Using Computer Assisted Classroom Discussion To Supplement Collaboration in English Language...

Using Computer Assisted Classroom Discussion To Supplement Collaboration in English Language Composition Writing For Secondary Level Students

______________________________________________________________________________________

01 INTRODUCTION

Brunei Darussalam is currently taking imperative measures to educate its youth by

means of new technologies because it views the role of ICT in education as being imminent.

The schools that operate nationwide are benefitting from the initiatives made by both the

government and teachers. This paper elaborates on how existing computer facilities will be

utilised to teach English, in particular the area of composition writing, to a class of L2

students.

01.1 The Teaching Context

The ‘model class’ portrayed throughout this paper is a representative of a common upper

secondary level class in any school in Brunei. The average number of students is 20 and their

capacity in English is average. The students have adequate computer skills as a result of their

ICT learning experiences in primary school level (Martin & Abdullah, 2002, p.31) as well as

external exposures to using computers at home. These students are ‘Millenials’, meaning that

they are born as ‘native’ users of digital technology (Warschauer, 2006).

English language teachers for the secondary level usually abide to a set curriculum and

the syllabus flow of a government issued textbook. However teachers are able to deviate from

this convention and are encouraged to exploit other resources that befit their students. The

use of computers is greatly supported to the extent that English Language teachers are always

prioritised to utilise them.

01.2 The Available Technology

The school has 2 computer labs that are equipped with 30 networked computers each. A

more significant facility is the existence of a portable computer lab. This equipment

01


______________________________________________________________________________________

comprises of a that trolley houses 40 Apple laptops capable of connecting together to create a

network via wireless networking. Furthermore, users are able to connect to the Internet

because the school has two reliable wireless network connections. This portable lab can

transform a normal classroom into a computer lab within minutes which opens up new

possibilities for English teachers.

01.3 Using Discussion Board to Teach Writing

The biggest area of concern of English teachers is composition writing. Brunei

Darussalam still employs the Cambridge GCE ‘O’ Level Examinations as its medium of

assessment. Composition writing carries the bulk of the qualitative marks because this area is

where students find most challenging as it tends to focus on both accuracy and creativity.

Teaching composition writing to students involves time-consuming rituals of

classroom discussions, writing drafts, individual attention, and proofreading and editing

performed in groups during the ‘workstation’ phase. The concept of workstation will be

elaborated in Chapter 3 of this paper. The process of completing one composition task

usually takes 9 hours of lessons.

The primary objective of using the discussion board is to provide a medium where

students can equally and communicatively collaborate by discussing ideas for writing and

peer proofreading – roles that the teacher will also perform. Accordingly, less classroom time

will be exhausted and more opportunities to communicate will be gained through posting

comments and real-time chat. Hence, the discussion board is a medium of both Synchronous

and Asynchronous Computer Mediated Communication, and it is in this scope that the paper

will progress. For reference the URL of the discussion board is

http://www.pueblopicasso.com/compostation.html.

02


______________________________________________________________________________________

02 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter will focus mainly on elaborating and exemplifying text-based Computer

Mediated Communication (CMC) and its sub variants ‘one-to-one’ and ‘many-to-many’,

‘synchronous’ and ‘asynchronous’. In view of the fact that CMC in this case is closely related

to Computer Assisted Classroom Discussion (Ortega, 1997) and Asynchronous Computer

Conferencing (Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999), these aforementioned concepts will be

juxtaposed throughout the chapter with CMC acting as the umbrella term.

Due to the similarity of ‘CMC in collaborative learning’ and Computer Mediated

Collaborative Learning, the two terms will be used interchangeably.

02.1 The Concept of Computer Mediated Communication

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) was originally a concept that defines

communication using computers and this includes, among others, e-mails, chatting, forum

boards and video-conferencing via webcams. Eventually educationists identified these

methods of communication as potentially useful to learning and almost instantaneously

implemented CMC in education.

English learning receives the paramount impact from CMC because it “provides

opportunities for language learners to practice their language” (Abrams, 2006). Harasim

(1990) perceives CMC as a “possible cognitive amplifier that can encourage both reflection

and interaction” while Warschauer (1997) views CMC as a bridge that connects speech and

writing allowing both reflection and interaction to take place in one medium. In the same

agendum Harasim (1997, p.121) defines Computer Conferencing as “a group

03


______________________________________________________________________________________

communications medium enabling groups of people to exchange ideas and opinions and to

share information and resources.”

The keywords that could be extracted from the last paragraph are ‘medium’,

‘interaction’ and ‘reflection’. ‘Medium’ in this case is a virtual classroom environment where

students have opportunities to learn and be taught together; ‘interaction’, a means to

communicate among students and between students and teacher(s) that is comparable to

interlocution; and ‘reflection’ is the facility to return to what has been interacted through the

medium, for the medium has a useful attribute that automatically records all text-based

communication carried out as opposed to the ephemeral attribute of unrecorded spontaneous

speech.

02.2 The Discussion Board as the Chosen Medium

To successfully implement CMC into learning, the ‘medium’ of choice should cater

effectively to the needs of reflection and interaction where optimal collaboration can take

place and very little of the social dynamics of the classroom is lost. Aggarwal and Bento

(2002, p.66) exclaim that discussion boards “allow (idea) exchanges or quick questions and

answers.” They further exclaim that “discussion boards combine almost real-time capabilities

with the flexibility and potential depth of asynchronous communication”.

For these reasons, discussion boards are capable of creating itself as a virtual

classroom where the social dynamics of the classroom can be adapted, and therefore, the term

Computer Assisted Classroom Discussion (Ortega, 1997) encompasses both the physical

classroom and the virtual Internet classroom. The benefits and challenges of implementing

Computer Assisted Classroom Discussion (CACD) will be elaborated at the end of Chapter 2

and the mechanics of the Discussion board will be explained further based on functionality

and practicality in Chapter 3.

04


______________________________________________________________________________________

02.3 Collaborative Learning as the Learning Process

The students of the class are constantly groomed to collaborate in particularly difficult

tasks. Even without bearing any connection to CMC, collaborative group work is an essential

component to learning. The students are usually encouraged to collaborate during the early

stages of the syllabus and the introduction of a new task to provide them initial scaffolding.

Dillenbourg and Schneider (1995) describe collaborative learning as situations where

students interact to produce a joint solution to some problem. In the case of using a

discussion board to collaboratively complete composition writing, students are helping out

one another to provide solutions to each one’s composition outcome.

Students are also familiar with collaborative learning in composition writing as it is

the norm of approaching the task in Brunei classrooms. For this specific class, the first step is

the teacher explaining the topic of the composition followed by a classroom discussion. The

second step is group work where students discuss the composition task among themselves in

small groups, followed by the third step where students move from ‘workstation’ to

‘workstation’ in small groups for proofreading and editing. Rather than having students

undergo the same steps individually as in traditional classrooms, students attempt the task in

groups because “there is evidence that in the discourse in which learners articulate and share

their understandings, there is potential for sharing the cognitive load of the learning task”

(Dillenbourg & Schneider, 1995).

With regards to collaboration in CMC, Hiltz (1998) reveals that collaborative learning

can lead to learning outcomes comparable with those achieved in face-to-face classes.

02.4 Collaborative Learning and Computer Mediated Communication

05


______________________________________________________________________________________

Computer Mediated Collaborative Learning, as Warschauer (1997) defines it, enables

collaboration via five principles that, if present in the classroom, are improved by CMC; and

if absent from the classroom are the strengths of CMC. The five principles are “(1) text-based

computer mediated communication, (2) many-to-many communication, (3) time- and place-

independence, (4) long-distance exchanges, and (5) hypermedia links” (Warschauer, 1997).

Apart from principle (2), the other principles can be regarded as unique to CMC.

Text-based computer mediated communication is a combination of both writing and

speech. Warschauer (1997) states that text-based CMC enables the student to both

communicate and reflect on what has been communicated. Further reflection allows quick

editing and evaluation while in communication. Thus, text-based CMC is regarded as the

fourth evolution of human communication and cognition after ‘language’, ‘writing’ and

‘print’ (Harnad, 1991, p.39). In a discussion board setting, a student can interact with another

student or a teacher while simultaneously reflecting upon the discussion at hand. Many-to-

many interaction and reflection are also possible provided enough time is given to reflect on

the discussions.

A functional characteristic of the discussion board is its capacity to allow many-to-

many communication without failing. A reliable discussion board provides enough individual

space for each student in addition to providing several corners as to where students can seek

help from peers or the teacher(s). Since this principle exists in the traditional classroom it is

easy for some to conclude that there would be little significant difference. On the contrary,

many-to-many CMC permits students to discuss ideas while simultaneously have their

discussions recorded for reflection (Warschauer, 1997).

Furthermore, Warschauer (1997) concludes from past studies that many-to-many

CMC has its own social dynamics that actually promotes equality in participation as

compared to face-to-face discussions where more often than not introverted students are left

out. Althaus (1997, p.5) imparts that CMC creates “an intellectual environment that

06


______________________________________________________________________________________

encourages active, thoughtful, and equal participation from all comers." Active participation

during the process of composition writing such as collaboratively working in pairs, small

groups or the whole class is now possible throughout the week (Warschauer, 1997, p. 474).

Time is of a lesser concern with Computer Mediated Collaborative Learning. With the

discussion board connected to the Internet, access is available all the time. This enables

students to work in their own pace as well as in their own time compared to the group work

in the classroom where time is an essence. Students and teachers can now interact outside of

the classroom and prepare their compositions if they see fit (Warschauer, 1997). Alternatively

the school’s Intranet can be used to embed the discussion board if so happens the country’s

Internet network fails.

The last two principles pointed out by Warschauer (1997), ‘long-distance exchanges’

and ‘hypermedia links’ bears minimal association to the scope of this paper’s topic. The

longest distance a student would experience would be the distance from the school to home.

Hypermedia links are indeed useful in online learning but with regards to composition

writing the most a student or a teacher can do is to provide links to ideas that relate to the

composition topic. Utilizing them, however, is based on individual discretion.

The principles of Computer Mediated Collaborative Learning have been established

and the next stage is CMC’s implementation to teaching composition writing. Warschauer

(1996b) states that “Computer Mediated Communication allows users to share not only brief

messages, but also lengthy (formatted or unformatted) documents - thus facilitating

collaborative writing”. He further elaborates that students “can also use the Web to publish

their texts or multimedia materials to share with partner classes”. In other words CMC can be

regarded as a destined medium for collaborative learning.

02.5 Composition Writing and Computer Mediated Collaborative Learning

07


______________________________________________________________________________________

Word-processing became a powerful tool for writing compositions. It can be argued

that in assessments compositions are hand-written, but what good is practicing handwritten

compositions when content is lacking quality. In fact “many composition and language

teachers believe that word processing encourages new pedagogical relationships in the class,

by facilitating student revision and collaborative writing” (Warschauer, 1996a, p.2).

Discussion boards at present are very similar to word-processing applications from

the formatting of text such as font faces, styles and sizes to the editing and erasing of words,

albeit all a student needs is a platform to type a composition in. Students can type their

compositions directly into the discussion board or alternatively they can complete their

composition in a word-processor and paste them into the board, making their composition

readily available to be edited by them as the author and to be given feedback by students and

teachers. Thus, the discussion board becomes a word-processor that caters for everyone, with

the capability of providing a platform on which students can discuss ideas and comment on

compositions to improve their qualities.

Many composition teachers agree that composition writing takes a lot of preparation

tasks from planning to drafting to editing to proofreading and time restricts opportunities for

meaningful and comprehensible discussions. This justifies the reason as to why Warschauer

(1996a) points out L1 composition teachers were the earliest proponents of CMC using

computer conferencing among the students in a class to enhance collaborative writing and the

social production of knowledge followed by L2 composition teachers such as Sullivan

(1993).

02.6 The Potential of Computer Mediated Collaborative Learning

The potential of collaborative CMC is only as good as the benefits it brings compared

to that of face-to-face communication (f+f). From the start, f+f itself has benefits that far

outweigh its flaws yet CMC is capable of covering the same ground and present new benefits.

08


______________________________________________________________________________________

When supplementing the present f+f process with CMC, which is the aim of this paper,

academic performance is enhanced (Althaus, 1997). A study performed by Althaus (1997)

concluded that “a combination of face-to-face and computer-mediated discussion provides a

superior learning environment compared to the traditional classroom alone.”

Bearing in mind that Computer Mediated Collaborative Learning is the main

supplement to the f+f communication already present in the class, the benefits of

implementing this change can be categorised into several aspects notably (1) time, (2)

quantity and quality of collaboration, (3) learning motivation, (4) the role of the teacher and

(5) the facilities provided by the discussion board.

As mentioned earlier, ‘time’ is a fleeting component of classroom lessons particularly

when the year’s syllabus is a chock-a-block schedule of learning activities. Segregating the

task to being classroom independent allows students to proceed at their own time and pace

(Warschauer, 1996b; Warschauer, 1997, p.474; Wu & Hiltz, 2004) and free up class time for

other activities (Warschauer, 1996b).

When students discuss in the classroom, not many can be presented on the table

within the expanse of a few hours prior to writing. With discussion boards students are able

to initiate discussions within the expanse of weeks and the discussions have quality because

students are given opportunities to reflect carefully what they are about to contribute and

what have been contributed, contributions can be edited and re-edited and there is equality in

contributing. All these factors improve the quality of collaboration and consequently the

resulting compositions, a notion that is voiced by Wu and Hiltz (2004, p. 147), Ocker and

Yaverbaum (1999, p.431), Curtis and Lawson (2001, p.21-22) and Barile and Durso (2002, p.

180).

Equality is a distinct benefit that CMC has over f+f. Ortega (1997, p.84) sees

“equality of participation as one of the most pervasive and beneficial effects of using

electronic synchronous discussion in L1 writing instruction” and a study by Warschauer

(1997, p. 473) concluded that “silent students increase(d) their participations online” and

09


______________________________________________________________________________________

“those who are traditionally shut out of discussions (are) benefitting most from the increased

participation.”

Learning motivation increases when students participate in online classroom

discussions. This notion is validated by the study conducted by Warschauer (1996) on

students’ motivation in using computers for composition writing. Students’ motivation

increase because via CMC they become part of the community, develop thoughts and ideas

and learning from others, they overcome isolation and feel less threatened when contacting

others and also they believe computers help them learn English and write essays better

(Warschauer, 1996a, p.9).

Previously the teacher explains the writing task and moves around the class to provide

quality individual attention to students but oftentimes fail to attend to every single student.

The discussion board helps the teacher to access each student’s work and provide valuable

feedback. The teacher becomes the moderator who organises the content, moderate and

facilitate the social dynamics (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer, 2001, p.6) as well as

commenting on the intellectual input submitted by students (Anderson et al., 2001, p.4). The

teacher is also able to moderate the task smoothly with ‘threads’ for specific enquiries and

instructions, hence eliminating the need for the teacher to repeat instructions and information.

Furthermore, students’ compositions are accessible by peers and peer-proofreading gives

students the role of the teacher.

The discussion board itself brings several significant benefits. It has similar functions

to word-processors. It is semi-automatic in that it organises content preventing clutter. It is

usually protected by a password entry thus allowing a class to remain as a class. It has its own

database where students can retrieve their compositions from and other social appendages

such as personal details and private messages. It can be customised based on design AND

functionality.

010


______________________________________________________________________________________

02.7 The Challenges of Implementing Computer Mediated Collaborative Learning

This paper intends to supplement f+f with CMC under the assumption that the

shortcoming of one would be supplemented by the other. Nonetheless, assuming that the

combination of both still exposes flaws then the flaws are most likely based on ‘social’ and

‘technical’ arguments.

Although Warschauer (1997, p. 473) believes that CMC motivates introverted

students to participate, Hiltz (1994) argues that “lurking can occur... group members read the

electronic discussions, but do not contribute.” Moreover, “lack of non-verbal cues may

diminish “social presence”.” (Short, Williams & Christie, 1976) and “some students dislike

the text-based nature of conferencing because of the increased time it takes to type messages

and read other people’s messages.” (Eastmond, 1995).

The worst problem that may arise is ‘information overload’. As Warschauer (1997,

p.473) puts it students may be overwhelmed by ‘posts’, that they ignore them resulting in

conversations becoming monologues.

From the technical standpoint, technology always tends to malfunction. Although this

class is provided with reliable technology other variables such as power supply or faulty

hardware may come into play. To conclude, anything that can go wrong will go wrong so it is

best to have a technician (Ocker, 1999, p.437).

Fortunately, the challenges of implementing CMC in the classroom are far

outweighed by the benefits gained from implementing it. Furthermore, the negative notions

originated from old studies when computers were not as reliable as today and students were

not as computer literate as they are now.

011


______________________________________________________________________________________

03 IMPLEMENTING CMC IN THE CLASSROOM

03.1 Using the Discussion Board for the Lessons

The discussion board is like a website sans contents. To fill it with contents the users,

in this case the students and teacher(s), must submit entries called ‘posts’. There are two

types of entries. The first is termed as a ‘thread starter’. Whenever a user starts a new topic,

for example by posting a draft of one’s composition to get reviews and comments, a new

‘thread’ is created. Now other users are able to post their comments under this topic. These

comments are the second type of entries and are called ‘replies’. The ‘thread starter’ and its

subsequent ‘thread replies’ create what is called a ‘thread’.

The discussion board is made up of many threads arranged in accordance to the latest

modified entry. The specific discussion board mentioned in this paper comprises of threads

each owned by a student initiated by the student’s ‘thread starter’ which is the constantly

evolving composition. Additionally there will be several ‘help’ threads that are moderated by

the teacher(s) to facilitate the process of composition writing. Students can therefore create

dialogues initiated by their composition drafts and teachers can create side dialogues to serve

the purpose of helping and facilitating difficult processes.

03.2 Approaching the Lessons

012


______________________________________________________________________________________

03.2.1 The Preparation Phase

The class starts in the classroom with the introduction of a composition writing task

on the topic “The Day the Storm Hit my School”. The teacher explicates the instructions to

go about performing the task. This ends the teacher-centred approach.

Next, the teacher elicits from students any improvements regarding the task, from

negotiating the demands of the instruction to the planning of the main points that should be in

the content. Predictably there will be a few students who are too shy to contribute. This face-

to-face communication negotiates ideas through brainstorming and once points are adequate

to create a framework, the teacher types these in the discussion board as new threads. One

thread is the ‘instructions’ thread and the other is the ‘ideas’ thread. This ends the f+f only

approach.

Next, students move into small groups of 5 with their computers ready. Each student

creates a new thread in the discussion board and starts the thread with a composition. At the

same time students collaborate on brainstorming ideas in the ‘ideas’ thread. During the task

students are able to perform f+f communication with their physical group as well as perform

CMC with any student in the classroom. Predictably the shy students are now able to

contribute. Strictly at this time the ‘ideas’ thread will be the only means of many-to-many

communication amongst students in the discussion board.

The teacher at times moves around attending to individual student’s enquiries as well

as contributing to the ‘ideas’ thread. Students will be unable to complete their drafts and this

is where the discussion board displays its strength. The traditional homework is for students

to complete their compositions without the help of teachers and students. With the discussion

board students are now able to continue their group collaboration at home and with the

supervision of the teacher.

013


______________________________________________________________________________________

03.2.2 The Workstation Phase

The ‘workstation’ is a familiar concept of the class. In the past once rough drafts have

been completed the teacher assembles tables into 4 clusters. Each cluster is a workstation

where students visit for 15 minutes to check their verbs, punctuation, adjectives and creative

style respectively via checklists and suggestions. With the discussion board, each workstation

is converted into a new thread where students are able to visit as their writing progress.

Once a student is happy with her draft she informs others to visit her personal thread

and from here onwards students and teachers are able to contribute ideas, comments and

constructive criticisms, so that the student can edit her work further until completion and

submission. The teacher at this point prompts contributions from inactive students, moderates

comments and confirms or dismisses students’ contributions, and collects submissions.

Lesson plans regarding this whole process can be found in the Appendices.

03.3 Conclusion

The paper has attempted to justify the benefits of implementing discussion boards in

preparation for writing tasks. It has elaborated on the issues that need to be considered in

relation to CMC and f+f. It is best to acknowledge that this medium acts as a supplement to

prepare students and not to directly improve on students’ compositions. Nonetheless, the

increase in quality and quantity of discussions should affect the quality of compositions as the

latter is the integral component of collaborative writing. Finally, the theoretical approach of

this paper provides a platform for future research into the advantages of discussion boards

and practical investigations on its effectiveness.

014


______________________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

Abrams, Z. (2006). From theory to practice: Intracultural CMC in the L2 Classroom. In Ducate, L. & Arnold, N. (Eds.), Calling on CALL : From Theory and Research to New Directions in Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 181-210). Texas: CALICO.

Aggarwal, A. K. & Bento, R. (2002). Web-based edcuation. In Khosrowpour, M. (Ed.), Web-based Instructional Learning (pp.59-77). Hershey, PA and London: IRM Press.

Althaus, S. L. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with on-line discussions. Communication Education, 46, 158-174.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R. & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. JALN, 5, (2), 1-17.

Barile, A. L. & Durso, F. T. (2002). Computer-mediated communication in collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 173-190.

Curtis, D. D. & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. JALN, 5, (1), 21-34.

Dillenbourg, P. & Schneider, D. (1995). Collaborative learning and the internet. Retrieved from http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/research/CMC/colla/iccai95_1.html.

Eastmond, D.V. (1995). Alone But Together: Adult Distance Study Through Computer Conferencing. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Harasim, L. M. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In Harasim, L. (Ed.), Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger.

Harasim, L. M. (1997). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16, (2), 117–135.

015


______________________________________________________________________________________

Harnad, S. (1991). Post-Gutenberg galaxy: The fourth revolution in the means of production and knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 2, 39-53.

Hiltz, S. R. (1998). Collaborative Learning in Asynchronous Learning Networks: Building Learning Communities. Retrieved December, 29, 2007 from http://eies.njit.edu/~hiltz/collaborative_learning_in_asynch.htm.

Martin, P. W. and Abdullah, K. (2002). English language teaching in Brunei Darussalam:Continuity and Change. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, (2), 23-34.

Ocker, R. J. and Yaverbaum, G. J. (1999). Asynchronous computer-mediated communication versus face-to-face collaboration: Results on student learning, quality and satisfaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 427-440.

Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction : Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning and Technology, 1, 82-93.

Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications.New York: Wiley.

Sullivan, N. (1993). Teaching writing on a computer network. TESOL Journal, 3, (1), 34–35.

Wu, D. & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8, (2), 139-152.

Warschauer, M. (1996a). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication. In Warschauer, M. (Ed.), Telecollaboration in Foreign Language Learning: Proceedings of the Hawai‘i Symposium. (Technical Report #12) (pp. 29–46). Honolulu, Hawai‘i: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching &Curriculum Center.

Warschauer, M. (1996b). Computer assisted language learning: An introduction. In Fotos, S. (Ed.) Multimedia Language Teaching, (pp. 3-20). Tokyo: Logos International.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer mediated collaborative learning: Theory and Practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81, (6), 470-481.

Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and Literacy: Learning in the Wireless Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

016

Using Computer Assisted Classroom Discussion To Supplement Collaboration in English Language...

Education

Transcript of Using Computer Assisted Classroom Discussion To Supplement Collaboration in English Language...