CSCL and Language Learning

As mentioned in the previous section, CSCL is an interdisciplinary field of research and draws a sociocultural approach to learning. Socio-cultural approach to learning echoes and influences the field of SLA, where the importance of social contexts and peer interactions is recognized. Vygotsky (1986b) foregrounds the role of tools in mediating cognitive developments, and language is thought of as the most prevalent and important mediating tool. Through language, namely speaking and writing, individuals consolidate their thinking and shape, reshape, or transform their thoughts while interacting with others. Informed by Vygotsky’s insight into language and thought, Swain (2000) proposes the idea of languaging being a source of second language learning and development. Collaborative dialogue, one type of languaging, has been defined as a dialogue in which learners solve problems and build knowledge together and proven to facilitate language learning and develop metalinguistic awareness (Swain et al., 2002; Swain & Watanabe, 2012). Collaborative language learning provides learners with the opportunities to utilize L2 and to pool linguistic resources collectively to solve the encountered problems.

Recent studies on computer supported collaborative language learning have examined the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools in facilitating language learning, especially in productive skills (e.g. writing and speaking). Web 2.0 tools, virtual worlds, or social-networking sites have also been adopted to support collaborative language learning. Research focus vary from one study to another. The following sections discuss studies on computer-supported collaborative language learning in terms of language skills.

22

Reading & Writing

In terms of writing, the benefits of face-to-face collaborative writing tasks, such as the production of more accurate texts and more organized ideas generated by learners, are well documented (Storch, 2011). There has been accumulating research in the use of wikis in supporting collaborative writing. Research has revealed that creating wiki pages collaboratively has a positive impact on students’ writing skills, since peer feedback and discussion scaffold the writing process in terms of the writing content and language accuracy (Lee, 2010). In additional to improving writing skills, the use of wikis creates a sense of belonging and a place for authentic writing (Mak & Coniam, 2008).

Attempting to explore how online communication tools influenced collaborative writing process, Elola and Oskoz (2010) investigated L2 learners’ use of two social technologies, wikis and chats (oral or text-based), in writing tasks. Students were asked to write two argumentative essays, one individually and the other collaboratively, in the wikis. Learners’ tracked activities in the wikis and chats, their drafts and writing products, and questionnaire were collected to understand how they approached the two writing tasks. Although there were no significant differences between individual and collaborative writing product in terms of accuracy, fluency, and complexity, learners acknowledged that through a dynamic process of discussion with peers, they produced a more fine-tuned thesis with satisfying quality. The findings also showed that when working collaboratively, learners tended to discuss thesis or the structure of writing by using chats, while focused on paragraph- or sentence- level in the wikis.

In a follow-up study, Oskoz and Elola (2014) implemented task-based approach in teaching process model of writing. 16 undergraduate learners in an advanced Spanish writing course were asked to work collaboratively in pairs and complete two three-week modules in writing both argumentative and expository essays. Two Web 2.0 tools,

23

chatrooms and wikis, were employed. Learners’ chat interactions (oral and written chat), tracked changes of the drafts in wiki pages, and the final writing products were collected for further analysis. It was suggested that the technology-mediated tasks supported learners’ reflexive thinking and helped learners achieve a thorough understanding of genre differences. Regarding the effects of Web 2.0 tools, the study showed that learners focused predominantly on content when utilizing the two online tools, which resonated with Kessler’s (2009) finding that students focused more on meaning than form in web-based writing contexts. Concerning the use of two tools, the participants were found to focus more on localized aspects, such as fine-tuning of their vocabulary when using wikis in comparison with using online chats. This finding demonstrated how online tools and the specific features of each affected learning activities and the content of discussion.

In capturing the complex interaction between group activities and tools, Wen et al.

(2013) examined how participants utilized, or “appropriated” the technological tools in the context of L2 (Chinese) collaborative writing task. They also explored the benefits of such tools in complementing face-to-face communication. Nineteen participants worked in five separate groups, with everyone having his or her own laptop to access GS, a representational tool used in the study. Participants were asked to engage in a planning task comprised of several phases of discussion on the debatable topic “plastic surgery.” Video recordings of face-to-face and GS-based interactions were analyzed by using open-coding. Researchers first identified “events,” in which uninterrupted interactions center on the same semantic content. These events were then categorized to three groups based on their functions: (a) social related events (b) cognitive-related events, either about discussion content or about language use and (c) off-task events.

Interactions across media were also investigated to understand the mediating effect of technology. Through qualitative analysis of group interactions, five beneficial functions

24

of posts on a representation tool space were observed: (1) referencing, (2) pinpointing, (3) prompting notice, (4) realizing parallels, and (5) promoting synergy. The results also showed that different groups adopted alternative approaches in carrying out the task and that various patterns of media transitions were found based on learners’ proficiency level or the task design itself. This study stressed that representational tools could play a complementary role in supporting L2 learning and face-to-face communication. The tools not only encouraged equal participation among group members, but provided opportunities for learners to discuss and solve their language problems.

Listening & Speaking

Language learning anxiety has been considered to negatively correlate with language learners’ achievement and willingness to participate in learning activities (Horwitz, 2001), especially in relation to speaking and listening skills. Compared with practicing speaking in front of the whole class, collaborative learning often provides a more comfortable learning environment for students with high anxiety levels. In collaborative learning settings, listening and speaking skills are more likely to be developed through peer support, productive interaction, and abundant input and output in the target language. However, collaboration among peers does not always lead to successful learning. Several key factors may come into play, including the technology, the tasks or learning activities, and the ecology of groups.

In an attempt to understand how task design affected language learners’ oral participation, Deutschmann et al. (2009) conducted an action research and compared two courses in a multi-user virtual environment called Second Life. The two courses both consisted of six sessions (approximately 1.5 hours for each session). Course Two was re-designed based on the findings of Course One and was offered to a new group of students in the following semester. A major difference between the two courses was

25

the task design. In Course One, a role play scenario was adopted, while the participants were not engaged by the design and did not fit into the assigned roles. This led to a freer design of Course Two in which only general themes were defined and participants had more freedom express themselves and to engage in a more authentic communication.

In addition, in Course Two, teachers played a facilitating role rather than a directing role in managing the communicative activities. To understand how the differences between the two courses affected students’ participation, the floor space, turn lengths, and turn taking patterns were analyzed. The results indicated that compared to Course One, the floor space taken up by the teachers decreased considerably in Course Two.

With regard to turn lengths, active participation and longer turn lengths on average were observed in Course Two. Also, student-student turn taking pattern was seldom found in Course One, while this pattern was much more frequent in Course Two, with participants participating in more vigorous discussion and communication. Given the research design, no strong arguments could be made in terms of what exact changes in Course Two contributed to the increased oral participation. However, it is suggested that task design which encouraged authentic communication and collaboration among group members better supported the development of oral skills.

There are fewer studies investigating the use of mobile devices in supporting collaborative learning. Looking at the use of mobile devices, Hwang et al. (2016) designed mobile learning activities by adopting game-based approach to enhance learners' listening and speaking ability in EFL environment. A between-subject experimental design was used. 40 high school Taiwanese students were assigned randomly to form control and experimental groups with 20 participants for each group.

An instructor provided guidance and the same learning content to both groups during a three-week experimental period. Games, including interactive jigsaw and card game, were played in class. For example, in the card game, students created their own

26

sentences, read them out loud, and made other students pick up as many corresponding cards as possible. After class, control group practiced what they had learned using a paper and pen method, while the experimental group utilized a mobile system. Pre- and post- listening and speaking tests taken from a standardized English proficiency test (GEPT) were administered. For experimental group, questionnaires and one-on-one semi-structured interviews were employed after the intervention to investigate participants' perceptions toward the mobile-assisted language learning platform.

According to the statistical analysis, no significant difference was found between the two groups' listening abilities. However, concerning the speaking abilities, the results showed that the experimental group outperformed the control group significantly. The researchers indicated that the improvement of speaking abilities in experimental group may result from the use of the mobile system, which enabled students to practice their oral skills through imitating (listening to the pronunciation of words), recording, sharing (sending their recorded files to peers or the instructor), and reflecting (listening to their peers' recording and identifying mistakes in their own recordings). Also, through the use of mobile technology, students could create meaningful cards of their own in the card game based on situational contexts, which brought in-class language learning into the real world. The questionnaire surveys and interviews revealed that participants' motivation levels were high, and that they expressed positive attitudes toward the mobile-assisted language learning experience, which was in consistent with the findings of many other mobile-assisted collaborative learning studies.

The studies using mobile technology to support collaborative learning practices focus mainly on teenagers or adults. In order to understand how children use mobile devices in language learning, Kirsch (2016) presented a two-year longitudinal study in which 18 six- and seven-year-old primary school students utilized an iPad app iTEO to collaboratively engage in the tasks of digital storytelling. The app provided open-ended

27

frames in the interface for students to insert pictures and create their own stories. It also enabled users to record, edit, and replay oral language. Aiming to investigate the process of collaboration as well as the affordances of iTEO, qualitative data, including observations, video recordings, interviews, and students’ products were collected.

Informed by the concept of exploratory talk and the work of Nystrand et al. (2003) on discourse analysis, the researchers coded according to categories like “the language use,”

“the characteristics of talk,” and “function attributed to iTEO.” The findings provided concrete examples of students’ exploratory talk that emerged when students built linguistic knowledge jointly by discussing and justifying better story content or word choices. Students’ interaction also illustrated how more knowledgeable children facilitated their peers’ learning by encouraging talk and promoting comprehension. As for the role of iTEO on students’ learning, the tool was recognized as a successful learning tools which facilitated language learning and the collaboration process in different ways. For instance, the recording and automatic playback functions helped re-design the recording process and created space for learners to negotiate and reflect on their language production. The app also functioned as an audio and text bank from which learners could refer to when getting lost.

Other

In an exploratory study, Lantz-Anderson et al. (2013) considered whether and how social networking sites could be used as an extended space for language learning activities. 60 students, aged from 13 to 16, from four countries joined a Facebook page for interaction. The idea of “framing,” relating to how participants define activities and how they adjust their language repertoires, is adopted. From the postings in which learners introduced themselves, changes were found in how students framed their presentations. Initially, a formal and expository writing style was used. As the

28

interaction evolved, students’ increasing use of digital vernacular language, such as the emoticons, was reported. It is revealed that as the interaction in SNS continued, schooling norms were collaboratively negotiated and challenged. The study suggested that SNS could be a dynamic and extended space for language learning activities, but at the same time it brought challenges for both teachers and students in the reframing of the activities and in the negotiation of new roles and expectations in such platforms.

Aiming to understand how artefacts mediated students learning process, Wong et al. (2012) reported an intervention study in a mobile-assisted Chinese language learning environment. In a learning activity called “Move, Idiom!”, after an in-class learning session, 35 fifth-graders worked in groups and used mobile phones to take photos of everyday life scenarios that might be associated with the idioms. Then they made sentences or composed a short story by using the idioms to describe the photos they had taken. Group products were then upload to a class wiki space for further classroom discussion and reflection. Attempting to investigate the interplay between students’

meaning making and the artefacts (e.g. existing artefacts like physical environment or example sentences offered by the teacher; artefacts co-created by students, such as student-generated work at a certain moment), the researchers analyzed audio and video recordings as well as the field notes of in-class session by using open coding. A new visualization approach was derived to conduct the artefact-oriented analysis. The study offered a novel visualization approach to analyze how artefacts affected students’

meaning making process, and identified potential distracting artefacts that might constrain the learning tasks in certain cases. For example, the example sentences provided by the teacher constrained some students’ creativity in the following activity of photo taking and story creation. The researchers stressed that students should be encouraged and trained to identify and take advantage of resources at hand to facilitate their learning instead of being asked to use certain resources provided merely by the

29

teachers.

Of the different studies discussed here, several observations and research focus can be identified. First of all, the use of technology has been shown to support collaborative learning process and language learning in a variety of ways. Wiki-based and blog writing, for example, provide platforms for language learners to co-create a text, read their peers' writings, and interact with learners without the constraints of time and space (Oskoz & Elola, 2014). Also, the portability and the built-in functions of mobile devices create new learning experiences in which learners get exposed to different modes of presentation, including visual or oral ones, in an authentic context or a real-world situation (Hwang et al., 2016; Kirsch, 2016). Secondly, the pedagogical approaches adopted by the reviewed studies include game-based learning, task-based language, or situated learning. It is indicated that the design of the learning activities or tasks affects learners' interaction patterns (Deutschmann et al., 2009). The use of tasks or learning activities should be meticulously designed to create more opportunities for collaboration and communication among learners and teachers. Thirdly, most research has investigated learners' perceptions and reported improved motivation and engagement in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Fewer studies examine the learning process, such as how students construct new knowledge, how the interaction with peers lead to learning, and how the affordances of technology or the created artefacts mediate students' learning (Wen et al., 2015; Wong et al., 2012). Thus, there is a need to understand more about the learning process and the role of mobile technologies especially in collaborative language learning context.

30