Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:31:43.557Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Task dependency effects of collaboration in learners’ corpus consultation: An exploratory case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2015

Hyeyoung Cho
Hyeyoung Cho*
Affiliation:
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Republic of Korea (email: junjungh7@naver.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Collaborative learning has attracted attention as pedagogic mediation to assist learners’ corpus consultation, but some studies have pointed to negative aspects of collaboration. Based on the two sides of collaboration in language learning, this study presents a qualitative investigation of different effects of collaboration depending on task types used in learners’ corpus consultation. This study examined two types of tasks: a conceptual task, which tested students’ competence to draw a generalizable conclusion through a meaning-making process of corpus consultation; and a procedural task, which asked students to complete problem-solving activities strategically through corpus analysis. Two groups of three students were given the same tasks of corpus consultation but asked to complete the tasks either collaboratively or individually. The students’ verbal and nonverbal behaviors during the task completion, pre-and post-interviews, and the instructor’s observation notes were the main sources of data for analysis. The results of this study showed that collaboration has significantly different effects depending on the task types of corpus consultation. The collaborative group (CG) outperformed the individual group (IG) in the conceptual corpus consultation task, but the procedural task was more efficiently completed by the IG than the CG. The underperformance of the CG in the procedural task seemed to be partly attributable to the role of established intersubjectivity and the power inequality in the CG. Despite some limitations, the findings of this study reveal task-dependent effects of collaboration in corpus consultation and suggest practical implications for more effective and pedagogically beneficial use of learners’ corpus consultation in second language (L2) instruction.

Keywords

collaborative learningtask-dependent effectslearners’ corpus consultation
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 44 - 61
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ädel, A. (2010) Using corpora to teach academic writing: Challenges for the direct approach. In: Campoy-Cubillo, M., Belles-Fortuno, B. and Geo-Valor, M. (eds.), Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching. London: Continuum, 39–55.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1993) Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Belenky, D., Ringenberg, M., Olsen, J., Aleven, V. and Rummel, N (2014) Using dual eye-tracking to evaluate students’ collaboration with an intelligent tutoring system for elementary-level fractions. In: Bello, P., Guarini, M., McShane, M. and Scassellati, B. (eds.), Proceedings of COGSCI 2014. Quebec City, 176–181.Google Scholar
Berejkovskaya, E. L. (2006) Potential negative consequences of education based on the principle of the zone of proximal development. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 44(6): 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulton, A. (2009) Data-driven learning: Reasonable fears and rational reassurance. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(1): 81–106.Google Scholar
Bretherton, I. (1991) Intentional communication and the development of an understanding of mind. In: Frye, D. and Moore, C. (eds.), Children’s theories of mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 49–75.Google Scholar
Caskey, M. M. (2003) Using parent-student pairs for internet instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3): 304–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, A. and O’Sullivan, I. (2004) Corpus consultation and advanced learners’ writing skills in French. ReCALL, 16(1): 158–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, L. H. and Chen, C. H. (2010) Conflict from teamwork in project‐based collaborative learning. Performance Improvement, 49(2): 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, R. (2013) A non-native student’s experience on collaborating with native peers in academic literacy development: A sociopolitical perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1): 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockburn, A. and Greenberg, S. (1993) Making contact: Getting the group communicating with groupware. In: Kaplan, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the conference on organizational computing systems. New York: ACM, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. (1999) The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System, 27(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. (2005) Corpus linguistics and L2 teaching. In: Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 393–409.Google Scholar
Cook, G. (1998) The uses of reality: A reply to Ronald Carter. ELT Journal, 52(1): 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estling Vannestål, M. E. and Lindquist, H. (2007) Learning English grammar with a corpus: Experimenting with concordancing in a university grammar course. ReCALL, 19(3): 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2008) Corpus linguistics for academic literacies mediated through discussion activities. In: Belcher, D. and Hirvela, A. (eds.), The oral-literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing and other media interactions. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 268–287.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2001) Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1): 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavioli, L. and Aston, G. (2001) Enriching reality: Language corpora in language pedagogy. ELT Journal, 55(3): 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, R. and Meck, E. (1986) The notion of principle: The case of counting. In: Hieber, J. (ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 343–359.Google Scholar
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995) Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2): 147–166.Google Scholar
Guzdial, M. and Turns, J. (2000) Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4): 437–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (2004) Practicing speaking in Spanish: lessons from a high school foreign language classroom. In: Boxer, D. and Cohen, A. D. (eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 68–87.Google Scholar
He, A. W. (2001) The language of ambiguity practices in Chinese heritage language classes. Discourse Studies, 3(1): 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Z. (2014) The effects of paper-based DDL on the acquisition of lexico-grammmatical patterns in L2 writing. ReCALL, 26(2): 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Järvenoja, H. and Järvelä, S. (2005) How students describe the sources of their emotional and motivational experiences during the learning process: A qualitative approach. Learning and Instruction, 15(5): 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Järvenoja, H. and Järvelä, S. (2009) Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3): 463–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Järvelä, S., Lehtinen, E. and Salonen, P. (2000) Socio-emotional orientation as a mediating variable in the teaching-learning interaction: implications for instructional design. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44(5): 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. (1999) Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2): 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. (2002) Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. In: Heath, L., Edwards, J., Posavac, E. J., Bryant, F. B., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Henderson-King, E. and Myers, J. (eds.), Theory and research on small groups. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (1991) Context is everything. Educational Technology, 31(6): 35–37.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (1994) Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4): 34–37.Google Scholar
Kaye, K. (1982) The mental and social life of babies: how parents create persons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Keen, K. (1992) Competence: What is it and how can it be developed? In: Lowyck, J., de Potter, P. and Elen, J. (eds.), Instructional design: Implementation issues. Brussels, Belgium: IBM Education Center, 111–122.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T., Stahl, G. and Zemel, A. (2004) The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for the development of a program of video analytic research within the learning sciences). In: Kafari, Y. B., Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Nixon, A. S. and Herrera, F. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences. CA: UCLA Press, 278–285.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N., Robbs, J. and Barnhart, A. (2003) Problematizing the problem: a single case analysis in a dPBL meeting. In: Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S. and Hoppe, U. (eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL ‘03). Bergen, Norway: Kluwer Publishers, 37–46.Google Scholar
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A. and Jochems, W. (2003) Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3): 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazonder, A. W. (2005) Do two heads search better than one? Effects of student collaboration on web search behaviour and search outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3): 465–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. and Swales, J. (2006) A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 25: 56–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leki, I. (2001) “A narrow thinking system”: Nonnative‐English‐speaking students in group projects across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1): 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levykh, M. (2008) Personality, emotions, and behavioural mastery in the thought of Lev Vygotsky. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Canada.Google Scholar
Lipponen, L. (2002) Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In: Stahl, G. (ed.), Proceedings of the computer supported corroborative learning 2002 Conference. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 72–81.Google Scholar
Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J. and Hakkarainen, K. (2001) Analyzing patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ online science discussion. In: Dillenbourg, P., Eurelings, A. and Hakkarainen, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the first European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning. Maastricht: University of Maastricht, 421–428.Google Scholar
Moscovitch, M. (1994) Memory and working with memory: Evaluation of a component process model and comparisons with other models. In: Schacter, D. L. and Tulving, E. (eds.), Memory systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 369–394.Google Scholar
Mullins, D., Rummel, N. and Spada, H. (2011) Are two heads always better than one? Differential effects of collaboration on students’ computer-supported learning in mathematics. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3): 421–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Northrup, P. (2001) A framework for designing interactivity into web-based instruction. Educational Technology, 41(2): 31–39.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1996) Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, I. (2007) Enhancing a process-oriented approach to literacy and language learning: The role of corpus consultation literacy. ReCALL, 19(3): 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prekop, P. (2002) A qualitative study of collaborative information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 58(5): 533–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prodromou, L. (1996) Correspondence. ELT Journal, 50(10): 88–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rommetveit, R. (1979) On the architecture of intersubjectivity. In: Rommetveit, R. and Blakar, R. M. (eds.), Studies of language, thought and verbal communication. London: Academic Press, 93–107.Google Scholar
Rommetveit, R. (1985) Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. In: Wertsch, J. V. (ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183–204.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J. (1996) Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In: Koschmann, T. (ed.), CSCL: theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 209–248.Google Scholar
Rourke, L. (2000) Operationalizing social interaction in computer conferencing. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Distance Education. Quebec City. http://www.ulaval.ca/aced2000cade/english/proceedings.html.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2006) Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, L. and Fine, G. A. (1999) Socially shared cognition, affect, and behavior: A review and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4): 278–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tudge, J. R. (1992) Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian analysis. Child Development, 63(6): 1364–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vakil, E. and Hoffman, Y. (2004) Dissociation between two types of skill learning tasks: The differential effect of divided attention. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 26(5): 653–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webb, N. M. and Palincsar, A. S. (1996) Group processes in the classroom. Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Yoon, H. (2008) More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2): 31–48.Google Scholar
Yoon, H. and Hirvela, A. (2004) ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4): 257–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar