SCMC Sociocultural


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The introduction to CMCL
  • Collaborative learning (CL): a process in which participants are collectively responsible for developing knowledge through structured activities, and in which the instructor’s role is to facilitate and co-participate in the learning process (Nunan, 1992).
  • Computer mediated communication (CMC) : “ the process by which people create, exchange, and perceive information using networked telecommunications systems that facilitate encoding, transmitting, and decoding messages” (December, 1996).  Luppicini (2007); Herring (2001); Warschauer (1999).
  • Next slide: CMCL. What is CMCL?
  • While participation is important as collaboration cannot occur without roughly equal participation among the participants, equal participation in itself is not enough. The level of interaction and synthesis of ideas of the group should also and mainly be analysed. Without these three characteristics, group work may be many things, but it cannot be called collaboration (Ingram & Hathorn, 2004).
  • Graduates’ inability to satisfy both work requirements from the multinational employment market and professional development, attributable mainly to the lack of collaborative and communicative competence. Killing three birds with one stone. A thorough understanding of CMC-supported collaborative learning processes is thus precisely essential for not only Vietnamese educators but also language teachers who need to capitalise on the advantages and potential strengths that CMCL has to offer.
  • The main research objective of the current project is to examine and investigate the roles and perceptions of CMC technologies in collaborative language learning in Vietnamese sociocultural EFL environment.
  • I have done a lots about ethical clearance with the Ethics Committee. Chat: Yahoo Messenger, Google Talk, Skype Wiki: PBWiki, Not Wikispaces nor Writeboard
  • This correlates with previous studies (Fitze, 2006; Warschauer, 1996) and highlights the significance of online synchronous communication in collaborative learning processes (Ingram & Hathorn, 2004), in terms of liberating the minorities. It is realised that the pattern of the more dominant a member was, the longer turn he/she made mentioned above for the control groups can hardly apply to the CMC groups. In other words, dominating members, while they could make many turns, were not possible to make long turns on Yahoo! chat.
  • An episode can be as short as a single turn, or as long as several turns, providing that these turns are likely to focus on a certain topic. Old framework doesn’t work because 1) based on the sociocultural perspective, what is really meant by ‘off-task’? And 2) the data in this current thesis eliminate the language-related.
  • Thread: jump, parallel, closure resistant, and multitasker
  • While sociocognitive episodes are evaluated as important since they attribute to the successfulness of group exchanges regarding the selection of topics and the development of ideas, organisational and socioaffective instances have their own significant roles for group management and social cohesion. Focus: negotiation Both control and CMC classes had more sociocognitive themes, with 87.0% and 62.3% respectively, than organisational and socioaffective topics, as illustrated in Figure 5.2. This reveals the overall focus on the assigned task, rather than just on social and technical issues. While the focus on the socioaffective matters was roughly equal between the two classes, the CMC groups devoted five times as much as did the control groups on organisational issues (30.7% versus 6.4%). This reveals the significant impact of different mediators on the nature and quality of discussions.
  • Intersubjectivity (episodes regarding encouragement, personal request, and evaluation)
  • It was much harder for CMC group to attain agreements.
  • 1. This is due to the characteristics of topic jumping and paralleling in most of the SCMC exchanges. 2. In fact, the CMC groups made a high percentage of sociocognitive discussion, accompanied by a lower proportion of discussion relating to socioaffective and organisational themes. This indicates the high level of focus on the required task in the CMC groups as did the control groups.
  • An explanation for this might be due to individual expectations. In other words, the more contributing members expected more participation from the less contributing members, who in turn felt that their contribution was satisfactory enough. Triangulation!!!
  • An episode can be as short as a single turn, or as long as several turns, providing that these turns are likely to focus on a certain topic. Old framework doesn’t work because 1) based on the sociocultural perspective, what is really meant by ‘off-task’? And 2) the data in this current thesis eliminate the language-related.
  • SCMC Sociocultural

    1. 1. Long V Nguyen
    2. 2. <ul><li>Theoretical foundations </li></ul><ul><li>Research statements and research questions </li></ul><ul><li>Participants </li></ul><ul><li>Results analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Participation level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interaction level </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Collaborative learning learning as a social process rather than restrained within an individual (Vygotsky, 1978). the teacher as a facilitator and the learners as active participants (Lamy & Hampel, 2007). social interaction as a means of knowledge construction (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004).
    4. 4. <ul><li>Socioculturally, “ CMC is not just a tool. It is at once technology, medium, and engine of social interactions. It not only structures social relations, it is the space within which the relations occur and the tool that individuals use to enter that space ” (Jones, 1995, p. 16).  Chapelle (2001); Kern & Warschauer (2000); Thorne (2008). </li></ul>
    5. 5. Websites Email Blogs Wikis Chat SMS  ============================================  Product-oriented Process-oriented CMC Aural Textual Visual Asynchronous Synchronous
    6. 6. <ul><li>Collaborative learning </li></ul>Computer mediated communication Computer mediated collaborative learning
    7. 7. <ul><li>Three critical attributes have been identified in collaborative learning ( Ingram and Hathorn, 2004) : </li></ul><ul><li>Interdependence … of individuals in the group as they work towards the common goal. </li></ul><ul><li>Synthesis of information …. among individuals in the group. </li></ul><ul><li>Independence …. of the teacher. </li></ul><ul><li>Challenge : how can we measure the amount of collaboration based on the three elements? </li></ul>
    8. 8. Participation Interaction Synthesis The three central components of collaborative learning (Ingram & Hathorn, 2004)
    9. 9.  How can CMCL be integrated into an EFL environment in the particular Vietnamese sociocultural context? CMCL Collaborative practice training Online communicative competence English language development
    10. 10. <ul><li>Computer Mediated Collaborative Learning in an EFL Environment: Process, Product, and Students’ Perceptions </li></ul>
    11. 11. <ul><li>What is the nature of online synchronous discussion and how effective is it in comparison with the traditional face-to-face discussion in collaborative learning in the EFL classroom? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the nature of online asynchronous peer review and how effective is it in comparison with the traditional pen-and-paper peer review in collaborative learning in the EFL classroom? </li></ul><ul><li>Does the use of a combination of online synchronous and asynchronous exchanges result in a significant improvement of English language achievement through collaboration? </li></ul><ul><li>What are students’ reflections on and perceptions of the application of CMC collaboration into the EFL classroom? </li></ul>
    12. 12. Participants <ul><li>Control class (10 groups of 3 students) </li></ul><ul><li>Face-to-face discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Pen-and-paper peer review </li></ul><ul><li>CMC class (10 groups of 3 students) </li></ul><ul><li>Chat discussion (Yahoo!) </li></ul><ul><li>Wiki peer review (PBWiki) </li></ul>N = 60 Age: 20-22 Program: TESOL Course: American Culture
    13. 13.
    14. 14.
    15. 15. Student’s chat window
    16. 16. Teacher’s observation
    17. 17. *Significant at p < .05 Participation: FTF vs Chat Discussion Control Class (n=10) CMC Class (n=10) Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t p* Discussion time 24:23 09:37 59:04 13:21 -6.66 .000 Total words 2035.20 776.11 896.30 308.21 4.31 .001 Total turns 121.00 58.05 143.20 53.71 -.89 .386 Words/turns 18.50 5.88 6.54 1.12 6.32 .000 Gini coefficient .24 .03 .16 .09 2.42 .033
    18. 18. <ul><li>text-only method of exchanges: priorities were to quickly get ideas across and to smoothly maintain the conversation: fewer words in each turn. </li></ul>learners’ deficient computer and typing skills first time of applying SCMC in the academic environment. “ I’m not surprised because normally the time used to type one sentence can produce up to three sentences in speech”. Longer to type: eye switch Periods of silences (Stickler, et al, 2007): more frequent and generally longer lack of facial expressions: more time to think to ensure the understandability of messages “ if I’m stuck I can use my hands and face. When I move my body while talking, I feel my speech more fluent. I don’t know what to do if I’m stuck on chat.”
    19. 19. A measure of statistical dispersion, commonly used as a measure of inequality. It presents values from 0 to 1, in which the smaller Gini coefficients correspond to greater equality. For example: Group Member Words Gini No. % 0101 Quy 568 16 Trang 863 24 Phuong* 2124 60 .29 0208 Nhung 198 28 Thang* 243 35 Hang 262 37 .06
    20. 20. Gini coefficients by groups
    21. 21. Member participation on SCMC was significantly more equal than that of the FTF discussion. (Fitze, 2006; Warschauer, 1996) SCMC interaction can foster greater participation in terms of more time involvement, but not in quantity. (Kern, 1995; Lee, 2002; Smith, 2003)
    22. 22. Unit of analysis: Episodes Discussions Episodes Independent Interactive Off-task Language related Task related (Storch, 2005 and Ganem-Gutierrez, 2006) (Expanded from Mangenot & Nissen, 2006)
    23. 23.
    24. 24.
    25. 25.
    26. 26. Binh : just talk about the organization 1 st Binh: the content later Ngan: yup Ngan: thats what i mean Yen: we can say anything we like, Yen: pls dont focus on content Ngan: but we have to write Ngan: no Ngan: we have to focus on content if we want to have a good essay Yen: we can chat to topic we choose.plsw say sth about it
    27. 27. Thom: … uh in my opinion, I think economy in is a very hot topic because of some reasons. The first reason is the economic system of the is very plentiful and can be called as a capitalist mixed economy. The second one is economy activity varies greatly across the country. Each area has each potential in each different field. So, that reason makes economy of the so pleasant characteristic. Th. Anh: Yeah Thom: and the third one is US is a colonialism; it has a lots of colonies, right? Th. Anh: Yeah Thom: And US can buy products with low price and sell with high price. Moreover, US invest money all over the country and we see a high benefit. Th. Anh Yeah Yes ... Thom: The fifth …
    28. 28. Ngan: ok , lets stert with the topic Ngan: what will we focus on? Yen: we choose blue,all right? Ngan: ?? Binh: i 'd like sports and entertainment Ngan: Oh Binh: how about u? Ngan: i choose the topic what's pop? dont know is it ok? Ngan: how about hoangyen? Yen: i like music Binh: it seems to be 1 part in entertainment Yen: come on.what do you like to talk about Ngan: but the teacher told that we can focus on whatever part we like Binh: i don't know wether we have to focus on big topic or just a small one Ngan: so.. ask the teacher ok?
    29. 29. Phuong: flexibility … Phuong: do you think this kind of character similar or different between VNese and Ame … Phuong: hey guys, are you listening to me M. Hang: yes, for ex. Phuong: I am talking about flexibility Phuong: contribute your ideas plz Chuyen: ok Phuong: I think it's a similarity Phuong: but i'm not sure M. Hang: i think it's a difference Chuyen: yes Phuong: why kiko? M. Hang: vnese is less flexible M. Hang: they like sth stable Chuyen: vn want to keep its tradition M. Hang: for instance, job Phuong: flexibility here means that it's easy for them to accept new things Chuyen: but vn is not Chuyen: i think M. Hang is right … Phuong: so, we remove this idea and go on with others or what?
    30. 30. <ul><li>While there was a smooth flow of topics after topics in the control groups, CMC group discussions appeared in a chaotic manner. </li></ul><ul><li>Findings contradicted conclusion made by Mangenot and Nissen (2006) that the online “groups rarely engage in discussions on the sociocognitive level” (p. 615). </li></ul><ul><li>The socioaffective and organisational episodes have their significant role in creating, constructing, and maintaining the online collaborative community of learning. </li></ul>
    31. 31.  Product-oriented groups  Learning-oriented groups FTF Discussion Presenting Directing Pouring info. Decision easily and quickly achieved Rely on prior knowledge CMC Chat Requesting Suggesting/Counter-suggesting Challenging Justifying Ideas continuously negotiated
    32. 32. <ul><li>Yen (in the interview): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“… everyone had opportunities to talk; everyone shared equal amount of talk; everyone feels that they must talk. ” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ngan (in the interview): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Researcher: Can you clarify this point that you did not agree with the equal contribution among the group members? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ngan: As you required that everyone should argue for the selection of the essay topic, I felt that only me and Binh discuss, not Yen. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Researcher: Why do you think this happen? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ngan: Uhm, maybe she was easy-going, just let it go; or maybe she was not confident enough to share hers. </li></ul></ul>
    33. 33. Group Member Length Turns Words Gini Average words /turn No. % No. % 0203 Binh* 26 26 165 23 6.3 Yen 25 25 215 30 8.6 Ngan 48 49 337 47 7.1 Total 66’55” 99 718 .16 7.3
    34. 34. <ul><li>Thank you. </li></ul>
    35. 35. Unit of analysis: Episodes (Expanded from Mangenot & Nissen, 2006)