4. The motivation issue: two approaches and their implications for research.

We come back to the issue of motivation to address a methodological issuet: we argue that an educational viewpoint brings to attention aspects of the complex reality mediated by WebBoard which might detract our attention from phenomena which may be the most valuable ones for CMC.

From a modern language perspective the issue of motivation lends itself to interpretations which make prominent issues of policy. The data is a micrososm showing the outcome of abandoning language policy to market forces, as is the present case in Europe (Phillipson, 2003). Tic-Talk fulfills its aim of encouraging cross-cultural collaboration between the pupils, but does not serve the purpose of motivating the UK pupils to use French and generally promotes the use of English as used by non native speakers, which is a feature of the use of English worldwide (Graddol, 97). The UK pupils' lack of engagement can be ascribed to the fact that they approach the use of French as a foreign language, i.e. it is firmly associated with 'not being their own', they feel embarrassed and anxious about having to use it, and they fear they might make mistakes particularly in public. This interpretation is supported by Chambers' evidence suggesting that the derminant factor motivating pupils is perceived relevance - instrumentality - and that currently in the UK there is a mismatch between the content of Modern Language lessons and what the pupils feel they need to learn for reasons which lie outside the school (Chambers, 1998). Furthermore, according to Stables and Wikeley (1999), the situation is deteriorating rapidly and this is reflected in the latest trends in examination entries for French at Key Stage 4 (CILT, 2003). UK pupils think Modern Languages are not useful, not enjoyable, and difficult in spite of the efforts deployed by their teachers to make them more attractive (Chambers, 2001). In Tic-Talk, given that participation was not controlled or sanctionned, WebBoard acts as a magnifying glass showing the effect of the lack of motivation in participating in cross-linguistic environments. Not only pupils refrain from participating, but if they do, tend to opt out quickly and generally marginalise themselves, particularly as the francophones' use of language between themselves increases their own difficulties. In sharp contrast, the French-speaking group as a whole seem to have a different orientation. They already belong to the European generation of French-speaking children for whom English is a second language (Jones, 1998). They are keen to use English to communicate internationally but whether they are using English with UK pupils is secondary and they enjoy using English and French between themselves. The data reflects that UK pupils are not motivated for modern language activities and are not ready to put a lot of effort into communicating in a second language even when it is made attractive by the use of technology and the removal of teachers' control, whereas the francophones are orientated towards collaborative activities independently of the language.

In future, if the Tic-Talk network was to support a policy of language diversity and language equality, the 'laissez-faire' pedagogical approach to language choice clearly would need to be revised and strict controls applied to ensure an equal distribution of anglophones and francophones in the groups and measures aimed at encouraging the UK pupils, such as inviting other anglophone schools while making the francophones improve their sensitivity to the difficulties of English learners.

A New Text approach: If we revisit the data once again in terms of activity theory (Nardi,1996), groups appear to diverge considerably in their approach to what the object of the activity is. Their members engage in the tasks from different angles and bring different resources to them. Although they are doing the same tasks and are very similar in their amount of effort they can be engaged in different activities. Some groups dubbed 'the conformists' use the tasks to extend their social world via a new medium. The 'innovators', in sharp contrast, exploit WebBoard to engage in a creative process of cultural innovation.

The conformists. In nine groups, the pupils treat Web-Board as a means of extending their social and cultural world, but do not allow it to challenge the organisation and structuration of that world. Instead, they try to create a WebBoard group which conforms to the norms they are used to.and reproduces it. They behave as if they have to do what was suggested by the Tic-Talk team and do not question the truth of what is said. They are reality-bound, literal and their discourse is almost entirely referential. Topics mainly relate to their immediate physical and social surroundings locally. Big events recorded are significant family events such as a baby's birth or an operation. Social or political issues are rare and messages are often addressed to the local community more than to the Tic-talk group as in Ex. 10 which exploits the broadcasting potential of WebBoard to fulfill personal goals:

Ex. 10:

…..Saturday, we did gymnastik, with my friends, for the college because there was a party. Have you got a girlfriend?
Me, I haven't got a boyfriend because it's finish with Ted Sorgue !!….

Adaptation here means disambiguating information according to familiar structuring categories (gender, nationality) to obtain more details about the others and write messages likely to get answers. The information participants seek to obtain, for example the others' parents'jobs, reveals the categories they think are important in the construction of social reality and the basis upon which they conceptualise the notion of group identity. Group self-regulation looms large in cross-cultural cooperation and in G11, involves a lengthy and heated debate about the rules to be followed in poem writing.

The innovators. In groups 4, 6, and 12, the participants explore the opportunities offered by WebBoard and use the Tic-Talk group as an arena - or island - of joint creativity. Verbal and other semiotic games are triggered whereby the ambiguities afforded by WebBoard and the task design are systematically explored as resources to avoid disclosure, hide behind ridiculous nicknames ( 'Soso', 'Doudou'), and generally create a fantasy world. These groups use of language is also characterised by much 'in-group' talk.

A characteristic of the way games work in the data is the presence of recurring themes which keep bouncing back in the discourse and are elaborated upon each time by different members, thus creating a unique and memorable shared ground for the group based on the textual representation. In Ex. 11, three girls pretend they are fighting over the only boy in the group. One of them introduces the topic of modelling in mid-November in the following way:

Ex. 11(a):

M is a future
model bcoz she has the body to do it, she has a beautiful face.. anyway we are two pretty blacks.

The theme reappears on December 1st as part of a ritualised verbal fight between 'rivals':

Ex. 11(b):

ce n'est pas pour etre pretentieuse mais si on etait si moche que ca on ferait pas partie dune Ò agence de mannequin, toi par contre….
(tr: I would not want to show off but is we were as ugly as this we would not be part of a modelling agency, whereas you…).

Then on reception of a photo on 8th January, the 'rival' sends the ball back:

Ex. 11(c):

il est super mimi ce mec!! Il est aussi dansÒ votre agence de mannequin?
(tr: he's a real cuty, this guy!! Is he in your modelling agency as well?)

to which the following reply comes on the 12th:

Ex. 11(d):

malheureusement non, cette bombe sexuelle nest pas dansÒ notre agence…mais y en a ki sont pas mal du tout".
(tr: unfortunately no, this sexual bomb is not in our agency but there are a few who are not at all bad)

These groups use a lot of non-conventional language or 'in-group' text messaging conventions which can be interpreted as a new cultural artifact. The Tic-Talk variety is rooted in CMC and productive: it imports signs from several technological domains and word-formation mechanisms associated with the younger generation notably 'verlan' in French as in 'ctru' for 'truc' in Ex.12 (a) in which a French-speaking participant initiates comments on a picture of tags on a wall:

Ex. 12(a):

salut tout le monde
c'est un graf ce ctru!!!!! Pour moi kan 1 ga fait 1 tag il dechire plus que sa mai bon chacun fé se qui veu et il a son StYlE.
PAUL

= c'est un graphe, ce truc! Pour moi, quand un gars fait un tag, il déchire plus que ça mais bon, chacun fait ce qu'il veut et il a son style.
(tr: is this thing a tag ? for me, when a guy makes a tag, he's got to be more aggressive than that but OK everyone can do what they want and he's got his own style)

There is also a characteristic expansion in the range of devices used: Creativity is not limited to the language form itself. In Ex 12(b) an english boy makes an attempt at visual art:

Ex. 12(b)

Hi
I relly
like the picture
and I wish I could
draw like that it is relly
good
bye
ed

Even though groups of conformists and innovators may be comparable in terms of the level of collaborative effort they are making and are doing the same tasks, they conceptualise the technology very differently, either as an extra tool or as an opportunity for exploration and change. Crucially, for CMC research, the increased range of coordination devices and cultural artifacts used by the' innovators' shows that analysing the way the new technological environment is appropriated creatively to produce new texts is valuable per se, independently of the modern language teaching constructs.