Collaborative corrections with spelling control: Digital resources and peer assistance

Article

Abstract

The present study has explored how pairs of students deployed digital tools (spelling software) as resources in spontaneously occurring corrections of spelling errors. Drawing on the sociocultural theory of learning and ethnomethodological (Conversation Analytic) insights into social interaction, it has identified a range of consistent practices and uses of the spelling tools that were emergent in the everyday educational activities. As demonstrated, technology-assisted error corrections constituted a complex situation, where a number of socioculturally significant factors (goals of the task, properties of the software, and physical access to computer applications) shaped the trajectories of joint work. The present analysis shows in detail how the students approached the visually manifested language production errors by using two kinds of software resources, spelling lists, and a diagnostic tool. The inherent conceptual distinctions, characteristic of these tools, configured joint interpretative work and efforts to correct the errors in different ways. Recurrently, the students’ technology-based corrections were designed as autonomous, stepwise, locally improvised problem solutions, which were subsequently submitted for the evaluation of the diagnostic software. Overall, the study shows that the under-specification of the software’s instructions opened a space for the students’ creative engagement. The potentials of joint spelling software-assisted corrections for collaborative learning are discussed.

Keywords

CSCL Sociocultural theory Interaction analysis Error corrections Spellchecker technological tools 

References

  1. Arnseth, H.-C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative learning, 1, 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnseth, H.-C., & Säljö, R. (2007). Making sense of epistemic categories. Analysing students’ use of categories of progressive inquiry in computer mediated collaborative activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Crook, D. (2002). Deferring to resources: Collaborations and traditional versus computer-based notes. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 18, 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. (2006). Consistent practices in artefact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 481–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frohlich, D., Drew, P., & Monk, A. (1994). Management of repair in human-computer interaction. Human-computer Interaction, 9, 385–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodwin, M. H. (1980). Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1996). Seeing as a situated activity: Formulating planes. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 61–95). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Greiffenhagen, C. (2008). Unpacking tasks: The fusion of new technology with instructional work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 17(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greiffenhagen, C., & Watson, R. (2009). Visual repairables: Analyzing the work of repair in human-computer interaction. Visual Communication, 8(1), 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grossen, M., & Pochon, L.-O. (1997). Interactional perspectives on the use of the computer and the technological development of a new tool: The case of word processing. In B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning. Essays on situated cognition (pp. 265–287). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Heap, J. (1989). Collaborative practices during Word processing in a first grade classroom. In C. Emihovic (Ed.), Locating learning: Ethnographic perspectives on classroom research (pp. 263–288). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  14. Heath, C., Jirotka, M., Luff, P., & Hindmarsh, J. (1994). Unpacking collaboration: The interactional organization of trading in a city dealing room. Journal of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 3(2), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heift, T., & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling errors in CALL. System, 36, 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnometology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hutchby, J. (2001). Conversation and technology. From the telephone to the internet. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ivarsson, J., & Säljö, R. (2005). Seeing through the screen: Human reasoning and the development of representational technologies. In P. Gärdenfors & P. Johansson (Eds.), Cognition, education and communication technology (pp. 203–222). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation. Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  20. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL community: Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 17–22). Lawrence Erlbaum: Boulder CO.Google Scholar
  22. Koschmann, T., Goodwin, C., LeBaron, C., & Feltovich, P. (2006). The mystery of the missing referent: Objects, procedures, and the problem of the instruction follower. In S. Greenberg & G. Mark (Eds.), Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 373–382). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  23. Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language Social Interaction, 35(3), 277–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). The sociogenesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction, and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically. Aspects of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning & Instruction, 13, 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Littleton, K., & Light, P. (eds). (1999). Learning with computers. Analysing productive interaction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. MacBeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society, 33, 703–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1999). Is “exploratory” talk productive talk? In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers. Analysing productive interaction (pp. 79–102). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Ndiaye, M., & Vanderventer Faltin, A. (2003). A spell checker tailored to language learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(2–3), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some aspects of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rosetti-Ferreira, C., Amorim, K., & Silva, A. (2007). Network of meanings: A theoretical-methodological perspective for the investigation of human developmental process. In J. Valsiner & A. Rosa (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 277–292). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schegloff, E. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2006). Social practices of computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 409–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suchman, L. (1997). Centers of coordination: A case and some themes. In B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning. Essays on situated cognition (pp. 41–62). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Säljö, R. (1999). Learning as the use of tools: A sociocultural perspective on the human-technology link. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers. Analysing productive interactions (pp. 144–161). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Säljö, R. (2004). Learning and technologies, people and tools in co-ordinated activities. International journal of Educational Research, 41, 489–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (2001). Reconceptualising spelling development and instruction. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume III (pp. 135–160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Werner, H., & Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation. New York: Viley.Google Scholar
  46. Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind. A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Zemel, A., Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., & Feltovich, P. (2008). “What are we missing?” Usability’s indexical ground. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 17(1), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Child StudiesLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations