Content deleted Content added
m Journal cites:, templated 16 journal cites |
m Journal cites:, added 4 DOIs, templated 3 journal cites |
||
Line 75:
=== History ===
The advent of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) as an instructional strategy for [[second language acquisition]] can be traced back to the 1990s. During that time, the internet was growing rapidly, which was one of the key factors that facilitated the process.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Warschauer | first1 = M | year = 1997 | title = Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice | url = | journal = The Modern Language Journal | volume = 81 | issue = 4| pages = 470–481 }}</ref> At the time, the first [[wikis]] (such as [[WikiWikiWeb]]) were still undergoing early development,<ref>Ebersbach, Anja (2008), Wiki: Web Collaboration, Springer Science+Business Media, {{ISBN|3-540-35150-7}}</ref> but the use of other tools such as electronic discussion groups allowed for equal participation amongst peers, particularly benefiting those who would normally not participate otherwise during face-to-face interactions.<ref>Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice. ''The Modern Language Journal'', 81(4), 470-481.</ref>
During the establishment of wikis in the 2000s, global research began to emerge regarding their effectiveness in promoting second language acquisition. Some of this research focused on more specific areas such as [[systemic-functional linguistics]], [[humanistic education]], [[experiental learning]], and [[psycholinguistics]]. For example, in 2009 Yu-Ching Chen performed a study to determine the overall effectiveness of wikis in an English as a second language class in Taiwan.<ref>Chen, Y. (2009). The effect of applying wikis in an English as a foreign language (EFL) class in Taiwan. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 69(11), 4300.</ref> Another example is a 2009 study by Greg Kessler in which pre-service, non-native English speaker teachers in a Mexican university were given the task to collaborate on a wiki, which served as the final product for one of their courses. In this study, emphasis was placed on the level of grammatical accuracy achieved by the students throughout the course of the task.<ref>Kessler, G. (2009). Student-Initiated Attention to Form in Wiki-Based Collaborative Writing. ''Language Learning & Technology'', 13(1), 79-95.</ref>
Due to the continual development of technology, other educational tools aside from wikis are being implemented and studied to determine their potential in scaffolding second language acquisition. According to Mark Warschauer (2010), among these are blogs, automated writing evaluation systems, and open-source netbooks.<ref>Warschauer, M. (2010). Invited Commentary: New Tools For Teaching Writing. ''Language Learning & Technology'', 14(1), 3-8.</ref> ''Ex situ'' of the classroom, the development of other recent online tools such as [[Livemocha]] (2007) have facilitated language acquisition via member-to-member interactions,<ref>Schmidt, Clint (Spring 2010). "Livemocha and the Power of Social Language Learning". IH Journal of Education and Development (28).</ref> demonstrating firsthand the impact the advancement of technology has made towards meeting the varying needs of language learners.
=== Effectiveness and perception ===
Studies in the field of [[computer-assisted language learning]] (CALL) have shown that computers provide material and valuable feedback for language learners and that computers can be a positive tool for both individual and collaborative language learning. CALL programs offer the potential for interactions between the language learners and the computer.<ref>Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.</ref> Additionally, students' [[autonomous language learning]] and [[self-assessment]] can be made widely available through the web.<ref>Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge University Press.</ref> In CSCL, the computer is not only seen as a potential language tutor by providing assessment for students' responses,<ref>Levy, M. (1997). CALL: Context and conceptualisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref> but also as a tool to give language learners the opportunity to learn from the computer and also via collaboration with other language learners. Juan<ref>Juan, A. A., 1972. (2010). Monitoring and assessment in online collaborative environments: Emergent computational technologies for e-learning support. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.</ref> focuses on new models and systems that perform efficient evaluation of student activity in online-based education. Their findings indicate that CSCL environments organized by teachers are useful for students to develop their language skills. Additionally, CSCL increases students' confidence and encourages them to maintain active learning, reducing the passive reliance on teachers' feedback. Using CSCL as a tool in the second language learning classroom has also shown to reduce [[learner anxiety]].<ref>Hurd, S. (2007). Anxiety and non-anxiety in a distance language learning environment: The distance factors as a modifying influence. ''System'', 35(4), 487-508.</ref>
Various case studies and projects had been conducted in order to measure the effectiveness and perception of CSCL in a language learning classroom. After a collaborative internet-based project, language learners indicated that their confidence in using the language had increased and that they felt more motivated to learn and use the target language. After analyzing student questionnaires, discussion board entries, final project reports, and student journals, Dooly<ref>Dooly, M. (2007). Joining forces: Promoting metalinguistic awareness through computer-supported collaborative learning. ''Language Awareness'', 16(1), 57-74.</ref> suggests that during computer supported collaborative language learning, students have an increased awareness of different aspects of the target language and pay increased attention to their own language learning process. Since the participants of her project were language teacher trainees, she adds that they felt prepared and willing to incorporate online interaction in their own teaching in the future.
=== Cultural considerations ===
[[Culture]] may be thought of as composed of "beliefs, norms, assumptions, knowledge, values, or sets of practice that are shared and form a system".<ref>Rapport, N. (2014). Social and cultural anthropology: The key concepts. Routledge.</ref> [[Learning communities]] focused in whole or part on second language acquisition may often be distinctly multicultural in composition, and as the cultural background of individual learners affects their collaborative norms and practices, this can significantly impact their ability to learn in a CSCL environment.<ref name="doi.org">Anastasios A. Economides. (2008). Culture‐aware collaborative learning.'' ''Multicultural Education & Technology Journal'', 2(4), 243–267. doi
CSCL environments are generally valued for the potential to promote collaboration in cross-cultural learning communities. Based on [[social constructivist]] views of learning,<ref>Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.</ref> many CSCL environments fundamentally emphasize learning as the co-construction of knowledge through the computer-mediated interaction of multivoiced community members. Computer-mediation of the learning process has been found to afford consideration of alternative viewpoints in multicultural/multilingual learning communities.<ref>Atsumi, T., Misumi, J., Smith, P., Peter, B., Peterson, M., Tayeb, M., … Tanzer, N. (1989). Groups, leadership and social influence. Recent Advances in Social Psychology: An International Perspective, 369–428.</ref> When compared to traditional face-to-face environments, computer-mediated learning environments have been shown to result in more equal levels of participation for ESL students in courses with native English speakers.<ref>Warschauer, M. (2005). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. ''CALICO Journal'', 13(2-3), 7–26.</ref> Language barriers for non-native speakers tend to detract from equal participation in general,<ref>Gunawardena, C. N., Nolla, A. C., Wilson, P. L., Lopez‐Islas, J. R., Ramirez‐Angel, N., & Megchun‐Alpizar, R. M. (2001). A cross‐cultural study of group process and development in online conferences. ''Distance Education'', 22(1), 85–121.</ref> and this can be alleviated to some extent through the use of technologies which support asynchronous modes of written communication.<ref>Ku, H.-Y., & Lohr, L. L. (2003). A case study of Chinese student's attitudes toward their first online learning experience. ''Educational Technology Research and Development'', 51(3), 95–102.</ref>
Online learning environments however tend to reflect the cultural, [[epistemological]], and [[pedagogical]] goals and assumptions of their designers.<ref>McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level. ''Australasian Journal of Educational Technology'', 16(1). Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/article/view/1822</ref> In computer-supported collaborative learning environments, there is evidence that cultural background may impact learner motivation, attitude towards learning and e-learning, learning preference (style), computer usage, learning behavior and strategies, academic achievement, communication, participation, knowledge transfer, sharing and collaborative learning.<ref name="doi.org"/> Studies variously comparing Asian, American and Danish and Finnish learners have suggested that learners from different cultures exhibit different interaction patterns with their peers and teachers in online.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kim | first1 = K.-J. | last2 = Bonk | first2 = C. J. | year = 2002 | title = Cross-cultural Comparisons of Online Collaboration | url = http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00163.x | journal = Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication | volume = 8 | issue = 1| pages = | doi = 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00163.x }}</ref> A number of studies have shown that difference in Eastern and Western educational cultures, for instance, which are found in traditional environments are also present in online environments.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Liang
==== Design implications ====
A "multiple cultural model" of [[instructional design]] emphasizes variability and flexibility in the process of designing for multicultural inclusiveness, focusing on the development of learning environments reflecting the multicultural realities of society, include multiple ways of teaching and learning, and promote equity of outcomes.<ref>Henderson, L. (1994). Reeves' pedagogic model of interactive learning systems and cultural contextuality (pp. 189–203). Presented at the Proceedings of the second international interactive multimedia symposium, Promaco Conventions Pty. Ltd. Perth.</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Henderson | first1 = L | year = 1996 | title = Instructional design of interactive multimedia: A cultural critique | url = | journal = Educational Technology Research and Development | volume = 44 | issue = 4| pages = 85–104 }}</ref> McLoughlin, C. & Oliver<ref>McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level. ''Australasian Journal of Educational Technology'', 16(1). Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304071844/http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index |date=2016-03-04 }}.</ref> propose a social, constructivist approach to the design of culturally-sensitive CSCL environments which emphasizes flexibility with regard to specific learning tasks, tools, roles, responsibilities, communication strategies, social interactions, learning goals and modes of assessment [B5]. Constructivist instructional design approaches such as R2D2<ref>Willis, J. (1995). A Recursive, Reflective Instructional Design Model Based on Constructivist-Interpretivist Theory. ''Educational Technology'', 35(6), 5–23.</ref> which emphasize reflexive, recursive, [[participatory design]] of learning experiences may be employed in developing CSCL which authentically engages learners from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
== Dyslexia in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning ==
Line 105:
The [[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990]] (ADA) established that all students with disabilities must be included in all state and districtwide assessments of student progress. The ADA also guarantees equal accommodation for the disabled in, “employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, transportation, and telecommunications.”<ref name="Woodfine 2006"/>
In recent years, tools such as WebHelpDyslexia and other capabilities of web applications have increased the availability of tools to provide coping skills for students with dyslexia.<ref>Avelar, L. O., Rezende, G. C., & Friere, A. P. (2015). WebHelpDyslexia: a browser extension to adapt web content for people with dyslexia. ''Procedia Computer Science'', 67, 150-159.</ref>
=== Research on Dyslexia in E-Learning Environments ===
In 2006, Woodfine argued that dyslexia can impact the ability of a student to participate in synchronous e-learning environments, especially if activities being completed are text-based. During experimental qualitative research, Woodfine found that data suggested “learners with dyslexia might suffer from embarrassment, shame and even guilt about their ability to interact with other learners when in a synchronous environment.”<ref name="Woodfine 2006"/>
In a study by Fichten et al., it was found that assistive technology can be beneficial in aiding students with the progression of their reading and writing skills. Tools such as spell check or text-to-speech can be helpful to learners with dyslexia by allowing them to focus more on self-expression and less on errors.<ref name="Alsobhi, A. 2015">Alsobhi, A., Khan, N., & Rahanu, H. (2015). Personalised learning materials based on dyslexia types: ontological approach. ''Procedia Computer Science'', 60, 113-121.</ref>
=== Design implications ===
Line 117:
The [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915012673 Dyslexia Adaptive E-Learning] (DAEL) is a suggested a framework that proposes four dimensions that cover 26 attributes. The proposed framework asks educators to make decisions based on perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and system adaptability:
*perceived ease of use: This refers to the degree to which a student believes that using the technology is free of effort.<ref name="ReferenceA">Alsobhi, A., Khan, N., & Rahanu, H. (2015). DAEL framework: a new adaptive e-learnng framework for students with dyslexia. ''Procedia Computer Science'', 51, 1947-1956.</ref> One technique to increase the perceived ease of use includes utilizing technology in which self-descriptiveness is present. This, coupled with clarity and logical flow of functions, makes the learning process easier and the interaction between the user and machine more convenient.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>
*perceived usefulness: Defined as how a student's performance, or learning performance, can be enhanced by a system. Studies show the impact of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness and their role in a users’ decision on whether to use a system again. Scaffolding as well as accommodations to the student's learning style will help overcome limitations of system operations, as will feedback geared toward system improvements.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>
*system adaptability: Refers to the user experiences and the way in which students are given control over a system to increase confidence and comfort in their learning. In addition to implications for the system, the flow of content shouldb be logical and the tone (attitude) of content should be encouraging.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>
=== 508 Compliance & the implications for Educators ===
Educators that choose to use the CSCL environment must be aware of [https://www.section508.gov/content/learn 508 compliance] and its legal implications. “In the U.S., the criteria for designing Web pages accessibly are provided by two major sets: the W3C’s [[Web Content Accessibility Guidelines|Web Accessibility Guidelines]] (WCAG) and the design standards issued under U.S. federal law, [[Section 508 Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973|Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act]], as amended in 1998.1 Features of accessible design include, among others, the provision of ALT tags for nontextual elements, such as images, animations and image map hot spots; meaningful link text; logical and persistent page organization, and the inclusion of skip navigation links."<ref>
Unfortunately, not all educators are exposed to these guidelines, especially if their collegiate programs do not provide exposure to the use of computers, aspects of web design or technology in education. In some cases, it may be advantageous for the educator to collaborate with an instructional technologist or web designer to ensure 508 guidelines are addressed in the desired learning environment for the CSCL.
| |||