Computer‐mediated collaborative learning theory and practice.doc

《Computer‐mediated collaborative learning theory and practice.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Computer‐mediated collaborative learning theory and practice.doc（18页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。

1、AUTHOR:MARK WARSCHAUERTITLE:Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and PracticeSOURCE:The Modern Language Journal v81 p470-81 Winter 97The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. AUTHOR ABSTRACTRecently interest has grown concerning

2、the uses of online communication for language teaching. Yet this growing interest in computer-mediated collaborative language learning has not been matched by sufficient research and theory. This article introduces a conceptual framework for understanding the role of computer-mediated interaction ba

3、sed on a sociocultural analysis of the relationship among text, talk, and learning. The article then analyzes current research according to five features particular to online interaction.THE RAPID GROWTH OF THE INTERNET, arguably the fastest growth of any technology in history, has caught the attent

4、ion of language teachers.(FN1) The number of regional and national presentations related to online language learning has expanded geometrically in recent years. Many state and national meetings and special symposia have been devoted to this theme.(FN2) Yet this growing interest in computer-mediated

5、collaborative language learning has not yet been matched by sufficient attention to research and theory.One purpose of this article is to explore the hature of computer-mediated communication (CMC) by using a conceptual framework that starts with well-known theories of input and output and leads to

6、sociocultural learning theory.Another purpose is to examine classroom accounts of CMCs potential for promoting collaborative language learning, with specific reference to five features that distinguish CMC from other communication media: (a) text-based and computer-mediated interaction, (b) many-to-

7、many(FN3) communication, (c) time- and place-independence (d) long distance exchanges, and (e) hypermedia links. In some cases these accounts constitute rigorous research studies; in other cases they are teachers personal narratives. Because the entire field of CMC is so new, a broad survey of this

8、type can help identify issues and trends that may deserve further attention and research.CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKPerhaps the best known perspective for looking at cooperative communication in the language classroom was originally derived from Krashens (1985) Input Hypothesis, but it has undergone signif

9、icant additions and changes. Krashen claimed that the development of a second language (L2) is almost wholly dependent on the amount of comprehensible input that one receives. Researchers have investigated the types of conversational interactions among learners that facilitate the intake of comprehe

10、nsible input (for reviews, see Long, 1996; Pica, 1994). In this model, the purpose of interaction is to provide the input-or, in some views, the output (Swain, 1985)-to make L2 development possible. This framework is useful for understanding the benefits of classroom interaction, both in general and

11、 also via CMC. For example, psycholinguistic researchers have investigated the effects of strategies such as noticing input (e.g., Doughty, 1991; Schmidt, 1993; Sharwood Smith, 1993) and planning output (Crookes, 1989).However, this perspective does not explain precisely how students use language-re

12、lated collaboration for the following purposes: (a) to become competent members of a speech community (Hymes, 1972) or social group (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986), (b) to gain important cultural knowledge (Kern, 1996) or content matter (Bayer, 1990; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992), or (c) to develop literacy

13、 skills or critical thinking skills (Heath, 1983; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). A more encompassing conceptual framework is necessary: the sociocultural perspective.The sociocultural perspective, deriving in part from the concepts of Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978), illuminates the role of social inte

14、raction in creating an environment to learn language, learn about language, and learn through language. This perspective examines interaction within a broad social and cultural context.In Vygotskys view, human learning and development are bound up in activity, that is, purposeful action mediated by

15、various tools (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1979). The most important of these tools is language, the semiotic system that is the basis of human intellect (Halliday, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978). All higher-order functions develop out of language-based, social interaction. Every function in the childs cultural

16、 development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; the first, between people (interpsychological), and then inside the child (intrapsychological) (Vygotsky, 1981, p. 163).Vygotsky (1962) stressed that collaborative learning, either among students or between s

17、tudents and a teacher, is essential for assisting each student in advancing through his or her own zone of proximal development, that is, the gap between what the learner could accomplish alone and what he or she could accomplish in cooperation with others who are more skilled or experienced (see Ny

18、ikos & Hashimoto in this special issue). In recent years, two main interpretations have arisen about how students traverse the zone of proximal development (Wertsch & Bivens, 1992): (a) modeling and (b) text mediation.In the modeling interpretation, the teacher models an approach to the learning (Pa

19、lincsar & Brown, 1984). The text-mediational interpretation views texts(FN4) as thinking devices to generate new meanings collaboratively (Lotman, 1988; Wertsch & Bivens, 1992). This interpretation focuses on how all participants in intermental functioning are actively engaged in shaping this functi

20、oning (Wertsch & Bivens, 1992, p. 39). The text-mediational perspective is strengthened by incorporating the views of Bakhtin (1986), one of Vygotskys Soviet contemporaries. Bakhtin and his circle sharply critiqued the view that language is either an abstract system of linguistic forms or an individ

21、ual form of activity (Volosinov, 1973). For Bakhtin, the unique speech experience of each individual is shaped through constant interaction, and more focused interaction leads to higher forms of learning. Words, intonations, and inner-word gestures that have undergone the experience of outward expre

22、ssion acquire a high social polish and lustre by the effect of reactions and responses, resistance or support, on the part of a social audience (Volosinov, 1973, p. 98). This intense social interaction is also where creative energies build up through whose agency partial or radical restructuring of

23、ideological systems comes about (p. 92).The text-mediational interpretation of Vygotsky has been well developed by educators. Bayers (1990) model of collaborative-apprenticeship learning emphasizes the use of expressive speech and writing, peer collaboration, and meaningful problem-solving tasks. Th

24、e teacher assists, not as a model but rather as a guide, while students collaborate to make connections between new ideas . and prior knowledge, use language as a tool for learning, and develop language and thinking competencies (p. 7). Wells and Chang-Wells (1992) describe learning as a semiotic ap

25、prenticeship based on the creation of a collaborative community of practice in which learners develop their thinking through talk rather than through modeling. Wells and Chang-Wells point out that by making a record of text of thought available for reflection, and, if necessary, revision, a written

26、text serves as a cognitive amplifier ., allowing the reader or writer to bootstrap his or own thinking in a more powerful manner than is normally possible in speech (p. 122). The concept of cognitive amplification builds on the work of researchers such as Bruner (1972), Scribner and Cole (1981), and

27、 Heath (1983), who investigated the relationship among texts, talk, and literate thinking.According to Wells and Chang-Wells (1992), the opportunity for cognitive amplification is too often missed in school, because texts are used primarily for performance (e.g., for reading aloud) or for informatio

28、n (e.g., for dictionary look-up). These researchers urge that texts be used epistemically, that is, treated as a tentative and provisional attempt on the part of the writer to capture his or her current understanding . so that it may provoke further attempts at understanding as the writer or the rea

29、der dialogues with the text in order to interpret its meaning (pp. 139-140). When students attempt such interpretation by writing down their responses, they can capture those insights and perceived connections so that they can be returned to, critically examined, reconsidered, and perhaps made the b

30、asis for the construction of a further sustained text of ones own (p. 140).Thus, the text-mediational view links the concepts of expression, interaction, reflection, problem-solving, critical thinking, and literacy with the various uses of talk, text, inquiry, and collaboration in the classroom. Thi

31、s particular sociocultural approach provides a useful framework for understanding collaborative learning in the language classroom and for evaluating the potential of online education to assist that process.(FN5)REVIEW OF STUDIESThis section reviews a number of studies that touch on the power of CMC

32、 to encourage collaborative learning in the language classroom. CMCs five distinguishing features, which were mentioned earlier, serve as the organizing principles of this section: (a) text-based and computer-mediated interaction, (b) many-to-many communication, (c) time- and place-independence, (d)

33、 long distance exchanges, and (e) hypermedia links.TEXT-BASED AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED INTERACTIONWhether in society (Halliday, 1993) or the classroom (Harnad, 1991; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992), language has two main functions. It allows us to (a) interact communicatively and (b) construe experience, th

34、at is, to interpret experience by organizing it into meaning (Halliday, 1993, p. 95). Throughout human history, the interactive role has been played principally by speech, whereas the permanence of written texts has made them powerful vehicles for interpretation and reflection (Bruner, 1972; Harnad,

35、 1991). Writing, unlike speech, could be accessed and analyzed by many people at different times. However, the real strength of writing reflective cognition . was purchased at the price of becoming a much less interactive medium than speech (Harnad, 1991).Yet the intersection between reflection and

36、interaction is of critical importance in education. Online communication, which is labeled CMC above, is a possible cognitive amplifier (Harasim, 1990; Harnad, 1991) that can encourage both reflection and interaction. The historical divide between speech and writing has been overcome with the intera

37、ctional and reflective aspects of language merged in a single medium: CMC. For the first time in history, human interaction now takes place in a text-based form-moreover, a computer-mediated form that is easily transmitted, stored, archived, reevaluated, edited, and rewritten. The opportunities to f

38、reeze a single frame and focus attention on it are greatly expanded by CMC. Students own interactions can now become a basis for epistemic engagement. Such features led one prominent cognitive scientist to describe the Internet as bringing about the fourth revolution in the means of production of kn

39、owledge, on a par with the three prior revolutions in the evolution of human communication and cognition: language, writing and print (Harnad, 1991, p. 39).The potential of text-based interaction has been noted before in language pedagogy, as seen, for example, in paper-based dialogue journals (Peyt

40、on & Reed, 1990) or free-writing to be shared with peers, but these modes are relatively slow and clumsy. When writing is shared on paper (regardless of whether the writing was composed via computer in the first place), the reader cannot easily edit and reedit the material while rapidly interacting

41、with the writer. Thus dialogue journals and free-writing are quite useful for expression and for dialogue, but less so for collaboration between individuals or among group members located around the world. The computer-mediated feature of online writing has finally unleashed the interactive power of

42、 text-based communication.When used for one-to-one communication in the same classroom, text-based communication via computer has value. Kroonenbergs (1994/1995) high school French students, who worked in pairs to discuss and debate ideas in a computer-mediated synchronous chat mode,(FN6) experience

43、d several benefits. First, the synchronous communication allowed students to practice rapid interaction. Second, when students needed to pause and pay closer attention, the text-based mode permitted them to do so, thus creating opportunity for reflection in the midst of interaction. Third, many stud

44、ents were more expressive in this mode than in ordinary written composition (where every sentence weighs heavily on their minds) or in oral conversation (which deters shy students). According to Kroonenberg, follow-up oral discussions were enriched by prior email interaction: The quality of the argu

45、ments is enhanced and thinking is more creative than without this kind of preparation and interest in listening is augmented as well (pp. 26-27). The online chats thus served the role of thinking devices that Lotman (1988) suggested are important for collaborative construction of knowledge.MANY-TO-M

46、ANY COMMUNICATIONAnother major feature of online learning is that it allows many-to-many communication; in other words, any member of a group may initiate interaction with any or all of the others. This can bring about the positive social reactions, as discussed by Bakhtin (Volosinov, 1973). On the

47、surface, CMCs feature of many-to-many interaction seems similar to what occurs in a group oral conversation, but two important differences exist. First, CMC creates the opportunity for a group of people to construct knowledge together, thus linking reflection and interaction. Second, the social dyna

48、mics of CMC have proven to be different from those of face-to-face discussion in regard to turn-taking, interruption, balance, equality, consensus, and decision making.Studies conducted on the social dynamics of CMC have found that CMC results in communication that is more equal in participation tha

49、n face-to-face discussion, with those who are traditionally shut out of discussions benefiting most from the increased participation. For example, Sproull and Kiesler (1991), using a meta-analysis of published research, found that electronic discussion groups of people of different status show approximately twice as much equality (measured by a balanced quantity of participation) as do face-to-face discussion groups. McGuire, Kiesler, and Siegel (1987) found that in discussions held elec