Acknowledgements I am very grateful to the students who took part

Transcription

Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to the students who took part in the study and also their class teacher for
agreeing to let me study his class. I promised them anonymity so I cannot list their real
names but I would like to thank each and every one of them for being so open and honest in
the interviews and for making my study so enjoyable. I will list the students’ pseudonyms
here as they will know who they are:
Inas
Khaseibah
Khawla
Nada
Shamma
Suhaila
Warda
Zakya
Zamzam
Zayana
Heartfelt thanks go to my supervisors at the University of Exeter – Patrick Dillon and Salah
Troudi for keeping me on track and giving me valuable feedback; to Marion Williams and
Bob Burden for their feedback and advice; and to fellow Ed.D. and Ph.D. students at Exeter
and Dublin - David McLoughlin, Amy Kayser, George Phelan, Christine Appel and
Françoise Blin - for reading my drafts, sharing references and being available to discuss
aspects of my thesis at length.
I would also like to the thank the following friends, family and colleagues for assisting me in
various ways. Some helped by taking part in the chat activities, some provided technical
support and others shared valuable insights with me concerning the culture of the learners. I
am extremely grateful to all of you:
Allison Priest
Celine Kamhieh
Cherise Franklin
Daphne Selbert
David Hughes
David McLoughlin
Deborah Williams
Hoda Al Kobtan
Jacques Morin
Jay Bidal
Jill Mynard
Kate O’Neil
Kathy Bird
Lynne Taylor
Mark French
Marlee Terry
Peter Rothfels
Robin Sorflaten
Shaikha Al Muhairi
Shaj Issac
Susan Jones
Toni Mynard
Finally, I would like to thank my husband, my parents and my parents-in-law for their
constant support and understanding while I worked on this thesis.
CMC and Learner Autonomy
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Synchronous computer-mediated communication and learner autonomy in
female Emirati learners of English
ABSTRACT
This dissertation investigates the extent to which computer-mediated communication can
facilitate the development of learner autonomy in female Emirati learners. The participants
of the study were a class of university students taking a writing component of a foundation
English course in a university based on an American model.
Learners like the ones
described in this study often experience difficulties when they enter Western style higher
education institutions. They are often unable to take responsibility for their studies or apply
successful strategies for learning (Shaw, 1997b). The learners’ difficulties are often due to
the fact that they have usually only experienced an approach to secondary education which
offers them few opportunities for the development of learner autonomy or the development
of higher-order thinking skills (Farquharson, 1989; Bel Fekih, 1993). In addition to this,
there are few opportunities within the UAE society for national women to interact with
people outside their immediate families and close circle of friends in order to develop these
skills in other ways.
Synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) has been reported to offer
opportunities for learners to develop autonomous learning skills (Hoven, 1999). It gives
them the opportunity to construct knowledge while interacting with people from different
sociocultural
backgrounds (Jonassen, 1996).
2
As the focus is away from the teacher,
learners have the opportunity to participate in more autonomous ways than in regular
classrooms.
The results of the small-scale study show that participants demonstrated the capacity for
certain aspects of autonomous learning while interacting with guests in chat rooms. These
capacities included self-reliance, decision-making, prioritisation, audience awareness,
collaboration, reflection, applying a range of comprehension and coping strategies, and risk
taking. The participants did not show evidence of autonomous learning in all areas however.
For example, they did not appear to demonstrate a high level of metacognitive awareness as
they were not comfortable in taking responsibility for initiating the task, addressing their
areas of weakness, or demonstrating that they had a more than cursory understanding of how
chat was benefiting their learning.
These findings suggest that in order for learners to benefit fully from CMC, they need to
already have a developing level of metacognitive awareness. The study highlights a need
for instructors in higher education institutions in the UAE to incorporate support
mechanisms into their courses. These mechanisms should assist the learners as they develop
the necessary processing functions and skills for autonomous learning. The findings suggest
CMC may have a beneficial role to play in providing such support for these learners.
3
List of contents
ABSTRACT …………………………………..…………...
Page 2
LIST OF FIGURES …………….…………….….…………
Page 10
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ……………………..…
Page 11
1.1 Statement of the problem ………………………………..
Page 13
1.2 Purpose of the study ……………………………………..
Page 14
1.3 Significance of the study ………………………………...
Page 15
1.4 Organisation of the thesis …………….………………….
Page 16
CHAPTER 2 – BACKGROUND …………………………
Page 19
2.1 The institution …………………………………………...
Page 21
2.2 Available technology …………………………………….
Page 23
2.3 Students’ educational background ………...…………….
Page 24
2.4 Arab learners’ difficulties with writing in English ………
Page 29
2.5 The students – cultural considerations …………………..
Page 31
2.6 CMC and cultural considerations ………………………..
Page 33
4
2.7 Teacher perceptions of chat rooms ………………………
Page 34
2.8 My previous experience with CMC and the learner group
Page 34
2.9 The current study ………………………………………...
Page 38
CHAPTER 3 – REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ……..
Page 40
3.1 Theoretical Framework ……..………………………..…..
Page 42
3.1.1 Introduction ………………………………………………
Page 42
3.1.2 Constructivism..…………………………………………...
Page 42
3.1.3 Sociocultural theory…………………………………….…
Page 46
3.1.4 Sociocultural theory and constructivism as a framework…
Page 52
3.1.5 Cultural-historical factors ………………………………….
Page 55
3.1.6 Summary and relevance for my context
Page 61
3.2 Learner autonomy ……………………………………...
Page 63
3.2.1 Theoretically framing the concept of learner autonomy
Page 63
3.2.2 What is learner autonomy? …………………………….
Page 63
3.2.3 Learner autonomy and different cultural contexts ……..
Page 67
3.2.4 Promoting learner autonomy …………………………..
Page 69
3.2.5 Measuring learner autonomy …………………………..
Page 74
3.2.6 Summary ………………………………………………
Page 77
5
3.3 Computers and language learning ……………………
Page 79
3.3.1 Early computer assisted instruction ……………………
Page 79
3.3.2 Computer assisted instruction and constructivism …….
Page 81
3.3.3 Mindtools ……………………………………………...
Page 82
3.3.4 Computer-mediated communication …………………..
Page 83
3.3.5 CMC and language learning …………………………...
Page 84
3.3.6 CMC research in the UAE .. …………………………..
Page 90
3.3.7 CMC and learner autonomy …………………………...
Page 91
3.3.8 Tasks …………………………………………………...
Page 95
3.3.9 Collaborative tasks ………………………………. …...
Page 98
3.3.10 Evaluating learning ………………………………..…
Page 99
3.3.11 Summary and significance for my study ……………..
Page 100
CHAPTER 4 – METHODS ………………………………
Page 103
4.1 Research methodology …………………………………..
Page 104
4.2 Research question ………………………………………..
Page 105
4.3 Participants ………………………………………………
Page 106
4.4 Ethical considerations …………………………………...
Page 112
4.5 Procedure ………………………………………………...
Page 112
4.5.1 The tasks ……………………………………………….
Page 113
6
4.5.2 Technological problems ……………………………….
Page 116
4.5.3 Data collection methods ……………………………….
Page 118
4.6 Data analysis ………….. ………..………………………
Page 125
4.7 Limitations ………………………………………………
Page 126
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS …………………………………
Page 131
5.1 Sub-question 1 - students’ perceptions of the activities …
Page 134
5.1.1 Enjoyment ……………………………………………..
Page 135
5.1.2 Perceived benefits for English language learning ……..
Page 137
5.1.2.1 Vocabulary ……………………………………....…..
Page 139
5.1.2.2 Content or cultural information ……………………..
Page 147
5.1.2.3 Writing skills …………………………….…………..
Page 153
5.1.3 Summary ……………………...………………………
Page 155
5.2 Sub-question 2 - organisation and management ………..
Page 156
5.2.1 Prioritisation …………………………………………...
Page 157
5.2.2 Collaboration …………………………………………..
Page 159
5.2.3 Applying information ………...……………………….
Page 161
5.2.4 Taking responsibility ………………………..………..
Page 163
5.2.5 Risk-taking ……………………...…………………….
Page 166
5.2.6 Summary ………………………………………………
Page 169
5.3 Sub-question 3 - metacognitive awareness ……………..
Page 169
5.3.1 Reflecting and improving ……………………………..
Page 170
5.3.2 Audience awareness ……………………………….…..
Page 175
7
5.3.3 Summary ………………………………………………
Page 177
CHAPTER 6 – DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS …..
Page 179
6.1 Revisiting the research question …………………………
Page 180
6.2 CMC and autonomous learning ……………………….…
Page 181
6.2.1 Evidence of learner autonomy …………………………
Page 182
6.2.2 Possible reasons for these findings …………………….
Page 183
6.2.3 Dependent behaviour …………………………………..
Page 189
6.2.4 Possible reasons for these findings …………………….
Page 191
6.2.5 The importance of sociocultural context ………………
Page 195
6.2.6 Cultural appropriateness ……………………………….
Page 198
6.3 Conclusions ……………………………………………...
Page 198
6.3.1 CMC and metacognition ………………………….….…
Page 199
6.4 Recommendations ……………………………………….
Page 202
6.5 Suggestions for future research ………………………….
Page 206
6.6 Reflections ……………………………………………….
Page 207
APPENDICES ………………………………………………
Page 209
Appendix i - Consent form …………………...…………...…...
Page 210
Appendix ii – An example of a task ………………………..….
Page 211
Appendix iii – Another example of a task …………….……….
Page 213
Appendix iv – General information questionnaire …………….
Page 215
8
Appendix v – An interview transcript from week 2 ……….…..
Page 216
Appendix vi – A chat transcript from week 8 ………………….
Page 220
Appendix vii – An interview transcript from week 8 ………...…
Page 225
Appendix viii – A student’s homework from week 4 ……….....
Page 233
Appendix ix – Final questionnaire ………………………….….
Page 234
BIBLIOGRAPHY .. …………………………………………..
Page 236
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure i
Map of the UAE ……………………………………………
Page 20
Figure ii
Course of instruction …………………….…………………
Page 22
Figure iii
Epistemological continuum ……………..……………….…
Page 43
Figure iv
Pedagogical philosophy continuum ……..……………….…
Page 44
Figure v
The learner autonomy continuum ……..………….………
Page 65
Figure vi
Dependent and autonomous learners …….………………….
Page 66
Figure vii
Monitoring metacognitive development ... ………………….
Page 77
Figure viii
Question 1(b) results …………………….………………….
Page 136
Figure ix
Page 137
Figure x
Question 3 results table ………………….………………….
Page 138
Figure xi
Question 3 results chart ………………….………………….
Page 139
Figure xii
Question 6 results ………………………..………………….
Page 140
Figure xiii
Page 151
Figure xiv
Page 152
Figure xv
Page 163
10
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
11
Language educators are often required to investigate different approaches to classroom
practice in order to address the needs of their students. These needs may be linguistic such
as difficulties with spelling or pronunciation, or they may have difficulties in learning due to
factors such as lack of experience or over-reliance on the teacher. It is the latter issue which
is the focus of my dissertation.
This thesis investigates female learners of English in the United Arab Emirates and some of
the difficulties they face when entering a Western university system. The learners often
experience difficulties particularly during their first year. This tends to be chiefly due to
their experiences at high school where there is an emphasis on rote learning (Farquharson,
1989). The classes tend to be large and there is little opportunity for students to develop
study habits which results in the students often being unprepared for university life (Shaw,
1997b). In addition to this, the female learners described in this thesis are studying English
not through choice, but because it is a university requirement before they can enter the
General Education and Majors programs. This lack of choice often compounds the problem
of students being reluctant to take responsibility for their learning (Little, 1991). Students
need to be assisted in developing adequate study habits and strategies for learning early on
in their education but this does not always happen.
One way of addressing the problem could draw on computer technology. Computer
technology has been reported to facilitate learning in numbers of ways including motivating
learners (Skinner & Austin, 1999; Carey, 1999; Felix, 1999), providing alternative practice
techniques (Day & Batson, 1995; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996), promoting higher-order cognitive
processing skills (Jonassen, Peck & Wilson, 1999), and providing opportunities for the
12
development of learner autonomy (Chapelle, 1997). Computer-mediated communication
(CMC) can feasibly provide opportunities for social interaction in forms such as chat rooms
and e-mail in the target language and has been reported to foster autonomy in learners
(Hoven, 1999). This study will investigate whether this is viable with female learners of
English at university in the UAE.
I chose this area because I have discovered through experience that there are potentially a
number of advantages for learners in my context. My experience of using CMC suggests
that this tool could be one that could be effectively used with female Arab learners in order
to address some of their learning deficiencies and assist them in mastering English. In
addition to this, the role of CMC in language education is an under-researched area in the
Arabian Gulf and writing this doctoral dissertation was an opportunity to investigate it
further.
1.1 Statement of the problem
Educators in the institution where I work and those at other similar universities and colleges
in the region, recognise that the learners need substantial help with developing the capacity
for autonomous learning. Computer technology is widely available in the UAE, and CMC
has been reported to give learners opportunities to develop learner autonomy (Hoven, 1999).
However, there appears to be practically no research available which investigates the
benefits of CMC with this particular learner group or even similar groups. One difficulty is
that educational materials used in this context need to be carefully chosen in order to be
culturally appropriate. CMC may not be a comfortable option for teachers as it could expose
13
learners to input that the teachers have not pre-screened. Kayser (2002b) reported on the
difficulties of using internet websites that had not been screened with her learners in the
same context. Some of the students followed an un-screened link from a pre-screened,
appropriate website and were offended by the content. If learners interact with strangers in a
CMC environment, they too may be exposed to potentially offensive or sensitive content
which may make them uncomfortable thus jeopardising learning opportunities. The use of
CMC therefore needs to be somewhat controlled in order that it be appropriate for the
learner group and it is uncertain whether this may affect its ability to promote autonomy.
1.2 Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study is to investigate whether CMC is a beneficial and culturally
appropriate tool for promoting autonomy in learners in this context, and if so, in what ways.
The study makes use of first person narratives to investigate the perceptions the students
have of the CMC learning environment and their opinions on whether it provides an
effective learning context for their needs. These perceptions in addition to other data
analysis are used to illustrate the learning experience that students are engaging in during the
CMC tasks. My analysis of the evidence is used in order to suggest how CMC appears to
accommodate the development of an autonomous approach to learning and the reasons for
this.
14
1.3 Significance of the study
There are three main areas of significance for this study. Firstly, to my knowledge, this is
among the first research studies conducted in the area of CMC with this particular learner
group and may assist in initiating an exciting research debate in such a growing area of
interest.
Secondly, it may assist in raising awareness among instructors and materials
developers of learners’ needs and cultural considerations particularly when using computer
technology. Thirdly, the findings will provide a useful starting point for instructors or
language program directors when planning to use CMC with learners in similar contexts.
15
1.4 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS
Chapter 2 – Background
This chapter puts the study into context by describing the learners’ cultural and social
background and also the traditions of education that they are used to. This will help the
reader to understand more about why the students often experience severe difficulties
particularly in the first year of university and why CMC may be helpful although culture
may be an issue. It outlines the institution where the study takes place and the use and
availability of technology. The background chapter also gives details of preliminary studies
I have undertaken in order to investigate learner autonomy and also presents details of how I
have used CMC previously with varying success with similar learner groups.
Chapter 3 – Literature review
The chapter begins by giving an overview of constructivist approaches and sociocultural
theory which provides the theoretical framework for the thesis. I provide a summary of the
key principles associated with constructivism and discuss the constructivist view of
epistemology and pedagogy. I go on to give an overview of the work of Lev Vygotsky and
discuss how sociocultural theory has influenced approaches to formal education. I provide
arguments for using these two approaches simultaneously with my research. At the end of
the first section, I discuss difficulties learners have when emigrating to places where they
experience an alternative approach to education from others they had previously
experienced. I make a comparison with learners in my context and explain some of the
16
similarities. The second part of the chapter focuses on learner autonomy. I define what I
mean by learner autonomy and discuss why this is desirable in students and how it can be
fostered. Finally, the chapter gives an overview of computers in education and of CMC. I
look at the reported benefits for learners, particularly for learners who have not developed a
capacity for learner autonomy and may be experiencing difficulties with their learning due
to sociocultural factors.
Chapter 4 – Methods
This chapter gives a description of the study; the interpretative approach I adopted; the
deliberately broad research question and the reason for that; a description of the participants
and the context in which I studied them; the tasks the participants were engaged in; the data
collection methods which included interviews, questionnaires and participant observation;
details of the data analysis procedures; the ethical considerations; and the limitations. I draw
on grounded theory approaches to researching the question and I give a full account of the
techniques and principles associated with this.
Chapter 5 – Results
This chapter provides extracts from questionnaires, interviews, CMC transcripts and draws
on class observation data in order to describe the educational experience that the learners
were involved in.
Categories emerged from the data in line with a grounded theory
approach and I formulated three sub-questions in order to present these categories and
address the original research question. Examining the data and answering the sub-questions
17
enabled me to comment on the extent to which the learners demonstrated autonomy during
the chat activities.
Chapter 6 – Discussion and conclusions
This chapter discusses the results in relation to the research questions and a discussion of
their implications to the local context.
The chapter begins by looking at the research
question and commenting on the way I answered it. This is followed by a discussion of ways
in which I consider that CMC facilitated learner autonomy and the reasons for this. There
were also aspects of the learners’ behaviour that led me to suggest that they did not
demonstrate autonomy in all areas and I give a discussion of this here. The section following
that examines the importance of sociocultural context to these findings and also the extent to
which the cultural constraints imposed on the activities could have influenced the learners’
behaviour.
I go on to look at how CMC seems likely to be able to influence the
development of metacognition and I discuss various issues associated with this. The findings
allow me to make recommendations for educators considering using CMC within a language
class of learners in similar contexts. Finally I make some suggestions for further study in
this area and finish with some reflections I had on completion of the thesis.
18
CHAPTER 2 – BACKGROUND
19
The purpose of this background chapter is to provide information about the institution where
the study takes place, and also about the learners and their previous experience with formal
education. In addition, it presents an overview of the available technology and perceptions
of chat among the university community. It looks at some of the cultural considerations
important to this study and also refers to previous research I have conducted in this context
relevant to the current investigation.
The study takes place in the United Arab Emirates, a country with an area of 83,600 square
kilometres and a recorded population of 3.3 million in 2001 (Ministry of Information and
Culture, 2002). Its neighbours are Oman to the East and Saudi Arabia to the south and west.
The United Arab Emirates was formed in 1971 from the joining of the former British
colonies – The Trucial States. The map below (Figure i) was taken from the Lonely Planet
website (http://www.lonelyplanet.com)
Figure i – A map of the UAE and neighbouring countries
20
The first schools offering a modern formal education in the UAE opened in the 1950s
(Mansoori, 2001). The first university opened in Al Ain in 1978. The Higher Colleges of
Technology opened in cities around the Emirates from 1988. These national institutions
have very different aims. The university in Al Ain has an emphasis on academic study
whereas the Higher Colleges aim to prepare Emiratis for the work force by equipping them
with job skills. Various private and public institutions of higher education have continued to
open since then.
2.1 The institution
The location for the study is an all female national university founded in August 1998. It is
an English medium university modelled on an American learning outcomes system with an
international, predominantly Western, staff.
The university has two campuses located 150 kilometres apart which offer the same
programmes, have a similar student population and identical available resources. I have not
been specific about the location of the university involved in this study in order to protect
the anonymity of the participants. There are approximately 1200 students on each campus.
All of the students are female as all national educational institutions in the country are
segregated by sex. In fact, interaction between the sexes is rare outside the family context.
All students are required to achieve a score of 500 or more on the Test of English as a
Foreign Language (TOEFL) and also demonstrate competency in a variety of English skill
areas before they are able to enter the General Education program and later, their majors
21
courses. The majority of students admitted to the university spend at least one year in the
foundation program which is delivered by faculty in the English Language Center. This
foundation program prepares students for the TOEFL exam and the other General Education
entrance requirements. This program consists of eight levels and each level is represented
by a nine week course. Proficient students can skip foundation English levels and weak
students can repeat each level once if necessary before being dismissed from the university.
Typically, the nine week course of instruction is taught by up to four instructors and is
organised as in Figure ii:
Reading – 5 hours per week
Writing – 5 hours per week
Listening – 3 hours per week
Speaking – 3 hours per week
Grammar – 3 hours per week
Research – 3 hours per week
Advising – 1 hour per week
________________________
Total
–
23 hours per week
Figure ii – A typical course of instruction for first year students
Each of the above components specify learning outcomes which the students have to
demonstrate in order to move up to the next level. The highest levels (seven and eight)
place more emphasis on exam preparation than the others. All English instructors are native
or highly proficient speakers of English with a Masters degree in TEFL or Applied
Linguistics.
22
The students, for the most part, chose to attend this particular institution over the other
options available. The institution has a prestigious reputation among the local community
and is perceived to be one with extremely high standards. Those who feel that they would
not be successful in such an institution elect to attend one of the colleges or private
universities instead. Students were aware before joining that English was the medium of
instruction throughout the university and that they need a minimum level in order to enter
the General Education program. The student body are often students who did well in
English in high school and are often surprised when after taking a placement test, they are
placed in low levels within the foundation program. Many of them spend up to two years in
the program in order to reach the required level and earn no academic credit for this work.
2.2 Available technology
There is a wealth of computer technology available to all members of the university
academic community.
Each student is required to purchase a laptop computer before
registering. Each classroom is equipped with laptop ports which enable students to access
the Intranet and Internet. The library and the cafeteria are also equipped with laptop ports.
Resources such as printers, scanners, CD writers and digital cameras are widely available on
campus. A substantial part of the university budget was used to purchase software for
language learners during the start-up phase. Despite the available technology and software,
English language teachers rarely use it (Kayser, 2002a).
Student educational use of
technology is almost exclusively limited to accessing the internet for research or using
Microsoft Word for typing assignments (Kayser, 2002a). On campus e-mail communication
23
between faculty and students is usually restricted to sending class announcements or, on
occasions, for students to submit assignments to their teachers.
In January 2002, as part of a campaign to assist faculty in using technology in meaningful
ways with learners, Blackboard was introduced to the university. Blackboard is a webbased program which provides teachers with a facility for organising their courses, posting
handouts and assignments for students to access both on or off campus, and easing
communication by providing group e-mail facilities, electronic bulletin boards and real-time
chat rooms. At the time of the study, teachers were beginning to attend training workshops
on how to use Blackboard but few teachers were using it extensively.
2.3 Students’ educational background
Many university instructors in the region feel that students often lack critical thinking and
autonomous learning skills upon entry to university and the cause is that students were not
given opportunities to develop them in secondary school. This view is reinforced by the fact
that when conducting professional development workshops for UAE school supervisors,
university faculty suggested incorporating critical thinking, autonomous learning, and selfaccess into workshops (Guefrachi & Troudi, 2000).
In order to investigate why learners begin university life with such deficiencies, it is
necessary to investigate their experiences at secondary school. To write this section I draw
on my six years experience of working in the United Arab Emirates, one of those years
teaching at a private secondary school. In addition, I conducted semi-structured interviews
24
with two colleagues who had had substantial experience with working in government
secondary schools in both entry-level and senior positions. They were able to help me to
reach an understanding of teaching approaches and possible reasons for them in government
schools and also more of an insight into the UAE culture. The reason I conducted these
interviews was because of the paucity of research available related to education in the
region. As Shaw (1997b) points out, higher education is relatively new in this region and
research has not yet fully developed. In addition, empirical studies that are available are
often heavily factual and do not give an insight into the learning experience of students in
the United Arab Emirates.
Schools in the Arabian Gulf area often have large classes and a formal approach to learning
by Western standards. In addition, there is frequently an emphasis on rote learning
(Farquharson, 1989). Students are given a set of facts to “learn” without opportunities for
critical evaluation or research. This can be referred to as “spoon-feeding”. This leaves
students unprepared for university life in terms of both content knowledge and study habits
(Shaw, 1997b). The only source of knowledge is often the teacher and the textbook (Bel
Fekih, 1993). One of the goals often listed in government educational reform documents is
a shift away from teacher-centred learning with an emphasis on memorisation, to a more
student-centred approach emphasising critical thinking skills (Mawgood, 2000; Emirates
Center for strategic Studies and Research, 1999).
There could be a number of reasons for such teacher-centred approaches to education. They
may stem from the traditional form of schooling in the Arab world which revolved around
Qur'an memorisation and recitation (Bel Fekih, 1993). Qur'anic recitation is still performed
25
at cultural events and people who demonstrate excellent Qur'an memorisation capabilities
are rewarded. This may not however be the main reason.
Some studies report that the approaches stem from the fact that many of the teachers
working in primary and secondary schools have not received adequate training (Bel Fekih,
1993; Al Banna, 1997).
It has also been noted that schools are reluctant to provide
professional development for teachers particularly as many of them are contracted
expatriates. It is not seen as an effective use of educational funds to provide professional
development for them as their commitment to education in the UAE is perceived to be only
as long as their contract (Mawgood, 2000). Where professional development does take
place in schools, it often takes the form of lecture style input sessions rather than
participatory, interactive workshops (Guefrachi & Troudi, 2000) so the approach to learning
by information transmission from teacher to learner is reinforced.
Many of the teachers, even if they are trained adequately, resort to methods such as rote
learning due to the nature of the exams that students have to take (Bel Fekih, 1993). These
exams are often lacking in reliability and validity and mainly test the students’ ability to
recall information (Bel Fekih, 1993). In such tests, weak students are likely to cheat as they
are under pressure to do well. The teaching reflects the nature of the test and encouraging
rote learning in students is often the most effective strategy adopted in order to achieve high
marks in such tests.
The curriculum has also been blamed for such teacher-centred educational approaches
particularly because the officials who develop the curriculum are too distant from the
26
students and teachers themselves (Bel Fekih, 1993). In addition, the curriculum often covers
content which is outdated or unconnected with the student population.
Finally, an unpublished research study (Phelan, 2003), anecdotal information and personal
experience has led me to believe that teachers are under enormous pressure to produce high
grades regardless of what learning has actually taken place. This pressure is felt especially
keenly by expatriate teachers with low job security so they resort to memorisation
techniques to ensure that their students pass the exams. Teachers whose students do
consistently well on tests are often praised by the institution regardless of the methods used
to achieve those results. This reinforces the message that rote learning techniques are
acceptable practice.
The results of such an educational approach at secondary level has detrimental effects on the
learners when they later enter a Western-style higher education institution. They frequently
feel unable to adjust to a different system of education – one where they are expected to take
more responsibility for their own learning and apply higher-level cognitive processing and
problem solving skills.
Students often feel ill equipped to make the move towards
autonomy. In addition, as they are likely to be among the first in their families to attend
university, they do not have a tradition of learning to draw on or a model available to them.
In the Fall semester of 2000, I conducted a study for an Ed.D. assignment about independent
learning at the same institution. The study was a small, pilot study aiming to provide
information that would assist the English Language Center in improving the delivery of the
27
independent learning aspect of the course. One of the research aims was to establish how
autonomous the first year students were.
I adopted an interpretative approach for the study and collected data from interviews with
students selected randomly from six different classes, teachers and curriculum planners. I
also partly based my assertions on observation and examination of pertinent documents
circulated to English faculty, and documents archived by the foundation English program
development committee.
I found that students showed very little evidence of autonomy and were heavily reliant on
teachers. The study highlighted that learners in the foundation English program required
considerable help in developing autonomous learning skills. Students at this stage in the
foundation program particularly needed help in making the connection between their area of
language weakness and choosing a suitable activity to target that weakness.
There was very little evidence of any students being involved in their own learning process.
I established that they were not able to sufficiently plan their self-study, monitor their
progress or learn from their mistakes. I saw no evidence of the students being able to relate
or transfer their university work with the outside world or, to other programs in the
university. English was simply seen as an entrance requirement for the general education
courses and students did not seem to grasp that they were learning skills that would enable
them to undertake these courses.
28
2.4 Arab learners’ difficulty with writing in English
This section will identify some specific details of why Arab learners find writing in English
challenging. As the context for the study (described in later chapters) will take place in a
writing class, the purpose of this section is to give some background to kinds of difficulties
learners in this context face and the possible reasons for these difficulties.
One of the most difficult skills these students have to acquire is writing academic essays.
This may be partly cultural. Alreyes (1996) suggested that Emirati students’ home life may
contribute to their inability to write even in their first language as they may not have the
opportunity to share knowledge and opinions with their families.
The problem is also likely to be partly due to their previous experience with learning how to
write in English. This could very likely have been copying a teacher’s sample essay from the
chalk board and memorising it in order to reproduce it word for word for a test (Fattah,
1993). This may be the approach adopted by teachers who are not familiar with modern
approaches to teaching writing (Fattah, 1993). Teachers may not provide the opportunity for
students to discuss the essay topic and share ideas with their peers before the writing activity
(Fattah, 1993). In addition, the writing topics may be too controlled which does not
encourage much reflection or creativity (Fattah, 1993; Alreyes, 1996).
The curriculum in government schools may play a part in contributing to the problem as it
has been criticised for placing too little emphasis on writing (Fattah, 1993). In addition,
although it has been argued that extensive reading plays an important role in the
29
development of writing skills, not enough reading is done in schools (Alreyes, 1996). When
reading does take place, the texts are often said to not be adequate because they are not
academic enough (Taki El Din, 1985), or do not reflect UAE culture (Alreyes, 1996).
As I mentioned in the previous section, learners are not often given the opportunity to
develop individual strategies for learning in high school or opportunities to develop critical
thinking skills (Bel Fekih, 1993). The learners are often unable to identify their own
mistakes from their writing in order to make improvements – even if they have studied the
relevant language points – as they have not been trained to do so. Learners are often
proficient at learning grammatical rules out of context but may experience difficulties
applying them when writing (Taki El Din, 1985).
There are a number of factors which make the process of writing in English particularly
difficult for Arabic speakers.
Firstly, the Arabic alphabet differs significantly from the
Roman alphabet. The Arabic writing system differs in that it is written from right to left, it
contains 28 distinct letters and is written through the line on the page rather than above them
as in Roman script (Thompson-Panos & Thomas-Ružić, 1983).
Spelling is another
problematic factor particularly due to the non-phonetic nature of English, the differences
between the sound systems of English and Arabic and the vastly different vowel
conventions. Thompson-Panos and Thomas-Ružić (1983) reported that Beck (1979) found
that spelling mistakes constituted the most common error in an analysis of freshmen
compositions written by students at the University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi
Arabia.
A third problem is that the grammar systems differ in numbers of ways. An
example of this is that where in English the present progressive and present simple tenses
30
exist to express quite different meanings, in Arabic there is only one present tense (Afifi &
Altaha, 2000). Similarly, where there are three possible future tenses in English, only one is
usually used in Arabic (Afifi & Altaha, 2000). A fourth problem is experienced by students
expected to write academic English as there are distinct systems in Arabic and English. It
has been suggested that Arabic texts are formulated based on the oral mode. As a result of
this, Arab students writing in English tend to overuse the “and …. and” construction to
connect ideas (Fakhri, 1994). Although there may be other factors such as more repetition
of ideas in Arabic than in English and an infrequency of metalinguistic organisers such as
“as I mentioned in the previous paragraph”, Fakhri (1994) found that they were not likely to
be transferred to English writing.
2.5 The students – cultural considerations
The vast majority of the students attending the university are among the first women in their
families to obtain a tertiary level education. In most cases the parents are unable to speak
English and many parents are illiterate even in their mother tongue, Arabic. Male family
members often have the opportunity to attend universities overseas which is extremely
uncommon for females.
This is mainly because women are traditionally expected to be
accompanied by a close male relative and this is not always practical. This is changing, but
I am aware of only a small number of Emirati women who have had the opportunity to study
overseas.
Emirati families tend to be large and it is not unusual for couples to have more than ten
children. In addition, some marriages are polygamous which may mean that more than one
31
wife and her children live under the same roof which may lead to less attention available to
individual children from their parents (Hasan, 2001). As participation in family life is very
important in Arab societies, the students often have very little privacy at home and are
obliged to spend their free time with the family which leaves them very few opportunities to
study.
The majority of students at the university live subject to a number of strict social rules.
Most families do not permit females to leave the house without being accompanied by a
close male relative or servant. Many women are permitted to attend a higher education
institution but cannot leave the campus without being escorted by a male relative or a
designated proxy such as a personal maid. The only males that the women have contact
with are immediate family members as they could not be potential husbands. Male domestic
staff and male faculty are not considered a threat as they are inevitably foreign and therefore
not legally allowed to marry Emirati women.
These are rules that cannot usually be
questioned by Emirati women. Although there is a lack of research in this area to
substantiate this claim, this may have an effect on the learning environment. Emirati women
may be less likely to question information and techniques that they are introduced to in class
than learners in contexts where they receive a larger degree of freedom at home.
Another factor to consider when attempting to understand why Emirati learners may appear
not to challenge rules or information presented in class is face-saving. Farquharson (1989)
refers to Patai (1983) when she makes the observation that “face-saving” and the fear of
shame may be an important consideration when trying to understand why Arabs demonstrate
certain behaviour when learning.
Patai (1983) writes that Arabs may be inclined to
32
outwardly conform in order not to place themselves in a situation where they may
potentially lose face. This may be one of the factors to consider when investigating why
Arab learners are reluctant to take initiative and risks when learning.
2.6 CMC and cultural considerations
There are a number of contextual factors which need to be considered before teachers
choose to utilize a tool such as CMC with Emirati female learners. Firstly, It is considered
inappropriate for Emirati females to interact with male strangers in a face-to-face context
and even electronically (Kayser, 2002b). In addition, un-moderated interaction in chat rooms
may expose learners to potential culturally inappropriate or upsetting discussion topics
(Mynard, 2002b). Thirdly, in the West, chat rooms are among the places where people meet
potential partners.
In the Gulf area, where marriages are arranged and dating is not
commonplace, chat rooms are also becoming a vehicle for people to meet “virtually”.
Female chat room users often keep their hobby a secret from their families because they are
aware that it would not be tolerated. More traditionally minded Emiratis – even younger
ones - frown upon chat room use because it facilitates interaction between women and men
from outside the family context.
Despite these factors, “chatting” in Arabic has become a popular activity among the
university students. Its popularity is partly enhanced due to the fact that mobile phones are
not permitted on campus. Whereas individuals may choose to challenge traditional Emirati
cultural values by interacting in chat rooms in their free time, educators must remain
33
cautious when using them during class time in order not to cause offence - it is essential that
they remain sensitive to the local culture.
2.7 Teacher perceptions of chat rooms
Students at my institution who do regularly interact in chat rooms have been known to
become addicted which on occasion has had a detrimental effect on their studies. A common
complaint of faculty is of students chatting during lectures. Students can be seen chatting in
Arabic all over the campus during their free time.
Many English faculty members working in the institution are often reluctant to use CMC
activities with their learners for a number of reasons. The key ones are as follows: the
opinion that chat could not facilitate a pedagogically sound learning activity; the feeling that
students would be exposed to non-standard English which they may transfer inappropriately
to other contexts; the feeling that the students would need a lot of support due to the fact
they are not autonomous and also have numbers of language difficulties; and the assumption
that the activities would not be culturally appropriate (Mynard, 2002a; Mynard, 2002b).
Again, there appears to be practically no research studies which have investigated these
issues.
2.8 My previous experience with CMC and the learner group
Since 1998 I have been experimenting with using on-line communication in the context of
the foundation English course in order to explore the advantages for my students. In 1999, I
34
conducted a small interpretative study which investigated the pedagogical benefits of chat
for female Arab learners of English. It also examined whether task-type affected student
participation and behaviour in the chat rooms. There were no preconceived hypotheses. The
aim of the study was simply to make observations and assertions in order to offer
suggestions to colleagues for effective CMC use with the learner group and identify further
areas for research.
I observed three separate chat sessions in three different classes I was teaching at the time
which I called Class A, Class B and Class C. In all three sessions, an entire class of 14-15
Emirati female students participated in the activity. All students were aged 18 and 19 years
with an intermediate level of English and an Arabic mother tongue. The students had never
used chat rooms to participate in a language learning exercise before but on occasions they
had used a private electronic bulletin board to post opinions during class time. Some of the
participants had used chat rooms in their free time to chat in Arabic. All the participants had
proficient computer and keyboard skills.
Class A conducted a real time interview with my mother who was based in the UK. Class B
and Class C took part in an on-line discussion with myself and other classmates all situated
in the same room. I had given suggested discussion topics to classes B and C and explained
that the objective was to improve English fluency. Class A were given time to prepare some
questions but little help or suggestions from me.
During all three sessions, I observed what was happening in the physical classroom; I
analysed the chat data; I conducted face-to-face focus-group discussions immediately after
35
the activity with volunteers; and I conducted interviews separately with two volunteer
students from Class A. I did not interview students from Classes B or C because it was only
much later that I realised that the exercise had been a useful one.
I will summarise the most important results in this paragraph. Firstly, in all three activities
there was 100% student participation. It was interesting to note that students in all three
sessions were motivated by a new activity and by the fact that there was a social element to
the tasks. Students in Class A appeared to be more motivated than the other two classes
probably due to two reasons: the fact that they were practicing authentic interaction with a
guest; and that they had been given more freedom over the direction the discussion took.
Class A used only English but the transcripts from the other two classes contained up to 30%
of language typed in transliterated Arabic. Class A remained on task for the entire 50
minute period whereas Class B and Class C lost interest in the activity after approximately
25 minutes. Interestingly, the contributions made by Class A were all on-task whereas over
40% of contributions made by the other two classes were off-task. The students in Class A
used dictionaries and spell-checkers and also worked with friends to try to make their
contributions as accurate as possible whereas the other two classes did not do this. Although
all three classes felt that the activity was useful for their learning and helped them to practice
writing and speaking, there was evidence that only students in Class A read and processed
the dialogue carefully.
In addition, Class A were also able to discuss the vocabulary
comprehension strategies they applied.
My conclusions from the study were to recommend optimum conditions for the most
effective chat sessions with learners in this context. The first recommendation was to
36
provide a degree of learner control.
In particular, the learners should not be given
instructions or discussion topics which are too rigid. In addition, they should have the
opportunity to control the direction of the discussion. The second recommendation was to
ensure that there was an authentic reason for learners to use the target language preferably
by giving them the opportunity to interact with a native or proficient English speaker who
they would not normally be able to meet. Thirdly, the activity should be intrinsically
motivating by giving the students an opportunity to socialise with each other and interact
with the world outside the classroom. The final recommendation was that the activity should
give learners the maximum opportunity to develop their skills in English. This can be done
by studying the chat transcript after the session and highlighting the differences between
CMC, face to face and formal writing. Learners should also be given an incentive to check
their work before posting. This ensures that there is an opportunity to reflect on what they
have written. Finally, the opportunities for skills development is maximised when the
number of participants in the room at once is limited to no more than four in order to reduce
the amount of information that learners have to process.
Since conducting this study, I have continued to incorporate chat activities within the
courses I have taught relating them to the course outcomes. I have used the conclusions
from my 1999 study as a guide to promote maximum participation, motivation and
relevance to the students. Through experience, I also realised that setting the students a task
maximised the language learning potential of CMC as it forces students to use varied
vocabulary and structures. By the term task, I refer to an activity with an outcome rather
than just free chatting. Tasks give a focus or purpose for the activity in order to sustain
students’ interests. I discuss this further in section 3.3.8 of the literature review.
37
In addition to the above study, I have observed student behaviour in chat rooms informally
during other classes I have taught. In 2000 I taught a nine week elective “Chat Club” in
which 20 students attended three times a week. Students had an elementary level of English
and the aim of the club was to give them the opportunity to develop keyboard and
communication skills while interacting with guests in the target language. Each week,
students spent one or two classes chatting with guest speakers based in different countries.
The remaining class or two were spent preparing for the chat sessions for example learning
appropriate vocabulary; or doing follow up activities such as studying the transcripts.
Although students found the club enjoyable, I did not feel that it was as successful as the
other CMC activities I had facilitated for a number of reasons. Firstly, the students had a
very low level of English so the discussions they had with the native speakers were very
limited and required substantial preparation. Secondly, the class was run as a non-credit
bearing “club” and I felt that students did not consider it important for this reason so
attendance was often low. Thirdly, the students were in their first semester of university and
many of them were not familiar with computers which meant that they needed considerable
technical support from me in the first weeks. Finally, students did not easily make the
connection between the chat club and their core courses (despite my attempts to support the
outcomes of their other courses and inform students of this) so did not always view it as a
worthwhile learning experience.
2.9 The current study
I have already mentioned that the students in this context are very unlikely to be autonomous
learners.
The focus of this study is to investigate whether dependent learners can
38
demonstrate the capacity for autonomy in chat rooms, and if so, what are the reasons for
this. Answering these questions will help to address the needs of the students through
appropriate use of technology. The chat room activities are necessarily constrained due to
cultural considerations and the study also aims to comment on whether this is a impeding
factor.
39
CHAPTER 3 – LITERATURE REVIEW
40
Overview
The theoretical framework for this dissertation draws on both the sociocultural theory and
constructivist perspectives to learning. In section 3.1 I will give a brief overview of the
defining characteristics of these approaches, as well as an account of how I considered them
to be complementary and appropriate for my study.
In section 3.2 I give an overview of the field of my main focus, learner autonomy, which is
a relatively new concept for the learners in my context. First I discuss how the concept of
learner autonomy fits within my theoretical framework. I then discuss why the development
of learner autonomy is crucial to language learners. I examine whether it is a concept
applicable to all cultures and how it can be fostered by educators.
In section 3.3 I present some of the issues within the field of computers in education and in
particular language learning. I describe how computers have been more recently utilised
within a constructivist framework. I go into some detail about the field of computermediated communication (CMC), which is the tool used in my study. I outline some of the
general reported benefits for learners, in particular how the medium is said to promote
learner autonomy. I discuss specific benefits for learners in my context, who do not have
the opportunity to interact with individuals outside their immediate environment. I suggest
that CMC can perhaps lead to the development of deeper cognitive processing and the
development of metacognition due to increased social interaction. I note that scaffolding is
important in the initial stages of using CMC with dependent learners, such as the ones in my
context.
41
3.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1.1 Introduction
The theoretical framework for this dissertation draws on two perspectives: a sociocultural
perspective and also a constructivist approach.
I will begin this section by giving an
overview of each of these perspectives emphasising the principles of each which are relevant
to my study. This will be followed by a discussion of the benefits of adopting these two
approaches simultaneously.
3.1.2 Constructivism
Contemporary constructivist approaches are derived from earlier work
conducted by Piaget. Early constructivist principles emphasised the
importance of children’s direct experience and how they interacted with
the environment in order to pass through different stages of learning.
More recent constructivist views no longer support these stages, but do
still claim that learning is constructed by an individual through
interaction with a rich learning environment. The following paragraphs
will outline epistemological and pedagogical approaches associated with
contemporary constructivism.
42
Epistemology
Epistemology is concerned with theories about the nature of knowledge and can be
represented with Figure iii below (taken from Reeves, 1997) showing objectivism at one end
of the spectrum and constructivism at the other.
Figure iii – Epistemological continuum (Reeves, 1997)
Objectivism stems from the work of Thorndike (1913) and espouses the belief that
knowledge is distinct from knowing and that learning consists of acquiring truth which can
be measured with experiments. Constructivism on the other hand states that knowledge does
not exist outside the bodies and minds of human beings. It is individually constructed and
based on prior experience, knowledge and metacognitive processing or reflection. It cannot
be measured but rather estimated through observations and dialogue. The epistemological
approach I take in this dissertation would be placed near the constructivism end of the above
continuum.
Pedagogy
Pedagogy is concerned with the approach to teaching. Figure iv below taken from Reeves
(1997) shows the continuum and clear distinction made between two approaches:
43
instructivist and constructivist approaches as discussed by Reiber (1992), Duffy & Jonassen
(1992) and Papert (1993).
Figure iv – Pedagogical philosophy continuum (Reeves, 1997)
Instructivists emphasise the importance of goals and objectives that exist outside the learner.
The goals and objectives from a given knowledge domain are often delineated into a
progression or hierarchy of learning from lower to higher order learning. Teaching strategies
designed to address the knowledge areas often stem from behaviorist psychology and imply
that the learners’ needs, interests and previous experience are not taken into account
(Reeves, 1997). Papert (1990) notes that instructivism is often the dominant method of
teaching in schools and is based on the idea that students are passive receptacles for
information and knowledge.
As I mentioned earlier, constructivists believe that knowledge is constructed rather than
transmitted (Jonassen, Peck & Wilson, 1999). Knowledge is constructed through interacting
with other individuals who provide different perspectives. Constructivists place more
emphasis on the learners’ intentions, experiences and metacognitive strategies and allow for
individual knowledge construction. Learners bring with them feelings, ideas and beliefs
based on observations and experiences (Nolan, 2000) and are provided with opportunities to
reconstruct concepts, schema and other cognitive structures according to their interpretations
of new information and experiences. This all takes place in a rich learning environment
44
with an emphasis on individual interests, styles and capabilities together with a large amount
of self-directed and discovery learning (Reeves, 1997). Constructivist models of pedagogy
aim to create environments where learners are actively engaged in interpreting the world and
are given opportunities to reflect on these interpretations (Jonassen, 1997). Jonassen (1997)
writes that if learners are engaged in building their own interpretations of the world, they
have more ownership over their thoughts.
Pedagogical approaches in formal educational settings are likely to contain a mixture of
instructivist and constructivist approaches. Students may be required to master given areas
of content in order for them to pass exams but within this framework, constructivist
approaches can be adopted such as providing rich learning environments which enable
learners to make sense of the subject through interaction, reflection and interpretation.
Duffy & Bednar (1991) suggest the following classroom practices which provide
appropriate learning experiences for construction of meaning to occur:
1. The emphasis should be on reflective thinking and productivity in order for the
students to be able to perform relevant tasks. This approach takes into account that
students perform tasks in different ways and may acquire different skills.
2. Learning contexts should be rich in authentic activities allowing learners to work
collaboratively and explore alternative perspectives and ideas.
3. Students should have the opportunity to work with “domain experts” who provide a
model for the skills that the learners acquire.
In addition to the pedagogical approach adopted by the teacher, learners may bring many
individual characteristics to the learning context. In fact, most educational contexts will not
45
contain homogeneous students, in terms of factors such as learning styles, motivation,
experience and aptitude.
3.1.3 Sociocultural theory
The sociocultural approach to learning was derived, in part, from the work of Russian
psychologist Lev Vygotsky and his colleagues. Vygotsky was born in 1896 and his work,
conducted following the Russian Revolution, has only been available in Western translation
since the 1960s. Sociocultural theory maintains that social context plays a key role in the
learning process, and that learning occurs through different interaction with the world by the
application of a number of principles (two key ones will be discussed in this section).
Although Vygotsky himself did not apply sociocultural theory to second language learning
(SLL), the theory is often seen as a useful approach in the field and one that SLL researchers
are increasingly turning to in order to discover more about the learning process. SLL
researchers are attracted to the theory partly because it emphasises how essential it is to
consider the social, cultural and historical context of the learners, and also because it stresses
the important role of adults and peers in the learning process.
There are a number of key principles associated with the sociocultural approach to learning;
I will discuss the two most relevant to my thesis here: mediation and the zone of proximal
development.
46
Mediation
The concept of mediation is fundamental to sociocultural theory and has been discussed
thoroughly in the writings of Vygotsky, Feuerstein and other sociocultural theoreticians.
Mediation can be defined as ways in which humans indirectly change aspects of the world
around them (Lantolf, 2000). Vygotsky argued that humans rely on tools and activity in
order to interact with the world and with the people in it and by doing so indirectly cause the
world to change. By interacting with the world, higher cognitive functions such as
voluntary learning, voluntary memory, voluntary attention, problem solving, planning and
evaluation develop (Kozulin, 1998; Lantolf, 2000).
Vygotsky (1978; 1986) described three major types of tools or mediators: material (or
physical) tools, psychological (or symbolic) tools, and other human beings (Kozulin, 1998).
Material tools are items designed for mediating processes in nature and are “conductors of
human activity aimed at external objects” (Kozulin, 1998:22). An example of a modern
material tool is a machine, and an example of a traditional material tool is a boomerang in
Aboriginal societies. Such tools do not have a direct effect on human psychological
processes but may influence them indirectly. Vygotsky argued that these tools are formed as
a result of collaboration and interpersonal communication (Kozulin, 1998) which implies
that thought processes are activated. Psychological tools are artifacts such as signs,
symbols, texts, music, arithmetic systems, formulae, art and most importantly, language.
These tools are ones which are created and modified by cultures over time (Kozulin, 1998;
Lantolf, 2000). Individuals use psychological tools in order to mediate, regulate and change
the nature of relationships between themselves and others. Vygotsky conceptualised the idea
47
that the development of higher mental capacities occurs when the mind integrates such tools
into thinking. Other human beings are also used to mediate relationships between ourselves
and the world in the form of social interaction by using psychological tools. Feuerstein et al.
(1980) suggest that from birth, a person’s learning is mediated by others – usually parents
and teachers.
SLL researchers are particularly interested in psychological tools and other human beings as
language acquisition is essentially a social activity within a sociocultural framework.
Language is seen as a tool for joint construction of knowledge and also as a vehicle for the
development of cognition. From a sociocultural viewpoint, one of the main purposes of
mediation is to facilitate the development of cognition. In the following paragraphs I will
elaborate on my interpretation of cognition.
The term cognition refers to how the brain processes information. This may involve
transferring information from other contexts, making sense of that information and using it
appropriately (Groome et al., 1999). Cognitive processes are said to go through a number of
stages when individuals are faced with sensory input. The main stages, with some overlap,
are: perception, learning and memory storage, retrieval and thinking (Groome et al., 1999).
Vygotsky believed that cognitive ability is not an ability which develops naturally but is a
“sociocultural construct which emerges” while interacting with the world (Kozulin,
1998:75). Developing cognitive abilities is a result of an individual’s ability to apply new
psychological and material tools to his or her own thought processes. Vygotsky (1978)
argued that one of the roles of formal schooling should be to teach learners how to activate
48
tools in order for them to regulate their own cognitive processes (Kozulin, 1998). Often,
however, the emphasis in schools seems to be predominantly on the acquisition of content
knowledge. The tasks I use in my study aim to provide opportunities for the participants to
learn how to activate tools in order for them to begin to stimulate their own cognitive
processes.
Due to various reasons (see section 3.1.5 for examples), not all learners are able to
sufficiently activate their ability to use psychological tools for cognitive development.
These learners may consequently experience difficulties in learning. One special form of
mediated interaction is known as Mediated Learning Experience or MLE (Feuerstein et al.,
1980; Kozulin, 1998). MLE requires intervention from an adult or instructor which
facilitates cognitive development. MLE served as the theoretical foundation for a cognitive
intervention system known as the Instrumental Enrichment (IE) Program (Feuerstein et al.,
1980). The IE program used a number of content-free materials which aimed to assist
students in utilising psychological tools in order to develop their cognitive processes. The
emphasis throughout the program was on the process rather than the product. More
recently, Phelan (2002) integrated MLE into an academic research class in a university in
the United Arab Emirates as a way of helping learners unfamiliar with the research process
to complete assignments. This type of emphasis is claimed to lead to the development of
higher psychological functions such as metacognitive awareness (Kozulin, 1998). I will
explain metacognition in more detail in the following paragraphs.
Metacognition is the term that describes the learning experiences and cognitive processes
that learners engage in. These may also promote the transfer of strategies to other contexts
49
(Raphael, 1989). Most definitions of metacognition distinguish between declarative and
procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge refers to details of the task such as its goals
and structure, whereas procedural knowledge refers to the awareness of strategies or
approaches to learning. Raphael (1989) argues that there is a third type of knowledge:
conditional knowledge. Conditional knowledge refers to “the conditions under which one
elects to use a particular strategy . . . conditional knowledge involves 'knowing when and
why.” (Raphael, 1989: 347).
Metacognitive awareness is the development of positive attitudes to study and is associated
with self-awareness and self-confidence and could incorporate strands such as language
awareness, cognitive awareness, social awareness and cultural awareness (Ellis, 2000). It
has been suggested that metacognition may be central to the success learners have in a
subject area, including the acquisition of a second language (O’Malley et al., 1985; Wenden,
1986; Sinclair, 2000).
Metacognition is a crucial component to the development of
autonomous learning and will be revisited in section 3.2.5.
Zone of proximal development
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) is another key concept within
sociocultural theory and is largely interpreted to be “the distance between the student’s level
of independent problem solving and the level of his or her problem solving when it is guided
or facilitated by the other more competent individual” (Kozulin, 1998:160). Vygotsky
50
proposed the metaphor in order to explain how institutionalised schooling has an impact on
intelligence (Lantolf, 2000).
The guidance provided by peers and adults in Vygotsky’s notion of the ZPD is not unlike
the concept of “scaffolding” proposed by Wood, Bruner & Ross (1976). The individuals
who assist learners to achieve a greater level of mastery of a given area, provide them with a
kind of scaffolding until they develop capabilities for themselves (Grabe & Grabe, 1998;
Kozulin, 1998; Hoven, 1999). The support is given by an adult or a more experienced peer
and could include giving learners reminders, instructions or demonstrations (Grabe & Grabe,
1998). In a SLL context, students being assisted with gradually developing and
reconstructing their understanding of the language system is an example of learners being
helped into their next layer of learning (Williams & Burden, 1997). Grabe & Grabe (1998)
explain that scaffolding does not create a simplified version of a task like in a behavioural
approach, but simplifies the learner’s role in the task itself. As the learners become more
capable and internalise the necessary skills, the scaffolding is gradually dismantled
(Donaton, 1994; Hoven, 1999). Over time, a transfer of task responsibility occurs from the
social level to the individual level (Addison Stone, 1993).
This Vygotskian theory can be further translated into a practical application by extending
learning beyond the individual working alone by introducing systems of collaborative or
reciprocal learning (Kozulin, 1998).
Collaborative learning and other specially designed
activities provide a framework for guided concept construction and assist learners to
advance to greater competency (Warschauer, 1997; Kozulin, 1998). Learners do not simply
copy the “experts”, but they transform the task in ways appropriate to them although this
may involve an amount of imitation (Lantolf, 2000). Interacting with peers and other people
51
can serve to gradually develop skills such as communication, expression and explanation.
Discourse help from interlocutors provides scaffolding to learners in order for them to
produce utterances they could not construct on their own (Hatch, 1978). Goodman and
Goodman (1990) believe this social use of language forms the basis for literacy.
In a SLL scenario, people communicating with language learners tend to modify their
speech in order for the learners to be able to understand (Ellis, R., 1997), thus providing
scaffolding. Another form of scaffolding commonly adopted by language teachers is the
frequent use of group work and pair work in the classroom. In addition, worksheets are often
provided by teachers to accompany SLL activities. These approaches assist the learners in
accessing language at a level above their own level of competency.
This section has provided a theoretical overview of some of the key concepts of
sociocultural theory. The sociocultural approach can be used to examine how human
mental functions relate to the larger historical, institutional and cultural setting (Wertsch,
1990).
As a research approach, it allows the investigator to study a context where the
participants are able to explore, reflect and grow and interact within the broader cultural and
historical setting. One such study was conducted by Edwards (2001) with her work with
pre-school teachers. A sociocultural approach allowed her to examine how the participants
of her study were reflecting and discovering new complexities and educational possibilities
within familiar experiences.
3.1.4 Sociocultural theory and constructivism as a framework
52
I have outlined the key principles associated with sociocultural theory and with
constructivist approaches.
The effectiveness of the simultaneous use of these two
approaches has been debated in the literature and the following paragraphs will offer a
summary of that ongoing debate.
Vygotsky and Piaget are often presented as having antagonistic approaches. I acknowledge
that there are a number of differences in their understanding of psychological development
and learning; however as Kozulin (1998) points out, there are benefits to examining the
similarities.
One of the major similarities is that both sociocultural and constructivist
approaches assume that the learner is involved in active individual construction of
knowledge (Cobb, 1994; van Boxtel, van der Linden & Kanselaar, 2000). This meaningmaking is socially constructed (Jaramillo, 1996). Another similarity is that both systems
perceive learning as a transition from action to thought (Kozulin, 1998). In addition, both
approaches emphasise how adults or peers further facilitate learning in some way (Jaramillo,
1996). One of the key differences between the two approaches is the view of who is the
active subject within the learning process. Piagetians would argue that it is the individual
child who learns by interacting (sometimes unassisted) with the environment (Piaget, 1929;
Kozulin, 1998). Vygotskians would argue that the subject of learning is a combination of the
child, the adult and psychological tools within the society. The child becomes an
independent agent only as a result of education and is guided by peers, adults and
psychological tools (Kozulin, 1998).
A number of researchers believe that the two theoretical positions is useful in framing their
studies (see for example Cullen, 1998; and Jaworski, 1993). Some argue that it is effective
53
to apply a framework which would yield the best analysis of their context being studied and
that this may be done using a blend of the two perspectives (Cobb & Yackel, 1996; Sfard,
1998). Whitenack, Knipping & Novinger (2001) found that by adopting both approaches
they were able to examine not only students’ interpretations of classroom activities, but also
how these practices were accepted and valued within the wider social community. Cobb
(1994:17) wrote that each of the approaches “tells half of a good story”. Constructivist
approaches allow the researcher to focus on the activity occurring within the classroom and
the pedagogical applications, and sociocultural theory focuses on what students take with
them to (and bring from) the wider community. Packer and Goicoechea (2000) note that
both perspectives offer valuable insights. A sociocultural perspective reminds practitioners
that a learner is not merely exploring an independent world, and a constructivist perspective
serves to turn our attention to the individual learner’s activities and perspectives. By
applying the two, a researcher can arrive at a greater understanding of the learning that is
taking place
Another approach is to merge aspects of one perspective within the other in order to
overcome particular shortcomings of using just one approach. Confrey (1994; 1995a; 1995b
cited in Lerman, 2000) argues that one weakness of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory is that
is does not take into the account the creativity of the individual. She argues that infusing
some of Piaget’s ideas into the approach assists in correcting that weakness.
Not all researchers are in agreement that the two approaches should be merged however.
Lerman (1996; 2000) presents the two approaches as a dichotomy and argues that the two
are contradictory. He suggests that attempts at merging the approaches have the danger of
resulting in incoherence. He cites Bruner (1996) when presuming that the two perspectives
54
have arisen from two different world views, pedagogical approaches and epistemologies.
What Lerman (2000) perhaps does not take into account is that contemporary constructivist
approaches have evolved since the radical constructivism associated with Piaget and von
Glasersfeld (1984) and have been influenced by sociocultural theory.
In my view,
contemporary constructivism has much in common with a sociocultural approach. Jaramillo
(1996) takes this view one step further and classifies Vygotsky as a constructivist because of
the way in which his framework has contributed to constructivism.
I have presented some of the arguments for using a fusion of the two approaches. I take the
view in this dissertation that although there are differences between the two approaches,
there are ways in which they complement each other; by drawing on each, a researcher can
begin to have a richer understanding of a learning context. I have used mainly constructivist
principles to guide my approach to pedagogy and task design. Sociocultural theory allows
me the flexibility to place my research within a broader cultural and historical setting which
is highly significant for the particular learners and context I am studying. It allows me to
investigate knowledge construction as it relates to social and cultural practices. It also allows
me to benefit from examining the concepts of Vygotsky’s ZPD and mediation which allows
me to come to a greater understanding of the learning which is taking place in my particular
context. The following sections look at the significance of context in more detail.
3.1.5 Cultural-historical factors
By cultural-historical factors I refer to the aspects of the social context and background of
the learners which could be significant to their success at learning. Culture in education is
likely to be relevant on three different levels: the cultural and social backgrounds of
55
students, teachers and parents; the international and multicultural character of the learner’s
society; and cultural contexts within education such as the classroom (Sullivan, 2000).
These three areas have particular relevance to the learners described in my study in that
understanding their background is significant for discovering how they learn and how they
can be further assisted.
Learners in new cultural contexts
It has been observed that cultural context has influenced learning particularly in cases when
learners are placed in new environments. The literature suggests that such learners may
experience difficulties with their learning due to two factors. The first may be due to the
breakdown of cultural transmission, and the second due to a different set of cognitive skills
being required of them. I will elaborate on these factors in the following paragraphs.
MLE is normally incorporated into traditional cultural schemas between parents and
offspring and each culture has its own systems of transmission (Kozulin, 1998). Learners
who have received an adequate MLE in their native culture can expect an unproblematic
transition to a new culture as they would have developed an adequate learning potential
(Kozulin, 1998). However, when the system of cultural transmission breaks down, children
become deprived of traditional cultural schemas and rituals.
This may result in them
experiencing learning problems in the new culture. Cultural transmission breakdowns may
occur among minority groups living in different cultural contexts.
Feuerstein (1991) studied the adaptation of immigrant groups into new cultures, and
observed that success in adapting to a new culture depended on a group’s feeling of cultural
56
identity and its ability to preserve cultural transmission even if it differed greatly from the
dominant culture. Instrumental Enrichment (IE) was first conceived in order to develop
learning skills in immigrant groups or other socioculturally disadvantaged learners.
Feuerstein et al. (1980) argued that low achievement and low cognitive performance in such
cases were due to insufficient development or inefficient use of cognitive functions.
Development and use of cognitive functions, according to Feuerstein, is a prerequisite of
effective thinking and learning, and the deficiencies in some cases were caused by limited
mediation at home. When a new system of psychological tools is introduced to learners in a
direct, unmediated way, the required cognitive skills are only partially acquired in the
learners and remain detached from the rest of their cognitive structures (Kozulin, 1998).
In addition to receiving limited mediated learning at home, learners may have been more
accustomed to previous learning experiences which promoted the acquisition of a different
set of cognitive processes. This consequently required them to develop a different set of
psychological tools (Kozulin, 1998). There may have even been an absence of formal
learning in the native context altogether.
Teachers may take for granted that learners
develop relevant cognitive processes spontaneously and may not apply the educational
intervention such as MLE that the learners may need.
Deficiencies in cognitive skills lead to several specific difficulties for learners. Kozulin
(1998:120-122) lists four specific abilities that immigrant students tend to lack:
•
the ability to identify and define the problem
•
the ability to work with several sources of information
•
the ability to plan their own problem solving actions
57
•
the ability to integrate separate learning experiences into coherent schema
Planning has been reported to be the most significant problem area as it requires students to
demonstrate a metacognitive understanding of their own cognitive abilities (Kozulin, 1998;
Sinclair, 2001).
Kozulin argues that the major emphasis in the education of minority
students should be to develop their learning strategies and metacognitive awareness and also
develop their conceptual literacy. Students will be ready to succeed in the acquisition of new
content material only once they have developed these prerequisites (Kozulin, 1998).
So far I have presented the view that learners in different contexts may require different sets
of cognitive tools. It may be helpful to take the view that different cultural and educational
groups use the same basic cognitive processes; however, the context will determine how
these cognitive processes are manifested (Cole et al., 1971; Cole, 1980 cited in Kozulin,
1998). Cole and his colleagues maintain that problems may occur only when minority
students are required to perform specific tasks and activities within a formal schooling
context.
Western values are often embedded into pedagogical practices which might not be
appropriate to or understood by other cultures. Pennycook (1994) writes about Western
domination and imposing Anglocentric approaches on other cultures. One example of this is
the use of group work and pair work within a student centered classroom. Sullivan (2000)
points out that embedded within group work and pair work are the notions of choice,
independence, freedom, privacy, and equality. Pennycook (1997) emphasises the need for
educators to become more aware of social, cultural and political contexts in order to avoid
imposing culturally-bound, inappropriate pedagogies on learners.
58
A number of studies have investigated specific problems students faced when entering a new
system of education because of immigration. Sullivan (2000) reports on conflicts which
arose when using Western communicative teaching methods with Vietnamese students due
to the conflict with the underlying values of the Vietnamese Confucian value system. She
points out that Confucianism emphasises dependency and nurture rather than independence;
and hierarchy rather than equality. There is also a strong group rather than individual
obligation emphasis.
Forming a small group works against Confucianism as the aim of
group work is to promote individuality, freedom and choice.
In another such study, Filipek Collignon (1994) investigated why Hmong immigrants in the
United States did not respond well to Western communicative teaching approaches in the
ESL classroom. She found that the students reverted to pre-existing functions as a point of
departure for learning. Female students attempted to learn to write in the same way in which
they had learned to sew in their native Laos: by observing their mothers and imitating the
stitches until gradually making fewer and fewer mistakes. A second concern for the Hmong
immigrants is the fact that their culture divides labour by gender and problems arose when
Hmong men and women were placed in the same class. In addition to this, language study
and literacy are associated mostly as a male occupation in the Hmong consciousness. The
Hmong people who Filipek Collignon worked with were likely to be illiterate in their first
language. This illiteracy would also have contributed to the difficulties they had learning to
write in English.
59
Another example of a lack of compatibility between native learning practices and modern
approaches to education is found in the case of Ethiopian Jews who have been emigrating to
Israel since the mid 1980s. The Ethiopians familiar with oral cultures are accustomed to a
system of learning crafts by imitating their parents and older siblings. Formal schooling
consists chiefly of drill and repetition methods, and problem solving activities are limited
(Kozulin, 1998). There are two aspects of educational incompatibility with the Israeli
education system. The first relates to the Ethiopians’ previous experience with learning
similar to the case of the Hmong in the United States. Hebrew instruction in Israel relies on
the assumption that students are literate in their native language which is not always the case
with Ethiopians. The second problem area concerns the preservation of the immigrants’
native language and cultural traditions especially as they are now minorities in their new
country. Whereas other literate immigrants such as those from Russia were able to preserve
their own culture and language through printed media, the Ethiopians were unable to
preserve theirs.
Problems with learning stemmed partially from inadequate mediated
learning experiences in their native culture.
Learners from the Arab world have been reported to experience difficulties when attending
institutions in North America due to differences in approaches to education (Farquharson,
1989). They have to adapt to a more analytical style of education and often experience
problems when attempting to apply the strategies from their previous educational experience
which are often heavily reliant on memorisation.
I am not aware of research which
investigates whether these difficulties are due to the lack of appropriate cognitive abilities. It
is more likely that the learners are simply adapting to a different approach to learning that
would ideally require some mediation.
60
3.1.6 Summary and relevance for my context
This first section has attempted to frame the entire dissertation by providing an overview of
sociocultural and constructivist approaches to learning.
To summarise: a sociocultural
places emphasis on the cultural context and its approach is one which assumes that humans
use various tools in order to mediate meanings with the world and other humans. In doing
so, they activate cognitive and metacognitive processes. The approach operates on the
assumption that learners develop cognitive and metacognitive skills through such mediation
and also through private and inner speech. Peers, adults and teachers assist cognitive and
metacognitive development in learners through mediation and guide them to a greater level
of mastery. A constructivist approach assumes that learners mediate and construct their own
multiple perspectives by interacting with the world and people within it and engaging in
problem solving activities which lead to cognitive enrichment. Adopting a combination of
these approaches allows a researcher to arrive at a deep understanding of a learning context.
There are many parallels with the learners in my context with some of the groups described
in the section on cultural-historical factors (3.1.5). They have experienced an approach to
formal learning grounded in rote memorisation with little emphasis on problem-solving
skills up to the age of 17 or 18 when they then enroll in a Western-style university. The
problems they experience with adjusting to the academic expectations of university life are
not unlike those experienced by immigrants.
They perhaps do not have the required
cognitive tools or experience to be able to cope with their new environment and the
university program does not take this into account (Phelan, 2002).
61
In some ways, the learners in my context are less prepared than immigrants who at least can
use the behaviour of the natives of their new home as a model. However, the learners in my
context still reside within their home culture so there is no apparent breakdown of cultural
transmission. Their culture is often challenged, however, by the western approaches they
experience at university. One example of this was given to me recently by a student who
cannot pray at her accustomed time due to her academic schedule. Prayer is an important
religious and culturally-embedded routine for Emiratis and one they have been forced to
change in order to be accepted in the Western university they attend. The students are
marked absent if they arrive more than five minutes late for class and prayer is not an
acceptable excuse.
Another culturally accepted practice among Emirati students is
“sharing” academic work. From a Western perspective this practice is viewed as “cheating”
or “copying”, but it is often viewed as one’s social duty in Emirati society. I draw on my
experience on this issue and am unaware of published research to support my argument.
One of the most significant ways in which Emirati learners have difficulty in adjusting to a
Western-style education system is in taking responsibility for their learning (Shaw, 1997b).
As they often come from a school system where the teacher provides the information for the
learners to “learn” unquestioningly, they have great difficulty in taking any responsibility for
their own learning as they may have not developed that particular set of cognitive abilities.
Section 3.2 presents the concept of learner autonomy in order to investigate specific
deficiencies in the learners in my context and how they can be addressed.
62
3.2 LEARNER AUTONOMY
As I described in section 3.1.5, learners studying in non-native contexts could experience
difficulties due to sociocultural factors.
These contexts could be extended to include
Western-style institutions in the United Arab Emirates. In this section I explore the notion
of learner autonomy and investigate why it may be a problematic concept for many learners
including Emiratis. This section also investigates ways to promote learner autonomy and
also how learner autonomy can be measured.
3.2.1 Theoretically framing the concept of learner autonomy
The term learner autonomy is a familiar one within the field of SLA and is a concept which
is a desired product of sociocultural approaches to education.
Both sociocultural and
contemporary constructivist views of education provide opportunities for learners to acquire
the cognitive skills to be able to evaluate and use resources available to them (Taylor, 1995;
Ellis, S., 1997; Greeno, 1997), and seek help where appropriate (Wood & Wood, 1999).
Through mediation and scaffolding learners develop the tools necessary to be able to
prioritise learning activities and to become more self-aware (Edwards, 2001). These are key
concepts which are associated with a familiar concept in SLA namely, “learner autonomy”.
3.2.2 What is learner autonomy
Learner autonomy is the concept of taking responsibility for one’s own learning and is also
associated with a number of other terms such as: learner independence, independent
63
learning, lifelong learning, learning to learn, thinking skills (Sinclair, 2001). Different
researchers make distinctions between different terms for example Dickinson (1992) uses
the term autonomy to describe someone learning alone and independence for the concept of
taking responsibility for learning.
Sheerin (1991) uses the terms autonomy and
independence interchangeably. All the terms however, essentially refer to a concept where
learners are involved in their own learning process. By being involved in this process, they
learn to make meaningful connections with the world outside the classroom and, in the case
of language learners, to be able to use the target language beyond the learning environment
(Little, 2000). Learning becomes more than rote memorization of a series of facts and
continues even after the learner has completed full time education. It is a commonly held
view that language learning is greatly enhanced when a student has control over the goals
and the content of a course of study (Little, 1991; Dam, 1995 and 1998; Hart, 2002).
Metacognitive awareness was defined in section 3.1.1 and is a crucial part of learner
autonomy (Sinclair, 2000). Learners with a higher level of metacognitive awareness will be
more able to identify and address areas of weakness and plan their learning more
successfully.
One widely accepted understanding of learner autonomy is that it is a concept which ranges
across a continuum (Figure v). At one end there is the dependent learner who has had little
opportunity to develop independent learning skills, whereas at the other end of the
continuum is the learner who is self-directed, self-motivated and capable of learning without
a teacher. Most students are somewhere in between the two extremes and most learners will
find themselves at different points along the continuum according to which activities they
are pursuing (Benson & Voller, 1997; Sinclair, 2000). Increased autonomy enables the
64
learner to make the language learning process meaningful and relevant to his or her needs
and to continue to develop in the target language.
Dependent
Learners
Autonomous
Learners
Figure v - The learner autonomy continuum
The concept of learner autonomy is often defined in terms of a list of sub skills which
students can gradually master in order to become more autonomous. These sub-skills can be
summarised in the following table (Figure vi) which is based on one compiled from a
number of sources by Mynard and Sorflaten (2003). In the right hand column, there is a list
of skills which autonomous learners generally demonstrate. The left hand column gives
examples of behaviour which is often demonstrated by dependent learners. (Holec, 1981;
Dickinson, 1987; Little, 1991; Barnett, 1993; Broady & Kenning, 1996; Benson & Voller,
1997). Benson & Voller (1997) make a distinction between dispositions and abilities and
claim that a learner could be disposed to be independent in an activity such as the ones listed
in Figure vi, yet lack the technical ability to perform them.
65
Dependent learners
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Autonomous learners
rely heavily on the teacher
cannot make decisions about their
learning
do not know their own strengths
and weaknesses
do not connect classroom learning
with the real world
think that the teacher is wholly
responsible for their learning
do not possess metacognitive and
metalinguistic awareness
are not able to plan their learning
need extrinsic motivators such as
grades or rewards
do not reflect on how well they are
learning and the reasons
are not able to assess their learning
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
are self-reliant
can make informed decisions about
their learning
are aware of their strengths and
weaknesses
are able to transfer classroom
learning with the real world
take responsibility for their own
learning
possess metacognitive and
metalinguistic awareness
plan their learning and set goals
are intrinsically motivated by
making progress
often reflect on the learning process
and their own progress
possess the ability to self-assess
Figure vi – Dependent and autonomous learners
Adapted from Mynard and Sorflaten (2003)
People often assume that autonomous learning means anything that a student does alone.
Broady and Kenning (1996:13) comment on this misconception:
Simply equating learner autonomy with self-study is unhelpful in two respects.
Firstly, it assumes that learners cannot be - or become – autonomous in the
classroom…..secondly, it assumes that self-study automatically promotes
learner responsibility.
The degree to which it is feasible for learners to acquire and embrace autonomy will vary
from learner to learner depending on factors such as personality, goals, the philosophy of the
institution, the cultural context, and the preferred learning style of the students (Nunan,
66
1996a). There is also the view that autonomy is an inborn capacity which is often gradually
suppressed as we go through the formal education process (Little, 1996).
Learners in some educational contexts such as the UAE receive few or no opportunities to
develop the autonomous capacities described in the right-hand column of Figure vi for a
number of reasons. Firstly, their teachers often feel uncomfortable with placing control in
the hands of the learners (Robbins, 1996). Secondly, some teachers have not received
training in why it may be desirable to promote learner autonomy and how to go about it (Bel
Fekih, 1993; Al Banna, 1997). Thirdly, teachers may be afraid of losing their jobs or
receiving criticism from the administration. This often means that they are reluctant to
introduce unfamiliar teaching techniques. Finally, the curriculum and testing procedures
often drive the teaching approach and a test-driven curriculum, like the one usually applied
in the UAE, does little to promote autonomy in learners.
3.2.3 Learner autonomy and different cultural contexts
This section will investigate whether the active promotion of learner autonomy is
appropriate for differing cultural settings and will also look critically at its place in the
United Arab Emirates.
The process of developing autonomy in students could be argued to be appropriate for
Western societies. The question is whether autonomy is an appropriate approach in nonWestern contexts where it has been observed that students might have had fewer
opportunities for collaborative and other learner-centred approaches (Hart, 2002). This may
67
not be a question of cultural appropriateness, but instead a reluctance to abandon traditional
teaching approaches. Educators in some contexts may not be comfortable in the shift of
control within the classroom from teacher to learner. Rausch’s (2000) research showed that
Japanese students, familiar with teacher-centered approaches, would be prepared to take a
more student directed approach to learning and in some cases this is already happening. The
problem may be the attitudes of traditionally-minded educators rather than the attitudes of
the students themselves. Robbins (1996) found that Japanese teachers rather than students
showed unfavourable attitudes towards learner autonomy. Holec’s (1981) view of autonomy
is not confined to the scholarly environment, but is political in nature as learner autonomy is
a capacity intended to be carried over to other aspects of a learners life:
…the need to develop the individual’s freedom by developing those abilities which
will enable him to act more responsibly in running the affairs of the society in which
he lives.
(Holec, 1981:1).
In a society such as the United Arab Emirates, women have had very little influence on
running the affairs of the society, or indeed often their own lives. One might legitimately
question the appropriateness of the concept of learner autonomy which is designed to
transcend the classroom. One of the goals of the university, and for the UAE education
system in general, is to produce lifelong learners who think critically. Such graduates are
unlikely to restrict their critical thought and lifelong learning skills to the educational
context alone which might have repercussions for the society. The following extract is taken
from the university website:
68
X University was founded to prepare leaders who will foresee the
possibilities and capture the opportunities that will create the future of the
United Arab Emirates. They will confront a rapidly changing, information
and technology-driven world that will defy certain prediction. They will
need tolerance for ambiguity and the capacity to adapt to changing
circumstances. They must be able to set goals and manage complex, difficult
pathways to success. They must be able to use sophisticated technologies to
communicate, learn and solve problems. They will need to function
effectively in the multicultural environments of the global society. They will
need to develop the personal strength and self-confidence to persist to
success. And to assure long-lasting achievement, they must have the will to
critically reflect on life experiences, and on social and civic life around them,
with an abiding commitment to learn, to behave responsibly and ethically,
and to influence others to do the same.
This example, along with other university documents and speeches given by the Minister for
Education (who is also the president of the university) endorses the view that the students
need to develop a capacity for learner autonomy during the course of their university
experience.
My thesis investigates how learners might be assisted in developing this
capacity for language learning purposes and not at the political implications of such a
change. Given the learners’ sociocultural background, they are likely to have difficulties in
acquiring autonomous learning skills and would need significant support. The next section
looks at ways in which such support can be given and autonomy can be promoted.
3.2.4 Promoting learner autonomy
Helping students along autonomy continuum can be approached in a number of ways.
These approaches are often given the umbrella term of learner training and may consist of
awareness raising, scaffolding, strategy training and the encouragement of reflection. This
69
section gives a brief description of various ways in which learner autonomy may be
promoted.
Classroom approaches
The approach to classroom instruction plays an important part in the development of
autonomy. A learner-centred approach is adopted and this involves two learning aims: the
first is concerned with language content; and the second is concerned with the learning
process itself (Nunan, 1996a). There is a clear parallel here with IE where learners are given
content-free instruction in order to develop cognitive skills. Advocates of autonomy in
language learning have also drawn on constructivist approaches of learning in order for
learners to be encouraged to construct their own meanings and systems of knowledge
(Benson & Voller, 1997).
In addition to drawing on constructivist approaches in order to promote autonomy in
learners, it is useful to review the assumptions of a sociocultural approach. Vygotsky’s
sociocultural
theory assumes that learner autonomy is an outcome of the educational
process rather than a starting point (Kozulin, 1998). Creating optimum conditions for
autonomy to develop is therefore crucial. Constructivist approaches encourage learners to
construct concepts and co-author knowledge, but it should be guided by providing
scaffolding such as providing guidelines, examples or critical feedback. Activities should
involve a degree of self-management but with instructor input which provides assistance
with navigation and feedback (Hoven, 1999). Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999)
acknowledge that with constructivist communication tasks using computers, learners may
initially be unprepared to participate fully if they are not accustomed to participating in such
70
ways. They also suggest that the activities offer support and scaffolding in order for the
learners to develop the necessary skills.
Introducing the notion of autonomy into a context where the learners have never previously
experienced learner-centred approaches is likely to be a slow process. Robbins writes the
following about her perceptions of Asian classrooms:
Asian learners of EFL or other foreign languages have been educated in an
environment that many would think to be the antithesis of learner autonomy:
a typical classroom scene would find the teacher in control, giving explicit
directions for every learning activity and the students passively following
those directions….in contrast Western educational reforms of recent years
have promoted the ideal of the self-regulated learner….can the Western ideal
be achieved within the Asia educational environment?
(Robins, 1996:16).
Robbins’ article answered this question by describing the various ways in which she
integrated learner training into her EFL class in Japan with reasonable success. One of the
ways in which she addressed the challenge was to examine and exploit ways in which her
learners felt comfortable operating which included, in her case, in small groups. These
challenges also exist in the United Arab Emirates and, like in the Japanese context described
in Robbins’ (1996) account, group work is effective as it is consistent with the learners’
sociocultural background and preferred way of working.
Social interaction
Vygotsky (1986) argued that social interaction is essential for the development of cognition
and that language plays a central role in learning as it is a symbolic tool used for problem
solving. Little (2000) supports this view and writes that higher cognitive functions are
71
internalised, and linguistic knowledge is developed due to social interaction. In addition,
“individual cognitions influence and are influenced by cognitions of others” (Baltes &
Staudinger, 1996:6) which implies that social interaction is essential for the generation of
new and modified interpretations and the development of cognitive processes.
Group work within the learning environment increases opportunities for social interaction
and also has the advantage of giving learners the opportunity to help each other develop
greater mastery. Learners with a greater understanding of one concept or content area
continuously switch roles with peers who have an understanding of other areas during
collaborative tasks in order for this to happen.
Gradual increase of learner control
Providing an appropriate level of control to learners is desirable in order to promote
autonomy. Learners need to be given control in order to succeed in learning a language but
they also need to be provided with information and support in order to be able to cope with
the responsibility (Hoven, 1999). By control I refer to initiatives such as teachers giving
their learners opportunities to select the content and learning tasks; teachers providing their
learners with opportunities to evaluate their own progress; learners involved in finding their
own sources of language input; and opportunities for learners to self-monitor and self-assess.
Although the only way that a language learner can gradually become more autonomous is
through practice (Little, 2000), there appears to be an agreement among researchers that it is
essential that learner control is given gradually. Vygotsky’s ZPD breaks learning down into
manageable stages and at each stage, learners gradually achieve more independence from
72
the teachers and more experienced peers who guide them. In order to assist with this
development it is preferable to develop metacognitive skills (Milheim & Martin, 1991;
Goforth, 1994; Card & Horton, 2000). In addition, learners are said not to be good judges of
their en-route comprehension so need guidance with this (Garhart & Hannafin, 1986). In
addition, learners may not have acquired a repertoire of learning strategies on which to draw
and often resort to memorisation strategies (Salomon & Globerson, 1987). One thing that
more experienced peers and instructors can do is to share different strategies with learners.
Awareness raising and strategy training
Where learners are given a high level of control over their learning, it is important to
accompany this with awareness raising activities. Awareness raising helps learners to
manage the increase in control (Hoven, 1999). Regardless of the extent to which learners
are predisposed to autonomy, strategy training can promote autonomy in learners (Oxford,
1990; Nunan, 1996a). Through awareness-raising, learners can be trained in effective
strategies although still require guidance in managing their learning (Victori & Lockhart,
1995; Wenden, 1995; Robbins, 1996).
Reflection
Learners benefit from the process of reflecting on the factors that affect their learning
(Sinclair, 2000). These factors may include motivation, attitudes, beliefs about learning and
their sociocultural backgrounds.
Ackerman (1996) writes about concepts of engagement and detachment or connection and
separation. He claims that if learners are continuously immersed, they cannot learn from
73
their experience. He stresses the need for periods of detachment in order for learners to
consider what has happened to them and continue to develop and make the periods of
engagement more meaningful.
One way of encouraging reflection in learners is through guided journals. Nunan (1996b)
reports that Students of English for academic purposes (EAP) who used this technique
developed a greater sensitivity to the learning process over time. In addition, this may have
contributed to the connections they were making between the EAP course and their content
courses. The learners developed the capacity to articulate what and how they wanted to
learn.
In the study I describe later in this dissertation, I describe how I observed the students
participating in an environment where autonomy was being actively fostered in ways
described in this section. From my observations and other data collection techniques, I was
able to comment of the extent to which students demonstrated the capacity for developing
autonomous learning in a computer facilitated environment.
3.2.5 Measuring learner autonomy
Measuring how autonomous learners are can be problematic. Many researchers are in
agreement that the word “capacity” is a key one when attempting to determine how
autonomous a learner is. The premise behind “capacity” is that even autonomous learners
are not autonomous all of the time. These fluctuations may occur due to affective factors
such as mood; psychological factors such as tiredness or hunger; motivational variables such
74
as their attitude towards the subject matter, and environmental factors such as noise,
temperature or time of day (Sinclair, 2000).
It might not be satisfactory to attempt to measure the development of autonomous learning
in terms of product – i.e. the degree to which the autonomous learning skills are assisting the
student in mastering the target language. Positivist studies have limitations as it is not
evident whether language learning has occurred because of the application of autonomous
learning skills or because of other factors such as previous exposure to language, particular
interest in the subject area or a change in personal circumstances (Dam & Gabrielsen, 1996;
Sinclair, 2001). Strategy use is extremely difficult to observe as it requires knowing what is
going on inside a learner’s head which means that researchers have to rely on self-reports
(Sinclair, 2000).
In a study conducted among language learners in Australia, Simmons (1996) found that
learners who had received strategy training throughout the course did demonstrate the use of
a greater number of strategies at the end of their training period. In addition, they were more
aware of the strategies which suited them and felt that their learning had improved. Tests
such as this which involve teaching a strategy and then testing to see whether a learner uses
that strategy could be misleading, because individuals tend to demonstrate preferences for
different types and may avoid using others because they are not the learner’s preferred
strategies. However, strategy training does appear to have a positive effect on the learners’
awareness of different strategies and on their feelings of self-efficacy i.e. their beliefs about
their abilities to learn.
75
An interpretive approach for measuring learner autonomy is one which investigates the
notion of capacity. Such an approach allows the researcher to establish whether someone is
developing autonomous learning skills and has the capacity to apply them to the language
learning process successfully (Sinclair, 2001). One such approach has been suggested by
Willing (1989) who devised a questionnaire of attitudinal statements designed to ascertain
students’ learning strategies and disposition to be independent.
Another more qualitative approach has been developed by Barbara Sinclair and investigates
metacognitive awareness by interviewing students about how they approached tasks, what
they learned and what plans they could implement in future.
Sinclair (1999) developed a
framework (Figure vii) designed to identify the level of metacognition in adult learners
through interviewing techniques.
This type of approach could be a key indicator when
attempting to measure overall autonomy. As I mentioned in section 3.1.3, it is argued that
students experiencing difficulties in learning due to cultural reasons should learn to develop
metacognitive awareness in order to be able to identify and address his or her weaknesses
(Kozulin, 1998).
In the methods section (section 4) I will outline how I based my research design for this
study on the type of approach which Sinclair (1999) also adopted. I assigned tasks to the
participants, then provided them with opportunities to articulate how they had performed on
those tasks.
76
Level of
awareness
Language characterised by
Level 1
•
•
•
Largely
unaware
•
•
Level 2
description with little or no rationale
formulaic or “shallow” rationales
broad statements with little or no
support
a few naive questions
little or incorrect use of metalanguage
Greater use of:
Becoming
aware
(transition
stage)
•
•
•
•
•
Typical examples
“I read the text then I answered the
questions”
“I need English to get a good job”
“English grammar is very difficult”
“Yes, I’ve had problems with that… I made a
big mistake…I was at my friend’s house for a
party…er birthday party….and a woman…”
anecdotal evidence
introspection (expression of
thoughts/feelings)
metaphor
“epiphanies”
metalanguage
“I feel…” “I think…” “I’ve noticed that…”
“learning phrasal verbs is like wrestling with
a jelly”
“I’ve just realised that this strategy – the one
I’ve always used – doesn’t work for me very
well”
“If my intonation is wrong, how will it effect
the person who is listening?”
Level 3
Confident and competent use of the above plus:
Largely
aware
•
descriptions of alternative strategies
“I could have learnt these words by writing
them down with translations or by recording
them on to a cassette listening, but I decided
to use a word-web because I find I can
remember the words more easily when I do
this”
Figure vii – Monitoring metacognitive development of learners (Sinclair, 1999)
3.2.6 Summary
This section has provided an overview of learner autonomy, a concept which is not normally
promoted within schools in the UAE. The required level of cognitive and metacognitive
77
processing skills are unlikely to be promoted within the secondary education systems in the
UAE due to a lack of MLEs. When these learners join Western-style universities and
colleges, they are often expected by their instructors to demonstrate a high degree of
autonomy without being given any scaffolding. As the learners will inevitably be positioned
near the “dependent” end of the learner autonomy continuum (see Figure v in section 3.3.1),
they need considerable support in moving along it.
The next section looks at the role that technology might play in the development of
cognitive and metacognitive development and how it has been reported to facilitate the
development of autonomous learning.
78
3.4 COMPUTERS AND LANGUAGE LEARNING
I begin this section by giving an overview of computer assisted instruction (CAI), within the
field of second language teaching. I discuss how computers were used in the early stages of
technology in education compared with how they have been used more recently within a
constructivist framework.
I will go on to give an overview of the growing field of
computer-mediated communication (CMC) within language learning and the benefits which
researchers have reported for learners. I give an overview of the literature related to how
CMC has been reported to promote learner autonomy and provide opportunities for
cognitive and metacognitive development.
3.4.1 Early computer assisted instruction
In the early years of technology in education, computers were used to deliver computer
assisted instruction (CAI) which mainly consisted of decontextualised lessons in the form of
drill and practice exercises or tutorials. These types of activities were based on behaviourist
principles. Behaviourism is an approach to psychology which was popular in the field of
language learning in the 1960s and 1970s. The approach argued that a stimulus-response
technique was effective in promoting learning and this had limited success with many
human actions (Williams & Burden, 1997) yet did not take students’ interests or preferences
into account. During the early phase of CAI, the computer was programmed to present
information to students and to direct their learning toward specified knowledge (Jonassen,
1996). Unsurprisingly, the specified knowledge did not necessarily reflect the needs of the
learners (Benson & Voller, 1997). CAI imitated the role of a (behaviourist) teacher even
79
though it was known that computers could not present information and diagnose learner
understanding as well as a teacher could. Meaningful control of the learning process was
also removed from the student during these early phases of CAI and teachers and learners
did not fully exploit the capabilities of the computer which was essentially storage and
retrieval of information (Jonassen, Peck and Wilson, 1999).
Although there is a place for drill and practice exercises in language learning particularly
with remedial learners (and these are greatly facilitated by the computer), these
behaviourist principles are unlikely to foster higher-order skills such as problem solving
and transferable learning (Jonassen, 1996). In cases where the activities are prescriptive
and allow the learner very little control, it is unlikely that any learner autonomy is being
promoted (Blin, 1999). Blin (1999) points out that if learners have received adequate
learner training, they will be more likely to control the tool to facilitate appropriate
learning opportunities.
Even if certain computer activities aim to promote opportunities for choice and decisionmaking for students, Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) claim that “the people who learn
most from instructional materials are the people who design and produce them”
(Jonassen, Peck and Wilson, 1999:153) as they often do the thinking for the learner
(Jonassen, 1997).
Planning, decision making and self-regulation should be the
responsibility of the learner not the computer program.
80
3.4.2 Computer assisted instruction and constructivism
In the 1990s educators began to question such uses and misuses of powerful technology
and a new phase of CAI was born. This new phase sought to use computers as tools in
order to assist students in constructing meaning through critical reflection.
Constructivists maintain that learning should incorporate the real world and be an
authentic experience. In addition, it should allow different learners to acquire personally
relevant skills and also make decision-making, planning and self-regulation the
responsibility of the learner (Jonassen, Peck & Wilson, 1999). Felix (1999) points out
that web-based learning provides a variety of authentic content and media to learners
which allows teachers to find meaningful activities for different students.
In recent years, technology for the sake of technology has become less important than a
focus on the student. The focus is much more on what the student can do with the
technology rather than simply what the technology can do (Felix, 1999). The computer is
more commonly being referred to as a tool. When technology is regarded as a tool rather
than a method of instruction it has the capacity to greatly facilitate learning by providing
individualised opportunities for students (Nolan, 2000).
In order to perform well within constructivist approach, learners need to be equipped with
skills such as “articulating, reflecting on, and evaluating what they know; setting goals for
themselves (determining what is important to know) and regulating their efforts in order to
achieve these goals; and collaborating and conversing with others so that the understandings
of all students is enriched” (Jonassen, Peck and Wilson, 1999:220). There is considerable
overlap with the skills cited by Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) and the skills listed in the
81
right hand column of figure vi in section 3.2.1 – skills which autonomous learners possess.
This begs a significant question: do learners who lack autonomous learning skills benefit
from a constructivist activity? Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) argue that learners
unfamiliar with approaches to learning associated with constructivist uses of technology,
may need some support or scaffolding until they are ready to interact fully.
This can be
done by ascertaining the skills that the learners lack, then “build in cognitive tools that
scaffold the learners’ abilities to perform those tasks” (Jonassen, Peck and Wilson,
1999:200). This scaffolding can come in the form of guided tasks, examples, allowing
students to work in groups so that they support each other, access to direct teacher help,
online assistance, and providing opportunities for the learners to reflect on the tasks and
their role and how they contribute to learning.
3.4.3 Mindtools
Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) use the term “Mindtools” to describe computer
applications which can facilitate thought. Mindtools are “computer applications that have
been adapted or developed to facilitate critical thinking and higher-order learning”
(Jonassen, Peck and Wilson, 1999:152). These tools are more likely to be computer
packages such as spreadsheets or graphics programs rather than purpose built instructional
software.
According to Jonassen (1996) Mindtools contain the following attributes:
1. computer based
2. readily available
82
3. affordable
4. can be used for knowledge representation
5. generalisable to different subjects and contexts
6. engage learners in critical thinking
7. promote transferable learning
8. promote simple yet powerful ways of thinking
9. easily learnable
Mindtools allow the learners to express what they know; to access and interpret information;
and also to disseminate what they know to others thus stimulating cognitive processes.
Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) claim that students are given the opportunity with
Mindtools to construct personally meaningful knowledge bases using the computer. The
computer acts as a cognitive reflector or amplifier for the students’ thoughts (Jonassen,
1996).
Mindtools require learners to be more engaged in learning than when using
traditional instructional technology materials and to think in meaningful ways (Jonassen,
1996).
3.4.4 Computer-mediated communication
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is the process of using the computer to facilitate
authentic communication between two or more people. This communication could be in
asynchronous (delayed) form such as e-mail, electronic bulletin boards or electronic
newsgroups; or in a synchronous (immediate) form such as real time internet chat or instant
messaging. The communication takes place between two or more people located anywhere
in the world. CMC would be considered to be a Mindtool according to Jonassen’s (1996)
criteria listed in section 3.3.3.
83
Educators are gradually realising the potential of CMC to the learning context. There are a
number of potential advantages to learners from sociocultural and constructivist viewpoints.
CMC facilitates the collaborative construction of knowledge through the social negotiation
of ideas in an authentic context (Jonassen, 1996). In addition, it provides access to a variety
of perspectives due to the fact that participants could be based in any number of different
contexts. CMC also provides learners with opportunities to engage in activities which
require them to perform relevant tasks with an emphasis on reflection and production. This
kind of social interaction, according to Vygotsky (1978), promotes cognitive development.
In Vygotskian terms, CMC could be argued to give learners access to two types of mediators
which develop their cognitive processes: psychological tools, and other human beings.
CMC allows learners to mediate their psychological processes by facilitating the exchange
of text between human beings. In addition, CMC can assist learners develop a greater sense
of mastery if the conditions are right for example if learners are working collaboratively on
tasks or if learners are interacting with “domain experts”. In the case of language learning,
these experts are native or proficient speakers of the target language.
3.4.5 CMC and language learning
CMC can be used as a student-centred tool in language learning to facilitate discussion
among people from a variety of backgrounds. This enhances the social component of any
course and gives learners access to multiple perspectives (Jonassen, 1997). CMC is reported
to benefit learners due to increased participation; increased motivation; increased learner
control and an opportunity for skills development. The following section will discuss each
of these factors in turn.
84
Participation
As I discussed in section 3.1, higher-order psychological processes are promoted through
interaction with others. In addition, social interaction plays a central role in the development
of cognition and language development. Thus, it is desirable to provide learners with an
abundance of opportunities for social interaction. Learners in certain contexts may have
limited opportunities to engage in meaningful social interaction, or if they have the
opportunities, learners frequently lack the confidence to take advantage of those
opportunities. A number of studies have suggested that CMC activities maximize student
participation (Bump, 1990; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996a; Carey, 1999; Card
& Horton, 2000). Even students who do not consider themselves to be fluent, participate as
much as other students in computer mode (Warschauer, Turbee & Roberts, 1996;
Warschauer, 1996a).
There are many possible reasons for this increased participation. Computers offer a medium
wherein quieter, shyer students feel comfortable participating (D’Souza, 1991; Doucette,
1993; McComb, 1994; Warschauer, Turbee & Roberts, 1996). Warschauer, Turbee and
Roberts (1996) suggest that virtual space encourages participants to interact as equals
regardless of age or status. The medium is also said to reduce non-verbal cues such as
frowning or staring which might be discouraging for timid learners in face-to-face
discussions (Warschauer, Turbee & Roberts, 1996; Warschauer, 1997). Weaker students
may also be more inclined to participate in CMC because they are given time to prepare
their entries, they may access language support devices (e.g. dictionary, thesaurus and spell
check), and they can ask for help from their peers or instructors.
Chester and Gwynne
(1998) report that Asian students they studied (although they do not specify from where in
85
Asia) feel more comfortable participating in a CMC environment than in a traditional faceto-face scenario because they did not need to adhere to conventional classroom behaviour.
In the same study, the authors noted that individuals who usually reported that they were
more comfortable interacting with people of their own cultural group during face-to-face
classroom activities, were in fact able to form relationships across social and cultural
boundaries.
Motivation
CMC tends to be an intrinsically motivating communication technique as it involves
interacting with a real, often international, audience in the target language (Skinner &
Austin, 1999; Carey, 1999). Learners are given the opportunity to exchange opinions with
others and learn about different people and cultures even if they do not have the opportunity
to leave their own country. Many studies have reported that the level of motivation and
attitudes towards learning during a CMC task is enhanced due to the interactive nature of the
activity (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1991; Wagner, 1994; Irani, 1998). A study conducted by
Hackman and Walker (1990) found that student attitudes towards learning were enhanced by
increased interaction regardless of actual achievement.
Another motivating factor of CMC is novelty; learners are exposed to a different type of
language learning activity (Skinner & Austin, 1999). Many aspects of the activity could be
said to be unique: interacting with different people, meeting people from other countries,
chatting in real time and using the computer to communicate. Students are fascinated by
how the system works and are reported to write more due to novelty factor (Felix, 1999).
86
Receptive and productive skills development
CMC has been reported to facilitate language learners’ development of both receptive and
productive skills and these will de discussed in the following sections.
Receptive skills
CMC provides learners with the opportunity to improve their reading abilities. Students
become adept at skimming and scanning chat text at rapid speeds in order to follow the
conversation thread.
In order to participate fully, it is necessary for them to interpret
information quickly in order to respond appropriately.
environment
CMC provides a suitable
for instructors to support students’ receptive skills through scaffolding
particularly due to its facility to link learners with potential experts, mentors and other
learners based in different locations. Instructors and other interlocutors can model certain
procedures, skills or language for students (Jonassen, 1996). Support or scaffolding is often
activated through noticing (Schmidt & Frota, 1986; Schmidt, 1990; Brett, 1998). When
learners pay conscious attention to input and intake language as a result, this is known as
“noticing” (Schmidt, 1990). Participants have the opportunity to notice language used by
native speakers and experiment with using it during the course of the CMC session.
Productive skills – Writing
Both writing and speaking are said to improve with more exposure to CMC. With regards to
the development of student writing, at first glance, chat transcripts from EFL learners may
appear confusing as they contain writing which is non-linear and has a large number of
87
linguistic inaccuracies. There are a number of ways however in which CMC can facilitate
the development of writing which I will discuss in the following paragraphs.
Firstly, teachers in regular writing classes rarely have the opportunity to demonstrate to their
learners how they themselves engage in the writing process (i.e. provide a model or the
process rather than the finished product). CMC provides teachers with a platform in which
to participate in a collaborative writing activity alongside the students and thus model the
process in real time (Day & Batson, 1995). This could be one way in which learners are
helped to develop a greater sense of mastery according to Vygotsky’s notion of ZPD.
Secondly, students in writing classes are frequently asked to write about topics that they
have very little authority on. CMC gives the learners the opportunity to brainstorm the topic
with their peers before writing which helps to increase writing confidence (Day & Batson,
1995). Peers working collaboratively can help each other learn as they will have different
areas of competence. Teachers can ask students leading questions or ask them to justify their
choices in order to provide further scaffolding for learners.
Thirdly, in traditional writing classrooms, students often spend very little time actually
engaged in writing. In a CMC environment, students spend a full class period having
written discussions which helps them to develop and reflect on their ideas and also practice
writing (Day & Batson, 1995; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996). Collaborative writing tasks in a
traditional writing classroom can be awkward and slow whereas CMC facilitates a
collaborative approach (Day & Batson, 1995).
88
Some researchers claim that CMC can be used to develop metacognition in learners. English
(1996) used CMC to encourage students to write about writing in order to understand more
about the writing process and develop metacognitive skills. Other researchers have reported
that participating in CMC gives learners a medium in which to develop their ideas for an
audience (DiMatteo, 1990; Day & Batson, 1995; Warschauer, 1996b;; Warschauer, Turbee
& Roberts, 1996). In traditional writing classes, the only audience for students’ work is the
teacher. CMC helps learners to develop a sensitivity for different audiences (Day & Batson,
1995).
Finally, Alvarez-Torres (2001) writes that synchronous CMC can elicit more complex
language from learners than oral debates. She claims that learners tend to produce “longer
and more coordinated and subordinated utterances” (Alvarez-Torres, 2001:2). This could be
due to the fact that students are not under the same time pressure as in a face-to-face context
(Warschauer, 1996a) and can edit their messages and produce more elaborate language.
Speaking
There are also ways in which CMC has been reported to facilitate speaking. Synchronous
CMC has many of the characteristics of both speaking and writing. It resembles telephone
communication in that it uses technology to replace face-to-face communication but letters
on the screen replace voices (David & Brewer, 1997). CMC presents features normally
associated with speech such as “repetition, direct address, disfluencies, and markers of
personal involvement” (David & Brewer, 1997:113). Discourse tone such as humour, irony,
intimacy and anger can be expressed using punctuation or emoticons such as “smileys” .
89
Essentially, chat activities provide writing practice to participants, but the interaction can be
transferred to spoken discourse as the medium provides an opportunity to develop discourse
skills (Chun, 1994). Various interactional speech acts are used by participants such as
taking turns, taking initiative, asking questions, giving feedback to peers, asking for
clarification, expanding on topics, and checking comprehension (Chun, 1994).
3.4.6 CMC research in the UAE
I am unaware of much research being written about using CMC with similar learners in the
UAE or Gulf region. One instructor based in the UAE (Hennigan, 1998) facilitated an email key pal program in which female Emirati students exchanged messages with students
from a women’s university in Japan. The rationale for the activity was to give the learners
practice in writing in the target language and also to give them the opportunity to broaden
their world perspectives by interacting with learners from other contexts. Hennigan noticed
that the activities became more learner driven over time. Syed (1999) observed that e-mail
motivated his Arab male learners in the UAE and he integrated e-mail into his classroom
teaching in order to maximise opportunities for authentic interaction.
Zaidi (2000)
investigated the benefits and limitations of teaching an EFL writing course using CMC in
the UAE. Among the advantages of the medium was that CMC provided opportunities for
authentic communication in the real world. She found that CMC facilitated the development
of critical thinking skills and collaborative learning in her female Arab students. Colleagues
at my institution have used CMC successfully with their learners in order for them to
participate in collaborative university-based projects with peers across the two university
campuses. This approach has been effective in promoting literacy and research skills. The
90
students are engaged in using the target language while they collaborate both face-to-face
and electronically in order to research, design and produce a series of web sites. This is an
example of a culturally appropriate project which still offers benefits for the learners
(Kayser, 2002b).
These studies have attempted to use CMC in order to expand learning beyond the four walls
of the classroom and give learners the opportunity for authentic communication in the target
language. Each of the above studies were conscious of providing culturally appropriate
activities for learners. They also appeared to suggest that the medium may contribute to the
development of autonomy in Emirati learners which is an area that my study aims to
investigate in greater depth.
3.4.7 CMC and learner autonomy
CMC has been reported to facilitate the development of learner autonomy which may be due
to a number of factors. One of these factors may be the easy availability of tools such as online dictionaries, word processing tools, and the Internet which give students control over
their own learning (Chapelle, 1997). Learners can find out the meanings of unknown words,
other language points, or factual information without having to ask the teacher. This is, of
course, also true for other language learning activities which do not involve CMC but do
provide students with computers, dictionaries and reference books.
Another important
factor is that learners are in control of their role in the CMC discussions which automatically
implies that are in control of decision-making, planning and self-regulation. Individuals are
given the opportunity to “move out of their individual ‘comfort zones’ in order to participate
91
productively and effectively in the learning process” (Hoven, 1999:157). Toyoda (2001)
writes that technology in general has a positive effect on learner autonomy if the students
perceive the tool to be a useful one.
I have divided section 3.3.7 into the three contributing factors which I consider to have the
greatest influence on learners’ development of autonomous learning abilities through CMC
activities. These factors are: opportunities for the development of metacognition;
opportunities to become self-reliant; and widening the learning context.
Opportunities for the development of metacognition
Section 3.3.3 discussed the properties of Mindtools which facilitate higher-order thinking.
When learners engage in activities using Mindtools such as CMC, they analyse the world by
accessing personally relevant information and interpret that information according to their
personal knowledge (Jonassen, Peck and Wilson, 1999). Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999)
claim that learners think harder and generate deeper thoughts with the use of a tool such as
CMC.
English (1996) used CMC with first year composition students in order to produce reflective
journals and reported that the medium promoted metacognition. In addition, the transcript
that the discussions produce serves as a kind of analytical map of the learning experience.
Harasim (1990) also found evidence of reflection when she compared CMC with telephone
conversations and found that learners perceived themselves to be reflecting more on their
thought processes during a CMC discussion.
92
I am unaware of much literature which investigates the extent to which learners with
relatively underdeveloped metacognitive awareness benefit from CMC compared with more
aware learners. Jonassen (1996) writes that CMC may not be a comfortable environment for
students who have been accustomed to a large degree of spoon-feeding and that participation
may be lower than with more extravert or independent learners. Teachers may be able to
accommodate this by providing an appropriate amount of scaffolding particularly in the
initial stages (Grabe & Grabe, 1998).
Referring back to the chart of skills which autonomous learners possess (figure vi in section
3.2.1), development of a number of the skills will be greatly facilitated by an increased
metacognitive awareness on the part of the learner such as making informed decisions about
learning, being more self-aware, planning and goal setting, and being able to reflect and selfassess.
Opportunities to become self-reliant
CMC activities are naturally student-centred as discussions take place in a virtual space
meaning that the teacher’s role is automatically minimised (Bump, 1990; Chun, 1994;
Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, Turbee & Roberts, 1996). This makes the environment
less intimidating for learners to ask questions, give opinions, and offer suggestions (AlvaresTorres, 2001). In addition, students do not need to seek permission to speak as in a
traditional face-to-face classroom setting even if the class size is large (Warschauer, Turbee
& Roberts, 1996). In such a text-based environment, everyone – learners and teachers become equal participants in a conversation (Alvarez-Torres, 2001).
93
Studies show that while traditional classrooms may contain up to 80% of teacher talk time,
CMC shows instructor contributions of only 10 to 15% (Harasim, 1987; Winkelmans, 1988
cited in Harasim, 1989). Norton and Sprague (2001) point out that activities such as CMC
activities are beginning to challenge traditional teaching approaches. It is impractical for
teachers to be the suppliers of all knowledge when knowledge is available to teacher and
learners equally via the Internet.
A teacher’s role therefore, through the medium of
telecommunications, will naturally evolve into that of a facilitator, assisting students to
locate and evaluate information and also to share knowledge with others. This will require
an awareness on the part of the teachers of MLE and how to assist the learners as they make
sense of the information they are accessing.
A number of the abilities associated with learner autonomy (see figure vi in section 3.2.1)
are likely to be promoted when the learners are expected to become more self-reliant such as
making decisions about learning, taking responsibility for learning, planning and goal
setting, and self-assessment.
Widening the learning context
Classrooms which incorporate CMC activities effectively bring the outside world into the
learning environment.
CMC tools facilitate discourse between people in a number of
settings and contribute to student-centred learning. This widening of the learning context
will be particularly valuable to learners such as Emirati females who have few opportunities
to interact in the target language.
94
Whitehead (1929) called knowledge that students have learned but fail to use “inert”
knowledge. Learners often have few occasions to use the knowledge that they acquire
during formal education due to their exposure to restricted contexts and CMC provides them
with a medium to use language and activate inert knowledge meaningfully (Grabe & Grabe,
1998).
With a wider learning environment in which to communicate, learners are likely to more
easily transfer classroom to the outside world and become more intrinsically motivated by
the learning process (two attributes which autonomous learners possess according to figure
vi in section 3.2.1).
3.4.8 Tasks
It is often not the computer but the task which provides the basis of a successful learning
activity (Papert, 1987; Chapelle, 1994; Freiermuth, 2002). As I mentioned earlier, I use the
term “task” when referring to an activity with an outcome. Applying appropriately designed
tasks when using CMC with learners has a number of benefits. Firstly, tasks ensure that the
activity challenges the learners and gives them the opportunity to practice a given area of
language (Alvarez-Torres, 2001). If tasks are not set, learners may resort to already familiar
language or skills which will not promote higher-order thinking or problem solving.
Secondly, tasks could facilitate a collaborative approach to learning (see section 3.3.9).
Thirdly, without a task, CMC activities could lose momentum and become repetitive; and
finally, learners often require support or scaffolding from instructors or more experienced
95
peers (Grabe & Grabe, 1998; Kozulin, 1998) particularly when the activity requires them to
use a potentially unfamiliar medium like CMC.
Eastmond and Ziegahn (1994) recommend a number of CMC instructional activities, such as
instructor-led discussions in order to introduce students to the topic; brainstorming;
discussions with guest lecturers; group discussions; and student presentations. These
suggestions provide a form of scaffolding to support the learner in successfully taking part
in these activities.
In order for CMC tasks to provide optimal learning conditions, a number of factors need to
be taken into consideration. Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) provide guidelines for
effective tasks which engage learners within a constructivist framework. The following is
an extract from Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999:28):
Technologies should be used by learners to engage in:
•
Active learning, where they explore and manipulate the components and
parameters of technology-based environments and observe the results of their
activities
•
Constructive learning, where they articulate what they know and have learned
and reflect on its meaning and importance in larger social and intellectual
contexts
•
Intentional learning, where they determine their own goals and regulate and
manage their activities
•
Authentic learning, where they examine and attempt to solve complex, illstructured, and real world problems
96
•
Cooperative learning, where they collaborate with others and socially negotiate
the meanings they have constructed
In other words, according to Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) an effective constructivist
learning activity would be one which encourages students to work collaboratively and
actively in order to construct their own meaning, manage their own learning while solving
an authentic problem. This results in promoting the use of higher-order mental processes.
It is often maintained that best results in learning are likely to occur when learners work
with authentic or semi-authentic materials (i.e. materials or activities which were not
originally intended for learning purposes and used in their original state or adapted slightly)
which are used in a real-world context (Little, Devitt & Singleton, 1994; Hart, 2002).
Providing opportunities for language learners to interact with native speakers on-line is an
authentic method of doing this but such activities may present a challenge or threat to some
learners (Felix, 1999). This kind of learning may not suit all students’ learning styles (Levy,
1997) and low level students may not have the confidence or skills to attempt it without
support from instructors or peers. Some learners feel more comfortable when they assume a
different online identity which has been reported to liberate and empower learners (Turkle,
1995). In addition, when learners assume an identity, they feel less embarrassed about
making mistakes in front of their peers (Felix, 1999).
Tasks can also serve the function of providing individualised instruction. CMC activities are
reported to cater for different learning styles (Karayan, 1997). Reflective learners have the
opportunity to process the information before responding and impulsive learners are able to
respond to as many questions and comments as they like. Teachers may be able to assign
97
different tasks to different learners according to their preferred learning style and other
individual differences and effectively assist the development of cognitive processes (Grabe
& Grabe, 1998).
3.4.9 Collaborative tasks
Sociocultural theorists maintain that social interaction is necessary in order for learning to
occur. Vygotskians believe that collaborative learning forms the basis of concept
construction and assists learners to progress according to the concept of the ZPD (Kozulin,
1998). A constructivist theory of learning is one which encourages learners to investigate
alternative perspectives and ideas by working collaboratively with peers. CMC is a “a
naturally collaborative technology. It fosters collaborative meaning-making by providing
multiple perspectives on any problem or idea” (Jonassen, 1996:176-7). Freiermuth (2002)
however points out that if a task is to foster the desired amount of collaboration, it must be
carefully constructed.
Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) write that four elements must be present in order for
groups to be able to cooperate: interdependence; face-to-face interaction; individual
accountability; and interpersonal skills (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). In addition, the group
must share a vision and agree on the way to achieve that vision.
98
Jonassen (1996) recommends the following steps when establishing a collaborative task:
1. Form the teams
2. Clarify the group goal
3. Negotiate tasks and subtasks to be completed
4. Monitor individual and group performance
5. Reconcile differences in interpretations or approaches to the goal
Hoven (1999) comments on a study by Platt and Brooks (1994) which found that the
learners’ interaction with the target language and the creation processes which occurred
were equally as important as the language the students produced. Students are involved in
meaning-creation which enable them to interact within the target language culture (Hoven,
1999).
3.3.10 Evaluating learning
According to Jonassen (1996) traditional forms of assessment are a decontextualised,
stressful, artificial measurement of reproductive learning outcomes which belie the
assumptions and methods of constructivism.
Not unlike Sinclair’s (1999) approach
discussed in section 3.2.5, Jonassen suggests that educators should assess students' ability to
handle problem solving with authentic problems in context.
The assessment methods
should require learners “to articulate what they know, not what we told them. Assessment
should also require learners to reflect on how they came to know what they know”
(Jonassen, 1996:271).
This is an approach I adopted when evaluating how learners
performed on the tasks I set in this study. Jonassen also argues that if the tasks required
the students to work collaboratively, then they should not be assessed individually. The
99
purpose of assessment in constructivist learning situations is to provide the learners with
the feedback they need in order to direct further learning. Jonassen (1996) claims that the
most important kind of assessment is self assessment as it involves the learner in the
processes of reflection and articulation. Collins (1990) proposed three ways to measure
students’ thinking and learning:
1. Diagnosis such as continuous self-evaluation
2. Summary statistics collected from the students’ performance of individual tasks
3. Portfolios which contain a variety of students’ work such as writing samples or
other products
These measurements should reflect real-world performance and “require learners to use a
variety of intellectual skills” (Jonassen, 1996:275). These principles may be difficult to
implement in traditional institutions but may be incorporated on a small-scale level by
individual instructors.
3.3.11 Summary and significance for my study
This section looked at the role of computers as a tool to promote learner autonomy by
cognitive and metacognitive development and the development of a second language. I
suggested that CMC is a student-centered Mindtool which can facilitate collaborative
knowledge construction, offer increased interaction, reflection and opportunities for
language development while exposing learners to a wider world than the confines of the
classroom. Many of these points are particularly significant in my context where due to
100
culturally imposed restrictions, the learners have extremely limited opportunities for social
interaction and learning about the wider world.
Despite the potential advantages of CMC, care must be taken when using the medium with
this learner group. It is considered inappropriate for Emirati women to interact with male
strangers even online (Kayser, 2002b; Mynard, 2002b). They may also be exposed to
potentially offensive discussion topics (Kayser, 2002b; Mynard, 2002b). As Kayser
(2002b) points out, there are ways in which the CMC technology can be used by teachers
in a culturally acceptable way. The chat can be restricted to individuals known the to the
teacher or to within the university community. Despite such restrictions, there are likely to
be benefits for the learners which is what this study is investigating.
The emphasis in school systems in the UAE is on rote memorisation with little emphasis
on problem solving or evaluation on the part of the learner.
Vygotsky claimed that
successful schooling promoted the development of higher-order psychological tools which
students in the UAE are unlikely to have had the opportunity to do. The fact that the
learners tend to be positioned at the “dependent” end of the learner autonomy continuum
(see Figure v in section 3.2.1) is one result of this depravation. Section 3.3 investigated
ways in which CMC could be used within a constructivist framework in order to promote
autonomy in language learners providing scaffolding where appropriate.
101
To summarise, this review of the literature was presented in three sections. Section 3.1
provided the theoretical framework and explained why I draw on both sociocultural and
constructivist perspectives when designing and interpreting the study. This meant that I
considered the background of the learners to be significant when approaching my research.
Section 3.2 looked at the concept of learner autonomy which could be described as a set of
capacities which aid successful language learning. Learners in my context for a variety of
reasons have not developed such capacities.
autonomy might be promoted in learners.
The chapter looked at ways in which
Section 3.3 took this one step further and
examined the role which computers might have in facilitating the development of such
capacities. I argue that a constructivist approach to CMC could greatly facilitate this type
of development if there was sufficient scaffolding available to learners in the initial stages.
The following chapter will outline the methods of a small study which investigated the
sense which the female Emirati first year students made of a CMC environment and
whether it appeared to facilitate the development of learner autonomy.
102
CHAPTER 4 – METHODS
103
The literature seems to suggest that CMC has many elements which promote learner
autonomy and cognitive and metacognitive development in learners. In my context, where
learners are particularly dependent on the teacher to make decisions about learning, I
decided to make this the focus of my research. This chapter will outline the methodology,
procedure and methods I adopted in order to investigate this area.
4.1 Research methodology
I decided to adopt an interpretative approach as I felt it would be more effective at eliciting
students perceptions of their participation in the CMC activities.
Bogdan and Bilken
(1982) note that the goal of this kind of research helps us to “understand the subjects’ world
and to determine how and with what they judge it” (Bogdan & Bilken, 1982:210). The
approach allowed me to investigate the uniqueness of this context and be sensitive to
participants’ thoughts and perceptions (Ernest, 1994). The intention of the research is not to
make any generalisations, but to offer my interpretations of a situation in a particular
context. One of the strengths of this approach is reported to be that interaction between the
investigator and the investigated helps the researcher to build up a picture of the context
(Radnor, 1994).
I adopted some of the principles of the grounded theory research framework described by
Strauss and Corbin (1990; 1998) to analyse the data in order for the important defining
factors to emerge. Strauss and Corbin refer to these categories and factors as a “theory”.
Theorising, as defined by Strauss and Corbin (1998:21) is “work that entails not only
conceiving or intuiting ideas (concepts) but also formulating them into logical,
104
systematic, and explanatory scheme” (emphasis in original). Theory is a set of developed
categories which are related to form a theoretical framework that explains “some relevant
social, psychological, educational, nursing or other phenomenon (Strauss & Corbin,
1998:22). To use an existing framework or theory for my study may have been restricting in
such a unique context and adopting a grounded theory approach allowed me the flexibility to
describe features that the learners perceived to be significant.
According to the principles of grounded theory, I did not start with an existing theory in
mind. I was, of course, familiar with some of the literature in the area of computer assisted
language learning and learner autonomy and was operating within a sociocultural and
constructivist framework. These are obvious areas of influence but a grounded theory
approach allowed me to work within my paradigmatic perspective, yet gave me the freedom
to investigate phenomena occurring within my context without the constraints of attempting
to fit my data into given framework. Zafeiriou et al. (2001) successfully adopted a grounded
theory approach when investigating students’ perceptions of conditions affecting
participation in online group work in England. Although the participants in this study were
native speakers of English, it dealt with student perceptions and I felt that this approach also
suited my needs.
4.2 Research question
I began with a deliberately broad research question in order for the categories and the theory
to emerge from the data. The question was:
105
To what extent does computer-mediated communication facilitate the
development of learner autonomy in a class of first year Emirati female
university students?
I finally decided on the words “to what extent” because I was open to the possibility of
discovering that the medium did not facilitate the development of learner autonomy at all in
my context. It was tempting to isolate particular factors of learner autonomy such as selfawareness or ability to make decisions within my research question or in sub-questions but
as I could not predict which factors (if any) would emerge, I once again followed the
suggestions of Strauss and Corbin (1998) and kept the question broad.
The broad research question served the purpose of allowing me to investigate the
perceptions of the learners along with my observations and interpretations in order to build
up a description of the learning experience that occurred during a series of CMC activities.
4.3 Participants
The participants were a class of ten, first year female students taking a foundation English
course in the context described in Chapter 2. At the time of the study, four students were
aged 18 years, five students were 19 years old and one student was 26 years old. All of the
students were native speakers of Arabic with an intermediate level of English.
The students were taking 23 hours of English per week at the time of the study and this was
separated by skill as follows: 5 hours of reading, 5 hours of writing, 3 hours of grammar, 3
hours of listening, 3 hours of speaking, 3 hours of research skills and one hour for academic
advising. The students had the same teacher for reading and writing and he agreed to let me
106
teach the class for one hour per week as part of their writing course. There are a number of
reasons why I chose to study CMC within a writing class. Firstly, the literature is rich with
descriptions of potential benefits for learners. Secondly, writing is a particularly difficult
skill for learners in my context and I felt they may benefit from the activity. Thirdly, a
productive skill would give me more data than a receptive one where I would need to rely
more on participant self-analysis. Finally, I used this class because it was made available to
me. Had a speaking or grammar class been available, I would have been forced to adapt my
methods and use that class for the purposes of my study instead.
Due to reasons outside my control (which I will discuss in the next paragraphs), the sample
was a convenience sample. A convenience sample “relies on available subjects – those who
are close at hand or easily accessible” (Berg, 2001:32). Berg recommends caution when
using this type of sample in cases where the available participants are not appropriate to the
research question. He goes on to state that this type of sampling can be an excellent
approach to obtaining preliminary data if the sample is first evaluated “for appropriateness
of fit for a given study” (Berg, 2001:32). My sample was appropriate for the area I was
studying: how first year Emirati female university students with an intermediate level of
English make sense of constructivist activities in a chat room.
Another point worth mentioning is that I was attempting to describe a learning context. This
was not a quantitative study and I was not attempting to measure or compare a phenomenon
or make generalisations. In quantitative research, a sample needs to be carefully selected to
represent the population in order to generalise to that context (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The
purpose of my study was to observe a typical classroom in order to comment on how the
107
learners interacted and made sense of the activities. Strauss and Corbin (1998) refer to it as
theoretical sampling where they are “looking for events and incidents that are indicative of
phenomena” (1998:214).
I feel that I achieved the goal of being able to describe the learning context with the class I
worked with, and feel confident that I would have observed similar results with any of the
other classes. My intention was not to generalise but to offer an illuminative analysis.
Findings of such studies can be usefully transferred to similar contexts for the purposes of
comparison. This kind of transfer can lead to generalisations in time but this did not concern
me at the time. The validity of the study comes from the in-depth analysis, the thickness of
the descriptions and the trustworthiness I established with the participants due to my
research procedures. Delamont and Hamilton (1984) show their support of the use of single
class research with the following extract:
Despite their diversity, individual classrooms share many characteristics. Through
the detailed study of one particular context it is still possible to clarify relationships,
pinpoint critical processes and identify common phenomena. Later abstracted
summaries and general concepts can be formulated, which may, upon further
investigation be found to be germane to a wider variety of settings.
Delamont and Hamilton, 1984 (Cited in Ernest, 1994:26)
The class was one of the only classes of an intermediate level or above who met in the
afternoons and was not yet involved with TOEFL exam preparation. I wanted the students
to have at least an intermediate level of English so that they would be able to express
themselves sufficiently in English during the interviews and be able to take part in
discussions with native speakers without feeling excessively frustrated. I did not want to use
an exam class for my study as they would be less likely to agree to take part because they
108
were taking courses which related to the passing the exams and may feel disadvantaged.
This particular class met in the afternoons which was also an important consideration. My
original intention was to give students the opportunity to meet guests based in Europe in real
time so that the activities would be as interesting and motivating as possible. The UAE is
four hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time which meant that I had to choose a class which
met in the afternoon in order for guests from Europe be able to join the sessions at a
reasonable hour.
There were several reasons why I chose to study students during a regular class time.
Firstly, previous experience had told me that classes or clubs which did not have compulsory
attendance were unlikely to see full attendance for the duration of the course which would
have a devastating effect on my data collection. In addition, I wanted to collect data as
naturalistically as possible so I incorporated the chat activities within the core curriculum.
Finally, I wanted the students to view the chat activities as learning activities. If the
activities were done in isolation from the core curriculum, students may not have taken them
as seriously as learning activities. Having their core teacher present reinforced the fact that
chat was intended to be an educational experience.
Further background information established during data collection
Before the study began, I asked students to complete a questionnaire (appendix iv) which
would give me additional background information. Details of this are given in the data
collection methods section (4.5.3) but this is an appropriate place to present the findings as it
will help the reader to understand more about the participants. All ten students had joined
the university in September 2001, and eight of them were taking the course (level 6 writing)
109
for the first time. This meant that two of the students were repeaters. Four students rated
their typing speed in English as “slow” or “quite slow” whereas three students thought their
typing speed in English was average. Two of the students rated their speed as “quite fast”.
With regards to experience of having used chat rooms in the past, five of the students said
that they had used Internet chat rooms before and the other five said that they had not. I
probed this during the first interviews and established that in fact all of the students had used
either chat rooms or MSN instant messenger before. My previous experience with using
questionnaires with a similar population revealed that subjects are likely to write what they
feel is expected of them rather than the actual truth. Participants are much more likely to be
honest during interviews. In this case, given their cultural background, students may have
worried that it would be inappropriate to admit that they used chat rooms. The interviews
revealed that the students predominantly chatted to friends in Arabic using English letters
and numbers to form transliterated Arabic words. In addition, they used occasional words
and greetings in English. The most popular form of CMC that the students used was MSN
Messenger, followed by various Arabic chat sites.
As far as Blackboard experience was concerned, none of the students had used the chat
function Blackboard before but seven out of the ten students had accessed class assignments
from Blackboard in previous courses. In addition to chatting, students used the Internet for
researching information for assignments; for downloading music and movie clips; for
accessing information of general interest in English and Arabic; and for sending web-based
e-mail or greetings cards.
110
As I discussed earlier, measuring how autonomous a learner is can prove to be problematic
due to fluctuations occurring as a result of numbers of factors (see section 3.2.5 for a fuller
explanation). It is also difficult to ascertain whether students develop autonomous learning
skills as a result of a modified teaching approach or another reason. This study was not
attempting to measure how autonomous the learners became over time, but to describe the
context in which they operated and how they made sense of it. It is, however, useful to
understand what kind of learners were participating in the study.
My previous experience with similar learner groups has informed my research design
significantly. I have found in the past that conducting semi-structured interviews with
Emirati women is the most effective means of providing opportunities for the participants to
express themselves freely. A better description of the interviews in this particular study is
given in section 4.5.3, but it is worth noting here that the first interviews I conducted with
the students gave me a good indication of how autonomous they were at the beginning of the
study. As with my previous study, students in this particular class showed little evidence of
independence. Adopting Sinclair’s (1999) model presented in section 3.2.5, I would place
all but one student in the level 1 (largely unaware) category. An interview with the class
teacher, although conducted in week 5, also supported my assumption that the learners were
dependent on the teacher during regular English classes (see the introduction of chapter 5 for
details).
111
4.4 Ethical considerations
All of the participants were aware that the data was going to be used for a study and agreed
to take part by signing a consent form (appendix i). The real names of the students have not
been used and the name of the institution has deliberately been kept anonymous in order to
protect the identities of the participants. The participants were assured confidentiality in all
aspects of the study. Students were also given the option to drop out of the study at any time
without penalty, although none did so.
In addition to this, any activities which the
participants engaged in were sensitive their cultural and religious values.
4.5 Procedure
The study took place during class time throughout the nine week writing course. The
interviews took place voluntarily during the participants’ free time. I adopted interpretative
methods and collected qualitative data as I felt it would be the most effective way of being
able to describe the context-dependent nature of the relationships between various
phenomena during the study. I made assertions based on observation of classroom
behaviour, the analysis of chat room data and other written tasks, group discussions with
students, and interviews with individual students and the core class teacher. There was no
preconceived hypothesis as the aim of the study was to use the evidence to form a picture of
the learning experience that the students were involved in. This would be done by
identifying the major intersecting variables, describing the connections and in so doing
identifying a range of contingent factors. In other words, this approach would enable me
comment on the extent to which CMC appeared to facilitate the development of learner
112
autonomy. It is worth re-emphasising here that with such a study operating over just nine
weeks, I was not attempting to quantitatively measure the development of autonomy.
4.5.1 The tasks
The tasks were constructivist in nature (see section 3.3.8 for a description) and designed to
allow students the opportunity to develop autonomous learning skills by incorporating
various modes of scaffolding. The tasks also operated as a framework for me as a researcher
to observe how the students performed the tasks. This was most effectively done by
applying the approach that Sinclair (1999) and Jonassen (1996) advocate i.e. by giving the
learners the opportunity to articulate how they felt they had performed on the tasks and why
they had behaved in certain ways. This allowed me to gain an insight into the mental
processes which were being activated as they worked.
The students were told that the chat activities were a way to give them the opportunity to
develop their writing skills and English fluency. All but one of the tasks took place in the
Blackboard virtual classroom. I set chat tasks for the class each week based on my previous
experience of using chat with similar learner groups (see section 3.3.8 in the literature
review for an overview of using tasks). I also wanted to ensure that the input that the
learners would be exposed to did not contravene their cultural and religious values. All of
the set tasks were culturally acceptable and appropriate for the learners in this context
because they had the following characteristics:
•
Students were not exposed to the risk of becoming offended by culturally insensitive
discussion topics as all of the guests were familiar with the local context
113
•
Students were not in a one-on-one situation with a male stranger
•
The activities were presented in the form of language development activities thus
removing the stigma associated with chat room users
In short, the students were given a protected environment in which to communicate. This
parallels their everyday life.
Apart from weeks 1 and 9, the tasks involved interacting with a guest which gave the
students an authentic reason to use English.
The guests were all volunteers from my
acquaintance and happened to be four native speakers of English based in the UK; ten native
English speakers and one Emirati national with native-like proficiency in English working at
the same university campus, three native English speakers based on the other campus.
There were usually three guests available each week which made sure that I could minimise
the number of students present in the same chat room which ensured that all of the students
had ample opportunities to participate.
The groups were reassigned each week so that the students had the opportunity to work with
different people each time. This may have potentially been a limitation as it did not give the
students the freedom to choose their own groups. I was obliged to eliminate this freedom in
order to establish chat room set-up in advance.
Some of the tasks required the students to write a piece of follow-up work. I only set
homework when the students did not already have a number of assignments to do for their
other teachers. The chat tasks allowed for a large degree of individual freedom and were as
follows:
114
Week 1
Practice using a chat room to submit and read messages and access archives. This was
preceded with some pre-teaching of relevant vocabulary and a discussion on the benefits of
chat as a language learning tool and how it would fit into the writing course.
Week 2
Interview one of three people about their country (England, Canada, Ireland) in order to
write two paragraphs comparing and contrasting two of the countries for homework.
(Appendix ii)
Week 3
Interview one of two people from Wales based on questions formulated in advance.
Week 4
Interview a schoolgirl or a teacher from the UK. Use the information to help you write an
essay comparing and contrasting schools in the UK with schools in your country (Appendix
iii)
Week 5
Chat to a university faculty member based on questions and topics formulated in advance.
Answer their questions about this campus and city.
115
Week 6
Chat to one of three faculty members from the university’s sister campus. Ask and answer
questions.
Week 7
Why do people travel?
Why do people leave their homes to live and work in other
countries? Chat to one of three people who likes travelling and find out more. Report back
to the class.
Week 8
What do you know about weddings in the West? Chat with someone from the West and find
out more about weddings there. Discuss some of the differences with classmates.
Week 9
On-line discussion about using chat rooms as a learning tool.
4.5.2 Technological problems
Before starting the study, the university educational technology experts assured me that
participants based anywhere in the world could be enrolled in the Blackboard course so that
they could interact with the students in the virtual classroom. In week three I tried this for
the first time and arranged for two of my family members based in Wales to take part in a
discussion with the students. The chat room function did not actually work off campus so
the discussion did not take place as planned. The students e-mailed their questions to the
116
guests instead but due to unexplained reasons, the majority of their messages never reached
the guests and the data were lost.
In week four, I had arranged for two other family members to be interviewed by the
students. Even with technical assistance, I was still unable to use the Blackboard chat room
function from outside the university. I was reluctant to cancel the session as I was sure that
students would enjoy meeting the guests based in the UK so I established a free private chat
room using a company on the Internet called CGI Spy (http://www.cgispy.com). I created a
link from the Blackboard site so that students could access it as easily as the Blackboard
chat room. A number of difficulties resulted from this:
•
Students had had no time to familiarise themselves with the slightly different
functions and format of the CGI Spy chat room such as the need to enter a user name
and the fact that the dialogue scrolled downwards instead of upwards as in the
Blackboard chat room
•
The CGI Spy chat room was considerably slower than the Blackboard one and
students became impatient or bored while waiting
•
Pop-up advertisements kept appearing throughout the session which was very
distracting for students. I had no control over the content of these ads so there was a
risk that some of them may have been offensive to students
•
The transcript was not automatically saved for me to analyse later so instead of being
available to assist and observe students as usual, I needed to stay at my own
computer in order to copy and save the data as it was generated. This was an
117
inefficient system and some of the data were lost which was clearly a serious
limitation
In addition to these technological challenges, one of the guests did not arrive at the expected
time.
As a result of this, the students became frustrated at not being able to ask the
questions they had prepared. I attempted to remedy the situation by encouraging them to
ask me the questions in the chat room anyway telling them that I would e-mail their
questions to the guest after the lesson had finished.
After two unsuccessful attempts at chatting with native speakers based in the UK, I decided
to use only volunteers based in the university which meant that I could use the Blackboard
chat room and also ensure that the guests were well prepared and arrived on time.
4.5.3 Data collection methods
I used eight data collection methods which I will detail in this section.
1. Pre-course questionnaire
I gave the students a pre-course questionnaire (appendix iv) to establish demographic
information. The questionnaire helped me to have a better understanding of the students
prior to the chat activities and also helped during the first interview as it meant that I did not
need to start with “cold” questioning (i.e. asking questions that students had not had time to
think about). The demographic information I established was as follows:

Age
118

Lengthy of time enrolled at the university

Whether student was taking course for first time or was repeating

Student’s Internet experience

Keyboard skills

Chat room experience in Arabic and English

Blackboard experience
2. Interview 1
I chose interviews as one of my main methods of data collection as I felt the students would
be more honest with their feelings and opinions and it would be easier for the students to
manage than writing responses to open-ended questions on questionnaires.
I had also
piloted this type of interview technique when conducting previous research in 1999 and
2000 with reasonable success. Radnor (1994) pointed out that interviews allow researchers
to make assumptions based on emotions, values and beliefs of the participants which suited
the question I was investigating. The interviews with students and the teacher were semistructured and open ended.
I interviewed each student after the activity in week 2 using a semi-structured approach in
order to allow for spontaneity and flexibility (Miller, 1994; Zafeiriou et al., 2001). The aim
of the interview was to encourage the students to describe their learning experiences and
perceptions of the activities. This was a form of introspection where the learners were
encouraged to examine their behaviour and thought processes and provide a first person
narrative of their experiences. In order to ascertain this information, I used questions like
the ones below but taking the lead from the students in order for them to discuss issues
important to them. I was conscious of phrasing the questions in such a way as not to be
119
leading. Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) discuss the use of first person narratives by language
learners as an approach being adopted by an increasing number of second language
acquisition (SLA) researchers.
Pavlenko and Lantolf note that first person narratives
constitute a “rich, compelling, and informative source of evidence about the process of adult
second language acquisition” (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000:158). First person narratives are
further discussed in a review by Kozulin (2002). He makes the point that such material is
often marginalised in SLA research as “anecdotal”, but such data should not be neglected
because they can help SLA researchers to “understand SLA and practice as meaningful
components of the development of human personality” (Kozulin, 2002:143).
Prior to the interviews, I had identified incidents that had occurred during the chat activity
that I wanted the participants to discuss. If these were not naturally mentioned by the
student, I would ask a direct question. Radnor (1994) refers to these kinds of questions as
“pick ups”. Some examples of interview questions are as follows:
•
Why did you ask that question in the chat room?
•
What do you mean by this sentence?
•
Why did you use these words?
•
What did you do when you didn’t understand?
•
Why did you re-phrase this?
•
Does “chat” help you to learn English? Why / why not?
•
How could you improve next time?
•
Did you learn any new language? What was it?
•
Did you work with the other girls? How?
Appendix v provides a complete transcript of one of the first interviews.
120
3. Observation
The observation technique I used was participant observation. Participant observation is
when the researcher immerses him or herself into the setting, and as I adopted the role of the
teacher during each chat session, this was certainly true. This observation approach enables
the researcher to experience the setting as a whole. The subjects provide the perspectives by
engaging in an interactive process (Sherman & Web, 1988). Researchers adopting this
technique usually take copious notes, often in the form of analytic memos and journals,
during and immediately after the activities about whatever they observe and experience
(Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991).
I observed the physical space while each of the nine chat activities were in session and noted
down what was happening. I noted anything I found interesting such as the use of spell
check, dictionaries and thesaurus; working with a friend; thinking aloud; making notes;
making visible inferences; asking questions out loud; and using the Internet. My notes were
not extensive as it was difficult to witness everything that was happening with all ten
students particularly as some of them preferred to sit with their computers facing away from
me so that I could not see the screen without disrupting them. In addition, conversation
between students usually took place in Arabic which I was unable to understand. At times I
asked them to translate for me (which they happily did) and at other times made a note of
when these conversations took place in order to investigate them further during the
interviews that followed by asking questions such as “I noticed you discussing something
with your friend at this point, What were you talking about?”
121
4. Chat room data
I saved the transcripts generated during each of the nine sessions to identify patterns or
examples of autonomous behaviour or strategies. I also referred to the transcripts during the
interviews in order to probe why students were adopting certain behaviour. The transcripts
formed a useful reminder to students of the conversation that had taken place. Some
researchers base their assumptions solely on the analysis of chat transcripts. This would
have been unsatisfactory in this case as it would be easy to draw numbers of conclusions
from the same interactions. I do not report findings from the chat room data without first
validating them with the students themselves. An example of a complete chat room
transcript from week 8 is provided in appendix vi.
5. Interview 2
Between weeks 6 and 8, I interviewed each student a second time either individually or in
groups of two or three about their experiences in the chat room. I adopted a group discussion
approach based on the recent successful experiences of other Ed.D. candidates and it proved
to be an effective way of obtaining information as the students were less inhibited and were
able to help each other express ideas. This may of course have had limitations in cases
where dominant students could have influenced others during the sessions.
Once again, I used examples from the chat transcripts and my observation notes to
encourage the students to discuss their actions and perceptions. During the course of the
interviewing, I discovered the technique of asking questions about third parties for example
“What did the other students think about X?” and “Someone told me Y, what do you think?”
122
This often provided students with additional opportunities to share their opinions and
observations without incriminating themselves. Generally, in the second interview I asked
similar questions to the first interview with some additional ones including but not limited
to:
•
You told me last time that you thought X, do you still think that?
•
Do you think your chatting has improved? How?
•
How could your chatting be improved?
•
Would you like to continue using this method in the future?
An example of a complete second interview transcript is given in appendix vii.
6. Artefacts
The term “artefact” covers materials that could be used as data such as photos, budgets,
diaries, videos, tools, nonverbal actions, newspapers, grades and test scores (Patton, 1990).
In this case the artefacts were examples of students’ work completed either before or after
the chat activities.
I gave students a handout relating to the task each week which included the aims of the
activity, technical instructions and photographs of the guests (see appendix ii and appendix
iii for examples of tasks). In some cases, I required students to do a written exercise as a
follow-up to the chat activity for homework and in some cases, I asked students to answer a
few simple questions following the activity in order to reflect on what they had learned – in
some cases this was done orally. I kept all of these artefacts for analysis in order to give me
additional insight into the thought processes involved during the sessions themselves and
evidence of transfer.
123
An example of a piece of student work completed after a chat session is given in appendix
viii
7. End of course questionnaire
During the final class with the students in week 9, I distributed a questionnaire (appendix ix)
which gave them a final opportunity to offer opinions and insights they had about the chat
activities. All of the transcripts were spread out on a large table in the classroom and I
encouraged the students to examine them to refresh their memories on the tasks that had
taken place over the previous eight weeks. The responses to the open-ended questions
initially tended to be limited to a sentence or less. I encouraged the learners to expand on
their answers either in writing or to me privately there and then.
8. Interview with the class teacher
The interview with the class teacher took place in week 5. Firstly, I was interested in his
perceptions on how the sessions were going and whether they appeared to be beneficial.
Secondly, I was interested in his observations of how the students participated in the chat
room compared with how they were in a regular face to face classroom. The teacher was
also present in the room during all but one of the nine sessions and I was able to get insights
and feedback from him informally throughout the study which influenced the direction of
my questioning during interviews and the tasks I created or we created jointly.
124
4.6 Data analysis
I transcribed each of the recorded interviews and sent a copy to the interviewee by e-mail. I
encouraged all of the participants to change anything they wanted to or to add further
information. The idea was to get a complete account of the participants’ opinions in order
for me to be able to represent their voice as accurately as I could (Cohen & Manion, 1985).
The comments I received were few in number. I began to conceptually code the transcripts
and other data as a whole as soon as they were completed. I also did limited sentence and
paragraph level analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This not only helped me to ensure that I
could make improvements on my interviewing technique for the next interviews, it also
helped me to identify key concepts early on in the data collection which gave me the
opportunity to probe the concept with interviews that followed. I naturally formulated
hypotheses throughout the process but modified them as new data was analysed according to
Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) approach.
Once all of the interviews had been transcribed, I carefully examined all of the complete
transcripts a number of times in order to identify examples of behaviour which would assist
me in creating a picture of what was happening during the activities and the student
perceptions of them. Using the grounded theory “open coding” procedure (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998), I used more thorough sentence and paragraph level coding to identify
extracts from the transcripts which demonstrated particular skills, perceptions or phenomena
and I categorised them and electronically copied and pasted them into new Microsoft Word
documents. Once I had gone through the interview and chat transcripts, and my observation
125
notes, I used an “axial coding” technique also associated with grounded theory (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998) in order to reassemble the data and make connections between the categories
and sub-categories which had emerged during the open coding procedure. Before beginning
the copy and paste process, I allocated each participant a different colour and used a
function of Microsoft Word which allowed me to change the colour of the font on the entire
transcript. This meant that when I started to electronically copy and paste text into different
documents, I would always know who had originally said what.
In addition, I used
distinctive font types to represent interview 1 and interview 2 so that I could easily identify
any emerging patterns over time.
At a later stage when I was writing the discussion chapter, I typed a simplified version of the
interpretations I had made in order to share them with the participants. By doing this I
attempted to maximise validity by soliciting external validation (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). I
was able to check whether the participants agreed with my interpretations and I also gave
them the opportunity to add to anything I had written. I e-mailed a copy of these simplified
findings to each of the students and the class teacher and I managed to secure interviews
with three students. These were students I happened to see and could spare the time. I
found that I did not need to make substantial changes but the exercise did increase my
understanding of certain areas.
4.7 Limitations
There were several limitations to this study and many of them have already been identified
during this chapter, however, I will discuss them all here.
126
I will also discuss what
quantitative researchers might consider limitations and explain why I did not consider them
to be so given the aims of the thesis.
This study could be said to be limited and non-generalisable in that there were only 10
participants. Although I could have collected more data by using, a larger sample, this may
or may not have aided my understanding of the context being studied. I feel that studying
one class in an in-depth way and considering multiple data sources was an effective way of
coming to understand that context well. It was never my intention to generalise so I do not
actually consider this to be a limitation given the scope of the study.
The study took place over only nine weeks. Although this was a sufficient amount of time
to be able to make observations relevant to this thesis, it would have been interesting to
monitor students over a longer period of time to see how familiar they became with adopting
different strategies and possibly becoming more autonomous as learners. Nine weeks was
too short a time to do any before/after comparisons, but this was never the intention of my
research. I do not actually consider this to be a limitation given the scope of the thesis.
Each participant was only interviewed twice over the course of the nine weeks. It is likely
that I could have collected richer data had I conducted more interviews – ideally
immediately following the chat activity so that the experience was fresh in their mind. I
accept that this was a possible limitation, however, I had access to a large amount of data
having only conducted two interviews with each student.
127
The sample was an convenience sample which I discussed in section 4.3. I had no control
over whether the class which was made available to me was a typical class. I am, however,
(based my experience which teaching and researching at the institution) confident that the
class was typical of a first year class in terms of attitude towards learning English, level of
English, exposure to computers and ability to learn autonomously. I do not consider single
class studies to be a limitation when conducting in-depth qualitative research and working
with multiple sources of data including first person narratives. The participants were
appropriate to the research area and I was not attempting to generalise from the results of the
study.
By being a participant observer and conducting introspective interviews and by facilitating
follow-up tasks, I was, of course, influencing the students. I was encouraging them to reflect
on their learning process by my data collection methods and this should be taken into
account. I did, however, attempt to make the follow-up tasks resemble tasks that any EFL
teacher might do during a regular class activity. Equally, the interviews could be argued to
resemble progress discussions that regular class teachers already have with students so that
my research methods were not artificial procedures that students would not have
experienced before. A more positivist study might attempt to measure the extent to which
learners developed autonomous learning behaviour. I was not interested in quantities in this
study, only whether or not autonomous learning was occurring during the sessions. There
was no way of knowing to what extent my intervention assisted in this but this was not the
focus of my research hence I do not consider this to be a limitation.
128
Grounded theory, as a with other interpretative approaches, is sometimes reported to be
“unscientific” and possibly biased. I made every attempt to reduce bias including validating
my findings with the participants.
The fact that some of the freedom was taken away from the learners at the initial stages of
the activity, namely choosing who they work with, could have been a limitation. This act
asserted teacher control in a task where I was trying to encourage learner control and may
have contributed to the learners’ subsequent actions.
There were a number of technical problems which also affected the quality of the data I
collected. The data from week three is very insubstantial and the data from week four is
incomplete.
In addition, learners’ perceptions of the benefits of CMC may have been
affected by the technical difficulties we experienced during those weeks.
During the second round of interviews, two sessions took place as a focus group discussion
rather than a one to one interview. This may have caused dominant students to influence the
others and I may have received an imbalanced report of the students’ perceptions.
Despite these limitations, I was in the position to analyse a substantial amount of data in
order to identify evidence of learner autonomy. In the results section I will present my
interpretation of the key concepts which emerged from the data. I attempt to be as objective
as I can and to represent the view of the participants as faithfully as possible. I have
attempted to control the bias that my own values, culture, training and experiences naturally
bring to a piece of research. Returning to the literature enabled me to read about examples
129
of similar phenomenon in other contexts in order to gain a greater perspective (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998).
130
CHAPTER 5 - RESULTS
131
This chapter will present the results of the data collection and begin to address the research
question:
To what extent does computer-mediated communication facilitate the
development of learner autonomy in a class of first year Emirati female
university students?
By using the grounded theory techniques of open and axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998),
various categories were able to emerge from the data. All of the categories and subcategories presented here supported the central theme of learner autonomy. I define learner
autonomy as a learner’s ability to take control of his or her learning. In order to be able to
do this, the learner must have an awareness of the purpose of the task in relation to learning;
an ability to prioritise and organise learning, an ability to draw on various strategies in order
to fulfil a task, an ability to reflect and initiate improvement, and the willingness to take
risks and push the boundaries of previous experience.
The following sections will
investigate the extent to which the learners in this study were able to do these things in order
to answer the research question.
Before I discuss how the results are presented, I need to emphasise that the focus of the
research was to look at the extent to which CMC interaction appeared to promote autonomy
in learners. I will not be focussing on how the students performed during their regular
English classes. Some comments made by the students’ class teacher during my interview
with him in week 5 however do provide useful background information to this results
section. The following statements are direct quotations and refer to the way in which the
learners normally behaved in his classes:
132
I wouldn’t say that any of them, in terms of English and the
way they apply themselves to English, are independent
They are not that motivated. They take what they are given in
the class. And they are motivated by the fact they have to pass
the level but they’re not intrinsically oriented towards English as
a second language and I think that’s true of the class because I
would see more involvement from them. I hardly ever get a
question. No enthusiasm for the language or anything like that.
In order present the results coherently and relate them to the research question above, I used
the emerging categories to develop three sub-questions. These sub-questions are as follows:
1. What were the participants’ perceptions of the activity as a learning opportunity?
(Section 5.1)
2. How did the participants manage and organise the learning activity? (section 5.2)
3. How did participants demonstrate metacognitive awareness? (section 5.3)
This section will present examples from the data to address the sub-questions. I have drawn
on the interview data, the chat transcripts, the artifacts, class observation notes and final
questionnaire to present my interpretations. I will use the following fonts throughout the
thesis to represent different types of data extracts:
Extracts from the chat transcripts
Examples of participant quotations from the transcribed Interviews
My comments and questions from the transcribed interviews
Extracts from questionnaires
At times I will add my comments or qualifying words in brackets in order to compensate for
poor language skills so that the reader can understand the speakers’ (probable) intention.
133
5.1
Sub-question 1: what were the participants’ perceptions of the activity as a
learning opportunity?
It is helpful to seek the learners’ perceptions when attempting to describe a learning
experience and a large part of my data collection focused on this. What became apparent
early on was that all of the students taking part in the study perceived the chat activities to
be useful for learning English. According to Toyoda (2001), if students perceive a tool to be
an effective one, this will have a positive influence on the development of learner autonomy.
By examining how the students perceived that the tasks helped them is useful for
understanding their degree of learner autonomy as it is an indicator of their awareness of
ways in which they have control over their own leaning.
I will take the opportunity to present some of the results of the final questionnaire in
appropriate places throughout this section as it serves as a useful summary of students’
overall perceptions of the tasks. Nine out of the ten students were present for the final class
where they completed the questionnaire (appendix ix).
Other data – particularly the
interview data provides additional depth to the analysis of this theme and will also be
presented at relevant points throughout this results chapter. There were two main sub
categories connected with students perceptions: enjoyment (section 5.1.1) and perceived
benefits for learning (section 5.1.2).
134
5.1.1 Enjoyment
From my observations, I could see that the students clearly enjoyed the weekly classes.
They told me this informally both inside and outside of class and often asked their teacher
when I was next coming. It was also one of the first things that students mentioned during
the interviews.
Khaseibah shared this with me during our second interview:
I think they [the students in the class] love this class you know why?
Because the whole week we take classes and classes and classes
and in this class we stay in the computer…. talk together … it’s like a
computer class and we like computers so we love this class
Don’t they feel they want to writing or more serious stuff?
All of us hate writing really
A few students explained how they appreciated having some freedom from time to time.
Suhaila was very vocal in explaining how they have very little freedom normally:
We don’t have freedom to do anything you learn!
Question 1 on the final questionnaire investigated whether students still felt they enjoyed the
tasks by the end of the semester by asking “Did you enjoy the Classes? Why / Why not?”.
Eight students answered “Yes” and one student answered “No” to the first part. The
students who answered “yes” gave the reasons in figure viii to the open ended part of the
question. (The numbers in the chart represent the number of students who gave the reason.
Some students gave more than one reason).
135
Question 1(b) Why did you enjoy the classes?
Reason given
New method of studying
To get information
Pushed me to participate
Helped me to overcome my shyness
I progressed in English
It was interesting / fun
I used the computer
Frequency
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
Figure viii – Question 1(b) results
The students gave a number of reasons why they enjoyed the task. The key ones were that it
was interesting or fun and that it helped them to progress in English. The three students who
mentioned that it was interesting or fun also mentioned that it helped their English in some
way.
The student who answered “no” to the first part of the question qualified her answer with the
following comment implying that she may have enjoyed at least some of the activities:
Not very much. Because some chating was boring
When the students asked whether they would like to take part in chat activities again
(question 8), all nine of the students answered “yes”.
136
5.1.2
Perceived benefits for English language learning
When I designed the CMC activities to be used in this study, I felt that they held a number
of potential benefits for the students such as an opportunity to interact with a real audience
far more than in regular classes, and this would reportedly activate cognition. The activities,
although scaffolded, were designed to promote a high level of learner control to give
learners the opportunity to explore language, and construct their own meanings. The
activities were designed to promote students’ writing skills through practice with
opportunities to rehearse language and reflect on it before writing their assignment. I was
interested in establishing what benefits (if any) the students perceived there to be in taking
part in the tasks. Question 2 focused on whether the activities helped their English and in
what way by asking “Do you think they helped you learn English? Why / Why not?”.
All of the students said that it helped them to learn English. The following chart (figure ix)
shows the reasons they gave to the open ended part of the question. Once again, the
numbers represent the number of times a student gave a particular reason. Some students
gave more than one reason.
Question 2(b) How did it help your English?
Reason given
Vocabulary
To make questions
Grammar
Spelling
To type fast
Writing
Make sentences
Frequency
5
4
3
2
1
1
1
Figure ix - Question 2(b) results
137
The questionnaire identified that many students perceived the activities to be helpful for
vocabulary acquisition, question formation and grammar. I established during interviews
and informal conversations that they considered these skills to be part of the writing process.
Question 3 forced the students to be more specific about the areas they felt that the activities
supported them in and asked “Which of the following do you think the chat classes helped
you with?”. The students were given a list of options and had to select “Yes”, “No” or “I
don’t know”. Students felt that the chat sessions helped them with most of the skills listed.
The lower scores given to “fluency”, “confidence” and “motivation” could be due to the
words being unfamiliar despite the fact that students were given a translation in Arabic and
an explanation. The following charts (figure x and figure xi) present the results of this
question:
Question 3 Which of the following do you
think the chat classes helped you with?
a. Vocabulary
b. Grammar
c. Spelling
d. Writing
e. Reading
f. Speaking
g. Fluency
h. Thinking skills
i. Confidence
j. Motivation
Yes
No
9
6
9
7
7
6
3
9
5
5
0
0
0
1
1
3
2
0
0
0
Don't
know
0
3
0
1
1
0
4
0
4
4
Figure x – Question 3 results table
138
Total
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
yes
no
don't know
Vo
ca
bu
G lar
ra y
m
m
Sp ar
el
lin
W g
rit
R ing
ea
Sp din
ea g
ki
n
F
Th lu g
in en
kin cy
g
s
C
on kill
fid s
M enc
ot
e
iva
tio
n
Frequency
Question 3 Which of the following do you think the chat classes
helped you with?
Skill
Figure xi – Question 3 results chart
The interview data provided me with more in-depth reasons why the students found chat
useful as a language learning activity. Sections 5.1.2.1 to 5.1.2.3 will present some of the
reasons in more detail. From examining all the data, I established that the main things the
students claimed to learn from chat were vocabulary, content or cultural information, and
writing skills (including spelling, question formation and grammar).
5.1.2.1 Vocabulary
The main benefit that the students cited was vocabulary acquisition. Question 3a from
the final questionnaire (Figure xi above) revealed that 100% of the students felt that the
activities helped them to learn vocabulary. Question 6 asked “Can you remember specific
things that you learned in some of the chat sessions? Look at the transcripts again if you
like”.
139
The following chart (figure xii) shows a breakdown of all of the responses to question 6. The
numbers on the chart represent the number of times a student mentioned it. Some students
mentioned more than one item:
Question 6 – Can you remember specific things that
you learned in some of the chat sessions?
Items learned
Vocabulary
Content information
Question formation
Grammar
Frequency
7
2
1
1
Figure xii – Question 6 results
Seven students gave specific examples of new words they had learned. Each student gave at
least one example of something specific she had learned but students mostly gave examples
of vocabulary they had learned such as the following:
With Mr. Paul
Vocabulary (Flavour – crash – jail)
The interviews gave me more information about how exactly the students felt that they had
learned new words. The following sections (i to vii) investigate this in more detail.
i. Using vocabulary learned in other contexts
Many of the students implied that chat activated their inert knowledge (Whitehead, 1929)
and gave them the opportunity to use words that they had learned in other courses:
we learn vocabulary [in other courses] and we cannot use this
vocabulary but in chat we could use it
I try to use my vocabulary [that I learned before]
140
Warda confidently and correctly used words she had learned in a previous course:
You know this word? We used it in the last module, “Culture”, so I
got it from that
So you remembered it. Did you check your spelling?
No. I think I can write it because I practiced, I did many essays on
culture
Khaseibah also made an effort to use words she had learned in other classes:
we learn many vocabulary but we don’t use it but in chat we think
and use it
Connected with this, students told me that they made the effort to use synonyms or more
varied language to make the language they used more interesting.
it’s funny [fun] to use new vocabulary
Khaseibah gives an example of when she used the word “vacation” instead of repeating
the word “holiday” that the other participants had used:
when I write “holidays” I try to think about the same words like
“vacation” … the same things but we learn
This is how the conversation about holidays read in the chat room. (There were also
unconnected discussions taking place at the same time which have not been presented here):
Khaseibah:
where will you go in this summer?
Guest:
I might go to Germany but the rest of
the summer I will spend working as the
university will be open all summer
Zakya:
you dont have any holiday?
141
Guest:
I have holiday and I will take some time
soon maybe
Zakya:
How many month you will take?
Zakya:
I mean the holiday.
Guest:
I only have 32 days for holiday each year
Khaseibah: what
Khaseibah: harrible [horrible] tourible[terrible]bad thing
Khaseibah: you don’t have aloooong [long]
Khaseibah: vication [vacation]
Another example of a student using more varied vocabulary was given by Nada. She told
me that she made the effort to use more difficult vocabulary when chatting to a native
speaker:
I think when I chat with Arabic person we use easy words but like
yesterday with [the guest] I use difficult [words].
ii. Motivation
Students were motivated by the activity and expressed a real desire to comprehend the
vocabulary being used by the guests and other students:
[I] try to understand this word and that word
Because when [the guests] answer I find difficult
words and use the dictionary and learn vocabulary
iii. Comprehension strategies
In order to comprehend vocabulary used by the guests, the students applied a number of
strategies. These strategies were applied without any encouragement from me or their class
142
teacher. The students demonstrated that they could use a number of strategies when faced
with unfamiliar language. Even during the initial chat sessions, students frequently used an
online English-Arabic dictionary called Papillion or the translation function of Microsoft
word:
If we don’t understand the words, we go to the dictionary
I use a dictionary [Microsoft Word] and Papillion
Students also demonstrated that they attempted to guess unknown words from context:
[It was] easy to read the sentence and understand what they mean
[I] try to understand from the answer and the questions
I understand it because if I read, I can imagine the meaning even if it’s
new for me
Warda learned the word “changeable” from context when the guest used it when talking
about the weather in Ireland. Here is how the conversation thread looked in the chat room:
Guest:
In Ireland, you have to think carefully
about what clothes to wear because the
weather can change a lot in one day.
Maybe in the morning it’s sunny, then it
gets cold and starts raining in the
afternoon, and then sunny again in the
evening!
Warda:
Oh. I see that.It’s changing weather
Guest:
Yes, the weather is very changeable.
Warda identified that she had learned the new word during the interview:
I said “changing”. It’s better if we say “changeable”
143
Guessing from context became more popular than the dictionary translation technique as
time went on as learners found that this strategy did not take them away from following the
discussion itself.
Students continued to ask teachers or their peers for help with understanding unfamiliar
vocabulary. I often heard students speaking in Arabic while they were typing. They told me
that they often asked other students to translate a word from English into Arabic in order to
understand what the other participants – particularly the guests – had written:
Because sometimes we have to know what it is in Arabic and I [do]
not understand. It’s hard for you to continue without understand[ing]
what is the beginning
Many words I don’t understand – I ask.
One student noted that she preferred to find out the meaning without help so that she would
not rely too much on others and would be equipped to cope with a situation where there was
no one available to assist.
iv. Using vocabulary in context
Students mentioned that chat helped them to learn how to use vocabulary appropriately in
context:
it helps us know when we use that word
I used words what she [the guest] used. I used after her. I take a
word she used and I use it
Can you think of any examples?
Celebrate; bride, maybe groom
Why did you do that?
144
Because I want to learn how to use it
v. Paraphrasing and avoidance strategies
In some cases, learners were forced to paraphrase or to activate other coping strategies. In
order to make themselves understood when they were unsure of the word or correct spelling,
students demonstrated that they deliberately used alternative vocabulary:
If you don’t remember the word, try to use another word
Why didn’t you write ‘tourist attractions”? Why did you write
“places” instead?
I didn’t remember the word for this [attractions]
I should write here “official language” but I don’t know how the
spelling. (the student had written “main language”)
Students also mentioned that if they had nothing to say about the topic under discussion,
they would change the subject or ask a question which enabled them to use language that
they were more familiar with. In addition, students commented that if they were given the
topic in advance and some preparation time, it was useful to be able to prepare questions in
advance and learn some connected vocabulary.
[If you can’t think of what to write] change the type of
questions [or] the topic
vi. Noticing
There were several obvious instances of ‘noticing” taking place during the sessions with
regards to not only individual vocabulary items, but to lexical chunks and collocations.
145
Some students made the connection between words used in the chat rooms by the guests and
ones they had heard or seen in other contexts. For example, Warda saw the word “sweater”
and although she had never seen it written before, she recognised that she had heard it before
in another context:
I know it from movies
Khaseibah was able to make the inference that PD stood for professional development
because she had learned in another class that USA stood for the United States of America
and that UK stood for the United Kingdom:
when you write “United States”, you write US, we know it’s United
States. UK – United Kingdom, like that
So you knew PD was professional development?
Yes
Suhaila recognised the word “flavour” from another context:
Do you know what this means - “flavour”?
I think I know that. I see the word on chips “chilli flavour”.
Nada noticed how the words “quite” and “interesting” can be used together:
“Quite interesting”. I know what means “quite” and “interesting” but the
two words together I know how to use it.
Warda started using the expression “I just login now! Hi every body” in week 5 which she
had clearly noticed during the previous chat session which used an alternative chat room and
146
automatically introduced each participant to the room with the same expression “I just
logged on! Hi everybody”.
vii. Active learning
Finally, students mentioned how they were able to remember the new words - by noticing
how they were used in sentences and also by keeping vocabulary note books:
[I] don’t forget it because she [the guest] put the word in a sentence
and so we don’t forget
when I get I home, to not forget I put [the new words] in a book
5.1.2.2 Content or cultural information
When asked for specific examples of things they had learned from the chat activities
(question 6 on the final questionnaire), two students gave examples of content or interesting
information they had learned such as the following:
I Learned that the Canadian ask just 50 person to arrive to the
wedding
During the interviews I encouraged the students to tell me what they had learned. Everyone
mentioned a mixture of language items and content information. The content was almost
always connected with learning about different cultures and making comparisons with their
own culture. The cultural issues they discussed during the interviews included: family life,
festivals, weather, transportation, language, food and religion even if the task did not focus
on these issues.
147
I like to know about foreign people who live in another country – not
Arabic. To know how they live because I like that very much. I like
to know how they live, what they eat, what is the weather, what
they do. I like it very much.
What did you learn yesterday?
About language and traditional food – potato I think- and about the
weather!
[I learned] about the weather. And about how it effect the clothes
I will [wanted to] know about transportation - how people go to
school. By bicycle!
I learn[ed] from different culture and about her celebration and I know
more about this lady
A few of the students felt that it was interesting to learn more about foreign people:
it will be good to know more people and the life style for these people
and how do they think
We want to know anything about foreign people … we just know about
Arab … in school from Egypt, from Syria, we only know this country.
Foreign country we don’t know
Some students expressed that they could not understand why someone would want to leave
their own country to live and work abroad:
[I wanted to know] why he chose [to] work here [and] not in Canada
and why he left her [his] country, maybe he like[s] travel, I don’t know.
[I] don’t want to be abroad. When I go to another country I miss UAE.
We love UAE. It’s our country we love [the] desert and everything.
Students mentioned that you cannot easily get this kind of anecdotal information from the
Internet:
148
about the family. For example the relationship in the family. And the
festivals because I don’t have [much] information and I tried to get it
from the net – websites. But they don’t have [anything].
Because we don’t have to take a lot of time to research and to find. If
I have any questions, I can ask the people who talk with us and they
will answer the questions.
The students were also interested in the opinions that foreigners had about the UAE:
We talked about opinions of the UAE
I want[ed] to know the reason she came to the UAE and what they
think about the UAE
Students demonstrated their lack of awareness of social norms in the West on a number of
occasions. On one occasion, Suhaila asked a Canadian male guest whether it was normal to
have more than one wife in Canada as it is in the UAE and was shocked at the response.
he say [said] “if a man has two wives they will put him in jail”
Did you know this before?
No! I had no idea.
Other examples of this occurred when a group were discussing weddings. The following
questions were put to American guests in the chat room by different students:
Do you married your husband in love?
(Did you marry for love?)
You most have nny health exam beafore married?
(Did you have to have a health exam before marriage?)
do u celebrate with ur husband?
(Did you celebrate the wedding with your husband?)
149
From a western perspective, these may seem like inappropriate questions to ask, however,
they were genuine questions based on the students’ experience of the world and wedding
practices in the UAE. In the UAE, the majority of marriages are arranged by the families so
marrying for love is only something they may have read about or seen on television. The
student who asked this question went on to explain to the guest in the chat room how she
had met her fiancée:
His mother know[s] my family and she sew [saw] me in
the [a] wedding and she like[d] me
The second question about the health exam was, again, a genuine question. Couples in the
UAE are required to take a genetic compatibility test before marriage as it is common for
marriages to occur between first cousins which can result in offspring suffering from
disorders such as Thalassiemia.
The third question about the wedding celebrations was another example of the students
wishing to compare practices in the West with their traditions. In the UAE, weddings are
segregated by sex. One of the students explains that a mixed wedding would not allow
people to relax and enjoy themselves:
in [a] wedding they want to feel happy [comfortable]
with ather [other] people
The activity relating to weddings was by far the most memorable and meaningful to the
students and allowed them opportunities to reconstruct their views of the world. Possibly
because they were at an age where that was most relevant to them or perhaps because they
150
knew a little about western weddings already from foreign films. I asked some of the
students about this during the interviews and, again, they appeared to want to make
comparisons between the UAE and the West:
She make[had] a celebrat[ion] after the wedding and I tell her we
also, we make [have a] celebrat[ion]!
We all knew something that was different between here and there.
We like this and learned something new.
because weddings are different for Islamic [people]
Presenting some of the results of the final questionnaire at this point supports my
assumption that the session about weddings was the most popular one. Question 4 asked the
students to say which chat session was the best and why. Students mentioned a variety of
sessions. Eight students mentioned one specific chat session and one student mentioned two
sessions. There was no apparent pattern except that two of the guests who had been invited
to talk about weddings received five out of the ten votes between them. The reasons the
students gave for particularly liking the given sessions are detailed in the chart below. The
numbers on the chart (figure xiii) represent the number of times a student mentioned it:
Question 4 Why was this chat session the best one?
Factor
Interesting / fun conversation
My questions were answered
The guest was nice
It was useful for learning
Frequency
8
1
1
1
Figure xiii – Question 4 results
Question 5 asked “Were there any chat sessions that you didn’t enjoy so much? Why not?”.
Seven out of the nine students mentioned a session that they did not enjoy so much. Four of
151
the sessions mentioned took place in week 7 and were about travel and migration. Two
students said that there were none that that they did not enjoy. The main reasons given for
not liking the sessions were “I don’t know” (3 mentions) and “it was a boring conversation”
(3 mentions). The following chart details the reasons that the students gave. The numbers
on the chart (figure xiv) represent the number of times a student mentioned it:
Question 5(b) Why didn’t you enjoy that chat session so much?
Reasons given
Boring conversation
I don’t know
I had to wait for answers
The students didn’t talk much
It was like a private chat
There was no content
Frequency
3
3
1
1
1
1
Figure xiv - Question 5 results
Writing skills
Apart from vocabulary acquisition, students mentioned other ways that they perceived the
activities to help them with their writing skills. In question 2b on the final questionnaire,
students mentioned that chat helped them with forming sentences and questions, with
spelling and with grammar. All of the students were able to list the ways in which they
thought chat helped their writing but were usually unable to elaborate on how it helped their
writing to develop. The responses tended to be limited to ones like the following:
I learn English and how to write the questions and grammar. And
Vocabulary
We help our spelling and how to put the questions and answer the
questions and….. grammar
152
The main aspects mentioned were that the chat activities helped the students to form
questions and also that it helped their grammar. During the interviews, most of the students
mentioned that chat helped them to form better questions in English. The activities were
likely to be the only times they had had the opportunity to form questions for an authentic
audience which might explain this view.
As their class teacher pointed out during my
interview with him “I think it’s good for their confidence… they get a response from … a
native speaker”. Perhaps the students felt that if they were able to get a response from a
guest, their questions must have been formed correctly:
I think how to make questions and [guests] answer me
Some students mentioned that they were able to practice the language they learned in their
writing and grammar classes:
I study now in writing. We … practice how to put the sentence with
verb and subject
There was evidence that what they saw in the chat sessions could help them in other classes.
Zamzam claimed that she paid particular attention to the grammar that the other participants
used so that she could use it in her grammar classes:
sometimes when I see some questions I try to… remember and use
in grammar [class]
A closer examination of the transcripts showed that although the learners perceived
themselves to be forming better questions, very few of the questions they formed actually
were one hundred percent accurate. During interviews and follow-up activities, they were
153
often able to reflect on what they had written and correct their mistakes without much help
from me. The main reason cited for the frequency of mistakes was that they considered
communication as more important than accuracy. I discuss this further in the section on
prioritisation (section 5.2.1). The majority of their questions were perfectly easy for guests
to understand, despite their inaccuracies. I did not perform an in-depth error analysis of the
chat data because I did not need this kind of information for the research question I was
investigating, but it might be helpful here to give examples of some of the more common
errors that students made:
•
Problems with verbs and verb forms:
are you agree with them
Do you know how to skiing
•
Omission of the plural marker “s”:
How many language do you know
•
Omission of the verb:
What your favourite food?????
•
Noun form mistakes
Is there any traditional and popular music in Irish
•
Spelling mistakes or typos
Waht is your opinion bout UAE
did you like japanes people?
•
Pronunciation confusion (usually p/b):
what is your favorite hoppy
154
In addition to the above, many questions had inaccuracies with punctuation such as missing
question marks, commas and capital letters.
5.1.3 Summary
The data suggests that students perceived the chat activities to be enjoyable and a helpful
tool for learning.
In particular, students felt that chat helped them acquire and use
vocabulary, learn interesting information about other cultures, and develop skills for writing
such as spelling, question formation and grammar.
This data assists in answering the
broader research question as it highlights students’ awareness of the learning process. It
shows examples of instances where learners demonstrated autonomy when learning and
using vocabulary, making meaningful connections between different cultural contexts, and
demonstrating awareness of the writing process.
5.2
Sub-question 2: how did the participants organise and manage the learning
activity?
The second sub-question investigates the extent to which learners were able to organise
themselves, prioritise, collaborate, apply information, and take responsibility.
This second sub-question investigates learners’ organisational skills and how they were able
make decisions about completing learning activities. I feel that this concept contributes to
the understanding of how autonomous a learner is because it shows whether the learner is
exerting control over an activity and over his or her learning.
155
The activities used in this study always contained a “warm-up” task which served to
orientate the learners to the aims of the task and provide some scaffolding. This frequently
involved pre-learning relevant vocabulary, understanding the handout and learning a little
about the guest or discussion topic. In most cases, I put the learners into groups to do this
warm-up activity before they logged into the chat room. Once the actual chat activities
started, the students were given no help in how to organise themselves to ask questions,
write accurately, follow the dialogue and complete the task, although they were free to ask
myself or the class teacher (or their peers) for help at any time. During the chat activities,
learners demonstrated prioritisation skills which I will discuss in 5.2.1. They also chose to
collaborate on a number of occasions which I will discuss in 5.2.2. Section 5.2.3 will
present information which gives a greater understanding of the extent to which learners were
able to apply information to complete a task. 5.2.4 will investigate the degree to which
learners took responsibility for the management of the activity and finally, 5.2.5 will show
examples of when students took risks with their learning.
5.2.1 Prioritisation
The students showed that how they followed the chat discussion was not random. They
demonstrated prioritisation skills firstly by being selective of the chat text they read if time
was short. Students tended to read their own questions and answers that related to those
questions before anything else. The following are extracts from interviews with different
students that demonstrate this:
156
I read only myself [my dialogue contributions] because I can’t follow
other students
I ask and read – not students’ sentences, my sentences and the [guests’]
answer to get information… if I read everything, I cannot pay attention
I see, so you don’t read what the other students write
Which things did you read?
Of course my questions and his answer
Students indicated to me that they wanted to read all of the text:
In the discussion you have to know what is said
Students planned ways in which they could read all of the text. Some students would go
back and read text they had missed once they had finished writing:
Did you have time to read it all?
No. When I can’t read it, when I stop writing, I see it.
Many of the students accessed the transcripts after the sessions were finished so that they
could read the parts they had missed.
Did you read everything?
Yes – later. I opened Blackboard in my home
Although all of the students felt that it was important to check their work, they often did not
pay attention to accuracy as they felt that reading what their friends were writing was more
important:
157
I read my friends’ questions but sometimes if she [is] fast I don’t have
time to see if my typing it’s ok or not
I look [at] what my friends write because I don’t want to write what
they wrote before.
Students generally felt that communication was more important than accuracy in a context
where there was such limited time:
If I check my mistake I will take time and I will not talk a lot. I need to talk to take
information. If I check everything maybe it will take time and maybe it will be boring.
You want to talk now – not to check spelling or another thing. You can do it next time.
Although students felt that it was more important to type a response or a question quickly,
even though it may have meant that they had not checked it for mistakes, the fact that they
read their questions again after posting them indicates that they wanted another opportunity
to check for accuracy and make amendments if they felt that the audience would not be able
to understand it.
Students usually waited to get a response to their questions before posting an additional
question:
He answered and I make a question for this answer and I have to
make sure he finished and [then] I make a question.
Some students felt that they needed take notes while the chat session was in progress but this
meant that they had to take a break from typing:
158
Here I didn’t type because I read. I read and I take notes
5.2.2 Collaboration
During the initial chat sessions, the classroom was quiet and students worked alone.
Students started collaborating more with each other as time went on. Whereas the questions
that the students asked the teachers were almost always about vocabulary, students began to
rely on their peers for help with forming questions, checking for errors and even dividing the
work.
During the interviews, many of the students mentioned that they asked their friends to check
their work before they posted it as this extract suggests:
After I write, I ask my friend
Their friends also generally notified each other of mistakes as they noticed them like in the
following example:
Suhaila told [asked] me “What’s mr reading?”
As well as speaking out loud to each other, students also pointed out mistakes or asked for
clarification in the chat rooms themselves like in the following excerpt:
Sorry, what are you maining? [meaning]
Two students recognised that they experienced difficulty with asking questions and reading
all of the responses. In week seven, they devised a system to deal with this which was to
work collaboratively - one of them would type the questions while the other one took notes.
159
She said to me “you ask her and I will write”
[it’s] difficult to write and take notes
During one of the chat sessions in week six, the three students decided to organize the way
in which they asked the questions and do it on a turn-taking system so that the guest would
not be bombarded with questions at the same time. The students felt that they would be more
likely to receive replies to their questions that way.
ask each girl one question [in turn]…1 2 3 - 1 2 3
Students often turned to their peers involved in the same chat session for advice on what
questions to ask and how to phrase them.
She asked me “what will you ask?”
I said to her “You [can] write about that, give me another thing
[idea]”
Yes sometimes we discuss about – in the groups we discuss about
what people say, then we make some questions
The students also collaborated with other students taking part in a different simultaneous
chat session. The students told me that the reasons for this were that they wanted to know
what was being discussed in the session they were not involved in:
Because we like to discuss what they [the guests] say
By learning about the content of a simultaneous discussion, students felt that they would get
a head start in doing the follow-up written activity:
I was to compare with two people [for homework]
160
Students also liked to get ideas about what to ask from their friends even if those friends
were not in the same group:
we ask [friends in other groups] what questions we [could] ask
if I don’t know how to write the questions I ask my friends
5.2.3 Applying information
I have already shown how learners were able to apply information from one context to
another in section 5.1.2.1 (i and vi) and in section 5.1.2.3. This section will specifically
focus on the way in which the students used the information they learned in the chat room to
complete the follow-up tasks. Some of the tasks consisted of chatting with a guest to learn
more about a particular topic in order to write a follow-up writing assignment. The tasks
varied from completing a comparison chart, answering a few opinion questions and writing
an essay. Regular activities in the writing class required the learners to read a number of
prescribed articles in order to write either a “compare and contrast” essay or a “cause and
effect” essay. The chat activities were designed to take the place of reading an article. An
example of a completed task is given in appendix viii.
Students were often unable to use the information they learned in the chat room to complete
the task. The tasks were never completed without a substantial amount of teacher
intervention and even then, the tasks were hurriedly done and showed only a basic amount
of analysis even from the more autonomous learners in the group. Some students copied
161
complete sections of dialogue from the transcript into their essays without any paraphrasing
or apparent analysis.
The learners appeared to compartmentalise the activities and associated CMC as the “fun”
part and the follow-up activities as no different from the writing tasks they hated so much in
their regular classes.
It is also helpful to examine the extent to which learners could envisage applying CMC to
other courses in the university. Question 7 on the final questionnaire investigated whether
students thought that chat might be useful in other classes. The answers to this question
were insightful as they allowed me to see whether students could transfer tools to other
contexts which would show a deeper understanding of the cognitive benefits of CMC and
contribute to my understanding of how autonomous the learners were.
The original question was: “Would you recommend that other teachers use chat with their
students? If so, in what way and with which courses?” Seven out of the nine students
answered “Yes” to the first part and the remaining two students answered “I don’t know”.
The following chart (figure xv) gives a breakdown of the courses in which students think
that chat could be used:
162
Question 7(b) Which courses could chat be used with?
Course mentioned
Writing
Grammar
Reading
All courses
Frequency
4
3
2
1
Figure xv – Question 7(b) results
The students had only limited experience of university courses and did not mention any
general education or majors courses which they would one day be part of. Most mentioned
writing or grammar which is an area closely associated with writing in their experience.
This was also the only course they had used chat with. In question 9 the students were asked
“Do you have any other comments or suggestions?” and 5 students had no further
comments. Three students gave positive comments such as “It’s a really good idea”; and
one student gave a suggestion that it would be interesting to chat with people from outside
the university in future such as representatives from local companies.
5.2.4 Taking responsibility
During the initial chat sessions I set the chat discussion topic as I suspected that the students
were not ready to take such responsibility. Students required considerable support with
preparing for the chat activities. There was a large degree of freedom within the topic for
example “learn about a new country” gave learners the opportunity to investigate a large
number of aspects of the country. However, they seemed unused to having the freedom or
the confidence to decide on the extent to which they could participate and in what capacity
163
and tended to use examples I suggested or ask the same kinds of questions as their friends.
In weeks 5 and 6 I did not select a topic for them and the result was that the discussions
tended to be predominantly familiar “safe” topics and they probably learned or discussed
very little that was new to them. In week 7, I reverted to setting the topic myself in
consultation with the learners as I felt that the learners were not being stimulated enough
when it was left “open”. During the interviews, all of the learners expressed that they
preferred activities where I set the topics. These interview extracts show how they felt more
comfortable being given a discussion topic by me:
If I will be free, I will be confused. What I will ask, what I will answer?
[if the teacher sets a topic in advance] I know what I will do, ask and talk about
Is it better if I say the topic or if you decide the topic?
I don’t know. I don’t know topic. If you give us topic, that’s ok.
It’s better [for teachers] to organize what to do. It will help us. in general we
don’t have questions and students want to ask another thing.
One of the more autonomous students mentioned that she liked the freedom to decide on the
topic for discussion:
you give us free if we interest we will write write - write and try to think
Others maintained that the teacher should continue to set the topics:
No it’s better to choose a topic because you know what to ask. If it is a
general topic all students ask another thing.
164
The way in which the warm-up tasks were approached is a good indication of how
dependent the learners were. The initial warm-up activities involved an mixture of group,
individual and whole class activities and tended to involve brainstorming the topic under
discussion, learning appropriate vocabulary or preparing some questions to ask the guest.
Students used their mother tongue when doing group work and frequently asked me to check
the notes they had written to see if they were “correct”. I tried to help them to understand
that there was no one correct answer. The outcome tended to be that once I had elicited
what various groups or individuals (with assistance) had produced and made notes on the
whiteboard, each student would delete her own ideas on the page and replace them with the
“correct” version that the teacher (I) had presented. When I changed this pattern and
avoided writing anything on the whiteboard, often learners would start the chat session with
nothing written on the page at all and unprepared for the chat session.
During these activities, the learners demonstrated to me that they were not accustomed to
planning their own objectives or anticipating an outcome. When students were about to
interview someone based on another campus of the university for example, they were unable
to identify topics to discuss in advance or anticipate what the interlocutor might ask. When I
did not offer as much help as they would have liked, they became uncomfortable and the
resulting conversations lost momentum quickly.
Another area where they did not show autonomy was when completing the follow-up
written work. Although the learners showed a large degree of autonomy when participating
in the chat activities themselves, this was not demonstrated in the follow-up tasks. Where
the task required them to complete some questions or a chart, they needed considerable help
165
from me or their teacher with what to write and how to write it. Often, one student would
ask the teacher for help and another student would copy what she wrote.
The post-chat activities appeared to have been done with minimum thought or engagement
and a degree of reluctance. Students appeared to compartmentalise the aspects of the task
rather than see them as related. Once the chat itself was finished, students were ready to
leave without any kind of follow-up. When written tasks were set as homework they were
not done even though the students recognized that such exercises would be beneficial in
helping them to draw on different sources in order to present their own ideas. One written
homework task was addressed during class time by their class teacher but the majority of the
essays were clearly rushed, ill-thought out and contained a substantial number of plagiarised
extracts from the transcripts. These activities were seen as a “chore” by the learners as they
resembled the kinds of tasks that they regularly did in most of their other classes and were
far removed from the enjoyable chat activities.
5.2.5 Risk-taking
By risk-taking I refer to the students’ ability to seek opportunities for learning outside of
their usual experience.
Before each chat activity, a portion of the class time was devoted to preparing the learners
for the chat itself by giving them time to think about the discussion topic and formulate
some examples of areas they would like to learn about and questions they could ask.
During the initial stages, learners needed substantially longer to prepare and would ask me
166
or their class teacher to check their preparatory notes and pre-prepared questions. As time
went on, students realised that they were free to talk about anything they wanted to and
became more creative with their questioning and did not ask for “permission” to ask certain
questions of guests.
Some students took risks by asking questions which they would not have done in a face-toface context. This extract is from the interview with the class teacher:
Nada ... will ask questions and it doesn’t really matter what she says.
She asks questions and she’s not afraid – more personal questions
When I interviewed the class teacher, I asked him if any of the students had surprised him
with their actions in the chat rooms. He told me that he was very surprised by Suhaila’s
behaviour:
Suhaila, who doesn’t say a word in class - very introverted, seems to
be very extroverted while she’s chatting….the things that she said
were direct!
Suhaila asks questions that she wouldn’t normally ask
I asked Suhaila about this. She told me that she was normally very shy – even at home:
In class I am quiet…. And sometimes in the home!
She told me that even at home she is too shy to ask for things. I asked her why
there was such a difference and she told me that she was shy among groups of
167
more than three people and also with male teachers. Being able to type and
without people looking at her freed her from this shyness.
All of the students told me that they participated more in chat discussions than
they did in face to face discussions. Zamzam explains why that was the case:
It make[s] a person comfortable and don’t be shy – don’t
be afraid about what he [is] doing in the chat. Give him
confidence. Like me – I’m very shy
You don’t seem shy!
In the chat it’s easy to talk. Easy to understand. Easy to
talk to another person who don’t see him before.
Zayana expresses similar sentiments:
I type and I don’t be shy not like speak[ing]
The students who did not take risks themselves, recognised that risk-taking as a good
learning strategy. Some students mentioned that they could learn more if they asked more
searching questions in future:
[next time I will] try to ask many questions like Khaseibah. Khaseibah
will learn a lot
5.2.6 Summary
Looking at the areas of prioritisation, collaboration, application, taking responsibility and
risk-taking addresses the sub-question of how learners managed and organised themselves
during the activities. This in turn assists in answering the broader research question of the
extent to which CMC may be capable of promoting learner autonomy. I have presented
168
evidence to show that learners were able to manage the activities and show autonomous
behaviour in a number of ways such as making decisions about how to prioritise tasks and
collaborate with others in order to gather information more effectively.
Students also
became more creative as time went on and often took risks or behaved differently to the way
they did in a regular classroom. The results also show however that the participants did not
demonstrate autonomous behaviour with regards to taking responsibility for directing and
completing the task and for applying the information learned in the chat conversations to the
follow up tasks.
5.3
Sub-question 3: how did participants demonstrate metacognitive awareness?
This section investigates the extent to which the learners demonstrated metacognitive
awareness. In order for a language learner to be autonomous, he or she needs to engage in a
process of constant reflection in order to initiate action for language development or
improvement. Section 5.3.1 investigates the extent to which learners could reflect on the
learning process and improve their work or participation in the activities. Section 5.3.2
looks at the level of audience awareness that the learners displayed.
As I mentioned in
section 3.1.3, Ellis’s (2000) definition of metacognition is a concept which could incorporate
language awareness, cognitive awareness, social awareness and cultural awareness. This
section examines the first three and it may be useful to refer back to section 5.1.2.2 to see
how learners demonstrated cultural awareness and were able to make comparisons between
their culture and aspects of the guests’ cultures.
5.3.1 Reflecting and improving
169
During all of the interviews, I investigated the extent to which learners reflected on their
progress and what was occurring during or as a result of the chat activities. I asked students
how they thought they might improve their chatting in the future. The results of
investigating this area give an insight into the level of participants’ metacognitive
awareness.
One of the main initial comments from students was that they would like to improve their
typing speed:
Why doesn’t the university teach us typing? Because we want to type
quickly …[and]… without looking
I would like to write [type] quickly but I can’t
By mentioning typing speed, the students were first of all revealing the speed of their
thought processes. They were apparently reading, processing and formulating responses at a
rapid rate and felt frustration when they could not express their responses as quickly using a
keyboard. Secondly, they were expressing the desire to improve in an area which they felt
was outside of their control – the solution as they saw it would be for the university to offer
a typing course for them.
Most students commented on questions they would like to have asked if they had had more
time and they tended to be about the guest’s country or cultural context:
I would ask more questions. About language and religion
Maybe I can to make topics about Canada
170
Not many things. I have to use new vocab. That’s all I think. And add more
questions. Faster questions.
Two students were very specific about how their own or classmates’ questions could have
been improved. They noticed that the focus of the discussion was on the personal details of
the guest whereas the task required them to investigate aspect of the country he came from.
Khaseibah explains this quite articulately during the first interview:
I will compare and contrast between two countries so I need the
religion, the language and the main things about the country and not
the person. Maybe this person is Muslim but the country is Christian or
maybe they are Muslim but this person is Christian. And the language.
He say English. Maybe his mother or his parents are Japanese!
There were some examples of students commenting on how they could improve their
English during the chat sessions but many of them seemed to be automatic responses rather
than thought-out plans as they later did not demonstrate that they had put these plans into
action. Sinclair (1999) would categorise these responses as typical level one responses
within her metacognition model:
… spelling is hard but I will try
I try make a good question to make a good answer
I think that in this time I will use the dictionary
Some of the comments appeared to be well thought-out and specific and students did apply
them in chat sessions which followed.
171
There were very few examples of what Sinclair (1999) would probably categorise as level 2
metacognition. Shamma mentioned during her second interview that she would continue to
chat in English outside of class time once the course had finished:
Sometimes we must use typing chatting with our friends in English.
This is a good idea yes. That way we will improve our English.
There were a number of instances where students demonstrated that they were conscious
that they were reflecting on the process i.e. activating metacognitive thought.
As I
mentioned in the section about prioritisation (section 5.2.1) all of the students would read
their own comments in the chat room immediately after they had posted them and were
usually able to identify mistakes or think about how they could improve. On the final
questionnaire, for question 3 where they were asked to identify skills which chat facilitated,
all of the students ticked “thinking” (see Figures x and xi in section 5.1.2).
During the interviews I asked students what they were doing at particular points during the
activity by asking questions such as “Why did you ask this question?” and pointing to the
transcript. Students constantly tapped their heads or mimed “thinking” to illustrate that there
were deep thought processes being activated during the sessions even if they did not have
the language to express this.
Some students were able to explain how they were thinking while they were engaging in the
chat activities.
I [was] thinking first about the question, and after,…. typing
172
Two of the least autonomous students told me that they would translate from Arabic to
English during this thinking activity:
When you were typing, were you thinking in English or Arabic?
Arabic first and translate
It occurred to some students that the process would be much more efficient if they started to
think in English rather than translating from Arabic so they actively implemented this:
I try to think English not to think in Arabic. [If] I ... write what
words I think in Arabic, how will I write that? I began to think that’s
not good – I have to think English. English words not Arabic
words that will be benefit[ial] for me.
A minority of students realised that they were naturally beginning to think in English:
[in normal English classes] I think in Arabic and then I translate. With
this I read and then reply so we think in English
Three students mentioned that they would sometimes rehearse the sentence
before they posted it either my using private speech (a Vygotskian concept
referring to audible language used by learners which assists their thought
processes and is not intended for communication purposes) or by visualising
the sentence in their heads:
sometime we say the sentence before we write. When you
hear the sentence it’s ok or have something [wrong]
I see the sentence in my mind and I will write it
173
As far as improvement is concerned, all of the students felt that they were becoming more
proficient at chatting as weeks went on. Proficiency for them meant a combination of typing
faster, being more accurate, learning more interesting information and making fewer
mistakes.
Jo:
Do you think you have improved your chatting?
Zayana:
yes
Jo
How do you know?
Zayana:
Because if you see what we did before you will find we
write many mistakes before – spelling, grammar but now
better than before.
Nada:
And now we know many features about another country
Although I did not do a text analysis as this was not the focus of the study, I did not notice
any obvious improvements in the quality of language the students produced in the chat
rooms over nine weeks. If I had done an in-depth text analysis, there would be no way of
determining whether the improvements were due to CMC or other factors. In week 8, some
students claimed that they did not need a teacher in order to know what their errors were –
that they could (and did) do it themselves. Students did, however, learn a good deal of
information that they did not previously know as a result of interacting in a chat room. As I
discussed in section 5.1.2.2, they were also demonstrating that they could relate this new
information to what they already knew of the world.
5.3.2 Audience awareness
174
Examining examples of where learners demonstrated audience awareness is helpful when
trying to determine students’ metacognitive awareness as it gives an insight into the thought
processes that the students were engaged in.
Some students reflected on the message they had just written and considered whether the
other participants would be able to understand it. One example of this is when Khaseibah
posted the following during a chat session in week 5:
Khaseibah:
could you drive a car
Khaseibah:
I mean do you have lacens [licence]
Zakya posted the following text also in week 5 during the same chat session (this was a
section of an extract that I already used to make a different point and can be seen in context
in section 5.1.2.1). It is possible that Zakya noticed Khaseibah posting additional comments
and she decided to do it too:
Zakya:
How many months will you take?
Zakya:
I mean the holiday
During an interview with Zakya, she told me that she posted the second comment in order to
clarify the first one:
Why did you write that?
175
Because here I don’t explain about holiday
I think about it [and] maybe [it was] not very good to ask her. I think before
I write.
Warda told me that she made sure she responded to the guest once he or she had given a
response to her questions. Her responses included the following “realy?” [sic], “thats really
good” [sic] and “oh. I see” [sic]. She told me why she did this and showed a high degree of
audience awareness:
I must show him that I am interested for them. If he feels that he
will, you know, continue with the discussion. He feel they are
interesting so I am interesting [interested]… he feel[s] happy and also
show I am happy for the answer.
There was also evidence of students reflecting on the type of questions they would ask and
whether they were appropriate. This again shows a growing awareness of the audience. The
following extract is a response a student gave me when I asked her why she had not asked a
question she had prepared in advance:
Here is an example of a student who has reflected on her language from previous chat
discussions and recognised the need to write more clearly:
Maybe I [will] try to be more clear when I write words. Sometimes I
write “yup” and “yeah” and when I think about it, I try to write “Yes”.
Why?
Maybe the girls didn’t understand me and they think it’s a new word.
It’s not a new word, it’s “yes”
176
Students also recognised that they could improve their spelling and grammar in order to
be more easily understood:
In future, [I will] chat better. Better to make questions in spelling, in
grammar. We found many mistakes! We [should] read it before we
send.
Although the students often recognised that improved spelling and grammar would make
their chat contributions more comprehensible to guests, they did not generally appear to
apply this in subsequent sessions.
5.3.3 Summary
I have examined the areas of reflection, improvement and audience awareness in order to be
able to comment the extent to which the learners demonstrated metacognitive awareness.
The data presented in this section shows that learners were able to reflect on the language
they used, the process they were engaged in and the impact their words would have on the
audience. They were often able to comment on how they could improve yet did not
formulate plans or put these ideas into practice in subsequent weeks.
In this chapter I have investigated three sub-questions which contributed to my
understanding of the extent to which CMC facilitated the development of learner autonomy
with this group of students. Each of these three questions incorporated the main categories
which emerged from the data. The sub-questions examined the perceptions the learners had
of the activities, how the learners managed and organised the tasks, and examined evidence
177
of metacognitive awareness.
Chapter 6 will present my interpretations of the results
presented in this chapter and address the original research question.
178
CHAPTER 6 – DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
179
6.1 Revisiting the research question
The research question presented in chapter 4 was:
To what extent does synchronous computer-mediated communication
facilitate the development of learner autonomy in a class of first year
Emirati female university students?
In the literature review, I explained an accepted view of learner autonomy as a concept
which ranges across a continuum with dependent learners at one end and autonomous
learners at the other. I highlighted metacognitive awareness as a vital aspect to learner
autonomy and helpful in allowing learners to identify and address their areas of weakness
(Kozulin, 1998). My research question in essence asks whether CMC activities are capable
of moving learners along this continuum and if so, how? In order to be able to answer such
questions, it was necessary to both examine the learners’ evidence of applying autonomous
learning behaviours during the chat activities, and also evidence of their metacognitive
awareness expressed during the interviews.
This chapter contains six sections including this introduction. Section 6.2 addresses the
research question by firstly summarising the evidence of whether the learners were
demonstrating autonomous learning. It also discusses various reasons why the activities
were successful at promoting the capacity for particular aspects of learner autonomy and
why they were unsuccessful at promoting the capacity for others. It became evident in this
study that sociocultural factors were extremely relevant and these will be discussed in more
detail in section 6.2.5. I will also comment on the extent to which the activities were
culturally appropriate to the learner group and what impact that may have had on the
180
learning experience in section 6.2.6.
In section 6.3 I will present some conclusions and
discuss how chat might contribute to the development of metacognition. In section 6.4 I
present two recommendations based on the findings of the study and in section 6.5 I suggest
areas for further research. Finally, section 6.6 presents some of my own reflections as I
worked on this dissertation.
6.2 CMC and autonomous learning
In order to describe whether learners were demonstrating more autonomous behaviour
during the CMC activities than in regular class activities it may have been helpful to have
been acquainted with the chosen class prior to my study. This was not the case, so I cannot
accurately comment on any changes in the learners. Instead, I rely on previous experience
with similar classes, information gleaned during the initial interviews and reports from the
class teacher to make the assumption that the learners would have been placed very near the
“dependent” end of the continuum. However, the aim of the research is not to quantitatively
measure the extent to which a “treatment” changes learners’ abilities to be autonomous; it
aims to describe the learning experience of this class of students in order to comment on the
nature of the learners’ capacity for applying autonomous learning skills while engaging in
CMC activities.
Various parts of the results section helped me to establish whether learners were
demonstrating learner autonomy and I will discuss these in the following paragraphs.
Section 6.2.1 summarises the ways in which the participants appeared to be demonstrating
learner autonomy during the tasks; section 6.2.2 will suggest reasons for this; section 6.2.3
181
will summarise ways in which the participants did not demonstrate learner autonomy; and
section 6.2.4 will suggest reasons for this.
6.2.1 Evidence of learner autonomy
In many ways, I found that the learners demonstrated that they were capable of a degree of
autonomy especially in the areas of prioritisation, applying comprehension and
communication strategies, reflection and transfer. I will discuss them in more detail here.
One of the most striking discoveries of this study was the fact that learners who were usually
described as “passive”, “dependent” and “unmotivated” by their class teacher showed
initiative and enthusiasm for the chat activities themselves. The students demonstrated that
they could interact in chat rooms and have meaningful conversations with guests with very
little assistance from me or their teacher.
They organised and prioritised how they
participated and also applied a wide variety of comprehension strategies. They actively tried
to use new words while chatting and also applied various strategies in order to sustain
conversation. Many of the students experimented with language beyond their usual scope
and often took risks with their use of questions or English in general. Many students noticed
new language used by interlocutors and attempted to use it correctly during the chat session
or in other classes. Some even made a note of it for future reference. All of this was done
with very little assistance from me or the class teacher. We were available to help but
seldom needed to do so.
182
Reflection was also an area which I observed frequently in various dimensions, as did
Harasim (1990) in her observations.
All of the learners frequently reflected on their
contributions to the discussion and were often able to make astute observations as to the
causes of their errors or what they had learned. Each of the learners felt that they were
making progress although they were often unable to pinpoint exactly why. In general,
learners recognised that they were thinking in English rather than Arabic.
As other
researchers found (DiMatteo, 1990; Day & Batson, 1995; Warschauer, 1996b; Warschauer,
Turbee & Roberts, 1996), the participants were developing an improved sense of audience
awareness.
Transfer is the final major area for which learners showed a capacity. Although students
had difficulties with completing tasks associated with the chat activities which I will discuss
later, they did link the information that they learned with the real world by commenting on
differences between their culture and other cultures. The success of the activities appeared
to be directly related to their previous experience and how meaningful the topic was for
them.
6.2.2 Possible reasons for these findings
The following section looks at several possible reasons why learners demonstrated
autonomy in the ways listed in section 6.2.1 above and the role that CMC may have played.
These reasons may have been: intrinsic motivation; opportunities for individualised
learning; a student-centred approach; scaffolding available to students; non-threatening
183
environment; opportunities for interaction with the wider world; and positive student
perceptions of the activities.
Intrinsic motivation
Learners showed an enormous capacity for self-direction during the actual chat activities.
One important consideration for this is that the learners were intrinsically motivated by the
activities, (possibly due to the novelty factor - Skinner & Austin, 1999; Felix, 1999) and
were actively engaged in contributing to and following along with the conversation which is
consistent with the findings of other researchers (Skinner & Austin, 1999; Carey, 1999).
During the early chat activities, learners applied their usual comprehension strategies which
predominantly included asking teachers to define unfamiliar vocabulary. Students soon
learned that while they were doing this, they were likely to miss part of the conversation
which was undesirable, therefore, they were forced to apply other strategies which allowed
them to follow the conversation at the same time. It is possible that they would not have
done this unless they were intrinsically interested in the content of the discussion.
This appears to indicate that despite the learners’ lack of experience with autonomous
learning, they were capable of demonstrating certain capabilities when sufficiently
motivated to do so.
184
Individualised learning
CMC created individualised opportunities for the learners in three ways. It provided the
learners with a Mindtool (Jonassen, 1996; Jonassen, Peck & Wilson, 1999) which allowed
them to interact with the real world in order to discuss personally-relevant ideas.
In
addition, participants selectively learned personally meaningful vocabulary. Thirdly, the
students were able to participate at their own pace which accommodated the different levels
of abilities among students in the class.
The approach accommodated and valued the
contributions of individual participants. These participants had a variety of learning styles,
motivation, experiences and aptitudes yet could all benefit in some way from the CMC
activities.
Student centred approach
Learners appeared to have demonstrated the initiatives described in section 6.2.1 because the
CMC sessions shifted the responsibility for completing the task from the teacher to the
learners
themselves.
Decision-making,
planning
and
self-regulation
became
the
responsibility of the learners, which is how computers should be used according to
constructivist principles (Jonassen, Peck & Wilson, 1999). In addition, learners were forced
to apply new comprehension strategies in order to deal effectively with a new medium.
The nature of the CMC virtual space may have shifted responsibility on the learner and the
students recognised that they needed to organise themselves during the activities. The fact
that students demonstrated prioritisation and decision-making skills was probably due to the
nature of the CMC activity.
In order to follow the main threads of the fast-moving
185
conversation, students quickly realised that they needed to decide which of the entries they
would read. This is in contrast to the way the students typically work on other activities
where they often wait to be told exactly what to do.
Scaffolding
There were several support mechanisms available to the participants within the chat rooms.
These included computerised language support devices such as spell-check, thesaurus and
online translators; other learners; two instructors; the guests; dialogue on display produced
by other participants; and the pre-chat activity worksheet or notes. The various support
devices provided the learners with several forms of scaffolding which could be argued to
assist the learners. The learners were given access to a number of levels of support, so that
they were able to participate without asking the teacher for additional direction.
Non-threatening environment
The risk-taking behaviour that the students employed was also likely to be due to the
medium of CMC. As Hoven (1999:157) reported, learners had opportunities to move out of
their “comfort zones” in order to be effective participants. My findings reflect the results of
other researchers (Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996a; Carey, 1999; Bump, 1990;
Card & Horton, 2000) in that CMC maximises student participation.
Several of the
participants in my study mentioned that CMC was a more comfortable medium for them
than face-to-face conversation. In face-to-face contexts, many of the students are incredibly
shy, especially in the presence of a man, and are often reluctant to say anything at all. The
chat activities circumvented that barrier and allowed them to participate as equals and to ask
questions or discuss topics with international guests. This is something that they had never
186
done before. This has also been reported by other researchers (D’Souza, 1991; Doucette,
1993; McComb, 1994; Warschauer, Turbee & Roberts, 1996) and was likely to be due to the
fact that communication did not require people to look at the speaker which makes some
learners very uncomfortable. Even the students who were not normally shy at interacting in
English in my study felt free to discuss topics that they had never done before without
feeling shame or embarrassment. This may be due to the fact that the barriers in the teachercentred classroom were levelled (Warschauer, Turbee & Roberts, 1996; Chester & Gwynne,
1998).
In addition, as I explained in section 4.5.1, all of the tasks were culturally
appropriate for the students which is likely to have contributed to the comfort level that they
felt in the chat rooms.
A final area to comment on when referring to the non-threatening environment is that
participants appeared to take more initiative in the CMC environment. CMC may have
reduced the traditional conformist approach to learning and the lack of initiative normally
shown due to fear of losing face. CMC may have assisted in lifting the cultural barrier of
risk-taking suggested by Patai (1983).
Although most of my results are consistent with the findings of other researchers, there is
one area which I found to be contradictory. Jonassen (1996) writes that CMC may not be a
comfortable environment for students who have been accustomed to a large degree of
spoon-feeding and consequently, participation may be low. The students involved in my
study were largely spoon-fed prior to attending university and still very dependent in the
second semester of their first year at university, yet felt empowered to participate more than
they normally did in a regular classroom.
187
Interaction among classmates and with the wider world
The fact that learners noticed language being used by interlocutors in chat sessions could be
significant. Several researchers imply that scaffolding is activated in CMC through noticing
(Schmidt & Frota, 1986; Schmidt, 1990; Brett, 1998).
I am not able to make any
comparisons with the extent to which they noticed language in other classes, but the
participants felt that CMC provided them with a window to the outside world and access to
authentic language that real people use outside of the classroom, which is something that
few students at the university experience. The learners were effectively interacting with
domain experts who were native or proficient speakers of English and discussed aspects of
their culture and life. This appeared to be an effective motivator for the students to apply
intentional vocabulary acquisition techniques.
Social interaction plays a significant role in the development of cognition and metacognition
(Vygotsky, 1978) and the amount of social interaction practiced during CMC was
substantially larger than in a more traditional classroom activity. Also, as I mentioned in
section 3.3.7, opportunities to interact in contexts outside the normal scope may be an
effective way of activating inert knowledge (Whitehead, 1929) which appeared to be the
case with the participants in this study.
Positive student perceptions
All of the learners perceived CMC to be a useful learning tool which could have also had a
positive effect on learner autonomy (Toyoda, 2001). The learners in my study felt that they
were progressing; they were learning new things about the world, their writing was
188
improving and that they were making fewer mistakes as time progressed and but they were
not able to identify why this was occurring. Hackman and Walker (1990) discovered that
student attitudes towards learning were enhanced by increased interaction regardless of what
the actual achievement was and this could certainly be a factor in this case. Students were
interacting more than they usually do in English activities and felt positive about their
progress. Ridley (1997) makes the point that self-concept is capable of shaping actual
learning and performance behaviour.
6.2.3 Dependent behaviour
Although I discovered a number ways in which learners demonstrated a capacity for selfdirection, there were other ways in which they did not. For example, they continued to
require substantial assistance with the warm-up tasks completed prior to chatting and also
with the follow-up tasks throughout the nine week period. I found even after seven or eight
weeks that students were still uncomfortable with setting a discussion topic or task focus
themselves, yet they told me during the interviews that they required some orientation to the
task. I gave students a large amount of scaffolding in the initial weeks with establishing
tasks and discussion topics and anticipated that I could gradually dismantle the scaffolding
as learners progressed. The scaffolding from me and their class teacher was assisted by the
design of the tasks which made it clear for the learners to see the aims of the activity, the
relevance to their core coursework and the reason for short warm-up task. Even with a large
amount of support, the learners demonstrated that they were not ready to take that kind of
responsibility and perceived it to be in the realm of the teacher. Eight weeks is very likely
189
not enough time to prepare these learners to take this step and a longer study might have
shown some progress in this area.
Another area where they did not show autonomy was when completing the follow-up
written work. They did not appear to possess sufficient enthusiasm for the follow-up task
and seemed to lack the ability to transfer information from one context (i.e. the chat room)
to another (i.e. the written task).
This could have been due to their previous experience
with the way in which they were taught how to write.
As I found with the previous study on the autonomy of first-year learners, the participants
were very well able to comment on their own strengths and weaknesses. In section 3.1.5 I
listed a number of abilities that immigrant students tend to lack as identified by Kozulin
(1998).
The first one stated that these learners lack the ability to define the problem. I
found that the learners in the study were generally able to define their learning problems
although I was not convinced that they had a full understanding of how to address them or
how they related to language learning in general. It was likely that they did have a good
indication of what they were unaided but it was possible that teachers had already identified
them in other classes. What was interesting was that students did not usually know how
they could address those weaknesses or if they did, they were not motivated enough to
implement an improvement plan. I also found this in my 2000 study. Kozulin (1998)
mentioned that planning is one of the most difficult skills for learners to acquire as they need
to have developed a metacognitive understanding of their cognitive abilities.
Along similar lines, students demonstrated an ignorance of goal-setting in order to progress
in English. Although each of the activities had a preparation stage, learners were eager to
190
get to their computers to begin chatting and I feel confident that had I not insisted on a
planning phase, they would not have initiated it themselves. When I asked the students
during the interviews how they could improve, they tended to give safe or automatic
suggestions which they did not carry out in subsequent weeks. An example of this was when
students mentioned that they would check their contributions before posting them but did
not actually implement this plan. Three students told me that they actively planned to use
vocabulary or grammar that they had learned in other courses, but I was unable to verify
whether that was happening or not. Other students told me that they used more difficult
vocabulary when chatting to a guest than they would if it were another Arabic speaker, but
this may have been due to necessity rather than active planning. Perhaps if the study had
been longer I might have witnessed some implementation. There were some examples of
students demonstrating effective goal setting and follow-up but they were not common and
tended to be made by the same, more autonomous students in the class. Around one half of
the class actively attempted to remember the new words they had learned during the sessions
either by using them or keeping a vocabulary notebook. I was not able to verify this and
they might just have been trying to impress me. I could not determine from the data whether
these small decisions about the individual activities influenced larger decisions about their
learning in general.
6.2.4 Possible reasons for these findings
This section will look at potential reasons for the findings discussed above in section 6.2.3.
191
Familiar classroom arrangements
Students appeared to understand the need for the pre-task warm up activities yet needed
considerable help in performing them.
This behaviour is often typical of the regular
classroom behaviour of the learners in this context. They wait for the teacher to provide the
answer or specific instructions. Interestingly, once the learners were actually in the chat
room, the dynamics changed and they made spontaneous decisions without seeking teacher
approval first.
This consistent observation appears to suggest that when learners are placed within
unfamiliar classroom arrangements, they move away from their traditional classroom
behaviour. This seems to suggest that they do have the capacity for autonomy yet have
lacked the opportunities to demonstrate it as it has been stifled in the course of their
education.
The fact that the learners continued to be dependent during the non-chat tasks might have
been due to the way I facilitated them. I chose the groups and decided how much time
should be allotted to each task as I was conscious of arriving on time to meet the guest and
maximise the discussion phase. Perhaps if I had allowed more autonomy over these areas,
learners may have demonstrated more independence when completing the tasks.
192
Insufficient scaffolding
Learners may have been unable to perform the post-chat activities because they lacked the
scaffolding to perform them. For example, they were required to do many of the post-chat
activities for homework where they did not have the support of peers and teachers available.
The highly autonomous behaviour demonstrated within the chat rooms could have been
partly due to the support available to them at that time.
Low metacognitive awareness
In section 3.1.3 I highlighted that there could be three types of knowledge associated with
metacognition: declarative, procedural and conditional.
The learners in this study
demonstrated that they had a degree of procedural knowledge in that they were able to
identify the types of strategies they were applying.
However, they were not able to
demonstrate that they possessed sufficient declarative knowledge in order to be aware of the
goals of the activities and how they might use it in order to develop their weak areas.
Learners cited the main benefit of chat as being vocabulary acquisition, which does not
demonstrate a particularly deep level of declarative knowledge. Burton (2002) commented
that a group learners of English she was working with in Thailand initially identified
vocabulary as the main learning component of a text analysis activity but showed a deeperlevel of metacognition over time.
Many learners continued to claim that if they became better typists, they would be better
chatters. Although this may be true to a certain extent, it does not demonstrate that the
193
learners had sufficient conditional awareness to be able to assess how they were learning
and how they could take action in order to improve. This is particularly true because typing
skills were seen as something the university should “give” them and not something that they
could develop by themselves. Only one learner (Khaseibah) demonstrated a more advanced
awareness of metacognition by making observations such as that she actively thought in
English because she knew it would help her to be proficient in the language. The same
student discussed how she adopted certain thinking strategies and risk-taking in order to
progress. She was able to determine that increased participation would develop her thinking
and language skills which were necessary in order to progress through the university system.
Another indication of students’ low metacognitive awareness becomes evident when
applying Sinclair’s (1999) model (Figure vii in section 3.2.5). Nine out of the ten learners
would most likely be placed in level 1 – largely unaware. One student (Khaseibah) would be
most likely placed in level 2 – becoming aware or transition stage. They demonstrated that
they did not apply CMC effectively as a learning tool although I believe many of them felt
they did. Blin (1999) noticed that learners who had received learner training would be
more likely to control a tool such as CMC to maximise appropriate learning
opportunities. It was likely that the learners participating in this study had not received
sufficient learner training in order to be able to use CMC to benefit their progress in
language learning in a maximally efficient way.
I explained earlier (see sections 3.1.5) that the learners may experience learning difficulties
when placed in a non-native learning context. I suggested that learners in my context
attending a Western institution within their own country may also be affected. The results
194
from this small study suggest that difficulties learners faced were not unlike those faced by
immigrants experiencing a new educational context identified by Kozulin (1998). Particular
difficulties were planning problem solving actions and integrating separate learning
experiences into coherent schema as they tended to compartmentalise the tasks.
195
Lack of intrinsic interest for English
Although the learners were clearly motivated by the chat activities, their deeper underlying
feelings for learning English were mainly negative as it was something imposed on them in
order to be able to progress through the university system. What tended to happen was that
any activities which did not involve chatting on the computer were avoided where possible
as the default opinions of the language surfaced.
Lack of full integration of chat
In previous courses, I was able to integrate chat into the goals of the course seamlessly
because I saw the learners everyday. In the case of this group, I was limited to one hour a
week in which to prepare for the chat, chat and perform post-chat activities. This was
unsatisfactory as it was usually rushed. Learners were impatient to get to their computers so
did not perform the pre-chat activities satisfactorily. I cited the novelty factor as a positive
factor in the section 6.2.2, however this had detrimental effects on activities which were not
actually chatting. When students saw me they associated me with chatting and any other
activities I did were not able to interest them to the same degree.
6.2.5 The importance of sociocultural context
As I described in the background chapter and literature review, the learners were likely to
have experienced a previous system of education which did not prepare them for the types of
skills required of them in a Western-style university. Although, this was almost certainly
the case with the learners participating in the study, they demonstrated certain capacities for
learner autonomy such as the ones listed in section 6.2.1. This finding, on the surface at
196
least, appears to support the idea that even learners who may lack appropriate experience
with taking responsibility for their learning are not disadvantaged when interacting in a chat
room.
On closer examination, when looking at students’ abilities to transfer information or address
their own language weaknesses by planning and goal setting, the results suggest that the
learners’ sociocultural background could be significant. It is likely that their previous
experience with education was the main contributing factor for this deficiency.
Their
experience with spoon-feeding and rote memorisation did not give them opportunities to
develop the skills necessary for adopting the kind of autonomy expected of them at
university. Their lack of metacognitive awareness resulted in them being unable to use the
CMC activity to their full learning advantage.
This research suggests that chat activities combined with learner training could be useful for
encouraging the learners to begin to take more responsibility for their learning. The chat
activities had the advantage of “freeing” the learners from their previous conception of a
classroom and from the traditional roles of students within them. In a regular classroom they
tend to be passive and overly dependent on the teacher, even at university where a more
student-centred approach is the norm. In a chat room, the traditional rules break down and
they feel free to experiment with a new role; that of a more active, involved learner
responsible for decision-making, prioritisation and independent action. It does not
automatically follow, however, that the learners will suddenly begin to apply metacognitive
thought to the learning situation and become critical learners without some mediation from
their teachers.
197
As I described in the background chapter, the learners are unlikely to have abundant
opportunities to interact with individuals outside their family or educational context. This,
according to Vygotsky (1978) may result in limited opportunities for the development of
cognition through that particular mediator. CMC gave the learners involved in the study one
of their first experiences at interacting with people outside their immediate circle of
acquaintances. Regularly interacting in ways such as this could significantly contribute to
the development of higher-order processing skills.
Part of the success of the chat activities could have been as a result of the students’ limited
opportunities for social interaction outside the home and university. This meant that they
were extremely interested in learning more about other cultures. Perhaps language learners
who habitually have more freedom to travel and interact with the wider world would not
have found these types of activities as motivating as these Emirati females.
The learners felt very comfortable with the medium of chat and were motivated to discuss
aspects of their culture with the guests in the chat rooms. They were also apparently
unafraid to ask naïve questions of the guests about other cultures. Their cultural values are
challenged at times during their university years as the university is modelled on an
American system. Activities such as the CMC ones used in the study could assist in ensuring
that cultural transmission remains intact as individuals are invited to discuss differences in
cultures and construct their own meanings from the discussions.
198
6.2.6 Cultural appropriateness
As I explained in section 2.6 of the background chapter, many cultural issues need to
considered when using CMC with a learner group like the one in the study. It could be
argued that so many constraints need to be applied that the learning environment cannot
easily promote learner autonomy. Section 4.5.1 in the methods chapter listed the constraints
applied in this case. These were as follows: that learners were not in a one-on-one situation
with a male stranger; learners were sheltered from potentially inappropriate discussion
topics; and that the activities were all presented as learning activities. I feel that applying
these constraints did not have a detrimental effect on the development of autonomy but
simply ensured that the learners had a comfortable, unthreatening environment in which to
learn. I feel it would have been more damaging if the students had been offended in some
way or felt uncomfortable with the learning environment as they may not have participated
as fully as they did in this study.
6.3 Conclusions
Learners demonstrated that they could identify some areas of weakness, participate fully in
the chat activities and apply vocabulary comprehension strategies with very little
intervention from a teacher. Students did not show such autonomy when performing the
activities away from the computers. They were able to identify that they were making
progress and able to reflect on how they could further improve. Learners did not however
demonstrate a capacity for addressing their areas of weaknesses or planning either because
199
they did not know how due to lack of metacognitive awareness, or they were not sufficiently
motivated to do so.
CMC does appear to give learners the opportunity to develop autonomous learning habits
such as organisation and prioritisation, application of various comprehension and coping
strategies, risk-taking and reflection. What this study does seem to suggest is that learners
are unlikely to demonstrate higher-order capacities such as planning, and
addressing
weaknesses unless they have sufficiently developed metacognitive awareness prior to the
chat activity.
6.3.1 CMC and metacognition
Although I did not study the issue in enough depth, the data suggests that with time, learners
may develop a higher level of metacognition while using CMC if given sufficient mediation
from the teacher to do so. The following sections identify ways in which higher-order
cognitive skills were possibly being activated as a result of interacting in a CMC
environment.
Intrinsic motivation
The class teacher mentioned that he felt that generally the learners had no intrinsic interest in
learning English. The students were however extremely motivated by the chat sessions.
Each student was actively participating in the activities and this seldom occurred in other
classes where learners apparently appeared passive and did what was required of them but
no more.
200
The class teacher made the observation that perhaps chat could provide the learners with a
motivation for learning the language. I did not witness this with these learners, but it is
indeed what Hackman and Walker (1990) found. Perhaps I did not witness this because of
the limitations of the study. The fact that the students found the follow-up writing activities
a chore and they did not show any visible motivation for English in any of their other classes
demonstrates this. It appeared that the learners were intrinsically motivated to communicate
with others using chat, but this had little to do with the fact that they happened to be learning
English at the same time. Perhaps, with time, the motivation for chat might develop into a
desire for learning English once students were given opportunities to use it in personally
meaningful ways.
Mediation
Chat would be considered to be an example of a device that facilitates the use of language,
which is a psychological tool used to mediate relationships with others.
The learners
participating in this study were given the opportunity to develop their cognitive processing
skills through the use of the chat activities.
This development of cognitive processes
through social interaction may be something that the learners do not have sufficient
opportunities to experience due to social restrictions. According to my interpretation of the
data, each student had a unique experience and was able to comment on specific aspects of
the activities that engaged her and helped her to develop. Perhaps, with time and sufficient
mediation from teachers, this could develop into an increased level of metacognition.
201
Private speech
I mentioned earlier that learners tended to create language in the chat room which contained
a considerable amount of language errors. During the interviews students demonstrated that
they were able to identify and correct the majority of these mistakes and had not done so
during the discussion because they decided that the emphasis should be on communication
rather than accuracy. There were a few instances where students might have been producing
a text version of private speech by typing thoughts as they came to them without editing
them. In cases where sentences appeared on the surface to be expressing simple ideas, the
thought processes which lead to the production of the text were often much deeper and
involved transfer. It would be beneficial to investigate this further in a separate study.
Collaboration and the ZPD
In line with what other researchers have noticed (Day & Batson, 1995), CMC naturally
appeared to facilitate collaboration with these learners. The more proficient learners readily
provided vocabulary, spelling and grammar advice to other students and many learners
naturally worked together in order to complete tasks more efficiently. This appeared to
demonstrate a case where learners were helping each other through the ZPD. They were also
likely to be constructing meaning based on multiple perspectives (Jonassen, 1996).
Collaborative learning, according to Kozulin (1998) forms the basis for concept
construction.
202
Widening the learning context
As Hennigan (1998) found, learners responded well to the fact that the chat activities took
them beyond the classroom. The participants all commented on how they were able to make
comparisons between their own culture and the culture of the guests they met. Indeed,
students appeared to automatically look for comparisons of other cultures with their own.
These comparisons were being constructed by the learners as they were likely to have been
engaged in building their own interpretations of the world (Jonassen, 1997). Nolan (2000)
writes that coming to understand more about one’s own cultural context is vital for cognitive
development.
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
In this section I present two recommendations. The first discusses the need to address
learners’ cognitive and metacognitive skills; and the second examines how teachers could
incorporate CMC into an EFL classroom to enhance the learning experience.
The first recommendation relates to the need to address the students’ cognitive and
metacognitive skills. This should ideally be tackled during primary and secondary schools
but it is too late for learners like the ones in this study. The alternative for them would be
for teachers to incorporate MLE or learner training into their courses so that the learners are
introduced to the set of new psychological tools by means of mediation in order for
cognitive and metacognitive development to occur alongside language learning.
203
The providing of MLE for the learners can be feasibly done with the assistance of a medium
such as CMC. English (1996) found that his learners developed metacognitive awareness by
using CMC as a facilitating tool. The learners in my context showed evidence that some
higher-order thinking was being triggered during the chat activities and these can be
mediated by instructors.
This brings me on to my second set of recommendations: how instructors can incorporate
CMC into classes of similar learners not only to provide opportunities for language
development and learner autonomy, but also to spur cognitive development.
Involve guests from outside
This appears to have the advantage of maximising intrinsic motivation, incorporating the
outside world into the classroom, and expanding the learners’ opportunities for meaningful
social interaction. Teachers should be aware of any potential cultural considerations when
doing this and plan tasks accordingly.
Spend time working with students on goal setting
This study identified that one of the most difficult skills for the learners to demonstrate was
planning and implementing ways that they could improve their English. It is unlikely that
the learners had had many previous opportunities to be involved in their learning, so this
would need to be mediated by the teacher in the initial stages. Setting learning goals in
conjunction with interacting in a CMC environment could promote autonomy while
increasing proficiency in the target language.
204
Help students to plan how they are going to benefit most from the
discussion
One of the things that this study highlighted was the need for learner training in order for the
students to use the tool to actively benefit the language learning process. For example, if a
student identifies that her weakness is understanding new words in context, the teacher
should help her to actively use CMC as a way to practice this. If a student wishes to practice
using a recently learned grammar item, the teacher can help her to plan opportunities for
this. By gradually giving the learners more responsibility and raising awareness of
strategies, language learners are likely to use CMC appropriately as a learning tool as well
as a motivating communication tool.
Do follow-up activities during class time
Although it may be more convenient for teachers to set follow-up activities as homework,
the findings of this study suggest that learners may need assistance working with different
sources of information and transferring information from one context to another.
Completing follow-up tasks in class time gives further opportunities for teachers to promote
reflection and collaboration and also offer scaffolding in order for tasks to be completed
successfully.
205
Integrate CMC into the core curriculum
One of the main disadvantages of the activities used in this study was that they were not
integrated well within the students’ other classes due to logistical reasons. Chat activities
which compliment the other class work could have the advantage of addressing specific
needs and interests of the learners.
Use the transcripts to further promote metacognition
The transcripts can be used in a number of ways in order to promote metacognition. The
following list has been taken from Mynard (2002b:25)
•
The transcripts can be saved to show students how much they are improving
•
The transcripts can be used to identify language mistakes that students frequently
make
•
Students can be encouraged to use the transcripts in order to reflect on their language
strengths and weaknesses
•
Students can be encouraged to further reflect by identifying ways they could have
improved as a chat participant
Transcripts may also be useful for language learners in the following ways (taken from
Mynard, 2002b:25; see also Freiermuth, 2002):
•
The transcripts can be referred to by students when doing follow-up activities such as
writing a summary or a compare and contrast essay incorporating the information
they collected
•
The transcripts provide students with the opportunity to read parts of the discussion
they may have missed first time
•
The transcripts can be adapted and read aloud by students for speaking practice
206
Use CMC for reflective activities
English (1996) used the medium of chat in order to reflect on learning and promote
metacognition. This was not something I did extensively in this study as I had limited time,
but it is likely that it would have yielded good results. Students appeared to be comfortable
with the medium of chat, and it is, therefore, extremely likely that they would contribute to a
discussion about their own learning openly and honestly in a chat room either with the
instructor or with peers.
Make comparisons between behaviour in chat rooms and in
regular activities
Learners like the ones participating in the study may become proficient at interacting in the
target language in chat rooms; however, they may not have sufficient opportunities for
similar face to face interaction. It may be beneficial for the instructor to raise awareness of
the type of language appropriate to each context and any differences that exist in order for
the learners to be able to transfer their skills to a face to face context more easily at a later
date.
Consider cultural appropriateness
Be aware of scenarios which may make the learners feel uncomfortable and plan the
activities carefully so that learners are not offended or upset by the learning environment.
207
6.5 Suggestions for future research
This study could be replicated with some modifications in order to gain a deeper
understanding of the research question. Modifications could address some of the limitations
of this study.
Private speech during CMC could be a focus of another study. I suggested in section 6.3.1
that the chat dialogue may in some cases be compared with private speech. A study
focussing on just this may be useful for further commenting on how CMC could promote the
development of higher-order thinking skills.
It would be useful to study a learning context where learners were receiving learner training
and exposure to some of the recommendations I made in section 6.4. This would allow us to
see whether my suggestion that learner training combined with chat room use could greatly
support the development of learner autonomy.
6.6 Reflections
When I embarked on this study I was concerned that I would not be able to provide
sufficient evidence to support an argument that CMC does or does not appear to promote
learner autonomy in this learner group. There was very little literature available related to
how CMC could promote autonomy and almost nothing available about the learner group
with which I was working.
Despite all this, I drew from sociocultural theory and
constructivism to gain a greater understanding of approaches to learning and classroom
208
practice. I relied on previous approaches to investigating learner autonomy in order to
collect data although there needed to be some modifications due to the unique nature of the
context and the medium.
I feel that through the data I collected I was able to create a picture and present a convincing
case that the medium of CMC could do much to promote learner autonomy. The chat data
was useful in identifying potential cases where learners demonstrated autonomy but these
had to be verified during the interviews. I was fortunate that during the interviews, the
participants were happy to share their honest views about the benefits and challenges of
CMC as they saw them. I was accepted into the classroom dynamic with no evident
resentment or discomfort and felt that the students did not behave as if they were taking part
in a study. The atmosphere in the classroom was relaxed and I felt that it was an effective
naturalistic way to collect data.
I felt that despite some of the limitations of the study that I discussed in section 4.7, at the
end I was able to arrive at a deeper understanding of the difficulties that my learners face
and how teachers can help to support them. After completing this study, I would feel
confident in recommending CMC to colleagues in order to provide opportunities for
developing skills that our learners need. I feel that, above all, the learners were extremely
motivated by the activities and responded well to assuming a kind of control that they
normally do not have the opportunity to take. I look forward to reading about other studies
in this field in similar and other contexts with interest.
209
APPENDICES
210
Appendix i
To: All students in Class ##
From: Jo Mynard
Date:17 April 2002
Re: Research into student use of a Blackboard virtual classroom
Dear Student
I will be teaching your class once a week for the rest of the semester. I will be working
closely with your regular teacher and my classes will be beneficial for you and will relate to
your coursework.
I have had permission from the administration to study this class as research for my
Doctorate in Education and I would be very grateful if you will agree to be part of the study.
I am researching how students use the virtual classroom function of Blackboard so I will be
studying the chat transcripts, circulating questionnaires and conducting interviews. From
time to time you will have the opportunity to chat with guests from Europe. They are all
female and members of my family or my friends who have volunteered their time. I will tell
you about them in advance so that you can choose not to take part if you wish.
This is important research which will contribute to a body of knowledge about how to use
virtual classrooms to study and teach English. This will benefit the university faculty and
students in the future.
If you would prefer not to take part, or you would like to withdraw at any time, your class
teacher will arrange for you to do some other work. You will not lose any credit and there
will be no penalty.
Any data I collect from interviews, questionnaires or observation will be treated in strict
confidence. I will tape record the interviews but these tapes will only be used by me and
will be destroyed on completion of the study.
To ensure anonymity, no names will be used when I write about the study. The name of the
university and its location will also be withheld so that you cannot be identified.
Many thanks for helping me with my research!
Jo Mynard
Your consent:
‫ڤ‬
‫ڤ‬
I agree to take part in the study and that the data be used in Jo Mynard’s
doctoral dissertation for the University of Exeter and subsequent publications
I do not agree to take part in the study and that the data be used in Jo Mynard’s
doctoral dissertation for the University of Exeter and subsequent publications
211
Appendix ii
Name_____________________ ID ____________________________ Date _______
Compare and contrast two countries
Group 3
You will meet an English instructor from the University. He is from Ireland but has lived in
the UAE for the last few years.
A photo of the guest
was here
You are going to chat to the guest at 12.50 today. When you have finished, you will work
with a student who chatted to someone from a different country. Work together. Write two
paragraphs; one comparing the similarities, and one talking about the differences between
the two countries.
212
Use this time to prepare what you are going to ask in the virtual classroom
Topic
Notes and example questions
213
Appendix iii
Learn about Schools in the UK (Student A)
You are going to meet Toni who is a teacher in Dorset, England. First decide what you
would like to ask Toni. Then, interview her to find out more about schools in the UK. She
will ask you about schools in the UAE. The other group will talk to Rees who is a schoolgirl
from Cardiff, Wales.
What would you like to know?
Uniform
Write notes here
Subjects studied
After the session
Find out more about schools in the UK by talking to another student who interviewed Rees,
a schoolgirl from Wales. Use the information to help you write an essay for homework
comparing and contrasting schools in the UK with schools in the UAE.
214
Learn about Schools in the UK (Student B)
You are going to meet Rees who is a schoolgirl from Cardiff, Wales. First decide what you
would like to ask Rees. Then, interview her to find out more about schools in the UK. She
will ask you about schools in the UAE. The other group will talk to Toni who is a teacher
from in Dorset, England.
What would you like to know?
Uniform
Write notes here
Subjects studied
After the session
Find out more about schools in the UK by talking to another student who interviewed Toni,
a teacher from England. Use the information to help you write an essay for homework
comparing and contrasting schools in the UK with schools in the UAE.
215
Appendix iv
General information
The following information will help me with my study – please be honest
Name ________________________________ ID__________________________
1. Age __________________________________
2. When did you start at the university?
______________________________
3. Which level did you start in?
______________________________
4. How good is your typing in English?
Very slow
Slow
Average
Quite fast
Fast
5. Do you know how many words you type per minute?
____________________
6. What do you use the Internet for mostly?
7. Have you ever used an Internet chat room before?
_____________________
8. Have you used Blackboard before?
_____________________
9. If YES, what did you use it for?
216
Appendix v
An interview with a student in week 2
Participants:
Zamzam (not her real name)
JM (Joanne Mynard)
JM – Did you enjoy the chat session last week?
Zamzam – Yes very much. It make a person comfortable and don’t be shy don’t be afraid
about what he doing in the chat. Give him confidence like me I’m very shy.
You don’t seem shy!
In the chat it’s easy to talk. Easy to understand each other. Easy to talk to another person
who don’t see him before.
Did you find out a lot of information from Dawn?
Yes, very much. She’s a nice person. I don’t know her but she told us where her office.
I’m interested in the questions you asked. “tell us about your childhood”. Why did
you ask that question?
Because I like what interesting things about herself and maybe some advice about her
childhood that she want to tell us about and benefit for me I like to know about this. I like
very much a country so I like to know where she was born what happened, the weather… I
like that
Did she tell you?
Yes she tell us
Why did you spell “your” like this (UR)?
Summary for “you are” – it’s easy to talk faster.
“when is your birthday”. Did she tell you?
Yes
You asked me what “Gemini” was. Do you know what it is now?
217
Her when every person is birth.. what happened for you, what is your feeling, not feeling,
like there is a lion and there is a Chinese thing
A sign? Like a horoscope?
Yes, like that.
Did you know that before?
No, new word
When you saw that word, what did you do?
I think maybe I read the sentence but I don’t so I asked you
Did you know what this means “stubborn”?
No
Can you guess?
Maybe, what is… I don’t know in English. Maybe I am very intelligent, best thing for me I
am from maybe Lion the best thing is patient maybe. Maybe stubborn is for her.
Stubborn means that if she wants to do something she’ll do it and she won’t listen to
anyone.
You asked about her baby. Why did you ask that?
Because when you have a different thing for your life that’s how it feels because the first
time she have a baby, what’s her feeling, different for her life. He whole life change so I like
to ask this question.
Did you understand the answer?
Yes.
Do you know what these words mean?
Headstrong – like her mother! And self-willed, I don’t know
Like stubborn. You asked about career as well. Do you think that’s a good question?
I don’t know “what is?” or “what are?” with this. Or “job”
How can you say this in a better way?
What is your job?
218
Yes, or “tell me about your career”. Did you want her to tell you about her career
now? Or in the past?
She told me she work in a bank
When you ask about career she talks about all her jobs.
Better
She’s been here for a long time! Tell me about the spelling of this word. (hoppy)
Hoppy yes. Like this.
No, it’s with B - hobby. Was it difficult to type.
No because when I am level three the teacher teach us how to type and before in my home
there are computer so I know.
So you are quite quick. You asked a lot of questions!
No quite quick – not very much. Also I like to know about foreign people who live in
another country – not Arabic. To know how they live because I like that very much. I like to
know how they live, what they eat, what is the weather, what they do. I like it very much.
Did you prepare your questions before?
No.
Did you think about it first.
I think about it maybe not very good to ask her so I think before what I ask her. I think
before I write.
I enjoyed to ask her. But there are no time with her to ask – short time.
What did you mean by this?
Is when she is very angry or when she is feeling sad, what a special place to feel relaxed
want to stay there all the time when she can
And she tells about South Africa.
You know the spelling’s wrong here?
Yes
Why? It’s an easy word.
Maybe I wrote very quick.
219
Can you improve next time?
Yes
How?
I forget maybe I memorize the word and it’s easy to do it, also how to good spelling, also
put a good question for the person
How can you check if your spelling is right?
I see before, If I don’t I ask my friend
Did you ask your friend anything?
I asked her how to ask her “what is your job”
Did your friend tell you this word “career”?
No I know that before
Is it a good thing to do to learn English?
Yes, very much. We know what she… give her information and we don’t understand the
words we go to the dictionary and think of the word and don’t forget it because she put the
word in a sentence and so we don’t forget. Maybe when I get I home, to not forget I put in a
book in the home so I like the new vocabulary.
Did you use the dictionary?
No not very much because easy to read the sentence and understand what they mean
Did you print this out
No
Did you use the questions that the other students posted?
I…. But I forget
Was it too much?
No only for what I ask. I wrote maybe when I think about the question, I look what my
friends write because I don’t want to write what they write before so I look at what they
write.
Would you like to do this every week?
220
Every day! It’s very nice to improve our languages
How can I improve it?
It’s very good.
Do you like it when you have a question or do you prefer just free chat?
We chat to learn new vocabulary. I like this and I like this. I like this then you have a new
vocabulary and don’t forget and I like this to spelling to write it very good.
Appendix vi
Complete unedited chat transcript from week 8
Participants:
American guest
Students
JM
Alice*
Nada, Shamma and Khawla*
Joanne Mynard
*The names have been changed
Alice
has entered. [ 11:32:21 AM ]
Alice
> testing
Alice
> All set to start at 12:50!
Alice
has left. [ 11:43:37 AM ]
Nada
has entered. [ 12:49:23 PM ]
Nada
has left. [ 12:49:32 PM ]
Nada
Nada
has left. [ 12:50:11 PM ]
221
Khawla
JM has entered. [ 12:51:05 PM ]
Nada
Nada
> Helloooooooooooooooo
Nada
> .........................
Nada
> ........................
Alice
JM > hello thanks for joining us! the students are just
coming.
Khawla
> hi everyone
Alice
> Hi there everyone! So, the theme is weddings.
Please feel free to ask me any questions.
Shamma
Khawla
> can u tell us about the wedding ceremony in the
west?
JM > Ok, all the stduents are here. enjoy!
Shamma
> Hi
Nada
> Do you married your husband in love?????????
Nada
> .............
Nada
> ............
Shamma
Alice
Khawla
Alice
> When and are you married?
> The wedding ceremony is
or a banquet hall. This
exchanges wedding vows.
followed by a reception
usually held in a church
is where the couple
This ceremony is usually
(party)
> and what about ur wedding?
> Yes, Nada, I married my husband because I loved
him and wanted be with him.
222
Alice
> I got married in April 2000
Nada
> you are new...............
Nada
> ..........
Shamma
Khawla
Alice
> You most have nny health exam beafore married?
> oooh really its verey nealy
> Did you see my wedding photo? In the picture is
me, my husband, his best friend, and my sister
Nada
> Do you kow any information about UAE wedding???and
what your opinion????
Nada
> ................
Nada
> ......................
Alice
> A health exam was not required for me to get
married
Khawla
Shamma
Nada
Alice
Khawla
Alice
> yes we saw ...really its verey nice pic
> Her you most do.
> I like your dress becaue it simple...............
> I have been to one UAE wedding...very large. The
wedding gown, eating, dancing,and socializing were
all similar to a Western wedding. The men and the
women have separate receptions here. That is very
different from back home
> do u celebrate with ur husband?
> Thank you Nada. Thay is exactll why I chose
it....it was simple and elegant
Nada
> Can you tell us about your hony moon???????????
Nada
> ..........................
Alice
Khawla
> Khawla - Yes, I celebrated my wedding with my
husband and family. We celebrate our anniversary
each year, We have only had 2 so far.
> nice to here that
223
Alice
> My honeymoon... We went top Spain for 3 weeks and
relaxed on the beach, went out to romantic dinners, and had a
lot of fun
Nada
Alice
Khawla
> Sure you are intresting.......................
> In our wedding we had a best man and a maid of
honor. I didn't have any bridesmaids but most
people do. How about in the UAE???
> could u tell me how much were the guests in ur
wedding
Alice
> Does the bride in the UAE have bridesmaids???
Alice
> I had a very small wedding compared to most. - 30
family members
Nada
Alice
> Not usually
> After we returned from our honeymoon, we had a
larger celebration with about 80 people. This was
in Louisville my husbands home state
Nada
> Some wedding thier some lidies help bride like her
sister or mother
Nada
> ................
Alice
> We also had a celebration in my home state of New
York
Nada
> ..........
Nada
> This like in you UAE..............
Alice
> Where do think would be a great honeymoon
place????
Nada
> We make celebration befor and after wedding..
Nada
> Malizya.........this is my opinion
Alice
> Many Americans like to go to Hawaii
Khawla
> I think Malezya and Sangafora are great place
Alice
> I like Malaysia and Singapore also. I think they
would make good honeymoon spots!
224
Shamma
Alice
Nada
Alice
Nada
Shamma
Nada
Alice
Nada
> My cleapreat take i week.
> Do any of you already know who you will marry??
> What you mean????????????
> Shamma - could you say that again
> sorry......................
> My weading celebration take 1week.
> Iam engaged............
> Some women know who they will marry because the
parents have arranged it ahead of time. Sometimes
when the girl is young. Am I right???
> In shalla Iwill married after two years
Alice
> Wow! One week of celebrating. What did the
celebrations include? I mean What did you do ?
Alice
> Nada - congratulations. How did you meet your
future husband???
Khawla
Nada
Khawla
> yes i agree with u
> His mother know my family and she sew me in the
wedding and she like me
> but i think its not this days mabay before
Shamma
> My fraind came to my home to help to prepare for
weading.
Shamma
> We dance and song.
Alice
Khawla
> I see, Khawla . Some are arranged and some are
not. Right??
> yes mis
Nada
> Thanke you for information and............see you
Nada
has left. [ 01:24:03 PM ]
Alice
> Shamma - What did your dress look like?
JM > Time is almost up everyone....
225
Alice
> Bye Nada
Shamma
> Bye
Shamma
has left. [ 01:24:58 PM ]
Alice
> I've enjoyed this chat.
Alice
> Bye Shamma
Khawla
Alice
> nice chating
> Bye Khawla
Khawla
> bye
Khawla
has left. [ 01:25:37 PM ]
Alice
has left. [ 01:27:12 PM ]
JM has left. [ 01:34:04 PM ]
Appendix vii
An interview with a student in week 8
Participants:
Khaseihah (not her real name)
JM (Joanne Mynard)
JM - Do you remember last time you came, you told me tat you thought chat really
helped you. Do you still think that?
Khaseibah - Yes, it’s interesting and different thing we do. We every time study, read write,
but when you chat learn and enjoy at the same time, it’s very good for us.
Do you think the other girls feel the same?
I don’t know. Maybe they feel boring because the same thing every time I don’t know but
for me it’s enjoy.
226
I typed our conversation before. You said that you try to use difficult words and you
try to use learn vocabulary. Is that still true?
Maybe sometimes. Like when I write “holidays” I try to think about the same words like
“vacation” like some words, the same things but we learn about you know.
You try to use more interesting words when you are chatting?
Yes, I try to think and remember vocabulary I didn’t choose it but I learn it and in chat I use
it. It’s good because you know we learn many vocabulary but we didn’t use it but in chat we
think and use it so it helps us know when we use that word.
Did you use any yesterday? Look at the transcript.
I didn’t remember really. Because… they didn’t talk a lot. I think I talk talk and the other
guys didn’t talk. I said “Talk! Talk!”
Did you tell them this?
I tell them by questions. Ask them questions. I wait for answers. They take time. “Come on
guys, come on!”
Why did you think they took time?
Maybe they think about the question or they didn’t understand the question and try to
understand it or they do something else at the computer.
How come you are so fast?
I just think…what I think, I write. I didn’t think “what will I do here?”, “It’s capital or
small?” No! Anything I want to, I think about it. Why we learn English? For that and that
and that and I write it write it write it. I didn’t think if it’s good for grammar. Write
anything I have.
Write anything that comes into your head?
Yeah.
Did you say it out loud first?
Sometimes when I write I didn’t know the spelling, I say the word and “tick, tick tick”
[thinking] began to type [Imitating typing and thinking together] it like because. Be – cause
.
As you type, you say it?
Yes.
227
It seems to work because you are fast!
I’m fast?
Yeah!
I was interested in this yesterday: Kelly [the guest] and Paul [class teacher] were
talking about something and you came in and said “excuse me, I don’t know what you
are talking about”.
Because the first thing I say “hello, how are you?” and they began to talk about something.
They talk about it and I can’t talk about that because I don’t know what they are talking
about. I stay and try to understand from the answer and the questions what they say but I
didn’t understand so I ask them to explain for me. Maybe I will understand it and began to
think and give my opinion or my idea, something benefit for him.
So when you read the questions and reply, did you have any idea what it was about?
Yes, like a new thing for professional development. I don’t know anything about it. Just
yesterday I know.
Kelly replied that PD is important… did you know that “PD” was the same thing?
Yes because they write it here in…..[looks at transcript] oh no it’s not capitals. I don’t
know because I see the word… like when you write “United States”, you write US, we
know it’s United States. UK – United Kingdom, like that.
So you knew PD was professional development?
Yes.
Now do you know what it is?
It’s for teachers who teach English at the university. It’s like a train, they take it to be good
teacher.
Actually it could be for any professionals who want to improve themselves and keep up
to date. Doctors or anything
She’s very active, Kelly.
Very. How do you know that?
Because she work and join in many clubs I think or what? Group something like that. So she
do many things. She’s not do the same thing and stay. No. She try to do many things and
change that it will be good for her.
228
Yes that’s true. What else did you learn about Kelly?
Kelly? In the end, now I want to ask her about her family, about herself. In the first thing I
tried to understand and finally I began to ask her ‘time Out”.
Is there anything you wish you’d done differently?
Yes. I don’t know. Maybe I try to be more clear when I write words. Sometimes I write
“yup” and “yeah” and when I think about it, I try to write “Yes”.
Why?
Maybe the girls didn’t understand me and they think it’s a new word. It’s not a new word,
it’s “yes”.
Maybe. I’ll ask them.
And something enjoy. She talk about the gardens in the university, this campus and Khawla
began to talk about the garden she’s … and something very funny.
Yes she’s very funny isn’t she?
Some students say that they don’t learn from chat at all.
At all? Why? When you write…
I don’t know depends on the students. If you want to learn, you will learn from everything
you take. Students do it.
You seem to be a student who is more independent. You seem to do things on your
own. Why is that?
Because if you do not want to learn you will not learn. You have to work hard.
You seem to really want to learn.
Yes because many levels ago, when I didn’t do anything in that level, I just lose time and
didn’t depend on myself but in this course, I do my work in everything listening, writing,
reading, speaking. I think I feel now I am developing myself and do something for myself
and I think I will pass this course and I hope I will do job or anything useful.
It sounds like you have really changed!
Yes, it’s interesting. You do something good in your life but when you accept this is the
rule, could you do something good for this rule?
How can we convince the other girls to think this way?
229
I tried to talk with them but some girls, you know the rule in the university? Some, you
know some silly rule – every rule - they don’t like it and this rule destroy us. If we want to
jump, sometimes they say “you can’t, you can’t it’s hard for you”. You can’t do anything.
And do you know the rule that if you study all the semester, you will not do anything it’s
depending in the final quiz. And this not encourage us. Many girls now do not go to the
university because of this rule. Now I do many practice but I do not know if I will fail or
pass it.
Do you think you’ll pass?
I hope but you know maybe the quiz is hard. Maybe it’s easy. But If I’m confused, this is
my life on this paper so maybe I didn’t put right words.
Some of the girls in the class don’t seem to be interested in English. Is that right?
Because of the rules.
Because of the rules? Not because of English?
Before, when I was in secondary school, I love English, I try to learn English. I learn a lot of
English. Songs, Singers. I like it very much but when I came to the university, you have to
study it. Two years wow! I can’t believe it – without any benefit! Maybe I will kick out of
the university without doing anything. I am learning English but so what? I didn’t take any
degree. If I take a degree ok.
So you don’t really care about English then?
I want to keep going and began general education. When I began general education, I will
say I’m from the university. Now I’m just Foundations girl, beginner I think it’s bad. Very
bad.
Do students help each other while they are chatting? I can hear people speaking in
Arabic. What are they saying, do you know?
In Arabic? Maybe when Khawla write about garden, I talk with her and say “why you do
that?” It’s interesting and laugh.
Were you helping her or just joking?
Joking. We speak Arabic. Always speak Arabic. We need English really I think I will speak
English more with my friends. I think it will be benefit but I didn’t do it. I think about talk
with my friends in English. It will be helpful but I didn’t do it.
Zayana asked a lot of questions to the class.
She asked me how to do a face.*_* what will you ask. Something like that. You write about
that, give me another thing.
230
I’ll ask her about that. Do you ever feel you need help?
I want to write I want to write I want someone to talk with me! Maybe talk it will be helpful,
I will learn something good and I will think a lot. I think, come on! Talk! Come on! I need
someone to talk with me. I have begun to think with them. Give me some words, give me
some words.
Do you think you are improving at chatting?
In chatting? Yes, writing in English. I write with my friends. Before I write “hi, hello” then
Arabic but now I try – after these classes- I write English with my friends and fast.
Because of this?
Yes, I think it’s helpful. Because I stay more than half an hour typing, thinking, write,
English. I try to think English not to think in Arabic. Like I will write what words I think in
Arabic, how will I write that? I began to think that’s not good – I have to think English. By
English words not Arabic words that will be benefit for me. Some students think in Arabic
and translate it and that happened for me but not always. I try to think in English. You think
in Arabic, translation is very hard.
Maybe that’s why you’re so quick - because you don’t translate.
Maybe. Come on! Really I hate yesterday “talk talk talk talk!!” because before Nada talked,
Suhaila talked, Zamzam talked, I talked, everybody talk talk talk ok. I have something to
talk about. but yesterday I write, wait wait but nobody talk. Talk! Come On Talk!
What if it had been just you and Kelly?
No. Well, if she write a lot, OK but of she didn’t write a lot, no.
………
(Discussion about another transcript)
I try to write it right but it still incorrect.
That was an interesting question – did you write it?
I ask her about skating and this is the answer (laughs)
Do you know Shamsa? No? She’s very nice
I really don’t know anything about her and just in this class I know a lot about her. And I
think she is nice. I see her but I don’t know anything about her from her face. When I talk
with her it was interesting really.
231
She has invited you to her office
I would be ashamed to come, I can’t.
You said this was a confusing question: “you don’t have any holidays”.
Do you know what you meant by that?
You don’t have – it’s a question or answer or what? I understand what she say but the
sentence is a question or an answer? I will understand I guess what she want to say that’s all
but maybe Mr. Paul will not understand it and maybe some students.
You said that this is a new word “guts”. Did you guess the meaning? What did it
mean? Can we find it on the transcript
It’s a lot! More paper.
That’s true actually. Why is it that sometimes there is a lot of chat and other times not
much?
Here it is “I do not have the guts to go skating”. What does guts mean?
Maybe she’s not interested in skating and she not go.
Guts means courage – she’s not brave enough.
Guts means brave?
Yes or bravery.
I didn’t know and I want to know, and I was very busy and I didn’t want to put the word in
the dictionary
Do you think it’s more important to just communicate or is it more important to check
your mistakes?
If I check my mistake I will take time and I will not talk a lot. I need to talk to take
information. If I check everything maybe it will take time and maybe it will be boring. You
want to talk now – not to check spelling or another thing. You can do it next time.
Do you ever look at the transcripts?
I tried to print it but I couldn’t. When my friends read this, they laugh and tell me many
different thing “how did you write that?”. They laugh at me. When I talk with her about
plants and color or skating.
Why do your friends laugh?
They think you are joking and that you have to be serious. I cannot agree because I care
about food, I don’t know. Some questions she didn’t answer.
232
Why is that?
Maybe from all of us ask her a question and she have to see every question and try to answer
and maybe some questions from hard she couldn’t read it.
Do you think she understood all your questions?
Yes because she write and she answered and her answer is very clear
Do you feel like you are getting better in English in general?
Yes. Now I write a lot type type. I think reading more than writing because I read a lot.
When I sit at the Internet, I read in English because computer language is English so I will
read a lot and some websites in English are hard. New words. Every sentence new words so
I can’t understand but some websites the English is easy. You know what I do? I go to Chat
Box (Chatterbox?) it’s a website it’s chat box. People talk about something. Maybe I draw
this picture and the other guys write their opinion about the picture and encourage them,
advise, it’s talk about something. If you want to write a poem, you write it, what do you
think about that? They read it and use it in some occasion – all in English – and one girl sing
in English, ok, and record it and put it in the chat box. It’s a wonderful song.
How did you find this website?
My friend. Both of us try to do that.
Do what?
To go from level to other level. Because both of us fail and repeat.
So you read a lot on the internet, you go to Chat Box – does this help you more than
your class work?
Class work, yes because in a classroom I don’t know. Really, outside the class I learn and in
the class I learn in both. I try to learn I try to learn.
Which is the most interesting?
??? (not clear)
None of the girls want to do anything out of class time, why is that?
Because outside of the class time, I want to talk with my friends, I want to see websites –
Arabic websites – English what English? Whole day in the whole week I have to write have
have have why they didn’t to it by their own they want to interest. Believe me if I learn
English for interesting it would be very nice and enjoy really enjoy but if you do it you have
to do it, it could be boring. I don’t want to do it.
233
I was worried that students wouldn’t want to do this because they would prefer to
prepare for the exam. Do you think that’s true?
I think they love this class you know why? Because the whole week we take classes and
classes and classes and in this class we stay in the computer, have, talk together and open
many things like messenger and things like that – it’s like a computer class and we like
computers so we love this class.
Don’t they feel they want to writing or more serious stuff?
All of us hate writing really. Yes.
Do the girls like it because they are free?
Yes
But I know what you are doing. Perhaps it’s because I don’t tell you what to do.
If you tell us – specific – “just do that” but when you give us free if we interest
we will write write write try to think. If we didn’t interest just do what you
say, that’s it. Some teachers “I don’t want you to sit at your computers, come
here, do that, do that” it’s ok it’s ok but some teachers give us free we will
create or something like that.
234
Appendix viii
Student work completed for homework after the chat session in week 4
Task: Write an essay comparing and contrasting schools in the UK with schools in your
country (see Appendix iii). Use the notes and transcripts from the interviews with Rees and
Toni to help you.
I will talk about the similarities and differences between schools in the U.A.E. and U.K.
I think there are many similarities between UAE and U.K .because I think the education in
any place in the world the same.
Such as in the U.A.E. there are 27 to 30 students in each class,like U.K . In the U.A.E
schools teach student IT to learn Powerpoint, Modeling, Database, Spreadsheets, Word and
Design Jus like U.K. Also in the U.A.E. there class name (activity class) this class for the
students hobbies to improve thier hobbies also in the U.A.E they are taking sports class two
hour in each week,as well U.K nearly they are taking PE depends on what time of year it is
September and March Hocky, Basketball, Badminton, Swimming, Fitness, Netball. MarchJuly= Tennis, Athletics, Basketball, Swimming.
In the U.K teacher teach studens Religious studies, Physics, Chemistry, P.E, Art, English
language, English literature, Math, Music, Spain, Frensh, Geography and Latin if the
students brainy enough , but in the UAE there is some difference , because in the U.A.E
teacher teach students Religious studies, Physics, Chemistry, PE, Art, English, Arabic,
Math, Geography, hiostryandeconomic.
In UAE schools the students study 15 subjects, like U.K. schools. In the U.K. student study
hour in a day plus they have to do homework , while in the U.A.E. students study nearly 10
to 12 hours in the day.
In the Uk studnts wear uniform,like students in the U.A.E. I prefer that , because that make
students same.
235
Appendix ix
Name_______________________________
1. Did you enjoy the chat classes? Why / Why not?
2. Did you think they helped you learn English? Why / Why not?
3. Which of the following do you think the chat classes helped you with?
a. Vocabulary
yes
no
I don’t know
b. Grammar
yes
no
I don’t know
c. Spelling
yes
no
I don’t know
d. Writing
yes
no
I don’t know
e. Reading
yes
no
I don’t know
f. Speaking
yes
no
I don’t know
g. Fluency
yes
no
I don’t know
h. Thinking skills
yes
no
I don’t know
i. Confidence
yes
no
I don’t know
j. Motivation
yes
no
I don’t know
4. Which chat session was the best? Why?
5. Were there any chat sessions that you didn’t enjoy so much? Why not?
236
6. Can you remember specific things that you learned in some of the chat sessions?
Look at the transcripts again if you like.
7. Would you recommend that other teachers use chat with their students? If so, in
what way and in which courses?
8. Would you like to do it again?
9. Do you have any other comments or suggestions?
237
BIBLIOGRAPHY
238
Ackerman, E. (1996). Perspective-taking and object construction: two keys to learning. In
Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.) Constructionism in practice: designing thinking and learning
in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 25-35
Addison Stone, C. (1993). What is missing in the use of scaffolding? In E. Forman, N.
Minick & C. Addison Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: sociocultural dynamics in
children’s development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Afifi, E.A. & Altaha, F.M. (2000). Grammatical production versus grammatical recognition.
IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language teaching, 38 (2), 83-88.
Al Banna, H. (1997). Teacher training in the UAE: problems and prospects. In K. Shaw
(Ed.)
Alreyes, A.M. (1996). Product and process approaches to the teaching of second language
writing: a comparison and synthesis. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin—
Milwaukee.
Alvarez-Torres, M. (2001). On 'Chatting' in the Foreign Language Classroom. Clearing
House item 00098655, 74 (6), 313-316
Baltes, P.B. & Staudinger, U.M. (1996). Interactive minds in a life-span perspective:
prologue in . P.B. Baltes & U.M. Staudinger (Eds.) Interactive minds: Life-span
239
perspectives on the social foundation of cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1-32
Barnett, L. (1993). Teacher off: computer technology, guidance and self-access. System, 21
(3), 295-304.
Beck, R.D. (1979). An error analysis of free composition. Teachers of English: Arabian
Monthly, 30, 20-26.
Bel Fekih, C. M. (1993). Modern secondary education in the United Arab Emirates:
development, issues and perspectives. Ed. D. Thesis. Temple University
Benson, P. & Voller, P. (Eds.) (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning.
New York: Longman.
Berg, B.L. (2001) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Needham Heights:
Allyn & Bacon.
Blin, F (1999). CALL and the development of learner autonomy. In R. Debski & M. Levy
(Eds.). World CALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning. The
Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Bogdan, R. & Bilken, S. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
240
Brett, P. (1998). Using multi-media: A descriptive investigation of incidental language
learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11(2), 179-200.
Broady, E., & Kenning, M. (1996). Learner autonomy: an introduction to the issues. In
Promoting learner autonomy in university language teaching. The Association for French
language Studies (AFSC) with the Center for Information in Language Teaching Research.
London: Middlesex University Printing.
Bruner, J. (1996, September). Celebrating Piaget and Vygotsky: An exercise in dialectic.
Plenary address to conference The Growing Mind, Geneva (transcribed from audio
recording).
Bump, J. (1990). Radical changes in classroom discussion using network computers.
Computers and the Humanities, 24, 49-65
Burton, J. (2002). Who’s responsible for the language learning? The learner as curriculum
resource and assessor. Presentation at the Current Trends in English language Testing
(CTELT) conference, Dubai.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: education, knowledge and action
research. East Sussex: Falmer Press.
241
Card, K. & Horton, L. (2000). Providing access to graduate education using computermediated communication. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27 (3), 235-245
Carey, S. (1999). The use of WebCT for a highly interactive virtual graduate seminar.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12 (4), 371-380.
Chapelle, C. A.(1994). CALL activities: are they all the same? System, 22(1), 33-45
Chapelle, C. (1997). Call in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language
Learning and Technology, 1(1), 19-43. Last accessed November 2002 from:
http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt/vol1num1/chapelle
Chester, A. & Gwynne, G. (1998). Online teaching: Encouraging collaboration through
anonymity. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4(2) (Online). Last accessed
January 2003 from: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue2/chester.html
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive
competence. System, 22 (1), 17-31.
Cobb, P. (1994).
http://web1.epnet.com/DeliveryPrintSave.asp?tb=1&_ug=dbs+0%2C1+ln+enus+sid+24A9393B-21DA-45C7-9111-072C8E35DAC6@sessionmgr3sessionmgr4+9262&_us=bs+sociocultural++And+++constructivist+db+0%2C1+ds+sociocu
ltural++And+++constructivist+dstb+ES+fh+Where is the mind? Constructivist and
242
sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23 (7),
13-20.
Cobb, P & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent and sociocultural perspectives in the
context of developmental research. Eductional Psychogist, 31 (3 / 4), 175-190.
Cohen, A.D. & Manion, L. (1985). Research methods in education. London: Croom Helm.
Cole, M. (1980). The Kharkov school of developmental psychology. Soviet psychology,
18(2), 3-8.
Cole, M., Gay, J., Click, J., & Sharp, D. (1971). The cultural contexts of learning and
thinking. New York: Basic Books.
Collins, A. (1990). Reformulating testing to measure learning and thinking. In N.
Fredericksen, R. Glaser, A. Lesgold, & M. G. Shafto (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill
and knowledge acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Confrey, J. (1994). A theory of intellectual development (Part 1). For the Learning of
Mathematics. 14(3), 2-8.
Confrey, J. (1995a). A theory of intellectual development (Part 2). For the Learning of
Mathematics. 15(1), 38-48.
243
Confrey, J. (1995b). A theory of intellectual development (Part 3). For the Learning of
Mathematics, 15(2), 36-45.
Cullen, J. (1998). Influences on young children’s knowledge: The case of road safety
education. International Journal of Early Years Education, 6 (1) 39 – 48.
Dam, L. & Gabrielsen, G. (1996). The acquisition of vocabulary in an autonomous learning
environment – the first months of beginning English. In R. Pemberton, E.S.L. Li, W.W.F Or
& H.D. Pierson (Eds.) Taking control: Autonomy in language learning, 265-280. Hong
Kong University Press.
Dam, L. (1995) Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice, Dublin:
Authentik.
Dam, L. (1998). From Theory to Practice. Authentik Language Learning Resources, Dublin.
David, B. & Brewer, J. (1997). Electronic discourse: linguistic individuals in virtual space.
Albany: State University of New York Press,
Day, M. & Batson, T. (1995). The network-based writing classroom: the ENFI idea
In M. Collins, and Z. Berge, (Eds.), Computer Mediated Communication and the Online
Writing Classroom Volume Two: Higher Education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 25-46.
244
Last accessed September 2003 from:
http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/1.2/coverweb/cmcmday.html
Delamont, S. and Hamilton, D. (1984). Revisiting classroom research: a cautionary tale, in
Delamont, S. (Ed.) (1984) Readings in Interaction in the Classroom, London: Methuen, 324.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dickinson, L. (1992). Learner training for language learning.
Dublin: Authentik Language Learning Resources.
DiMatteo, A. (1990). Under erasure: A theory for interactive writing in real time. Computers
and Composition, (SI) 71-84.
Doucette, D. (1993). Transforming teaching and learning using information technology. The
College Board review, 167, 18-25.
Donaton, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf &
G.Appel (Eds.). Vygotskian approaches to second language research, 33-56. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
245
D’Souza, P.V. (1991). The use of electronic mail as an instructional aid: An exploratory
study. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(3), 106-110.
Duffy, T & Bednar, A. (1991, September). Attempting to come to grips with alternative
perspectives. Educational Technology, 32, 12-15.
Duffy, T., and Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (1992). Constructivism and the technology of
instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eastmond, D. & L. Ziegahn. (1994). Instructional Design for the Online Classroom. In Z. L.
Berge and M. Collins (Eds.), Computer-Mediated Communication and the Online
Classroom in Distance Education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Edwards (2001). Researching pedagogy: a sociocultural agenda. Pedagogy, culture and
Society, 9 (2) 162-186.
Ellis, G. (2000) Is it worth it? Convincing teachers of the value of developing metacognitive
awareness in children. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (Eds.), 75-88.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, S. (1997). Strategy choice in a sociocultural context. Developmental Review, 17, 490524.
246
The Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research (1999). Education and the Arab
World: Changes of the Next Millennium. The Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and
Research: Abu Dhabi.
English, J., (1996). Metacognition in the computer-mediated
classroom: a new advantage. Computers & Texts,13. Last
accessed September, 2003 from:
http://info.ox.ac.uk/ctitext/publish/comtxt/ct13/english.html
Entwistle, N.J. & Entwistle, A. (1991). Contrasting forms of understanding for degree
examinations. Higher Education, (22), 205-227.
Ernest, P. (1994). An Introduction to Research Methodology and Paradigms. Educational
Research Monograph Series (1). The Research support Unit, University of Exeter.
Fakhri, A. (1994). Text organization and transfer: the case of Arab ESL learners. IRAL:
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language teaching, 32 (1), 78-86.
Farquharson, M. (1989). Learning styles of Arab students in EFL. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other languages (23rd, San
Antonio, TX, March 7-11). Education Resources Information Center Document ED311741.
247
Fattah, A. (1993). The influence of dialogue journals and other practicum activities on the
writing proficiency and pedagogical knowledge of EFL student teachers. Unpublished
M.Ed. thesis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Felix, U. (1999). Web-based language learning: a window to the authentic world. In R.
Debski & M. Levy (Eds.), World CALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language
learning. The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M & Miller, R. 1980. Instrumental Enrichment.
Baltimore, Md,: University Park Press.
Feuerstein, R. 1991. Cultural differences and cultural deprivation.
In N. Bleichrodt and P. Drenth (Eds.), Contemporary issues in
cross-cultural psychology. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Filipek Collignon, F. (1994). From “Paj ntaub” to paragraphs: perspectives on Hmong
processes of composing. In V. John-Steiner, C. Panofsky, and L. Smith, (Eds.),
Sociocultural approaches to language and literacy, 331-346. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Freiermuth, M.R. (2002). Internet chat: collaborating and learning via e-conversations.
TESOL Journal, 11(3) 36-40.
248
Garhart, C. & Hannafin, M.J. (1986). The accuracy of cognitive monitoring during
computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13(3), 88-93.
Goforth, D. (1994). Learner control = decision making + information: A model and metaanalysis. Journal of educational Computing Research, 11(1), 1-26.
Goodman, Y. M., & Goodman, K. S. (1990). Vygotsky in a whole language perspective. In
L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of
sociohistorical psychology (pp. 223-250). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher,
26(1), 5-17.
Groome, D., Dewart, H., Esgate, A., Gurney, K., Kemp, R. & Towell, N. (1999). An
Introduction to cognitive psychology: processes and disorders. Psychology Press Ltd: East
Sussex.
Guefrachi, H. & Troudi, S. (2000). Enhancing English language teaching in the United Arab
Emirates. In K. E. Johnson (Ed.) Teacher Education. TESOL.
Grabe, M. & Grabe, C. (1998). Integrating technology for meaningful learning. Boston MA:
Houghton Miffin Company.
249
Hackman, M.Z. & Walker, K.B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised
classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on student learning and
satisfaction. Communication Education, (39), 196-206.
Harasim, L. (1989). Online education: A new domain. In R. Mason & T. Kaye (Eds.)
Mindweave: Computers, communications and distance education, 50-62. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in designing computer-mediated
graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communications, 16(2), 117-135.
Harasim, L. (1990) Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual
amplification. In L. Harasim (Ed.) Online education: Perspectives on a new environment,
39-66. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Hart, N. (2002). Intra-group autonomy and authentic materials: a different approach to ELT
in Japanese colleges and universities. System, 30(1), 33-46.
Hasan, H. (2001). Polygamy. Unpublished undergraduate research paper. College of Family
Sciences. Zayed University, United Arab Emirates.
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis in second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.),
Second Language Acquisition 401-435. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
250
Hennigan, H. (1998). Penpals to keypals: Japanese learners help Arab students to learn
English. In S. Troudi, C. Coombe & S. Riley (Eds.) Conference proceedings volume III.
TESOL Arabia 4th international conference “Unity through diversity”. 46-56.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Hoven, D. (1999). CALL-ing the learner into focus: towards a learner-centred model. In R.
Debski & M. Levy (Eds.) World CALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language
learning. The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Irani, T. (1998). Communication potential, information richness and attitudes: A study of
computer mediated communication in the ALN classroom. ALN Magazine (2), 1 (Online).
Last accessed September 2003 from:
http://www.aln.org/publications/magazine/v2n1/irani.asp
Jaramillo, J.A. (1996). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and contributions to the
development of constructivist curricula. Education, 117(1), 133 -140
Jaworski, B. (1993). Constructivism and teaching: The socio-cultural context. Text accessed
via the Internet closely related to a seminar given to the Mathematics Teaching and Learning
Enquiry Group in Manchester in January, 1993. Last accessed November 2002.
http://www.grout.demon.co.uk/Barbara/chreods.htm
251
Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jonassen, D.H. (1996) Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Merrill.
Jonassen, D.H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured
problem solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research & Development,
45(1), 65-94.
Jonassen, D., Peck, K. & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: a constructivist
perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Karayan, S. (1997). Student perceptions of electronic discussion groups. T H E Journal, 24
(9) 69-71.
Kayser, A. (2002a) EAP program evaluation of CALL use. TESOL Arabia 2001 Conference
Proceedings Al Ain, UAE: TESOL Arabia Publications, 88-105.
Kayser, A. (2002b) Cultural appropriateness of networked-based language teaching in a
Middle Eastern female Islamic context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(1), 5567.
Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological Tools. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
252
Kozulin, A. (2002). Review of “Sociocultural theory and second language learning” Lantolf,
J. (2000) (ed). British Journal of Educational Psychology 71 (1), 142-145
Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In P.J. Lantolf (Ed.). Lantolf, P.J.
(Ed.) (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Larson-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. Longman: New York.
Lerman, S. (1996). Intersubjectivity in mathematics learning: A challenge to the radical
constructivist paradigm? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 133-150.
Lerman, S. (2000) A case of interpretations of social: A response to Steffe and Thompson. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education; 31
(2) 210 – 238.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning : context and conceptualization.
Oxford: Clarendon Press
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: definition, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.
253
Little, D (1996). “Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: promoting learner autonomy
through the use of information systems and information technologies” in R. Pemberton, Li,
E.S.L., Or, W.W.F, & Pierson, H.D.(Eds.) taking control: autonomy in language learning
Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 203-218
Little, D. (2000). Learner autonomy and human interdependence: some theoretical and
practical consequences of a social-interactive view of cognition, learning and language. In
B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (Eds.), 15-23.
Little, D., Devitt, S. & Singleton, D. (1994). Learning Foreign Languages from Authentic
Texts. Authentik Language Learning, Dublin.
Mansoori, K. Y. (2001). Evaluation of the pre-service EFL teacher education programme in
the United Arab Emirates. A responsive-constructivist approach. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.
University of Exeter.
Mawgood, M.E.A. (2000). United Arab Emirates Education “Vision 2020”: An Overview.
In G. Welch & E. Mawgood (Eds.) Proceedings of the first international conference on
educational reform in the UAE, Dubai 13-25 April, 1999. Ministry of Education and Youth:
UAE.
McComb, M. (1994). Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college courses.
Communication Education, 43, 159-170.
254
Milheim, W.D. & Martin, B.L. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control: three
different perspectives. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(3), 99-105.
Miller, S.I. (1994). Qualitative research methods. New York: P. Lang
Ministry of Information and Culture (2002). United Arab Emirates yearbook. London:
Trident Press.
Moll, L. (Ed.) 1990. Vygotsky and education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mynard, J. (2002a). Introducing EFL learners to chat rooms. The Internet TESL Journal viii
(2) http://iteslj.org/Lessons/Mynard-Chat.html
Mynard, J. (2002b). Using internet chat rooms with language learners. Perspectives, 10(1),
20-27.
Mynard, J. & Sorflaten, R. (2003). Learner Independence in your classroom. Teachers,
Learners and Curriculum 1(1), 34-38.
Nolan, M.B. (2000). The Role of Metacognition in Learning with an Interactive Science
Simulation. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual
Meeting. Last accessed September 2003 from:
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~mnolan/AERA2000.html
255
Norton, P. & Sprague, D. (2001). Technology for teaching. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Nunan, D. (1996a). Towards autonomous learning: some theoretical, empirical and practical
issues. In Pemberton et al. (Eds.) 13-26.
Nunan, D. (1996b). Learner strategy training in the classroom: an action research study.
TESOL Journal, 6(1), 35-41.
O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L. & Russo, R.P. (1985)
Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate students. Language Learning, 35(1),
21-46.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies. New York: Newbury House Publishers
Packer, M. J & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and Constructivist Theories of Learning: Ontology, Not Just Epistemology. Educational Psychologist,
35 (4), 227 – 41.
Papert, S. (1987).
Computer criticism versus technocentric thinking. Educational
Researcher, January-February, 22-27.
Papert, S. (1990). Introduction. In I. Harel (Ed.), Constructionist learning. Boston: MIT
Laboratory.
256
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer.
New York: Basic Books.
Patai, R. (1983). The Arab Mind. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)
construction of selves. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language
learning (pp. 155-177). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pemberton, R., E.S.L. Li, W.W.F Or & H.D. Pierson (Eds.) (1996). Taking control:
Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language.
Harlow: Longman.
Pennycook, A. (1997) Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In P. Benson, & P. Voller (Eds.)
Phelan, G. (2002). Mediated learning experience: from theory to practice. Perspectives, 10
(1), 4-10.
257
Phelan, G. (2003). Needs analysis for pre-service EFL teachers in the United Arab Emirates.
Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation. University of Exeter, UK.
Piaget, J. (1929, reprinted 1951). The child’s conception of the world. Maryland: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Platt, E. & Brooks, F.B. (1994). The “acquisition-rich environment” revisited. The Modern
language Journal, 78, 497-511.
Radnor, H.A. (1994). Collecting and analyzing interview data. Educational Research
Monograph Series (3). Research Support Unit, University of Exeter.
Rausch, A.S. (2000). University student readiness for language strategies instruction:
teacher directed verses learner directed approaches. On Cue, 8(1), 12–17.
Reeves, T. (1997). Evaluating What Really Matters in Computer-Based Education. Last
accessed September 2003 from: http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/reeves.htm
Raphael, T. (1989). Students' Metacognitive Knowledge about Writing. Research in the
Teaching of English 23(4), 343-379.
Ridley, J. (1997). Learner Autonomy 6: Developing learners’ thinking skills. Dublin:
Authentik
258
Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and
direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 93-106.
Robbins, J. (1996). Language Learning Strategies Instruction in Asia: Cooperative
Autonomy? Presentation at Autonomy 2000, Bangkok, Thailand. (ERIC Document,
ED409728).
Salomon, G. & Globerson, T. (1987). Skill may not be enough: the role of mindfulness in
learning and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 9(6), 623-637
Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. (1986). developing basic conversational ability in a second
language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Daly (Ed.) Talking to learn:
conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley. MA: Newbury House.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics. 11, 129-58.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
Shaw, K. (Ed.) (1997a). Higher education in the Gulf. Exeter, UK: University of Exeter
Press.
259
Shaw, K. (1997b). Introduction. In K. Shaw (Ed.)
Sheerin, S. (1991) State of the art: self-access. Language Teaching, 24(3), 153-157
Sherman, R. & Web, R. (1988). Qualitative research in education: focus and methods.
Falmer Press: London.
Simmons, B. (1996). A study of strategy use in independent learners. In R. Pemberton,
E.S.L. Li, W.W.F Or & H.D. Pierson (Eds.)
Sinclair, B. (1999). More than an act of faith? Evaluating learner autonomy. In C. Kennedy
(Ed.) Innovation and best practice. Harlow: Longman.
Sinclair, B. (2000). Learner autonomy: the next phase. In Learner autonomy, teacher
autonomy: future directions. In Sinclair, B, McGrath, I & Lamb, T. (Eds.), London:
Longman.
Sinclair, B. (2001). What do we mean by learner independence & Wrestling with a jelly: the
evaluation of learner autonomy. Workshops given at the Higher Colleges of Technology,
United Arab Emirates March 2001.
Sinclair, B; McGrath, I & Lamb, T. (Eds.) (2000). Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy:
future directions. London: Pearson Education Limited.
260
Skinner, B. & Austin, R., (1999). Computer conferencing – does it motivate EFL students?
ELT Journal, 53 (4), 270-280.
Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Sage Publications: London.
Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research : techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications
Sullivan, P. (2000). Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a
Vietnamese classroom. In P.J. Lantolf (Ed.) (2000). Sociocultural theory and second
language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, N. & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A
computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29 (4), 491-501.
Syed, Z. (1999). Teacher, teacher, e-mail please! COLESLAW, November 1999. TESOL
Arabia CALL-SIG.
Taki El Din, S.R. (1985). The effectiveness of sentence combining practice on Arab
students' overall writing quality and syntactic maturity. Unpublished PhD thesis, Indiana
University of Pennsylvania
261
Taylor, C. (1995). Human Agency and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Thompson-panos, K. & Thomas-Ružić, M. (1983). The least you should know about Arabic:
implications for the ESL writing instructor. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 609-623.
Thorndike, E. L. (1913). Educational psychology: The psychology of learning (Vol. 2). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Toyoda, E. (2001). Exercise of learner autonomy in project-oriented CALL. CALL-EJ
Online (2), 2. Last accessed November 2002 from:
http://www.clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callejonline/5-2/toyoda.html
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. London: Weidenfeld
& Nicholson.
van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J. & Kanselaar, G. (2000). The Use of Textbooks as a Tool During Collaborative Physics Learning. Journal of Experimental
Education, 69 (1), 57-77.
Victori, M. & Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language
learning. System, 23(2), 223-234.
262
von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed). Problems
of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillside,
NJ.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher mental processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. [1934] 1986. Thought and language. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wagner, E.D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American
Journal of Distance Education 8(2), 6-29.
Warschauer, M., Turbee, L. & Roberts, B., (1996). Computer learning networks and student
empowerment. System 24(1), 1-14.
Warschauer, M., (1996a). Comparing face to face and electronic discussion on the second
language classroom. CALICO Journal. 13(2), 7-26.
Warschauer, M., (1996b). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and
communication. In M. Warshauer (Ed.) Telecollaboration in foreign language learning:
proceedings of the Hawai’i symposium. (Technical report #12) 29-46. Honolulu, Hawai’i:
University of Hawai’i, second language teaching and curriculum center.
263
Warschauer, M., (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice.
Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 470-481.
Wenden, A.L. (1986). Incorporating learner training in the classroom. System, 41(6), 981990.
Wenden, A.L. (1995). Learner training in context: a knowledge-based approach. System 23
(2), 183-194.
Wertsch, J. (1990). The voice of rationality in a sociocultural approach to mind. In Moll, l
(1990) (Ed.) 111-126.
Whitehead, A. (1929). The aims of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Whitenack, J., Knipping, N. & Novinger, S. (2000). Coordinating Theories of Learning to Account for Second-Grade Children's Arithmetical
Understandings. Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 3 (1), 53- 86.
Williams, M. & Burden, B. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge
University Press.
Willing, K. (1989). Teaching how to learn: learning strategies in ESL. Sydney: national
Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.
Winkelmans, T. (1988). Educational computer conferencing: An application of analysis
methodologies to a structured small group activity. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of
Toronto.
264
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Wood, H. & Wood, D. (1999). Help-seeking, learning and contingent tutoring. Computers
and Education, 33, 153-169.
Zaidi, L. (2000). A case for the use of IT with a group of female Emirati students.
Unpublished M.Ed. Assignment. University of Sheffield.
Zafeiriou, G., Nunes, J., Miguel B. & Ford, N. (2001). Using students' perceptions of
participation in collaborative learning activities in the design of online learning
environments. Education for Information, 19(2), 83-107.
265
266

Acknowledgements I am very grateful to the students who took part

Transcription

Similar documents

Ben Vaske – Unique approach of basic skills

learner services guide

IB learner profile IB learner profile IB learner profile IB learner profile

Sin título-1

From click`n go to click`n stay

File

KZNDoE Service Excellence Award 2011

2-3-15Newsletter 2.2 MB

Learning

Sort it out!