Making L2 learners’ reasoning skills visible: The potential of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Environments

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Thinking

Skills

and

Creativity

jo u r n al hom e p ag e : htt p : / / w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / t s c

Making

L2

learners’

reasoning

skills

visible:

The

potential

of

Computer

Supported

Collaborative

Learning

Environments

Mei

Lin

_,

_Anne

_Preston

_,

_Ahmed

_Kharrufa

_,

_Zhuoran

_Kong

a_{SchoolofEducation,CommunicationandLanguageSciences,KingGeorgeVIBuilding,NewcastleUniversity,NewcastleuponTyne,NE1}

7RU,UK

b_{OpenLab,SchoolofComputingScience,89SandyfordRoad,NewcastleUniversity,NewcastleuponTyne,NE18HW,UK} c_{LecturerinTechnologyEnhancedLearning,CentreforHigherEducationResearchandPractice,KingstonUniversity,London,UK}

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received10February2016

Receivedinrevisedform31May2016 Accepted21June2016

Availableonline2July2016 Keywords:

Higherorderthinking Reasoningskills Criticalthinking

Computersupportedcollaborativelearning environment

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

ThispaperexplorestheuseofComputerSupportedCollaborativeLearningEnvironments (CSCLE)asmultimodalspacesforpromotingcriticalthinkingforEnglishasSecond Lan-guageLearning(L2)educationfrommultipleperspectives(Technology,ThinkingSkillsand Interaction).Theexplorationfocusesontheuseofamultitouchtabletop,andan accompa-nyingapplicationcalledDigitalMysteries,asaffordancesinCSCLE’sformakingreasoning skill-basedthinkingvisibleforL2learninginHigherEducation.

DespitetheworldwidepromotionofteachingthinkinginL2education,itisnotalways easyforteacherstoidentifythetypesofthinkingskillsbeingtargetedinL2 pedagogi-caltasks.Totheauthors’knowledge,littleempiricalinteractionalevidenceisavailableto demonstratecriticalthinkinginL2learnertalkduringgroupwork.Thispaperexamines interactionsamongthreegroupsofChineseEnglishLanguagelearnersatahigher educa-tioninstitutioninaCSCLE.Videodatawerecollectedofstudents’thinking-in-actionwhilst engaginginmultimodalinteractionsintheenvironment.Resultsshowthatnew technolo-giescanprovideinnovativeandempiricallydrivenwaysinwhichL2learners’thinking isexternalisedandhowcriticalreasoningcanbetracked,promoted,evaluatedand self-regulated.ThefindingssuggestthatcollaborationsinaCSCLEcansupportthecompletion oftasksembeddinghighlevelsofcognitivecomplexitybyL2learnerswitheffectiveuseof limitedcognitiveresources.Thisleadstoanumberofrecommendationsaboutintegrating theteachingofcriticalthinkingskillsintotheL2classroomusingCSCLEtechnologies.

©2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCC BYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Criticalthinkinghasbeenrecognisedasoneofthekeyskillsforcitizensinthe21stcentury.However,howtointegrate teachingcriticalthinkingintosecondlanguage(L2)classroomscanbemorechallengingtolanguagepractitionersthanthose ofothersubjects.EmpiricalstudiesofChinesecollegestudentshavefoundthatstudentsofnon-Englishmajorsperform betterthanthoseofEnglishmajors incriticalthinkingtests.Thisobserved‘absenceofcriticalthinking’(Huang,1998) wasalsoreportedofstudentsfromothernon-Englishspeakingcountries,andanoveremphasisonlanguageskillsandon

∗ Correspondingauthor.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Lin), [email protected] (A. Preston), [email protected] (A. Kharrufa), [email protected](Z.Kong).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.06.004

1871-1871/©2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

memorisationintheteachingEnglishasaforeignlanguage(He,1999;Sanavi&Tarighat,2014)wasclaimedtobeoneof maincauses.

WithEnglishbeingboththesubjectofandmeansforlearning,andmeansforthinkingandcommunication,adequate languageskillsofstudentshavebeenalongstandingconcernorevenscepticismforteacherstointroducehigherorder thinkingtaskstosecondlanguagelessons(Wen&Zhou,2006).Equally,lackoflanguageskillsandvocabularytendstobe citedbystudentsasonemainreasonforpreventingthemtakingactivepartindiscussions(Lee,2004),causingacognitive block(Peng,2014),orblankorfrozenbrain(Chen,2010)evenforstudentswithintermediateorhigherleveloflanguage proficiency(Kim,2006).Empiricalstudiesonstudents’willingnesstocommunicatefoundthatskillsinreasoningandcritical thinkingcouldinfluencestudents’abilitytoinitiateorcarryoncommunicationinaL2(Peng,2014).Thisledustoquestion whetherreportedproblemsinoralcommunicationareduetolanguagedeficiencyorcognitiveoverloadinvolvedinthe processesofconceptualisationandrepresentationofideas.

Inthispaper,thus,wewillexaminethecognitivecomplexityofcriticalthinkingtasksinL2throughtheuseofdigital technology.TheanalysisallowsustoexploretheextenttowhichaffordancesofComputerSupportedCollaborativeLearning environments(CSCLEs)canfacilitateL2students’collaborativemanagementofcompetingcognitivefactorstodeveloptheir reasoningskillsorally,andviathinkinginaction.Analysedepisodesofinteractioninthesolvingofdigitalmysteriesare usedtoillustratethepresenceofcriticalthinkingandreasoningthroughL2learnertalkduringgroupwork.Wefinishwith pedagogicalimplicationsandsuggestionsforteachingcriticalthinkingwithnewtechnologies.

2. CognitivecomplexityofreasoninginL2&CSCLEs 2.1. Criticalthinkingandreasoning

Abilitiestoanalyse,evaluate,andinferarerecognisedascoreskillsincriticalthinking(Ennis,2011;Halpern,2003; Moseleyetal.,2005;PaulandElder,2012).PaulandElder(2012)believethatcriticalthinkinginvolvesthreeinterwoven phases–analysingthinking,evaluatingthinking,andimprovingthinking.Theystressthatthequalityofthinkingisdependent onabilitiestoreasonandreasonwell.Thisimpliesthatlearningtoreasonisfundamentaltodevelopthesecoreskills.Jewell’s taxonomy(Table1)providesasimpleframeworkfocusingspecificallyonreasoninginvolvedincriticalthinking(cf.Ennis, 2011;Halpern2003;PaulandElder,2012).Jewelldefinesreasoningas“purposefulthinking.Itordersinformationinorderto producearesult”(1996,p.5).Hisframeworkidentifiesmainfunctionsofreasoningandstrategiesto‘helpstudentsachieve thepurposeofreasoning...anddevelopthedispositionsorhabitsofmindwhichinturntofacilitatetheongoingprocessof enquiry(Moseleyetal.,2005,p.172).Thecleardescriptionsandexplanationsofthepurpose,strategiesanddispositionsof reasoningofferamodeltointerpretandanalyseverbalreasoninginL2.Webelievethatthisisoneofthemostundervalued andpoorlydevelopedsetofskillsforL2learnersspecifically.Mostrelevanttothisstudyare:theextenttowhichtechnology fostersexplicitconstructionofarguments(B3);considerationsofthesupportingtheevidence(B4)anddeepeningstudents’ enquiryandunderstandingthroughcommunityofinquiry(B1).Enquiryandunderstandingarepresented(byJewell)asthe superordinategoalsofreasoning(Moseleyetal.,2005,p.172),andarecentraltothetechnologicalapplicationusedinthis study.

Table1

Jewell’sreasoningtaxonomy(Jewell,1996). SectionATheObjectivesofReasoning 1. Toplan

2. Toproblemsolve 3. Todecide 4. Torecommend 5. Tocommunicate SectionBReasoningStrategies 1. TheCommunityofInquiry 2. Modelconstruction 3. Argumentconstruction 4. ConsideringtheEvidence 5. Moralreasoning

SectionCReasoningDispositions 1. Questionownposition

2. Seekandofferjustificationforviews 3. Adoptalternativemodels

2.2. ReasoningandcomplexityintheL2

ThinkingcriticallyintheL2entailsacomplexcognitiveprocess,whichmightnotalwaysbemadeexplicittoteachersand

learnersinHigherEducationcourses.Drawingoncognitivehypothesistheories,Robinson(2005)suggeststhatcognitive

complexityofpedagogicaltaskscanbeexaminedbycognitive,interactionalandlearnerfactors(Table2).Accordingto Robinson,iftasksrequiredualormultiplesimultaneousstepstocomplete,referringtoeventsthathappenedinthepast ornotatpresent,ordemandreasoning,theyaremorecomplexcognitivelythanthoserequiringsinglesteptocomplete, referringtoeventshappeninghereandnow,orwithnodemandforreasoning.Inhisview,unavailabilityofplanningtime forthetasks,numberoftasksstudentsneedtobeperformedsimultaneously,andlackofpriorknowledgeofthetaskscan alsoincreasethetaskcomplexity.

Table2

Atriadoftaskcomplexity,taskconditionsandtaskdifficultfactors(Robinson,2005,p.5). Taskcomplexity (cognitivefactors) Taskconditions (interactionalfactors) Taskdifficulty (learnerfactors) a) Resource-directing

e.g. +/−fewelements +/−Here-and-Now +/−noreasoningdemands a) Participantsvariables e.g. open/closed one-way/two-way convergent/divergent a) Affectivevariables e.g. motivation anxiety confidence b) Resource-dispersing e.g. +/−planning +/−singletask +/−priorknowledge b) Participantsvariables e.g. same/differentgender

familiar/unfamiliar power/solidarity

b) Abilityvariables e.g. workingmemory

intelligence aptitude

BasedonRobinson’scriteria,abletoactivelyparticipateindiscussions,whichmostL2learnersreportedproblemswith,

canbeinterpretedasacognitivelycomplextaskbecauseofmultipleprocessinginherentinthisperformance(Baralt,2015).

Beforestudentscanparticipateindiscussions,theyneedtobeabletojudgecredibilityofwhatisbeingpresentedand respondaccordingly.Thisrequiresthemnotonlytounderstandthepointspresentedbyotherspeakers,butalsolisten criticallysoastoanalysethepointsorargumentsbeingpresented(Bloom&Krathwohl,1956;Paul&Elder,2012).Dueto thetransitoryandtemporarynatureofspokeninformation,theyalsohavetoholdtheinformationintheirmemoryinorder toprocessitforanalysisandevaluation.Thesemultipleandsimultaneoustasksofcomprehension,memorisation,recall, analysisandevaluation,andconstructionofwell-reasonedresponseswillinevitablycompeteforattentional,memoryand informationprocessingspaceintheirworkingmemory,andcognitiveresources.Planningtheirresponseonthespotwould addtotheexistingcomplexityofdiscussiontasks.Thus,aseeminglysimplediscussiontaskcanbeveryhighintermsof cognitivecomplexity.Therefore,‘don’tknowwhattosay’mightnotbesolelyduetolinguisticdeficiency,buttothecognitive complexityofthetasksaswellaseffectiveandefficientmanagementoftheuseoflimitedcognitiveresources.Increasingly technologieshavebeenusedtomediatelearningofsecondlanguage.Researchoncomputermediatedcommunication(CMC) suggeststhatCMCcanalleviateconstraintsonworkingmemorywhenperformingcognitivelycomplexlanguagelearning tasksinvolvingfacetofaceinteractions(Baralt,2015).

2.3. Computersupportedcollaborativelearningenvironments

TheincreaseinaccesstonewtechnologiesineducationoffersnewopportunitiesforL2learners.Thereisnowan abun-danceofinternet-basedapplicationsandmaterialsforindividualL2learnerstodeveloptheirlinguisticskills.Althoughnot asabundant,thereareagrowingnumberofdigitaltechnologieswhichenableandfacilitateL2learningthrough collabo-rativeactivitiesandthefacilitationofknowledgeandexpertisesharing.ReferredtoasComputerSupportedCollaborative Learning(CSCL)(Lee,2004;Lund,2008),thisareaofresearchanddevelopmentisseentoholdmanylearningbenefitssuchas increasedsatisfaction,improvementinacademicachievement,andthedevelopmentofhigherorderthinkingskills(Resta& Laferriere,2007).MostresearchinthefieldofCSCLhasfocusedoncollaborationthroughremoteandsynchronousor asyn-chronouscommunication(Hilligesetal.,2007)withfacetofacecommunicationreceivinglessattention.ForL2learners whodesireandneedtolearnalanguageforstudyorworkinanotherlanguagewherecomplexfacetofacecommunication isessential,facetofaceComputerSupportedCollaborativeLearningEnvironments(CSCLE,henceforth)arguablyholdbetter opportunitiesforL2learners.

Theuseofadigitaltabletopinthisenvironmentprovidesafocusforouradvancedinvestigationintotheaffordancesof CSCLEsforpromotingthinkingskillsforsecondlanguagelearners.Oneofthedistinguishingfeaturesofadigitaltabletopis itslarge-horizontalinteractivesurfacewhichintegratessimultaneousmulti-usersupport(Higgins,Mercier,Burd,& Joyce-Gibbons,2012;Kharrufa&Olivier,2010).Digitaltabletopapplicationscanintegratemultipleaffordances.Theyenabledirect manipulationoflearningcontentorinformation(eitherbypenortouch)andthis,combinedwithlargehorizontaldesign, enableslearners’awarenessofactionsandparticipationlevels.

Thenotionofthetabletopbeingpartofanenvironmenttakesthefocusawayfromatechnology-drivenperspectiveto onewhichconsiderslearningprocessesasamultimodallearningexperience.Thisperspectivetreatslearningasaholistic

Fig.1. Apapermystery:IsPaulgoingtostartsmoking?(LinandMacKay,2004).

experiencewherebyinteractionsarenotonlybetweenlearnersandthetabletopbutalsobetweenlearnersthemselves.The environmentsisaco-locatedmultimodallearningspacewherelearningbehavioursandprocessesareinextricably inter-twinedwithtechnologicaltools.Assuch,weconceptualiselearningassituatedwithinSocioculturaltheoriesofsecond languagelearning(Lantolf,2003;Lantolf&Thorne,2006).Recentworkinthedesignandimplementationofdigital table-toptechnologyhasshowntheuniqueaffordancesthatthesenewtechnologiescanhaveonpromotingpeercollaboration andlearningviastructuredtasks,externalisationtools,feedbackandreflectionprompts,face-to-facecollaboration, multi-synchronousinteraction,andincreasedparticipationawareness(Dillenbourg&Traum,2006;Kharrufa,Leat&Olivier,2010; Martinez-Maldonado,Collins,Kay,&Yacef,2011).Thereislessknownabouttheaffordancesoftheseenvironmentsfor pro-motingcriticalthinkingofsecondlanguagelearnersmorespecifically.Emergingempiricalstudiesontechnology-assisted gainsoncriticalthinkingskillsforL2learnerstendtofocusmoreontheoutcomesbutlessontheprocess,andthelatter wouldbenefitbothteachersandlearners.Heslopetal.(2015)offeraholisticlenstoexaminethenatureandqualityof collaborativeinteractionsovertimeacross8groupsofstudentsusingmultitouchtabletops.Thisisbasedonananalysisof ‘decisionpoints’bringingstudentstogethertocollaborate.Hence,thecurrentstudyalsoextendsthescopeoftheaffordances ofdigitaltabletoptechnologyandapplicationsforpromotingcriticalthinkingforL2learnersmorespecificallyasatoolfor makingthinkingexplicit.

Inthefollowingsection,wepresentadetailedintroductiontotheDigitalMysteriesapplicationusedaspartofourstudy intotheaffordancesofCSCLEsinsupportingL2learnerstomanagecognitivecomplexityindevelopingtheirreasoningskills inanoraltask.

3. DescriptionsofDigitalMysteriestask

DigitalMysteries(DMhenceforth)(Kharrufa,Leatetal.,2010)isacomputer-basedlearningapplicationdesignedto promotecollaborationandhigherlevelthinkingskillsformultipleusers.Itisbasedonapaper-basedmysterieslearning approachwhichwascreatedforthedevelopmentandassessmentofstudents’higherlevelthinkingskills(Leat&Nichols, 2000).Inthepaper-basedversion(Fig.1),studentsaregivenanumberofslipsofpapercontainingfacts,background infor-mation,abstractideas,andsomeredherrings.Centraltothelearningbenefitofamysteryinthiscontextisthatstudentsare askedtousethisinformationtoansweranopenquestionthatdoesnothaveonerightanswerandthroughthemanipulation ofslipstosolvethemystery,thecognitiveprocessesofthestudentsaremadeevident.

Duringtheprocessofsolvingamystery,studentsengageindiscussionstoexpresstheirideaswhichcanleadtolevelsof thinkingthattheywouldn’tnormallyachievealone.Thismakesitpossibleforanobservertoassessthelevelofthinkingof thestudentsthroughcarefulobservationofthestudentswhileengagedintheactivity(Leat&Nichols,2000).Thesequalities ledboththeSynergyNetteam(e.g.Higginsetal.,2012;Mercier&Higgins,2014),andKharrufa,Olivier,andLeat(2010)(in theirworkonDigitalMysteries)tobuilddifferentdigitalinterpretationsofmysteriestocombinetheaffordancesofdigital technologyandthoseofthemysterytaskitself.

ThemaindesignfeaturesforDMare:externalizationofthinking(ormakingthinkingvisible),encouragingcollaboration, andpromotingfeedback,reflectionandmetacognition(Kharrufa,Olivieretal.,2010).Thesegoalsareachievedbyintroducing externalizationtools,switchingbetweenparallelinput(allstudentsattendtothesamepieceofinformationoraspectinthe

Fig.2.Externalizationtools:namedgroup(darkbluearea),normalandarrowstickytapes,andnotetools.(Forinterpretationofthereferencestocolour inthisfigurelegend,thereaderisreferredtothewebversionofthisarticle.)

interactionwiththeapplication),singleinput(individualstudentscanattendtoaparticularaspect),enforcedcollaboration (consensuspoints),structuringthetaskintostages,andprovidingadedicatedreflectionstage.

3.1. DMdesignfeatures

Thefollowingsectiondetailsthesedesignfeaturesandhowtheylinktolearningbenefits.

3.1.1. Externalizationofthinking

Externalisationofthinkingistomakethinkingvisibletooneselfandtoothers.Onelimitationofpapermysteriesas regardsexternalisationofthinkingisthatwhenstudentsputslipsinpiles,ornexttoeachother,theydonotnecessarily havetoexplaintheiractionstoeachother,anditisnotpossibleforanobservertomakesenseofthelayoutoftheslips (Fig.1).InDM,NamedgrouptoolandRelationorStickytapetoolwerespecificallydesignedtoaddressthis(Fig.2).Named grouptoolallowsthecreationofexplicitgroupsandasksstudentstoenteranameforthenewgroup.Allstudentshaveto agreeonthename,andtheprocessofcreatingandnaminggroupsislikelytotriggerusefulmomentsofdiscussion.Relation orStickytapetoolmakesitpossibleforstudentstolinktwoormoreslipstogetherusingeitheranormalshapestickytape (toindicatenormalrelation)orarrowshapedstickytape(toindicatecausalortemporalrelation).Usingthestickytapescan triggerusefuldiscussionsrequiringstudentstoexplainwhytheythinktheslipsarerelatedanddiscussthetypeofrelation (thetypeofstickytapetouse).

Theuseofthesetoolsnotonlytriggersusefultask-relateddiscussions,butalsomakesthestudents’thinkingmorevisible thusmoreaccessibletoanexternalobserversuchasanotherstudentorateacher-facilitator.Thisprovidesopportunitiesfor providingricherfeedback.

3.1.2. Encouragingcollaboration

DMusesthreespeciallydesignedfeaturestopromotecollaboration.Inthecaseofthisstudy,theuseofapen-based tabletopversionoftheapplication(ratherthanamulti-touchone)makesitpossibletoidentify(ordistinguishbetween) usersaseachstudentusesadifferentpentodirectlyinteract(selectandmoveobjectsaroundonthetabletopsurface)which isrecordedbytheapplicationandpresentedbacktostudentsinreal-timeintheformofapiechartoftheirindividual contributionsshownonthetabletop(seeFig.3).Thisfeaturealsocomplementsandbenefitsfromthelearningbenefitsof externalisationofthinkinggivenitsassociatedpresentationfunction.

Secondly,collaborationisalsoenhancedthroughcollaborativecoupling,thewayinwhichtabletopsupportsagroupof studentstoinstantaneouslymovebetweenindividualandgroupworkinthetaskwhichisalsovisibletoallparticipants. Collaborativecouplingallowsparallelinput(e.g.allstudentscaninteractwiththeslipsatthesametime)aswellassingle input(e.g.providingsinglesoftkeyboardfortextentry).

Athirddesignfeatureistheuseofenforcedcollaborationinteractiontoolswhichareinitiatedatkeydecisionpoints suchasenteringathematicgroupnameinthegroupingstage(Fig.4)oratmovementsbetweenstages(see3.2).Enforced collaborationcanbeviewedasconsensuspointsrequiringallstudentstoagreethroughdirectinteractionusingthepensto confirmtheirparticipationinthegroupleveldecisions.

3.2. Structuringthetask

Whenhigherachievingstudentssolveapapermystery,theytypicallygothroughthreestages:readingtheslips,putting theslipsingroups,thenbuildingabranched(orwebbed)sequencethatreflectstheirreasoning.Accordingly,DMguidesthe studentsthroughasimilarstructurebutwithanumberofenhanceddesignfeatures.

•ReadingStage:DMenablesstudentstoresizeandmovetheslips.Slipsinitiallyappearinasmallunreadablesizeand studentscannotproceedtothenextstageunlessallslipshavebeenread(madepossiblebydirectlymanipulatingtheslips withthepenstomakethemlarger).

•GroupingStage:Thisstageprovidesthenamedgrouptool,thenormalstickytape,andthenotetool.Studentscannot proceedunlessallslipsareputinatleastthreegroups.Theaimistoencouragestudentstoorganizeandcategorize information(i.e.lookattheproblemfromtheperspectiveofinformationcategories).

•Sequencingstage:Thisstageintroducesthearrowshapedstickytapeinadditiontotheprevioustool.Studentsareexpected totaketheslipsoutoftheirgroupsandstartbuildingalayoutusingnormalandarrowstickytapesthatreflectstheir reasoningabouttheproblemandsupportstheiranswer.Theaimistoencouragestudentstolookattheinformationfrom adifferentperspectivefocusingoncausalandtemporalrelations.

Inadditiontopeerfeedbackduringtheprocess,structuringtheapplicationintostages,allowsfortheprovisionoffeedback tostudentsatincrementalpointsduringthetask.Thesecanoccurinbetweenstagesthroughstudent-initiateddiscussion andviatheDMapplicationviainter-stagereflectiveprompts(Kharrufa,Olivieretal.,2010).Aftercompletingallthestages, thestudentsareaskedtotypetheirwrittenanswerintotheapplicationandafteraconsensuspoint,proceedtothereflection stage.

AlthoughtheDigitalMysteriesapplicationwasnotspecificallydesignedforL2learners,whenusedwithinthecontextof aCSCL,itholdsanumberoffeatureswhichweidentifiedasshowingitsrelevanceforusewithL2learnersmorespecifically inthisstudy:

Fig.3.DigitalMysteriesinterfacewithpiechartofcontributions.

1)itallowsstudents’thinkingtobecomeexternalisedonthetable,soitcanbeviewedbystudentsthemselvesandothers, whichleadstomanipulate,modifyandmediateeachother’sthinking;

2)withtheinformationaccessibleonthetableandpresentedinfrontofthestudents,itallowsstudentstotalkaboutevents thathappenedinthepastasiftheyarehapping‘Here-and-Now’(Robinson,2005).Morespecificallyrelevanthereisthat studentsusetheircognitiveresourcesmoreeffectivelytoprioritisecognitiveresourcestothinkratherthanrecallingand memorisinginformation;

3)withtheinformationandmapoftheirthinkingonthetable(‘brainsonthetable’)(Leat&Nichols,2000),itallowsstudents tothinksimultaneouslyaswellasinteractively.

4. Researchdesign

Thissectionintroducesthestudydesignandresearchmethodstakentoaddresstheoverarchingresearchquestionof theextenttowhichCSCLEscansupportL2learnersintheirmanagementofcomplexitywhilstdevelopingreasoningskills inoraltasks.

Toanswerthismainquestion,threesub-questionsareconsidered: 1)WhatkindsofreasoningskillsareemphasisedandpromotedintheCSCLE?

2)HowdoestheCSCLEsupport‘thinkinginaction’intermsoftheorganisationofreasoningskills?

3)Basedonanswerstotheabove,whataffordancesintheCSCLE,whichincludesatabletopapplication,canbeidentified asspecificallysupportingthemanagementofcomplexityforL2learners?

4.1. Participants

NinepostgraduatesfollowingaMastersprogrammeinAppliedLinguisticsandTESOL(2013–2014)participatedinthis study.Theywereagedbetween21and29andhadachievedanIELTsscoreof6.5–7.Priortoparticipatinginthisstudy,they wereintroducedtotheDMtabletopapplicationaspartofamoduleonThinkingSkillsinSecondLanguageLearning.Whilst therearerecognisedlimitationsinsamplesizeasthestudyinvolvedonlyninestudents,ourresearchquestionsfocused onaholisticapproachtothenatureandqualityofmultimodalinteractionasitisconstructedinthemoment-to-moment dynamicsoftheenvironment.Inthecasethatwehadsoughtto‘quantify’instantiationsofpre-specifiedbehaviours,we believealargersamplesizewouldhavebeenmoreappropriate.

TheninestudentswererandomlydividedintothreegroupsandworkedonthesameDMtaskonce,butseparately.The DMuserguidewassenttotheparticipantspriortothedatacollection,anddetailedinstructionsonhowtousetabletopwere givenbeforeparticipantsstartedtheDMtask.Thenamesofthestudentsinthispaperarepseudonyms.Fullethicalclearance wasobtainedandwritteninformedconsentwasprovidedbytheparticipantsforthispublicationandanyaccompanying images.

4.2. TheDMtask

ThetopicoftheDMtaskusedinthisstudywas‘ShoppingandLandUseChange’,whichdescribesascenariothata supermarketinthecitycentrehastomovetotheedgeofthecitybecauseoftheshortageofavailableland.Twenty-one individualdigitalslipswereavailableonthetabletopandparticipantswereaskedtoanswer‘WhydoesGail’sweekly shoppingtriptake40minlonger?’(Fig.5).Theslipsincludeacoupleofredherringsandafewkeyfactors.Studentswere askedtocomeupwithreasonsthemselves.Theycompletedthetaskmainlyguidedbytheinstructionsonthetabletopor byusingtheirowninitiative.Aftercompletingthetask,theywereaskedtogiveaverbalpresentationoftheiranswersto thequestion.

4.3. Datacollectionmethods

Observationmethodsprovidedthemainsourceofdataforthestudywhichallowedustoviewtheprocessesinvolved inthestudents’completionoftheDMtaskthroughmultiplelenses.ForeachoftheDMsessions(n=3)twovideocameras capturedtheverbalandnon-verbalcommunicationintheenvironmentfromtwodifferentphysicalangles.Audio-recordings servedasadetailedrecordofverbalcommunicationwhichenhancedtheproductionofmultimodaltranscriptions.Aswell astheaudioand videostreams,thedigitaltabletoprecordedinteractionlogsofallactivitiestakingplaceonthetable consistingofindividualandgroupcontributionsateachstage.Whentriangulatedwithinteractionlogdata,theobservation dataprovideduswithadetailedviewoftheroleandqualityofthemediationofreasoningskillsintheCSCLE.

4.4. Dataanalysisapproach

Inkeepingwiththeholisticapproachwetooktoconceptualisinglearninginthisenvironment,theapproachtodata analysiswascarriedoutbyviewingthesessionsthroughthreedifferentlenses:thinking-in-action,useofreasoningskills andfinally,intermsofthespecificdesignfeaturesofthetabletopapplication.Thefirsttwoanalyticallensesweredesigned

Fig.5.Taskdescriptionfor‘WhydoesGail’sweeklyshoppingtriptake40minlonger?.

toexplorethequalityofL2learners’managementofcomplexityintheapplicationofreasoningskillsintheenvironment (constructedthroughtheinteractionsofthestudentswiththetabletop,theDMapplicationandeachother).Thethirdaimed toascertaintowhatextentthedesignfeaturesmorespecificallyinfluencedthelearningprocesses.

4.4.1. Thinking-in-action

Thelensofthinking-in-actionwasusedtoanalysethevisibilityofreasoningskillsasevidencedinverbalandnon-verbal communicationintheoverallstructureandorganisationofthetask.Inaddition,thinking-in-actionwasusedtocomplement themoredetailedanalysisofspecificepisodeswhichexemplifiedspecificfunctionsofreasoningskillswhenusingthesecond lens.Here,‘thinkinginaction’isconcernedwiththemultiplemodesthroughwhichtheinteractionisconstructed.Itmakes theassumptionthatmeaning-makingisembeddedinthephysicalandsocialinteractionin,aroundandwiththetechnology andassuch,suchcanbeviewedasanapproachtostudying‘embodiedcognition’(Jewitt,2009).Thisapproachcanbe synthesizedwithestablishedworkintheL2learningsciencesgrowingoutofsocioculturalperspectivesonL2learningsuch asthatofVanLier(2004).

4.4.2. Presenceofreasoningskills

Jewell’s(1996)reasoningframeworkwasadaptedtointerpretpresenceofstudents’reasoningskillsinthreetranscribed sessionsofDM.SituatedincommunityofInquiry(Lipman,2003),Jewell’sframeworkexemplifiesbehavioursincluding objectives,strategiesanddispositionsinvolvedinreasoningprocesseswithingroups.Itprovidesusefulguidancetoidentify relevantepisodeswithevidenceofreasoningskillsandcarryoutdetailedanalyseoftypesofreasoningskillsandabilities toevaluateandinfer.Theemphasisinthispartwasonaninvestigationofthefunctionbetweenthestudentswhilesolving themysteryasopposedtoform.

Onceidentified,thedevelopmentofreasoningskillswerefurthercodedandanalysedaccordingtomultimodalfeatures representing‘thinking-in-action’intheinteractionrevealedthroughvideodataandinteractionlogsasdescribedin4.3. 5. Resultsanddiscussion

Thissectionbeginswiththeoverallstructureandorganisationofthesessionstoprovideaquantitativeoverviewofthe visibilityof‘thinkinginaction’inthedevelopmentofreasoningskillsduringthetask.

5.1. Thinking-in-action

Intermsoftheoverallstructureandorganisationofthesessions,providinganindicationofoverallvisibilityofreasoning skills,thereareanumberofmeasuresusedtoevidence‘thinking-in-action’.Inthefirstinstance,Fig.6showsthetotalnumber ofparticipantturnsproducedbytheparticipantsineachgroup.Aparticipantturnisdefinedandusedinthecaseofthis analysisasaninteractionaleventwhichiscollaborativelyconstructedbyparticipantsoutofoneormoreTurnConstructional Units(TCUs).Itisimportanttonoteherethatthewayturnsaretakenandconstructedinthesessionvariedaccordingto howtheirproducerdesignedtheir‘thinkinginaction’inmultiplemodes.Thatis,itcouldhavebeenaverbalisedturnof talkorothersocialactionwhichiscarriedoutnon-verballyorwithbothnon-verbalandverbalactionsbeingcarriedout simultaneouslyandthusembodiedinteraction.ThenatureandqualityoftheturnsareexploredinmoredetailinSection 5.2.

Fig.6.Totalnumberofparticipantturnspergroup.

Fig.7. Distributionofparticipantturnspergroupandateachstage.

Fig.8.Meanlengthofparticipantturnspergroup.

Fig.7showstheoveralldistributionofinteractionsmeasuredintermsofnumberofparticipantturnsatthedifferent stagesofreading,groupingandsequencingduringtheDMtask.Fig.8showsthemeanlengthofparticipantturns,measured inwords.Fig.9displaysthetotaltimetakentocompletethetaskfromtheinitiationofthereadingstagetothegroup consensusthattheanswerhadbeenreachedattheendofthesequencingstage.

Thecompletionofeachstageforindividualgroupswasevidencedviainteractionlogswhenstudentsusedtheapplication featuretomovebetweenstages(consensuspoints).Observationdataalsoshowedthatstudents’discussionswerenotalways confinedbythenatureofthestage.Likewise,studentstendedtocombinereadingandgroupingactionsratherthanrigidly finishingreadingbeforebeginninggrouping,andsequencing.Havingsaidthat,thedifferencesindicatedbythenumberof turnsgiveagoodindicationofhowlongeachgroupengagedindiscussionsatindividualstages.

5.2. Useofreasoningskills&thinkinginaction

Inthissection,thenatureandqualityofreasoningskillsarethefocus,andcomplementedbyananalysisof‘thinking inaction’intermsofmultimodalbehaviour.Together,functionandformofreasoningskillshighlighthowreasoningskills weremadevisibletoandbythestudentsastheymanagedthecomplexityofthetaskintheCSCLEwhilstusingtheL2. 5.2.1. Comprehension

AttheReadingstageoftheDM,studentswereinstructedtoenlargeandreadeachoftheslipsprovided.Inthis con-text,comprehensionofthecontentintheslipswereaprerequisiteofanalysisandevaluation(Bloom&Krathwohl,1956). Intermsofcognitivedemand,itisatasklowincognitivecomplexity,requiringcomprehensionofthedigitalslips pro-videdonthetabletopandwithnointentionalforreasoningembeddedinthedesign(+singletask;+Here-andNow;−no reasoning)(Robinson,2005).BothGroupsAandBenlargedandreadslipsindividuallywithlimitedinteractionwitheach other(Fig.7),andquicklymovedtogroupingtask.Incontrast,GroupCdecidedtoreadtogether.Whilereading,theywere tryingtoevaluatetheusefulnessofeachofthestatements.Episode1:Thecaseofusefuloruselessinformation.

ParticipantTurns ReasoningSkills

1Wen: Let’sreadtogether,whichisthefirstone? Proposeaplan

2Zhi: Busserviceinthisareaareoftenunreliable,yeah,that’smaybethereason. (Read) Evaluate

Justputtheuseful informationthere,andthe uselessthere,okay?

3Wen&Lin Okay

4Lin Ithinkthisoneisuseless Evaluate

5Zhi: Notuseful? QueryLin’sevaluation

6Lin: Yeah Confirm

7Zhi: Andlocalcouncilencouragesnewbusinessestolocateontheedgeoftown Readtocheck

8Wen: forthedevelopment. JoinZhiwithreading

9Lin: Maybereasonable. Adoptalternativeview

11Lin: Soputhere.Whatabout this?

Invitepropositions

12Zhi: It’soneofthereasons Evaluate

13Lin: Yeah((Dragsslip)) Agree

14Zhi: WhydoesGailweeklyshoppingtriptake. RevisitthetaskQ

15Wen: 40minlonger?Carownershiphasincreased... (Read)

16Lin: Ithinkthisisreasonableforthatlongertime. Conclude

(Numbersrefertoparticipantturnlinesfromthetranscripts).

AsillustratedinEpisode1,studentswerediscussingtheusefulnessofthestatements(Turns2,4and16)onebyone. Interactionsshowthatenlargeableslipsencouragedjointreadingandfacilitatedthinking.Theuseofdeicticexpressions ‘this,that,here,there’indicatedasharedcontextofpresentedinformationonthetabletop,whichbringstheevents Here-and-Now(Robinson,2005)forreferencing.Thereferencinginreturneasesmentalworkload,allowingstudents’morespace toconcentrateonevaluations.

5.2.2. Analyticalskills

Theabilitytoidentifyrelationsisoneofthebasicanalyticalskillsforcriticalthinking.AttheGroupingstage,students wereaskedtocreateatleastthreegroups.Togroupslips,studentsnotonlyneededtounderstandthecontentinaslip,but alsowereabletocompareandcontrast,seekingsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenandamongtheslips.Itishigherin cognitivecomplexitythancomprehension,asitinvolvedmorethanonestepstocompletethetask(+fewelements;−single task;+reasoning)(Robinson,2005).Manyexamplesinthedatasuggestthatsomeoftherelationsareeasytorecognise, whileothersmightnotbethatobvious.Episode2isanexamplewherevisibilityofstudentthinkingismediatedinthe environmentthroughcollaborativecouplingandtheaffordanceofoff-tablereasoning.

VideodatashowsthatstudentsinEpisode2wereveryquickandassertiveindecidingthatunreliablebusservices isoneofcontributingfactorsto‘longertime’,whilethestatementsofCBD,localcouncilandGailareuseless informa-tion(1–4)asevidencedinthelogatTurn8.Theslipsdisplayedonthetabletopdrewstudentsintoactiveengagementin examining,discussingandidentifyingrelationsbetweenslipsthroughcollaborativecoupling(6–12).Parallel,aswellas collaborative,thinkingwasobserved,movingbetweenindividualthinking,thinkingtogether,andmediatingeachother’s thinking.Theuseofdiscoursemarkersof‘Oh,Isee’(9)suggestalightbulbmomentwhenlisteningtoWen’sreasoning, Zhi suddenlyrealises thatsomeofthestatementstheyputin theuselesscategorycouldberelated tothekey infor-mationintheusefulcategory.Asa result,theyretrievedthestatementoflocalcouncilfromtheuselesscategoryand putitintheusefulcategory.Collaborativelytheyestablishedthat‘alittlebitfarsupermarket’wasthecausalreasonfor ‘longertime’.Intermsofreasoningskills,weseeintentionaluseoflogicsubordinators‘so,because’tomarkcauseand effect.OveralluseoftheL2waseconomical, asstudentsallknewwhichslipsthespeakerwasreferringtoevenifshe didnotspellthecontentoutinfull.Wen,ontheotherhand,usedprovidedinformationcreativelyinconceptualisingher reasoning.

M. Lin et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 303–322

Episode2:Thecaseoftherelatedinformation.

ParticipantTurns Reasoningskills

1Zhi: CBDstandsfor...thisis... Invitepropositions

2Lin: No. Evaluate

3Zhi: Notuseful(Drag). Agree

4Lin: Thisisnot,right?Notrelated. Evaluate

5All: (Readslips)

6Lin: Whataboutthis? Invitepropositions

7Wen: It’sreallyabout,soheshoulddriveoutsidethecitytogetmorefromthesupermarketbecausethelocaloneishaving lesschoicesofgoods.

Reasonwith‘so’

Lin et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 303–322 315

9Zhi: Oh,Isee,maybesomeof

theslidesarerelated because...

Alightbulbmoment Reasonwith‘because’

10Lin: Alittlebitfarsupermarket. Reason

11Zhi: Yeah.

12Lin: Soittakesalittlebitlongertime. Concludewith‘So’

13Zhi: Yeah,maybenotthatdirect,that’sadirectanswer. Agree

5.2.3. Causalreasoning

WhatisobviousfromtheexamplesinEpisode1and2isthatrelationscanbeanalysedfrommorethanoneperspectives. Arrowstickytapesprovideanexternaldevicetomediatestudents’casualreasoning(Vygotsky,1978).AttheSequencing stage,studentswereaskedtoidentifykeyslipsthatcouldgivethemasequencetoanswerthequestion.Thistaskishigher incognitivecomplexitythancomprehensionandgrouping,asstudentsarerequiredtofindoutcausalrelationswithina pairorbetweenpairsofstatementsbeforetheycanputpairsofcausaleffectinaninferencingandlogicorder.Sequencing demandsmultipleapplicationsofthecognitiveprocessesinvolvedintheidentificationandreasoningofcausalrelations, andtheadditional‘+’isusedtoillustratethedegreeofthecomplexity(++fewelements;++reasoning)(Robinson,2005). Groupinteractionshowsthatstudentsfoundithardtodecidecausalrelations.Physicallyusingarrowstickytapesto con-nectselectedstatementsforcedstudentstodecidewhichwas‘cause’andwhichwas‘effect’,whichinturnexternalised students’interpretationsofcausalrelationsonthetabletop,makingitvisibleandaccessibleforevaluation,reflectionsand modificationseitherbythemselvesorbypeers.Episode3exemplifieshowstudentsidentifiedachainofcausalrelations withthehelpofarrowstickytapes.

Episode3:Thecaseofcausalrelationship.

ParticipantTurns ReasoningSkills

1Tan: Ithink,maybe,thesupermarket,em,was,emwastransferredtoanother,to theedgeofthecity,soshouldtakemoretimetogotothatsupermarket.

Identifycauseandeffect

2Yang: Yeah,butwhythesupermarketmovestoother,sobecausewehave. Identifyeffect

3Tan Becausethepriceofthelandinthecity. Identifycause

4Yang: Yeah,so.

5Tan: So,let’slinktheinformation.

6Tan&Yang (Connectslips)

InEpisode3,studentsidentifiedtwopairsofcausalrelations.Yang’squestioningofwhythesupermarketmovedtothe edgeoftownledthemtoseethecausalrelationsbetweenthetwopairs.Supermarketmovingoutofthecityisthecausefor takinglongertimeinthefirstpair,butisalsotheeffectofthehighpriceoflandinthecityinthesecondpair.Theylinked thestatementstoconfirmtheirreasoning.

5.2.4. Logicalreasoning

Episodes1–3showincreasedmanagementofcomplexityinactionsrangingfromcomprehension,groupingtoanalysing causalrelations.Thebiggestchallengeforthestudentsistosequenceidentifiedpairsofcauseandeffectinalogicalorder, thoughampleexamplesinthesessionsshowedthatstudentswereabletofigureoutcausalrelationsamongtwoorthree slips.SequencingrepresentsthehighestcognitivedemandtaskintheDM(++fewelements,++reasoning,−singletask,+prior knowledge)(Robinson,2005).Itrequiresmulti-tasksofidentifyingcausalrelationswithinandbetweenpairs,reasoningand selectingthemostrelevantreasonstojustifythecausalrelationsto‘thelongertime’,retrievingpreviouslyidentifiedcausal pairs,orseekingnewrelations.Ananalysisofgroups’answersto‘WhydoesGail’sweeklyshoppingtake40minlonger?’ revealedthatallthegroupsreportedkeyfactors.However,itistheirabilitytoseeoveralllinksbetweenpreviouslyidentified individualcausallinksandabilitytoputthemlogicallyinaninferencingchainthathasdifferentiatedtheiranswers.Thisis showninourcomparisonofthefinalgroupanswers(Figs.10,11and12respectively).

Episode4:GroupA’sanswer.

ParticipantTurns ReasoningSkills

1Facilitator: Well,thisgobacktoyourrecordingsonthescreen.Wouldyouliketogiveme somesummariesabouthowyoufoundtheanswer,theanswerofwhyGail’s weeklyshoppingtakeminuteslonger.

2Li: Er.becauseofthebusservices Reason1

3Wang&Zha: It’snotreliable CompleteLi’sreason1

4Facilitator: Yeah,and...

5Zha: Andthesupermarketisbuiltintheruralarea,soittakeslongtimetogetto there.

Reason2+conclusionwith‘so’ 6.Facilitator: Therearealsoreasonsforthesupermarkettomove,sowhat’sthereasons?

7Li: (Be)CausethelandpricesintheCBDisveryhigh(Reason3),andthereare congestionproblems(Reason4),andIthinkgovernmentencouragesthe businesstomovefromthecitycentretotheedgeofthetown(Reason5)

Reason3 Reason4 Reason5

8Wang: Morespaceforparking Reason6

9Li: Andthelandpricesischeaper Reason7

10Zha: Andthefacilitiesaremuchmoreinthearea. Reason8

Episode4showsthatGroupA’sanswerconsistsofalistofreasons.Studentsreportedkeyfactors,howevermostof thesefactorswerelooselyconnectedwithnoindicationofcausalrelationsapartfromone(5).Acloseexaminationoflisted reasonsrevealsthat6–8areallaboutthenewsupermarket,while3–5areaboutCBD.Althoughusingtheirownwordsin constructingtheiranswers,theyfailedtostatethelogicalrelationsbetweenthesecitedreasonsexplicitly.Limiteduseof reasoningwordswasalsonoted.

IncomparisontotheanswergivenbyGroupA,GroupC’sanswernotonlyincludesmostofthekeyinformationbutis alsoorganisedbycausalrelations.

Episode5:GroupC’sanswer

ParticipantTurn ReasoningSkills

1Facilitator: So,cangivemeasummarytoanswerthequestion,yes? 2Lin: Er,Iwillanswerthisone,

er,becauseGaildoesn’townhisowncar,herowncar,andthere,maybeshe needmoretimetotakethepublictransportation(Reason1),andthebus services,andalsoabouttherearemoreandmorecarsinthecitycentre,sothe congestionisaseriousproblem(Reason2),sotheseresultinthebusservice intheareawhereGailisnotverygood(Reason3),sosheneedmoretimeon theroad,er,nonono,onherwaytothesupermarket,sothat’swhytake 40minlongerokay?

Reason1+conclusion Reason2+conclusion with‘so’

Reason3+main conclusion 3Facilitator: Youallagreewiththat?Doyouwanttoaddsomething?

4Zhi: Yeah,IthinkalotofreasonthatleadstotheonlychoiceofGailthatshehasto gotothesupermarket,er,farawayfromCBD,

Reason4+conclusion

Justlikeallthereasons leadtohere

becauseofthereasonswhythesupermarketneedtomoveoutoftoCBD,and thenshehasto,shehaslesschoicesinthelocalsupermarket,sosheneedsto gotothesupermarketfurtherfromherhome,andthat’sthereason.

Episode5showstwosubsetsoftheargument.LinconcentratedonGail,believingthatnothavingacarwasthereasonthat causedGail40minlongerfortheweeklyshoppingtrip.However,shefailedtojustifywhyGailhadtogotothesupermarket farfromherhomeinthefirstplace.Weseeafterteacher’sfacilitation(3),ZhiaddedreasonsthatleadGailtodohershopping atthebigsupermarketoutoftown.Shepointedtothepilesofslipsindicatedbythediscoursemarker‘Here’tosupporther reasoning,thoughdidnotmakeanyexplicitreferencetothelogicalrelationsbetweenthetwosubsetsofreasoning.Infact theymissedcheappriceoftheland,amainreasonformovingthesupermarketoutofcitycentre.Theabilitytosynthesise logicalrelationsbetweenalltheslipsallowedGroupBtooutperformGroupC.

Episode6:GroupB’sanswer.

ParticipantTurn ReasoningSkills

1Tan: Ah,Ihavenew,Ihaveanewideaem,becausebeforethesupermarketmoved tothenewplace,Gailcouldbuythingsneartoherhouse.

Reason1+conclusion 2Yang: Yes

3Tan: However,whenittransferstoanewplace,sheshould,em,takemore,em. Reason2+conclusion

4Yang: Yes,Yes,allofthereasonscausehertooklongtime. Findsupportingevidence

5Liu: Iknow,Iknow.

6Yang: Whatdoyouthinkso? Inviteconfirmation

7Tan: Em,letmethink. Think

8Yang: Yeah.

9Tan: Thisiswhyshecoulduselesstime,em,before Intermediateconclusion(IC)

10Yang: Yeah,yeah.

12Yang: Yeah. Acknowledge

13Tan: Soshehavetotakepublictransportation. Conclusion3

14Yang: Yeah. Acknowledge

15Tan: Buttherearesome

reasonsaboutthe transport

Findsupporting evidence

Here. Fetchevidence

17Tan: Er,so.

18Yang: BusserviceintheareaGaillivesareoverunreliable. Reason4

19Tan: Yeah,maybe,thisisoneofthereasonstothemainquestion,Ithink. Mainconclusion

20Liu: Singleparent Reason5

21Yang: Doesn’thaveacarisalso...No,no,Idon’tthinkthis.Thisisimportantbecause shedoesn’thaveacarisalsoimportantwhychoosesbeside...

Examinecausesand relations

22Liu Singleparentright? Repeatreason5

23Tan: Becauseshedoesnotownacar. Repeatreason3

24Yang: Em,Iunderstand.Howaboutlikethis,because,let’ssay,becauseGailisa singlemother,shedoesnotownacar,that’swhyshechoosesthesupermarket besideherhome,right?Butbecauseofthesereasons,newsupermarketmoves toothercity,andthen,sheneedstotakebus,tookbustothesupermarket,and alotofcongestionsalso,asalotofcongestions,and,that’swhyittooklonger time.AmIright?

APennydropmoment Constructanargument

25Liu: Areyoumakingaconclusion? 26Tan: Iagree.

27Yang: CanyourepeatwhatIsaid?

28Tan: It’sGailisasinglemother,andshedoesnothaveacar,soshedecidedtogoto thesupermarketthatisclosetoherhome,however,therearesomepolicyand advantagesforthesupermarkettotransfertothenewplace,soshehas.And also,thisisanotherquestion,em,anotherreasonthatshefindthatthereis, em,thesupermarketislessbusy,andhavelesschoicesofgoodsandproducts, soshedecidedtogotothenewsupermarket.However,thetransportation thereisreally,but,yeah,maybe,yesthetransportationisserious,soittakes longertimeforhertogotosupermarket.

Episode7illustratesprocessesoftheconstructionofreasoning,ahighlevelofcognitivecomplexitytaskengagedby studentsinGroupB.Theyneedtoconsidermanydifferentfactsandfactors;ontopofreasoning,theyhadlittleplanning timeinconstructingtheiranswer(Robinson,2005).Beforemovingtoexaminefactorsthatcouldhavecaused‘longertime’, asshowninFig.12,theyinvestigatedreasonsthatGailneededlesstimeforherweeklyshoppingbeforethesupermarket movedtotheedgeofthecity,whichledthemarriveatanintermediateconclusion(9)(VandenBrink-Budgen,2000),There areevidencesthatthetabletopassistedandmediatedstudents’reasoning,logicalthinking,andargumentconstructionby providinganoverviewoftheirthinking,accesstoretrieveinformationfrommultiplecategories(15and16),andlanguage inputtoarticulatetheirreasoninginL2.Studentswereobservedworking‘offtable’,examininglogicalrelationswithinand betweentopicsoftheneworoldsupermarket,betweenthecarownershipandtrafficproblems,betweenGailandthenew andoldsupermarketwhensuddenlyapennydropmomentoccurred.Suddenly,allthepiecesofinformationfellintoits

Fig.10.GroupA’sanswerfromtheinteractionlog.

Fig.11.GroupC’sanswerfromtheinteractionlog.

placeandYangsawthelinksofallthecausalpairs.Sheverbalisedherlineofreasoninginonebreath(24).Shewasso engagedinconstructingherreasoningwithoutrealisingittilltheend.Productionofreasoningseemstohaveexhaustedall hercognitiveresources,shecouldn’trememberwhatshehadimprovisedandaskedherpeerstorepeatwhatshehadjust said(27).ItisnotedinYang’sreasoningthatsheusedcognitiveresourcesselectively.Yangdidnotspecifyindividualreasons whythenewsupermarketmovedtotheedgeofthecity,referringthemas‘becauseofthesereasons’(24)sothatshecould concentrateonherargument.Intherepeatedversion,however,weseeallthegapswerefilled,andrelevantconnectors wereaddedtomaketheargumentself-explanatory.

Fig.12.GroupB’sanswerfromtheinteractionlog.

5.3. Technologicaldesignfeaturesandreasoningskills

HerewediscussthefindingsintermsoftheaffordancesoftheDigitalMysteriesandtabletopmorebroadly.Thephysical formfactorofthetabletopplayedapositiveroleinprovidinganatural,face-to-facestyleofcommunication(Higginsetal., 2012;Kharrufa&Olivier,2010).Thelargehorizontalsurfaceprovidedagoodcommonfocalpointfordiscussingcontent. Thiswasmadeevidentbytheuseofwords‘here’,‘there’,‘all‘these’aboutreasonswhy’andtherichuseofdeicticgestures (i.e.pointing)whenreferringtocontent.

SpecificdesignfeaturesoftheDigitalMysteriesapplicationplayedanimportantroleinencouraginganddriving discus-sionstopromotetheuseofhigherlevelthinkingskills,particularlythegroupingdesignfeatureandthenormalandarrow shapedstickytapes.

Theuseofastructuredactivitywithdistinctgroupingandsequencingstagesaimsatencouragingstudentstoexaminethe informationfromtwodifferentperspectivesfirstintermsoforganizinginformation,thenmovingtoahigherlevelofthinking focusingoncausalrelations.Theinteractionanalysisshowedhow,inmovingfromgroupingtosequencingstage,students draggedslipsoutofthecategoriestheygeneratedatthegroupingstageandcompletelyreorganisedthemtoalignwithanew perspective.Moreimportantly,havingadedicatedsequencingstagewitharrowshapedstickytapesspecificallydesigned toindicatecausalrelations,forcedstudentstothinkcarefullyaboutthereasonsorconsequences.Thetranscriptsreveala numberofexamplesofhowselectingthearrowshapedstickytapeledstudenttore-examinetheirpreviousinterpretations anddecisions.

5.4. Limitationsandfuturework

OurworkhasshownhowapplicationssuchasDigitalMysteriesonmultitouchtabletopsallowtasksandinteractions tobestructuredwithinthecontextofsecondlanguagelearning.Alimitationofthispaper,duetospaceandscope,isthe omissionofanyspecificfocusonopportunitiesforteacherobservationandassessmentaspartofthevalueoftabletops formakingthinkingexplicit.ThisisanareawhichiscentraltotheaffordancesofCSCLE’sasdigitaltabletopapplications likeDMsallowlearneractivitytobeloggedforformativeandsummativeassessment.Inotherwork,wehaveexploredthe valueofotherapplicationssuchasCo-locatedCollaborativeWriting(CCW)whichmaturedfromascaffoldingmechanism forplanning,toatoolforimplementingplanning(Heslopetal.,2015).Weintendtofollowupthestudyreportedinthe paperwithaspecificfocusonteacheraswellaspeerassessment.

6. Conclusionsandimplications

InthispaperwehavedemonstratedthatcriticalthinkingandreasoningintheL2isofhighlevelofcognitivecomplexity, andthecompletionoftasksofhighlevelcognitivecomplexityinaCSCLEclearlypromptsstudentstoarticulatetheirthinking

andimportantly,makeitvisible.Interactionalevidenceconfirmsthatstudentsusedanalytical,evaluativeandreasoningskills andthedigitaltabletopassistedstudents’processofthinkingcriticallyandself-regulatingtheirthinkingbehaviours.While theyconstantlycross-referencedeachotherforpropositionsorideasduringtheprocessofreasoning,itistheeffortthey madeinquestioningtheirownpositionandseekingorofferingjustificationsofothers’views(Jewell,1996)thatdeepened theirexplorationofvariousrelations.Theseactionshavethepotentialtoleadtoimprovedoutcomes.Pedagogically,this impliesaneedtonurturestudents’criticalthinkingdispositionsthroughmakingthinkingvisibleinordertodeveloptheir criticalthinkingskills(Zin&Wong,2014).

IntermsofthemanagementofcognitivecomplexityincriticalthinkingtasksinL2,thisstudyshowshowataskcanbe structuredtoascertainaprogressioninthedemandofcognitiveresources(Robinson,2005).Thefindingsanddiscussions concerningtheaffordancesoftheenvironmentindicatethatseparatingcomprehensionandgroupingtasksofthestatements easedthementalworkload.Likewise,thegroupingsub-taskletstudentsrehearsetheirinterpretationsofrelationsamong statements,sowhenthetimecametosequencethem,studentshadalreadyworkedwiththecontenttwice.Therefore, theydidnotenterthetaskcold.Dealingwithonethingatatime notonlyreducescognitivedemand(deBono,2000; Robinson,2005),butalsoimprovestheefficiencyofusingcognitiveresources.Forthatreason,wewouldarguethatwith carefulsequencing,itispossibletoincreasethecognitivecomplexityoflearningtaskswithreducedmentalworkloadin informationprocessing.

Ourstudyalsoshowshowtechnologywithawell-developedinstructionaldesignusedwithinaCSCLEcanfacilitatetask completionwhichishighincognitivecomplexity.Usingdigitalcognitivetoolssuchasstickytapescanpushstudentstothink moreandbemorelogical.ThetabletopfacilitatedmultimodalinteractionsinCSCLEandenhancedthinking-in-actioninthis face-to-facecommunicationcontext.Thetangiblemappingmirrorsstudents’thinking-in-action,andmadeiteasyforthem toshare,review,andreflectontheirthoughts.Equally,thecontentondisplayassistedthinking-in-actionandverbalisation ofthoughts.Thenaturalandcreativeuseoflanguageintheinteractionsuggeststhatthecontentondisplaydecreasesthe burdenonL2learners’workingmemorybyreducingthedemandofsearchingforwordstotransfertheirthoughtsinto speech.ThissupportsSkehan’s(2015)claimthatmanagingandeasingcognitiveresourcesmakeslimitedworkingmemory workbetterinL2performanceinhighcomplexitytasks.

Educationalexperienceisasignificantpredictorofthedevelopmentofstudentcognitivecomplexity(Simmonsa,2014). Thisstudysupportsargumentsthatstudentscanbetrainedtothinkcritically(Sanavi&Tarighat,2014)inCSCLEs,which allowforfacetofacecommunicationasitspecificallyencouragestalkandthepromotionofthinkingskills.Applications suchasDigitalMysteriescanplayasignificantroleinthisformoftraining.Giventheemphasisthatcriticalandcreative thinkingplacesontheimplicitandexplicitsecondlanguageeducationcurriculum,languageeducatorsmaybenefitfrom developingabroaderunderstandingofcognitivecomplexityoflearningtasksspecificallyinCSCLEsinordertohelpstudents makethetransitionsassociatedwithincreasingcognitivecomplexity(DeLoach&Greenlaw,2007).Appropriateandrelevant mediationisneededtopromotestudentcriticalthinking,includinglearningenvironmentswhichencourageandsupport makingcriticalthinkingvisible,teachingvocabularyofcriticalthinkingtoenablestudentstoarticulatetheirthinking,and instructions ofusingspecificterminology tomaketargetedcritical thinkingskillsexplicit(Kabilan,2000).Tothisend, webelievethattheintegrationoftheteachingofcriticalthinkingskillsandmorespecificallyreasoningskillsintotheL2 classroomcanbesupportedthroughnewtechnologies.Ratherthansomethingthatisdonetostudents,theuseoftechnology shouldbeviewedaspartofabroaderecologyoftheL2classroomwheretheaffordancesoftheenvironmentasawhole, includingpeers,teacherandtechnologycometogether.

Acknowledgements

Datasupportingthispublicationisnotopenlyavailableduetoethicalconsiderations.Accessmaybepossibleunder appro-priateagreement.Additionalmetadatarecordathttp://dx.doi.org/10.17634/141304-5.PleasecontactNewcastleResearch [email protected].

References

Baralt,M.(2015).Workingmemorycapacity,cognitivecomplexityandL2recastsinonlinelanguageteaching.InZ.Wen,M.B.Mota,&A.McNeill(Eds.), WorkingMemoryinSecondLanguageAcquisitionandProcessing(pp.248–269).Bristol:SecondLanguageAcquisition.

Bloom,B.,&Krathwohl,D.(1956).Taxonomyofeducationalobjectives:theclassificationofeducationalgoals.NewYork:Longman.

Chen,M.H.(2010).InfusingthinkingskillsintoanL2classroom:acasestudyofaninnovationinaTaiwaneseuniversity(PhDthesis).NewcastleUniversity. deBono,E.(2000).Sixthinkinghats.PenguinBooksLtd.

DeLoach,S.B.,&Greenlaw,S.A.(2007).Effectivelymoderatingelectronicdiscussions.JournalofEconomicEducation,38(4),419–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JECE.38.4.419-434

Dillenbourg,P.,&Traum,D.(2006).Sharingsolutions:persistenceandgroundinginmultimodalcollaborativeproblemsolving.JournaloftheLearning Sciences,15(1),121–151.

Ennis,R.H.(2011).TheNatureofcriticalthinking:anoutlineofcriticalthinkingdispositionsandabilities. http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/documents/TheNatureofCriticalThinking51711000.pdf Halpern,D.(2003).Thought&knowledge:anintroductiontocriticalthinking(4thed.).LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. He,Q.X.(1999).Onthereformsofforeignlanguageeducation.ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearch,24–28.

Heslop,P.,Preston,A.,Kharrufa,A.,Balaam,M.,Leat,D.,&Olivier,P.(2015).Evaluatingdigitaltabletopcollaborativewritingintheclassroom.Proceedings ofhuman-computerinteractionINTERACT2015,531–548.SpringerInternationalPublishing.

Higgins,S.,Mercier,E.,Burd,L.,&Joyce-Gibbons,A.(2012).Multi-touchtablesandclassroomcollaboration.BritishJournalofEducationalTechnology,43(6), 1041–1054.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01259.x

Hilliges,O.,Terrenghi,L.,Boring,S.,Kim,D.,Richter,H.,&Butz,A.(2007).Designingforcollaborativecreativeproblemsolving.Creativity&Cognition,7, 137–146.

Huang,Y.S.(1998).Chinesethinkingabsence.ForeignLanguagesandTheirteaching,7(1),19.

Jewell,P.(1996).Areasoningtaxonomyforgiftededucation.Paperpresentedatthefusingtalents:proceedingsofthe6thnationalconferenceongifted educationAustralianassociationfortheeducationofthegiftedandtalented.

Jewitt,C.(2009).Routledgehandbookofmultimodalanalysis.London:Routledge.

Kabilan,M.K.(2000).Creativeandcriticalthinkinginlanguageclassrooms.TheInternetTESLJournal,6(6).

Kharrufa,A.,&Olivier,P.(2010).Exploringtherequirementsoftabletopinterfacesforeducation.InternationalJournalofLearningTechnology,5(1),42–62. Kharrufa,A.S.,Leat,D.,&Olivier,P.(2010).DigitalMysteries:designingforlearningatthetabletop.ProceedingsoftheACMinternationalconferenceon

interactivetabletopsandsurfacesACMITS’10,197–206.

Kharrufa,A.S.,Olivier,P.,&Leat,D.(2010).Learningthroughreflectionatthetabletop:acasestudywithDigitalMysteries.Proceedingsofworldconference oneducationalmultimedia,hypermediaandtelecommunications,EdMedia’2010,2010(1),665–674.

Kim,S.(2006).AcademicoralcommunicationneedsofEastAsianinternationalgraduatestudentsinnon-scienceandnon-engineeringfields.Englishfor SpecificPurposes,25(4),479–489.

Lantolf,J.P.,&Thorne,S.L.(2006).Socioculturaltheoryandsecondlanguageacquisition.InB.vanPatten,&J.Williams(Eds.),Theoriesinsecondlanguage acquisition(pp.201–224).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.

Lantolf,J.P.(2003).Intrapersonalcommunicationandinternalizationinthesecondlanguageclassroom.InA.Kozulin,V.S.Ageev,S.Miller,&B.Gindis (Eds.),Vygotsky’seducationaltheoryinculturalcontext(pp.349–370).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Leat,D.,&Nichols,A.(2000).Brainsonthetable:diagnosticandformativeassessmentthroughobservation.AssessmentinEducation:Principles,Policy& Practice,7(1),103–121.

Lee,L.(2004).Learners’perspectivesonnetworkedcollaborativeinteractionwithnativespeakersofSpanishintheUS.LanguageLearning&Technology, 8(1),83–100.

Lin,M.,&MacKay,C.(2004).Thinkingthroughmodernforeignlanguages.Cambridge:ChrisKingtonPublishing. Lipman,M.(2003).Thinkingineducation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lund,A.(2008).Wikis:acollectiveapproachtolanguageproduction.ReCALL,20(1),35–54.

Martinez-Maldonado,R.,Collins,A.,Kay,J.,&Yacef,K.(2011).Whodidwhat?whosaidthat?Collaid:anenvironmentforcapturingtracesofcollaborative learningatthetabletop.ProceedingsoftheACMinternationalconferenceoninteractivetabletopsandsurfaces.ACM,2011,172–181.

Mercier,E.M.,&Higgins,S.E.(2014).Creatingjointrepresentationsofcollaborativeproblemsolvingwithmulti-touchtechnology.JournalofComputer AssistedLearning,30(6),497–510.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12052

Moseley,D.,Baumfield,V.,Elliot,J.,Gregson,M.,Higgins,S.,Miller,J.,etal.(2005).Frameworksforthinking.Cambridge:CUP. Paul,R.,&Elder,L.(2012).Criticalthinking:toolsfortakingchargeofyourlearningandyourlife.Boston:Pearson.

Peng,J.(2014).WillingnesstocommunicateintheChineseEFLuniversityclassrooms:anecologicalperspective.Bristol:MultilingualMatters. Resta,P.,&Laferriere,T.(2007).Technologyinsupportofcollaborativelearning.EducationalPsychologyReview,19(1),65–83.

Robinson,P.(2005).Cognitivecomplexityandtasksequencing:studiesinacomponentialframeworkforsecondlanguagetaskdesign.International ReviewofAppliedLinguisticsinLanguageTeaching,43(1),1–32.

Sanavi,R.V.,&Tarighat,S.(2014).Criticalthinkingandspeakingproficiency:amixed-methodstudy.TheoryandPracticeinLanguageStudies,4(1),79–87. Simmonsa,C.(2014).Graduatesocialworkeducationandcognitivecomplexity:doespriorexperiencereallymatter?JournalofTeachinginSocialWork,

34(3),235–247.

Skehan,P.(2015).Workingmemoryandsecondlanguageperformance.InZ.Wen,M.B.Mota,&A.McNeill(Eds.),Workingmemoryinsecondlanguage acquisitionandprocessing(pp.189–205).Bristol:MultilingualMatters.

VanLier,L.(2004).TheecologyandsemioticsofLanguageLearning:asocioculturalperspective.Boston;London:KluwerAcademicPublishers. VandenBrink-Budgen,R.(2000).Criticalthinkingforstudents:learntheskillsofcriticalassessmentandeffectiveargument(3rded.).Oxford,UK:Howto

BooksLtd.

Vygotsky,L.(1978).Mindinsociety.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Wen,Q.F.,&Zhou,Y.(2006).ReviewofthedevelopmentEnglishmajorsthinkingability.ForeignLanguageResearch,2006(5).

Zin,Z.M.,&Wong,BeeEng.(2014).RelationshipbetweencriticalthinkingdispositionsandcriticalreadingskillsofMalaysianESLlearners.TheAsianEFL Journal,41–68.