Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:27:39.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Web-based collaborative reading exercises for learners in remote locations: the effects of computer-mediated feedback and interaction via computer-mediated communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2010

Philip Murphy
Philip Murphy*
Affiliation:
Kanda University of International Studies, Wakaba 1-4-1, Mihama-Ku, Chiba-Shi, Chiba-Ken, 261-0014, Japan (email: murphy@kanda.kuis.ac.jp)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the fact that the benefits of pair and group work for those espousing an interactionist view of second language learning are well documented (Lightbown & Spada, 1999; Long, 1981; Pica, 1994, 1996; Van Lier, 1996), learning environments exist in which students have no option but to study alone. Of particular interest for this research are learners who, despite studying in contexts supportive of collaborative interaction in the classroom, have little opportunity to interact with partners when trying to participate in collaborative reading comprehension exercises outside school. In an attempt to find a solution to this potentially inhibiting learning context, this research comprises an investigation into (a) whether the introduction of computer-mediated Elaborative feedback before Knowledge of Correct Response (KCR) feedback better promotes quality interaction and comprehension of a web-based reading text and (b) whether computer-mediated communication (CMC) offers a suitable means for generating quality interaction between peers in remote locations. While completing a web-based multiple-choice reading comprehension exercise, students worked in pairs and received either KCR feedback only, or Elaborative feedback before KCR feedback. In contrast to KCR feedback which simply comprises the correct answers, Elaborative feedback was produced in the form of hints to foster interaction and to support dyads in their attempts at self-correcting any incorrect answers. Using a multiple-try methodology, hints became increasingly specific for questions repeatedly answered incorrectly. Upon completing a follow-up comprehension exercise alone, all students were provided with KCR feedback only. Results from a quantitative analysis of the comprehension scores indicate that students who were provided with Elaborative feedback subsequently scored significantly higher on the follow-up exercise. Furthermore, results from a qualitative analysis of interactions suggest that CMC is a suitable way of generating quality interaction between students, particularly when Elaborative feedback is included.

Keywords

Readingfeedbackinteractioncomputer-mediatedcollaborationself-correction
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , May 2010 , pp. 112 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aragon, S. R., Johnson, S. D.Shaik, N. (2002) The influence of learning style preferences on student success in online versus face-to-face environments. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4): 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A.Morgan, M. (1991) The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2): 213–238.Google Scholar
Beatty, K. (2003) Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Beauvois, M. H.Eledge, J. (1996) Personality types and megabytes: Student attitudes towards computer mediated communication (CMC) in the language Classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2, 3): 27–45.Google Scholar
Beldarrain, Y. (2006) Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2): 139–153.Google Scholar
Birch, D.Volkov, M. (2007) Assessment of online reflections: Engaging English second language (ESL) students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3): 291–306.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000) Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1): 120–136. http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html.Google Scholar
Bonk, W. J.Ockey, G. (2003) A many-faceted Rasch analysis of the L2 group oral discussion task. Language Testing, 20(1): 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandl, K. K. (1995) Strong and weak students’ preferences for error feedback options and responses. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2): 194–211.Google Scholar
Card, K. A.Horton, L. (2000) Providing access to graduate education using computer-mediated communication. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(3): 235–245.Google Scholar
Caverly, D.McConald, L. (1998) Techtalk: Distance development education. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(3): 36–37, 40.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2005) Interactionist SLA theory in CALL research. In: Egbert, J. L. and Petrie, G. M. (eds.), CALL research perspectives. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 53–64.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. (2006) CALL technologies for L2 reading. In: Ducate, L. and Arnold, N. (eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching. San Marcos, TX: CALICO, 69–98.Google Scholar
Clariana, R. B. (1993) A review of multiple-try feedback in traditional and computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(3): 67–74.Google Scholar
Clariana, R. B. (2000) Feedback in computer-assisted learning. NETg University of Limerick Lecture Series. http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/b/rbc4/NETg.htm.Google Scholar
Clark, K.Dwyer, F. (1998) Effect of different types of computer-assisted feedback strategies on achievement and response confidence. International Journal of Instructional Media, wntr, 25(1): 55.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967) The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5(4): 161–170.Google Scholar
Eldredge, J. L. (1990) Increasing the performance of poor readers in the third grade with a group assisted strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 84: 69–77.Google Scholar
Eldredge, L. J.Butterfield, D. (1986) Alternatives to traditional reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 40: 32–36.Google Scholar
Fisher, E. (1992) Characteristics of children’s talk at the computer and its relationship to the computer software. Language and Education, 7(2): 187–215.Google Scholar
Gabriel, M. A. (2004) Learning together: Exploring group interactions online. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1): 54–72.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M.Varonis, E. (1994) Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16: 283–302.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2002) Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En busca de esmeraldas. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1): 86–104. http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/gonzalez/.Google Scholar
Gorsuch, G.Taguchi, E. (2008) Repeated reading for developing reading fluency and reading comprehension: The case of EFL learners in Vietnam. System, 36: 253–278.Google Scholar
Guldberg, K.Pilkington, R. (2007) Tutor roles in facilitating reflection on practice through online discussion. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1): 61–72.Google Scholar
Hemphill, L. S.Hemphill, H. H. (2007) Evaluating the impact of guest speaker postings in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2): 287–293.Google Scholar
James, C. (1998) Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Hong, W. (1997) Multimedia computer-assisted reading in business Chinese. Foreign Language Annals, 30: 335–344.Google Scholar
Jones, H. J.Wolf, P. J. (2001) Teaching a graduate content area reading course via the Internet: Confessions of an experienced neophyte. Reading Improvement, Spring, 38(1): 2–9.Google Scholar
Kanuka, H., Rourke, L.Laflamme, E. (2007) The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2): 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R. (1995) Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers. Modern Language Journal, 79: 457–473.Google Scholar
Kitade, K. (2000) L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2): 143–166.Google Scholar
Koskinen, P. S.Blum, I. H. (1986) Paired repeated reading: A classroom strategy for developing fluent reading. The Reading Teacher, 40: 70–75.Google Scholar
Kumari, D. S. (2001) Computer conferencing with access to a ‘guest expert’ in the professional development of special educational needs coordinators. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(11): 81–93.Google Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W.Wager, W. (1993) Feedback in programmed instruction: Historical context and implications for practice. In: Dempsey, J. V. and Sales, G. C. (eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 3–20.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P.Spada, N. (1999) How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lock, J. V. (2002) Laying the groundwork for the development of learning communities within online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3: 295–308.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1981) Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences, 379: 259–278.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. (1994) Comprehensible input and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3): 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandernach, B. J. (2005) Relative effectiveness of computer-based and human feedback for enhancing students learning. The Journal of Educators Online, 2(1). www.thejeo.com/MandernachFinal.pdf.Google Scholar
Mercer, N. (1995) The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Mercer, N. (2004) Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2): 137–168.Google Scholar
Merrill, J. (1987) Levels of questioning and forms of feedback: Instructional factors in courseware design. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14(1): 18–22.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. K. (2003) Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3). http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/v7n3_meyer.asp.Google Scholar
Mikulecky, L. (1998) Diversity, discussion, and participation. Comparing web-based and campus-based adolescent literature classes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(2): 84–92.Google Scholar
Moore, M. G. (1991) Theory of distance education. Paper presented at the Second American Symposium on Research in Distance Education, May 22–24, University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Moore, M. G.Thompson, M. M. (1990) The effects of distance learning: A summary of literature (Research Monograph No. 2). University Park, PA: American Center for the Study of Distance Education.Google Scholar
Mory, E. H. (1994) Adaptive feedback in computer-based instruction: Effects of response certitude on performance, feedback-study time, and efficiency. Educational Computing Research, 11(3): 263–290.Google Scholar
Murphy, P. (2007) Reading comprehension exercises online: The effects of feedback, proficiency and interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3): 107–129. http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num3/murphy/default.html.Google Scholar
Murphy, E.Coleman, E. (2004) Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2). http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol30.2/cjlt30-2_art-2.html.Google Scholar
Nagata, N. (1996) Computer vs. workshop instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO Journal, 14(1): 53–75.Google Scholar
Nes, S. L. (2003) Using paired reading to enhance the fluency skills of less-skilled readers. Reading Improvement, 40(4): 179–192.Google Scholar
O’Dowd, R. (2003) Understanding the “other side”: intercultural learning in a Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2): 118–144. http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/odowd/.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (1997) Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning and Technology, 1(1): 82–93.Google Scholar
Paran, A., Furneaux, C.Sumner, N. (2004) Computer-mediated communication in distance MA programmes: The student’s perspective. System, 32(3): 337–355.Google Scholar
Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S.Chang, C. (2003) Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3): 119–140.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44: 493–527.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1996) Do second language learners need negotiation? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 34(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Doughty, C.Young, R. (1986) The impact of interaction on comprehension: Do interactional modifications help? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 72: 1–25.Google Scholar
Polio, C.Gass, S. (1998) The role of interaction in native speaker comprehension of nonnative speaker speech. Modern Language Journal, 82: 308–319.Google Scholar
Ros, I., Solé, C.Truman, M. (2005) Feedback in distance language learning: Current practices and new directions. In: Holmberg, B., Shelley, M. A. and White C. J. (eds.), Languages and distance education: Evolution and change. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 72–91.Google Scholar
Rovai, A. P.Barnum, K. T. (2003) On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 18(1): 57–73.Google Scholar
Schimmel, B. J. (1983) A meta-analysis of feedback to learners in computerized and programmed instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 233 708).Google Scholar
Stakhnevich, J. (2002) Reading on the web: Implications for ESL professionals. The Reading Matrix, 2(2). http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/stakhnevich/article.pdf.Google Scholar
Stevens, V. (1992) Humanism and CALL: A coming of age. In: Pennington, M. C. and Stevens, V. (eds.), Computers in Applied Linguistics. Clevedon: Multimedia Matters Ltd., 11–38.Google Scholar
Stockwell, G.Levy, M. (2001) Sustainability of e-mail interactions between native speakers and nonnative speakers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(5): 419–442.Google Scholar
Tudini, V. (2005) Chatlines for beginners: Negotiating conversation at a distance. In: Holmberg, B., Shelley, M. and White, C. (eds.), Distance Education and Languages: Evolution and Change (New Perspectives on Language and Education). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 212–229.Google Scholar
Turcotte, S.Laferrière, T. (2004) Integration of an online discussion forum in a campus-based undergraduate biology class. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2). http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol30.2/cjlt30-2_art-4.html.Google Scholar
Uribe, D., Klein, J. D.Sullivan, H. (2003) The effects of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-defined problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1): 5–19.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2000) Does negotiation of meaning promote reading comprehension? A study of multilingual primary school classes. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3): 426–443.Google Scholar
Van Lier, L. (1996) Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy & authenticity. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Van der Linden, E. (1993) Does feedback enhance computer-assisted language learning? Computers and Education, 21: 61–65.Google Scholar
Verduin, J. R. Jr.Clark, T. A. (1991) Distance education: The foundations of effective practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Wang, Q.Woo, H. L. (2007) Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2): 272–286.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996) Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2, 3): 7–26.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1997) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4): 470–481.Google Scholar
Weasenforth, D., Biesenbach-Lucas, S.Meloni, C. (2002) Realizing constructivist objectives through collaborative technologies: Threaded discussions. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3): 58–86. http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/weasenforth/.Google Scholar
Weasenforth, D., Meloni, C. F.Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2005) Learner autonomy and course management software. In: Holmberg, B., Shelley, M. A. and White, C. J. (eds.), Languages and distance education: Evolution and change. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 195–211.Google Scholar
Wegerif, R.Mercer, N. (1996) Computers and reasoning through talk in the classroom. Language and Education, 10(1): 47–65.Google Scholar
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N.Dawes, L. (1998) Software design to support discussion in the primary curriculum. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14: 199–211.Google Scholar
Wiesenberg, F.Hutton, S. (1996) Teaching a graduate program using computer-mediated conferencing software. Journal of Distance Education, 11(1): 83–100.Google Scholar
Williams, H. S.Williams, P. N. (2000) Integrating reading and computers: An approach to improve ESL students reading skills. Reading Improvement, Fall, 37(3): 98–100.Google Scholar
Wilson, G.Stacey, E. (2004) Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teach online. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1): 33–48. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet20/wilson.html.Google Scholar
Wood, J. (2001) Can software support children’s vocabulary development? Language Learning & Technology, 5(1): 166–201. http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/wood/default.html.Google Scholar