Advertisement

Appropriation of a representational tool in a second-language classroom

  • Yun Wen
  • Chee-Kit Looi
  • Wenli Chen
Article
First Online:

Abstract

While the affordances of face-to-face and online environments have been studied somewhat extensively, there is relatively less research on how technology-mediated learning takes place across multiple media in the networked classroom environment where face-to-face and online interactions are intertwined, especially in the context of language learning. This case study contextually investigates the appropriation of a representational tool by students in small groups, in the context of collaborative second language writing activities. In this paper, micro-analysis of cross-media interactions is deployed to unravel how different groups of students evolve alternative approaches to appropriating the technology. The study explores the beneficial affordances of a representational tool that supplement face-to-face communication for second language learning, and draws implications for the design of collaborative L2 learning in networked classrooms.

Keywords

Representational tool Networked classroom learning CSCL Computer-supported language learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on the first author’s PhD study in NIE (National Institute of Education, Singapore) and finished in her postdoctoral period at CHILI Lab in EPFL (École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland). The authors are very grateful to the teacher and the students from SST (School of Science and Technology, Singapore) for their participation in the study reported in this paper. We would also like to thank Luis P. Prieto for his constructive comments on the paper.

References

  1. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 315–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bera, S., & Liu, M. (2006). Cognitive tools, individual differences, and group processing as mediating factors in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blake, R., Wilson, N. L., Cetto, M., & Ballester, C. P. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 114–127.Google Scholar
  4. Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. K. (2011). Collaborative writing with web 2.0 technologies: Education students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 73–104.Google Scholar
  5. Cakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 115–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chai, C. (2006). Writing plan quality: Relevance to writing scores. Assessing Writing, 11, 198–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, W., Looi, C. K., & Tan, S. (2010). What do students do in a F2F CSCL classroom? The optimization of multiple communications modes. Computers in Education, 55, 1159–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity of advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multi-modal collaborative problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. In N. Balacheff et al. (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3–19). Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dooly, M. (2011). Divergent perceptions of telecollaborative language learning tasks: Task-as-workplan vs. task-as-process. Language Learning & Technology, 15(2), 69–91.Google Scholar
  13. Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 481–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dyke, G., Lund, K., Jeong, H., Medina, et al. (2011). Technological affordance for productive multivocality in analysis. In H. Spada et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on CSCL (pp. 454–463). Hong Kong: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  15. Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2007). Supporting learning: Increasing complexity? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1162–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language, Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51–71.Google Scholar
  17. Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowlege covergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 405–441.Google Scholar
  20. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of CHI’91 (pp. 79–84). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  23. Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviors during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 217–241). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hämäläinen, R., & Oksanen, K. (2013). Collaborative 3D learning games for future learning: Teachers’ instructional practices to enhance shared knowledge construction among students. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 3, 1–21.Google Scholar
  28. Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writes. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 7–12.Google Scholar
  30. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., & Jordan, R. (2009). Visual representation of a multidimensional coding scheme for understanding technology-mediated learning about complex natural systems. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(3), 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Liu, L., & Chernobilsky, E. (2011). Representational tools for understanding complex computer-supported collaborative learning environments. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL: Methods, approaches and issues (pp. 83–106). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hwang, G.-J., Kuo, F.-R., Chen, N.-S., & Ho, H.-J. (2014). Effects of an integrated concept mapping and web-based problem-solving approach on students’ learning achievements, perceptions and cognitive loads. Computers in Education, 71, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2008). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38, 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jeong, H. (2013). Verbal data analysis for understanding interactions. In C. Hmelo-Silver, A. M. O’Donnell, C. Chan, & C. Chinn (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  36. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Larusson, J. A., & Alterman, R. (2007). Tracking online collaborative work as representational practice: Analysis and tool. In the 3rd International Conference on Communities and Technologies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
  38. Lingnau, A., Hoppe, H. U., & Mannhaupt, G. (2003). Computer supported collaborative writing in an early learning classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(2), 186–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liu, P. L. (2011). A study on the use of computerized concept mapping to assist ESL learners’ writing. Computers in Education, 57, 2548–2558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liu, C. C., & Kao, L. C. (2007). Do handheld devices facilitate face-to-face collaboration? Handheld devices with large shared display groupware to facilitate group interactions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Looi, C. K., Chen, W., & Wen, Y. (2009). Exploring interactional moves in a CSCL environment for Chinese language learning. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), International conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 350–359). Rhodes Island: ISLS.Google Scholar
  42. Looi, C. K., Chen, W., & Ng, F. K. (2010). Collaborative activities enabled by GroupScribbles(GS): An exploratory study of learning effectiveness. Computers in Education, 54(1), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Looi, C. K., Song, Y. J., Wen, Y., & Chen, W. L. (2013). Identifying pivotal contributions for group progressive inquiry in a multimodal interaction environment. In D. D. Suthers et al. (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, computer-supported collaborative learning series 16. Springer Science+Business Media: New York.Google Scholar
  44. McDonough, K., & Sunitham, W. (2009). Collaborative dialogue between Thai EFL learners during self-access computer activities. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 231–255.Google Scholar
  45. Medina, R., & Suthers, D. D. (2008). Bringing representational practice from log to light. In P. A. Kirschner, F. Prins, V. Jonker, & G. Kanselaar (Eds.), International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Creating a Learning World: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2008) (Vol. 2, pp. 59–66). Utrecht: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  46. Medina, R., & Suthers, D. (2012). Inscriptions becoming representations in representational practices. Journal of Learning Sciences, 22, 33–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mercer, N. (2005). Sociocuitural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meunier, L. E. (1998). Personality and motivational factors in computer-mediated foreign language communication. In J. A. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language instruction (pp. 145–197). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
  50. Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: Some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 373–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2012). The role of teacher assistance on the effects of a macro-script in collaborative writing tasks. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing –SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Overdijk, M., & van Diggelen, W. (2008). Appropriation of a shared workspace: Organizing principles and their application. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 165–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Overdijk, M., van Diggelen, W., Kirschner, P. A., & Baker, M. (2012). Connecting agents and artifacts in CSCL: Towards a rationale of mutual shaping. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Overdijk, M., Diggelen, W. V., Andriessen, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). How to bring a technical artifact into use: A micro-developmental perspective. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pakir, A. (1991). The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore. World Englishes, 10, 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Puntambekar, S., Erkens, G., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2011). Introduction. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. E. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL (pp. ix–xiv). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated learning: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roschelle, J. (1994). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborative inquiry? The Arachnet Electronic Journal of Virtual Culture, 2(2).Google Scholar
  60. Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Chaudhury, S. R., Dimitriadis, Y., Patton, C., & DiGiano, C. (2007). Ink, improvisation, and interactive engagement: Learning with tablets. Computer, 40(9), 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 192–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shaw, R. S. (2010). A study of learning performance of e-learning materials design with knowledge maps. Computers in Education, 54, 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Janssen, J., & Phielix, C. (2010). Fostering complex learning-task performance through scripting student use of computer supported representational tools. Computes & Education, 55, 1707–1720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Song, Y. J., & Looi, C. K. (2012). Linking teacher beliefs, practices and student inquiry-based learning in a CSCL environment: A tale of two teachers. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 129–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stahl, G. (2006). Supporting group cognition in an online math community: A cognitive tool for small-group referencing in text chat. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2010). The CSCL field matures. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Suthers, D. D. (2006). A Qualitative analysis of collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Suthers, D. D., & Rosen, D. (2011). A unified framework for multi-level analysis of distributed learning. In B. Alberta (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 64–74). NY: ACM New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Suthers, D. D., Girardeau, L., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). Deictic Roles of External Representations in Face-to-face and Online Collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on CSCL 2003 (pp. 173–182). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  74. Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2007). A framework for eclectic analysis of collaborative interaction. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007, New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  75. Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., & Medina, R. (2010). A framework for conceptualizing, representing, and analyzing distributed interaction. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 5–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Suthers, D. D., Lund, K., Rosé, C., Dyke, G., et al. (2011). Towards productive multivocality in the analysis of collaborative learning. In H. Spada, et al. (Eds.), International Conference on CSCL 2011 (pp. 1015–1022). Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  77. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  78. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(iii), 320–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygata, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  82. van Drie, J., Van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computer in Human Behavior, 21, 575–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wegerif, R., McClaren, B. M., Chamrada, M., Schreuer, O., et al. (2010). Exploring creative thinking in graphically synchronous dialogues. Computers in Education, 54, 613–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wen, Y., Looi, C.K., & Chen, W. (2011). Towards a model for rapid collaborative knowledge improvement in classroom language learning. In H. Spada et al. (Eds.), International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2011 (pp. 836–851). Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  87. Wen. Y., Looi, C. K., & Chen, W.L. (2011). Who are the beneficiaries when CSCL enters into second language classroom. Global Chinese Journal of Computers in Education, 7(1).Google Scholar
  88. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34, 451–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer-human Interaction in Learning and Instruction (CHILI) Lab,EPFLLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options