CHAPTER 6 General Discussion
The main motif of this study was the impact of mobile technology on elementary
EFL reading. Two issues were explored in this thesis. The first one was about the
opportune moment and approaches to use mobile technology in elementary EFL
reading teaching and learning. The other was about the strategies to help elementary
EFL learners appreciate their learning responsibilities and consequently become
independent learners with the support of mobile technology. Five questions resulted
from the motif (Section 1.3). Three experiments were conducted to answer these
questions based on the findings of this study.
In the pilot study (Chapter 3), by observing 26 third graders learning to read in a
small group, the problems which might hinder students’ collaborative leaning were
identified and so as to form the foundation of designing a mobile learning system. The
data analyzed in the pilot study showed that four categories of group reading behaviors
existed (Ardent, Be-forced, Supervisory, and Wait-on) when students were involved in
small group reading activities. This finding corroborates those of Ghaith and
Bouzeineddine (2003) who suggested that certain individual learner characteristics
such as aptitude may influence their perception of the collaborative learning
experience.
The findings of the pilot study also show that just heterogeneously grouping
students in a small group could not guarantee the learning effect even if they had
collaborative and peer-assisted learning behaviors. Through the careful analysis of
video data, the weaknesses when elementary EFL learners were working with
groupmates without the technological supports were identified, and which are
postponed support, invisible helper, absent feedback, and ineffective collaborative
processes. This finding challenges the traditional approaches used in collaborative
learning in which students were heterogeneously grouped in a group to work together
and to reach a common goal (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Ravenscroft, Buckless, &
Hassall, 1999; Slavin, 1986). It also shows that if the students were heterogeneous in
different levels of the critical and basic abilities needed in the reading tasks, additional
learning supports (scaffolding) are necessary in the process of collaborative and
peer-assisted learning. This finding adds to the literature that underscores the
importance of heterogeneous grouping and individual accountability in collaborative
EFL reading instructions.
Based on the findings of the pilot study, mobile technology was introduced in
elementary EFL reading activities and its effect was evaluated in Experiment I
(Chapter 4). In Experiment I, a mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning model
(MDPAL) was used to support elementary EFL learners’ collaborative reading
activities. The results of Experiment I show that MDPAL lowered elementary EFL
learners’ anxiety, promoted their learning motivation, and benefited their oral reading
confidence. This finding conforms the discovery by researchers conducting CALL in
EFL learning, such as computer-based instruction of early reading skills by Mioduser,
Tur-Kaspa, and Leitner (2000) and individualization of instructional sequence by
Speziale and La-France (1992). Besides, with the support of MDPAL, students more
concentrated their attention on reading tasks, especially the low- and medium-ability
students. This finding underscores the importance of technologies for EFL students at
risk for reading difficulties as suggested by Foster, Erickson, and Foster (1994). In
addition to the positive effect on students’ collaborative learning behaviors, the
weaknesses found in the pilot study were reduced effectively by the support of
MDPAL.
An interesting phenomenon was also found in Experiment I. The boundary of the
collaborative reading group becoming fuzzy led to the interdependence between
groupmates becoming loose. As a result, students preferred to respond to online
requests rather than to help their groupmates. This finding calls for additional research
on students’ peer-assisted-leaning behaviors while technology is introduced into daily
classroom activities.
In order to strengthen students’ feeling of identification with their groupmates and
enhance the awareness of their own learning responsibility, the mechanism of
distribution of learning responsibility was used in Experiment II to create the urgent
need of collaborative learning among groupmates. It was implemented by dividing the
reading materials into four parts and randomly assigned the divided materials to
different groupmates. With the support of CAREER, elementary EFL learners were
able to work together collaboratively and effectively. However, without the support of
CAREER, this mechanism did not benefit students’ collaborative and peer-assisted
learning. Moreover, both medium- and low-ability students of the control group were
more alienated from their groupmates and more passive in executing their assigned
missions. The results found in the control group (without technological support) are
different to the study conducted by Ghaith and Bouzeineddine (2003) who maintained
that the low achievers enjoyed their collaborative learning experience more than their
high-achieving counterparts. It was contradictory to the findings of Ghaith (2003) who
argued that the low-achieving learners are more comfortable working in small groups
with their capable peers and their feeling of school alienation decrease in collaborative
learning situation.
Regarding the measurement instruments of early English reading abilities, four
sub-assessments of DIBELSTM were used to evaluate students’ early English reading
abilities. The results reveal that it is necessary to redesign a set of measurement
instruments based on the population of Taiwanese EFL learners to avoid the biases
which probably influence the validities of the measurements.
Altogether, the findings of this study shed light on several issues. They consist of:
(a) issues related to the activity design for mobile EFL reading course; (b) issues
related to the approach of peer-assessment used widely in collaborative learning; (c)
issues related to the EFL teacher’s role in collaborative learning with and without
technological support; (d) the importance of students’ awareness of learning
responsibility; and (e) the urgency of building the measurement instruments of early
English reading abilities for Taiwanese EFL learners.
In the issues related to the activity design for mobile EFL reading course, the
segmentation and random assignment of reading materials benefited elementary EFL
learners’ collaborative and peer-assisted learning in a mobile environment, yet it didn’t
possess the same effect on the traditional EFL class (the control group). In addition,
compare the result of Experiment II with I, the students with the support of CAREER
behaved much better in reading activities than those with the support of MDPAL.
However, the comparison showed a contrary result that the control group of
Experiment II behaved worse in reading activities than that of Experiment I.
In the issues about the widely used approach (peer-assessment) in collaborative
learning, the finding of Experiment II reveals that there are weaknesses in traditional
peer-assessment activity. Without technological support, it’s not an easy task for the
EFL teacher to assure her/his students of an effective assessment process and result. As
such, further research is recommended to examine the application of
peer-assessment/peer rating system in collaborative learning activities.
The EFL teacher’s role in collaborative and peer-assisted learning activities would
be different according to whether mobile technology is involved in these activities or
not. With the support of mobile technology, the EFL teacher only gave necessary
instruction or guidance to students, most of the time he/she walked around and acted as
a manager and a learning facilitator. In contrast, in the control group the EFL teacher’s
role was more like a transmitter of knowledge. Although the control group had
received that identical training as the experimental group in collaborative learning
skills and was given a group goal as well, the EFL teacher spent much more time doing
classroom management than learning managing and facilitating.
The results found in the experimental group is consistent with the study of
Suthers, Toth, and Weiner (1997), who proposed a comprehensive approach to
supporting teachers learning to implement computer-supported collaborative inquiry in
their classrooms and found that the teacher shifted toward the role of facilitator for
student inquiry, moving among workstations, guiding student work and offering
individual help. However, the findings obtained from the control group do not meet the
researchers’ general expectations of the teacher’s role in collaboration (Davidson, 1990;
Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1986).
In the issue related to the students’ awareness of their own learning responsibility,
followed the requirement of the reading activities (such as SWI, PWI, VR, PR, and ST
in Experiment II), the students of the experimental group did individual learning and
acted as a story teller by collaborative learning with the support of mobile technology.
On the contrary, the students of the control group depended more on the EFL teacher’s
instruction and learning supports provided by others. The differences of the students’
responses to STAD model between the two groups reveals that directly applying
collaborative models to early EFL reading is unable to gain a similar benefit as the
study of STAD by Slavin (1986), and the study of circles of learning by Johnson,
Johnson, and Holubec (1986).
The different behaviors of the two groups impacted the measured results of their
early English reading skills. Most of students of the experimental group who behaved
actively, responsibly, and collaboratively made progress in these measurements, but
those (except the high-ability students) of the control group did not, because of their
passive, irresponsible, and anti-collaborative behaviors. The results confirm the
pedagogical benefits of introducing CSCL in classroom learning, such as improving
the amount and quality of social interaction among students (Alavi, Wheeler, &
Valacich, 1995; Hiltz, 1997) and producing a positive learning effect (Pinkwart, Hoppe,
Milrad, & Perez, 2003; Tatar, Roschelle, Vahey, & Penuel, 2003; Zurita & Nussbaum,
2004).
In this issue regarding the measurement instruments of early English reading
abilities, some English abilities beyond reading comprehension might bias the
evaluation. Even DIBELSTM is widely used for international students in the USA, the
traits of the Taiwanese EFL learning environment need to be considered together. For
example, in the USA even the international students’ parents could not speak English
and English is their second language, they have much more opportunities to hear and
use English in their daily lives. Therefore, oral representation is not necessarily a
problem for them in the reading assessment, but it is for most of the Taiwanese EFL
learners.
