EUROCALL Teacher Education SIG Workshop 2010 Presentation Carolin Fuchs

725 views
668 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
725
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Acknowledgments: Katerina Zourou, all participants at TC & Univ of Luxembourg, Emmajoy Shulman-Kumin, Yoonah Seong, Fred Tsutagawa All names are pseudonyms All data were kept in their original form EVEN THOUGH my title says wikis, and blogs, the main focus of the presentation will be on wikis because Google Sites (=wiki tool) was the main tool used for the collaboration and because the data showed interesting results; the reason that blogs and podcasts are in there is because one group used blogs to present their podcasts and for learners to comment on. And Group 3 used blogs on their final project site.
  • NOT ON SLIDE: Call to advance preservice language teachers’ professional literacy by modeling “innovative uses of technology” (Willis, 2001, p. 309; see also Hubbard & Levy, 2006); Integration of online/blended learning formats in cross-institutional teacher education settings (e.g., Arnold & Ducate, 2006; Arnold, Ducate, & Lomicka, 2007; Arnold, Ducate, Lomicka, & Lord, 2005; Fuchs, 2003, 2006; Lomicka & Lord, 2007; Lord & Lomicka, 2008; Müller-Hartmann, 2005; Scherff & Paulus, 2006; Shaughnessy, Purves, & Jackson, 2008); ACMC (e.g., email, discussion forums, wikis, blogs) for reflective writing and writing for an authentic audience (e.g., Egbert & Hanson-Smith, 2007; Kern, 1998; Reinhardt & Thorne, 2007; Richardson, 2006; Warschauer, 1996, 1997; see also Herring, 1996 ). ---------------------- ON SLIDE: - CMC modes (Murray, 1988) expanded to “socio-technical modes” (Herring, 2002) CMC modes (Murray, 1988) expanded to “socio-technical modes” to include the social and cultural practices that have arisen out of their use (Herring, 2002) Herring (1999) lists two properties of the medium that are known to be obstacles to interaction management in CMC:
  • Herring (1999) “ (1) lack of simultaneous feedback, caused by reduced audio-visual cues and the fact that messages cannot overlap; (2) disrupted turn adjacency, caused by the fact that messages are posted in the order received by the system, without regard for what they are responding to.” (p.2) How coherent (or not) are computer-mediated interactions? (Herring, 1999)
  • - Wiki creator: Ward Cunningham (1995) “ The word wiki is Hawaiian for “quick” and refers to a type of Website with pages that any user can easily contribute to and edit, including text, photos, and videos” (Niño, 2009, p. 25) . Use of Wiki: student research projects, collaborative annotated bibliography, publishing course resources, knowledge and reflection base, mapping concepts, presentation and group authoring tool (for an overview, see Parker & Chao, 2007); FoF in language teaching (Kessler, 2009); ----------------------- NOT ON SLIDE: The Essence of the Wiki Concept - A wiki invites all users to edit any page or to create new pages within the wiki Web site, using only a plain-vanilla Web browser without any extra add-ons. - Wiki promotes meaningful topic associations between different pages by making page link creation almost intuitively easy and showing whether an intended target page exists or not. A wiki is not a carefully crafted site for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the visitor in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the Web site landscape (Leuf, & Cunningham, 2001). “ any user can easily contribute to and edit, including text, photos, and videos” (Niño, 2009, p. 25) . BUT: Not as easy as my study will show Parker & Chao (2007): Reviewed a number of studies on how wiki can be used: collaborative projects, teaching writing, but only 2 studies with apparent negative results: “ Because of their very low technological barriers yet very rich and flexible functionality, wikis afford the opportunity to offer collaborative, constructive learning more extensively in our educational environments” (McMullin, 2005, as cited in Parker & Chao, 2007, p. 59). “ Wikis allow visitors to engage in dialog and share information among participants in group projects, or to engage in learning with each other by using wikis as a collaborative environment in which to construct their knowledge” (Boulos et al., 2006, as cited in Parker & Chao, 2007, p. 58).
  • Let’s take a quick look at how the wiki differs from email and chat. Warschauer, 2010, p. 5 – in most recent LLT commentary: “ Wikis turn traditional CMC activity around. Whereas e-mail and chat facilitate informal, author-centric, personal exchange, writing on a wiki facilitates more formal, topic-centric, depersonalized exchange. Each edit makes a concrete contribution to a collaborative written product. A log of edits and their authors is relegated to a separate page, which a teacher can use to confirm who contributed what to a joint student product. Wikis are thus an especially powerful digital tool for collaborative writing and collective knowledge development . Initial reports of the use of wikis for collaborative writing assignments in second language learning suggest that participating students increase their quantity of writing, develop more confidence in their writing, and find such assignments motivating (Mak & Coniam, 2008; Kovacic, Bubas, & Zlatovic, 2007). “ Often group members collaborate on a document by emailing to each member of the group a file that each person edits on their computer, and some attempt is then made to coordinate the edits so that everyone’s work is equally represented: using a wiki pulls the group members together and enables them to build and edit the document on a single, central wiki page ” (Duffy & Burns, 2006, as cited in Parker & Chao, 2007, p. 61).
  • Let’s briefly look at how blogs and wikis have been distinguished in their functions – I will revisit this later based on my findings. Zeinstejer, R. (2008). The wiki revolution: A challenge to traditional education. TESL-EJ, 11 (4). Retrieved December 27, 2008, from: http://tesl-ej.org/ej44/m1.html Blogs vs. Wikis BLOGS: -structured -highly personal -focused on process -administered by one individual -edited by creator -chronologically organized WIKIS: -flexible -intensively collaborative -focused on content -administered by a number of people -edited by anyone -organized in innumerable ways Whereas blogs have already become familiar in the pedagogical arena, wikis are just beginning to be used by EFL/ESL teachers. While both allow users to create content to be shared with other users, there are a number of differences between blogs and wikis. Table 1 below highlights the differences between the two. Table 1. Differences between Blogs and Wikis From Table 1, we can see that if one is mostly interested in having a one-way conversation (with perhaps some responses in a comments section), then blogs may be the way to go. However, if one is interested in creating content collaboratively with students or colleagues, then a wiki might be worth considering. === The distinction needs to be reconsidered provided that a blog site like Blogger allows the author to sign up others as co-authors. Hence, everyone can post – not just reply to posts.   Why “focused on process” in Blog vs. “focused on content” in Wiki? I can see how wiki is strictly about generating content, but public (political) blogs are also there for generating content in that most bloggers contain hyperlinks to other blogs or other content. We need to distinguish between the following:
  • Train student teachers in various CMC tools (e.g., wikis, blogs, podcasts) for use in their teaching Exchange perspectives and create tech-based tasks with cross-institutional partners
  • SEE AUDIENCE HANDOUT SAMPLE SCREENSHOT ON AUDIENCE HANDOUT, p.3 – Gr. 3 Wiki PULL UP: WORD DOC Project Site Lux TC (screenshots: Class wiki site & Groups’ wiki sites) GROUP 3 http://sites.google.com/site/group3site/Home Pull up: Navigation • Home • 1. Facts about My Country • 2. My Favorite Food • 3. Tourist Attractions • 4. Local Customs • Final Project Group 4 Group 3: “Travel with the Local Experts” Blog http://travelwithlocalexperts.blogspot.com/
  • How do student teachers use the tools (e.g., the wiki)? What kind of interaction takes place to negotiate the task? What are the methodological implications for analyzing interaction in Web 2.0 tools such as Google Sites and Google Wave?
  • This exploratory study draws on three qualitative research traditions: Ethnography, case study, Action Research, (Richards, 2003) In this study, the author’s status was that of researcher, teacher of the course at TC, and project co-designer in collaboration with the Luxembourg teacher educator, i.e., her role was that of participant observer (e.g., Denzin, 1989). Data triangulation (e.g., Strauss & Corbin, 1998) involved gathering information through a combination of different instruments, i.e., through qualitative and descriptive quantitative data from a needs analysis questionnaire, a post-course questionnaire, journal entries, and CMC data. With this mixed-method approach, the researcher attempted to get multiple viewpoints and to gain a more in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under investigation (e.g., Nunan, 1992; Wiersma & Jurs, 2005). Data triangulation through CMC data and journal entries (e.g., Nunan, 1992) Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis (Herring, 1999, 2004)
  • = approach to analyzing internet content that goes beyond traditional content analysis; basic methodology of CMDA is language-focused content analysis supplemented by a toolkit of discourse analysis methods adapted from the study of spoken conversation and written text analysis; methods can be quantitative (coding/counting) or qualitative (Herring, 2004) the quantitative approach resembles classical content analysis, BUT a broader spectrum of approaches is also included. Thus, CMDA is both a sub-type of CA (broadly defined), and CA (narrowly- defined) is a sub-type of CMDA (Herring, 2004)
  • CMDA Implementation for the coding and counting (quantitative) approach to CMDA, involve a five-step process that resembles that for classical content analysis: 1) Articulate research question(s) 2) Select computer-mediated data sample 3) Operationalize key concept(s) in terms of discourse features 4) Apply method(s) of analysis to data sample 5) Interpret results (Herring, 2004)
  • III Coding Procedure 2 Coders coded for c-units (Crookes, 1990, p. 184; Duff, 1986, p. 153) c-unit = closely related to t-unit (one main clause plus any subordinate clauses that happen to be attached or embedded within), “but has the advantage that isolated phrases not accompanied by a verb, but which have a communicative value, can be coded” (Crookes, 1990, p. 184) c-unit = "could be a word, phrase, or sentence that in some way contributed pragmatic or semantic meaning to a conversation" (Duff, 1986, p. 153). Intercoder Agreement: .73 Types of C-units SI: Sharing/ Summarizing Information SA: Suggests Action RA: Requests Action RV: Requests Validation RI: Requests Information EG: Expressing Gratitude A: Agrees D: Disagrees E: Emoticons O: Others
  • III. Coding Example Requesting Validation: “ Any thoughts?” [CCF-RVCF] [CEJ-RVEJ] “ Let us know what you think, and we look forward to hearing from you.” [CCF-RVCF] [CEJ-RVEJ] Expressing Gratitude: “Th ank you for sharing.” [CCF-EGCF] [CEJ-EGEJ] Requesting Action: “Now for the project, we have some suggestions:[…]” [CCF-SACF] [CEJ-SAEJ]
  • PULL UP to illustrated Attachments/Comments/Subpages:” http://sites.google.com/site/workshopforpracticum/ (Practicum Workshop) The most interesting part in this table is how groups used the different Googles Sites/wiki functions – especially since we also used Google Groups as the discussion forum. For instance, GROUP 1: Used Class Wiki to brainstorm topic ideas for their podcast even after they had created their podcast blog; They used the Site like a mix of a discussion forum and a chat. One reason could have been that they had no other way of getting in touch with their partners – Sites doesn’t allow members to email each other; They might have not used Google Groups because we didn’t have a group folder set up, i.e., all messages would go to the entire class. They address each other with their names and use different colors for the font later; a couple posts include the date that they had manually typed in Used Comment function at the bottom = the first post said something like “how come nobody is using the Comment function?” And then the discussion on the wiki’s main page just shifted to the comment function. GROUP 2 They talked about when to meet, but not about the actual project GROUP 3 (EXCERPT on HANDOUT) Used Class Wiki for introductios and to negotiated a time to skype GROUP 4 IN SUM, it doesn’t seem that the function of the wiki was clear to groups even if they knew they were going to create their own wiki. The fact that it’s a class wiki doesn’t change the function of the wiki. They seemed to understand the wiki function as more of a discussion forum-type function, which is shown by their posts on the class wiki and the comments in their journal entries as we will see in a minute.
  • Ying: “wikis may be used as a good tool for students to discuss the social and cultural aspects of English speaking societies” Lisa: “collaborative forum” = but wiki is NOT a forum “ [W]ikis for example, it is a collaboration tool that needs participants to discuss a topic by collaboratively writing on the web. […] wikis may be used as a good tool for students to discuss the social and cultural aspects of English speaking societies. […] wikis will be a great tool for students in higher level to practice the target language by discussing various topics and exchanging information” (Ying, Group 3, Journal 1, emphasis added). “ […] wiki to post recipes. This topic is perfect for the collaborative forum of a wiki” (Lisa, Group 2, Journal, emphasis added).
  • Warner: “using these venues to have discussions” = ONLY for Skype, NOT Google Sites Yun: “ Web tools such as discussion forums and Wikis enable students to participate actively in discussing given topics…” = ONLY discussion forums and Skype chat are discussion forums, NOT wikis “ Groups can meet online using Skype or on Google Sites or even in a chat room. Using these venues to have discussions can be quite fruitful, especially as students can feel more open to share their ideas given the informal nature of such online meetings” (Warner, Group 1, Journal 2, emphasis added). “ Web tools such as discussion forums and Wikis enable students to participate actively in discussing given topics and in bringing additional information sources to the group” (Yun, Group 1, Journal 2, emphasis added).
  • IV. CMC Data – Group 3 See handout: 1. Group 3 Wiki 2. Google Wave
  • GROUP 3 April 13, 2009 A&HT 4000 Specialized Computers and Language Teaching- Journal 3 Spring 2009 Dr. Carolin Fuchs Yang   It has been interesting to work with two students in Luxembourg, Michel and Liz-Anne, on the project. This is the first time that I have on-line meeting with partners who are abroad. We had a couple of Skype meetings that are usually about an hour. In the Skype meeting, we talked about our ideas through the microphones and earphones. Even though we cannot see each other, we always have a good discussion. It is great to have group members from different cultural and language background. We can brainstorm various ideas. The topic our project is to teach students to introduce their own culture, and provide a platform for them to share any cultural experience. On the Google sites, we give learners options to choose the topics that they would like to talk about. They not only can use the English that they learn from the website, but can also incorporate pictures or videos to share their thoughts. They can use any online resource to present their ideas. By working on the Google site together, they are no longer limited to time and space. On-line tools provide the flexibility, and everyone in the group has one more way to communicate with each other. The technology breaks the boundary of time and space. This is exactly what my group members and I feel about our cooperation. The other thing that makes us excited is that we could never get to know each other if there is not a project like this, no technology, and no Internet. Because of the Internet, we are connected. Whenever we have Skype meetings, in addition to the discussion of the project, we also exchange information about school lives. I know more about the school system, and the student population in Luxembourg little by little. What we experienced in the project is what I would like to have my students experience. This could be a good experience for language learners truly more practices. A cooperative project for students to work with other students overseas can serve to be an authentic task in applying the language skills that they learned in class. Specifically, for some students who may not have the opportunity to interact with people from different cultural and language backgrounds in their daily life, the on-line interactions might be easier for them to get some intercultural communication experience. Teachers can encourage students to take advantages of the Internet. Although the Internet makes us no longer be limited to time and space and we are able to work with our partners across the Atlantic Ocean, it sometime can be challenging because we are in the different time zones, and have very different time schedules. We need to try our best to adjust our own schedules to get together to have on-line meetings. Due to the timesaving time, we missed each other twice. Fortunately, we have other on-line communication tools such as e-mail and our Google site board to catch up with each other. To have good cooperation, it is important that all the group members need to be considerate, and can allow the technical problems or any emergency that what might happen. We need to understand that sometimes the Internet may not be working, or the person might be running late because of any emergency and there is no cell phone for us to talk immediately. A great amount situation might occur, we need to be thoughtful about the difficulties, tolerate with this, and try to avoid the problems in advance. All the members in our groups are easygoing and considerate, so we can understand the challenges and still make the communication and the project go on. In addition to the challenge of technical problems, language can be the other challenge. All the members in our group have the awareness that communications take time, and we need to be patient to clarify ourselves. On-line communications can be ambiguous since we cannot just sit together in front of the computer to make the decisions such as the colors, the vocabulary that we would like to teach, or the layout of the website, etc. right away. We not only need to talk on the Skype, but also need to type things down in words to make our ideas clear. We are all conscious of the challenge of communication. To some degree, we can tolerate the ambiguity and miscommunications. Being aware of the difficulties of communication is the reason that our experience of cooperation can be pleasant.
  • The other thing that makes us excited is that we could never get to know each other if there is not a project like this, no technology, and no Internet. Because of the Internet, we are connected. Whenever we have Skype meetings, in addition to the discussion of the project, we also exchange information about school lives. I know more about the school system, and the student population in Luxembourg little by little. What we experienced in the project is what I would like to have my students experience. This could be a good experience for language learners truly more practices. A cooperative project for students to work with other students overseas can serve to be an authentic task in applying the language skills that they learned in class. Specifically, for some students who may not have the opportunity to interact with people from different cultural and language backgrounds in their daily life, the on-line interactions might be easier for them to get some intercultural communication experience. Teachers can encourage students to take advantages of the Internet. (Yang, Group 3, Journal 3)
  • To have good cooperation, it is important that all the group members need to be considerate, and can allow the technical problems or any emergency that what might happen. We need to understand that sometimes the Internet may not be working, or the person might be running late because of any emergency and there is no cell phone for us to talk immediately. A great amount situation might occur, we need to be thoughtful about the difficulties, tolerate with this, and try to avoid the problems in advance. All the members in our groups are easygoing and considerate, so we can understand the challenges and still make the communication and the project go on. (Yang, Group 3, Journal 3)
  • In addition to the challenge of technical problems, language can be the other challenge. All the members in our group have the awareness that communications take time, and we need to be patient to clarify ourselves. On-line communications can be ambiguous since we cannot just sit together in front of the computer to make the decisions such as the colors, the vocabulary that we would like to teach, or the layout of the website, etc. right away. We not only need to talk on the Skype, but also need to type things down in words to make our ideas clear. We are all conscious of the challenge of communication. To some degree, we can tolerate the ambiguity and miscommunications. Being aware of the difficulties of communication is the reason that our experience of cooperation can be pleasant. (Yang, Group 3, Journal 3)
  • V. Discussion CMC Data – Group 3: Group 3 wiki is like email but in a chat mode in that they are wanting it to be informal. For instance, greetings is a way to write who is speaking (cf. email: to/from is already in the mask; chat: has names of participants – real or pseudonyms); They used the greetings and salutations to make the wiki more conversation-like it seems like; but they also tried to vary No one would know who’s “speaking” if it weren’t for the greeting because the author has no control over who reads the post when They also used the date to ensure coherence And they thought about what they’d post beforehand (similar to email) Yang’s journal entry: -Enjoyed Skype conversation – immediacy of chat/face-to-face? -Collaboration seemed to be a motivating process and a learning experience because they all seemed interested in hearing the other’s ideas ---There were no “disagrees” in the Group 3 wiki data
  • V. Discussion Groups perceived the wiki as a forum for discussion (Group 3 excerpt is a good example for this) The wiki is a hybrid in that there is no thread, and posts do not get listed chronologically (in fact, there are not supposed to be any posts but content only); in contrast, in discussion forums, blogs, or email, the most recent post gets listed first
  • V. Discussion There seems to be additional issues with the wiki due to the fact that users can insert messages at any point. The revision history is in chronological order and won’t show who edited what unless once reverts to a prior version. With email messages, there is some kind of a dated thread. But the wiki does not show the date except for the revision history. Additionally, in contrast to analyzing public forums or chatrooms where all the messages are displayed, institutional settings differ in that students have a choice of tools and may revert to exchanging private email messages or, in the case of Group 3, talk on Skype. The researcher does not have access to these data.
  • VI. CMC Data – Google Wave Compared to Group 3 wiki…Google wave has both synchronous and asynchronous abilities while the wiki is asynchronous. Also there is no need to insert dates or greetings because when you post your name and the date is automatically put into the blip, also in the wiki each person had separate turns that were complete thoughts that were then responded to. In the google  wave you can have someone post something and then it can be responded to but you can also have someone interrupt someone else's post while the other person is writing. This could be where you show the example of Shannon and Eunice.
  • VII. Conclusion Despite the difficulties involved in cross-institutional collaboration, all groups came up with a joint final task for ESL/EFL learners using wikis, blogs, or podcasts (e.g., Fuchs, 2006) Task results were excellent, but participants did not use the tech tools in the way they were intended to be used (especially with regard to the Google Sites): All groups entered meta-level comments about the task design, task procedure, or collaboration on the actual wiki site This was mentioned in a number of journal entries: Students generally agreed on the usefulness of the technology tools (especially wikis); yet, the public nature of the wiki (or blog) may have an inhibiting impact on students (supports findings from De Pedro, 2006) Drawbacks of wikis for teaching of writing: De Pedro (2006) – students need to get over inhibitions to share unfinished product; students can only see what they produce but not what they learn
  • VII. Conclusion In Google Wave, everyone can go back and edit, and it’s hard to tell afterward what went on. Google wave is a tool where once can only edit previous posts but can also edit within someone else's blip, in a sense one can interrupt someone’s else blip (e.g., Suzanne and Ellen in Google Wave chat) Researchers will need to use instruments such as think-aloud protocols or track what users were doing on the screen in order to analyze changes; limitations: no one has control over what gets edited afterwards when students log in from home
  • VIII. Implications for future research - How easy and collaborative a tool is the wiki really? What are the implications for learner training? - How do we most effectively introduce the two functions of the wiki (i.e., as class portal, as website)? - What are the methodological implications if anyone can go back and edit previous posts? How are blogs different from discussion forums if anyone can be made an author? What are the implications for authorship/ownership? GOOGLE WAVE: can only do this in wiki but not synchronously One needs to look at the different groups and the linguistic properties of the wiki data: wiki use seems to be a hybrid of email, discussion forums, blogs, and chats - One needs to look at the different groups and the linguistic properties of the wiki data: wiki use seems to be a hybrid of email, discussion forums, blogs, and chats. How do we analyze wikis if anyone can go back and edit previous posts? How are blogs different from discussion forums if anyone can be made an author? What are the implications for authorship/ownership ?
  • EUROCALL Teacher Education SIG Workshop 2010 Presentation Carolin Fuchs

    1. 1. Carolin Fuchs Teachers College, Columbia University EuroCALL Teacher Ed SIG, Lyon, May 27, 2010 Wikis and Blogs for Cross-Institutional Task Design – An Empirical Study in Language Teacher Education
    2. 2. I. Background <ul><li>CMC modes (Murray, 1988) expanded to “socio-technical modes” to include the social and cultural practices that have arisen out of their use (Herring, 2002) </li></ul><ul><li>Herring (1999) lists two properties of the medium that are known to be obstacles to interaction management in CMC: </li></ul>
    3. 3. I. Background <ul><li>“ (1) lack of simultaneous feedback, caused by reduced audio-visual cues and the fact that messages cannot overlap; </li></ul><ul><li>(2) disrupted turn adjacency, caused by the fact that messages are posted in the order received by the system, without regard for what they are responding to.” (p.2) </li></ul><ul><li>How coherent (or not) are computer-mediated interactions? (Herring, 1999) </li></ul>
    4. 4. I. Background <ul><li>“ [ W]iki is Hawaiian for “quick” and refers to a type of Website with pages that any user can easily contribute to and edit, including text, photos, and videos” (Niño, 2009, p. 25) </li></ul><ul><li>Use of Wiki: student research projects, collaborative annotated bibliography, publishing course resources, knowledge and reflection base, mapping concepts, presentation and group authoring tool (for an overview, see Parker & Chao, 2007); FoF in language teaching (Kessler, 2009); </li></ul>
    5. 5. I. Background <ul><li>Email and chat: informal, author-centric, personal </li></ul><ul><li>Wiki: more formal, topic-centric, depersonalized; each edit contributes concretely to collaborative written product; edits log and edits authors on separate page; teacher can monitor individual student contributions (Warschauer, 2010, p.5). </li></ul><ul><li>“ Often group members collaborate on a document by emailing to each member of the group a file that each person edits on their computer, and some attempt is then made to coordinate the edits so that everyone’s work is equally represented: using a wiki pulls the group members together and enables them to build and edit the document on a single, central wiki page” (Duffy & Burns, 2006, as cited in Parker & Chao, 2007, p. 61). </li></ul>
    6. 6. Wikis & Blogs (Zeinstejer, 2008) Blog Wiki -structured -highly personal -focused on process -administered by one individual -edited by creator -chronologically organized -flexible -intensively collaborative -focused on content -administered by a number of people -edited by anyone -organized in innumerable ways
    7. 7. II. Goals of the Project <ul><li>Train student teachers in various CMC tools (e.g., wikis, blogs, podcasts) for use in their teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Exchange perspectives and create tech-based tasks with cross-institutional partners </li></ul>
    8. 8. II. Groups’ Joint Products <ul><li>Group 3: “Global English Café” </li></ul><ul><li>http://sites.google.com/site/group3site/Home </li></ul><ul><li>Group 3: “Travel with the Local Experts” Blog </li></ul><ul><li>http://travelwithlocalexperts.blogspot.com/ </li></ul>
    9. 9. II. Research Questions <ul><li>How do student teachers use the tools (e.g., the wiki)? </li></ul><ul><li>What kind of interaction takes place to negotiate the task? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the methodological implications for analyzing interaction in Web 2.0 tools such as Google Sites and Google Wave? </li></ul>
    10. 10. III. Research Design <ul><li>Exploratory study that draws on three qualitative research traditions: Ethnography, Case Study, Action Research (e.g., Nunan, 1992; Richards, 2003) </li></ul><ul><li>Researcher as participant observer: TC instructor & project co-designer (e.g., Denzin, 1989) </li></ul><ul><li>Data triangulation through CMC data and journal entries (e.g., Nunan, 1992) </li></ul><ul><li>Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis (Herring, 1999, 2004) </li></ul>
    11. 11. III. CMDA <ul><li>Approach to analyzing internet content that goes beyond traditional content analysis; </li></ul><ul><li>Basic methodology of CMDA is language-focused content analysis supplemented by a toolkit of discourse analysis methods adapted from the study of spoken conversation and written text analysis; </li></ul><ul><li>Methods can be quantitative (coding/counting) or qualitative (Herring, 2004) </li></ul>
    12. 12. III. CMDA <ul><li>Implementation for the coding and counting </li></ul><ul><li>(quantitative) approach to CMDA, involve a </li></ul><ul><li>five-step process that resembles that for </li></ul><ul><li>classical content analysis: </li></ul><ul><li>1) Articulate research question(s) </li></ul><ul><li>2) Select computer-mediated data sample </li></ul><ul><li>3) Operationalize key concept(s) in terms of discourse features </li></ul><ul><li>4) Apply method(s) of analysis to data sample </li></ul><ul><li>5) Interpret results (Herring, 2004) </li></ul>
    13. 13. III. Coding Procedure <ul><li>2 Coders coded for c-units (Crookes, 1990, p. 184; Duff, 1986, p. 153) </li></ul><ul><li>Intercoder Agreement: .90 </li></ul><ul><li>Types of C-units </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SI: Sharing/ Summarizing Information </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SA: Suggests Action </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>RA: Requests Action </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>RV: Requests Validation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>RI: Requests Information </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EG: Expressing Gratitude </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A: Agrees </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>D: Disagrees </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>E: Emoticons </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>O: Others </li></ul></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Ratio of Each Type Out of 208 C-Units SI SA RA RV RI EG A D E O 23.1 % 12.5 % 5.8 % 6.7 % 4.8 % 6.3 % 5.3 % 0.5 % 3.0 % 32 %
    15. 15. III. Coding Examples <ul><li>Requesting Validation: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Any thoughts?” [CCF-RVCF] [CEJ-RVEJ] </li></ul><ul><li>“ Let us know what you think, and we look forward to hearing from you.” [CCF-RVCF] [CEJ-RVEJ] </li></ul><ul><li>Expressing Gratitude: “Th ank you for sharing.” [CCF-EGCF] [CEJ-EGEJ] </li></ul><ul><li>Requesting Action: “Now for the project, we have some suggestions:[…]” [CCF-SACF] [CEJ-SAEJ] </li></ul>
    16. 16. IV. CMC Data – Class Wiki Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 20 Wiki Posts 47 Wiki Edits 1 Wiki Posts 22 Wiki Edits 20 Wiki Posts 43 Wiki Edits 4 Wiki Posts 18 Wiki Edits 0 Attachments 1 Attachments 0 Attachments 1 Attachments 6 Comments 25 Comments 0 Comments 0 Comments 4 Subpages 2 Subpages 1 Subpages 2 Subpages
    17. 17. IV. The wiki as a discussion tool? (Journal Entry data; N=12) <ul><li>“ [W]ikis for example, it is a collaboration tool that needs participants to discuss a topic by collaboratively writing on the web. […] wikis may be used as a good tool for students to discuss the social and cultural aspects of English speaking societies. […] wikis will be a great tool for students in higher level to practice the target language by discussing various topics and exchanging information” (Ying, Group 3, Journal 1, emphasis added). </li></ul><ul><li>“ […] wiki to post recipes. This topic is perfect for the collaborative forum of a wiki” (Lisa, Group 2, Journal, emphasis added). </li></ul>
    18. 18. IV. The wiki as a discussion tool? (Journal Entry data; N=12) <ul><li>“ Groups can meet online using Skype or on Google Sites or even in a chat room. Using these venues to have discussions can be quite fruitful, especially as students can feel more open to share their ideas given the informal nature of such online meetings” (Warner, Group 1, Journal 2, emphasis added). </li></ul><ul><li>“ Web tools such as discussion forums and Wikis enable students to participate actively in discussing given topics and in bringing additional information sources to the group” (Yun, Group 1, Journal 2, emphasis added). </li></ul>
    19. 19. IV. CMC Data – Group 3 <ul><li>See handout (pp. 1-3): Group 3 Wiki </li></ul>
    20. 20. IV. Group 3 – Reflecting on the collaboration (Yang, Journal Entry 3) <ul><li>We had a couple of Skype meetings that are </li></ul><ul><li>usually about an hour. In the Skype meeting, we </li></ul><ul><li>talked about our ideas through the microphones </li></ul><ul><li>and earphones. Even though we cannot see </li></ul><ul><li>each other, we always have a good discussion. </li></ul><ul><li>It is great to have group members from different </li></ul><ul><li>cultural and language background. We can </li></ul><ul><li>brainstorm various ideas. The topic our project is </li></ul><ul><li>to teach students to introduce their own culture, </li></ul><ul><li>and provide a platform for them to share any </li></ul><ul><li>cultural experience. </li></ul>
    21. 21. Reflecting on the collaboration cont’d (Yang, Journal Entry 3) <ul><li>The other thing that makes us excited is that we could never get to know each other if there is not a project like this, no technology, and no Internet. Because of the Internet, we are connected. Whenever we have Skype meetings, in addition to the discussion of the project, we also exchange information about school lives. I know more about the school system, and the student population in Luxembourg little by little. What we experienced in the project is what I would like to have my students experience. This could be a good experience for language learners truly more practices. </li></ul>
    22. 22. Reflecting on the collaboration cont’d (Yang, Journal Entry 3) <ul><li>To have good cooperation, it is important that all the group members need to be considerate, and can allow the technical problems or any emergency that what might happen. We need to understand that sometimes the Internet may not be working, or the person might be running late because of any emergency and there is no cell phone for us to talk immediately. A great amount situation might occur, we need to be thoughtful about the difficulties, tolerate with this, and try to avoid the problems in advance. All the members in our groups are easygoing and considerate, so we can understand the challenges and still make the communication and the project go on. </li></ul>
    23. 23. Reflecting on the collaboration cont’d (Yang, Journal Entry 3) <ul><li>In addition to the challenge of technical problems, language can be the other challenge. All the members in our group have the awareness that communications take time, and we need to be patient to clarify ourselves. On-line communications can be ambiguous since we cannot just sit together in front of the computer to make the decisions such as the colors, the vocabulary that we would like to teach, or the layout of the website, etc. right away. We not only need to talk on the Skype, but also need to type things down in words to make our ideas clear. We are all conscious of the challenge of communication. To some degree, we can tolerate the ambiguity and miscommunications. Being aware of the difficulties of communication is the reason that our experience of cooperation can be pleasant. </li></ul>
    24. 24. V. Discussion <ul><li>Group 3 wiki is like email but in a chat mode in that the students wanted to make  it informal. For instance, greetings are a way to write who is speaking (cf. email: to/from is already in the mask; chat: has names of participants – real or pseudonyms) </li></ul><ul><li>They used various forms of greetings and salutations to make the wiki more conversation-like </li></ul>
    25. 25. V. Discussion <ul><li>Groups perceived the wiki as a forum for discussion (Group 3 excerpt is a good example for this) </li></ul><ul><li>The wiki is a hybrid in that there is no thread, and posts do not get listed chronologically (in fact, there are not supposed to be any posts but content only); in contrast, in discussion forums, blogs, or email, the most recent post gets listed first </li></ul>
    26. 26. V. Discussion <ul><li>There seems to be additional issues with the wiki due to the fact that users can insert messages at any point. The revision history is in chronological order and won’t show who edited what unless one reverts to a prior version. With email messages, there is some sort of a dated thread. But the wiki does not show the date except for the revision history. </li></ul><ul><li>Additionally, in contrast to analyzing public forums or chat rooms where all the messages are displayed, institutional settings differ in that students have a choice of tools and may revert to exchanging private email messages or, in the case of Group 3, talk on Skype. The researcher does not have access to these data. </li></ul>
    27. 27. VI. CMC Data – Google Wave <ul><li>Context: “Internet and Language Teaching” elective in Spring 2010; we explored several tech tools such as Ning, Google Wave, podcasts, blogs, wikis. </li></ul><ul><li>Google Wave started in October 2009 and it is a “a new web application for real-time communication and collaboration” </li></ul><ul><li>( http://wave.google.com/about.html ) </li></ul><ul><li>Google Wave functions as both an SCMC and ACMC tool for communication </li></ul><ul><li>No need for dates or greetings because automatically in the blip </li></ul><ul><li>But: overlapping or interrupted blips (cf. turn-taking in the wiki) </li></ul>
    28. 28. VII. Conclusion <ul><li>Task results were excellent, but participants did not use the tech tools in the way they were intended to be used (especially with regard to the Google Sites): All groups entered meta-level comments on the task design, procedure, or collaboration on the wiki site; </li></ul><ul><li>Students generally agreed on usefulness of the technology tools (especially wikis); yet, the public nature of the wiki (or blog) may have an inhibiting impact on students (supports findings from De Pedro, 2006). </li></ul>
    29. 29. VII. Conclusion <ul><li>In Google Wave, everyone can go back and edit, and it’s hard to tell afterward what went on. </li></ul><ul><li>Google wave is a tool where one can not only edit previous posts but can also edit within someone else's blip, in a sense one can interrupt someone’s else blip (e.g., Suzanne and Ellen in Google Wave chat) </li></ul><ul><li>Researchers will need to use instruments such as think-aloud protocols or track what users were doing on the screen in order to analyze changes; limitations: no one has control over what gets edited afterwards when students log in from home </li></ul>
    30. 30. VIII. Implications for future research <ul><li>How easy and collaborative a tool is the wiki really? What are the implications for learner training? </li></ul><ul><li>How do we most effectively introduce the two functions of the wiki (i.e., as class portal, as website)? Introduce Google Sites in a manipulated version? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the methodological implications if anyone can go back and edit previous posts? Implications for authorship/ownership? </li></ul>
    31. 31. <ul><li>THANK YOU </li></ul><ul><li>Contact: </li></ul><ul><li>Carolin Fuchs </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>

    ×