Collaborating to motivate second language

Online Information Review
Educational games with blogs: Collaborating to motivate second language
undergraduate critical thinking
Chiann-Ru Song
Article information:
To cite this document:
Chiann-Ru Song, (2008),"Educational games with blogs", Online Information Review, Vol. 32 Iss 5 pp. 557 -
573
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684520810913963
Downloaded on: 18 April 2015, At: 08:38 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 50 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1018 times since 2008*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 434496 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
DownloadedbyUniversitiTeknologiMARAAt08:3818April2015(PT)

Educational games with blogs
Collaborating to motivate second language
undergraduate critical thinking
Chiann-Ru Song
Department of Communication and Graduate Institute of Telecommunications,
National Chung Cheng University, Chia-Yi, Taiwan
Abstract
Purpose – The importance of critical thinking disposition (CTD) in second language (L2) university
students’ writing is a topic rarely discussed. The purpose of this research paper is to examine L2
university students’ CTD during the writing process. Research questions discussed in this paper
encompass the CT dispositions and characteristics of L2 university students in online writing
environments. Measuring CTD and CTD training via online collaborative peer review were the two
grounding themes of this study.
Design/methodology/approach – A five-point Likert scale online questionnaire which included two
open-ended questions was developed to assess CTD. A factor analysis and a cluster analysis were
preformed on the data. A discriminate analysis determined the number of viable clusters and a one-way
ANOVA was performed to compare differences, with qualitative interview data to supplement. Thedata
set for CTD measurement was a matrix consisting of 27 participants and P variables.
Findings – The findings reveal that the CTD characteristics of L2s include open-mindedness,
systematicity and inquisitiveness, and low interaction/motivation.
Research limitations/implications – Limitations include a small sample size that mimics the
researcher’s anticipations, but the findings would be strengthened by a larger sample. A lack of
sensitivity and generalisability could be corrected in the future by using broader subject matter within
an online educational web site.
Originality/value – Knowledge of the CTD characteristics of L2s would allow interface designers to
take into account different CTDs in developing L2 online collaborative educational web sites. This
study outlines the first step in developing online collaborative educational games that allow L2
university students to improve their writing abilities by considering various CTDs.
Keywords Taiwan, Students, Games (curriculum), Language, Online operations
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
As an important aspect of teaching second language (L2) writing, critical thinking (CT)
has received considerable attention (Sommers, 1992; Stapleton, 2001). CT refers to one’s
cognitive skill and critical thinking disposition (CTD) (Tishman and Andrade, 1995;
Facione et al., 1995). This disposition requires complex learning skills such as
metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and social strategies (O’Malley and
Chamot, 1990). A successful writing process requires CT to engender the critical
understanding needed for deep learning. Thus, it is very important for L2 university
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm
This study was developed and designed by the researcher at the communication programme of
National Chung Cheng University and the project was sponsored by the National Science Council
(NSC) of Taiwan.
Educational
games with
blogs
557
Refereed article received
6 May 2007
Approved for publication
13 February 2008
Online Information Review
Vol. 32 No. 5, 2008
pp. 557-573
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1468-4527
DOI 10.1108/14684520810913963

students (L2s) to employ these skills to enhance their writing (Griffiths and Parr, 2001;
Kojic-Sabo and Lightbown, 1999; Paulus, 1999).
The cultural thinking patterns of the East lean toward the circular (Kaplan, 1966),
which coupled with cultural behaviours can cause CTDs to be misinterpreted. This is
important to understand because English follows rigid discourse patterns. If students
do not know the discourse pattern of English, they will be unable to read or write with
comprehension. L2 teachers need to be aware of students’ thought processes. This will
ensure that cultural writing styles can be integrated into an understandable English
discourse. It will also allow the students to maintain ownership of his or her ideas and
CT patterns.
Cultural behavioural patterns are claimed to be reflected in the rhetorical styles of
Asian learners (e.g. Japanese) when writing in English (Stapleton, 2002). For example,
one of these behavioural tendencies is the issue of losing face (Hofstede, 1997).
The English language follows a linear discourse pattern of thesis/topic sentence, main
idea, support and conclusion. In comparison Asian languages discourse patterns are
developed through indirection. Culturally, it is considered rude to address the main
idea directly. To make a point, speakers of Asian languages use “eight poetic hints”
and the listener or reader must deduce the main idea through them. As a consequence,
some of the problems reflected in L2 university students’ writing include flow, clarity
and creativity. Asian students are then labelled as passive learners lacking CT skills.
However, a new generation of Asian learners is not being depicted accurately by
conventional constructs. The perception of Asian students as passive learners lacking
in CT skills has been questioned (Littlewood, 2000). Some researchers have proposed
that access to the internet may accelerate L2s’ CT skills (Stapleton, 2001) and have a
significant impact on student writing (Cohen and Riel, 1989). In particular, by enabling
online collaborative peer review, the internet allows students freedom to express
themselves and their CT actively (Yagelski, 1998).
It is worth noting that a commitment to the view that high-level thinking dispositions
are learnable is a mainstay of the thinking skills movement (Hausmann and Chi, 2002).
Educators who equip students with CT skills are not simply showing students how to
pass tests. They are concerned with imparting skills that teach students to transfer and
internalise thinking skills. Students will then be able to develop strong and stable
thinking dispositions (Perkins, 1987). Unfortunately, few studies in the area of L2
writing focus on the changes in L2 university students (Nelson, 2006). Indeed, there is
much we do not know about their ability to learn high-level thinking.
This study investigates the use of an online writing environment as a teaching,
learning and research tool to explore L2 university students’ CTDs. The researcher
developed and designed a digital educational game called MOSES (Song, 2006) with
cooperating blogs, with the aim of assisting Taiwanese L2 university students to learn
composition. The MOSES with Blogs online writing programme is designed to be used
as a tool to motivate L2 university students in learning free writing. The blogs were
employed to encourage peer group revision and interaction while students develop CT
skills in their writing via online collaboration using free writing.
The MOSES web site uses individual learning situations which are achieved by
multimedia, animation and interactive games. The blogs use small group learning to
promote self-editing and peer critiquing. In the study, the individual games stimulated
OIR
32,5
558

students’ creativity which they transferred to the group blogs. This individual
creativity was expressed to the group through the free writing process.
Many studies have been conducted on CTD in the writing process. However, very few
studies focus on L2 university students using CTD in their compositions. It is important
to examine this field with the focus on L2 university students because the writing
process is more complicated. Thus, this study considers the nature of knowledge (its
content) (Hartley, 2001), learning skills and individual learner differences while
conducting this study into CTD:
RQ1. What tendencies do Taiwanese L2 university students’ CTDs assume in an
online writing environment?
RQ2. How do Taiwanese L2 university students’ individual CTD characteristics
differ in an online writing environment?
Measuring CTD
CT is the creative and empowering process of applying existing knowledge and
various analytical thinking skills to new information or situations (Pohl, 2005).
A disposition is a cluster of preferences, attitudes and intentions, plus a set of
capabilities that allow the preferences to become realised in a particular way (Salomon,
1994). A “thinking disposition” is a tendency to think in a certain way under certain
circumstances.
In recent years, researchers have struggled to define CT (Moore, 2004) and to
measure it (Ellis, 2001). This is due to the fact that the connection between CT skills
and dispositions is still unclear (Facione et al., 2000). This has lead to several different
definitions of CT and tools to measure it.
Facione has studied and written about the subject at length, both individually and in
collaboration with others, defining thinking disposition as a collection of attitudes,
intellectual virtues and habits of mind (Facione et al., 1994) and addressing the
overarching disposition to think critically (Facione and Facione, 1992). Facione (1991)
classified seven sub-dispositions – open-mindedness, inquisitiveness, systematicity,
analyticity, truth-seeking, CT self-confidence, and maturity. Other scholars recognise
fourteen separate CTDs (Ennis, 1994, 1996, 2003). For example, critical thinkers have a
tendency to be clear about the intended meaning of what is said, written or otherwise
communicated. Their CT abilities focus on the situation and offer well informed solutions.
They try to be aware of personal beliefs and keep an open mind about changing them.
Also, they can take into account others’ thoughts and withhold judgment until they have
sufficient evidence.
Perkins et al. (1994) developed an advanced view of the seven key CTDs, which
include: the disposition to be broad and adventurous; the disposition toward
wondering, problem finding and investigating; the disposition to build explanations
and understanding; the disposition to make plans and be strategic; the disposition to be
intellectually careful; the disposition to seek and evaluate reasons; and the disposition
to be metacognitive. They argued that each of these seven CTDs involve distinct
sensitivities, tendencies and aptitudes. Tishman and Andrade (1995) used these CTDs
to compare the three main methods of measuring CTD. The first of these, the
Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (Ennis and Weir, 1985), is efficient at eliciting
students’ thinking dispositions. Ennis argued that the most promising way to assess
Educational
games with
blogs
559

CTDs is through guided open-ended opportunities. This allows students to pursue any
pattern of thinking in response to a specific problem situation. This type of assessment
is the traditional format and measures only ability, not how a learner thinks or is
disposed to think without external prompts or direction.
A second approach to assessing thinking dispositions is through self-report, which
includes information on students’ attitudes, opinions, beliefs and values. The California
Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) (Facione and Facione, 1992) is one
example of a self-report assessment. The CCTDI is a 75-item survey in which students
respond to each item using a six-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to
“strongly disagree”. A student’s responses to these questions (and assessments similar
to it) provides information which makes up the base of Facione’s (1991) seven CT
sub-dispositions mentioned above. While originally used at the university level, the
CCTDI has been adapted with success to earlier grades. However, CCTDI measures only
CTDs.
A third approach is the Perkins-Tishman-Andrade assessment instruments (Tishman
and Andrade, 1995). Their aim is to distinguish between cognitive ability, inclination and
sensitivity, and to assess how they are related to or contribute to a student’s overall CT
performance. Their assessment consists of a three-task sequence with each task isolating
one element of the dispositional triad. The test shows that the three-task sequence can
reveal reliable information about students’ thinking dispositions.
In summary, due to different definitions of thinking dispositions, thinking
dispositional profiles also vary (Perkins, 1987). Although the above methods are all
working towards developing an assessment that will measure a student’s CTD
characteristics in each of the individual ways, the CCTDI (Facione and Facione, 1992)
offered the researcher more information about the student’s thinking process. Using the
more empirical approach laid out by Facione and Facione (1992), a more detailed and
complete thinking profile could be composited. The characteristics the critical thinker
should ideally possess are inquisitiveness, truth-seeking, analyticity, systematicity, CT
self-confidence, open-mindedness and cognitive maturity. These characteristics act as a
profile of the student’s ability to think critically (Facione et al., 1995). Thus, CCTDI was
employed in this study as a framework to investigate L2 university students’ CTDs.
CTD training through online collaborative peer review
Writing is a complicated process. A student’s self-confidence, self-awareness and
ability to think critically and creatively are all important in the writing process. CT is
important to improve what inspires L2 students’ writing.
Individuals learn language by translating thoughts into words. Thinking is then
influenced by the words we choose and utilise. The debate is unresolved but the
underlying message is that “language abilities and thinking competencies shape each
other” (Coster and Ledovski, 2005, p. 3). However, CT is difficult for L2 students to
grasp. CTD does not develop naturally; it may however develop through training.
The effectiveness of using an online programme for self-learning to develop CT is
limited by individual learner differences. In particular, poorer learners are often
deficient in CT skills. They have little awareness of how to approach learning or
deficiencies in their use of CT skills to monitor their understanding (Wenden, 1998). L2
teachers have also found that the most challenging aspect of helping L2 students’
OIR
32,5
560

writing is how to improve CT in generating writing. Coster and Ledovski (2005, p. 2)
stated that:
Although we could help our students improve their structure, fluency and coherency,
grammatical accuracy and lexical resource; we felt that we were not doing enough to improve
what generates their writing – their critical thinking.
Stapleton (2001) is optimistic about the use of online communication technology to
improve L2 students’ CT. In online collaborative writing programmes, brainstorming,
journal writing, multiple drafting, feedback practices, revision and final editing are all
steps during which the teacher and students can read and respond to the writing as it
develops into the final product. The role of online collaborative peer review in L2
learner revision and its affect on the overall quality of their writing is receiving
attention by researchers (Coster and Ledovski, 2005). Online collaborative peer review
is an effective way to train L2 students’ CTDs and allow them to gain a more equal
footing with native speaking learners.
It has been shown that as a form of collaborative learning, peer review contributes
to CT (Hyland, 2003; Nelson and Murphy, 1992). One valuable feature is that peer
review gives students the opportunity to view a wide range of writing samples which
are an online record of the grammatical structures, new vocabulary items, topic area
knowledge and different styles of writing used by their peers. Through online
collaboration, students create a discourse community in which they negotiate with one
another (Hathorn and Ingram, 2002). Individuals may benefit from the group in many
ways, for example, different ideas may lead to cognitive conflict, which can have
beneficial effects on learning. To increase effective collaboration, Ingram and Hathorn
(2004, p. 238) suggest:
[. . .] using such strategies as giving the group a meaningful goal, instructing them to
collaborate, providing a process for performing the task, holding the group and individuals
accountable for the result, fostering the interdependence that is so important in collaboration.
Peer review has shown its effectiveness in conventional writing instruction. Interaction
between peers whose backgrounds, experience and status are similar can produce a
powerful environment for learning (Williams and Severino, 2004). A major advantage
of peer review is that students have a genuine sense of their audience, which allows
them to develop critical reading and analysis skills (Keh, 1990). In order to improve and
develop their ideas, students are encouraged to bring together their projected meaning
by discussing assorted points of view. Evidence shows that sophisticated L2 students
have positive reactions to peer review (Mangelsdorf, 1992) and find it helpful in regard
to audience perspective and idea development (Mendonca and Johnson, 1994).
In all, L2 instruction has shifted from a traditional behaviourist perspective where
students are passive rote learners to a modern, more constructivist paradigm where
students are actively involved in their own learning process. CT skills training using
online collaborative peer review is important to consider when designing L2 writing
instruction to assist the learner. Further, it is the tendency of L2 writing instruction to
move to an approach that would teach students not only how to edit their work, but
also to develop strategies to generate ideas, compose multiple drafts, deal with
feedback and revise their written work on all levels. Through online collaborative peer
review activities, L2 students can learn and use the target language simultaneously.
Educational
games with
blogs
561

They can develop not only their writing ability but also other language skills, such as
CT ability. This would bring increased learning benefits for poor learners in particular.
While a minimal number of L2 online writing programmes have been designed to
emphasise dispositional thinking, it can be argued that thinking skills programmes
have been successful in the long term. By this L2 students are able to transfer and
internalise their learned thinking skills into part of their intellectual behaviour. Thus,
CT should be taught even if it’s not the explicit intent of the course.
Research design and methods
For this study L2 university students were recruited from a national university
in Taiwan. Owing to budget and available space and equipment, the sample size
needed to be small. The 27 participants committed to a predetermined schedule of
assigned learning tasks spanning the seven-week project. During Week 1, the pre-test
was conducted. In Weeks 2-6, students interacted online with the MOSES with Blog
online writing programme. Also, student peer interaction and revision were
encouraged. Week 7, the final week, involved the post-test writing, filling out the
online questionnaire and interviews with selected students.
The primary form of instruction for the participants in this study was the MOSES
with Blogs online writing program. MOSES with Blogs features learner-centred
activities encouraging active learning, focusing on writings skills with some emphasis
on reading and listening skills, and provided a flexible environment in which the L2
university students could manage their own learning. With blogs providing
asynchronous communication as well as collaborative learning, the students could
access the web site and blogs at his or her convenience within the assigned schedule.
Students were granted anonymity during the experiment. This was in order to
prevent cultural obstacles such as saving face from interfering with the learning
process. This allowed learners to complete interactions that may not have been
achievable when face-to-face.
Using team-assisted individualization (TAI) (Slavin, 1985) as a model, blogs were
constructed with four key concepts in mind. First, students were divided into groups
based on a preliminary essay. This concept allowed for mixed English levels which
would promote students at a higher level influencing those at a lower level with their
more extensive English and CT abilities. Second, students were required to access the
MOSES game and complete the materials on their own before accessing their group’s
daily blog. This schedule and accompanying rules provided the individual as well as
the group with structural supports to collaborate with each other. The third concept
was examples provided by the researcher for collaborating peer reviews and the fourth
was providing a blog group monitor. Modelling TAI’s reward system, the researcher
(in the blog group monitor role) highlighted outstanding performance by individuals or
groups by placing their work on the main message board.
This online writing experiment included three stages. The first stage was individual
self-learning interaction with the MOSES web site and free writing based on this
interaction. Students were assigned a weekly case and given three days to complete
their MOSES web site interaction and free writing. The completed free writing was to
be posted on their peer group blog.
The second stage dealt with the collaborative peer review interaction. For this stage,
the students’ mission was to act as a reviewer, identifying two good and one
OIR
32,5
562

bad example. In order to avoid the problem of the blind leading the blind, students
were put into mixed level groups of three or four members. Groups included two
students with a high level of aptitude in English and two students at a lower level. This
ensured that the group discussions would be challenging and stimulating. The main
reason for providing online scaffolding regarding “two good and one bad examples”
was to guide students to learn to employ peer review strategies. The initial free writing
posting was subjected to two days of peer review within their assigned group. Each
group member was required to give 25-50 words of feedback relating to the initial piece
of free writing. Based on the feedback given during the review, students were to revise
their writing incorporating as many suggestions as possible in their revision.
The third stage was a combination of rewriting their initial free writing pieces and
socially interacting with their peer group, whole sample group and online teachers.
During this stage, students were encouraged to share learning problems and post
questions on the main blog. The online teachers would monitor and respond to
problems.
Data collection, measurement, and data analysis
Yeh (1998) developed an online questionnaire to measure student CTD using a
five-point Likert scale to express degree of agreement. Yeh’s questionnaire was
modified by Hsieh (2003), who developed 30 questions with a six-point Likert scale and
three factors. These questions were based on the seven concepts defined by Facione
et al. (1995). Hsieh’s (2003) CTD questionnaire, based on QDCT by Yeh (1998), was
modified in this study. The online questionnaire contained 20 items referring to CTD
and used a five-point Likert scale to assess Taiwanese L2 university students’ CTDs.
Also included were two open-ended questions following the CTD questions.
A higher score in the questionnaire indicated higher CTD. The mean of each
variable’s score was computed and a series of factor analyses were performed on the
CTD variables. Principal component analysis (PCA) transforms a set of correlated
variables to a set of uncorrelated variables (principal components). This analysis was
helpful in deciding how many factors were needed to represent the data and to delete
insignificant items. The selected factors were then used as the variables of the cluster
analysis, which was employed to identify differences among clusters which
represented individual differences (Lawless and Kulikowich, 1996) and to name the
clusters (Romesburg, 1984; Anderberg, 1973). In a discriminant analysis, an indicator
was used to determine the number of viable clusters. The goal of discriminant analysis
is to predict group membership from a set of predictors. It provides classification of
cases into groups where group membership is known, at least for the sample from
whom the classification equations are derived. Finally, a one-way ANOVA was
employed to compare group differences.
Interview data were used as supplementary material to support the quantitative
findings. The data set for CTD measurement was a matrix consisting of 27 participants
and P variables. The data were tabulated in spreadsheet and entered into the statistics
programme, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Results and discussion
RQ1. What tendencies do Taiwanese L2 university students’ CTDs assume in an
online writing environment?
Educational
games with
blogs
563

The researcher mainly employed factor analysis to identify and name the components
of CTD variables. Using SPSS, the first two factor analyses were performed to delete
insignificant CTD items. The extraction method is a PCA and the rotation method
follows the Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. In the first factor analysis, three items
(Nos 5, 18 and 20) were deleted because their absolute value (of the factor loading) was
less than 0.5.
In the second factor analysis, the KMO value, which is a popular diagnostic
measure[1], revealed a tolerable score of 0.602 . 0.5 (Sharma, 1996) for the sampling
adequacy of the factor analysis. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity[2] (p ¼ 0.001 , 0.05)
also gave strong evidence for performing factor analysis. Another three items (Nos 1, 2
and 12) were deleted because they were less than the absolute value of the factor
loading.
Finally, according to the Taiwanese L2 university students’ CTD data file, 14 CTD
variables, which reflected a number of different types of CTD, resulted in a third factor
analysis to decide the components. The KMO value was a middle score (0.743 . 0.7)
and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p ¼ 0.001 , 0.05) and three principal components
were extracted (Table I).
The eigenvalues are 5.707, 1.947 and 1.420. Their reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s a)
are0.8684,0.8080and0.7632.Theirvarianceaccountedfor25.7,23.677and15.441percent.
The principal component explained 64.819 per cent of the total sample variance.
These Z-scores of each factor were used as variables for later cluster analysis.
Based on the analysis and examination of the above components, the researcher was
able to name the CTD factors. The interview data and the seven concepts for CTD
defined by Facione et al. (1995) were also incorporated. These seven concepts are
inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, systematicity, analyticity, truth-seeking, CT
self-confidence and maturity. Two of the concepts, CT self-confidence and maturity,
were omitted because they did not show up clearly in the questionnaire items.
While they were not used for naming the factors, the researcher did observe several
interesting tendencies in the students’ data that referred to CT self-confidence and
maturity. Students expressed through the data that they wanted an authority figure to
decide matters between them. If a peer group member made a comment that someone
in their group disagreed with, instead of trying to resolve it themselves, which is the
definition of self-confidence and maturity, they wanted the teacher arbitrate. Student
id12 stated that “I think the progress of my writings should be judged by teachers.”
The three factors were named: “Analyticity and truth-seeking” (Factor 1),
“Systematicity and inquisitiveness” (Factor 2), and “Open-mindedness” (Factor 3). The
responses to the CTD items showed that the concepts in Factors 1 and 2 are
interdependent. When comparing the two, the researcher found that Factor 1 was about
internal reflection and Factor 2 was more about how students communicated information.
In Factor 1, students focused on “What is my opinion? Is it rational? Is it logical?
And how do I know this?” The concepts of analyticity and truth-seeking appeared
repeatedly appeared together in the data and it became apparent that the two were
related and that their interaction could not be separated. Thus, the two concepts
were combined into Factor 1. The same applied to the interaction and interdependence
between the concepts of systematicity and inquisitiveness in Factor 2.
In Factor 2, students were concerned with how they related the information they
had filtered and processed from Factor 1 to their peers. The students in this study
OIR
32,5
564

wanted to make sure that the information they passed to each other was clear, concise
and easy to understand. Thus, Factor 2 combines the two concepts of systematicity
and inquisitive.
Factor 3, Open-mindedness, is independent because it deals with an emotional
attribute in the students’ writings and dealings with one another.
In composing these factors, it must be noted that a limitation exists due to the small
sample size and the subjectiveness of the topics.
Factor 1 – analyticity and truth-seeking
Analyticity is defined as a person prizing reason and evidence to resolve problems. It
also deals with being able to see future problems or difficulties, and being alert to the
need for intervention when necessary (Facione et al., 1995).
CTD items Factor 1
Factor
2 Factor 3
Item 15 Before solving a peer group problem, I will try to find
out why the problem exists 0.823 0.185 0.135
Item 16 When facing a controversial issue, I will try to
understand the original issue first 0.796 0.266 0.104
Item 13 When in the blog discussion, I will try to find different
ways to solve the problem 0.764 0.247 0.181
Item 4 When a blog discussion involves a complicated problem,
I use logical thinking patterns rather than emotional
ones 0.677 0.004 0.235
Item 14 When confronted with a biased opinion of my own, I will
consider revising my opinion based on the new evidence 0.664 0.000 0.290
Item 17 When my peer group discusses an issue, I will try to find
the main idea or assumption before answering 0.647 0.577 0.006
Item 10 When involved in the blog discussion, I will update
myself with the most current related 0.004 0.846 0.154
Item 8 When involved in the blog discussion, I will try to define
the problem clearly 0.164 0.800 20.003
Item 7 When involved in a blog discussion, I will methodically
take into account all my English knowledge to make a
good reply 20.003 0.737 0.369
Item 6 When involved the blog discussion, I will try to examine
the value of the new issue or perspective 0.337 0.635 0.000
Item 9 When involved in the blog discussion, I will use internal
reflection to determine if my opinion is persuasive or not 0.245 0.623 0.007
Item 11 When involved in the blog discussion, I will try to
understand my peer’s feelings and thoughts 0.154 0.003 0.852
Item 19 When involved in the blog discussion, I will try to pay
careful attention to my peers’ thoughts 0.265 0.006 0.742
Item 3 When involved in the blog discussion, I will try to
respect my peer group’s perspective 0.298 0.347 0.717
Total items 6 5 3
Eigenvalues 5.707 1.947 1.420
Cronbach’s a 0.8684 0.8080 0.7632
Percentage of
variance
accounted for 25.7 23.677 15.441
Table I.
Varimax rotated factor
matrix based on
correlations among the
items of the CTD scales
Educational
games with
blogs
565

The responses to the items on CTD show that students have some attributes that fall
into the analyticity category (Table I). In Items 15 and 16, the students wanted to know,
“What is the problem and how can I solve it? What other issues in the problem do I
need to consider or other ideas to consider when answering things.” Student id11 wrote
that:
[. . .] when the peer group has opinions, I won’t give an opinion instead I try to imagine what
others thinking. I propose assumptions to pose other ideas so we can have more interaction
[. . .]
Student id17 shared that “I will try to use analytical not emotional way to exchange
ideas with peer group members.” Student id1 expressed that:
[. . .] my abilities of reading old fashioned English and diagnosis errors are improved. This is
a very precious opportunity to have peer group members to revise my writings; I also could
correct other’s writings [. . .]
The other concept combined in this CTD factor is truth-seeking. This refers to a person
who is eager to search for the best and most current knowledge in the context of his or
her work. They will ask honest and courageous questions, and be truthful when
reporting their ﬁndings. To this type of student, it is more important to be honest and
objective than it is to support their opinions or ideas (Facione et al., 1995).
Students in the study sought to determine if they had a bias. Then they worked on
how to change that bias into facts or change their opinions based on the evidence
shown to them by their peers. Student id20 wrote that:
After viewing others’ writings, I become easier to see my blind points in writings. [. . .] I start
to notice whether there are any errors in the sentence during the process of reading other
people’s paragraphs [. . .] and start to think over details of writing and to avoid the same
errors that I am seeing [. . .]
Student id8 explained that:
[. . .] the game and the animation were interesting to me, but I could not realize the
relationship among all the roles. My peers suggested me to see the movie, such as: the Prince
of Egypt [. . .]
In general, students expressed that they were motivated to read other English writings
and apply what they learned from them to their own writing. They considered it a good
opportunity to use their English knowledge from other sources in their writing. They
were also motivated to share with each other outside information about the content of
the web site or English in general.
Factor 2 – systematicity and inquisitiveness
Factor 2 relates to how the students sought, organised, focused and shared their
information (Facione et al., 1995).
Systematicity is one part of Factor 2 (Table I) and is where a person examines the
value of an issue and then strives to deﬁne the problems clearly. In this study, students
used self-question strategies such as checking other blogs for information or ideas.
Students would look at what other groups were saying or doing on their peer blogs as a
self-check for themselves and their group. Student id16 wrote that:
OIR
32,5
566

I had learned to ponder how to write form [sic] various perspectives. I feel that the
organization ability is improved. I feel I use the connection words and adverb more naturally
than before.
The second part of Factor 2 is inquisitiveness, which is a person’s own curiosity and
drive for knowledge, even when it is not readily available or apparent (Facione et al.,
1995). In this study, students would go to look at the links or extra material provided to
gain outside knowledge of the subject. Student id4 commented that:
[. . .] I had learned from the blog discussion regarding grammar usage [. . .] this reminds me
[of] many grammar rules and usages and [I] applied them to my own writing [. . .] I did learn
grammars by reading others’ writings posted on the blog [. . .]
Student id8 wrote that:
I have the chances to learn more new vocabularies. The reason is that I will look up the
dictionary to find the right words to express my thoughts and write it in sentences.
In the interview with Student id1, he mentioned that he looked at others’ blogs to see
what they were thinking. He liked exposure to others’ viewpoints and ideas. This
would help him become a better writer. In sum, students wanted to make sure they had
the latest, most accurate information available so that their writing would be
informative and clear.
Factor 3 – open-mindedness
The final factor, open-mindedness, is a person’s drive to be understood and clear.
Open-mindedness is about how the students interacted with each other. Were they
being tolerant of others’ ideas and opinions? Was there freedom to express or explore
new ideas? The blogs allowed the students to practice being sensitive to others; while
offering freedom to explore the possibilities of their own bias with others of different
mindsets. For example, Student id6 wrote that “I feel in my group my interaction is
basically polite and when I observe others bogs I see they are more critical and
interactive”. Student id5 stated, “We were more respectful to each other. We gave each
other more suggestions than criticism. I think our blog was a positive interaction:”
RQ2. How do Taiwanese L2 university students’ individual CTD characteristics
differ in an online writing environment?
A hierarchical cluster analysis was performed using squared Euclidian distance and
Ward’s method to determine Taiwanese L2 university students’ CTD clusters. The
results show three clusters. After trying different groupings by conducting
discriminant analysis, this one was selected because the researcher found that
92.6 per cent of the original cases fit into the three groups. The researcher further
described individual Taiwanese L2 university students’ CTD differences by
integrating various quantitative data, including the means of components and
qualitative data from the two open-ended questions in the online questionnaire, to
explore the characteristics of these three CTD clusters and name them.
The cluster analysis was performed on the three factors produced in answer to RQ1.
The plot shows that the three clusters are barely separated and the region of each
cluster is small enough to reflect the difference to each other. Even though the sample
size is small, the factor analysis shows that it is reliable because of the KMO. Owing to
Educational
games with
blogs
567

this reliability in the factor analysis, the cluster analysis could be employed. Thus, the
characteristics of the clusters could be analysed and grouped according to the results of
the cluster analysis. These plots are shown in Figure 1.
Characteristics of Cluster 1 (n ¼ 9, circle) – open-mindedness CTD
The researcher performed a one-way ANOVA test, which showed significant differences
between CTD component 2 (p , 0.001) and CTD component 3 (p , 0.001) among the
three CTD clusters (Table II). This indicates that there are two CTD factors –
“Systematicity and inquisitiveness” and “Open-mindedness” – among the three CTD
clusters showing significant differences. Therefore, each of the following clusters is
named accordingly. In comparing the means, CTD Cluster 1’s Factor 3 average
(M ¼ 0.88, SD ¼ 0.44) is the highest among the three clusters (Table II). Thus, the
researcher named it “Open-mindedness CTD”, because that was the tendency among the
peer group interaction according to the online survey results. The qualitative data also
supports this through the statistical data and survey feedback. Student id14 stated that:
At the beginning I felt the peer group discussion was more hostile and critical of each other,
but gradually the peer group made progress. Instead of being critical we became more
encouraging as time went on.
Characteristics of Cluster 2 (n ¼ 9, triangle) – systematicity and inquisitiveness CTD
Cluster 2 was named according to the data findings. In comparing the means, Cluster 2’s
Factor 2 average (M ¼ 1.07, SD ¼ 0.60) is the highest among the three clusters (Table II).
Figure 1.
3D scatter plot and
profiles of the three factors
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 One-way
(N ¼ 9) (N ¼ 9) (N ¼ 9) ANOVA
CTD variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD test
Factor 1 (analyticity and truth-seeking) 0.16 1.30 0.15 0.86 20.31 0.81 0.535
Factor 2 (systematicity and inquisitiveness) 20.56 0.76 1.07 0.60 20.51 0.61 0.000 *
Factor 3 (open-mindedness) 0.88 0.44 0.26 0.63 21.14 0.51 0.000 *
Note: *Correlation is significant at 0.001 level (two-tailed)
Table II.
Taiwanese L2 students’
CTD patterns, means,
standard deviations and
one-way ANOVA test by
cluster
OIR
32,5
568

Thus, the researcher named the cluster “Systematicity and inquisitiveness CTD”. Student
id17 expressed that “I try to use analytical not emotion way to exchange ideas with peer
group members.” Student id24 explained that “peer group members can general respect
each others thought . . . but key points they were able to give various ideas”.
Characteristics of Cluster 3 (n ¼ 9, cross) – low interaction/motivation CTD
CTD Cluster 3 showed no significant difference in any CTD component ( p ¼ 0.535).
According to the three factors, Cluster 3’s means were the lowest of all three clusters
(Factor 1 was 20.31, Factor 2 was 20.51, Factor 3 was 21.14). The researcher named it
“Low interaction/motivation CTD” because the tendency in the peer group interaction
was low, or considered to be negative or neutral. By “Low interaction/motivation CTD”,
the researcher means that their online survey data showed a lack of interaction with each
other in the peer group. This was also reflected on their self-report on the progress of
their writing ability. Four of the L2 university students were neutral and four students
were negative on whether their writing had improved. An example of the lack of peer
group interaction is that six students did not respond in detail to the two online
open-ended questions as shown on online survey data. Student id4, id18, id19, id21, id22,
and id27 all gave no answer to the questions. Student id19 wrote “I don’t think I have
improved anything in my writings . . . ”
Conclusions
Limitations of the research
The limited availability of space and equipment dictated that the number of
participants be restricted to about 30 and the final sample size was 27.
Owing to the small size of the sample, even though the results cohere with the
researcher’s anticipations, the evidence of consequence may still be weak. It is
important to obtain much larger samples.
The questionnaire used in this research was developed by earlier studies to be
adaptive for Taiwanese L2 university students. The validity and reliability of the
questionnaire was confirmed, thus in this study the researcher did not modify it further.
The questionnaire was part of the MOSES with Blog environment. The main
purpose was to observe the CT pattern of the participants in this study. Thus, the
major consequence of this is lack of sensitivity and generalisability.
Suggestions for designing L2 online collaborative educational games
Collaborative educational games are an under-researched area in Computer-Support
Cooperative or Collaborative Learning (CSCL) (Ha¨ma¨laïnen et al., 2006). Obviously,
cooperative learning is a good way to motivate CTD. CSCL is based on the premise that
computers can support and facilitate group processes and dynamics. The MOSES with
Blogs educational game, which is being constructed at the moment, may be one way to
trigger higher levels of collaboration and meet CSCL needs.
According to the results of this study, a suggestion for the development of effective
collaborative educational games would be to design them around CTDs.
In implementing a game, the CTD characteristics of the students could be
discovered and used to form online peer groups. By mixing the peer groups,
students will be able to interact with each other more effectively. For example, students
with systematic and inquisitiveness CTD characteristics could be assigned as group
Educational
games with
blogs
569

leaders and lead members to brainstorm, think critically and organise ideas. Students
with open-mindedness characteristics could connect group members’ varying opinions
or ideas, and lead collaboration in a way to help each other. Students with low
motivation and interaction might be able to be encouraged by students with the above
two types of CTD, which may enhance their motivation and interaction within the
group. Also, specific appointed tasks or missions could be assigned to students with
low interaction and motivation CTDs so that they are obligated to be involved in the
learning activities. This suggestion could be applied to shape various learners’ online
entry profiles in the collaborative educational game as the criteria for forming small
online groups for collaborative learning. This would allow the educational game to
identify students’ CTDs and mix them appropriately. Therefore, these individual
factors should be taken into consideration when designing a collaborative educational
game.
Suggestions for future research
To improve the quality of data, a more diverse sample group should be selected. Owing
to time contraints for this project, students were chosen on a first come, first served
base. Therefore, the sample was skewed in the areas of gender and undergraduate
majors. While the demographics did not influence the results collected, the lack of
diversity may have made the results less generalisable.
Another area in the research design that should be developed further is a CTD
questionnaire specifically for L2 university students. In this study, the questionnaire
used and developed was originally intended for mathematical blog analysis (Hsieh,
2003) and teacher training CTD influences and instruction (Yeh, 1998), not for
Taiwanese L2 university students. However, they provided a strong base on which the
researcher was able to base and measure CTD in this study. One L2 university student
tendencies is to please the teacher by providing answers they think the teacher wants.
To counter this tendency, a questionnaire should be developed to consider
counter-indicative items as well as indicative items. This would mean implementing
questions that are worded in a non-indicative way, leaving the student no way to
manipulate the results of the questionnaire. This would provide a more accurate
picture of what the Taiwanese L2 university students CTD differences and
characteristics are within the questionnaire results.
Finally, future research design will be necessary to test the feasibility of MOSES
with Blogs at different learning levels, such as high school.
Notes
1. KMO provides a measure of the homogeneity of variables for adequacy of factor analysis.
Although there are no statistical tests for the KMO measure, according to Sharma (1996) if
the KMO measure is larger or equal to 0.50 þ , it is recommended to perform the factor
analysis. Anything 0.50 þ or below is considered unacceptable. Scores above 0.60 þ range
from Mediocre to . 0.90 Marvellous.
2. Bartlett’s test of sphericity is used to test the null hypothesis that the variables in the
population correlation matrix are uncorrelated. If the evidence is strong enough to reject the
hypothesis, it is concluded that the relationship among variables is significant enough to
proceed with a factor analysis of the data.
OIR
32,5
570

References
Anderberg, M.R. (1973), Cluster Analysis for Applications, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Cohen, M. and Riel, M. (1989), “The effect of distant audiences on students’ writing”, American
Educational Research Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 67-72.
Coster, J. and Ledovski, V. (2005), “Thinking outside the square: promoting critical thinking
through online discussions”, available at: www.englishaustralia.com.au/ea_conference05/
proceedings/pdf/Coster.pdf
Ellis, T.J. (2001), “Multimedia enhanced educational products as a tool to promote critical
thinking in adult students”, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 107-23.
Ennis, R.H. (1994), “Assessing critical thinking dispositions: theoretical considerations”, paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association,
New Orleans, LA, 7 April.
Ennis, R.H. (1996), “Critical thinking dispositions: their nature an assessability”, Informal Logic,
Vol. 18 Nos 2/3, pp. 165-82.
Ennis, R.H. (2003), “Critical thinking assessment”, in Fasko, D. (Ed.), Critical Thinking and
Reasoning: Current Theories, Research, and Practice, Hampton, Cresskill, NJ.
Ennis, R.H. and Weir, E. (1985), The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test, Midwest
Publications, Pacific Grove, CA.
Facione, P.A. (1991), Using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test in Research, Evaluation,
and Assessment, The California Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Facione, P.A. and Facione, N.C. (1992), The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory,
The California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA.
Facione, P.A., Facione, N.C. and Giancarlo, C.A. (2000), “The disposition toward critical thinking:
its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill”, Informal Logic,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 61-84.
Facione, P.A., Sanchez, C.A. and Facione, N.C. (1994), “Are college students disposed to think?”,
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Thinking, Boston, MA, July, and the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA,
April, ERIC Doc: ED 368-11.
Facione, P.A., Sanchez, C.A., Facione, N.C. and Galnen, J. (1995), “The disposition toward critical
thinking”, The Journal of General Education, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Griffiths, C. and Parr, J.M. (2001), “Language-learning strategies: theory and perception”, ELT
Journal Volumes, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 247-54.
Ha¨ma¨laïnen, R., Manninen, T., Ja¨rvela¨, S. and Ha¨kkinen, P. (2006), “Learning to collaborate:
designing collaboration in a 3-D game environment”, Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 9,
pp. 47-61.
Hartley, K. (2001), “Learning strategies and hypermedia instruction”, Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 285-305.
Hathorn, L.G. and Ingram, A.L. (2002), “Online collaboration: making it work”, Educational
Technology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 33-40.
Hausmann, R.G.M. and Chi, M.T.H. (2002), “Can a computer interface support self-explaining?”,
Cognitive Technology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 4-14.
Hofstede, G. (1997), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Educational
games with
blogs
571

Hsieh, P. (2003), “Correlates of users’ critical thinking, participating, perceptions, motivations,
and involvement level in a BBS Math Discussion Board”, Master’s thesis, National Chiao
Tung University Hsinchu.
Hyland, T. (2003), “Group work-based learning within higher education”, Mentoring & Tutoring,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 153-62.
Ingram, A.L. and Hathorn, L.G. (2004), “Methods for analyzing collaboration in online
communications”, in Roberts, T.S. (Ed.), Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and
Practice, Idea Group, Hershey, PA, pp. 215-41.
Kaplan, R. (1966), “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education”, Language Learning,
Vol. 16, pp. 1-20.
Keh, C. (1990), “Feedback in the writing process”, ELT Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 294-304.
Kojic-Sabo, I. and Lightbown, P.M. (1999), “Students’ approaches to vocabulary learning and
their relationship to success”, The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 176-92.
Lawless, K. and Kulikowich, J. (1996), “Understanding hypertext navigation through cluster
analysis”, Journal Educational Computing Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 385-99.
Littlewood, W. (2000), “Do Asian students really want to listen and obey?”, ELT Journal, Vol. 54
No. 1, pp. 31-6.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992), “Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: what do the students
think?”, ELT Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 274-84.
Mendonca, C. and Johnson, K. (1994), “Peer review negotiations: revision activities in ESL writing
instruction”, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 745-69.
Moore, T. (2004), “The critical thinking debate: how general are general thinking skills?”, Higher
Educational Research & Development, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 3-18.
Nelson, G. and Murphy, J. (1992), “An L2 writing group: task and social dimensions”, Journal of
Second Language Writing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 171-94.
Nelson, M.E. (2006), “Mode, meaning, and synaesthesia in multimedia L2 writing”, Language
Learning & Technology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 56-76.
O’Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A.U. (1990), Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition,
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Paulus, T.M. (1999), “The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing”, Journal of
Perkins, D.N. (1987), “Thinking frames: an integrative perspective on teaching cognitive skills”,
in Baron, J.B. and Sternberg, R.J. (Eds), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice,
Freeman & Company, New York, NY.
Perkins, D.N., Jay, E. and Tishman, S. (1994), “Assessing thinking: a framework for measuring
critical thinking and problem solving at the college level”, in Greenwood, A. (Ed.),
The National Assessment of College Student Learning: Identiﬁcation of the Skills to be
Taught, Learned, and Assessed, The US Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington, DC,
pp. 65-112.
Pohl, A. (2005), “Language learning histories: an introduction to critical thinking”, available at:
www.englishaustralia.com.au/ea_conference05/proceedings/pdf/Pohl.pdf
Romesburg, H.C. (1984), Cluster Analysis for Researchers, Lifetime Learning Publications,
Belmont, CA.
Salomon, G. (1994), “To be or not to be (mindful)”, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-8 April.
Sharma, S. (1996), Applied Multivariate Techniques, Wiley, New York, NY.
OIR
32,5
572

Slavin, R. (1985), “Team-assisted individualization”, in Wang, M. and Walberg, H. (Eds),
Adapting Instruction to Individual Differences, McCutchan, Berkeley, CA.
Sommers, N. (1992), “Between the drafts”, College Composition and Communication, Vol. 43,
pp. 23-31.
Song, C.R. (2006), “Design and usability of web-based serious game for Taiwanese EFL
undergraduate students”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Networking,
International Conference on Systems and International Conference on Mobile
Communications and Learning Technologies, Mauritius, 23-26 April, p. 220.
Stapleton, P. (2001), “Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students:
insights about assumptions and content familiarity”, Written Communication, Vol. 18,
pp. 506-48.
Stapleton, P. (2002), “Critical thinking in Japanese L2 writing: rethinking tired constructs”,
ELT Journal, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 250-7.
Tishman, S. and Andrade, A. (1995), “Thinking dispositions: a review of current theories,
practices, and issues”, available at: http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/
Dispositions.htm
Wenden, A. (1998), “Metacognitive knowledge and language learning”, Applied Linguistics,
Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 515-37.
Williams, J. and Severino, C. (2004), “The writing center and second language writers”, Journal of
Yagelski, R.P. (1998), “Computer-mediated communication in the undergraduate writing
classroom: a study of the relationship of online discourse and classroom discourse in two
writing classes”, Computers and Composition, Vol. 15, pp. 11-40.
Yeh, Y.C. (1998), “The relationships among preservice teachers’ training-involvement level,
critical-thinking dispositions, and their improvement in critical-thinking instruction”,
The National Chengchi University Journal, November, p. 77.
Corresponding author
Chiann-Ru Song can be contacted at: telcrs@ccu.edu.tw
Educational
games with
blogs
573
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

This article has been cited by:
1. K.P. Singh, Malkeet Singh Gill. 2013. Web 2.0 technologies in libraries: a survey of periodical literature
published by Emerald. Library Review 62:3, 177-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Wen‐Lung Shiau, Patrick Y.K. Chau. 2012. Understanding blog continuance: a model comparison
approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems 112:4, 663-682. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Muhammet Demirbilek, Ebru Yılmaz, Suzan Tamer. 2010. Second Language Instructors’ Perspectives
about the Use of Educational Games. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 9, 717-721. [CrossRef]

Collaborating to motivate second language

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Collaborating to motivate second language (20)

More from faridnazman (15)

Recently uploaded (20)

Collaborating to motivate second language