The Impact of Mediational Artifact Types on EFL Learners’ Writing Complexity: Collaboration vs. Asynchronous Artifacts
الموضوعات : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Nasibe Bagherpour
1
(
Department of Foreign Languages, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
)
Mojgan Rashtchi
2
(
Department of Foreign Languages, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran 3
)
Parviz Birjandi
3
(
Department of Foreign Languages, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
)
الکلمات المفتاحية: Complexity, collaboration, writing performance, Asynchronous computer mediation, Mediating artifact, Scaffol d- ing instruction,
ملخص المقالة :
The present study was an attempt to investigate the significance of environmental changes on the develo p- ment of writing in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context with respect to the individual. This study also compared the impacts of collaboration and asynchronous computer mediation (ACM) on the writing complexity of EFL learners. To this end, three intact writing classes were designated as Collaborative face - to - face group (N = 21), Asynchronous Computer Mediation group (N = 20) and Control group (N =16). The two experimental groups received scaffolding instructio ns on narrative essays. The collaborative face - to - face group (CFFG) went through the working in pairs, and working asynchronously through a researcher - designed website (ACMG). The data were analyzed employing ANOVA. The results showed that CFFG improved in terms of complexity and positive impact of Collaborative approach and superb performance of CFFG over the ACMG. The findings brought to light the benefits of pair work and showed that learners working in pairs used structures that were more complex in the ir writing than ACM class.
Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.sloan c. org/publications/ jaln/v4n2/ v4n2 _aviv.asp
Bae, J., & Bachman, L. F. (1998). A latent variable approach to listening and reading: Testing factorial invariance across two groups of children in the Korean/English two-way immersion program. Language Testing, 15, 380-414.
Beauvois, M. H. (1994). E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion. Computers and the Humanities, 28(3), 177-190.
Beauvois, M. H. (1997). High-tech, high-touch: From discussion to composition in the networked classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10(1), 57-69.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage.Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120–136.
Campbell, A. P. (2003). Weblogs for use with ESL classes.TSEL-EJ, 9(2). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Campbell-Weblogs.html
Campbell, A. P. (2005). Weblog applications for EFL/ESL: Classroom blogging, two fundamental approaches. TSEL-EJ, 9(3). Retrieved from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej35/m1.html
Chen, L. (2005). Examining the role of computers in EFL instruction. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 4, 30-63.
Clay, M., & Cazden, C. (1992). A Vygotskian interpretation of reading recovery. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of socio-historical psychology (pp. 206-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 248-302.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18 (3), 299–323.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics 21 (3), 354–375.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Glendinning, E., & Howard, R. (2001). Examining the intangible process: Lot us Screen Cam as an aid to investigating student writing. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 11, 42-58.
Harasim, L. (1993). Collaborating in cyberspace: Using computer conferences as a group learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 3, 119-130.
Hunt, K. (1966). Recent measures in syntactic development. Elementary English, 43, 732–739.
Hyland, K. (2003a). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17–29.
Hyland, K. (2003b). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, A. (2004). Creating a writing course utilizing class and student blogs. The Internet TESL Journal, 10(8). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Johnson-Blogs/
Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. NY: Routledge.
Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous and computer-networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 441–454.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with network computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
Kitade, K. (2000). Learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 143–166.
Kramsch, C. (2000). Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 133-153). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 1-24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79-96.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L.B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp.63-82). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/ non-native speaker conversation and negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.
Long, M., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlangguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (2), 207–227.
MacKinlay, K. (1999). Planning to use email to support the learning process? Retrieved from http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/online-ed/mailouts/1999/Sept6.html
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pae, J. K. (2011). Collaborative writing versus individual writing: Fluency, accuracy, complexity, and essay score. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 14(1), 121-148.
Passig, D., & Schwartz, G. (2007). Collaborative writing: Online versus frontal. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 395-412.
Pica, T. (1994). Review article: Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47 (1), 101–143.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 27–57.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty and M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, P. (2005a). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 45–73.
Robinson, P. (2005b). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43 (1), 1–33.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 192-196.
Shang, H. F. (2007). An exploratory study of e-mail application on FL writing performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 79-96.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based learning. Applied Linguistics, 17 (1), 38–62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.) Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Storch, N. (2002). Pattern of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119- 158.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(2), 153- 173.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95 -108). London: Continuum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337.
Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective.MA: Kluwer Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Brown (Eds.), The use of weblogs in language education: New perspectives on CALL for second and foreign language classrooms (pp. 15-25). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Warschauer, M. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 41-51). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Watson, J. R. (2007). Applying sociocultural theory to a language classroom environment with second-year students of college Russian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bryn Mawr College-Pennsylvania.
Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole & J. V. Wertsch (Eds), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178-192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Young, S., & Duncan, H. E. (2014).Online and face-to-face teaching: How do student ratings differ?MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 70-79.
