LITERATURE REVIEW
2.2 Application of Computer-mediated Discussion
2.2.4 Online Discussion and Collaborative Learning
Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 have shown that online discussion has been used to
promote various modes of learning that can lead to enhanced learning outcomes for
students in different educational contexts. Online discussion in this regard can be
viewed as a platform to facilitate and foster collaborative learning that contributes to L2
learning because the collaborative work involved in online discussion provides a
common ground for students to share knowledge and achieve shared learning goals
(Mohd Nor et al., 2012). The principles of collaborative learning can be applied to
promote online discussion which enables students to become involved in a particular
discourse community (Flores, 1990; Warschauer & Kern, 2000; Wenger, 2005) by
exchanging thoughts and promoting peer interaction with minimal teacher intervention.
This more interactive process of learning can lead to constructive and reflective thinking.
It is, therefore, worth reviewing some more about collaborative learning as a strategy
for online discussion and its benefits for L2 learning.
There are a variety of definitions found in the relevant literature for the term
which students at various performance levels work together in small groups towards a
common goal” (Gokhale, 1995). Dillenbourg (1999) offers a more descriptive definition
and refers to CL as situations in which groups of students interact together for a joint
solution to a problem. More recently, CL has been described as a synchronous activity
by which individuals negotiate and share meaning to construct a shared conception
(Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2006). Although the definitions of CL vary, they,
nevertheless, include necessary common characteristics as elaborated below.
First, collaboration involves a meaningful core activity (Donato, 2004). Second, CL
features small group learning where students work together to accomplish a shared goal
(Donato, 2004; Lauron, 2008). Construction of a shared task involves both an
unstructured group process (Olivares, 2007) and individual learning. Third,
collaboration characterises shared knowledge and authority among teachers and
students (Tinzmann et al., 1990). Participants share knowledge, personal experiences
and perspectives on issues, and they develop social relations in the process of joint
construction of knowledge. Finally, the teacher’s role within collaborative learning
shifts from the traditional authority figure to one of facilitator who mediates students’
learning to promote students’ independence and a free exchange of ideas. Rather than
simply providing information, teachers help the students connect information to their
experiences and learning. Collaboration acknowledges the importance of goals, the
In terms of the theoretical features, CL is grounded in social constructivism. SCT,
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3, provides a conceptual framework for a
description and explanation of collaboration. Collaboration reflects core concepts of
SCT firstly in highlighting meaningful and purposeful joint activity which enables the
collaborative co-construction of knowledge, and secondly in emphasising social
interaction in which constructed collaboration is situated. Third, the mind is mediated
through the use of tools or signs, symbols and through interaction with another person
to develop higher forms of thinking which is derivative of mediated collaborations
(Donato, 2004). In other words, collaboration in the context of blended learning as
observed in this study occurs while students are engaged in a series of tasks for
co-construction of meaning through exploration, interaction and negotiation with others
in a group context. This interactive process allowed students to engage themselves at a
higher cognitive level when they tried to think of ways of completing the language tasks
with the help of the teacher. Sociocultural perspective of L2 learning is essentially a CL
strategy which benefits many aspects of L2 acquisition.
Since its application to L2 education, CL has appeared to offer a number of benefits.
McGroarthy (1993) proposes the following three main benefits of collaboration through
group work: (a) increased variety of language and input to the learner, (b) increased
interaction and output to the learner, (c) increased responsibility for clarifying meanings,
(d) contextualised language learning with a meaningful purpose. Gibbons (2002)
are expressed in a variety of different ways. Second, L2 learners who are not confident
in English feel more comfortable working collaboratively than being expected to
perform in a whole-class situation. CL is always organised through group work, but not
vice versa. More detailed pedagogical benefits of CL and its benefits in language
development from existing empirical results are presented below and listed in Appendix
2.
The first pedagogical benefit is an increase of learner autonomy, defined as the notion
of taking responsibility for one’s own learning (Littlewood, 1999; Sinclair, 2000).
Studies show that collaboration through group work involving interpersonal interaction
facilitates collaborative dialogue in which students become autonomous learners. For
example, Swain et al. (2002) maintain that peer-peer collaborative dialogue occurs
when learners encounter linguistic problems and attempt to solve them together.
Collaborative dialogue shifts the authority from the teachers to the learners and provides
interactive opportunities for feedback by questioning, disagreeing or proposing
solutions. This process of collaboration by dialogue or negotiation of meaning promotes
learner autonomy (Lee, 1998; Murphey, 2001). Such a process is of paramount
importance to Taiwanese EFL students who are expected to shift their traditional role as
a passive recipient to a more active and participatory role with less dependence on the
teacher. CL mediates L2 learning and influences both language and cognitive
Another pedagogical benefit is an increase in the level of motivation. Collaboration
promotes interaction that enhances social development (Lu, 2002) and improves
interpersonal skills (Yang, 2009). It is believed that effective collaboration will help
facilitate Taiwanese EFL students’ willingness to use English for online discussion.
This argument corroborates the findings of Daniels (1994) that reveal an increased need
for social approval during the CL process. A need for social approval is likely to result
in a greater motivation to achieve. Similarly, Dornyei (1997) found that L2 learners
were motivated to engage in varied interactions while working intensively towards
completing group tasks, evidence that the CL process has a positive impact on learning
attitudes and motivation. Additionally, Storch’s (2005) study indicates that trust and
group cohesion are required for successful collaborations that encourage participation,
which suggests that a supportive classroom environment may lower learning anxiety
and improve motivation. This particular affective domain related to CL seems to play a
crucial role in greater learning achievement.
The pedagogical benefits discussed above highlight positive learning outcomes. In L2
research, collaborative learning and cooperative learning have been, for the most part,
used interchangeably. It has been debated whether these two orientations are two
versions of the same thing or substantially different (Bruffee, 1999). Cooperative
learning, developed by Johnson and Johnson (1989), can be identified as an approach to
collaborative learning with a focus on the importance of group processing, positive
collaborations in classrooms. A truly cooperative context could be always collaborative.
This explains why these two orientations are used interchangeably in the L2 research.
Theoretically, these two orientations have different group structures, goals and
processes, but it is suggested extending L2 research by adding the literature about
cooperative learning (Donato, 2004). In this study, cooperative learning and
collaborative learning are used interchangeably as the focus of the study is on learner
interaction in a peer and group context for meaning construction through language tasks.
A number of the characteristics and benefits of collaborative learning have been
observed in this study, which will be discussed further in Chapters 5 and 6.
A cooperative learning approach informed by the perspectives of the
Input-Interaction-Output Hypothesis has been frequently used to study students’
academic achievement (Ghaith, 2002; Ghaith, 2003; Stevens, 2003; Yang, 2009).
Experimental studies have been quantitatively conducted to examine students’ language
skills. Various cooperative tasks have been shown to primarily improve writing
(Stevens, Madden, Slavin, & Farnish, 1987) and speaking (Lu, 2002; Yang, 2005) as
well as achievement in reading vocabulary, reading comprehension and language
expression (Ghaith, 2003; Ghaith & El-Malak, 2004; Stevens, 2003; Stevens, et al.,
1987). Particularly, higher order reading comprehension is likely to promote superior
cognitive reasoning strategies and critical thinking (Ghaith & El-Malak, 2004). These
powerful approach to L2 acquisition because it establishes an instructional context that
enhances many aspects of language development.
Research under the rubric of a cooperative learning approach necessarily makes
cognitive assumptions about the nature of knowledge and learning. Although some of
the research focused on the influences of group work can be directly transferable to
collaborative learning, research specific to collaboration among college and university
students relating to L2 remains inadequate, particularly in the learning context of
Chinese culture. This inadequacy calls for a need of this research to apply a
collaborative learning strategy for online discussion in the Taiwanese EFL context.
Nonetheless, the effectiveness of CL, which is a Western concept, seems very
questionable in an Asian context influenced by Confucianism. Some researchers argue
that CL does not appear to greatly improve the academic achievement of Asian students.
Thanh et al. (2008) believe that Asian cultural values play a role in the lack of success
with CL implementation; this viewpoint is consistent with the existing literature about
the challenges of applying CL to Chinese-oriented contexts.
Thanh et al. (2008) point out three main Chinese values that affect the effectiveness of
CL. The Asian culture of passive learning through memorization is the first value that
conflicts with one of the main CL principles which emphasises active and independent
2003; Sachs, Candlin, Rose, & Shum, 2003). Chinese teachers prefer to act as subject
experts and reinforce the idea of teacher-centred, lecture-driven instruction. This
preference is the opposite of the CL teacher’s role as a facilitator who encourages
construction of knowledge within a group. Finally, the Asian students’ reticence in
group discussions that results from an effort not to lose face and to avoid arguments and
disagreements presents yet another barrier to the successful implementation of CL
(Messier, 2003). This tendency is in conflict with the CL mode of encouraging students
to develop critical ideas and to challenge each other’s arguments. Although CL is
gaining more acceptance, it contains similar drawbacks arising from the
abovementioned three issues related to the Taiwanese culture, as discussed in Section
2.4 of this thesis.
These concerns point to another need of this research to adopt a blended approach that
combines face-to-face instruction and online discussion via an electronic forum to
enhance the process and outcomes of EFL learning by applying CL strategy. On the one
hand, online discussion involved collaborative work helps facilitate shared knowledge,
exchanges of thoughts, and enhances student interaction with minimal teacher
intervention. This new mode of learning challenges the traditional notion of learning
that relies heavily on book knowledge and a master-apprentice relationship. It provides
opportunities to alleviate students’ passivity to protect face and teacher-led instruction
in large classes in Taiwan. On the other hand, face-to-face discussion provides social
students to have face-to-face interaction with physical contact and immediate feedback
from the instructor and other classmates as part of the language instruction. Towards
this end, a description of the blended approach is presented in Section 2.3. In addition, a
discussion of the Chinese culture of learning and communication is presented in Section
2.4 to examine its influence on the Taiwanese learner.