authentic cmcl
TRANSCRIPT
Authentic OnlineCollaborative Learning
A Need for a Comprehensive Study
Long V Nguyen
Massey University 1
• Definitions
– Collaborative learning
– Computer mediated communication (CMC)
– Computer mediated collaborative learning (CMCL)
• Research on CMCL in general education
• Research on CMCL in language education
• Conclusion
Outline
2
Definitions
Collaborative learning (CL): a process in which participants are
collectively responsible for developing knowledge through
structured activities, and in which the instructor’s role is to
facilitate and co-participate in the learning process (Nunan,
1992).
In CL,
- learning as a social process rather than restrained within an
individual.
- social interaction as a means of knowledge construction
(McInnerney & Roberts, 2004).
- the teacher as a facilitator and the learners as active participants
(Lamy & Hampel, 2007).3
Enhances cognitive and social skills
Purpose Acculturates learners into knowledge community
HigherDegree of structure
Lower
Lower levels/algorithmic Skills Higher levels/synthesis
Well-structured Tasks Ill-structured
Teacher facilitates, but group is primary
Relationships
Learners engage with more capable peers who provide
assistance and guidance
================================================
Definitions
Cooperative learning Collaborative learning
(Lamy & Hampel, 2007; P. M. Nguyen et al., 2005; Oxford, 1997)4
Computer mediated communication (CMC): “the process by which
people create, exchange, and perceive information using networked
telecommunications systems that facilitate encoding, transmitting, and
decoding messages” (December, 1996). Luppicini (2007); Herring
(2001); Warschauer (1999).
Socioculturally, “CMC is not just a tool. It is at once technology, medium,
and engine of social interactions. It not only structures social relations, it is
the space within which the relations occur and the tool that individuals use
to enter that space” (Jones, 1995, p. 16). Chapelle (2001); Kern &
Warschauer (2000); Thorne (2008).
Definitions
5
Websites Email Blogs Wikis Chat SMS
===========================================================
Product-oriented Process-oriented
Definitions
CMC
Aural Textual Visual
Asynchronous Synchronous
6
Collaborativelearning
7
Definitions
Computer mediated
communication
Computer mediated
collaborative learning
+
Research has offered various reasons for growing popularity of CMCL in education (De Lisi and Golbeck, 1999):
• It is a move away from the traditional teaching-learning, in favour of sociocultural approaches that emphasise discovery learning and view knowledge as the product of social activity.
• Learning how to work cooperatively prepares students for life after school in the workplace and in communities.
• Technology provides enhanced opportunities for students to work together in both asynchronous and synchronous modes.
8
Research on CMCL in education
9
Research on CMCL in education
PsychologicalSocial
Academic
Educational benefits of CMCL informed from research
• Critical thinking skills
• Active participation
• Motivation
• Social support system
• Positive atmosphere
• Developing learning
communities
• Increasing self esteem
• Reducing anxiety
• positive learning
attitudes
Research on CMCL in education
Three critical attributes have been identified in collaborative learning (Ingram and Hathorn, 2004):
- Interdependence … of individuals in the group as they work towards the common goal.
- Synthesis of information …. among individuals in the group.
- Independence …. of the teacher.
Issue: how can we measure the amount of collaboration based on the three elements?
10
Research on CMCL in education
The three elements being operationalised into components of participation, interaction, and idea synthesis of the
collaborative group.
11
Participation
Interaction
Synthesis of information
Active?Roughly equal?Teacher’s involvement?
Interdependence
Teacher’s involvement?On-task or off-task?
Patterns of discussion: a b c …Peer feedback final product?
Independence
Synthesis
CMC is consistently proved to have the role of- equalizing participation, - fostering greater participation, and - liberating the minorities
Due to the nature of
Text-based (Honeycutt, 2001; Warschauer, 1996)
No gestures, facial expressions , or other general social cues less
shyness and anxiety (Kern, 1995; Lee, 2002; Smith, 2003)
more varied modes of interactions (Kitade, 2000)
12
Research on CMCL in language education
Several studies on Participation
Participation interaction Collaboration (Z. I. Abrams, 2005; Kitade, 2000; Lee, 2004; Pellettieri, 2000; White, 2003)
Darhover (2002) identified six features of online interaction: intersubjectivity, off-task discussion, greetings and leave-takings, identity exploration and role play, humour and sarcasm, and use of the L1.
Kitade (2000) revealed three salient distinctive CMC-based interactional features: no turn-taking competition, text-based interaction, and a lack of nonverbal cues.
positive conditions for self-correction, others’ initiated corrections, and meaning negotiation.
13
Research on CMCL in language education
Several studies on Interaction
Peer review (peer response, peer feedback, or peer editing):
- enhances a sense of audience;
- raises learners’ awareness of strength and weakness;
- encourages collaborative learning through evaluating and editing each others’ works (Lantolf & Thorne, 2007; Tsui & Ng, 2000)
The final step of collaborative learning
- Liu and Saddler (2003): CMC students had a much larger percentage of editing and comments than the traditional peer response group.
- Honeycutt (2001): email and chat can aid in the acquisition of collaborative peer review competence in different, yet complementary, ways. 14
Research on CMCL in language education
Synthesis of information
Conclusion
Evidence from CMCL in language education:- Increased and equalised participation? YES
Increasing language output
- Potentials of interaction? YES But, no thorough comparison with face-to-face; nor
combining various modes of CMC in one study.
- Synthesis of information?
No research found, though online peer feedback proves to be positive.
15
Future Comprehensive Research
Future studies on CMCL may be required to include
3 Cs
• Cover all three components of collaborative learning
• Compare with face-to-face modality• Combine various modes of CMC
(each mode possessing particular characteristics complementing each other)
16
• Abrams, Z. (2005). Asynchronous CMC, collaboration and the development of critical thinking in a graduate seminar in applied linguistics. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(2).
• Al-Sa’di, R., & Hamdan, J. M. (2005). “Synchronous online chat” English: Computer-mediated communication. World Englishes, 24(4), 409-424.
• Beatty, K., & Nunan, D. (2004). Computer-mediated collaborative learning. System, 32(2), 165-183.
• Black, A. (2005). The use of asynchronous discussion: Creating a text of talk. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1).
• Boone, K. C. (2001). Speech or writing? Email as a new medium. Liberal Education, 87(3), 54-58.• Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in
the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 249-277.• December, J. (1996). Units of analysis for Internet communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 1(4).• DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: an alternative to face-to-face? ELT
Journal, 55(3), 263-272.• Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24, 284-302.
18
References
• Hewett, B. L. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers and Composition, 17(3), 265-288.
• Honeycutt, L. (2001). Comparing e-mail and synchronous conferencing in online peer response. Written Communication, 18(1), 26-60.
• Ingram, A. L., & Hathorn, L. G. (2004). Methods for analyzing collaboration in online communications. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice.
• Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
• Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 1-19). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 143-166.
• Lamy, M. N., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online Communication in Language Learning and Teaching. Palgrave: Macmillan.
• Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Lee, L. (2004). Learners' perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language, Learning & Technology, 8(1).
19
References
References
• Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227.
• Nunan, D. (1992). Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 59-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Pfaffman, J. (2008). Computer-mediated communications technologies. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Van Merrienboer & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Torres, I. P., & Vinagre, M. (2007). How can online exchanges be used with young learners? In O. D. Robert (Ed.), Online Intercultural Exchange: An Introduction for Foreign Language Teachers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD.
• Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.
• Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481.
• White, C. (2003). Language Learning in Distance Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20