Learners’ readiness
When applying CSCL to knowledge management, both the cognitive and social processes of learners should be taken into account. User attributes that influence CSCL vary, and online learning readiness (OLR) is regarded as one of the most crucial factors in successful online learning (Hung, Chou, Chen, & Own, 2010).
Online learning readiness is a broad concept, similar to Shetzer and Warschauer’s (1999) notion of electronic literacies, and includes preferences of delivery, confidence in using online tools, and autonomous learning (Warner, Christie, & Choy, 1998).
These aspects of students’ individual qualities can significantly determine the success of online learning. Thus, self-directed study and autonomous learning have begun to receive greater recognition in language education (Godwin-Jones, 2011).
Because of the crucial role of students’ readiness in successful online learning, instruments have been developed to measure this multi-faceted concept (e.g., McVay, 2001; Hung, Chou, Chen, & Own, 2010), such as motivation for learning, learner control, computer self-efficacy, and online communication self-efficacy. While OLR has been generally recognized as an important predictor of successful online learning, such learning is typically more self-paced and individual. As a result, it has not yet been confirmed whether the same constructs that predict successful online learning in general will also affect online collaboration among learners in the same way. It is worth investigating the interrelationships between each readiness dimension and students’ perceptions, to better understand how educators can help and prepare students for collaboration in digital contexts.
Technical support: Synchronous and asynchronous
Storch (2011) suggested that using wikis may be the new direction for facilitating online collaborative writing in the L2 classroom. Indeed, wikis allow users to easily edit text-based content online. Like the mechanism used on Wikipedia, online collaboration enables revisions among distributed learners. As a feature of asynchronous online tools, the delayed nature of wikis allow learners more time to reflect and produce more in-depth intellectual responses. Successful cases of wiki-supported writing instruction have shown a wide range of positive perspectives from students and teachers (Farabaugh, 2007; Hemmi et al., 2009; Kittle & Hicks, 2006; Lackey, 2007; Zemliansky, 2008), and the application of wikis appears suitable for higher education contexts (Huang & Chen, 2011).
No longer limited to computer engineers, online content on wikis can be easily edited by anyone with an account. Due to the loose structure of wiki sites, users can freely link online resources in and out of wikis in multiple ways. Wikis allow direct access without the limits of time and place, which is the key element in collaborative learning (Hodgson, 2006; Wilkoff, 2007). Being web-based, wikis also provide users with a sense of authorship and audience for their textual production. Huang and Chen (2010) proposed a Wiki Collaborative Writing (WCW) model for collaborative L2 writing instruction, utilizing the collaborative nature of wikis to equalize participation of less able students and to increase peer feedback. Kessler (2009) reported an association between learner autonomy and wiki collaboration, and positive findings on wiki-based writing instruction have increased in recent years (e.g., Arnold, Ducate,
& Kost, 2012; Pellet, 2012). Collaboration through wiki writing has been reported to mediate students’ collective activity (Blin & Appel, 2012) and is associated with the development of learner autonomy (Kessler, 2009). However, there is not yet sufficient empirical evidence to draw conclusion about the actual benefits, particular in L2 contexts, as pointed out in a recent review (Storch, 2011).
On the other hand, synchronous online tools (e.g., chat rooms) can facilitate simultaneous communication and allow learners to get real-time feedback from each other. Because this type of feedback is more similar to face-to-face interaction and is preferred for second language acquisition, synchronous chat is more effective when well-structured. Synchronous chat can foster social presence and lead to a greater sense of community, which is beneficial for a comfortable and successful learning environment (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). In addition, the powerful social nature of wikis for collaborative writing can be enhanced through the support of synchronous text application (Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Oskoz & Elola, 2010).
As these findings suggest, synchronous communication seems to better support motivation, as well as the social and personal aspects of writing, while asynchronous communication is more tailored to the development of cognitive aspects and reflection (Hrastinski, 2007, 2008). Different tools may affect students’ perceptions and preferences for online collaboration; yet many other factors are also involved in the learning context, such as pedagogical approach, teaching style, and task design.
Sotillo (2000) investigated the discourse features of both synchronous and asynchronous online tools in the ESL setting and concluded that asynchronous and synchronous online communication have “different discourse features which may be exploited for different pedagogical purposes” (p.82). For instance, collaborative web tools can help realize the collective and socio-cultural perspective of language
learning (Lund, 2008). Even when acknowledging the benefits of online tools, it is also important to recognize how learners perceive the tools. If a learner’s
“cognitive-affective response” (understanding and attitude) toward electronic tools is positive, high-quality writing may ultimately be produced (Pennington, 1999).
Instructional design
While the intrinsically collaborative nature of wikis theoretically suits learners’
needs, and chat rooms enable instant feedback, they do not always generate promising interaction and cognitive development among learners. Pennington (2003) claimed that “networking student writers electronically does not guarantee better writing”
(p.299); accordingly, collaborative tasks must be carefully planned and executed with consideration of learners’ schema and cognitive load. The pedagogical design of appropriate learning tasks should reflect the nature of the tools and aim for its optimal potential. As discussed earlier, synchronous and asynchronous can facilitate different types of interaction among learners for various pedagogical purposes (Sotillo, 2000);
in a similar vein, student motivation can by increased by choosing appropriate online tools and learning tasks based on specific learning objectives for collaborative writing.
The resulting sense of achievement would be the key to successful online collaborative writing tasks.
When considering the factors that influence the effectiveness of collaborative writing in L2, the majority of past research focused on task types (e.g., Storch &
Wigglesworth, 2007) and proficiency grouping. Other factors must be considered. For example, carefully designed tasks and instructions, including a common goal for the group, are necessary to ensure interaction and cognitive development. Some learners’
prefer extra time to process information; some excel in visual approaches of learning rather than text-based communication. To fit different styles and types of learners, carefully-designed, yet flexible, collaborative writing tasks are the cornerstone of successful CSCW.
Other than individual and cognitive characteristics, CSCW instruction should be based on social and cultural aspects of the learning community and provide an authentic goal and audience for learners and situates them in real contexts (Drisccoll, 2007). Relevant consideration also includes the degree of teacher intervention in the writing process, as well as the strategies used to facilitate online discussion and provide feedback. Teaching methods for collaborative learning significantly contributed to self-efficacy (Fencl & Scheel, 2005), a personal characteristic that influences achievement behaviors, persistence and effort (Schunk, 1995; Schunk &
Pajares, 2002). Reflecting the ideas of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), the three presence components (cognitive, social, and teaching) of the web-based