity will eventually be reached. Secondly, the data available did not allow for

samples much higher than 200 words (particularly in the oral production groups).

Finally, in the interest of time the samples were reduced to a workable size as the analysis

was going to be performed by hand.

To clarify what is meant by "amount of different words" it is best to use an

example. The sentence "the cat eats the mouse" contains five words total but four

different words as "the" is repeated. Thus, the TTR for this sentence is 4 over 5 or .80.

The difficulty is in determining what constitutes a "different" word. One particular rule

was kept: only words that were semantically different were counted and therefore

morphological or syntactical variations were eliminated. For example, all the variations

of the French definite articles le, la, les, 1' were eliminated after one of them was

encountered once, however, I had to make sure that those words except for 1' were not

variations of the direct or indirect object complements, which would be considered

differently. Other examples included conjugated variations of a verb, for instance, I

eliminated pensions, the first person plural of the verb penser (= to think) after having

seen pense first person of the singular. The importance was to remain consistent when

retrieving all the data. Table 3.3 below summarizes the findings of the TTR:









Table 3.3 : Summary of the TTR
# of # of
different different
CMC word Total TTR F2F word Total TTR
Student 1 92 200 0.460 Student 1 79 200 0.395
Student 4 83 200 0.415 Student 2 61 200 0.305
Student 5 71 200 0.355 Student 3 72 200 0.360
Student 6 77 200 0.385 Student 4 84 200 0.420
Student 8 78 200 0.390 Student 5 82 200 0.410
Student 10 87 200 0.435 Student 6 88 200 0.440
Student 12 59 200 0.295
Total 547 1400 0.391 Total 466 1200 0.388
STDEV 0.054 STDEV 0.049


The same considerations as for the CI applies to the TTR. The TTR does not

reflect language accuracy. In other words, it does not say whether vocabulary is

employed relevantly, nor whether it is spelled or pronounced correctly.

Unlike for the CI, a per group analysis was not performed since not all students

yielded a sufficient amount of workable data. As for the CI, data considered workable

included, any data that was spontaneous, therefore all the written samples that were

requested by the project were excluded. The written samples that were excluded were the

summary and description of the commercial, the rationale on where to position the

commercials, and the final report (see Appendix A). Thus, data from students 1, 4, 5, 6,

8, 10 and 12 of the CMC group was used. Overall, they were all very consistent and

ranged from .295 to .460. The average was .391 with a standard deviation of .054, which

indicates a limited dispersion from the mean. This consistency and limited dispersion

suggest a marked homogeneity among the students' semantic diversity.

Students in the F2F groups showed consistency as well. Their TTR ranged from

.305 to .440, with an average of .388 and a standard deviation of .049, which again

indicated a limited dispersion from the mean. As for the CMC groups this consistency









and limited dispersion suggest a marked homogeneity among the students' semantic

diversity.

Since both media are different and since the CMC carry similarities with written

production, one would expect the TTR to also be different for the two media. The CMC

groups should show a higher TTR, thus a higher semantic diversity than the F2F groups.

Warschauer (1996) also determined the TTR for his advanced students of English as a

foreign language at the University of Hawaii. The F2F group yielded a lower TTR of

.262, compared to the synchronous CMC group's of .301, as expected. Perhaps this

difference can be attributed to the task Warschauer gave. Students in his research were

supposed to answer two "counterbalanced questions" (p. 12). However, one would

reasonably expect to find the same pattern with the present research.

Yet, both media yielded a similar consistency, as we have seen in the group

analyses above. This similarity ended up being much more striking than expected since

the two groups displayed a margin of only .003 between the two TTR of .388 for the F2F

group and .391 for the CMC group. This is reinforced by the two standard deviation of

.049 for the F2F group and .054 for the CMC group. These numbers allow us to

conclude that intermediate students of French at the University of Florida display the

same level of semantic diversity both orally and using asynchronous CMC

communication. It further suggests that students' language on an electronic forum is

similar in semantic diversity to F2F communication contrary to previous affirmations that

asynchronous communication is more diverse than face-to-face communication within

the context of the task provided to the students. However, this may be because students









had used all the vocabulary requested by the task, since the task was specific and

encompassed the vocabulary of two chapters from the students' textbook.

Implications

None of this data suggests that one medium is better than the other. However, there

are some pedagogical benefits to both of them that will be discussed herein. Then, some

suggestions about running the same project or any other that would be similar will be

offered in light of students' behaviors and also in light of their feedback.

The above data suggests that running the project on an electronic forum did offer

some of the benefits that were stated in the introduction. All of the students respected the

rule about posting threads in French. The messages they posted included both

characteristics from the oral language and the written language. Having their messages

posted on the Internet certainly influenced their behavior. None of them required any

particular training as to how to use the forum and most actually used it instinctively. A

few students were even so familiar with the software that they developed their own

profile and adopted interesting behaviors. Some of these behaviors included using a

different colored font for every message that they posted (see appendix B), or the use of

avatars and emoticons. The majority of the students only performed what was asked of

them and, albeit, they did not necessarily find using the forum practical for the duration

of the project. One can deduce that by looking at the number of threads they posted as

well as their messages suggesting other means of communication. Their final feedback on

the project was more obvious. Here are some examples of positive and negative

feedback:

-Pour la plus partjepense queje n'aipas apprecie ceprojet en raison duformat deforum. Mais, le
travail &tait assez facile, seulementje desteste des ordinateurs.









-For the most part I think that I did not appreciate this project because of the format of the forum.
However, tasks were rather easy, I just hate computers.



-Je suis aussipas bon avec les ordinateurs et comprendre le site etait au debut tres dur. Mais c'est
plus facile a ecrire le fiancais pendant qu'a un ordinateur parce que c'est plus rapide pour chercher
des mots que vous ne savezpas.

-I am not very good with computer and understanding the site was very difficult at first but it is
easier to write in French with a computer because it is faster to find words that you do not know.

Overall students reported that they did not particularly enjoy working on the forum.

All the groups agreed that they needed time in class to coordinate better. Yet, members

of group 2 still maintained communication on the forum after the project was over.

As for the F2F group, they enjoyed working in the language laboratory very much.

Here are examples of their feedback:

-Je pense que ce project a etd interessant. J'aimais utiliser les ecouteurs. Je prefere
travailler dans le laboratoire de langues que dans la salle de classes. [...]

-I think that this project was interesting. I liked using the headphones. I prefer
working in the language lab than in the classroom.



-Nous pouvions aussi pratiquer nos competences de grammaire et communication.
Le project etait une bonne idde

-we could also practice our communication and grammatical skills. The project
was a good idea.



-Le project a ete tres bon pour practiquer lefrancais. Nous avons utilise beaucoup
les mots unique de la project. II a ete difficile a comprendre les autres personnel
dans le group quand nous avons decrive les pubs. Mais, c 'etait un bon exercise
pour nous parce que nous avons du comminquer nos idees entire eux. Quand
quelqu 'un ne comprendait pas les choses qu 'un autre disait, cette personnel a df
chercher un autre maniere d'exprimer son idee.

-The project was very good for practicing French. We used many unique words of
the project. It was difficult to understand the other people in the group when we
described the commercials. But, it was a good exercise for us because we had to
communicate our ideas to one another. When someone did not understand the









things that someone else was saying, this person had to look for another way to
express his/her ideas.

The overall feedback on the F2F version of the project was much more positive

than that of the forum. Students did indeed negotiate meaning often, which was a very

beneficial exercise for all of them. The only problem was to accommodate the project

and the time in the language laboratory within a pretty heavy syllabus. One of the

advantages of running the project with a forum was to offer the possibility to do work

outside of the classroom. Thus it was easier to accommodate the project within the

syllabus. On the other hand, having to do extra work outside of class may have been a

reason why students did not enjoy the electronic forum. The final product of the project

was equally satisfactory with both media. However, since so many students ended up

not using the forum for actual negotiation, but only to post their final thoughts, and since

so many groups ended up using other means of communication, it is not clear that they

actually benefited as much from the project as the F2F group did in the laboratory.

Furthermore, although the forum offered controlling possibilities such as time and date

when the thread was posted, it did not allow to control the rest of the students'

negotiations. These negotiations offer the best opportunity to improve students'

language skills therefore it is imperative for the teacher to be present to offer feedback

and control the exchanges. The forum was indeed not as beneficial partly because the

teacher did not add threads to encourage students to participate more. If the teacher had

been more involved and encouraged students to post replies by asking questions for

instance, perhaps students would have used the forum better. The forum could also be

used in combination with a F2F medium. For instance, using the forum for posting work

such as the description of the commercial and for completing the final project would be









beneficial. Students are then at liberty to review what the other groups are doing and can

also check on their progress. This is what a student wrote when she/he was worried that

her team had not yet made a decision as to which commercial to use:

-Vous n'avezpas choisi unepub. Mais c'est 11:52, etpuisje vais choisir unepub pour le group. J'ai
regarded les autres groups et il y a un group qui a choisi "le sculpteur" et il y autre group qui n'apas
choisi unepub mais ils peuvent choisir la pub de Axe maisjepense que il n'ontpas la choisi.
Donc, je vais choisir lapublicite de AXE pour notre group. Si, on peut changer plus tard quand
vous avez repondre, nous changons. Si, non, doncj'ai choisi la pub de AXE pour le group.

-You did not choose a commercial. But it is 11:52pm, and then I am going to
choose a commercial for the group. I looked at the other groups and there is a
group that chose le sculpteur (=the scupltor) and there is another group that did not
choose a commercial but they may choose the Axe commercial but I think they did
not choose it yet. So I am going to choose the commercial AXE for our group. If
we can change later when you answer, we will change. If not, then I chose the
commercial Axe for the group.

Finally, pairing students with native speakers from a French speaking university to

add a cultural exchange component to the project should be considered. Insight from

native speakers would help students understand certain cultural subtleties related to the

media. It is all the more important as we live in an era of global communication.

The CI helped determine that there is a difference in complexity between CMC

and F2F communication, whereby CMC offer more syntactically complex

communication. However, they both proved to be as varied in lexical terms. As one of

the students in the F2F group pointed out, it is possible that negotiation of meaning

pushes students to be more creative in an oral setting. In order to obtain more insight into

both media and the languages produced therein research should be performed using

additional data, such as written samples, to compare both groups so as to find out whether

the type of dependent clause (such as those introduced byje pense que (I think that)) is

maintained proportionately in the written samples, on the forum and in F2F samples.

Thus we would be able to determine whether this proportion is more a factor of the oral









language while using CMC or not. Furthermore, future research on the matter could

include additional variables that pertain to language accuracy. It is important that we

look at variables that can be consistent with both media. In other words, we cannot look

at spelling errors as the oral language in F2F communication does not offer such insight.

Yet we can look at patterns in errors such as preposition mistakes that students would

typically make. We could also look at morphological errors such as verb conjugations,

particularly with the use of the auxiliary Otre ou avoir ("to be" or "to have") in analytical

tenses such as the "pass&-compos6." Finally, we could collect additional data to

determine whether the homogeneity that was found with the TTR variable during the F2F

exchanges was an abnormality or not. This could be done by performing the research

using different tasks that would vary in specificity in order to elicit a larger variety of

vocabulary.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

The first research question of this study aimed at comparing the grammatical

complexity of the language produced by two groups of students. One group produced

their language on an electronic forum and the other communicated orally. In order to

compare these two groups grammatical complexity, the CI, which compares the number

of dependent clauses over the total number of clauses, was compounded. The results for

this variable suggest that the language produced on an electronic forum tends to be more

complex than the language produced orally. The written nature of the language used on

the electronic forum accounts for this result. However, the CI does not take into account

the types of dependent clauses and the data revealed that there was a similar number of

completive clauses in the language produced with both media. This suggests that more

research be performed in order to compare the quantity of the various types of clauses

between the two media and written and spoken samples of the native language of the

students.

The second research question of this study aimed at comparing the lexical

complexity of the language produced using both media. In order to compare the

language complexity, the TTR, which measures the number of different words over the

total number of words, was used. While it was expected that the TTR of the language

used in the electronic forum would be higher than the one used in the F2F environment, it

was not the case for this research. Indeed, the TTR for both media were almost identical.

One reason for this result may be the fact that at the intermediate level of their language









apprenticeship and for this particular task, students had reached and used the extent of

their vocabulary bank. Thus, this data suggests that more research be performed in order

to compare both media again with data coming from various tasks.

The third and final question of this research aimed at whether other patterns could

be discovered from this type of data. First of all, it revealed that students display

interesting behaviors on an electronic forum. The first student to write a thread is more

likely to become the leader of the group and the last student to write a thread is more

likely to be the student who will participate the least. Students reported that they did not

enjoy working on the electronic forum claiming that it was not convenient for negotiation

and, indeed, most of them ended up using other media for communication. It is possible

that students did not enjoy the extra work to be performed outside of the classroom in

addition to other factors, thus they did not enjoy using the forum as much as if they had

had to perform the task in class. One group of students, however, enjoyed the community

building characteristic of the electronic forum. Most students in the F2F group reported

that they enjoyed communicating in the language laboratory. They enjoyed the new

environment and felt that negotiating meaning among other aspects of the task was

beneficial. In fact, some students even participated much more than in the regular class

setting.

Learning about the differences between the types of language produced using an

electronic forum and F2F communication can help teachers make informed pedagogical

decisions on when alternative to use an alternative and how to use it when they design a

task. This research revealed some of these differences and perhaps similarities.






40


However, additional research is necessary to examine more of these differences for

teachers to be able to make better informed pedagogical decisions.














APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION

FRE 2200: Activite m6diatique
Dear employees,

You are my best team of advertising executives, here at Famille Guillo Advertising
Agency. and I am proud of the work you did on our last campaign. I have been
contacted by several French clients who would like to use your talents for their campaign.
Your job will be fairly easy, as our clients have already shot the commercials. This will
be your first time working in an international environment so be aware of cultural
differences and all your production must be in FRENCH (including the meetings).

Your first task will be for each one of you to choose a commercial and to analyze it
according to our usual guidelines. The most important thing of course will be the
identification of the target audience.

Then, as a team, you will have to decide on a single commercial from the ones that each
one of you will have chosen. Then, individually you will have to research TV
programming and choose two shows that the target audience is most likely to watch so
that we reach as much of that target audience as possible. We want our client's messages
to be as effective as possible.

Once each one of you will have identified the two shows, as a team, you will have to
decide on which two shows will best suit your commercial. Your budget is limited, that
is why I am only allowing two shows.

Finally, you will have to give me a report on all of your progress and all the decisions
you made and why. This report will be no longer than two pages.

Attached, you will find a timeline, a copy of our guidelines, links to the 2 French TV
channels with the largest viewership and the guidelines for the final report.

I almost forgot... Since you are so busy, you will not be able to meet at the same time.
That is why I have requested that a forum be created on our web site. Each one of you is
required to post all of your work on it as well as your team communication. You will
also find the link to the forum as well as guidelines on how to register.

Go ahead and make me and all of the Famille Guillo Advertising Agency proud of you
again.









Respectfully,

Cyrille Guillo
President Directeur General

Timeline for the CMC groups:

All of your communication and production will have to be posted on the forum at the
following website:

http://www.familleguillo.com/forum

You will have to register in order to be able to post. To register click on "Register" at the
top of the page. Then go to "FRE 2200 Projet mediatique" find your group and click
on reply in order to post. Do not start another thread!

1. Pour Vendredi 25 Mars:
Imlividlhlly, choose a commercial:
Go to the following link where you may have to register (it is free):

http://www.pubstv.com


Analyse the commercial according to the advertising guidelines attached.

2. Pour Lundi 28 Mars:
Discuss which commercial your team will choose. You will have to tell your
teammates why you decided on the commercial you chose. As a group you will
choose the commercial that appeals to the team the most

3. Pour Mercredi 30 Mars:
Ihlividhlly, explore these 2 French TV web site to find their programming in order
to identify 2 shows that would best fit your commercial. Your goal is to reach the
largest target audience possible.

http://www.tf.fr

http://www.france2.fr

Write a paragraph for each show explaining your rationale. See the advertising
guidelines below.

4. Pour Vendredi 1 Avril:
As a team, decide on which 2 shows will best reach your audience for your ad
campaign.


5. Pour Lundi 4 Avril:









As a team, work on the final report, the guidelines of which are provided below.

Timeline for the F2F groups:

6. Pour Mercredi 30 Mars:
Iuli'vidldllr, choose a commercial:
Go to the following link where you may have to register (it is free):

http://www.pubstv.com


Analyse the commercial according to the advertising guidelines attached.

7. Mercredi 30 Mars EN CLASSE au Turlington Language Lab:
Discuss which commercial your team will choose. You will have to tell your
teammates why you decided on the commercial you chose. As a group you will
choose the commercial that appeals to the team the most

8. Pour Vendredi ler Avril:
Idulivid dllr, explore these 2 French TV web site to find their programming in order
to identify 2 shows that would best fit your commercial. Your goal is to reach the
largest targeted audience possible.

http://www.tf.fr
http://www.france2.fr
Write a paragraphe for each show explaining your rationale. See the advertising
guidelines below.

9. Vendredi 1 Avril EN CLASSE au Turlington Language Lab:
As a team, decide on which 2 shows will best reach your audience for your ad
campaign.

10. Pour Lundi 4 Avril:
As a team, work on the final report the guidelines of which are provided below.


NO LATE WORK WILL BE ACCEPTED. Failure to provide work will result
in personal grade penalties.

Advertising Guidelines:

In order to analyse a commercial properly you have to first identify the product,
the brand, and the message, then you will provide a short summary describing the
commercial and finally, you will provide a profile of your target audience. For the target
audience profile, use the following major demographic variables and suggested
breakdowns:










Age Sex Revenu Education Occupation Statut Nombre Georgra
(xl000) Marital d'enfants phie
-18 Masulin -15 -Brevet des -Professionel et Marrie(e) 1-2 Rural
18-24 Feminin 15-30 colleges Technique Celibataire 3-4 Urbain
25-34 31-50 5+
35-44 51-70 -Lycee ou -Cadre
45-54 71-90 BEP -Agriculteur
55-60 91-100 -Bac -Profession
60+ 100 -Bac +2 liberal
ou plus -Etudiant
-Sans emploi
-autre

In addition, describe the possible interests and hobbies of the target group. Most of the
time, interests, and hobbies can be derived from the commercial itself. Is it shot in an
artistic manner? Is it showing sports of any kind? If yes which type? Is it showing
wealth? Is it humorous? If yes, what kind of humor? Etc... If you watch the
commercial closely you will learn many things about the people targeted, be attentive and
creative!

Finally, according to your findings, anticipate and tell us what type of shows the target
audience is most likely to watch and when.



Report Guidelines:

The report will include parts.
In the first part you will describe the commercial and why your team decided to
choose it.
In the second part you will provide your rationale for the 2 shows you chose for
your advertising campaign.
In the third part you will discuss the cultural differences or similarities you found
while choosing a commercial and while examining French TV programming. For
instance, would your commercial be efficient in the US? Why or why not? What are the
differences or similarities between French and US shows.


Finally, what did you think of this project? Write one paragraph.





























APPENDIX B

FORUM SCREENSHOTS









-Bak S earh -Favontehs Mneda _- Ilo o Le
Search the Web Psearch Address http:/www, famllegul o.comforum

mac= F E] J Sear-h Highlght M] Options O Pop-ups Allowed Hotmal Messenger [ My M5N


Yphu st ed on 04 Ju205 230 am
The ile 1 Fr 0 Jl 2005 0502 pm
Cyrllle imlllo Forum Index


Cyrille Guillo
Academic Forum

FAQ Search IMemberlst -Uergroups
mProfile You have no new messages Log out [ gulllo ]


Forum Faq's
Moderated forum Contains important nfo about this board Please read beforeresgisterin






Aiatualites
Forum Announcements




ue e pase-t- en Frane et d e monde Qu en penez-vou
ModerCtor Shet -d, The palish Kid
Discussion GFnRrale
-I Forum Puhlque
l.mr. TI, Pd, Kid
Le fronois un Ianogge difficile!
ous aveon de dffleutes sur un point de ramnalre ou de voabulare Ou ave vous toue autre question he a langueo Profte en
Moderatorshds, qera, The Polish Kid
FRE 2240-- Annonce,
Si vou avez des iuestions au sulet du eours en partouller, par e-emple ee que vous devez preparer AU-sl je postere des information urgentes sur ce
iorum

F RE 2240 RARCMC
DlsUten FRANCAIS 1''

FRE 2200 -- Projet Mediatie
.1 Toute discussion dolt se fare en n AI :) Vos group ont 6t asgn- Vou devez vou nscrl re pour p ouvor parlciper o ce forum

Project de Maitrise
Welcome
D i r ecrpt on of this category 004

Directed Reading Summer 2004
cadem dlicuion

n--dt~p... ~ ~l~n


S 05 Sep 2004 1152 pr


2 0 No Post.



s 7 04 No 2004 102- p-


27 Jan 2005 05.03 arm
S ThPoh Kid OD


07 O05 asd23 p
1 10


12 28 o Nov -n02s ;a


26 219 I23 -o 4 :14 D


21 Ap, 2005 12 28 am
7 166 carolk t




1 0o un 00 I 2'56 pm

23e u 2004 02 49 pm

^ .. -- A Q


Figure 1: Screenshot of the forum homepage.






Students need to enter the threaded topic related to their class project in order to




have access to the threaded discussion (1). As the administrator, I am can maintain




students' privacy by denying the access to the forum to any one who is not registered on




the forum and in the class.














45


IV] Go LInk *


ilee wour Posts
View unanrwered Psos
p. t
P.-


IAllll ~8~~ "L]IBa


I-I CC


Irrr.~ Iu


I














1 riic r..,,liu tvio ro0 r mrnt i Tn n Io m' Ao.i ire-rc Ali r ni fc r,,iarcr JI
File Edt View Favorites Tools Help
O Back [N S)5earch MFavorte Medi E 3
Search the Web PSearch Address L http. www famllegullo.comlforuiewforum php f=1& d= 264d87b76ca4DB3d03e7boMb9d4o0e6 Go in "
Ja -I i] Search -.# Hghlght ]pions n Pop- ps Allowed 4E Hotmal Messenoger y M5N


Ps


I RE 2200 -- Projet M4diatique

uses bmwsing mis Emm: quite
Cyrille Guillo Forum Index -> FRE 2200 -- Pro3et M6diatique


Cyrille Guillo
Academic Forum
FAQ GSearoh IMemberhst Usergroups
Profile You have no new messages Log out [ gullo ]


Cyrille Gulllo Forum Index -> FRE 2200 -- Proet diatique
Page 1 of 1




N hew posts [ Locked ] o n posts [ bn ]- En
. hew posts [ Locked ] ho new posts [ Locked ]


-ump to: S le a fr,,m



You can vote In polr In thi forum
You ran rroder~te thli forum


Go to dmnl aon Panelp
powe~d by phpBB 2 0 e @ 2001, 2002 phpBB Gmup


Figure 2: Screenshot of the Project threaded discussions.


After students have clicked on the topic all they have to do is click on the threaded



discussion of their assigned group. A little flag on the left side (1) indicates if there is a



new message they have not read yet and a comment on the right side (2) tells them who


was the last person to post a comment.


SMai alltopics read

Group 2: Laura Carol Kra. 1 21 A 0 128 a2

G oupe 4 : Roemar Ern Lahley Ashley B. 1
Group 3 Andy luda Brittany ine. 2 227
[ Doto page: -- ] 5

S5: egan Jaki A-nnie Carolina.

- je deterte w pubtu.com 0 cdl.zle 17 31 Mar200~o55s am
SLa pub francais 2 Vincel3
Display topi s from previous:


Ilmes aI. GMT


,---. "'J0-b- ,
















File Edt View Favortes Tools Help
Back Search Favo rtes gMeda -
Search the Web I PSearch Address L http./ww fanllegullo.com forumliewtopi phpt=6,postdays=0epostorder=ascitart=45 Go Lins "
S -I ] Search Highlght f Options nPop-ups Allowed Hotmall y Messenger L My M5N

L o ,n. "To the world, you might be only one person, but to one person, you just might be the world

Back to top i S1i [ AIM

Alle.Ycat DOostedl 07 Apr 200s 12 12 -m P-t -ubeEtZ

S 3. Les commercials francals ont sembl6 etre le m6me ue les commercials des Etats Unis. Le commercial de Maurce et Coco est une publicity trees comique pour les
enfants;les deux a France et a des Etats Unis C'est trees attirant a es jeunesses par ce que I ya des animaux et un eune fil dans le publiciteO 3al surprise quea ny a
pas plus des dessins animes sur le weekend S, Sle commercial montrait a des Etats Uns; le commercial arerat a le weekend pendant les dessins animes.
1o ed, 16 Feb 2005
~ots: 13
4. alme le project, mals le a contribute a mon dffration (procrastination) 3'tait amusement avec le project par ce que ajal pu parler avec mes amles dans Iensemble
Jal pense que le rolet atalt beaucoup de travaail mas n'atalt pas difficil. C'Etat tres interessant a voir les publicts francals, et des autres si vous ete moll

A bird may loe a f but where would they live?
Back to top e m nl AIM

5tarlocketl7 DPosted: 07 Apr 2005 12:27 am Pos-t s-ub-e:. no..i. 2ut 1 Bo nourilli

Ce le que je pene sur la tro e me part des questions.n

S2 e dans out est a la revision, ar eemle les ubs et es rorame s ns trouve un ub trs m n urra e u ub n ut
alnes~lle/oalaa ailment le choc ce pub atirera t a quelqu'un. C'est la meme chose pour les programmes francals, is sent tres simlaire come les programmes amercalns II y a
beaucup de dessinantieaour les enants, beaucoup sont americann, et II y a auss des autres rog rammes come les feuilletons, les jeux, ou les vanetes.


Back to top o In ai M 2

starlocketl7 DPo Apr 2005 12:33 am Post subject: Buong orn"l' Zutiil BonjurJl p C E

Qu voudrat post tout ensemble 7 0

J ned: 25 Mar 2005
Po.ts 24

To the word you might be ony one ersn, bu eron, you just might be the world
Back to top ti ALM
D..pl.. P.-.. .fi..r- ... 1. I 'I

Cy rille Guillo Forum Index FRE 2200 -Projet Mediatique Got page Previous 4, 5 Net
Page 4 of 5



Figure 3: Screenshot of a thread including (1) emoticons (2) avatars and (3) personalized

signatures.


Notice the different color fonts.















LIST OF REFERENCES


Beauvois, Margaret (1997), "Write to Speak: the Effects of Electronic Communication on
the Oral Achievement of Fourth Semester French Students," New Ways ofLearning
and Teaching: Focus on Technology and Foreign Language Education, Heinle and
Heinle Publishers, pp 93-115.

Beauvois, Margaret H., and J. Eledge (1996), "Personality Types and Megabytes: Student
Attitudes Towards Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) in the Language
Classroom," Calico Journal, Volume 13 Numbers 2 and 3, pp 27-45.

B6hlke, Olaf (2003), "A Comparison of Student Participation Levels by Group Size and
Language Stages During Chat Room and Face to Face Discussions in German,"
Calico Journal, Volume 21 Number 1, pp 67-87.

Chenoweth, Ann, and N. K. Murday (2003), "Measuring Student Learning in an Online
Course," Calico Journal, Volume 20 Number 2, pp 285-314.

Davis, Boyd, and Ralf Thiede (2000), "Writing into Change: Style Shifting in
Asynchronous Electronic Discourse," Concepts and Practice, Cambridge Applied
Linguistics, pp 87-120.

Kern Richard, and M. Warschauer (2000), "Introduction Theory and Practice of
Network-Based Language Teaching," Concepts and Practice, Cambridge Applied
Linguistics, pp 1-19.

Lantolf, James (Ed) (2000), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Pellettieri, Jill (2000), "Negotiation in Cyberspace: The Role of Chatting in the
Development of Grammatical Competence," NBLT: Concepts andPractice,
Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp 59-86.

Perez, Luisa C. (2003), "Foreign Language Productivity in Synchronous vs.
Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication," Calico Journal, Volume 21
Number 1, pp 89-104

Skehan, Peter (2001), A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford University
Press.






49


Warschauer, Mark (1996), Comparing Face-to-Face and Electronic Discussion in the
Second Language Classroom," Calico Journal, Volume 13 Numbers 2 and 3, pp 7-
27.

Warschauer, Mark (2000), "Online Learning in Second Language Classrooms," NBLT:
Concepts andPractice, Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp 41-58.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Cyrille Guillo obtained a Master of Arts in English as a Second Language from the

University de Haute Bretagne, Rennes, France. He also obtained a Master of Business

Administration from the University of Missouri, Columbia.