The Collaborative Language Learning Attributes of Cyber Face to-face Interaction - The Perspectives of the Learner
- 1. The collaborative language learning attributes of cyber face-to-face interaction: the perspectives of the learner Yuping Wanga and Nian-Shing Chenb * a School of Languages and Linguistics, Griffith University, Nathan, 4111, Australia; b Department of Information Management, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, 80424, Taiwan (Received 4 November 2009; final version received 3 March 2010) This article examines the degrees of collaborative language learning that were supported in cyber face-to-face interaction. The concept of ‘‘cyber face-to-face’’ is used here to encapsulate the kind of environment in which a combination of real- time oral/aural, visual, and text-based interaction happens simultaneously via the various features in an advanced Synchronous Learning Management System (SLMS). The study discusses the results of an evaluation of the five features, namely, the interactive whiteboard, the text chat, the group cyber face-to-face classrooms, the audio, and the video, in an SLMS called 3C. Thirty-three students from an online Chinese/English interpreting course participated in this study. Survey data indicate that collaborative learning can be effectively facilitated in a cyber face-to-face environment, although the degrees of collaboration vary among the five features evaluated. Recommendations for maximizing the collaborative learning potentials of a cyber face-to-face environment are also put forward. Keywords: collaborative language learning; Synchronous Learning Management System; cyber face-to-face interaction; synchronous online learning Introduction This research examines the collaborative learning qualities of an online synchronous learning environment from the learners’ perspectives. The positive effects of collaborative learning on second language acquisition have long been recognized in studies conducted in the physical face-to-face classroom (e.g. Kim, 2008; Swain, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1998, 2000; Watanabe & Swain, 2007). In recent years, collaborative language learning mediated through technologies has also received increasing attention from researchers in Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) (see Lee, 2004; Sotillo, 2000, 2006; Tudini, 2003; Lund, 2008). So much so, the terms ‘‘telecollaboration’’ and ‘‘e-Tandem’’ have appeared to denote the collaboration of learners at a distance via Internet-based technologies. Online collaborative language learning can be roughly divided into asynchronous and synchronous collaboration. Asynchronous collaboration is often text-based and mediated by asynchronous technologies such as emails and web-based bulletin *Corresponding author. Email: nschen@mis.nsysu.edu.tw Interactive Learning Environments Vol. 20, No. 4, August 2012, 311–330 ISSN 1049-4820 print/ISSN 1744-5191 online Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494821003769081 http://www.tandfonline.com
- 2. boards (see Appel & Gilabert, 2002; Leahy, 2001). Synchronous collaboration occurs when participants interact simultaneously in real time and can be text-based, audio, and/or video-based, or a combination of the three. Most of the existing studies examine one type of collaboration supported by a particular standalone synchronous technology. For example, the majority of the research on synchronous collaboration investigates the potentials of text-based interaction via text chat (e.g. Belz & Thorne, 2005; Chun, 1994; Darhower, 2008; Lee, 2004; Sotillo, 2000, 2006; Thorne, 2003; Tudini, 2003). Some recent studies on interaction via audio conferencing have also contributed to our understanding of the depth of this kind of synchronous collaborative language learning (see Hampel, 2006; Hampel & Hauck, 2004; Hauck & Hampel, 2005; Heins, Duensing, Stickler, & Batstone, 2007; Lamy, 2004; Levy & Kennedy, 2004; Rosell-Aguilar, 2006; Sykes, 2005; Vetter & Chanier, 2006). However, few studies have been found in the literature examining collaborative language learning in an online synchronous cyber face-to-face environment, with the exceptions of Lee (2007) and Wang (2004a,b, 2007, 2008). These synchronous collaborations can be two-way or multi-way interaction between learners and/or between learners and native speakers. Although much of the above mentioned research has shed light on a range of significant issues in L2 acquisition, research on collaboration supported through the combination of online synchronous text, oral, and visual interaction is still lacking. The paucity of such research is mostly due to the unavailability of effective systems that can seamlessly integrate written, oral, and visual interaction into a single platform. However, in recent years, the development of broadband and more enabling Internet synchronous technologies makes such integration a possibility and a reality. The Synchronous Learning Management System (SLMS) investigated in this research is a good example of this advancement. The SLMS-supported interaction and collaboration resemble closely, yet significantly differ from, face- to-face interaction in the traditional classroom. Thus the term ‘‘cyber face-to-face’’ is adopted here to encapsulate the kind of online learning environment that is characterized by a combination of the oral/aural, visual, and text-based interaction (Wang & Chen, 2007). Very few studies have been conducted on collaborative language learning in such an environment. As a result, many crucial issues have remained under-researched or even un-asked. For example, can a synchronous classroom with cyber face-to-face features effectively support collaborative second language (L2) learning in a distance mode? If so, to what degrees does it support collaborations between learners, and in what ways does each tool or the combination of the tools facilitate collaborative learning? We argue that knowledge about the affordances of such environments is especially important to L2 acquisition in an online learning context in which physical distance between learners often prevents effective collaboration from happening. Thus, the aim of this research is to unravel the strength, challenges, and limitations of such an online synchronous learning environment in supporting collaborative L2 learning. To achieve this aim, this article will first review the literature on the importance of collaborative learning in learners’ L2 acquisition, to lay a theoretical foundation for identifying collaborative learning attributes in an SLMS. We will then report and analyze a student evaluation of five features of an advanced SLMS in supporting collaborative language learning. Implications for future research and pedagogy will also be discussed, together with the limitations of this research. 312 Y. Wang and N.-S. Chen
- 3. Collaborative learning and the emergence of the third dimension in the zone of proximal development (ZPD) in an online learning context Collaborative learning has received growing attention in the last decade or so. According to Oxford (1997, p. 443): ‘‘Collaborative learning has a ‘social constructivist’ philosophical base, which views learning as construction of knowl- edge within a social context and which therefore, encourages acculturation of individuals into a learning community’’. This statement has neatly summarized the two outstanding traits of collaborative learning, that is, construction of knowledge within a social context and the acculturation of a learning community. Oxford (1997, p. 448) reviews the significant contributions of Dewey and Vygotsky to social constructivism by saying that both ‘‘recognized that ideas have social origins; they are constructed through communication with others’’. Vygotsky’s theory of social cognition holds that learning is, at its core, a socially-mediated activity and social interaction is crucial to one’s cognitive development. His much cited definition of the ZPD best summarizes his social cognition theory. According to Vygotsky (1978, p. 86), the ZPD refers to ‘‘the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’’. Thus, the individual learner and the more capable peers constitute two important dimensions in ZPD. It is the collaboration of these dimensions in the process of problem solving that constructs an optimal condition that leads to potential developments. Vygostsky’s theory has profound impact on our understanding of knowledge construction and the essence of learning, and has been much attested to in the physical face-to-face classroom. However, in an online synchronous learning context, the two aspects of collaborative learning identified by Oxford (1997); that is, the construction of knowledge within a social context and the acculturation of individuals into a learning community, rely heavily on the technologies used. Thus a third dimension appears in the ZPD in an online learning context – the dimension of mediating technology. This dimension is rising with increasing prominence as internet technologies have become an integral part of education, especially of distance education. It is thus essential for language professionals to understand what technologies can offer for maximizing collaborative learning in an online learning context. This is precisely what drives this research. Methodology The SLMS used in this research – Collaborative cyber community (hereafter 3C) 3C was developed by the National Sun Yat-sen University in Taiwan. Its server presently has a capacity to support up to 500 online asynchronous users and 200 online synchronous users simultaneously. Figure 1 summarizes the major functions of 3C. As shown in Figure 1, 3C has two main environments: The ‘‘teacher’s office’’ and the ‘‘classroom’’. Accessible only by the teacher, the ‘‘teacher’s office’’ allows the teacher a range of flexibilities in administrating the course, such as uploading learning resources and managing the ‘‘classroom’’ features. The ‘‘classroom’’ has two modes: The asynchronous classroom mode and the synchronous classroom mode with cyber face-to-face feature. The asynchronous mode is available to Interactive Learning Environments 313
- 4. learners 24 h a day, where audio, video, and text-based learning resources (e.g. discussion boards, lecture notes and recordings, and group cyber face-to-face classrooms) can be accessed. However, this research will concentrate on the evaluation of the features in the ‘‘synchronous cyber face-to-face classroom’’ (see the last box in Figure 1). There are two types of synchronous classrooms: The main cyber face-to-face classroom where lectures can be conducted, and the group cyber face-to-face classrooms where small group activities can be carried out. The group cyber face-to-face classrooms are the duplicates of the main classroom with exactly the same functionalities. The only difference between the two is that the main classroom can be accessed by the whole class while a particular group cyber classroom is accessible only to the group of learners assigned to it. The teacher can create as many such group cyber classrooms as needed. As shown in Figure 2, a cyber face-to-face classroom features five major windows: The main audio and video, the control panel, the text chat box, the interactive whiteboard, and the sub-video windows. Up to 18 sub-video windows can be displayed at the same time. The cyber face-to-face classroom is also supported by versatile synchronous data sharing tools, such as Desktop Sharing, Window Capture, Joint Web Browsing, Remote Control, and collaborative annotation tools (e.g. pens and pen colors). The participants The study involves 33 students from an online Chinese/English interpreting course. This was a third year undergraduate course offered entirely online on 3C in the School of Languages and Linguistics, Griffith University in Australia, between January and February 2008. All participants were Chinese students with a native or near native level of Chinese and English proficiency. Our survey (N ¼ 31) of students’ background information shows that they were between 20 and 30 years old, and 74% were females. Twenty-eight out of 31 (90%) had no online learning experience and 65% had not used a videoconferencing tool before. Eighty-four percent believed that they had good computer competence and 81% were confident in their computer skills. Figure 1. Major functions of 3C. 314 Y. Wang and N.-S. Chen
- 5. Procedures Students were informed at enrolment of the basic requirements of the course, that is, a computer (e.g. Pentium 3 or above), broadband internet connection (ADSL or cable), a headset (headphone and speakers), and a web camera (webcam). Every student had these resources and was able to set up their webcams and install JoinNet, the videoconferencing client tool, by themselves, following a written instruction emailed to them. Five 1-h sessions were scheduled for testing the set up and the audio and video quality for each individual student. Most technical problems such as echoes and firewalls were solved and the basic functions of 3C were explained to each student during the testing sessions. Eight hours of online synchronous teaching were conducted each week for 6 weeks in the cyber face-to-face classrooms, with 4 h being lectures and 4 h tutorials. All cyber face-to-face sessions were recorded using the recording function embedded in 3C. In the first 3 weeks, a research assistant who was an expert in cyber face-to- face learning was also present in the cyber face-to-face classrooms in case technical problems occurred. A typical lecture would see the teacher invite the whole class of 33 students to interpret a dialogue through the audio individually and the text chat collectively, while highlighting important points using the annotation pen functions on the interactive whiteboard. In the tutorials, after a brief revision of what had been covered in the lectures in the main cyber classroom, the students were often given an interpreting task and asked to go to the group cyber face-to-face classrooms to perform the task in groups. Students would return to the main cyber classroom at a given time for presentation of their group works to the whole class. Figure 2. The cyber face-to-face classroom. For more discussion on 3C, see Chen et al. (2005); Chen and Wang (2008); Wang and Chen (2007). Reproduced with the permission of the individuals pictured. Interactive Learning Environments 315
- 6. Data collection and analysis Two surveys were conducted. The first one was to gather students’ background information in order to determine their computer competence and confidence, and to ascertain that they had the necessary computer resources to attend the online classes. However, this research will focus on the second survey which elicited students’ online collaborative learning experience with the affordances in 3C. This survey instrument (see Appendix) was adapted from the Social Presence Scale developed by Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) and modified by Richardson and Swan (2003). There are two reasons for using the two scales as a reference: (1) the validity of both scales has been proven by their respective studies, and (2) social presence and collaborative learning are interrelated. Despite these two reasons, two major modifications have been made to suit the purposes of this research. First, the indicator statements were reworded to include major indicators of collaborative learning, such as constructing learning context and community, interacting, and collaborating with others. Second, instead of examining learning activities, the survey asks the participants to rate the degree of collaborative learning supported by the five essential tools in 3C, namely, the interactive whiteboard, the text chat, group cyber classrooms, the audio, and the video. Thus, the questionnaire is made up of two parts: The collaborative learning scale consisting of 10 indicator statements and five open-ended questions. Data were computed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 17.0 software, and will be discussed in conjunction with what was observed during teaching by the researcher and the way the tasks were completed using these tools. Research questions Through the examination of the degrees that collaborative learning was supported in a cyber face-to-face classroom, this research aims to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the perceived effectiveness of the features in a SLMS (e.g. 3C) in facilitating collaborative L2 learning? (2) In what ways does each tool contribute to or inhibit students’ collaboration in cyber face-to-face L2 learning? Results In this section, we will present the above mentioned survey data in relation to the five features of 3C to be evaluated in this study, namely, the interactive whiteboard, the text chat, the group cyber face-to-face classrooms, the audio, and the video. Table 1 summarizes the mean scores and standard deviation for the collaborative learning attributes of the five tools evaluated in this research. As shown in Table 1, the mean for all tools, namely the interactive whiteboard, text chat, group cyber classrooms, audio, and video reached 5.11 with an SD of 0.66 on a six-point Likert scale with 1 being ‘‘strongly disagree’’ and 6 ‘‘strongly agree’’. This indicates that overall, the students believed that all the tools contributed to collaborative learning in a cyber face-to-face classroom. Among the tools, there were no significant preferences for any of the tools, but the mean score for group cyber 316 Y. Wang and N.-S. Chen
- 8. classrooms ranked the highest at 5.18, followed by the whiteboard (5.13) and the audio (5.09). The text chat and video were rated the lowest but still reached 5.07. Similarly, the participants, on the whole, agreed with all indicator statements which attracted a mean score of 5.09 and an SD of 0.72. Statement 7 – I felt comfortable participating in class activities with this tool – obtained the highest mean score of 5.27 across the five tools. This is followed by indicator statement 4 – This tool enables me to form a sense of online community – with a mean score of 5.22. The lowest (4.77), but still statistically significant above average (3.0) mean score was found in Statement 9 – I was able to form distinct individual impressions of some of other students using this tool. Figure 3 summarizes the number of responses to Question 11, asking the students to rate the most beneficial tools to their learning. Figure 3 shows that the interactive whiteboard gained the highest rating with 13 entries. It was followed by the text chat with nine and the audio with six entries. Four students chose the group cyber classrooms and only two students selected the video. One student mentioned the session recording, which records online live classes for outside class reviewing, although this tool was not requested for evaluation. Student 11 believed that all the tools were beneficial to learning. The total number of responses was 35 because some students mentioned more than one tool when answering the question. Demonstrated in Figure 4 are the responses to question 12 concerning the students’ evaluation of the most satisfying tools. Students’ responses to Q12 project a similar but slightly different picture from those to Q11, although the text chat and the interactive whiteboard still received the highest scores. Different from the replies to Q11, the text chat was considered the most satisfying tool instead of the interactive whiteboard although there was only one-entry difference (11 for the text chat and 10 for the interactive whiteboard). Also different from replies to Question 11, only three students believed that the audio was the most satisfying tool while six students perceived that the audio was the most beneficial to learning in Question 11. The same number of students (4) as those in Q11 believed that the group cyber classrooms were most satisfying. Again, video came last with only one entry while two students placed session recording on the list of the tools evaluated. Figure 3. Q 11 – Most beneficial tools to learning (N ¼ 35). 318 Y. Wang and N.-S. Chen
- 9. Discussion To avoid over-generalizing the above reported data, this section will discuss the results for each tool further in reference to: . other studies on collaborative learning relevant to this research; . teacher’s observation; . students’ comments collected from the questionnaires; and . the ways that learning tasks were completed using the features evaluated in this research. The interactive whiteboard The three groups of data presented above all indicate that, among the five features, the interactive whiteboard was perceived to be most facilitative to collaborative learning. There are a few factors that might have influenced the learners’ perception. Firstly, the positive reception of the whiteboard may relate to the ways it was used. Situated in the centre of the cyber face-to-face classroom and occupying almost three quarters of the computer screen (see Figure 2), the interactive whiteboard serves as a focal, shared learning space where the attention of the whole class was drawn to most of the time. It was used in every lesson to upload prepared lecture notes before or during class. In addition, this function not only allowed both the teacher and students to draw, type, and write English and Chinese characters, it also allowed the teacher to point to, paste, and highlight information. Thus, it was used to support the completion of many collaborative learning tasks involving either the whole class or a group of students. For example, when role playing an interpreting situation, one student would be asked to type the role play dialogue on the whiteboard while others would role play it either orally or type their dialogue in the text chat. It was also used to upload discussion points and translations when the students conducted their group activities in class and prepared their group homework after class in their own group cyber classrooms. When discussing why the interactive whiteboard was the most beneficial tool to learning (Q11), several students (students 1, 12, and 13) commented that the writings Figure 4. Q 12 – Most satisfying tools (N ¼ 31). Interactive Learning Environments 319
- 10. on the interactive whiteboard helped them to clarify what they missed or did not understand when listening. Some students also perceived the whiteboard as an efficient aid to instruction (Student 10), where they could obtain important information (Students 1 and 13). Student 16 also mentioned that this tool could ‘‘help me with technical problems and double check my spelling of specific words’’. The necessity of an whiteboard in cyber face-to-face learning is confirmed by Lee (2007), who points out that ‘‘the students found desktop videoconferencing challenging due to the unavailability of a written visual display on the screen’’ (p. 640). Secondly, the frequent use of the whiteboard may have led to its positive reception by the learners. The whiteboard was used most of the time in every class and in students’ homework in the group cyber classrooms. Chou (2001) also finds that the frequency in using a communication medium can also enhance the degree of social presence. Thirdly, the fact that the whiteboard never failed to perform may also have contributed to the students’ positive rating. Reliability is a crucial issue when it comes to effective online learning. The text chat The text chat scored the second highest among the five features in terms of its benefits to learning, and was considered the most satisfying of the five. Apart from the fact that it was used throughout each class by both the teaching staff and the students, the positive perception could be largely attributed to the ways the text chat was employed. The basic functions of the text chat in our cyber face-to-face classrooms were similar to those of stand-alone text chats in that users could write to each other synchronously. However, instead of being the sole or main medium of communica- tion, the text chat in 3C was integrated in the cyber classroom supplementing oral and visual interaction. Thus listening, seeing, and text chatting occurred simultaneously in our cyber class. The messages in the text chat could be seen by the whole class or could be sent to one person only for more private communication. In order to engage all students in collaborative learning, we explicitly asked the students to use the text chat to answer questions or render their translations of sentences collectively while listening to one student answering or translating orally through the audio and video. The teacher would often copy and paste students’ translation from the text chat onto the whiteboard for further discussion and clarification to the whole class. Apart from the audio, the text chat was used by the students as a major medium of participation in classroom activities. The interpreting nature of the course might have played a part in the frequent use of this feature, because the whole class could offer their translations more nearly simultaneously in text chat than orally. It was observed that some shy students preferred typing their answers in the text chat box to speaking orally. We also found some similarities between the linguistic affordances of the text chat in our research and those in stand-alone text chats. Darhower (2008) reports a project on the linguistic affordances of the bilingual chats between Spanish-speaking learners of English and English-speaking learners of Spanish. In Darhower’s study, the text chat was used as the sole medium for negotiation of meaning. Although text chat was used differently in the current study, that is, for the whole class to offer 320 Y. Wang and N.-S. Chen
- 11. translations in Chinese or English simultaneously while listening to the teacher, we found similar types of affordances to those in Darhower’s research (see the right hand column of Table 2). However, the contents of the affordances differed from those evident in Darhower’s findings. The affordances which appeared in the current research and the explanation of their contents are summarized in Table 2. In contrast to Darhower’s study, our study did not find the affordance of ‘‘reformulate implicitly’’. This is probably because the interpreting nature of the tasks always required the students to reformulate their answers explicitly. In addition, our students also reported technical problems (e.g. problems with the video or audio) via text chat and chatted privately via the private chat function. The above findings were also confirmed by students’ comments on the text chat. To Student 10, the text chat offered ‘‘more freedom in mutual communication’’. Student 16 appreciated the chances for collaborative learning through text chat by saying that ‘‘I can contribute some input and receive correction/feedback right away’’. He/she further pointed out that the text chat could be used as a backup when there was a problem with the audio transmission. Group cyber face-to-face classrooms The group cyber classrooms were rated as the most effective feature to support collaborative learning (see Table 1), achieving a mean score of 5.18. This high level of collaborative learning may relate to the effectiveness of these classrooms and the way they were employed in learning. This feature provided each group of learners with their own ‘‘private’’ cyber face- to-face classroom in which they could work together at any time. These classrooms were the same as the main cyber face-to-face classroom with the same synchronous learning features (e.g. the videoconferencing tool, the interactive whiteboard, text chat, etc.) available to the learner. In our study, the students were divided into 11 groups of three students. Two kinds of collaborative tasks were designed to Table 2. Affordances of text chats in 3C. Types of affordances Contents Check comprehension Students asked the teacher or other students if the translations were correct. Clarify noncomprehension Students requested explanation of a sentence or phrase not comprehended. Provide confirmation Confirmation was often provided by peers or the teaching assistant instead of the teacher who would often reply orally. Provide translation The teacher explicitly asked the students to provide translation in both English and Chinese in the text chat box. Translation forms the major part of the text chat content. Provide word meaning Peers or the teaching assistant provided word meaning in either English or Chinese when an unknown word emerged. Reformulate explicitly Students reformulated their translation after the teacher explained the sentences or after seeing others’ translations. Request confirmation Students requested the teacher to confirm if their translation was acceptable when their translation was different from the teacher’s. Use learner’s L1 Some students used Chinese to confirm their comprehension. Interactive Learning Environments 321
- 12. incorporate the use of group cyber classrooms. First, during a tutorial, the teacher would explain the collaborative task in the main cyber face-to-face classroom and then ask the students to go to their own group’s cyber classrooms to complete the task. The teacher would ‘‘go’’ from one group classroom to another to observe student performances. Students would return to the main cyber classroom to report their group work at an agreed time. The second type of task involving the use of the group cyber classrooms was the group assignment. The students were required to produce three interpreting situations with each of the three group members playing a different role in each situation. The groups had to practice their interpreting situations in their own group’s cyber classroom outside class time, and record and submit their assignment using the embedded recording feature in 3C. Student 16 confirmed that ‘‘Group assignment is a good idea when everyone is contributing and having a good communication within the teams’’. The audio transmission The audio function via JoinNet, a sophisticated videoconferencing tool in 3C, supported synchronous oral and aural interaction similar to that in a campus-based face-to-face classroom in that students could hear and talk to each other at the same time without having to press any button. The audio served as the major medium for class interaction and collaboration in this study. The audio was ranked third in terms of its mean score for the potential to facilitate collaborative learning, following the whiteboard and the cyber group classrooms. In regard to the mean score for each indicator statement, the audio and the interactive whiteboard ranked equal as number one (5.26) for statement 4 – This tool enables me to form a sense of online community. This finding indicates the importance of the audio in supporting a learning community, an important indicator of collaborative learning. When evaluating the most satisfying feature for learning, Student 13 chose both the interactive whiteboard and audio, ‘‘because these are the main ways I obtain important information’’. Figure 3 also indicates that students considered the audio more beneficial to learning than the group cyber classrooms. This may be due to the fact that the group cyber classrooms were not used as often as the audio. As expected, Figure 4 shows that the audio was regarded as less satisfactory than the group cyber classrooms. Here the quality of the audio may have affected students’ perception. Although all the students used broadband connection and the overall sound quality was satisfactory for learning, the audio quality varied from student to student, and from period to period. There could be many factors affecting the quality of the audio. For example, variations in individual computer power and sound card quality could make a huge difference to the sound quality. We also discovered that the Internet speed could be affected when students were sharing Internet connections with their housemates. The live video transmission One interesting finding was that the video was always ranked the lowest in the three groups of data presented in the Results section. There are several factors that could have possibly contributed to this comparatively low rating. Firstly, although the video supported by JoinNet could transmit live images of upper body movements 322 Y. Wang and N.-S. Chen
- 13. such as hand gestures and smiles, there were delays of various lengths depending on the Internet speed and individual computer power. Secondly, there were 33 students in this study but only up to 18 video windows could be displayed at the same time. We thus requested half of the class to turn off their videos for the first hour of the lecture and the other half to turn off their videos in the second hour. Thirdly, it was found that in the first few sessions, students were keen to turn on their videos. However, most of the students would choose not to turn on their videos in later sessions, probably because (1) they had passed the initial stage of excitement of seeing each other online, (2) they did not want to be seen by others all the time so that they could have some privacy, and (3) they sometimes had to turn off the video to save the bandwidth for better audio quality when the Internet speed was not fast enough. Fourthly, in this study, we did not explicitly ask the students to use the video in their collaboration apart from using it to give students a sense of presence of others in the classroom. As a result, it was observed that students ignored the video most of the time in later sessions. Lee (2007) also noticed that her students did not take advantage of the visual channels in her videoconferencing project. Lastly, students perceived video as more of a tool for the teacher than for the student. The comment by Student 16 was a case in point: The video ‘‘was a little bit distracting . . . but the best way to monitor the students’’. The comparatively low rating of the video confirms what was found in Chou’s (2001) study, which compared virtual worlds, videoconferencing, audio conferen- cing, text chat, and asynchronous discussion boards in terms of their social presence attributes. Chou (2001, p. 183) discovered that the ‘‘ratings for the audio-video conferencing systems such as CU-Seeme and CoolTalk were much lower than the text based and virtual reality conferencing systems’’. She believes that the poor audio and video quality played a part in the low ratings. Since her study, the audio and video quality supported by videoconferencing tools has been greatly improved but these tools are still not as reliable as the whiteboard and the text chat. Nevertheless, in terms of its support for collaborative learning, the video still received a mean score of 5.07 with an SD of 0.70, indicating an across-the-board recognition of its importance to collaborative learning. Particularly important is the mean score of 5.22 with an SD of 0.74 for Statement 4 – This tool enables me to form a sense of online community, only second to the whiteboard (5.26) and the audio (5.26). The importance of mediated visual cues is gaining increasing attention from CALL professionals such as Lee (2007), who argues: Desktop videoconferencing has great potential for the acquisition of L2 oral skills because it engages the audio and visual aspects of human communication. This type of communication also supports collaborative learning by engaging participants in taking an active role in their own learning process. Only through real contexts and natural discourse does classroom learned language become meaningful for real-world communication. (p. 645) Implications for future research and lessons learned The findings from the current study may have several pedagogical implications for the design of L2 collaborative learning tasks in a cyber face-to-face classroom. We will discuss these implications in reference to each 3C feature evaluated in this research, and together with the lessons we learned. Interactive Learning Environments 323
- 14. The interactive whiteboard Collaborative learning task design should take full advantage of the features offered by the whiteboard. Future research can test different scenarios of using the whiteboard feature to promote collaborative learning. For example, the learning tasks can require the learner to carry out brain storming on certain topics or play language games (e.g. jigsaw puzzles, naughts and crosses) using the drawing, joint editing, color schemes for highlighting and the Pointer functions. The function of typing and writing scripted languages is particularly beneficial to language learning. The text chat In view of its lack of immediacy, we recommend that text chat plays a supplementary role to oral and visual interaction, in order to bring a sense of immediacy and authenticity to collaborative learning in a cyber face-to-face classroom. Thus, collaborative task design needs to ensure a proper balance between text chat, and oral and visual interaction. A word of caution is in order in regard to the private chat function in the text chat, which could act as a double-edged sword. It could be a great function for the teacher to direct specific comments discreetly to a particular student without disturbing others in the class, as the message could be seen only by the intended student. At the same time, it also allowed students to have private conversations which may be unrelated to the teaching in class without being known to the teacher. Although rules of using the text chat (e.g. text messages should relate to classroom activities) can be established in the beginning of a course, there is still no control over private chatting between students. It would be more manageable if the private chat function was only technically allowed between the teacher and the student. Plagiarism in text chat emerged as another issue of which we should be aware if the text chat input forms part of an assessment. In our interpreting course, translations offered in the text chat were assessed as part of students’ participation. One student suggested that the texts in the text chat should be set ‘‘copy-free’’, meaning to disable the copying and pasting function so that one cannot copy and paste others’ answers as one’s own. The group cyber classrooms This is a great tool for group activities during and after class. We used this function only three times in class as it was time consuming for the teacher to visit each of the 11 groups. However, with a smaller class size, it would be more manageable for the teacher to divide the class into a few groups for group collaborative activities. We designed only one assignment for which students needed to use the group cyber classrooms outside class. Yet this is an ideal tool for outside class collaborations. For example, students can be paired or grouped to conduct conversations, role plays, or rehearsals for debates and performances in the target language, on a regular basis outside the class time. The inbuilt recording function in the system allows all activities to be video recorded for revision and assessment. 324 Y. Wang and N.-S. Chen
- 15. The audio The audio should be the core medium for interaction in a cyber face-to-face classroom. Our findings show that the audio quality, although varying from student to student, has reached a satisfactory level for teaching and learning L2. No significant delay was experienced as all the students in this study used a broadband connection. However, as determined by the nature of the interpreting course and the shyness of our students, the audio was used more by the teacher than the students. Future research should design tasks encouraging the use of the audio by students as naturally as we speak in a face-to-face classroom. The video The importance of visual cues in communicative language learning has long been established in face-to-face interaction. However, in-depth research is needed to establish the extent to which visual cues mediated through videoconferencing tools are important to collaborative language learning. Such research is more urgently needed now than it was 5 years ago as broadband technology has already made good quality of video transmission a reality. This research recognizes its lack of conscious use of the video by the teacher and students. Future task design needs to specify ways of using the video in task performances in order to help learners to form a more distinct sense of online community in their collaborations. Lee (2007) also suggests that ‘‘sufficient training on how to communicate effectively using the available visual channel of this medium is necessary to maximize its potential use’’ (p. 642). Such training can be done at both task design and performance levels. For example, when designing a role play about shopping, the task could explicitly request the use of the video to show real items such as a pair of gloves and trousers. When performing a task, students should be encouraged to use hand gestures and facial expression, as most webcams can accurately capture body movements above the waist. Lastly, in our study, none of the features were used alone in collaborative learning activities. Instead, they were used to complement one another. Thus, we recommend that a combination of features be used in order to realize the full potential of the cyber face-to-face environment in supporting collaborative learning. Conclusion In this article, we have argued for the emergence of a third dimension in the ZPD in an online learning context – the dimension of mediating technology. This argument brings our attention to the fundamental role that a technology-mediated environ- ment plays in effective online collaborative language learning. To further unveil the strength, challenges, and limitations of such an environment, we reported and discussed the effectiveness of five features in supporting collaborative language learning in a cyber face-to-face environment, as perceived by the learners. Although the degrees of collaborative attributes vary between the evaluated features, our data indicates that collaborative learning can be effectively facilitated, cultured, and enhanced in a cyber face-to-face environment such as 3C. We conclude that these features complement one another and together they maximize the collaborative learning potential of the environment. In other words, collaborative learning can be Interactive Learning Environments 325
- 16. better cultured when tools are combined than used separately. Findings from this research have shed some light on the collaborative attributes of the cyber face-to-face classroom; this type of knowledge has important practical, pedagogical implications for online synchronous collaborative learning. Fine grained studies are now needed to test task designs that maximize the potential of this environment in supporting collaborative learning. Acknowledgements The authors are most grateful to the Editor and reviewers for insightful suggestions that led to the improvement of the manuscript. The authors also thank Professor John Stevenson and Dr. Helen Klieve from the Griffith Institute of Education Research for their valuable support that helped to shape the article in many important ways. Finally, the authors thank all their students for participating in this research. The participation and contribution by Prof. Nian- Shing Chen in this study was supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan, under contract no: NSC97-2511-S-110-005-MY3 and NSC98-2631-S-024-001. Notes on contributors Yuping Wang is Senior Lecturer of Chinese language at the Griffith University, Australia (www.griffith.edu.au). Her research focuses on the use of Synchronous Computer Mediated Communication (SCMC) and Synchronous Learning Management Systems (SLMS) in second language learning. She has published journal articles on the use of Internet-based videoconferencing tools and SLMSs in distance and cyber face-to-face language learning. Professor Nian-Shing Chen is with the Department of Information Management at the National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan. He is the author of three books including one textbook entitled ‘‘e-Learning Theory & Practice’’. Professor Chen received the distinguished research award from the National Science Council, Taiwan in 2008. His current research interests include online course assessment; online synchronous teaching and mobile and ubiquitous learning. References Appel, C., & Gilabert, R. (2002). Motivation and task performance in a task-based web-based tandem project. ReCALL, 14(1), 16–31. Belz, J.A., & Thorne, S.L. (Eds.). (2005). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston: Thomson Heinle. Chen, N.-S. , Ko, H.C., Kinshuk, & Lin, T. (2005). A model for synchronous learning using the Internet. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(2), 181–194. Chen, N.-S., & Wang, Y. (2008). Testing principles of language learning in a cyber face-to-face environment. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 97–113. Chou, C.C. (2001). Formative evaluation of synchronous CMC systems for a learner-centred online course. Journal of Interactive Learning Research (Summer-Fall), 173–187. Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networks to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17–31. Darhower, M.A. (2008). The role of linguistic affordances in telecollaborative chat. CALICO Journal, 26(1), 48–69. Gunawardena, C.N., & Zittle, F.J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105–121. Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 66–82. 326 Y. Wang and N.-S. Chen
- 17. Hauck, M., & Hampel, R. (2005). The challenges of implementing online tuition in distance languge course: Task design and tutor role. In B. Holmberg, M. Shelley, C. White (Eds.), Distance education and languages: Evolution and change (pp. 258–277). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Heins, B., Duensing, A., Stickler, U., & Batstone, C. (2007). Spoken interaction in online and face-to-face langauge tutorials. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 279–295. Kim, H.K. (2008). Beyond motivation: ESL/EFL teachers’ perceptions of the role of computers. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 241–259. Lamy, M.-N. (2004). Oral conversations online: Redefining oral competence in synchronous environments. ReCALL, 16(2), 520–538. Leahy, C. (2001). Bilingual negotiation via e-mail: An international project. CALL, 14(1), 15–12. Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 83–100. Lee, L. (2007). Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videocoferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40(4), 635–650. Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2004). A task-cycling pedagogy using stimulated reflection and audio-conferencing in foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 50–69. Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: A collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(1), 35–54. Oxford, R.L. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81(iv), 443–456. Richardson, J.C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Siemens, G. (2004). Learning management systems: The wrong place to start learning. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/lms.htm Sotillo, S.M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 82–119. Sotillo, S.M. (2006). Using instant messaging for collaborative learning: A case study. Innovate, 2(3). http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol2_issue3/Using_Instant_Messag ing_for_Collaborative_Learning-__A_Case_Study.pdf 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., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 43, 251–274. Sykes, J. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 399–431. Thorne, S.L. (2003). Artefacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67. Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3), 141–159. Vetter, A., & Chanier, T. (2006). Supporting oral production for professional purposes in synchronous communication with heterogenous learners. ReCALL, 18(1), 5–23. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M.M.L.-M. Cole, A.R. Luria, & J.J. Wertsch, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, Y. (2004a). Distance language learning: Interactivity and fourth-generation Internet- based videoconferencing. CALICO Journal, 21(2), 373–395. Wang, Y. (2004b). Internet-based desktop videoconferencing in supporting synchronous distance language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 90–121. Wang, Y. (2007). Task design in videoconferencing supported distance language learning. CALICO Journal, 24(3), 591–630. Wang, Y. (2008). Distance language learning and desktop videoconferencing: A Chinese language case study. Saarbru¨ cken, Germany: Verlag Dr. Mu¨ ller (VDM). Interactive Learning Environments 327
- 18. Wang, Y., & Chen, N.-S. (2007). Online synchronous language learning: SLMS over the Internet. Innovate, 3(3).http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol3_issue3/Online_ Synchronous_Language_Learning_SLMS_over_the_Internet.pdf Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142. 328 Y. Wang and N.-S. Chen
- 21. Copyright of Interactive Learning Environments is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.