Recently interest has grown concerning the uses of online communication for language teaching Yet this growing interest in computer-mediated collaborative language learning has not been matched by sufficient research and theory This article introduces a conceptual framework for understanding the role of computer-mediated interaction based on a sociocultural analysis of the relationship among text, talk, and learning The article then analyzes current research according to five features particular to online interaction

/pdf/computer-mediated-collaborative-learning-theory-and-practice-3r2s6gatzc.pdf

Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice.

Feedback is widely seen as crucial for encouraging and consolidating learning, and this significance has also been recognised by those working in the field of second language (L2) writing. Its importance is acknowledged in process-based classrooms, where it forms a key element of the students' growing control over composing skills, and by genre-oriented teachers employing scaffolded learning techniques. In fact, over the past twenty years, changes in writing pedagogy and research have transformed feedback practices, with teacher written comments often supplemented with peer feedback, writing workshops, conferences, and computer-delivered feedback. But while feedback is a central aspect of ESL/EFL writing programs across the world, the research literature has not been unequivocally positive about its role in writing development, and teachers often have a sense that they are not making use of its full potential. In this paper we examine recent research related to feedback on L2 students' writing, focusing on the role of feedback in writing instruction and discussing current issues relating to teacher written and oral feedback, collaborative peer feedback and computer-mediated feedback.

/pdf/feedback-on-second-language-students-writing-5akant3d1x.pdf

Feedback on second language students' writing

An Update on Discourse Functions and Syntactic Complexity in Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication.

The present study investigates discourse functions and syntactic complexity in English-as-asecond-language (ESL) learner output obtained via two different modes of computer-mediated communication (CMC): asynchronous and synchronous discussions. Two instructors and twentyfive students from two advanced ESL writing classes participated in this study. Answers were sought to the following questions: a) Are the discourse functions present in ESL learners' synchronous discussions of reading assignments quantitatively and qualitatively different from those found in asynchronous discussions? And, b) which mode of CMC shows more syntactically complex learner output? The results showed that the quantity and types of discourse functions present in synchronous discussions were similar to the types of interactional modifications found in face-to-face conversations that are deemed necessary for second language acquisition. Discourse functions in asynchronous discussions were more constrained than those found in synchronous discussions and similar to the question-response-evaluation sequence of the traditional language classroom. Concerning syntactic complexity, the delayed nature of asynchronous discussions gives learners more opportunities to produce syntactically complex language. Asynchronous and synchronous CMC have different discourse features which may be exploited for different pedagogical purposes. In the hands of experienced teachers, both modes of CMC can be used as novel tools to enhance the language acquisition process by encouraging interaction among participants, collaborative text construction, and the formation of electronic communities of learners.

Discourse Functions and Syntactic Complexity in Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication

On of the purported benefits of computer-assisted instruction is that it increases student motivation. This study researched the effects on student motivation of using computers for writing and communication in the language classroom. A 30-question survey investigated the attitude toward using computers of 167 ESL and EFL students in 12 university academic writing courses in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the U.S. It was found that the students overall had a positive attitude toward using computers and that this attitude was consistent across a number of variables, including gender, typing skill, and access to a computer at home. Further analysis showed that two variables in particular, self-reported knowledge of computers and amount of experience using electronic mail, correlated positively with student motivation. In addition, a factor analysis was performed on the survey questions, revealing three common factors of student motivation, labeled communication, empowerment, and learning. Finally, differences were found in student motivation among the 12 courses, and these differences were seen to be at due at least in part to the degree to which computer-based projects were integrated into the overall goals and structure of the course. In recent years there has been a surge of articles re-examining the relationship of motivation to language learning (Crookes and Schmidt, 1991; Dornyei, 1994; Gardner and Tremblay, 1994a; Gardner and Tremblay, 1994b; Oxford, 1994; Oxford and Shearin, 1994; Pulvermuller and Schumann, 1994; Skehan, 1991). On the one hand some posit that the importance of motivation has been underestimated in the past; Schuman (Pulvermuller and Schumann, 1994) goes so far as to claim that motivation should be viewed as the single overriding variable determining language learning success in adults. On the other hand, there is a growing consensus (Crookes and Schmidt, 1991; Dornyei, 1994; Oxford and Shearin, 1994) that the traditional framework for explaining the nature of language learning motivation need expansion and refinement. Three major inadequacies have been pointed out regarding the traditional framework for analyzing language learning motivation, which until recently has largely rested on the general categorization of motives as being instrumental (for practical benefit) vs. integrative (a desire to integrate into the target culture). First, this categorization is seen as too general and ill-defined (Au, 1988; Crookes and Schmidt, 1991; Oxford and Shearin, 1994; Skehan, 1989). Second, the categorization rests largely on social psychological theory rather than educational theory (Crookes and Schmidt, 1991). Third, the categorization is not pragmatic enough in that it doesn’t provide educators much of a guide for making their teaching more motivating (Dornyei, 1994). This paper seeks to contribute to the process of making motivational frameworks more particularized, pedagogical, and practical by examining the relationship between specific aspects of computer-assisted language learning and student motivation. Computers and Motivation The motivating aspects of learning with computers are widely touted, and there is a vast literature dealing with this issue (see for example Armour-Thomas, White, and Boehm, 1987; Brown, 1986; Chapelle and Jamieson, 1986; Fox, 1988; Hicken, Sullivan, and Klein, 1992; Kinzie, Sullivan, and Warschauer • Motivational Aspects of Using Computers for Writing and Communication 2 Berdel, 1988; Mosley, 1984, January; Perez and White, 1985; Peterson and Sellers, 1992, October; Pollock and Sullivan, 1990; Relan, 1992; Waldrop, 1984; Williams, 1993; Wu, 1992). The most frequently-cited motivating aspects of computer-assisted instruction include (a) the novelty of working with a new medium (Fox, 1988), (b) the individualized nature of computer-assisted instruction (Relan, 1992), (c) the opportunities for learner control (Hicken, et al., 1992; Kinzie, et al., 1988; Pollock and Sullivan, 1990; Williams, 1993), and (d) the opportunities for rapid, frequent non-judgmental feedback (Armour-Thomas, et al., 1987; Waldrop, 1984; Wu, 1992). While this body of research provides a basis for beginning to understand the potentially motivating aspects of CALL, two important limitations must be taken into consideration: (1) Much of this research has been devoted to computer-assisted instruction in general. Language learning involves numerous social, psychological, and cognitive aspects which are not present in other types of learning, and what motivates a language learner using computers might be very different than for learners studying other subjects. (2) Most research regarding the motivating affects of computer assisted instruction is outdated. New technologies popularized the last five years—in particular multimedia programs and computer-mediated communication—allow new ways of using computers in the classroom, and thus new ways of motivating students. Writing and Communicating with Computers This paper focuses on two particular aspects of computer-assisted language learning: using a computer for writing and for communication. Word processing in the second and foreign language classroom has been common for at least ten years. Many composition and language teachers believe that word processing encourages new pedagogical relationships in the class, by facilitating student revision and collaborative writing (for an excellent review, see Susser, 1992) Computer-mediated communication (CMC), like word processing, also involves the use of the computer as a tool, rather than as a deliverer of instructional material. Many claim that CMC is the most revolutionary development in computer-assisted language learning, since it is the only one which involves direct human-to-human communication rather than human-to-machine (Barson, Frommer, and Schwartz, 1993; Cummins and Sayers, 1990; Warschauer, Turbee, and Roberts, 1994). Among the earliest proponents of CMC for educational purposes were L1 composition teachers, who used computer conferencing among the students in a class to enhance collaborative writing and the social production of knowledge (see for example Batson, 1988; DiMatteo, 1990; Faigley, 1990; Hawisher and LeBland, 1992; Susser, 1993). These same computer conferencing techniques were later adapted by second and foreign language teachers, either for the teaching of writing (Sullivan, 1993) or for promoting general language development (Beauvois, 1992; Chun, 1994; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1993). The use of electronic mail proved even more popular among language teachers, since it allowed for communication not only in a single class, but among learners and native speakers from different parts of the world (Barson, et al., 1993; Paramskas, 1993; Sayers, 1993; Soh and Soon, 1991). One of the main alleged benefits of CMC is that it enhances student motivation, supposedly by providing students a less threatening means to communicate (Kelm, 1992; Kroonenberg, 1994/1995; Wang, 1993), providing stimulating international contact (Soh and Soon, 1991), and facilitating work on meaningful projects (Barson, et al., 1993; Vilmi, 1995). Warschauer • Motivational Aspects of Using Computers for Writing and Communication 3 While many have claimed the motivational benefits of second language student use of computers for writing and communication, few empirical studies of this issue have yet been conducted (and, to this author’s knowledge, none have been published.) This study attempts to analyze this issue empirically by addressing the following questions: RQ1: What aspects of using a computer for writing and communication do second/foreign language students find motivating? RQ2: What differences exist among these motivating aspects for students of different backgrounds? RQ3: How does student motivation vary from class to class, teacher to teacher, and from second language to foreign language situations?

/pdf/motivational-aspects-of-using-computers-for-writing-and-2t3795u5pu.pdf

Lonnie Turbee

Papers

Computer Learning Networks and Student Empowerment.