Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Appropriation of a representational tool in a second-language classroom

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chai, C. (2006). Writing plan quality: Relevance to writing scores. Assessing Writing, 11, 198–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity of advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 481–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2007). Supporting learning: Increasing complexity? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1162–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language, Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of CHI’91 (pp. 79–84). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviors during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writes. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2008). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38, 59–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, P. L. (2011). A study on the use of computerized concept mapping to assist ESL learners’ writing. Computers in Education, 57, 2548–2558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McDonough, K., & Sunitham, W. (2009). Collaborative dialogue between Thai EFL learners during self-access computer activities. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 231–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Medina, R., & Suthers, D. (2012). Inscriptions becoming representations in representational practices. Journal of Learning Sciences, 22, 33–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2005). Sociocuitural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing –SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pakir, A. (1991). The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore. World Englishes, 10, 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1994). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborative inquiry? The Arachnet Electronic Journal of Virtual Culture, 2(2).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 192–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, R. S. (2010). A study of learning performance of e-learning materials design with knowledge maps. Computers in Education, 54, 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2010). The CSCL field matures. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34, 451–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer-human Interaction in Learning and Instruction (CHILI) Lab,, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Yun Wen

  2. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Chee-Kit Looi & Wenli Chen

Authors
  1. Yun Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chee-Kit Looi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wenli Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yun Wen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wen, Y., Looi, CK. & Chen, W. Appropriation of a representational tool in a second-language classroom. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 10, 77–108 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9208-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9208-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation