4.1 Results
4.1.1 Class Observation and Recording
Overview of interaction types
In the present case study, quantitative analysis of interaction types in different small groups is conducted to provide a first insight into each group’s collaborative process as well as to help the researcher extract interesting excerpts for further analysis. Table 4 and 5 respectively shows the frequencies of interaction types for each group in cycle 1 and 2. Three dimensions of interaction in small group learning, inclusive of epistemic (corresponding to category one to four), regulative, and other, are addressed based on Damşa’s (2014) analysis framework.
In cycle 1, the data revealed that all three groups were concerned with creating
44
awareness in group interactions. This showed that the groups often highlighted the topics or concepts being discussed, named the difficulties they encountered, and identified lack of knowledge in connection with the emergent problems or possible solutions to the problems. The efforts into creating awareness and identifying lack of knowledge served as the common ground for further elaboration and construction of knowledge. Another finding was that compared to the other two groups, Group A showed a relatively high frequency as well as percentage in regulative type of actions, only followed by actions aiming at creating awareness. This indicated that Group A focused heavily on regulating group collaborative actions. For example, Group A spent larger amount of time creating joint plans or dividing group work into individual parts within their group. In addition, it was noteworthy that the total number of interaction frequencies in Group B (n=73) was notably smaller than the other two groups (Group A=104; Group C=113). The rather low frequency of interactive actions resulted from the little participation of Ariel, who was found to be silent most of the time during group discussions. Also, as shown in table 4, Group B had no interactional move in the category “other.” This showed that Group B did not have any social chat or digression, which implied a more rigid atmosphere during group interactions.
Table 4 Frequencies of interaction types (cycle 1)
Category Group A Group B Group C
1. Creating awareness 37 (36%) 28 (38 %) 37 (33%) 2. Sharing knowledge 19 (18%) 18 (25%) 37 (33%) 3. Creating shared understanding 5 (5%) 3 (4%) 2 (3%) 4. Generative collaborative actions 8 (8%) 14 (19%) 15 (13%) 5. Regulative activities 25 (24%) 10 (14%) 18 (16%)
6. Other 10 (10%) 0 (0%) 4 (4%)
45
In cycle 2, students were assigned to form new groups and had the opportunities to collaborate with different teammates. Again, as shown in Table 5, all three groups put much effort on creating awareness and sharing both language- and content-related knowledge with their teammates. It seemed that the groups had interacted most frequently through these two types of interaction, followed by the regulative actions to coordinate group collaboration and to monitor the collaborative process.
In comparison to the actions of creating awareness and sharing knowledge, a comparatively low frequency of actions aiming at creating shared understanding and generating collaborative actions was found in Table 5 for all the groups. The rather low frequency of actions in creating group understanding and collaborative actions did not necessarily contribute to an unproductive or ineffective interaction.
It was also found that the amount of conversational interactions in Group E was nearly half of that in the other two groups. As mentioned before, one participant, Ariel, remained silent most of the time despite the instructor’s encouragement and guidance.
This resulted in much lower interaction frequency in group E.
Table 5 Frequencies of interaction types (cycle 2)
Category Group D Group E Group F
1. Creating awareness 123 (32%) 62 (28%) 96 (27%)
2. Sharing knowledge 98 (25%) 66 (30%) 128 (36%)
3. Creating shared understanding 15 (4%) 10 (5%) 6 (2%) 4. Generative collaborative actions 44 (11%) 25 (11%) 48 (14%) 5. Regulative activities 77 (20%) 54 (24%) 69 (20%)
6. Other 33 (8%) 4 (2%) 7 (2%)
*Note: Students collaborated with new group members in cycle 2.
46
Epistemic dimension of collaborative learning
Epistemic dimension of interactional moves referred to the actions in relation to knowledge sharing and building, including the development of ideas and concepts. In the present study, epistemic dimension comprised the actions aiming at creating awareness, sharing knowledge or information, creating shared understanding, and constructing collective knowledge.
In analyzing how groups members collaborated with learning peers, three aspects featuring productive interaction were extracted and highlighted, including
“development of group understanding,” “construction of language-related knowledge,”
and “confrontation of ideas.”
Development of group understanding
The following collection of episodes showed interactional instances in Group C’s discussion on their presentation about a Chinese heroine, Mulan. The collaborative strategy of this group was to firstly build consensus on the content of their presentation and to create joint plans. In the very beginning of their discussion, the group decided to give their presentation by introducing the animated film produced by Disney and then highlighting the differences between the film and the real story of Mulan. After that, they attempted to create shared understanding and build knowledge by discussing certain key information and ideas covered in their presentation, such as the settings and backgrounds of Mulan’s heroic story. Following exhausted discussions and elaborations, they proceeded to make the presentation slides. Excerpt 1 demonstrated how group members managed to create shared understanding of ideas across different discussion sessions in their two-hour meeting.
47
Excerpt 1. Group C discussion (1009 Cycle1) PHASE I
(each group member searching for information online and reading silently) 1. Claire: Which period in Chinese history… She [Mulan] is
from the Southern and Northern Dynasties of China.
2-sharing information
2. Julia: She’s from the Northern Wei. 3-idea up-take
3. Alex: The Northern Wei.
4. Claire: So, it is the Southern and Northern Dynasties? 1-stating problems 5. Julia: Probably.
PHASE II
(30 minutes later when watching an online video together)
6. Julia: But, is’t she…? So she is from Dynasty Sui. 2-sharing information 7. Claire: Very likely.
8. Alex: (in silence for 3 seconds) Do we need to check the background of the war? Like why the war erupted and why she was recruited to fight? (in silence for 3 seconds) Let me think.
1-identifying lack of knowledge
3-generating new ideas
9. Claire: ETTV News (typing)
10. Alex: Mulan…war…reason (typing)
11.Claire: Poem of Mulan belongs to the poetic genre, Yuefu Poetry of the Northern Dynasties.
2-sharing knowledge
12. Julia: Yes?
13. Claire: Does the Poem of Mulan belong to the Yuefu Poetry of the Northern Dynasties?
14. Julia: (laughing) I’ve got no idea.
15. Julia: (murmuring) This is perplexing.
PHASE III (2 minutes later)
16. Claire: Alex, I suppose you mentioned something about the reason why Mulan joined the army to fight for the war?
1-identifying focus
17. Alex: Because… I’m looking for…yes, the reason why she went for the war.
18. Claire: It’s because she…
19. Alex: The war broke out as a result of the invasion of the Hun or something? Was she put in danger?...So what is our conclusion about the dynasty she was born?
3-creating explanations
3-reframing problem 20. Julia: But the source we had found was outdated. 1-stating problems
48
21. Claire: I think the information was doubtful. 1-stating problems 22. Alex: What? Because now we are looking for…
23. Julia: Hmmm? Look at this! It says the Southern and Northern Dynasties.
2-sharing information
24. Alex: The north invaded frequently. 4-generating ideas
25. Julia: Wars.
26. Alex: The Southern and Northern Dynasties… So which country was she born?
27. Julia: It says… it’s the Northern Wei. 2-sharing information 28. Alex: The Northern Wei…
29. Julia: Is Dynasty Northern Wei the last dynasty, followed by Dynasty Sui?
4-generating ideas
30. Alex: Is it?
31. Julia: So maybe… this [Dynasty Northern Wei] makes more sense and might be correct.
PHASE IV
(after 2 minutes’ discussion on the background and characters in Disney animated film, Mulan)
32. Claire: Dynasty Northern Wei… Yes, she’s from Dynasty Northern Wei. It says…
3-reframing focus 4-idea up-take 33. Alex: (Silent reading) The Rouran army…
34. Claire: I think both of them belong to the northern tribes back then.
4-generating ideas
35. Alex: Are you talking about Mulan?
36. Claire: Yes, they are Xianbei, nomadic groups in northern China, who later on established Dynasty Northern Wei. The third emperor of Northern Wei… right?
4-elaborating ideas
37. Julia: Tuoba something [the name of the emperor]…
Historically, he ascended the throne and soon had wars with the Rouran army.
4-(co)elaborating ideas
38. Claire: The Rouran army, yes.
One idea for which this group had a heated discussion was the dynasty that Mulan lived in. The excerpt started with Claire raising the question of whether Mulan lived in the Southern and Northern Dynasties of China (line 1) after each group member browsed through several websites on their iPads. At the moment, the other two group
49
members confirmed immediately and elaborated on the idea by mentioning a specific period of time, the Northern Wei, during the Southern and Northern Dynasties (lines 2 and 3). However, Claire seemed to puzzle about whether the Northern Wei belonged to a part of the Southern and Northern Dynasties and re-confirmed the answer again (line 4). This time, one group member, Julia replied with a tentative tone (line 5).
Following several discussion episodes, such as a Chinese poem featuring Mulan, the same question reoccurred. When searching for related information online, the group members confronted contrasting ideas (line 6). Compared to the previous discussion session, the group members agreed that there was a need to clarify the incongruent idea about the setting of Mulan’s story. The interaction continued with Alex proposing a possible solution by examining broader social contexts of the war that Mulan went for (line 8). It seemed that the idea was not taken up by the other two group members immediately, while later on one group member invited Alex to share what he had found (line 16). At the moment, the group members hadn’t built a consensus, but they attempted to fine-tune their understanding and advance their knowledge by questioning the reliability of the sources (line 20 and 21), sharing information (line 23), and elaborating ideas based on their background knowledge (line 29). Building upon the collected sources, Julia argued that it was more likely for Mulan to live in Dynasty Northern Wei because of the historical background (line 31).
Then the group members digressed temporarily from the discussion of the current topic to the outline of their PowerPoint slides and the animated film produced by the Disney company. After retrieving more information, Claire shared another piece of information with the other two group members and corroborated Julia’s idea that Mulan was born in Dynasty Northern Wei (line 34 and 36). They then reached a consensus and built shared understanding with the clarification (line 35) and joint elaboration (line 37) of ideas.
50
This excerpt illustrated how Group C created a shared understanding of knowledge when facing difficulties and confronting incongruent ideas during the task. It should be noted that although the excerpt revolved around the key idea of when Mulan was born, it was composed of several discussion sessions evolving over time, namely from phase I to phase IV. Each phase not only represented the time progression during group interaction but showcased group members’ increasing involvement in knowledge and continual development of group understanding.
In phase I, short and simple utterances constituted the group interaction and the content mainly consisted of one-directional sharing of knowledge without further questioning and elaboration. In phase II, a confrontation of incongruent ideas drew the group members’ attention back to the issue. The confrontation of conflicting ideas from different online sources played a crucial role in motivating the students to evaluate the reliability of the sources. In this phase, all group members recognized their lack of knowledge and suggested different ways, such as investigating the social-cultural context, to address the problem they faced. In phase III and IV, more interactions aiming at generating new ideas and explaining concepts were found, which facilitated the comprehension, elaboration, and co-construction of ideas. In the last two phases, knowledge was constructed through not only a linking between students’ prior knowledge and the newly acquired information but active exchange of ideas among group members.
From phase I to phase IV, as described in the previous paragraph, there was an increase in the frequency of actions aiming at creating group understanding and knowledge building. In other words, a gradual involvement with knowledge and continuous knowledge co-construction were found. Taking a step further, the present study underlined the mediating effect of mobile devices on highlighting focus, pinpointing sources, and prompting conceptual change throughout the whole
51
collaborative learning process. iPads, featuring mobility and connectivity, enabled learners to highlight focus by inviting other group members to discuss a certain piece of information retrieved from the Internet. In the excerpt above, instances of learners directing team members’ attention to a certain piece of information displayed on iPads were documented. For example, after a short period of individual work, words like
“look at this” (line 23, Julia) and “it [an article] says…” (line 32, Claire) signaled a transition from individual to collaborative endeavor and a sharing of knowledge among the group members. Each group member’s introduction of useful, emergent pieces of knowledge was fundamental for this group to collectively build a more thorough and correct understanding of ideas or concepts.
Construction of language-related knowledge
Based on the interaction analysis, the most frequently found instances regarding language learning were the exchange and explanation of ideas related to vocabulary items. The pattern of interactional moves was the emergence of problems or lack of knowledge followed by sharing (category 1→category 2) or elaboration (category 1→category 3) of ideas. Most of the time, the exchange of ideas and the creation of shared understanding came to an end quickly in the cases of asking the meaning of English words or translating Chinese to corresponding English vocabulary items.
Excerpt 2 showed a common instance of quick exchanges of ideas among group members. In the excerpt, group members in Group C were browsing through the guiding sentences on WebQuest. In the beginning, Claire, a group member with limited English proficiency, expressed difficulties in understanding the information on the website and asked for help with regard to the pronunciation and meaning of specific vocabulary items (line 1, 3, and 5). The other two group members, especially Julia, who has the best command of English in this group, responded relying on their vocabulary
52
knowledge (line 2, 4, and 6). Interestingly, in line 4, although Alex provided a definition of the word, he showed uncertainty about his answer. Claire seemed to accept the answer without further questioning and then proceeded to raise another question about an unfamiliar word (line 5). Meanwhile, Alex spontaneously used his electronic device and looked up the word “classify” in the e-dictionary, and revised his own answer into a correct one later (line 8).
Excerpt 2. Group C discussion (1002 Cycle1)
1. Claire (laughter) Some words are difficult for me… Hey, what does this mean? [pointing to a word on
Webquest webpage] Is it pronounced as classi-/fai/ or classi-/fi/?
1-stating problems
2. Alex &
Julia
Classi-/fai/. 2-sharing information
3. Claire: What does it mean? 1-stating problems
4. Alex: It means… to explain or something? 2-sharing information 5. Claire: How about this one? Cate… catego… 1-stating problems 6. Julia: Categorize. To put things into groups. 2-sharing information 7. Claire: You know a lot!
8. Alex: Hey, classify means to divide things into groups. 2-sharing information
The above-mentioned excerpt illustrated a common example of short and quick exchanges of ideas among group members in terms of language learning. However, in some cases, the construction of vocabulary knowledge was developed more slowly while more solidly through peer scaffolding, including clarifications, negotiations, and elaborations. Unlike Excerpt 2 comprising repetitive interactional moves from category 1 (creating awareness by stating problems) to category 2 (sharing knowledge), the following two excerpts showed actions starting from those of category 1 (creating awareness by stating problems and identifying focus) to those of category 2 (sharing knowledge), category 3 (creating shared understanding) and category 4 (generating, negotiating, and elaborating ideas), which implied an increased level of cognitive
53
engagement and collaborative development.
The following excerpt from Group F showed how group members helped one another identify potential difficulties as well as build word knowledge through active participation and dynamic exchange of ideas. In Excerpt 3, Group F was browsing through what should be covered in their presentation on WebQuest website before they proceeded to search for more information on their chosen topic “sausages.” In the beginning, one group member, Ray, raised a question about the meaning of a certain vocabulary item (line 1) and was answered by the other two members (line 2 and 3). In line 4, however, another group member, Tony, noticed and pointed out the gap between what Ray had asked (“purchase”) and what had been shown on the webpage (“procedure”) and took a step further to figure out the meaning of the word “procedure”
(line 6). This time, Ray became the person who offered his knowledge and helped clarify the meaning of the word “procedure” (line 7). The discussion continued with Tony’s elaboration and illustration based on the topic they were discussing (line 9).
Excerpt 3. Group F discussion (1113 Cycle2)
1. Ray: “Safety… purchase” Does “purchase” mean to buy or to sell?
1-stating problems
2. Tony: Purchase? To buy. 3-generating ideas
3. Claire: Yes, to buy.
4. Tony: It says “safety procedure”. 2-sharing information
5. Claire To buy food.
6. Tony: “Procedure” means steps of doing something. (In silence for 3 seconds) Hmm… or ingredients?
3-generating ideas 1-stating problems
7. Ray: Not ingredients. 3-creating
explanation 8. Claire: (In silence for 2 seconds) But…
9. Tony: (In silence for 2 seconds) Then it means steps of doing something. For example, do not add [chemical] preservatives.
4-elaborating ideas
54
The interaction above moved beyond the translations between Chinese and English words and demonstrated how students developed their vocabulary knowledge with the help of learning peers. From this group’s discussion on the use of a new or an unfamiliar vocabulary item, it was found that the task-based language learning environment helped create a meaningful context for language users to practice or apply the newly developed linguistic knowledge. For example, after understanding the meaning of the word
“procedure,” one group member applied his understanding of the word to create a concrete example which was situated in the topic being discussed at that particular moment. In this way, learning new vocabulary items was not seen as an isolated language learning practice, but as a crucial and necessary step along the way of completing the assigned task.
Different from Excerpt 3 which showed an instance of peer scaffolding mainly relying on the participants’ own linguistic resources, the following excerpt illustrated how students capitalized on technology to create shared understating and develop word knowledge. Excerpt 4 originated from Group A’s interactional data during the second task of cycle 1. In the task, each group was asked to generate at least two questions of three different types of questions, including analysis, synthesis, and evaluation questions, based on the three articles they had read in the previous class period. Guided example sentences of each type of questions were provided in the complimentary materials on the WebQuest website. This group approached the task by firstly browsing through the guided sentences and then discussed some of them to create their own questions. In this excerpt, they had finished creating analysis and synthesis questions and were working together to create evaluation questions.
55
Excerpt 4. Group A discussion (1002 Cycle1)
1. Elva: “How would you…” and then? (Typing the question on class discussion forum)
1-identifying focus
2. Tony: “How would you… qualify” 4-generating ideas
3. Kelly: “improve” 4-generating ideas
4. Tony: Not “qualify”?
5. Kelly: “How would you improve a person…”
6. Elva: “Improve”? Shouldn’t we use the word “evaluate” or something like that?
4-generating ideas
7. Tony: “Evaluate”…Hmm?
8. Elva: Which “improve”? 1-stating problems
9. Kelly: I-m-p-r-o-v-e 2-sharing knowledge
10. Elva: Improve… (typing) Wait.
11. Kelly: (Surprised) “Improve” means making progress! 3-creating explanations 12 Elva: Yes.
13. Kelly: True!
14. Tony: Are you trying to say “prove”? 4-generating ideas
15. Kelly: Yes! “Prove”.
16. Elva: “How would you prove…” But I think the use of
“evaluate” is better because it means to judge.
4-negotiating ideas
17. Kelly: Yeah. I think we can modify the example sentence and create our own sentence. Good job, Elva!
18. Tony: “How would you evaluate…e-v-a-l…” (typing)
This excerpt showed how group members aggregated both their own linguistic resources and the information provided by e-dictionary to achieve mutual understanding and produce a better product collectively. Students tried to create a question about the qualification of a hero and what made a hero. Each of them provided
This excerpt showed how group members aggregated both their own linguistic resources and the information provided by e-dictionary to achieve mutual understanding and produce a better product collectively. Students tried to create a question about the qualification of a hero and what made a hero. Each of them provided