Cartwright, C. Cooper, and J. Cartwright and F.
Cooper and A. Gregory eds. Tung ed. Cox, Jr. Cooper and S. Jackson eds. Cole and D. Deskins, Jr. Deutsch and A. PubMed Google Scholar. Krishnan and N. Norback and R. Wright and J. Karpati, A. ReCALL , vol.
Kok, A. Instructional Technology and Distance Learning , vol. Lantolf, J. Vygotskian appraoches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lomicka, L. The Next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning. The French Review, vol.
Mazer, J. Communication Education , vol. McBride, K. In Lomicka, L. Lord, G. The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning. Mills, N. Nussbaum, J. Journal of Thought , vol. O'Neill, N. All Facebook. Prensky, M. On the Horizon , vol. Educational Leadership, vol. Rovai, A. Internet and Higher Education , vol. Schwartz, H.
The Chronicle Review. Solomon, G. Washington: International Society for Technology in Education. Stevenson, M. Stutzman, F. Swaffar, J. In Swaffar, J. Arens, K. Austin, TX: Labyrinth Publications. Tapscott, D. Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGrawHill. Growing up digital: How the net generation is changing your world.
Tufekci, Z. Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites". Vander Veer, E. Facebook the missing manual. Pogue Press O'Reilly. Vie, S. Engaging others in online social networking sites: Rhetorical practices in MySpace and Facebook. Windham, C.
New Era G Stuff
Educause Review , vol. Vygotsky, L. Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Winke, P. Students' computer access and literacy for CALL". Youngs, B. Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers. Babbel nd. Apprendre les langues en ligne. Livemocha nd. Palabea nd. Le monde parlant. Please answer the following questions about yourself and your experiences with Facebook in your French class. What is your first language?
What other languages do you know? Do you consider yourself as? Prior to this project, did you have a facebook account? With what frequency do you facebook? For what purposes i. How long have you had your FB account? How much time do you spend on FB each day? How do you facebook for personal use? How do you facebook for educational use? Approximately how often do you check Facebook to see what others have posted? Are you "friends" on FB with other students in this class or from France?
Have you used FB in other classes at this university? How often do you log on to your FB account each day? I enjoyed posting to the discussion forum. I learned a lot from my local classmates. I learned a lot from the partners in France. I felt uncomfortable posting my thoughts publicly in the forum. The FB project took up too much time. Overall, the FB project was beneficial to me. I would like to use FB in other language classes. I will continue to use FB to communicate with classmates after the semester ends. Please explain. Are there other ways in which you would like to use FB in French class?
In other words, it refers to the diverse applications available on this type of Internet based tools. Two people become FB friends when one person extends an invitation and the other person accepts Vander Veer, It is a place for your FB friends to share interesting photos, videos, web sites or messages Vander Veer, Only students in the US completed the surveys. Therefore, participation at certain moments was problematic. She is the director of the French basic language program and the coordinator of the French, German, Italian and linguistics teaching assistants.
Her research focuses on technology-enhanced foreign language teaching and learning and sociolinguistic and pragmatic variation in French-language computer-mediated discourse. Affiliation: Florida Atlantic University. E-mail: gblattne fau. CU building. Both authors contributed equally to this paper.
Lara Lomicka is associate professor of French at the University of South Carolina, where she is the director of basic courses for French and the assistant director of teacher education. Her research interests include teacher education, intercultural and telecollaborative learning, and technology in language teaching and learning. Affiliation: University of South Carolina. E-mail: lomicka sc. Geraldine Blattner et Lara Lomicka.
Plan 1. Facebook in higher education. Introduction 1 The impact of the Internet on language learning in the context of higher education has been growing exponentially. Social networking communities 3 Computer mediated social networks have been growing at an exponential rate.
It is a place for your Figure 1 — Personal use of Facebook : Pre Surveys. Agrandir Original jpeg, 64k. Figure 2 — Personal use of Facebook : Post surveys. Agrandir Original jpeg, 68k. Figure 3 — Educational use of Facebook : Pre surveys. Agrandir Original jpeg, 36k. Figure 4 — Educational use of Facebook : Post surveys.
Figure 5 — Example of Discussion Board Topics. Agrandir Original jpeg, 44k. Figure 6 — Exchange from Discussion Area. Agrandir Original jpeg, 72k. Agrandir Original jpeg, 56k. Bibliography Abraham, L. A founding purpose of the G was for more influential participation in global governance in order to address the shared "poverty of influence" Najam , of this "imagined community of the powerless and vulnerable" Williams , 55; see also Barnett This sense of vulnerability has two sides.
In one, the concern is about the G members' lack of positive influence on the substantive outcomes of international negotiations while, in the other, the concern is to limit incursions into their national sovereignty and their ability to make their own choices about their development strategies Kasa, Gullberg, and Heggelund , Both considerations require more effective participation in international negotiations.
New, weak, and poor countries saw themselves as systematically disadvantaged in global negotiations compared to developed countries that brought large delegations of technically and politically experienced negotiators to global meetings. Yet bilateral negotiations were often even worse for individual developing states.
By arguing for multilateral decision-making in the UN and then banding together in the G, Southern states could better share their experience and personnel and gain negotiation leverage. Ultimately, they want to help set up any new rules. The first aim for more effective participation is a means to the second, primary aim: the G wants its global participation to enhance the national development of its member states.
- A new era of exotic electromagnetism | SpringerLink.
- Digital publishing and the new era of digital divide - E-LIS repository.
- How To Pray Successfully And Get Results.
- The Most Memorable Quotes in SEC Football History.
- Spacecruiser Inquiry: True Guidance for the Inner Journey (Diamond Body Series)?
In broad terms, this is a concern with poverty alleviation and economic growth in their economies as a whole. Development also includes a concern with capacity building for both negotiations and implementation of any international agreements. All of these require transfers of financial resources and technology from the North, including more specifically for mitigation of and adaptation to climate change in the climate regime Vihma, Mulugetta, and Karlsson-Vinkuyzen , ; Williams , Beyond these general terms, members of the G want to make their own development choices, and the group on principle makes few specific demands about development paths Kasa, Gullberg, and Heggelund Over time, the G has moved away from a strong stance that assumes that greater environmental protection is incompatible with its development goals, accepting the aim of sustainable development, although G member states have defined the effectiveness and legitimacy of international environmental agreements in terms of whether they result in development outcomes like poverty reduction Najam Because this is such a complex and multifaceted aim, below I look only at the recent politics of development assistance and technology transfer, especially in the climate negotiations.
To conclude, the G is a diverse coalition of most of the developing countries. Since , its member states have negotiated together for two broad aims: first, to achieve greater influence in international negotiations and reduce their individual and collective vulnerability, and second, to use their international participation to improve their national development outcomes. Even as the G asserted and asserts the similarity of its members, some countries in the G coalition have had notably different development outcomes than others. China stands out, to take an obvious example. Remarkably high growth rates for a remarkably long period of time have brought it to standing among the world's very largest economies, a "G-2" with the United States in some domains Beeson ; Foot The environmental ministers of BASIC have met quarterly since November to coordinate their participation in the negotiations.
They issue Joint Statements at the end of each meeting, which report that they also use the meetings to share successful experiences and to work through key concepts like equity. The four countries of the BASIC coalition illustrate that the concept of "emerging power" is a "family resemblance" comparative category. That is, they share a set of material features that are commonly analytically associated with being an emerging power, but each has a somewhat different set of the attributes Collier and Mahon , China and India share the distinction of having had very fast economic growth rates for the last decade or more, while Brazil and South Africa are closer to the global average.
Brazil, China, and India are among the top ten of the world's very largest economies, while South Africa is two deciles lower. This pattern extends to the climate area, where all of the four are increasingly important current contributors of greenhouse gases GHG , but China and India contribute through increasingly-high aggregate emissions while Brazil and South Africa are higher in per capita terms Viola The BASIC coalition has been a very active collective participant in the Copenhagen negotiations, working with the US to negotiate the controversial Copenhagen Accord that called for voluntary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions rather than the mandatory reductions many participants expected.
Its ministers have met quarterly ever since. Yet the BASIC countries have taken pains to underscore that they continue to remain a part of the G coalition, inviting the current president of the G to all of their meetings and insisting in the Durban negotiations of that the G represented their positions in the meetings.
Participation and international environmental negotiations. One of the most important historic commonalities among the members of the G is a sense that they have been excluded from equal participation in global negotiations. More fundamentally, G members have not helped to set up the rules for international institutions and events.
The large regional powers among the BASIC countries, in contrast, have drawn increasing international attention and can play something of a veto role in global negotiations and rule-making, even if they cannot necessarily assert a positive agenda Hurrell and Sengupta In this section, I provide evidence of that larger role in the climate negotiations, and ask about its effect on the rest of the G As the BASIC countries have grown in prominence over the last 15 years or so, they have sought and been given increasingly central roles in global governance Alexandroff and Cooper ; Armijo ; Hallding et al.
The BASIC countries have been less anxious to take a lead in the climate negotiations, but developed countries began to single them out for special climate attention and participation as early as In subsequent years, they were repeatedly invited to appear at smaller events to discuss climate issues, such as the G and the member Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate. In these smaller meetings, the BASIC countries did gain considerably more decision-making influence, but also received much more pressure to take action immediately on reducing their climate emissions. In the UNFCCC meetings, in contrast, they were able to join the G as part of an undifferentiated South that was not yet required to take climate action through the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities.
The four have also pushed back against the special forums, however, insisting that the UNFCCC must be the primary venue. After the Copenhagen negotiation in December , many of the Joint Statements of their quarterly Ministerial Meetings restated this point. The Copenhagen negotiations presented some of the most striking evidence of the BASIC countries' partial separation from the G and its consequences for all these participants from the South. Dimitrov, in fact, accused China, India, and Brazil of having directly "prevented an agreement" Dimitrov , of the kind he preferred, with legally-binding commitments for them as major emitters.
The BASIC countries were part of all of the small group negotiations that reached the final conference agreement, and consulted with each other "hourly" during the decisive days of the negotiations Hallding et al. In the final discussions, Sudan as a country joined with Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Tuvalu, and Venezuela to prevent the meeting from adopting the Accord on procedural as well as substantive grounds.
The Joint Statement of the next, Third Meeting April , was even more explicit: "Small groups can make a contribution in resolving conflicts, but they must be representative and their composition must be determined through fully inclusive and transparent negotiations, with a mechanism for reporting back to the multilateral forum. When South Africa hosted the Conference of Parties in , its refrain of "an open, transparent, inclusive and party-driven process" was a mantra that actually seemed to drive procedures. In fact, corridor complaints more often focused on the lack of smaller group negotiations that could move negotiations faster than the full group could.
After the Copenhagen meeting, the BASIC countries also took pains to insist that they planned to remain part of the G as it negotiated within multilateral meetings, given open breaks in the G in Copenhagen and since, they have also reiterated their desire to strengthen the coalition. The Ministers reaffirmed the importance of the unity of the G and China as the common voice of developing countries in the climate change negotiations. The declining prominence of the G in negotiations can be seen in a recent set of surveys of participants in the climate negotiations between and The continued alliance of the G countries is something of a puzzle.
There is no question that various groups within the G have different concrete interests with respect to climate change. The comparatively industrialized countries of BASIC are major current contributors to greenhouse gases although still less historically than the developed countries and worry about the economic impacts of climate action. The G countries had remained remarkably unified despite these differences Barnett ; Depledge , but the Copenhagen conference saw the first open splits among them, as some of the most vulnerable countries began to challenge the BASIC countries to do more to reduce emissions.
Most observers agree that the G members have a larger negotiation role with the BASIC countries among them than they would otherwise, while the larger BASIC countries have increased leverage from their position as leaders of the developing world Williams , 55; Hallding et al. In both of their meetings, they have repeated that point: "Ministers emphasized that BASIC countries, as part of the G and China, continue to work to maintain and strengthen the unity of the group.
The Ministers reaffirmed the importance of the unity of the G and China as the common voice of developing countries in the climate change negotiations" Joint Statement of the 11 th Meeting of Ministers, July The right to develop: financial resources and transfer of technology. The Southern countries of the G have historically seen international negotiations as a place where they can pressure for assistance in their national development, and even evaluate environmental negotiations on these grounds Najam , On the theme of financial assistance for development, the BASIC countries and the G often share the same preferences in climate negotiations.
Consequently, the greater power and visibility of the BASIC coalition generally supports G proposals in the negotiations where they might otherwise be overwhelmed by the much stronger economic forces of Northern countries. Once funds of various kinds are set up, however, the interests of the two groups diverge, especially when private actors are involved. The BASIC countries are aware of these problems and have made some efforts to address them in the negotiations.
Several of them have also begun to play a modest, but novel, role as donors of technical and financial assistance to poorer Southern countries. As discussed above, the origin of the G lies in its members' common aspirations for national development and their conviction that multilateral negotiations should further that aim. Yet any climate action or inaction clashes with how some parts of the G define their development prospects. Reducing emissions is a challenge to the interests of OPEC and other fossil fuel producers, which have insisted that some of the adaptation funds come to it to help in its diversification from fossil fuel extraction.
LDCs' agricultural economies and the very physical existence of small island states depend on climate action Barnett Despite this conflict of interest, all members of the G including the BASIC countries have been able to articulate some common interests in maintaining the right to develop and seeking financial and technological support from the North for that development. In the climate arena in particular, these general agreements have led to a strong, shared focus on states having an equal right to develop.
The BASIC countries have framed their demands in terms of a global carbon budget, where quotas of carbon emissions must be distributed in ways that allow all countries the space for development. In their view, this requires a serious and prior effort by developed countries to reduce their own emissions so that developing countries may emit the greenhouse gases that accompany their own development. This demand has been made in all of their Joint Statements from the Ministerial meetings, and continues to be a non-negotiable starting point.
They have so far granted less open attention to the arguments of others that suggest their own emissions need to be curtailed for the development aspirations of others e.