Language Acquisition,
Text-Based Virtual Reality, Java Client
INTRODUCTION
This paper will evaluate the user interface of a Java client of
Little Italy, a text-based virtual reality environment developed at the
Department of Computer Science of the University of Milan and accessible
via the Internet. The paper will also explore the possibility of using
Little Italy as a tool for second language acquisition, particularly
Italian. Finally I will make recommendations for improving the user
interface and discuss them.
Little Italy is a MOO which stands for MUD (Multi User Domain)
Object Oriented, MOOs are virtual environments based on textual
descriptions similar to role-games. Some of them are game-oriented, some
of them are not. Little Italy is not game-oriented, it is rather a living
experiment of virtual society and economy. The virtual citizen is free to
contribute to the building of the city and to the definition of social and
cultural models. There are five levels of users within the system: 1)
guests, occasional visitors, they can talk, move and watch; 2) players,
the regular users; 3) builders, they can build objects, places and
descriptions;4) programmers, they can determine objects behavior by
programming them, and 5) Wizards, the administrators of the MOO. Every
user can be promoted to the next level. MOOs are Internet delivered and
based on a client-server architecture. That determines the existence of
relevant characteristics that belong particularly to the server side of
the software, others that belong to the client side and finally others
that originate from the content side of the software. The server side of
the software constitute the assumption of our investigation, since it does
not change from one client to the other. The client side of the software
is our independent variable, the one that can be changed by the programmer
in order to achieve a goal of communication. I agree with Soloway (1996)
that interface development and evaluation should be user-centered and I
try to identify the average user of the software that I am about to
evaluate.
The interaction is text-based and focuses on objects than can be
directly manipulated by the users. This characteristics allows for a very
powerful communicative environment where communications is not based on
metaphors and analogies with the real world but is based on natural
language (Gentner & Nielson 1996); the basic syntax of a command in Little
Italy is "action + object + qualifier". The software runs on Persistent
Object Store which is not based on permanent storage but uses volatile
memory such as RAM. The interaction can occur with other players, with
software objects, such as characters or space, and it can occur with
published MOO material, such as space and character descriptions. The
Interaction occurs mostly in real time, but email functionality as well as
MOO publishing capability are included. The software is TCP/IP based,
accessible from all over the Internet, across platforms. Most of the
interface, messaging and commands, has been translated from English to
Italian. That provides an interesting environment for students of the
Italian language. The virtual community of Italian speakers, consists in
large part of highly educated people and of native speakers. This Italian
virtual community represent an unprecedented resource for foreign language
learners. Never before has the opportunity for authentic communication
with native speakers been so open and easily accessible to students
studying a foreign language in a classroom setting (Oliva, 1995a). The
membership and participation in virtual communities is determined by
network access, computer literacy and a strong interest in the topic of
discussion. Geographical location does not constitute a determining factor
in the process of aggregation. The virtual community of people
communicating in some language utilizes several channels, including News,
IRC, the Web, mailing lists and MOOs among others. The integration of
Internet resources as a primary instructional tool in Second Language
Acquisition utilizes the concept of virtual linguistic community. The
virtual immersion into some language and culture made possible through
computer network resources helps students to improve their language skills
in a manner similar to full immersion or study abroad, but it is based
mostly on written communication. By promoting language acquisition, the
use of Internet communication as an instructional tool in L2 teaching
responds to the call for a departure from the traditional focus on
language learning. Krashen's Monitor Model/Theory (1982) proposes that
adult learners develop an acquired system of language performance, as well
as an independent learned one. The acquired system resembles that of first
language acquisition in children, while the learned system is developed
consciously and usually in formal situations. Acquired language competence
is a subconscious process promoted by situations involving a high degree
of communicative urgency. Learned competence is based more on the
conscious study of grammar rules, as commonly found in traditional
teaching approaches. Although some researchers believe the
acquisition/learning dichotomy may be irrelevant (Vygotsky, 1991), a
growing body of research confirms Krashen's theory that both acquisition
and learning are responsible for second language performance (Blanche and
Merino, 1989). According to the premise that the adult learner's L2
performance is based on the two independent systems discussed by Krashen,
tools which promote acquisition can be integrated with those facilitating
learning. Little Italy facilitates language acquisition by providing the
circumstances necessary for a high degree of communicative urgency. The
students are often required to use their language skills on a daily basis
to actually communicate with native speakers through Email, NEWS and IRC.
The integration of these tools with other more traditional teaching tools,
such as textbooks, films and lectures, all of which promote learned
competence, may create a two-tiered language program combining learning
and acquisition. Other developments in language learning theory and
research relate to shifts toward more authentic communication in the
classroom (Freire, 1970; Goodman, 1986; Graman, 1988; Krashen, 1985;
Taylor, 1993), content-based instruction (Brinton et al., 1989; Graman,
1988; Sternfeld, 1994) and learner-centered education (Ingram, 1984;
Legutke, 1991; Nunan, 1988). Internet tools may foster a learning
environment conducive to all three of these trends. In accordance with
content-based instruction, students may use the target language as a tool
of communication to focus on the subject matter of a given course, rather
than focusing on the structure of the language itself. They may
communicate in the L2 among themselves, with the instructor and with
native speakers in an authentic manner. In addition to providing the
opportunity for authentic communication, interaction with native speakers
also may expose students to natural models of language usage. According to
Krashen's Input Hypothesis (1985), natural input from native speakers is
essential to L2 acquisition. As advocates of content-based and
learner-centered education propose, the curriculum of the subject classes
could take into account the interests and needs of the learners and be
relevant to all participants. Moreover, the students may be involved in
the planning, implementation and evaluation of the instruction, which may
increase student motivation. With respect to the importance of motivation,
Lambert and Gardner (1972) and Krashen (1985) showed that the learner's
attitude outweighs aptitude factors in second-language acquisition.
Little Italy is based on a client-server architecture and it is
distributed via the Internet. You can connect via a MOO client or via a
telnet client at the following Internet address:
little.usr.dsi.unimi.it:4444. Little Italy is based on a high level
programming language, called Lambda-MOO and developed by Pavel Curtis.
This language has been designed to allow end-user involvement in the
planning and building of virtual environments. Among the many MOO clients
available (
http://little.usr.dsi.unimi.it/home/li/clients.html) we choose to
focus on one client developed by Francesco Levantini
(flevantini@vnet.ibm.com) in Java (
http://little.usr.dsi.unimi.it/home/veleno/JMOO/JavaMoo.html). The
advantage of a Java client is that end user skills are not required, the
client does not need to be installed or setup, instead the client can be
automatically downloaded into a Web client window and it runs and
establishes the connection with the server. The importance of having a
very simple procedure in order to achieve operational status ha been
underlined by several studies such as (Milligan & Murdock 1996). Thus I
assume that our average end user will be using a 640 x 480 pixels monitor
resolution and a 640 x 480 pixels client software. The Java client will
open into a Web client window and it will require a display size of 610 x
350 pixels, since Netscape clients 2.x or 3.x are responsible for 60% of
the HTTP transactions, in Netscape, the user will need to deselect
navigation elements such as the toolbar, the location, and directory
buttons in order to obtain the best size of the content window. Given our
basic assumptions and definition of terms, I have chosen to base my
evaluation on an instrument that allows to analyze the software at
different levels (server/client) and provides for a user-centered
perspective. The chosen instrument is the revised heuristics as defined by
Levi and Conrad (1996).
EVALUATION
The Java client to Little Italy, built by Francesco Levantini is
very simple. The interface is composed of a yellow frame, a black
communication window, a blue command window, and gray command buttons.
There are five command buttons:
- a command window
- "COLORE" (color)
- "AIUTO" (help), in Italian, but the headings are in English.
- "CHIAMA" (call), sends out a generic request for help, in
Italian. It requires first to connect to the channel "aiuto" with the
command "a-j"
- "chi?" (who) it lists the connected players and their location
- "Pg-" (PgDn) it scrolls one screen down
- "Pg+" (PgUp) it scrolls one screen up
I would like to suggest what are the functions that should be
included in a Java client, in order to make interaction profitable for a
beginning level user. Large information output, such as help or mappa,
etc. should be redirected to a secondary Java window, perhaps 200 x 100
pixels appearing in the upper left corner. The client should use modes
(Grudin 1989) and have mode buttons, such as:
- help mode ("AIUTO") will give a list of main topics and
redirect the output to a secondary Java window.
- manipulation mode ("MANIPOLA") should expand in at least four
secondary options: "GUARDA" (look), "RACCOGLI" (get) and "METTI" (put)
"LASCIA" (drop).
- communication mode ("COMUNICA"), should allow "DI'" (say) and
"MORMORA" (whisper).
- call mode ("CHIAMA") with the function of joining the help
channel ("a-j") and allow to talk to a human being.
- map mode ("MAPPA") should allow to bring up four different
geographic functions ("mappa", "stradale", "stradario", "locali") into a
secondary Java window.
- go mode, should prompt the user for "n" (Nord), "s" (Sud), "e"
(East), o (West), "su" (up), "gił" (down), and "fuori" (out).
The Client should also have one command windows and some function
buttons such as:
- "COLORE" (color) to rotate among different color options
(present)
- "CHI?" (who), to find out which users are logged in and where
they are.
- "FINE" (@quit)
- "Pg-" (PgDn)
- "Pg+" (PgUp)
There are three more elements, at the server level, that are
subject to possible improvement: the help index, commands and some error
or status messages are still in English. To understand better let us say
that all the commands and help have been translated from English. The
Lambda-MOO programming language and can only accept English commands, thus
translation is made through aliasing and it would be easy to make it
complete. Error and status messages may require a heavier intervention at
the programming level in order to achieve full translation. Language
students could benefit from a reduced technological barrier at the client
interface level if my suggestions above should be implemented. This would
allow them to focus on Italian texts found in commands, descriptions of
objects, error or help messages, communication with other users. The
communicative situation, in Italian language, will be mostly functional or
real, thus creating very favorable conditions to language acquisition.
References
Blanche, P. & Merino, B. (1989). Self-Assessment of
Foreign-Language Skills: Implications for Teachers and Researchers.
Language Learning: A Journal of Applied Linguistics. 39, 313-340.
Brinton, D; Snow, M. A. & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-Based
Second Language Instruction. New York: Newbury House.
Cononelos, Terry, and Maurizio Oliva. (1993). Using Computer
Networks to Enhance Foreign Language/Culture Education. Foreign Language
Annals. 26:527-534.
_______________________________. (1994). Teaching Languages with
NEWS. Interpersonal Computing and Technology Journal. 2, 40-49.
Gentner, D. & Nielson, J. (1996). The Anti-Mac Interface.
Communications of the ACM, 39, 70-82.
Grudin, J. (1989). The Case Against User Interface Consistency.
Communications of the ACM, 32, 1164-1173.
Krashen, S. D. (1980). The Monitor Model for Adult Second Language
Performance, in K. Croft. ed., Readings on English as a Second Language.
Cambridge: Winthrop Publishers.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and
Implications. London: Longman.
Lambert, W., & Gardner, R.C. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in
Second Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.
Legutke, M.. (1991). German for the Student-Centered Classroom:
Reports from Teachers to Teachers. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent
of Public Instruction.
Levi, M. D. & Conrad, F. G. (1996). A Heuristic Evaluation of a
World Wide Web Prototype. Interactions, 3, 51-61.
Milligan, C. & Murdock, M. (1996) Kids and Teens at Iomega.
Interactions, 3, 51-57.
Nielsen, J. & Mack, R. L. (Eds.)(1994) Usability Inspections
Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.
Nunan, David. (1988). The Learner-Centered Curriculum. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Oliva, Maurizio. (1994a). Comunitą di alternativi: Italia in rete.
Virtual: Mensile di Realtą Virtuale e Immagini di Sintesi. 2:70-71.
____________. (1994b). Salt Lake to Siena: Debating Italian
Politics and Culture, in Martha Stone-Martin and Laura Breeden, eds., 51
Reasons: How We Use the Internet and What It Says about the Information
Superhighway. Lexington, MA: Farnet.
_____________ and Pollastrini, Yvette. (1995a). Internet Resources
and Second Language Acquisition: An Evaluation of Virtual Immersion, in
Foreign Language Annals. 28, 551-563.
_____________ and ___________________. (1995b). Integration of
Internet Resources into Foreign Language Teaching, in Conference on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages and Literatures. Perspectives in Foreign
Language Teaching. Eighteenth Annual Conference on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages and Literatures : October 28-29, 1994, Youngstown State
University. Ed. by John Sarkissian, Volume VIII. Youngstown: Youngstown
State University.
Oskarsson, M. (1980). Approaches to Self-Assessment in Foreign
Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Soloway, E.; Jackson, S. L.; Klein, J.; Quintana, C.; Reed, J;
Spitulnik, J.; Stratford, S. J.; Studer, S.; Eng, J. & Scala, N. (1996).
Learning Theory in Practice: Case Studies of Leaner-Centered Design. CHI
'96 Conference Proceedings, 189-196.
Sternfeld, Steven. 1988. The Applicability of the Immersion
Approach to College Foreign Language Instruction. Foreign Language Annals.
21:221-226.
Taylor, B. (1981). Content and Written Form: A Two-way Street.
TESOL Quarterly. 15, 5-13.
________________. (1990). Imagination and Creativity in Childhood.
Soviet Psychology. 28, 84-98.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1991). Imagination and Creativity in the
Adolescent. Soviet Psychology. 29, 73-87.
APPENDIX A
Example of place description:
Piazza Italia
E' uno largo spiazzo circolare, la piazza piu' antica di Little Italy. Al
centro puoi notare una grande fontana in marmo nero, da cui zampilla
limpida acqua sorgiva.
I tuoi passi risuonano sicuri sulle mattonelle in porfido rosa striato che
compongono il pavimento; panchine dipinte verde sono poste sulla
circonferenza della piazza ad intervalli regolari, ottime per un po' di
riposo sotto i noci e le quercie che paiono osservarti dall'alto dei loro
secoli.
Uscite: Est, Ovest, Nord, Sud, edicola, ufficio, Vespasiano e cabina.
Vedi il Torrazzo, la Statua di GDA, MAXI SCHERMO, Termometrone Enorme,
REGISTRO, Teleporter, Otelm-o-Matic, Animalario Automatico, Vettore
Spazio-Temporale, Cammello Sardo, Albero di Natale di LI, Fermata Metro',
fish-wing, Latrina_volante, e toponiglietta.
La luna si staglia in alto nel cielo.
Ci sono 3 dita d'acqua per terra.
Fa caldo.
APPENDIX B
Example of object:
Ragnone peloso e' arrivato.
Ragnone peloso con i suoi tanti occhi si guarda attorno incuriosito
Toponiglietta se ne va (t).
APPENDIX C
Example of description of situation:
Vedi spuntare ad un tratto dal terreno una formarota.
Senti il rumore di un motore sgangherato e vedi arrivare l'AutoBus
Ragnone peloso se ne va (Vespasiano).
Ragnone peloso con i suoi tanti occhi si guarda attorno incuriosito
APPENDIX D
Example of map:
*** Mappa di Little Italy by Jorge (#174) ***
________ ______________ __________ _____________________ |
/ \ / \ / \ / \ |
| | | Zona | Italy Hill || Lago
| | | Commerciale| ||
| Zona | | | Zona Nord ||
| Indus- | Aereoporto | | ||
| triale | |\__________/_\_____________________/
\___________
| | |/ \ / \ /
\
| | | | |
|
| | | Centri | Parco |
|
| | | Amministrativi | | Italy
|
| |\______________/| | Centrale | Hill
|
\________/ / \ \__________________/_\__ |
|
/ \| Giardini Pub- |/ \ / \ |
|
| | blici _____| | | | Zona
Est |
| | | | | Centro |\________/|
|
| |\________/| | | |/ \|
|
| |/ \| Sta | | Storico | |
|
| | | zio | Zona | |
|\__________/
| Quartie- | | ne | \___________/ |/ Parco
\
| re | | | Centrale \ / Quartiere | dei
Colli |
| | | | |
|\__________/
| Perife- | | | | Commerciale |/
\
| rico | |_____| | |
|
| | Quartiere \ \________________/ \_______________/| Centri
|
| | |/ \ / \|
Sportivi |
| | Residenziale | | |
|
| | | | Citta' |
|
| | | Castello | Studi |
|
| | | | |
Arena |
| | | | |
|
\________/ \______________/ \________________/ \_______________/
\__________/
Per ottenere una mappa STRADALE, digitare MAPPA2
Ritorni in Italia
Maurizio: 24 febbraio 1997
