Mei-Ya Liang
National Central University
National Central University
In recent years, synchronous online peer response groups have been increasingly used in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing. This article describes a study of synchronous online interaction among three small peer groups in a Taiwanese undergraduate EFL writing class. An environmental analysis of students’ online discourse in two writing tasks showed that meaning negotiation, error correction, and technical actions seldom occurred and that social talk, task management, and content discussion predominated the chat. Further analysis indicates that relationships among different types of online interaction and their connections with subsequent writing and revision are complex and depend on group makeup and dynamics. Findings suggest that such complex activity may not guarantee revision. Writing instructors may need to proactively model, scaffold and support revision-related online discourse if it is to be of benefit.
INTRODUCTION
As a learner-centered process approach to second language (L2) writing, peer response has been widely adopted and studied since the 1990s (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). The dialogic nature of peer response seems to foster multiple support systems (Hyland, 2000) and communicative behaviors (Villamil & de Guerrero, 1996). L2 research has shown that peer response can increase chances for meaning negotiation and language practice (Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994), encourage collaborative reading and writing (Tsui & Ng, 2000), and promote writing revisions (Berg, 1999; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Min, 2006, 2008; Stanley, 1992). These interactive practices appear to draw upon and enhance interactional and writing skills.
Recently, online peer response has also been used as an alternative to face-to-face (F2F) communication. Online peer response that blends spoken, written, and electronic communication can promote student motivation, participation, and collaboration (Warschauer, 1996, 2002), an awareness of audiences (Ware, 2004), a critical analysis of linguistic, negotiation, and writing features through the use of printouts (DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001), as well as frequent use of peer ideas in revisions (Hewett, 2000; Tuzi, 2004). Applying electronic technologies in L2 writing classes, research has set out to explore such issues as effective uses of synchronous online peer responses and revisions (Hansen & Liu, 2005). While training procedures for improving revision-related discourse have been proposed in composition studies (e.g., Berg, 1999; DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001; Hansen & Liu, 2005; Min, 2006, 2008; Rollinson, 2005; Stanley, 1992), relatively few studies have provided adequate frameworks for describing the nature of L2 interaction in synchronous online peer response groups. To further this research, it is necessary to understand how L2 learners interact in synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC).
This study explores L2 students’ synchronous online peer response in an EFL writing class. Research on revision-related L2 discourse in SCMC is reviewed as are the ways that revision-related online discourse might facilitate L2 writing and revision processes. A coding scheme (Liang, 2008) is employed in analyzing peer discussions about their writing. The author concludes with suggested strategies for supporting and facilitating synchronous online peer response groups.
Mei-Ya Liang Synchronous Online Peer Response Groups
Language Learning & Technology 46
As a learner-centered process approach to second language (L2) writing, peer response has been widely adopted and studied since the 1990s (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). The dialogic nature of peer response seems to foster multiple support systems (Hyland, 2000) and communicative behaviors (Villamil & de Guerrero, 1996). L2 research has shown that peer response can increase chances for meaning negotiation and language practice (Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994), encourage collaborative reading and writing (Tsui & Ng, 2000), and promote writing revisions (Berg, 1999; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Min, 2006, 2008; Stanley, 1992). These interactive practices appear to draw upon and enhance interactional and writing skills.
Recently, online peer response has also been used as an alternative to face-to-face (F2F) communication. Online peer response that blends spoken, written, and electronic communication can promote student motivation, participation, and collaboration (Warschauer, 1996, 2002), an awareness of audiences (Ware, 2004), a critical analysis of linguistic, negotiation, and writing features through the use of printouts (DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001), as well as frequent use of peer ideas in revisions (Hewett, 2000; Tuzi, 2004). Applying electronic technologies in L2 writing classes, research has set out to explore such issues as effective uses of synchronous online peer responses and revisions (Hansen & Liu, 2005). While training procedures for improving revision-related discourse have been proposed in composition studies (e.g., Berg, 1999; DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001; Hansen & Liu, 2005; Min, 2006, 2008; Rollinson, 2005; Stanley, 1992), relatively few studies have provided adequate frameworks for describing the nature of L2 interaction in synchronous online peer response groups. To further this research, it is necessary to understand how L2 learners interact in synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC).
This study explores L2 students’ synchronous online peer response in an EFL writing class. Research on revision-related L2 discourse in SCMC is reviewed as are the ways that revision-related online discourse might facilitate L2 writing and revision processes. A coding scheme (Liang, 2008) is employed in analyzing peer discussions about their writing. The author concludes with suggested strategies for supporting and facilitating synchronous online peer response groups.
Mei-Ya Liang Synchronous Online Peer Response Groups
Language Learning & Technology 46
LITERATURE REVIEW
L2 Interaction in Face-to-Face and Online Contexts
Interactive processes of L2 peer response have been characterized from two perspectives: (a) meaning negotiation and (b) collaborative learning. Meaning negotiation refers to interactive feedback (e.g., confirmation checks, comprehension checks, clarification requests) that deals with unclear messages. Varonis and Gass (1985) proposed that “the types of linguistic activities that occur in NNS-NNS conversations differ from those in other types of discourse, particularly with respect to the negotiation of meaning when there has been an actual or potential breakdown” (p. 71). During negotiation, L2 learners notice linguistic features and modify messages (Pica, 1996). Long (1996) also suggested that speaking and writing partners in an L2 environment not only provide comprehensible input, but also facilitate learner output through meaning negotiation and error correction. Foster and Ohta (2005) further found that, in L2 peer interaction, modified output in the forms of self-correction and supportive talk was more common than other-correction and meaning negotiation.
Following Vygotsky, sociocultural theorists, such as Donato (1994, 2000) and Swain (2000), have highlighted peer assistance and mutual scaffolding in collaborative dialogues. Van Lier (1996, 2000) has also specified the importance of contingency in collaborative discourse through the concept of “intersubjectivity”—that is, a shared social context for interaction where “participants are jointly focused on the activity and its goals, and they draw each other’s attention into a common direction” (van Lier, 1996, p.161). He argues for the ecological value of learners’ meaningful actions in social spaces of interaction (van Lier, 2000). De Guerrero and Villamil (2000), for example, had pairs of students role-play as writer and reviewer, helping to give them a sense of personal investment in the peer revision task. Learners may even use an L2 to establish and maintain social relationships while discussing content. By considering social contexts, sociocultural perspectives enrich our understanding of L2 learning, including speaking, writing, and collaborative dialogues.
Text-based SCMC brings with it instant messaging, which leads to similar discourse functions and negotiation sequences to F2F communication (e.g., Blake, 2000; Smith, 2003; Sotillo, 2000). On the other hand, there are some differences: (a) technical actions in various forms of keyboard strokes (e.g., emoticons and punctuations) replace nonverbal cues (e.g., gestures and facial expressions) and paralinguistic features (e.g., pitch, volume, and intonation) (Negretti, 1999); (b) delayed responses to messages allow L2 learners to see and correct errors (Lee, 2001); and (c) lack of turn-taking provokes L2 students’ extensive use of communicative strategies for discourse management (Chun, 1994; Sotillo, 2000). Fitze (2006) designed an experiment to compare F2F and written electronic whole-class discussion in two intact classes and found that advanced L2 students utilized a wider variety of vocabulary and communicative strategies (e.g., clarification requests, dis/agreement statements, social formulations, topic managements) in online discussion.
Several L2 studies have focused on communicative features and discourse functions unique to the temporal and spatial context established by SCMC. Analyzing chat discourse in Webchat between English nonnative speakers and native speakers, Negretti (1999) reported that the participants often used explicit and economical strategies in order to manage procedures and tasks, maintain social cohesion, and show awareness of chat features. Using the WebCT chat environment, Darhower (2002) also found that non-native learners and their teachers created a sense of intersubjective communication by means of teasing, joking, and off-topic discussion, as well as accepting, rejecting, and explaining ideas within conversations. While meaning negotiation is the essence of L2 interaction in both F2F and online conversations, researchers have also observed that L2 learners use other interactional strategies, such as technical actions, social formulations, error corrections, and discourse management more frequently than they do in F2F discussions.
Mei-Ya Liang Synchronous Online Peer Response Groups
Language Learning & Technology 47
Revision-Related Discourse in SCMC
L2 researchers have developed coding schemes to explore revision-related discourse in synchronous online peer response. Adapting Mendonca and Johnson’s (1994) descriptive categories, DiGiovanni and Nagaswami (2001) examined L2 students’ revision-related discourse based on four major categories—questions, explanations, restatements, and suggestions—in both online and F2F oral settings. They found that the number of negotiations was higher in F2F but that the proportion of agreement or disagreement with ideas or with the organization of ideas was higher in synchronous online peer discussion. DiGiovanni and Nagaswami’s (2001) framework, though not exhaustive, provided some key features of negotiating meaning when discussing writing. Taking Halliday’s (1994) functional-semantic view of dialogue as a basis, Jones, Garralda, Li, and Lock (2006) divided revision-related discourse into two move types— initiating moves (i.e., offer, directive, statement, and question) and responding moves (i.e., clarification, confirmation, acceptance, rejection, acknowledgement). They found that tutees asked more questions and made more statements in online interaction than in F2F peer tutoring. Specifically, they asked questions to elicit information and evaluation rather than provide explanations.
Jones et al. (2006) further investigated the area of online peer response. They discovered that the EFL students in a first year writing class were more likely to discuss textual issues (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, and style) in F2F sessions, but chose to focus on global concerns (e.g., content, organization, topic, and thesis) and relational communication in synchronous online sessions. Jones et al.’s finding contradicts Liu and Sadler’s (2003), in which computer-enhanced groups tended to focus on local revisions, whereas the F2F group covered both local and global revisions. These L2 writing studies suggest different functions of peer comments in the two modes of communication. While DiGiovanni and Nagaswami (2001) and Jones et al. (2006) have put emphasis on interactional dynamics that facilitate collaborative responses, another line of research has turned the focus to revision and has questioned the quality of peer response in SCMC. For example, Braine (2001) and Liu and Sadler (2003) have noted disjointed discourse and off-task messages in simultaneous online composing.
A few investigators have attempted to develop a framework specific to CMC contexts to discuss types of revision-related discourse and areas of revision resulting from synchronous online conferences. Using an electronic whiteboard in synchronous online conferencing, Hewett (2006) examined the types of communicative utterances (e.g., content, form, process, context, and phatic) in her first year English classes. The results showed that half of the talk was for interpersonal connections, interaction facilitation, and workspace discussion. Regarding students’ revision-related discourse, 25% focused on content and context of writing, 62% on writing processes and problems (e.g., thesis, supporting ideas, organization), and 13% on formal concerns (e.g., grammar, mechanisms, citation practices). Comparing revision-related discourse and revision changes, she further found that most of the online interactions could be connected with writing and revision. Although none of the students’ essay drafts had formal connections related to the synchronous conferences, Hewett’s study has shown that synchronous online conferences could result in new writing practices and revision changes in an L1 writing context. Relationships among types of interaction and their connections to revision, however, remain unclear in L2 contexts.
Drawing upon studies on both meaning negotiation and collaborative learning in L2 contexts and in SCMC, Liang (2008) proposed a framework which outlines six major types of synchronous online interaction to explore L2 peer groups’ engagement in a summary writing and revision task. They are (a) meaning negotiation, (b) content discussion, (c) error correction, (d) task management, (e) social talk, and (f) technical action. In the 2008 study, the patterns observed across the six groups showed that the total percentage of turns for meaning negotiation, error correction, task management, and technical action was very low and that two-thirds of the turns were spent on social talk and content discussion. This framework seems to be adequate to reveal the relative contributions among different types of interaction. The current study investigates peer response in SCMC through which writing and revision resulting from revision-related discourse or other important interactional processes in SCMC can be traced and considered.
Mei-Ya Liang Synchronous Online Peer Response Groups
Language Learning & Technology 48
THIS STUDY
As part of a larger research project that explores online interaction impacts on EFL university students’ L2 development, this study focuses on the use of synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing. Specifically, this study asks two questions:
1. What are the different types of interaction in synchronous online L2 discourse?
2. How does synchronous online peer revision-related discourse facilitate subsequent writing and revision?
As part of a larger research project that explores online interaction impacts on EFL university students’ L2 development, this study focuses on the use of synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing. Specifically, this study asks two questions:
1. What are the different types of interaction in synchronous online L2 discourse?
2. How does synchronous online peer revision-related discourse facilitate subsequent writing and revision?
Course Context
This study involved a sophomore EFL writing course during the fall semester of 2008 at a major university in Taiwan. The course was open to English majors and minors. The course took a process writing approach and focused on expository writing. The goal was for students to help each other write clear and well-reasoned prose. Students used a variety of print and electronic resources to discuss ideas, compose multiple drafts, and edit and revise texts. The class met 3 hours per week for 18 weeks. Course grades were determined by class participation and several writing assignments: an issue paper, annotations and peer comments, exam essays, reflective essays, a book review, and a research paper and presentation. Each assignment was evaluated based on (a) title and thesis, (b) main and supporting ideas, (c) organization and style, (d) word choice and grammar, and (e) editing and revision.
In the class meetings, through both print and multimedia writing prompts (e.g., videos, audio clips, films, artworks, advertisements, etc), the instructor led the class to practice peer response strategies in their discussion about how to improve writing. The class discussions on revision-related strategies were organized around the following topics: (a) reading-writing connections, (b) quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, (c) text structures in expository writing, (d) coherence and cohesion, and (e) weak reasoning and errors of logic. Students also participated in synchronous online peer response sessions in a computer lab during the class time as part of the class requirement. They were placed in three groups. The online sessions offered students opportunities to discuss and review peer drafts at different stages of the writing process:
• Prewriting and Drafting. There was one 2-hour online session in the second week. Students brainstormed ideas for their issue papers. During the process, students collected all their resources to compose topic sentences and thesis statements as well as to outline paragraphs in their essays. After students posted issue papers in their blogs, the instructor left comments on each student’s post.
• Revising and Editing. There were four 2-hour online sessions on the 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 13th
• Presentation and Submission. There were two 2-hour sessions on the 15 weeks. Before class meetings, students posted their drafts of annotations in their personal blogs. In class, they shared ideas in drafts by asking questions or by making suggestions and comments about unclear ideas. After each synchronous online peer session, students reviewed the transcripts, left comments on their peers’ blogs, and posted their own revised drafts.
th and 17th
Participants weeks. The first was a collaborative writing of book review task, in which students reviewed writing strategies and discussed what to write. The second was a research paper presentation task. Students posted their drafts before class. During class, they reviewed ideas and evaluated writing. After that, students compiled and submitted their work for grading.
The participants for this study were 12 university students (10 females and 2 males) who took Sophomore Composition in the department of English. According to the results of a pre-course questionnaire, three
Mei-Ya Liang Synchronous Online Peer Response Groups
Language Learning & Technology 49
students had studied English for 8 years and the other 9 students had had more than 9 years of previous English study. Based on their self reports, six students had passed the Intermediate-level GEPT (i.e., a general English proficiency test developed in 1999, commissioned by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan, see Roever and Pan, 2008), and three had achieved the High-Intermediate level. The other three students did not specify or take any GEPT, but their English level was approximately TOEFL CBT 193- 250.
At the beginning of the semester, students were also asked to specify which aspects of their writing in English needed further improvement. The results from the questionnaire show that most of the students wished to improve writing skills in global idea development and organization, such as having a clear main idea in the paragraph, developing additional support for main points, writing a good concluding paragraph, and having smooth connections and transitions between sentences.
This study involved a sophomore EFL writing course during the fall semester of 2008 at a major university in Taiwan. The course was open to English majors and minors. The course took a process writing approach and focused on expository writing. The goal was for students to help each other write clear and well-reasoned prose. Students used a variety of print and electronic resources to discuss ideas, compose multiple drafts, and edit and revise texts. The class met 3 hours per week for 18 weeks. Course grades were determined by class participation and several writing assignments: an issue paper, annotations and peer comments, exam essays, reflective essays, a book review, and a research paper and presentation. Each assignment was evaluated based on (a) title and thesis, (b) main and supporting ideas, (c) organization and style, (d) word choice and grammar, and (e) editing and revision.
In the class meetings, through both print and multimedia writing prompts (e.g., videos, audio clips, films, artworks, advertisements, etc), the instructor led the class to practice peer response strategies in their discussion about how to improve writing. The class discussions on revision-related strategies were organized around the following topics: (a) reading-writing connections, (b) quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, (c) text structures in expository writing, (d) coherence and cohesion, and (e) weak reasoning and errors of logic. Students also participated in synchronous online peer response sessions in a computer lab during the class time as part of the class requirement. They were placed in three groups. The online sessions offered students opportunities to discuss and review peer drafts at different stages of the writing process:
• Prewriting and Drafting. There was one 2-hour online session in the second week. Students brainstormed ideas for their issue papers. During the process, students collected all their resources to compose topic sentences and thesis statements as well as to outline paragraphs in their essays. After students posted issue papers in their blogs, the instructor left comments on each student’s post.
• Revising and Editing. There were four 2-hour online sessions on the 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 13th
• Presentation and Submission. There were two 2-hour sessions on the 15 weeks. Before class meetings, students posted their drafts of annotations in their personal blogs. In class, they shared ideas in drafts by asking questions or by making suggestions and comments about unclear ideas. After each synchronous online peer session, students reviewed the transcripts, left comments on their peers’ blogs, and posted their own revised drafts.
th and 17th
Participants weeks. The first was a collaborative writing of book review task, in which students reviewed writing strategies and discussed what to write. The second was a research paper presentation task. Students posted their drafts before class. During class, they reviewed ideas and evaluated writing. After that, students compiled and submitted their work for grading.
The participants for this study were 12 university students (10 females and 2 males) who took Sophomore Composition in the department of English. According to the results of a pre-course questionnaire, three
Mei-Ya Liang Synchronous Online Peer Response Groups
Language Learning & Technology 49
students had studied English for 8 years and the other 9 students had had more than 9 years of previous English study. Based on their self reports, six students had passed the Intermediate-level GEPT (i.e., a general English proficiency test developed in 1999, commissioned by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan, see Roever and Pan, 2008), and three had achieved the High-Intermediate level. The other three students did not specify or take any GEPT, but their English level was approximately TOEFL CBT 193- 250.
At the beginning of the semester, students were also asked to specify which aspects of their writing in English needed further improvement. The results from the questionnaire show that most of the students wished to improve writing skills in global idea development and organization, such as having a clear main idea in the paragraph, developing additional support for main points, writing a good concluding paragraph, and having smooth connections and transitions between sentences.
Revision-Related Discourse Training Procedures
The students were asked to form three groups of four. Both Group 1 and Group 2 were composed of English majors, whereas Group 3 consisted of 2 English majors, 1 Chinese major, and 1 French major. The English majors had taken the author’s “Freshman English” course in the fall semester of 2007. In the course, students also formed small groups and discussed electronic and print texts in both F2F meetings and online interaction. Given example sentences, students in small groups had practiced group collaborative skills by negotiating meaning (e.g., “What does this word/idea mean?” “Are you saying ...?” “Do you mean that…”), discussing content (e.g., “I don’t understand because…” “A/Another reason for this might be...” “It’s not the point. The main point is …”) and managing tasks (e.g., “What might be important here...?” “How is this task related to...?”). Students were also asked to correct errors and manage tasks as well as to clarify and comment on messages by using a checklist:
• Is the title or topic attractive?
• Are the words in the essay appropriate?
• Does the essay cover important points of an issue?
• Is the essay written in the writer’s own words?
• Does the essay include mistakes in spelling and grammar?
• Does the essay include multimedia aids that serve clear purposes or make the stories more interesting?
In the writing class, students received additional training procedures in the writing process. At the prewriting and drafting stage, the instructor adopted Rollinson’s (2005) suggestions: (a) explaining the potential benefits of peer feedback, (b) discussing with students the purposes of peer responses and the role of the reviewer in reader-writer dialogues, and (c) modeling comments and coaching synchronous peer response on sample paragraphs in class. Two F2F teacher-student conferences were held in the 7th and 14th
• Why are you writing this paper? weeks to review and discuss students’ writing drafts and peer revision. After each conference, students posted reflections on their blogs. As students progressed toward the later stages of editing, revisions, and presentations, the instructor summarized important writing and revision strategies that had been discussed during class time. To guide revision and possibly facilitate synchronous online peer revision-related discourse, the following list of questions was also posted on the class blog:
• Do the title and keywords forecast an issue or an attitude toward the subject?
• Do the library and Web sources provide sound reasons and proper evidence for the issue?
Mei-Ya Liang Synchronous Online Peer Response Groups
Language Learning & Technology 50
• Do you share experiences, emotions, or cultures to support your opinions?
• Do you organize the ideas with a smooth connection and transition between sentences?
• Do you quote some words, phrases, or sentences or paraphrase them?
• Do you adopt your peer’s opinions?
• Do you polish your language and check grammar (e.g., verb tense, subject-verb agreement, word form, run-on sentence, informal register, etc.)?
• Do you find weak reasoning and errors of logic (e.g., irrelevant, oversimplification, overgeneralization, false analogy, undefined terms, etc.)?
• Do you change your question or problem during the course of study?
The students were asked to form three groups of four. Both Group 1 and Group 2 were composed of English majors, whereas Group 3 consisted of 2 English majors, 1 Chinese major, and 1 French major. The English majors had taken the author’s “Freshman English” course in the fall semester of 2007. In the course, students also formed small groups and discussed electronic and print texts in both F2F meetings and online interaction. Given example sentences, students in small groups had practiced group collaborative skills by negotiating meaning (e.g., “What does this word/idea mean?” “Are you saying ...?” “Do you mean that…”), discussing content (e.g., “I don’t understand because…” “A/Another reason for this might be...” “It’s not the point. The main point is …”) and managing tasks (e.g., “What might be important here...?” “How is this task related to...?”). Students were also asked to correct errors and manage tasks as well as to clarify and comment on messages by using a checklist:
• Is the title or topic attractive?
• Are the words in the essay appropriate?
• Does the essay cover important points of an issue?
• Is the essay written in the writer’s own words?
• Does the essay include mistakes in spelling and grammar?
• Does the essay include multimedia aids that serve clear purposes or make the stories more interesting?
In the writing class, students received additional training procedures in the writing process. At the prewriting and drafting stage, the instructor adopted Rollinson’s (2005) suggestions: (a) explaining the potential benefits of peer feedback, (b) discussing with students the purposes of peer responses and the role of the reviewer in reader-writer dialogues, and (c) modeling comments and coaching synchronous peer response on sample paragraphs in class. Two F2F teacher-student conferences were held in the 7th and 14th
• Why are you writing this paper? weeks to review and discuss students’ writing drafts and peer revision. After each conference, students posted reflections on their blogs. As students progressed toward the later stages of editing, revisions, and presentations, the instructor summarized important writing and revision strategies that had been discussed during class time. To guide revision and possibly facilitate synchronous online peer revision-related discourse, the following list of questions was also posted on the class blog:
• Do the title and keywords forecast an issue or an attitude toward the subject?
• Do the library and Web sources provide sound reasons and proper evidence for the issue?
Mei-Ya Liang Synchronous Online Peer Response Groups
Language Learning & Technology 50
• Do you share experiences, emotions, or cultures to support your opinions?
• Do you organize the ideas with a smooth connection and transition between sentences?
• Do you quote some words, phrases, or sentences or paraphrase them?
• Do you adopt your peer’s opinions?
• Do you polish your language and check grammar (e.g., verb tense, subject-verb agreement, word form, run-on sentence, informal register, etc.)?
• Do you find weak reasoning and errors of logic (e.g., irrelevant, oversimplification, overgeneralization, false analogy, undefined terms, etc.)?
• Do you change your question or problem during the course of study?
Data Collection and Analysis
Through MSN Messenger (tw.msn.com), the EFL university students participated in synchronous online peer response group activities. On their personal blogs, they posted their writing assignments. Data were collected from the online chat sessions, student blogs, and two corresponding writing assignments: the book review and research paper tasks. The following directions were listed in the course syllabus:
• Book review (Group work). Provide a brief description of the main ideas and provide an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the book. Your review should include your group members’ opinions about the book. It should range from 500-750 words.
• Research Paper. Use your annotations to support your points of view by the evidence. Provide the reasons why you choose this issue as the focus of your paper. Write questions on the issue and contrast two or more competing perspectives. Write an 8-10 page research paper (2000-2500 words) with supporting citations in APA format.
During the online sessions, the instructor was present in the computer lab to assist with computer problems and remind students of the task requirements. Otherwise students engaged in group discussions and made progress with the two assignments without instructor participation.
Following Liang’s (2008) coding scheme, the author first identified participants’ discourse types. The taxonomy of revision-related discourse includes four categories: (a) meaning negotiation, (b) content discussion, (c) error correction, and (d) task management. Additional codes were included to accommodate the (e) social talk, and (f) technical action that were not directly related to student writing. Definitions and examples for each coding category are presented in Appendix B. The units of analysis to describe L2 learners’ co-constructed online discourses are “turns.” Using the taxonomy, the author and a trained research assistant coded chat data independently and then reviewed all cases of disagreement and resolved differences together. Almost all of the turns included only one type of interaction per turn, but a few turns (less than 10 cases in this study) that included two types of interaction were counted as two turns. χ2 Goodness of Fit Tests were then performed in order to check for differences across discourse types and groups.
The process of investigating the connections between the chat and subsequent writing and revision was recursive and iterative. For the book review task, students’ collaborative texts were examined by the research assistant and the author. We highlighted the words and phrases that were used in the revision-related discourse in each of the three groups’ transcripts. For the research paper, students’ revision changes between drafts were also highlighted and then their chat transcripts were read to look for signals of relationships between revision-related online discourse and individual students’ revised work (for samples, see Appendices C and D).
Mei-Ya Liang Synchronous Online Peer Response Groups
Language Learning & Technology 51
Through MSN Messenger (tw.msn.com), the EFL university students participated in synchronous online peer response group activities. On their personal blogs, they posted their writing assignments. Data were collected from the online chat sessions, student blogs, and two corresponding writing assignments: the book review and research paper tasks. The following directions were listed in the course syllabus:
• Book review (Group work). Provide a brief description of the main ideas and provide an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the book. Your review should include your group members’ opinions about the book. It should range from 500-750 words.
• Research Paper. Use your annotations to support your points of view by the evidence. Provide the reasons why you choose this issue as the focus of your paper. Write questions on the issue and contrast two or more competing perspectives. Write an 8-10 page research paper (2000-2500 words) with supporting citations in APA format.
During the online sessions, the instructor was present in the computer lab to assist with computer problems and remind students of the task requirements. Otherwise students engaged in group discussions and made progress with the two assignments without instructor participation.
Following Liang’s (2008) coding scheme, the author first identified participants’ discourse types. The taxonomy of revision-related discourse includes four categories: (a) meaning negotiation, (b) content discussion, (c) error correction, and (d) task management. Additional codes were included to accommodate the (e) social talk, and (f) technical action that were not directly related to student writing. Definitions and examples for each coding category are presented in Appendix B. The units of analysis to describe L2 learners’ co-constructed online discourses are “turns.” Using the taxonomy, the author and a trained research assistant coded chat data independently and then reviewed all cases of disagreement and resolved differences together. Almost all of the turns included only one type of interaction per turn, but a few turns (less than 10 cases in this study) that included two types of interaction were counted as two turns. χ2 Goodness of Fit Tests were then performed in order to check for differences across discourse types and groups.
The process of investigating the connections between the chat and subsequent writing and revision was recursive and iterative. For the book review task, students’ collaborative texts were examined by the research assistant and the author. We highlighted the words and phrases that were used in the revision-related discourse in each of the three groups’ transcripts. For the research paper, students’ revision changes between drafts were also highlighted and then their chat transcripts were read to look for signals of relationships between revision-related online discourse and individual students’ revised work (for samples, see Appendices C and D).
Mei-Ya Liang Synchronous Online Peer Response Groups
Language Learning & Technology 51
CONCLUSION
Using peer response groups in EFL writing enables students to collaboratively brainstorm, share, and review texts. Synchronous Web technology adds a valuable tool for facilitating and recording the dynamics of group interaction. On the other hand, there are possible reasons why synchronous online peer response groups might be fun, but not very effective. The revision-related and non-revision-related discourse taxonomy used in this study can give an overall view of online interaction from which instructors can proceed to make task implementations more consistent and the results correspondingly stronger. For example, writing and revision processes can be improved by asking students to concentrate on revision-related discourse and to play down non-revision-related discourse. However, the results of this study have also shown that the relationships between revision-related discourse and discourse-related revision are not straightforward. If we consider the ecological nature of online interaction, we will encourage students to make meaningful use of overall online interactional features in the collaborative process for better composition and revision.
To maximize learner-centered, collaborative opportunities for L2 learning, writing, and communication, training procedures and support systems should be employed according to group interaction and task performance along with students’ progress in the writing process. Modeling peer response strategies at the beginning of the course can prepare students at different L2 proficiency levels for online negotiation and discussion. Training should focus on connecting students’ prior experiences with current writing pedagogy. During the revising and editing process, teachers might draw attention to student variation and group interaction. Chat transcripts and selected episodes can be reviewed to help less experienced students learn diverse ways of interaction and locate revision-related discourse. At the presentation and submission stage, while students might feel under pressure as writing tasks are developed into final products, they still need to demonstrate a range of communicative strategies in order to accomplish various learning goals. To revise their writing after the peer response session, these L2 writers can continue the process of negotiating with various resources and audiences either inside or outside the writing class. In short, revision-related online discourse in small-group synchronous writing tasks can provide potentially useful pedagogical insights and tools for the teaching of writing.
Mei-Ya Liang Synchronous Online Peer Response Groups
Language Learning & Technology 58
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mei-Ya Liang is an associate professor in the Department of English at National Central University, Taiwan. Her current research focuses on the use of technology in the teaching of English.
E-mail: mliang@cc.ncu.edu.tw
Using peer response groups in EFL writing enables students to collaboratively brainstorm, share, and review texts. Synchronous Web technology adds a valuable tool for facilitating and recording the dynamics of group interaction. On the other hand, there are possible reasons why synchronous online peer response groups might be fun, but not very effective. The revision-related and non-revision-related discourse taxonomy used in this study can give an overall view of online interaction from which instructors can proceed to make task implementations more consistent and the results correspondingly stronger. For example, writing and revision processes can be improved by asking students to concentrate on revision-related discourse and to play down non-revision-related discourse. However, the results of this study have also shown that the relationships between revision-related discourse and discourse-related revision are not straightforward. If we consider the ecological nature of online interaction, we will encourage students to make meaningful use of overall online interactional features in the collaborative process for better composition and revision.
To maximize learner-centered, collaborative opportunities for L2 learning, writing, and communication, training procedures and support systems should be employed according to group interaction and task performance along with students’ progress in the writing process. Modeling peer response strategies at the beginning of the course can prepare students at different L2 proficiency levels for online negotiation and discussion. Training should focus on connecting students’ prior experiences with current writing pedagogy. During the revising and editing process, teachers might draw attention to student variation and group interaction. Chat transcripts and selected episodes can be reviewed to help less experienced students learn diverse ways of interaction and locate revision-related discourse. At the presentation and submission stage, while students might feel under pressure as writing tasks are developed into final products, they still need to demonstrate a range of communicative strategies in order to accomplish various learning goals. To revise their writing after the peer response session, these L2 writers can continue the process of negotiating with various resources and audiences either inside or outside the writing class. In short, revision-related online discourse in small-group synchronous writing tasks can provide potentially useful pedagogical insights and tools for the teaching of writing.
Mei-Ya Liang Synchronous Online Peer Response Groups
Language Learning & Technology 58
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mei-Ya Liang is an associate professor in the Department of English at National Central University, Taiwan. Her current research focuses on the use of technology in the teaching of English.
E-mail: mliang@cc.ncu.edu.tw
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar