Impact of Internet in Sla Writing

8/10/2019 Impact of Internet in Sla Writing

1/11

IMPACTS OF ONL INE TECHNOL OGY USE IN SECOND

LANGUAGE WRITING: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

D r . S h o w M e i L in Tennessee State University

D r . P r i s c i l l a G r i f f i t h University o f Oklahoma

This article reviews the literature on computer-supported collaborativelearning in second language and foreign language writing. While re

search has been conducted on the effects o f online technology in firstlanguage reading and writing, this article explores how online technology affects second and foreign language writing. The goal o f thisstudy is to examine the strengths and weaknesses o f online technology in second and foreign language writing instruction. The literaturereview suggests that online collaborative learning environments canhave cognitive, sociocultural, and psychological advantages, including enhancing writing skills, critical thinking skills, and knowledgeconstruction, while increasing participation, interaction, motivation,and reducing anxiety. The most frequently mentioned advantages arecognitive achievements and the least frequently mentioned advantages are psychological benefits. However, a few studies also reveal thatonline collaborative learning environments can have cognitive, social,

psychological, and technological disadvantages, including mechanical errors, conflict, fear, discomfort, and time wasted on technological problems. Most studies argue for the potential benefits of onlinecollaborative writing. None o f the studies is strong against onlinecollaborative learning or online collaborative writing. Even though afew studies recognize the drawbacks of online learning, they are notspecially related to writing or second language writing. Finally, issuesimportant for future research are discussed.

Introduction

Writing instruction of English Language Learners (ELLs) has become one of the most urgent issues in todays educational practice. As the pace of immigration to the U.S. has accelerated in recent years, increasing numbers of children in U.S. schools come from

homes in which English is not the primary spoken language. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of children ages 5-17 who spoke a language other than English at home more than doubled

between 1979 and 2004. An estimated 5 million children with limited proficiency in English were enrolled in U.S. public schools during the 2003-2004 school year (2006 United States Government Accountability Office), and they represent about 10 percent o f the total school population. These students speak

over 400 languages and most of them have difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English that interfere with their ability to successfully participate in school. In the 2003-2004 school year, the percentage

303


2/11

304 / Reading Improvement

of students with limited English proficiencyreported as scoring proficient on a states lan-guage arts tests was lower than the (states)annual progress goals in nearly two thirds ofthe 48 states.

Furthermore, ELL writers are a diverseand complex group. They come from a rangeof national, cultural, religious, ethnic, and lin-guistic groups. They speak many languagesand have extensive educational needs, includ-

ing students with little formal schooling andstudents with native language proficiency.Accurately assessing the academic knowl-edge of these students in English is challeng-ing. Compounding the challenge is a paucityof teaching strategies to address the diversityand complexity o f these students needs and tohelp them to improve their English proficien-cy. One size does not fit all in any endeavorto improve ELL students English proficien-

cy. Teachers need to find out what works forwhich students. In other words, ELL writingteachers need to look for teaching methodsthat address individual learning needs.

Recent ELL research has shown a mis-match between the writing programs offeredto ELL students and the realities of thenunique writing needs (Matsuda, 1998). Ac-cording to Matsuda (1998), most writing

programs in U.S. schools are more suitablefor native English speaking students thannon native English speaking students, be-cause ELL students have different linguistic,cultural, and educational needs than nativeEnglish speaking students. Since assessmentof student needs is fundamental to the designof a good curriculum, Reid (2001) advisesthat writing courses for English as a SecondLanguage students should be thoughtfullydesigned to integrate their immediate needswith institutional values, disciplinary goals,and professional expectations. In Reids rec-ommendation, there is mention of immediatestudent needs, indicating that in order for thestudent to benefit from instruction, instructors

must tailor instruction to meet student needs.In a traditional ELL writing classroom, it

will be almost impossible to develop teachingmethods that can address the individual learn-ing needs of linguistically and culturally di-verse students, because what works with onelinguistic and cultural group may not workwith the other. There is a need to find waysto address ELL students learning needs, in-cluding both individual and group learning.

Computer Supported Collaborative Learning(CSCL) might be one of the most promisinginterventions/systems that can incorporate

both individualized learning processes andsocial interaction learning to facilitate ELLwriting processes and writing outcomes.

CSCL arose in the 1990s in reaction tosoftware that forced students to learn as iso-lated individuals, proposing the developmentof new software and applications that bring

learners together and that can offer creativeactivities of intellectual exploration and socialinteraction. At that time, the potential of theInternet to connect people in innovative ways

provided a stimulus for CSCL research.Online Collaborative Writing can be classi-

fied under Computer Supported CollaborativeLearning and is a pedagogical approach that isenhanced and supported by computer sharedapplications and is facilitated and promptedonline by the synchronous and asynchronousComputer Mediated Communication (CMC)tools to enable a group of students from thesame writing class, and/or other writing class-es in local or international schools, to work inteams in order to exchange ideas, feedback andresources. Online Collaborative Writing is anextension of face to face traditional collabo-rative writing. However, Online Collaborativewriting may include any interaction and com-munication occurring before, during, and/orafter the Online Collaborative Writing processto generate ideas, fix problems, enrich under-standing and to help learners make decisionsabout their shared writing.


3/11

Impacts of Online Technology Us e in Second Langu age Writing / 305

In conclusion, today, the use of onlinetechnologies to support writing has beenwide spread. Research has been conductedon the effects of online technology in firstlanguage reading and writing. However,there have been debates on the effectivenessand practicality of the online technologyfor second language (L2) learners writing.Therefore, this study asks, what are the

benefits and difficulties that ELL writers en-

counter while they are using online writing?

Methodology

This paper mainly focuses on researchregarding the impact of online collaborativelearning environment on writing. The re-searcher searched EBSCO, ERIC, and otherdatabases for all studies with the followingdescriptors: online collaborative learning,writing process and computer, writing

process and collaborative learning, computer supported collaborative learning andwriting, writing communities, ESL writingand computer, and collaborative writingand computer. Citations from other reviewsand articles were also obtained. Particular-ly, each effort was made to find all studiescited in previous reviews. From this set, theresearcher selected studies that met two cri-teria: (1) the studies were empirical studies,

and the studies used quantitative, qualita-tive, or mixed method to analyze data; and(2) the studies were published in academic

journals. Doctoral dissertations, mas terstheses, books, unpublished reports, andnon refereed articles were not included inthe review.

Findings

Twenty two studies explored the effec-tiveness of online collaborative learningon ELL/EFL writing. Among these studies,fifteen studies focused on ELL/EFL writing,including ten studies arguing for the potential

benefits of online collaborative writing, and a

few recognizing the disadvantages of onlinecollaborative learning.

Online Collaborative Learn ing BenefitsThe benefits could be abstracted into the

following major categories: cognitive bene-fits, social/cultural benefits, and psychological

benefits. Cognitive benefits receive the mostattention. The first citation o f a research studywill include a description of the study in de-

tail including the major benefits indicated bythe study, but thereafter only the researchersnames and their findings within other benefitcategories will be mentioned.

Cognitive BenefitsThree studies place greater emphasis on

cognitive benefits. Two of the studies usequalitative research methods, and describemany cognitive advantages resulting from on-line collaborative learning. Cognitive benefitsare the most frequently mentioned benefitsamong the studies.

Cohen and Riel (1989) conducted aquantitative study to examine the qualityof students writing in two seventh gradeclassrooms. There were 22 students in eachclassroom. The study examined the qual-ity of students Hebrew writing based ontwo conditions: towards their teacher for aterm assessment and towards online peersto share ideas. Forty four grade 7 studentswrote two compositions on the same topic,one addressed peers in other countries viaa computer network and the other teachersfor their semester grade, counterbalancedfor order effects across the two classrooms.The results indicated that the papers writtento communicate with peers on the networkwere scored higher than those written to theteacher for grades, regardless of the order inwhich the papers written to peers were writ-ten in both classrooms. The students com-

positions, written online for peer audiences,appeared more fluent, better organized, and


4/11


their ideas were more clearly stated and supported than those written for a grade.

However, there are a few flaws with thisstudy. In terms of a quantitative study, thisstudy uses a small sample size. There are only44 students for each condition (treatment), onefor writing with peers online, and the other forwriting for a class grade. Second, the durationfor the two treatments is short and done onlyonce. Short term effects of a particular treat-

ment on writing research can change over time.Lindblom Ylanne and Pihlajamaki (2003)

examine whether a computer supported learn-ing environment enhances essay writing by

providing an opportunity to share drafts withfellow students and receive feedback from adraft version. Twenty five law students partic-ipated in this qualitative study. Data for thisstudy were collected by both the students andthe teachers interviews. The results showed

that the students deepened their understand-ing, elaborated their own ideas, improvedcritical and independent skills, and developedself regulative skills. Additionally, the activeuse of a computer supported learning environ-ment was related to good essay grades.

Tuzi (2004) conducted a study to explorethe relationship between electronic feedback(e feedback) and its impact on second lan-guage (L2) writers revisions. Twenty ELLcollege writers participated in this study. Par-ticipating students wrote, responded, and re-vised on a database driven website specifical-ly designed for writing and responding. Theforms of feedback students received includedoral feedback from friends and peers and fromface to face meetings with university writingcenter tutors. Data were collected from the

participants through interviews, observations,written drafts, and responses. The results ofthe study show that although students pre-ferred oral feedback, e feedback had a greaterimpact on revision, helping ELL writers focuson adding new information to the original text.In addition, e feedback affected ESL writers

revision at a higher structural level, such asrevisions at the sentence and paragraph levels.

In addition, other studies briefly discussthe cognitive advantages. In terms of syntac-tic complexity, the delayed nature of asyn-chronous discussions gives learners moreopportunities to produce syntactically complexlanguage. Learners used more subordinate andembedded subordinate clauses in their writing(Sotillo, 2000), and appropriated a variety of

language practices (Chung, Graves, Wesche,& Barfurth, 2005). Moreover, students partici-

pated in expert and novice discursive practicesin the construction of meaning (Weasenforth& Meloni, 2002; Chung, Graves, Wesche, &Barfurth, 2005). Overall, the studies conclud-ed that students gained more skills in criticalreflection (Weasenforth & Meloni, 2002). Ac-cording to Alias and Hussin (2002), students

perceived the information search, email, and

on line forum as helpful to the writing process.Some web sites created for ELL/EFL learnerswere perceived to be especially useful in pro-viding knowledge and drills on the usage of thelanguage; e mail was perceived to have helpedstudents in gathering ideas, peer editing, andrevising; and forum discussions were per-ceived to have allowed students to contributeideas and to stimulate their thinking processes.

Sociocultural BenefitsFour studies focused on the socio cul

tural benefits in an online collaborativelearning environment and one study brieflymentioned the benefits. Four of them usedmixed methods combining quantitative andqualitative design.

Kern (1995) examined the use of Daeda-lus Interchange, a local area computer net-work application, to facilitate communicative

language use through synchronous, writtenclassroom interaction. This mixed methodstudy compares the quality and characteristicsof the discourse produced by two groups ofsecond semester French students totaling 40


5/11

Impacts of Online Technolo gy Use in Secon d Lang uage Writing / 307

students during an Interchange session andduring an oral class discussion on the same top-ic. Three types of data were collected, includ-ing scripts of students writing, transcriptionsof students oral discussion, and students andteachers responses to a questionnaire regard-ing their impressions of using Interchange.The study found that students had more turns,

produced more sentences, and used a greatervariety of discourse functions when working in

Interchange than they did in their oral discus-sions. There were more student to student in-teractions and it resulted in more peer learning,reducing students reliance on the instructor.Moreover, a majority of students found that thenetworked computer environment was moti-vating and that it reduced their communicationanxiety. Students who were often reluctantto participate in oral discussions participatedmore actively in Interchange (online) discus-

sions. The Kern (1995) study uses a smallsample size (40 participants), and no randomassignment or pre post test comparisons; there-fore, the generalization of this study to other

populations should be made cautiously.Sotillo (2000) investigates discourse

functions and syntactic complexity in English as a Second Language (ESL) learneroutput obtained via two different modes ofComputer Mediated Communication (CMC):

asynchronous and synchronous discussions.Two instructors and 25 students from twoadvanced ESL writing classes participated inthis study. Data collected through postings tosynchronous discussions and asynchronousdiscussions were analyzed and coded. Theresults of this mixed method study showedthat the quantity and types of discourse func-tions present in synchronous discussions weresimilar to the ESL face to face conversations.

Synchronous discussion was highly interactiveand primarily controlled by students. Students

produced more informal electronic speechand utilized a variety of discourse fimctionswhen they exchanged ideas and information

with their classmates in a synchronous discus-sion than when posting to the asynchronousdiscussion forum. Negotiations focused onmeaning/content between and among studentsin synchronous discussions. On the other hand,discourse functions in asynchronous discus-sions were more constrained than those foundin synchronous discussions and were similarto the traditional language class discourse:teacher question student response teacher eval-

uation. However, there is no controlled exper-iment in the Sotillo (2000) study. Students arenot randomly assigned to an experimental orcontrol group (Chung, Graves, Wesche, & Barfurth 2005). Beuchot and Bullen (2005) con-ducted a mixed method longitudinal study toevaluate the amount and type of interaction andinterpersonal content in messages posted byEFL (Leaming English as Foreign Language)online graduate students in small group asyn-

chronous forums. The qualitative data includedthe analysis of the content of the discussion fo-rums. The quantitative data involved countingand categorizing the units of content analysisthat took the form of numeric values assignedto explanatory and response variables. Sixteendoctoral students in education took part in thisstudy. The results of the study suggest that cul-tivating interactive and reactive online messag-es leads to increased participation and expands

the depth of discussion; therefore, it facilitatesonline collective knowledge building. Mean-while, the social issues of learners commu-nicative processes, such as the complexity ofinteractions and the development of a cohesivegroup of participants may have an impact onstudents cognitive learning outcomes.

The Beuchot and Bullen (2005) study isnot particularly designed to study writing.Moreover, the study uses a small sample, onlysixteen students. There is no experimental de-sign, such as control groups or pretest posttestcomparisons. As a result, the generalizationof this study to other populations should bemade cautiously.


6/11

308 / Read ing Improvemen t

Chung, Graves, Wesche, and Barfurth(2005) conducted a qualitative study toinvestigate language learning as a sociallymediated process through computer-mediated communicative tasks in an internationallanguages class. Twenty-six high schoolstudents participated in this study. The study

paired Korean- and English-speaking peers,each learning the others language, who collaborated on chat homework assignments.

The findings of the study reveal that on-linecollaborative discourse supports knowledge building within this cross-linguisticlearning environment. Data from chat exchanges show these students were able toleam and teach contextually meaningful andappropriate linguistic and cultural behaviorthrough socially mediated actions, using themeaning-making resources within their ownlearning community. In other words, theideas, language, and the cultural ways o f one

partner can become the ideas, language, andthe cultural ways of the other. Specifically,the findings show students developed awareness of self in relation to others.

One study briefly discusses the socio-cul-tural benefits. According to Weasenforth andMeloni (2002), online discussion enhancessocial skills, including social interaction,interpersonal relationships, communication,and collaboration.

Psychological BenefitsThree major studies suggest the psycho

logical benefits of an online learning environment. They all use different research methods,including one quantitative, one qualitative,and one mixed method.

Alias and Hussin (2002) conducted aquantitative study to investigate the degree

of helpfulness of E-leaming activities in students writing processes. Twenty out of 50college students enrolled in an English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) writing coursewere selected based on a stratified sample.

Data were collected using two questionnairesand one log-book assignment. The activityquestionnaire was administered at the end ofevery session and the log-books containingstudent records of their online activities werealso collected at the end of each session. Inaddition, to investigate the changes in the students emotional level, an attitude survey wasadministered at the beginning and at the endof the program. The findings reveal e-mail

and online discussion raised the students motivation, confidence, and reduced their anxietylevel. However, the Alias and Hussin (2002)study uses a small sample size, and there areonly twenty participants. Statistically, it maynot be adequate to generalize the finding ofthis study to other populations.

Weasenforth and Meloni (2002) useconstructivist principles as a framework toevaluate the extent to which their imple

mentation of threaded discussions fulfillsconstructivist curricular goals. Fifty-twointernational students from advanced-levelESL reading/writing classes participated inthis qualitative study for three consecutivesemesters. The findings o f the study indicatethat the technology addressed affective factors, such as reducing threatening feelingsand enhancing motivation.

Greenfield (2003) conducted a mixedmethod study to examine secondary ESL students perceptions of a collaborative e-mailexchange between a tenth grade ESL classin Hong Kong and an eleventh grade Englishclass in Iowa for a period of 12 weeks. Thefinding shows that the majority of Hong Kongstudents enjoyed the exchange, gained general confidence in English and computer skills,and felt that they made significant progress inwriting, thinking, and speaking.

In summary, through a Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environment, including e-mail, online forums, and web-conferencing tools, students benefit cognitively,socially, culturally, and psychologically.


7/11

Impacts of Online Technology Use in Secon d Langu age Writing / 309

Online Collaborative Learning DifficultiesSix studies have recognized numerous

problems and difficulties that hinder studentsonline learning, including the Kern (1995)study already discussed in the benefit catego-ry. None of them is completely against onlinecollaborative learning. All of them still arguefor online collaborative learning but have di-agnosed problems that inhibit students onlinelearning. None of the six studies focuses on

online writing difficulties; most studies consid-er general online collaborative learning diffi-culties. These difficulties could be categorizedinto the following major difficulties: cognitive,social, psychological, and technological. So-cial difficulties receive the most attention.

Cognitive Difficulties No majo r study focuses on cognitive

difficulties. Kern (1995) briefly mentions

that networked computer environments have problems, inc luding giv ing less attention togrammatical accuracy and less coherence andcontinuity to discussions.

Social DifficultiesThree studies conclude that there are social

disadvantages in an online learning environ-ment. Two studies use mixed methods and onestudy utilizes a qualitative design. Andersonand Kanuka (1997) conducted a mixed methodstudy to evaluate the output, level of participa-tion, and perceptions o f effectiveness and valueamong participants in a virtual forum. Twen-ty three experts in the field of adult educationand community development participated in athree week interactive session using a WWW

based, asynchronous computer conferencingsystem. Data gathered through surveys, in-terviews, transcript analysis, and on line dis-cussion revealed that online forums are lesssatisfying than face to face forums. Most par-ticipants felt that it was more difficult to social-ize with other participants than in a face to faceinteraction. In addition, they felt that the quality

of information exchanges during the on lineforum did not match the quality o f informationthat would have been exchanged in a face toface forum, and they felt more limited in theirability to communicate (such as discussing andasking questions) with other participants thanthey would in a face to face forum.

Cifuentes and Shih (2001) conducted aqualitative study to examine the documentationof the online teaching and learning experienc-

es to identify some online teaching strategies, benefits, and limitations o f online teaching andlearning, and to discover cultural aspects as-sociated with this cross cultural collaboration.Thirty seven American university preserviceteachers were paired with 37 university lev-el Taiwanese students. Data were collectedthrough printouts of the correspondences,

preservice teachers formative evaluations, preservice teachers reflective journal entries,

and surveys o f the Taiwanese partners.The findings of the study show that partic-

ipants identified some limitations associatedwith the online teaching and learning experi-ence, including dependence on an unresponsive

partner and a sense o f detachment. Studentsfelt frustrated because of the lack o f immedi-ate feedback, or no feedback at all from their

peers. Some students also complained that theinability to know when a response might come

contributed to a feeling o f detachment, and thedetachment led to misunderstandings.

Curtis and Lawson (2001) conducted amixed method study to investigate the extent towhich evidence of collaborative learning could

be identified in students textual interactions inan online learning environment. Twenty fourcollege students were involved in the study.Through the analysis o f students posted messag-es and evaluation forms, the findings revealed

that there is a lack of observable challenge inonline interaction because most participants liketo share ideas which they agree on, but if an ideathreatens their world view they skim over it anddo not want to communicate about it.


8/11


Psychological DifficultiesOnly one study discusses psychological

difficulties. Fisher, Phelps, and Ellis (2000)conducted a qualitative study to examinegroup processes in an online environment.Five college students participated in the study.Data were gathered through students jour-nals, assignments, and their online communi-cations. The findings indicate that students feltuncomfortable with communicating online

because of the lack of non verbal cues, facialand body cues, and the difficulty of express-ing emotion through text. Also, students wereworried that the lack of visual cues can leadto misunderstanding and miscommunication.

Technological DifficultiesOne major study suggests technological

difficulties and another study briefly mentionsthem. Alexander (1999) conducted a qualita-

tive study to examine a collaborative instruc-tional design project using constructivist the-ory, exploratory and resource based learning,electronic communities, and integrated infor-mation technology immersion. Five collegestudents from the Public Policy and Admin-istration Department participated in a surveyfor this study. Data gathered from student andfaculty evaluations, and reports of experiencesindicate that students ranked learning to use

various technology tools as the most time con-suming activity among nine main activities.Students commented that technical difficultieswere barriers in online discussions.

In another study concerning the vulnerabil-ity to technical failure (Cifuente & Shih 2001),some students have expressed concerns aboutthe risk of computer failure and time lost wait-ing for the problem to be solved because thereis no other way to communicate.

Discussion and Implications

The latter section has explored someadvantages and disadvantages regardingonline collaborative learning. Studies show

that online collaborative learning environ-ments can have cognitive, socio cultural,and psychological advantages, includingenhancing writing skills, critical thinkingskills, and knowledge construction, whileincreasing participation, interaction, mo-tivation, and reducing anxiety. The mostfrequently mentioned advantages amongthese studies are cognitive achievements andthe least frequently mentioned advantages

are psychological benefits. However, a fewstudies also reveal that online collaborativelearning environments can have cognitive,social, psychological, and technologicaldisadvantages, including mechanical errors,conflict, fear, discomfort, and time wasted ontechnological problems. Most studies arguefor the potential benefits of online collabora-tive writing. None of the studies is stronglyagainst online collaborative learning or

online collaborative writing. Even though afew studies recognize the drawbacks of on-line collaborative learning, they are not spe-cifically related to writing or ELL writing.

Overall, by reviewing ELL students writ-ing needs, the development of CSCL, and itsapplication to online collaborative writing,one could make the following inferences:

The majority of the studies published by academic journals favor onlinecollaborative writing. Not a singleone is strongly against online collabo-rative learning or online collaborativewriting. It is possible, but unlikely,that studies with positive effects sim-

ply have much better opportunitiesto be published. There is much morewe need to know about the difficul-ties (problems) students experiencewithin the online writing processes,how students deal with the problems,and how writing teachers can helpstudents solve their difficulties andsupport their learning.


9/11

Impacts of Online Technology Use in Second Langu age Writing / 311

Most online writing studies utilizequalitative or mixed methods researchdesigns. The duration o f most study isshort and the number of participantsin most studies is small. This is a trendshifting from a large sample size ofquantitative studies to a small samplesize of qualitative or mixed methodsstudies in the online writing area.

Most studies do not distinguish between different pedagogicalideas on how computer supportedcollaborative learning has beenimplemented in classroom settings.Moreover, there are no studiessystematically comparing theimpact of different CSCL tools onELL writing. A careful study of thesuccesses and failures between kindsof applications may provide guidelinesfor ELL writing teachers to integratedifferent tools for different teachinggoals and pedagogical situations.Overall, there is no single technologysystem or tool that is perfect in allaspects; therefore, people shouldavoid an unreasonable expectationthat any good system or tool should

be able to do everything. Peopleusing online technology in languageteaching and learning may oftenuncounsciously focus on the power oftechnology but ignore the contextualaspects of how the technology is usedand what pedagogical factors willaffect the impact o f its use.

Although most studies done in the past twenty years (from 1989 to 2013)have recommended that the principles

of CSCL are highly promising forthe development of future learningenvironment, CSCL is still notcommonly accepted by practicingwriting teachers. They are still worried

about it, especially when teachers tryto integrate it into the curriculum.For example, teachers did not regardcollaborative learning as an importantapplication of computers and theythought that the practical principlesof CSCL are still too immature to bewidely applied in practical educationalsettings (Hakkarainen, Jarvela,Lipponen & Lehtinen, 1998).

In an experimental situation, it istypical that teachers are working in awell-equipped environment in whichthey are maximally supported by theresearchers and technical aids. Inthese kind o f situations, the practice ismore likely to obtain positive resultseven though the technical tools and

pedagogical arrangements are notgenerally adequate in relation to theconstraints of Common Core StateStandards and high-stake tests.

Ware & Warschauer (2005) suggest thatELL teachers will need to develop morerigorous evaluative criteria essay. If the goal isto help ELL students to become more creativeand thoughtful in their writing, then ELLwriting teachers probably need to reexaminetheir teaching and learning context and see

if CSCL can help them to meet particularcontextual and pedagogical needs.

In summary, the diversity of ELL studentsfirst language backgrounds leads to a numberof complex problems. ELL writing teachersshould understand their students learningneeds and tailor instruction to meet thoseneeds in order to maximize benefits to thestudents. We need to analyze not only what

benefits but also what difficulties students ex

perience during the online writing process sothat writing teachers can have a more comprehensive understanding o f how to integrate online collaborative writing into a writing class.


10/11


ReferencesAlexander, J. O. (1999). Collaborative Design,

Constructivist Learning, Information TechnologyImmersion, & Electronic Communities: A CaseStudy. An Electronic Journal fo r the 21s t Century, 7(1-2).

Alias, N., & Hussin, S. (2002). E-learning in a WritingCourse at Tenaga National University. TEFL Web

Journal, 1(3).Anderson, T. & Kanuka, H. (1997). On-Line Forums:

New Platforms for Professional Development andGroup Collaboration. Journal o f Computer Mediated Communication, 5(3).

Beuchot, A., & Bullen, M. (2005). Interaction andInterpersonality in Online Discussion Forums.

Distance Education, 26(1), 67-87.Chung, Y., Graves, B., Wesche, M., & Barfurth, M.

(2005). Computer-Mediated Communication inKorean-English Chat Rooms: Tandem Learning inan International Languages Program. The Canadian

Modem Language Review, 62(1), 49-86.Cifuentes, L., & Shih, Y. D. (2001). Teaching and learning

online: A collaborative between U.S. and Taiwanese

students. Jou rnal o f Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 456-475.Cohen, M. & Riel, M. (1989). The Effect of Distant

Audiences on Students Writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 143-159.

Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). ExploringCollaborative Online Learning. Journal o f

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21-34.Fisher, K., Phelps, R. & Ellis, A. (2000). Group processes

online: teaching collaboration through collaborative processes. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3).

Greenfield, R. (2003). Collaborative E-Mail Exchange

for Teaching Secondary ESL: A Case S tudy in Hong Kong. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1),46-70.

Hakkarainen, K., Jarvcla, S., Lipponen, L., & Lehtinen,E. (1998). Culture of collaboration in computer-supported learning: AFinnish perspective. Journal of Interactive LearningResearch, 9(3/4), 271-288.

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring Classroom Interactionwith Networked Computers: Effects on Quantityand Characteristics o f Language Production. Modem

Language Journal, 9(4), 157-176.

Lindblom-Yanne, S., & Pihlajamaki, H. (2003). Can aCollaborative Network Environment Enhance Essay-Writing Processes? Brit ish Jou rna l o f Educat ional Technology, 34(10), 17-30.

Matsuda, P. K. (1998). Situating ESL writing in across-disciplinary context. Written Communication, 75(1), 99-122.

No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from EducationCould Help States Better Measure Progress ofStudents with Limited English Proficiency. GAO-06-815. Government Accountability Office-06-815.Washington, D.C.: July 26,2006.

Reid, J. (2001). Advanced EAP writing and Curriculumdesign: What do we need to Know? In A Second

Language Writing, Eds. Tony Silva & Paul KeiMatsuda

Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntacticcomplexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4

(1), 82-119.Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revi

sions of L2 writers in an academic writing course.Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217-235.

Ware, P. & Warschauer, M. (2005). Hybrid literacy textsand practices in technology-intensive environments.International Journal of Educational Research, 43,432-445.

Wcasenforth, D., & Meloni, C. (2002). RealizingConstructivist Objectives through CollaborativeTechnologies: Threaded Discussions. Language

Learning & Technology, 6(3), 58-86.


11/11

C o p y r i g h t o f R e a d i n g I m p r o v e m e n t i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f P r o m a y n o t b e c o p i e d o r e m a i l e d t o m u l t i p l e s i t e s o r p o s t e d t o h o l d e r ' s e x p r e s s w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . H o w e v e r , u s e r s m a y i n d i v i d u a l u s e .

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ana-sabo
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Impact of Internet in Sla Writing

Documents