Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The Implementation of Asynchronous Discussion in the Content-based EFL Class. Chi-Fen Emily Chen National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan [email protected] CALICO 2004 Conference. Overview of the Course. Course Title: Foreign Language Learning - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
The Implementation of Asynchronous Discussion in the Content-based EFL Class
Chi-Fen Emily Chen
National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
CALICO 2004 Conference
2
Overview of the Course
Course Title: Foreign Language Learning
(An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition) This course was taught in Fall 2003.
A required 3-credit course for third-year English majors (high-intermediate/advanced EFL learners)
A content-based, theory-oriented EFL class
A large-size class (41 students)
A hybrid course of regular face-to-face classroom meetings and add-on weekly asynchronous discussions
3
Rationales for Implementing Asynchronous Discussion
Content-based (theory-oriented): Asynchronous discussion (AD) allows students to have more time to
reflect on and produce their contributions. AD enables students to develop higher-order thinking skills (e.g., to
gather, apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information). AD allows students to conceptualize a topic/issue/theory from
multiple viewpoints. AD promotes collaborative learning –
“The act of collaboration is an act of shared creation and/or shared discovery” (Schrage, 1995).
Large-size class: AD in small groups allows students to have more intellectual and
interaction with their group members and the teacher.
EFL class: AD allows students to have more opportunities to use the target
language for meaningful and purposeful communication.
4
Theoretical Framework (1) Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theory
Learners’ experiences at the sociocultural level (i.e., experiences communicated and shared with a community) are seen as crucial in internalizing knowledge.
There is a constant interplay between social processes and individual cognitive development.
Dewey’s experience-based learning theory Experience is shared and reconstructed through reflection. Reflectio
n is the heart of the knowledge-constructing process. A reflective practice is framed by a perplexing and confused experien
ce initially and a unified or resolved situation at the end. It integrates deliberation and action.
Halliday’s social-semiotic perspective on language Language simultaneously performs three macro-functions: ideationa
l (experiential), interpersonal, and textual functions. Language use is a socially shaped and shaping action.
5
Theoretical Framework (2) Garrison, Anderson & Archer’s Community of
Inquiry Model in the CMC environment (2000)
Social Presence
Cognitive Presence
Teaching Presence
(Structure/Process)
Setting Climate
Selecting Content
Supporting Discourse
EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE
6
Design of the Asynchronous Discussion Activity
AD was a required component in this content-based EFL course. Students’ participation in AD accounted for 30% of their grades.
The AD topics/questions were designed by the instructor, asking students to reflect on how the SLA theories they had learned in class could be applied to their own language learning experiences.
41 students were randomly assigned to four groups for AD and were asked to discuss questions with their group members only. .
Students were required to respond to the instructor’s questions and discuss them in groups on a weekly basis. They were asked to write one well-organized response and also to give at least two responses to their group members on each discussion topic.
The instructor also participated in the discussions, giving praise and encouragement, providing suggestions and corrections, asking more questions, and sharing her own learning experiences.
The discussion forum was established on the Nicenet - the Internet Classroom Assistant (ICA), a free web-based learning environment and an easy-to-use communication tool.
7
Purpose of the Study
This study aimed to
investigate the effectiveness of using the AD learning mode to enhance students’ learning of both content and language, and
explore what factors may affect students’ engagement in AD and effectiveness of learning in this add-on CMC learning environment.
8
Research Questions
1. Did the implementation of asynchronous discussion in the content-based EFL course help students to enhance their learning of content? And in what ways?
2. Did the implementation of asynchronous discussion in the content-based EFL course help students to improve their language skills? And in what ways?
3. Were there any differences in students’ participation and interaction in asynchronous discussion among groups?
4. If yes, did those differences influence each group’s learning through this AD mode?
5. What factors may affect students’ engagement in asynchronous discussions and thus may affect their cognitive presence?
9
Method – Action Research The researcher was the instructor of this course. The study lasted 16 weeks, including 12 discussion topics. Data sources:
1. Students’ responses to two questionnaires (conducted in the mid-term and at the end of the course respectively)
2. The instructor’s observation notes and informal face-to-face interviews with a number of students
3. Transcripts of students’ asynchronous discussions Data analysis:
1. Quantitative analysis of students’ perceived effectiveness of learning revealed in the questionnaires
2. Quantitative analysis of students’ participation and interaction with peers (including number of messages, length of message, perceived group cohesiveness, monologic vs. dialogic discourse)
3. Qualitative analysis of students’ self-reports on their learning processes and outcomes through asynchronous discussions.
10
Results (1) – learning of content
Students’ perceived learning of content:
Q: Did the online discussion help you learn the course content?
Yes Neutral No
N (%) N (%) N (%)
Weeks 2-7 32 (78%) 9 (22%) 0 (0%)
Weeks 9-15 34 (83%) 6 (15%) 1 (2%)
11
Results (1) – learning of content
Students’ self-reports
Q: In what ways do you think the online discussion helped you learn the course content?
“I learned many different viewpoints about the same theory from my group members’ postings.”
“It helped me better understand the SLA theories.”
“It helped me notice some good, useful information that I was not aware of.”
“It helped me think more deeply and critically without time pressure.”
“It helped me to review what I learned in class and prepare for my mid-term and final exams.”
“I learned other students’ experiences from the online discussion and I also got many responses from them, which made me know I’m not alone and we can share our thoughts all the time.
12
Results (1) – learning of content
Students’ self-reports
Q: Why did you think the online discussion did not help you learn the course content?
“I don’t think it helped me very much. The teacher’s in-class instruction and her power point slides were more helpful.”
“I think face-to-face discussions with my classmates were more helpful.”
“Because I was not interested in some questions, I don’t think answering those questions helped me learn anything.”
“I don’t like reading a lot of information on the computer screen, so I didn’t often read my group members’ responses.”
Some things to ponder: Students’ preferences in learning styles
Students’ interaction with the content and the media
13
Results (2) – learning of language
Students’ perceived learning of language:
Q: Did the online discussion help you improve your English language skills?
Yes Neutral No
N (%) N (%) N (%)
Weeks 2-7 31 (76%) 9 (22%) 1 (2%)
Weeks 9-15 27 (66%) 12 (29%) 2 (5%)
14
Results (2) – learning of language
Students’ self-reports
Q: In what ways do you think the online discussion helped you improve your English language skills?
“It provided me more opportunities to write in English.”
“I learned how to express my ideas more clearly because I had to make others understand what I meant.”
“It improved my organizational and communication skills.”
“I learned how to analyze a case or a problem from reading others’ postings.”
“I found now I can write a lot of ideas without taking much time.”
“It helped me improve my reading skills because I had to read the textbook and my group members’ responses first in order to write my own responses. I found I read a lot in this course.”
“It helped me expand my vocabulary. I learned many new words from others’ postings.”
15
Results (2) – learning of language
Students’ self-reports
Q: Why did you think the online discussion did not help you improve your English language skills ?
“When I read or wrote online, I only focused on the content but not on my language use.”
“I paid little attention to my grammar when I wrote online responses.”
“I’m afraid my English might become Taiwanese English because I read too much of my classmates’ writing. Sometimes I didn’t even know what was the correct way to express myself in English.”
Some things to ponder: Form-focused vs. meaning-focused
“Correct English model” vs. “relativistic model” (Crystal, 1999) that encourages “international intelligibility” and “local identity”
16
Results (3) – differences in participation and interaction among groups
(A) Level of participation
Students’ responses to the instructor’s questions
Group A
(N=10)
Group B
(N=11)
Group C
(N=11)
Group D
(N=9)
# of responses per week
(response rate %)
Weeks
2-7
9.8
(98%)
11
(100%)
11
(100%)
9
(100%)
Weeks
9-15
8.7
(87%)
8.3
(75%)
10.1
(92%)
8.3
(92%)
# of words per
response
Weeks
2-7275 224 363 220
Weeks
9-15257 190 338 213
17
Results (3) – differences in participation and interaction among groups
(B) Level of interaction
Students’ responses to peers’ postings
Group A
(N=10)
Group B
(N=11)
Group C
(N=11)
Group D
(N=9)
# of responses
per student per week
Weeks
2-71.90 1.67 1.96 1.93
Weeks
9-151.3 0.13 1.65 1.51
# of words per
response
Weeks
2-792 89 131 96
Weeks
9-1577 46 112 83
18
Results (3) – differences in participation and interaction among groups
(B) Level of interactionStudents’ perceived development of group cohesion through AD
Group A
(N=10)
Group B
(N=11)
Group C
(N=11)
Group D
(N=9)
Sense of
group
belonging
(score: 1-5)
Weeks
2-7 3.30 3.55 3.87 3.56
Weeks
9-15 3.10 3.13 4.33 3.50
19
Results (3) – differences in participation and interaction among groups
(B) Level of interaction
monologic vs. dialogic discourse
# of students’ use of “you, we, or us” (with specific reference to their groups) in their responses to every discussion question:
Q GroupA B C D
1 0 0 3 0
2 0 3 3 1
3 2 1 1 1
4 2 2 2 1
5 1 2 7 0
6 1 1 5 2
7 0 0 7 2
8 0 1 4 1
9 2 0 5 1
10 1 2 5 0
11 0 2 8 0
12 4 1 8 4
20
Results (3) – differences in participation and interaction among groups
Summary Group C’s performance in the AD showed that 1) their response
rate to both the instructor’s questions and their group members’ postings were the highest, 2) they produced the longest messages in two types of responses, 3) their perceived level of group cohesion was the highest, and 4) they used the dialogic discourse most often.
Group B’s performance in the AD showed that 1) their response rate to both the instructor’s questions and their group members’ postings were the lowest, particularly in the second half of the semester, and 2) they produced the shortest messages in two types of responses, particularly in the second half of the semester, but 3) their perceived level of group cohesiveness and 4) use of the dialogic discourse were similar to the other two groups. These findings revealed that Group B’s sustainability of this add-on online learning was the lowest.
21
Results (4) – differences in perceived learning outcomes among groups
Students’ perceived learning outcomes through the AD mode
Group A
(N=10)
Group B
(N=11)
Group C
(N=11)
Group D
(N=9)
Learning of
content
(score:1-5)
Weeks
2-73.80 3.91 4.18 4.00
Weeks
9-153.75 3.63 4.22 4.00
Learning of
language
(score:1-5)
Weeks
2-73.30 3.91 4.18 3.95
Weeks
9-153.50 3.63 4.11 3.75
22
Results (4) – differences in perceived learning outcomes among groups
Summary Group C’s perceived levels of learning outcomes in both
content and language were the highest. And their perception was not changed over time.
Group B’s perceived levels of learning outcomes in both content and language decreased with time.
The findings suggested that students’ participation and interaction levels (social presence) were likely to affect their learning of both content and language (cognitive presence) through this add-on AD mode.
23
Results (5) – factors affecting students’ engagement in asynchronous discussion
The group members’ participation and performance in the asynchronous discussions (appeared to be the most salient factor)
Discussion questions – a) degree of difficulty b) interestingness
The instructor’s participation
(yet, the statistics showed that the instructor’s responses to students did not affect the number of students’ postings)
Time affordance
Grade
Computer – reading difficulty
24
Discussion and Implication Revisit Garrison, Anderson & Archer’s “Community
of Inquiry Model” in the CMC environment (2000)
Social Presence
Cognitive Presence
Teaching Presence
(Structure/Process)
Setting Climate
Selecting Content
Supporting Supporting DiscourseDiscourse
EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE
25
Discussion and Implication
Asynchronous discussion appeared to be a suitable learning mode for reflective learning for EFL learners. However, how to promote the sustainability over time of such reflective exchanges and increase interaction among participants to maximize the opportunities for learning should deserve greater attention.
Using “supporting discourse” to demonstrate both social presence and cognitive presence can be a good way to achieve the above goal.
Dialogic discourse Interpersonal discourse: showing/giving admirations,
compliments, supports, encouragement, appreciation, eagerness to share, agreements, suggestions, clarifications, invitations for more discussion, group identity, etc.
“In a true community of inquiry, the tone of the messages is questioning but engaging, expressive but responsive, skeptical but respectful, and challenging but supportive” (Garrison et al, 2000, p. 96).
26
Discussion and Implication
The instructor may need to model or explicitly “teach” desired discourse used in asynchronous discussions. Thus, students (particularly language learners) can learn language to express themselves effectively in both cognitive and socio-affective levels.Fabro & Garrison (1998) revealed that the established presence of a moderator/instructor who models appropriate critical discourse and constructively critiques contributions is crucial if higher-order learning outcomes are to be facilitated.
Students need to be taught what a good reflective practice is from a collaborative constructivist perspective. It should be put emphasis on the connection of learner’s personal world (reflective and meaning-focused) and the shared world (collaborative and knowledge-focused) (Garrison & Archer 2001).
27
Limitations and Future research
The quality of students’ asynchronous discussions
e.g., longer messages = more reflectiveness?
indicators of cognitive presence (e.g., Garrison et al. developed four codes: triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolution)
Evaluation of online discussions
Meyer (2004) evaluated four frames of analysis: King & Kitchener, Perry, Garrison et al, and Bloom, and then concluded,
“There may not be one best frame, or perhaps one frame might be better suited for a particular discussion or a particular set of learning objectives. That may indicate a need to develop multiple frames for analyzing online discussions intended to address different learning situations.”
The future of a hybrid course – to combine the best features of in-class teaching and the best features of online learning to promote active, independent learning and to reduce class seat time.
