Meskill Carla Online Teaching and Learning - Sociocultural Perspectives Bloomsbury Academic 2015

Online Teaching and Learning:
Sociocultural Perspectives
Advances in Digital Language Learning and Teaching
Series Editors: Michael Thomas, University of Central Lancashire, UK, Mark Peterson,
Kyoto University, Japan, and Mark Warschauer, University of California – Irvine, USA
Today’s language educators need support to understand how their learners are changing
and the ways technology can be used to aid their teaching and learning strategies.
The movement toward different modes of language learning – from presence-based
to autonomous as well as blended and fully online modes – requires different skill sets
such as e-moderation and new ways of designing and developing language learning
tasks in the digital age. Theoretical studies that include practical case studies and
high-quality empirical studies incorporating critical perspectives are necessary to
move the field further. This new series is committed to providing such an outlet for
high quality work on digital language learning and teaching. Volumes in the series will
focus on a number of areas including but not limited to:
–– task-based learning and teaching approaches utilizing technology
–– language learner creativity
–– e-moderation and teaching languages online
–– blended language learning
–– designing courses for online and distance language learning
–– mobile assisted language learning
–– autonomous language learning, both in and outside of formal educational
contexts
–– the use of web 2.0/social media technologies
–– immersive and virtual language learning environments
–– digital game-based language learning
–– language educator professional development with digital technologies
–– teaching language skills with technologies
Enquiries about the series can be made by contacting the series editors:
Michael Thomas (MThomas4@uclan.acuk), Mark Peterson (tufsmp@yahoo.com)
and Mark Warschauer (markw@uci.edu).
Titles in the Series

Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning in a Virtual Learning Environment,
Miranda Hamilton
Interactive Whiteboards and Language Teacher Professional Development,
edited by Euline Cutrim Schmid and Shona Whyte
Related Titles
Continuum Companion to Second Language Acquisition, edited by Ernesto Macaro
Available in Paperback as Bloomsbury Companion to Second Language Acquisition
Contemporary Computer-Assisted Language Learning, edited by Michael Thomas,
Hayo Reinders and Mark Warschauer
Online Second Language Acquisition, Vincenza Tudini
Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology, edited by
Michael Thomas and Hayo Reinders
Online Teaching and Learning:
Carla Meskill
Advances in Digital Language Learning

and Teaching
L ON DON • N E W DE L H I • N E W Y OR K • SY DN EY
Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA
www.bloomsbury.com
First published 2013
© Carla Meskill, 2013
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval
system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting

on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication
can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
eISBN: 978-1-4411-3879-8
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Meskill, Carla.
Online teaching and learning : sociocultural perspectives / Carla Meskill.
p. cm. – (Advances in digital language learning and teaching)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4411-5945-8 (hardcover : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-1-4411-3879-8 (ebook (pdf) –
ISBN 978-1-4411-7578-6 (ebook (epub)
1. Language and languages–Study and teaching–Technological innovations. 2. Language
and languages–Computer-assisted instruction. 3. Intercultural communication–Study and
teaching–Data processing. 4. Web-based instruction. 5. Educational technology. I. Title.
P53.28.M475 2013
418.0078’5–dc23
2013011282
Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, Chennai, India

Contents
List of Contributors vii
Introduction: Sociocultural Research Perspectives for Online

Teaching and Learning Carla Meskill 1
Part 1 Diversity/Identity Online 19
1 Learning in New Online Cultures: East Meets West

Gulnara Sadykova 21
2 Projection of Teacher Identity in Introductory Posts:

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Strategies of Online
Self-Presentation Denis Samburskiy 39
Part 2 Shifts in Practice 59
3 An Exploration of 3D Virtual Worlds through ESL/EFL

Teachers’ Perspectives in Second Life Ozan Varli 61
4 Collaboration Unpacked: Tasks, Tools and Activities Andreas Lund 77
5 Synchronous Online Language Teaching: Strategies to Support

Learner Development Iryna Kozlova and Evon Zundel 99
Part 3 Shifts in Participation 117
6 The Educational Value of Student Talk in Online Discussions

Sedef Uzuner Smith and Ruchi Mehta 119
7 Focusing on the Social: Research into the Distributed Knowledge

of Novice Teachers in Online Exchange Melinda Dooly 137
8 Perceptions of Humour in Oral Synchronous Online

Environments Natasha Anthony 157
9 Face-to-Face and Online EL Writing Tutorials:

A Comparison Jason Vickers 177
vi Contents
Part 4 Informal Online Learning 197
10 Rapport Management and Online Learning: L2 Socialization

in Livemocha Adrienne Gonzalez 199
11 ‘We don’t have to always post stuff to help us learn’:

Informal Learning through Social Networking in a Beginners’
Chinese Group Marie-Noelle Lamy 219
Index 239
List of Contributors
Natasha Anthony is Assistant Professor and Director of the International

Language Laboratory at Hudson Valley Community College in New York. She
designs and teaches online Russian as well as faculty development courses. Her
research focuses on Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and, more
specifically, on the use of synchronous and asynchronous oral components in
online language courses. Teacher education is also a focal point of her scholarly
activities. Dr Anthony has authored articles and book chapters and participated
in various national and international conferences and symposia presenting on
these topics.
Dr Melinda Dooly is Lecturer at the Education Faculty of the Universitat

Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain). She teaches English as a Foreign Language
(TEFL) methodology and research methodology courses, focusing on
telecollaboration in education. Her research addresses teacher preparation
and the use of CALL and CMC. She has published widely in these areas and
is co-editor of the book series Telecollaboration in Education (Peter Lang).
Dr Dooly’s current research interest is in project-based telecollaborative
language learning and very young learners.
Adrienne Gonzalez received her Ph.D. in Hispanic Linguistics at the University
of New Mexico. She is currently the Foreign Language Pedagogy and Technology
Specialist for the Center for World Languages and Cultures at the University
of Denver. Her areas of interest include second language acquisition, CALL,
computer-mediated communication and interlanguage pragmatics.
Iryna Kozlova has a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics. She has taught a variety of
courses in Applied Linguistics at the Old Dominion University and Georgia
State University, and at Algonquin College. Her experience teaching Russian
includes teaching face-to-face and completely online courses. One of her research
interests is CALL, specifically, language learning in synchronous multimodal
environments. She is especially interested in online language pedagogy. Her
current research focuses on the use and the role of multiple communication
channels for student language development. Dr Kozlova has developed several
online Russian language courses and has presented at various national and
viii List of Contributors
international conferences on topics related to second/additional language

learning and use.
M. N. Lamy is Professor of Distance Language Learning at the UK Open

University. She has many years of experience in designing and implementing
language courses for online study, involving extensive use of synchronous and
asynchronous media including voice-enabled e-tutorials. She has researched
extensively in the field of computer-mediated communication for language
learning, with a particular interest in real-time group conversations in multimodal
settings. She has run training workshops for language educators and for research
students and researchers on four continents. Her current research interests
include methodologies for the description of online learning conversations, and
the co-construction of group cultures by language learners in various online and
social networking environments.
Dr Andreas Lund is Professor at the Department of Teacher Education and

School Research, University of Oslo, Norway. Lund has worked in the field of
CALL since the mid-1980s; as a teacher, as animator for a series of language
and technology workshops for the European Centre of Modern Languages,
as project co-ordinator for ICT in correctional education, and as a researcher
on language learning and teaching in networked environments. Among his
research interests are teaching and learning ESL, collective cognition, human
interactions in technology rich environments, sociocultural and activity
theoretical perspectives on learning and didactics, and speech communities and
communication change. Lund is currently involved in establishing ProTed – a
Center of Excellence in Education and the first of its kind in Norway. Lund has
published extensively, especially on learning and teaching in technology rich
environments.
Ruchi Mehta is an instructional designer at San Jose State University, California.

Her areas of interest include technology-mediated learning and particularly,
online/hybrid learning. She has performed extensive research on discourse
in asynchronous environments and presented findings and implications for
effective implementation of discussions in online settings. Her dissertation
research at the University at Albany, State University of New York focuses
on the quality of mathematical discussions in a fully online undergraduate
level course. She views technology as a means of accomplishing a purposeful
objective, and constantly strives to make technology more accessible, purposeful
and educational.
List of Contributors ix
Carla Meskill is Professor, Department of Educational Theory and Practice

at the University at Albany, State University of New York. Her research and
teaching explore new forms of technology use in language education as well
as the influences of new technologies on developing language and literacy
practices. In tandem, her work explores the nature of electronic literacy and its
centrality in teacher professional development. On these and related topics she
has published widely
Gulnara Sadykova is Associate Professor at the Department of English

Philology, Kazan Federal University, Russia. She holds an advanced (Candidate
of Science) degree in Comparative Linguistics from the same university. She
is also an adjunct online instructor at the Department of Educational Theory
and Practice, University at Albany where she recently received her Ph.D. in
Curriculum and Instruction. Her research interests include cross-culture/
cross-border distance education, technology-assisted language teaching/
learning, computer-assisted (intercultural) communication and media texts.
Denis Samburskiy earned an MS in TESOL and is pursuing a Ph.D. in

Curriculum and Instruction at State University of New York at Albany. His
research interests include ESL/EFL instruction, cognitive linguistics and CALL.
He teaches a course ‘Corpus-Informed Pedagogical Grammar of English’ and
runs an evening ESL program for adults at the university. Denis came to the
United States as a Fulbright scholar from Russia in 2007, after graduating from
Tomsk State University with a degree in Cross-Cultural Communication and
EFL pedagogy.
Sedef Uzuner Smith is Assistant Professor at Lamar University, Beaumont,

TX, where she developed the online Preparation Program for ESL Teacher
Certification. Her Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction from the State University
of New York at Albany focused on instructional technology and language and
literacies. One line of her research focuses on teaching and learning in online
and blended environments, and another line of her research examines second
language academic literacy from a sociocultural perspective. Smith has published
articles and research in the Internet and Higher Education, Studies in Continuing
Education, the Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, the International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Educational Media International
and the Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Previously, Smith taught
undergraduate and graduate level online courses at various universities in the
United States, including the State University of New York at Albany, University
of Massachusetts, Boston, and Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
x List of Contributors
Ozan Varli is an instructor at the English Language Center (ELC) at Koc

University, Istanbul, Turkey. He is also the Ed-tech co-ordinator of the
department and provides IT support for teaching, learning, research and
classroom technology by conducting workshops and training sessions for
language instructors. He is the web developer and system administrator of ELC
Online, a web-based course management system for language learners at Koc
University. Varli received his bachelor’s from Hacettepe University and attended
several graduate courses in ELT at Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
Turkey. As a recipient of a Fulbright Scholarship, he earned his MS degree in
TESOL and is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Istanbul University. His dissertation
concentrates on AR (Augmented Reality) applications in language education.
His research interests include (but are not limited to) online/distance education,
virtual learning environments, mobile learning and emerging technologies in
the language classroom.
Jason Vickers graduated from the Department of Educational Theory

and Practice at the State University of New York, Albany, with a Ph.D. in
Curriculum and Instruction. He served as the English as a Second Language
Writing Consultant at UAlbany’s Writing Center for 5 years. He has nearly 20
years teaching English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities. He
currently teaches masters level courses online including Media in the Language
Classroom, Media in Teaching and Learning, Introduction to Distance Education
and Integrating Technology across the Curriculum. One of his current projects
includes designing online EFL courses for aspiring graduate students abroad.
Ms Evon Zundel is the co-ordinator of the blendedschools.net (BSN) Language

Institute, a leading provider of live online synchronous language instruction
for students throughout the United States. She earned her BS in Secondary
Education and Spanish from Kutztown University and her Masters of Science
in Education from Wilkes University. She began her educational career in the
Bethlehem, NY School District as a classroom Spanish teacher, Technology
Integration Specialist and One-to-One Laptop Project Director.
Int ro duc t ion:
Carla Meskill
It is through others that we develop into ourselves.

Lev Vygotsky (1991, p. 161)
As the title of this collection suggests, the chapters herein examine dimensions
of online teaching and learning via sociocultural theory. The authors investigate
processes and outcomes of online interactions with the aim of accounting for the
social and cultural complexities entailed when diverse individuals come together
for joint purposes. For this group of studies, these purposes are educational with
instructional events and processes taking place in a variety of online venues
and in a variety of manners. The questions of how and why the resulting online
conversations are socially, linguistically and culturally motivated and manifest
are the broad issues that unite these chapters.
Expanding contexts
The desire to communicate and its rewards have clearly transformed the internet.
What was initially conceived as a network for information exchange has quickly
evolved into a global social network. This shift from information archive to a
venue for human interaction is not surprising given the essential human drive to
commune with others. This drive, after all, has shaped much of civilization and
its institutions, particularly education where interactions with others are core to
the development of knowledge and understanding. Yet, until recently education
2 Online Teaching and Learning
has been fairly limited to local contexts, classrooms, countries and cultures. Now
that a good deal of teaching and learning is migrating to the borderless internet,
educational processes complexify in terms of linguistic and cultural dimensions.
Indeed, along with these new venues for communication have come entirely
new forms of cultural situatedness with ever-evolving community norms and
practices (Kramsch & Ware, 2004; Thorne, 2003).
The point of departure of this collection is to extend formal conceptualization
of research practices for online education that embrace social, linguistic, cultural
and ecological dimensions of the online teaching and learning enterprise. It
strays from mainstream conceptualization of social constructivism to examine,
with specificity and fine granularity, the sociolinguistic and sociocultural
dimensions of online education. The drive from such a perspective is to ‘explicate
the relationships between human action on the one hand, and the cultural,
institutional, and historical situations in which this functioning occurs, on the
other’ (Wertsch, del Rio & Alvarez, 1995, p. 11).
New forms of human contexts and the communication they engender
require new conceptual lenses to reach new theoretical, empirical and
practical understandings. A sociocultural approach to understanding teaching
and learning in online contexts provides a framework and a set of working
assumptions concerning how we learn in the world that are useful in this regard.
In their broadest sense, sociocultural approaches can be sufficiently flexible
to accommodate novel forms of internet-based practices while adhering to
ontological positions that support twenty-first-century digital practices overall;
positions that see human phenomena as non-static and ever-evolving; positions
that stand in stark contrast to positivist positions that hold forth the tradition
of faith in unassailable truths. When it comes to human practices, the former
serves as a more productive tool in examining teaching and learning practices
online as these continue to evolve.
A sociocultural perspective sees all human psychological processes as social
in nature, human development (learning) as emerging through social experience
and language as the essential tool for development (Valsiner & van der Veer,
2000). Human psychological processes are culturally mediated, historically
developing and arise from the socially organized activities of everyday life
(Vygotsky, 1991). The perspective is in direct contrast to views of human
motivations and learning that are strictly cognitivist, or in the head. Rather,
sociocultural perspectives see development as in the world phenomena and
thus attempt to account for larger historical, contextual elements that shape our
mediations with the world and with others. We enact culture through language;
Sociocultural Perspectives 3
language and culture emerge from increasingly complex social interactions and
vice versa (Beckner et al., 2009).
When applied to discourses of teaching and learning, the term social carries
three dimensions of direct interest. It describes the influence of the discourses
we engage in when we interact. It also describes the socially constructed tools
that we use – including physical tools like hand-held digital assistants as well
as symbolic tools such as language iconography – to mediate meaning. Finally,
social describes the orientations of speakers and writers to one another (Cazden
& Beck, 2003). As Hanks (1996) observes, for two or more speakers to establish
and maintain mutuality of orientation, ‘it is neither sufficient nor necessary that
they “share” the same grammar. What they must share, to a variable degree, is the
ability to orient themselves verbally, perceptually, and physically to each other
and to their social worlds’ (p. 229). Indeed, a key feature of social orientation
is what Bloome labels ‘indeterminancy’: the central motive of co-meaning
making in that speakers live and act upon the ‘not knowing’ that is integral to
the process (1993). In educational contexts, the manner in which instructors
and students orient to one another and establish mutual vantage points has long
been of interest from discourse perspectives (Kulick & Schieffelin, 2004) and
more recently in terms of interlocutor identities (e.g. Pavlenko & Blackledge,
2004).
In addition to these three dimensions germane to classroom instruction –
discourse, tools and social orientation – sociocultural perspectives are generally
applied employing the following eight assumptions. Each is briefly described
and its relevance for online teaching and learning suggested.
Agency of learners
The perception that learners have agency is a relatively recent change. For
much of human history, learners were viewed as acted upon by those more
learned and by an established set of knowledge. Those doing the learning
were seen as passive recipients of specific knowledge deemed necessary and
handed down by venerable individuals and institutions. In spite of a great deal
of counter-evidence, this assumption of learning as absorbing predetermined
content continues to prevail in many domains of education policy and practices
around the world.
Early studies in child development, led primarily by those of Lev Vygotsky,
illuminated the rich cognitive predispositions and readiness with which learners
come to the world around them and which they actively employ according to
the sociocultural traditions and structures in which they are raised and with the
assistance of those farther along the development trajectory (Vygotsky, 1991).
Assuming learners are active agents in their learning becomes particularly
important in the context of learning technologies as it contrasts sharply with
faulty assumptions concerning the agency of technology per se. That is, rather
than teachers and learners, technologies are often viewed as the source of agency
in educational processes. A sociocultural perspective contrasts sharply here as
it sees technology as a tool in human development, not an agent. In the case of
online education, tool-rich venues are environments for human agency to be
exercised in the quest for human development.
The learners as agentive assumption trains attention on active, observable and
reportable uses of discourse in instructional processes. Likewise, the use of other
tools, both concrete digital and abstract cognitive, become of interest as the ways
in which learners employ these can lead to better understandings of the roles
that mediational means can and do play in human development. Finally, the
social orientations of learners to other learners, their instructors and the focal
content in new online venues are integral to a developing anatomy of online
teaching and learning.
Mutuality of individuals and their sociocultural environments

The inextricability of actors, their actions and the contexts in which these are
manifest has long been a tenet of qualitative, ethnographic research whereby
systematic attempts are made to address human activity in situ. This assumption
again varies radically from traditional cognitivist views of truths about human
development being determinable via controlled, laboratory manipulations.
Sociocultural approaches operate on the assumption that what is observed is
first and foremost local in its manifestation; that the cultural, historical and
synchronic operate as an ensemble, not as discrete events (Bourdieu, 1999).
This assumption undergirds Vygotsky’s own research where a major part of
his program of research was to determine units of analysis that ‘preserve[s] the
essence of the events of interest rather than separating an event into elements
that no longer function as does the whole’ (Rogoff, 2008, p. 58).
In the study of online interactions for the purpose of teaching and learning,
this notion of mutuality shapes the anatomy of the inquiry. Complex online
environments populated by widely diverse learners and teachers cannot be
considered representative of like activity, nor in isolation from their sociocultural
contexts. Indeed, early studies of evolving social practices in online venues reveal
the potency of the novel environment in shaping new forms of communication
(Baron, 2008; Crystal, 2008). A sociocultural orientation requires that while
researchers examine microlevel activity of interest, the wider social, cultural
and institutional context is considered in the shaping of that activity. As such,
the activity examined can serve as a window on how underlying organizational
norms and cultural orientations operate.
In short, sociocultural contexts, including those beyond the immediate
online environment, matter. It is these in tandem with individuals engaging
in instructional discourse, employing tools to amplify these discourses and
who orient to one another and their environment that comprise the mutuality
dimension of sociocultural perspective for online teaching and learning.
Assistance from others

In contrast to current cognitivist views of learners as autonomous actors
whose states and traits determine their learning successes, a sociocultural view
sees the role of more capable others as intrinsic to the potentiality of human
development. Indeed, one of Vygotsky’s most salient and oft cited foci in the
study of human development is the critical role played by more capable others in
learning processes, thus placing educators, supporting adults and peers squarely
in the picture. The social, discoursal ‘leg up’ provided by more capable others is
a central feature of socioculturally influenced pedagogical practices (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1991; Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976) and is recently being reiterated as
the central, crucial feature of human teaching that, in terms of complexity and
effectiveness, is far beyond what preprogrammed computer-led instruction can
achieve (Meskill, Mossop & Bates, 1999; Neuman & Celano, 2012).
In online instructional venues, it is the social and instructional ensemble
orchestrated by a talented instructor and participated in by active learners that
promotes and supports learning (Meskill & Anthony, 2010; Uzuner Smith &
Mehta, this volume). The tasks, prompts, cues, leads, corralling, saturating, and so
on that instructors employ provide the structure, motives and supportive context
for learners to benefit from interacting with, and thus enjoying the assistance
of others in their learning. Sociocultural approaches to online education value
and examine closely the anatomy of these assistive and supportive discourses,
the tools that support them and the social orientations of participants to their
learning environments and what transpires within them.
Appropriation of social practices

From a sociocultural perspective, learning initiates in the social realm as a
condition for its appropriation, internalization and ultimate contribution to
individual development. What one does with and under the influence of others
will subsequently be accomplished independently along with its intrinsic social
inheritances. The individual’s tools that regulate what is internalized – language,
semiotic matter and physical artefacts – are likewise derived from participation
in social realms both broadly and narrowly considered. In short, our learning is
the appropriation of the social practices of both the local and wider sociocultural
contexts in which we engage (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990).
While the implications for this assumption in online education are vast,
especially given the global diversity of online contexts, one implication that
rises to the fore is the opportunity to engage with others using the discourses of
given disciplines. Indeed, in conversing disciplinarily with more knowledgeable
disciplinary insiders, learners directly experience and in turn appropriate expert
ways of knowing and communicating what they know (Gee, 2007). Students get
to know firsthand how things get talked about, represented and comprehended
given such contexts of inquiry, collaboration and assistance. They have
opportunities to become discourse insiders via social appropriation.
Teaching and learning of any kind involves engaging new cultural practices.
When we move within and between discourse communities, we apprentice to
the dominant cultural practices of the current context. Nowhere is this more
commonly the case than in global online social environments where widely
varying discourse practices and mother tongues come together to develop ways
of thinking and knowing that somehow organically accommodate and reflect
a cohesive whole.
Internalization via verbalization

As we have seen, a sociocultural perspective sees individual development
emerging out of social processes which are mediated by verbal means with
the unity of thought and language viewed as socially constituted. Further,
Vygotsky proposed that our socially mediated experiences are transformed for,
and become part of our individual developmental repertoires via our attempts
to verbalize our thoughts with others; a process seen as the internalization of
socially shaped knowing via mediational means (language). ‘Articulate speech
is a means to understand oneself due to the fact that it is returned to its source
as object’ (Valsiner & van der Veer, 2000, p. 343). In short, it is the socially
meaningful activity in which learners engage that leads to its very appropriation
and internalization.
Given the more even playing field of online education whereby all learners
have opportunities to articulate their thinking and share this with others,
potential internalization via verbalization is vastly promising. Add the vast
possibilities of enhancements and amplifications via multimedia digital tools
along with the at-hand resources learners can employ in constructing their
verbal responses and this particular assumption underlying sociocultural
perspectives becomes particularly salient.
Learning as living
As Atkinson (2011) rightly points out, learning is ‘the default state of human
affairs’ (p. 123). This statement encapsulates a critical and relatively recent
insight into human development exemplified in Vygotskian views of human
development: the fact of our significant predispositions to learning. The
homo eruditis, the learning man, who is biologically predestined to effortful
understanding has come to replace the tabla raza conceptions of the human
mind as an empty vessel waiting to be filled. And, in contrast to popular beliefs
about education institutions as the seat of learning, this view sees humans in
a perpetual state of learning while being in and interacting with the world.
Indeed, learning is not exotic activity that happens in specialized places under
the guidance of education specialists. It is, rather, the primary way we interact
with the world; our minds are continually processing, hypothesizing, assuming,
accepting, rejecting, and so on. As part of daily life, we not only learn how to
do things, but how to think about things through the language and actions of
others both locally and in terms of broader cultures, what Baym (2009) refers to
as connections between internet life and lifeworld.
Given this assumption about human learning, activity undertaken online, in
both formal, institutional and informal, non-institutional ways can be viewed
as teaching and learning. When we post, share and communicate information
and ideas, when we seek out, locate and make use of this information and ideas,
we are learning. In examining formal, institutionally sponsored educational
processes, the anatomy of instruction and responses to it can be analysed with
this ‘other activity’ as a backdrop. Indeed, like excellent f2f classroom teachers,
online teachers incorporate their understanding of learners’ recreational,
non-institutional digital practices and weave these into the formal instructional
activity they design and orchestrate.
Dynamism of learner identity and development

In contrast to a cause–effect, input–output model of human identity and
development, a sociocultural take on human learning casts learning processes as
in process, as continually moving targets. Learners and their learning are patently
not conceived as commodities, nor finished products, nor as definable by binary
labels but as socially and psychologically developing throughout the lifespan
(Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002; Norton & McKinney, 2011). Indeed, identity
is viewed as comprised of the ever-changing stories we tell about ourselves in the
world (Bruner, 2001).
In an historical period when change, especially the changing nature of human
communication, is so very characteristic of our daily interactional practices, the
notion of static learner states and traits seems antithetical to investigations of
our evolving practices. As new tools and ways of using them make their way into
our daily communications, we, as users, are simultaneously shaping and being
shaped by the uses to which we put them. A sociocultural perspective sees these
shapings as dynamic, ongoing and thereby attempts to account for participants
and participation patterns as just that. The cultural, historical, political and
sociocontextual meld to contribute to learners’ continually developing self
through socialization and being in the world.
Socioculturally motivated inquiry, then, focuses on just how people make
meaning when interacting with other members of a social community, particularly
how they organize their ‘internal sense of cohesion and membership’ (p. 140) in
order to share meanings (Scollon & Scollon, 2001). This membership, also termed
‘affinities’ (Gee, Allen & Clinton, 2001) is critical to the processes and outcomes
of successful communication. Such cultural dimensions of online teaching and
learning continue to complexify as cross-border educational opportunities
expand. Given the assumption that minds are socially, culturally and linguistically
shaped, we can see learners from diverse origins coming together online for the
purpose of learning operating with their own interpretative toolkits and thereby
bringing a range of perspectives to online learning communities.
Primary mediating tool in human development: Language

A sociocultural view sees language as the primary tool in mental development.
Because language itself is continually shaped and reshaped by myriad social
influences (Beckner et al., 2009; Bourdieu, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978), it contributes
to dynamic, agentive learning in integral and complex ways. This view aligns with
shifts in applied linguistics away from language as object to language as dynamic

system of human mediation. How meanings get generated, how language gets
used as mediational means by humans as they engage in goal-directed activity
is of primary interest from a sociocultural perspective (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006;
Wertsch et al., 1995).
Online communication for the purpose of teaching and learning is almost
exclusively dependent on written and spoken language; language in the traditional
sense of words and sentences, accompanied by digital extenders and amplifiers
of language, features that, in consort with text and aural utterances, are bringing
about unique and creative changes to contemporary interactions. Indeed, online
communication generally is ‘bringing language back to its conversational,
interactive, here-and-now foundations’ (Gee & Hayes, 2011, p. 12).
Examining sociocultural dimensions of

online teaching and learning
Sociocultural approaches to the study of online learning and teaching take as

foundational the communities and discourses that organically arise from human
social and instructional practices. Such approaches are distinct from more widely
popular approaches that use either the medium and its peculiarities and/or select
characteristics of its users as a starting point. Indeed, sociocultural approaches
have more in common with anthropological or ethnographic perspectives when
it comes to making sense of phenomena. This is often discussed as directly
counter to traditional positivistic, scientific designs. Examination of the wholly
human activity of teaching and learning in any medium, in any venue, cannot,
after all, be likened to research in the hard sciences (Shapiro, 2005) and, as
Vygotsky urged by example, we must move from the laboratory model to the
field of practice when researching complex human activity.
Sociocultural perspectives see online education as complex human interactions.
Lave’s conceptualization of what she calls participatory culture is particularly
germane in this regard (Lave, 1996). Like f2f classes, online courses can be viewed
as temporary, organically induced microcultures where forms of modelling and
apprenticeship similar to those in live educational contexts occur. Learners look to
their instructors and classmates for norms and models to guide their participation
in what they themselves are contributing to shaping. The means for this to happen
is the discourse of the evolving community in which and to which all participate
in successively determining and approximating. Inquiry thereby tends towards
genetic or developmental methodologies most often the observation of in-process

human interactions with the world and with others. Indeed, Vygotsky was a
strong proponent of examining human development in contexts that more closely
resemble everyday life. He viewed research methods as most closely resembling
detective work, investigative work that takes into account indirect evidence and
contextual clues while privileging insightful interpretation. In likening research
on human development to the work of expert criminal investigators, Vygotsky
saw observations of learning as grounded in codified yet flexible views and
variables that were themselves developing theoretical pursuits (Vygotsky, 1991).
In the same vein, informed and systematic investigation of online teaching and
learning undertakes close analysis of discourse and events through qualitative,
ethnographic means. It employs approaches such as the abstraction of salient
features, logical graphing/mapping of the anatomy of activity that result in
informative patterns and, most centrally, analysis of discourse. Language is the
window, be it the writing or speaking students do as evidence of their thinking
and knowing. The window is wide enough to take in digital literacy practices
broadly conceived as these organically evolve through daily experimentation with
new online discourse communities.
In sum, sociocultural perspectives see the linguistic, social, cultural, historical
aspects of human phenomena as mutually constitutive when observing and
describing relationships between individuals and the social structures in
which and with which they interact. As such, research approaches are often
characterized by the following:
ll
dynamic analyses of activity over time
ll focus on human interactions and how these are mediated
ll analyses of patterns, trends in patterns of interactions
ll analyses tied to specific contexts of activity
ll analyses tied to specific mediational tools and artifacts
(Cole, 1995, p. 193)
The collection
Online teaching and learning is bringing its own sea changes to education generally
and how we investigate new educational process in particular. At this writing,
the elements of multimodality, online identities, plurality and globalization,
expanding curricular borders, and time on task/learner autonomy may represent
the tip of the iceberg. And, while developing understandings of any social context
are inevitably incomplete (Geertz, 2000), these authors have taken bold steps
in tackling the complexities of mediated human learning by examining online
teaching and learning practices from a sociocultural perspective.
In the chapters that follow, you will find work that takes as its foundations the
aforementioned assumptions. In addition, you will find inquiries that focus on
the contexts and processes of human learning online, processes that are viewed
as squarely part and parcel of the broader world and lifeworlds of learners and
teachers. While sharing sociocultural assumptions enumerated previously,
authors examine experiences of educators and their students from a range of
perspectives while accounting for the online environments – their tools and
resources – that contribute to these experiences. These socially, culturally and
historically situated activities are examined through the discourses employed in
teaching, learning and reflection.
Diversity/identity online
Given the diversity of contemporary learners online – what they bring
linguistically, culturally and developmentally representing different systems of
knowing from diverse offline and online cultures – sociocultural positions afford
efforts towards accounting for multiple ways of being and understanding. That
online environments cast widely diverse learners into active, meaning-making
roles is clearly the case. Attending to the complexities of these experiences is
taken up in the first grouping of studies.
Gulnara Sadykova’s chapter reports a year-long case study that focused on the
unique learning experiences of a Chinese graduate student at a US university.
Working within a sociocultural framework and employing R. Scollon and
S. W. Scollon’s discourse approach to the study of intercultural communication,
the study followed this woman’s journey from her monocultural beginning as a
Confucian learner to the complex accommodations and shifts in epistemologies
that were required of her first in an online course, then later in in-country live
classrooms. The study suggests that simultaneous membership in native and
host academic discourses might have formative and constructive influences on
a students’ growth as a learner and an individual even though it might lead to
conflicts of identity and significantly complicate student’s learning experiences.
In the chapter that follows, Denis Samburskiy also examines online identity in
his study of self-presentation in online course introductions. Samburskiy applies
Critical Discourse Analysis to asynchronous text introductions by educators
in an international professional development course sequence. Analysis
reveals a continuum of egocentricity that can inform both the interpretation

and construction of online posts in educational contexts generally, and
identity-establishing posts in particular in online text-centric communications.
Shifts in practice
One of the hallmarks of new technologies has been the catalytic impacts their
proliferation has had and continues to have on the epistemologies and practices
of educators. Whether it is exploring alternatives to traditional teacher-fronted
modes of didacticism, or ramping up structures and guidance to learners assigned
larger, more productive tasks with consequences in the world, technologies have
served in the rethinking of pedagogical practices, especially online.
In his chapter on language educator practices in Second Life (SL), Ozan Varli
merges his careful observations of teaching and learning activity in this 3D
virtual world with extensive interview data collected from five experienced SL
educators. His analyses point to a convergence of SL-specific affordances and
the imperatives of early-adopter educators in light of a sociocultural framing of
language pedagogy.
In his detailed synthesis examining a number of studies on the tasks, tools
and activities that comprise teaching and learning with wikis, Andeas Lund
examines the broad question of what online collaboration in social networks
entails and whether and how such collaborations are additive to educational
processes and outcomes. Cumulative research on collaborations for learning
identifies prominent challenges for online educators and, by extension, for
teacher education. These question the nature, purposes and anatomies of
human collaborations for learning and how these potentially transform
conceptualizations, practices and policies.
Iryna Kozlova and Evon Zundel explore the ways in which instructors view
and make use of multimodal channels of communication in their teaching.
They interview and examine the practices of five diverse online foreign language
instructors to probe the rationale for their instructional design and corresponding
moment-by-moment instructional decision making. Their inquiry underscores
the power, potential and challenges of multimodalities in online teaching.
Shifts in participation
Online education contexts are clearly venues where the participation playing
field has evened. Populations that find themselves silenced in f2f classrooms –
women and minorities in particular – are finding voice in online contexts

where the speaking floor is open to all equally. Likewise, online educators are
developing new forms of guidance and scaffolding – involving learners in the
discourses of the content area – that immerse learners in the talk of target
disciplines (Baker & Woods, 2004). As we move more educational practices
online, these shifts in participation become of particular importance not only
to instructional conversations, but to the (re)shaping of disciplinary discourses
in a digital world.
Sedef Uzuner Smith and Ruchi Mehta’s in-depth analysis of Educationally
Valuable Talk (EVT) in a semester-long online course provides direct empirical
support for a theory of online teaching and learning as socioculturally motivated.
Their study suggests direct linkages between students’ fully participating in
carefully orchestrated online conversations and related activities and students’
reports of learning.
Shifts to learner-centred approaches in teacher professional development
through online collaborations are also taken up in Melinda Dooly’s longitudinal
study of a pre-service language educator whose development is made visible
via collaborations with others. Tracking forms of professional development
interactions, Dooly observes the potentialities of international collaborations
for individual teacher professional development.
In her examination of shifting online teaching practices, Natasha Anthony
probes roles for and influences of humour in online teaching and learning.
Instructor and learner perceptions of humour and its place in synchronous
audio-conferencing are probed in light of the education literature’s claims about
humour’s role in f2f and online teaching and learning processes.
Finally, the anatomy of participation in f2f versus online writing centre tutorials
for English Learners (ELs) is systematically addressed in Jason Vicker’s chapter.
Vickers compares the affordances and constraints of both forums for tutoring that
emphasize developing writers over producing products. Conversational analyses
reveal differences in how, and how effectively instructional conversations in
both venues are managed. The manner in which tutorials are undertaken in each
mode is presented and discussed.
Informal online learning

Given the sociocultural assumption that living is learning, exploration of
non-formal, non-institutional ways of generating, appropriating and making
use of knowledge and understandings in online venues becomes an essential
issue for education broadly as well as for teaching and learning online. Learners
are, after all, engaging with others and with information beyond formal classes
that they make use of and that influences their development in the subject area.
Adrienne Gonzalez examines the ways in which one learner of Spanish
develops rapport management skills in that language as he interacts informally
with native Spanish speakers in Livemocha, a social networking site specifically
purposed for such authentic language learning practice.
With a view towards developing a systematic view of online social networking
sites as venues for learning, Marie-Noelle Lamy lays out the informal practices
of online learners in adjunct social networking spaces established for beyond
course socialization. The manner in which functionalities that are specific to
social networking were and were not employed is analysed.
Conclusion
Contemporary online venues are eminently social contexts with instructional

design and processes productively capitalizing on this essential feature. Given
the vast array of powerful online tools with which learners can construct their
understanding of content with guidance and support from peers and instructors,
the venue potentially serves the educational community well. However, while the
amount of time a great number of the world’s population spends enacting online
lives, and while the number of fully online and blended course offerings has
ballooned in the past decade (Taylor, Parker, Lenhart & Patten, 2011), research
approaches to online teaching and learning, including productive theoretical
perspectives and positions, have struggled to keep pace. With current trends
in educational research leaning towards acknowledging and tackling the social
complexities of teaching and learning activity (Bransford, Brown & Cocking,
1999), the challenge becomes to undertake the same when it comes to online
instruction. Fortunately for the research enterprise, the key window on human
teaching and learning processes, language, is oftentimes open to examination
and analysis in the form of text, audio and their online visual amplifications.
In order to explore the dynamic, evolving worlds of online teaching and
learning cultures and communities, a shift in perspective to how players interact
within these complex environments is needed, one that foregrounds the local
and situated practices of teachers and learners. This collection represents such
foregrounding whereby what is observed and analysed are how participants
in online instructional events assemble and make use of the possibilities these
venues afford (Miller & Slater, 2000). Examining the sociocultural dimensions
of online learning trains focus on the complexities of context and human activity
within it. The context is this case is screens via which instructional activity is
realized. It is said that a good theory explains what is known and then some. In
turning sociocultural theory to human development in contemporary online
venues, the collective work in this volume bears this out.
References
Atkinson, D. (2011). A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition.

In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp.
143–66). New York: Routledge.
Baker, J., & Woods, R. H. (2004). Immediacy, cohesiveness, and the online classroom.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(2), 133–51.
Baron, N. (2008). Always on: language in an online and mobile world. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Baym, N. (2009). What constitutes quality in research? In A. Markham & N. Baym
(Eds), Internet inquiry: conversations about method. New York: Sage.
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J. Christiansen, M., Croft, W., Ellis N., Holland, J., Ke, J.,
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schonemann, T. (2009). Language as a complex adaptive
system: position paper. Language Learning, 59(Supplement 1), 1–27.
Bloome, D. (1993). Necessary indeterminancy and the microethnographic study of
reading and writing as social process. Journal of Research on Reading, 16(2), 98–111.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture.
London: Sage.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bruner, J. (2001). Self-making and world-making. In J. Brockmeier & D. Carbaugh
(Eds), Narrative and identity: studies in autobiography, self and culture (pp. 25–37).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cazden, C., & Beck, S. (2003). Classroom discourse. In A. Graesser, M. Gernsbacher
& S. Goldman (Eds), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 165–97). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cole, M. (1995). Socio-cultural-historical psychology: some general remarks and a
proposal for a new kind of cultural-genetic methodology. In J. Wertsch, P. del Rio &
A. Alvarez (Eds), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 187–214). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Crystal, D. (2008). Language and the internet. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Garrett, P., & Baquedano-Lopez, P. (2002). Language socialization: reproduction and
continuity, transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 339–61.
Gee, J. (2007). What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York:
Palgrave.
Gee, J., Allen, A., & Clinton, K. (2001). Language, class, and identity: teenagers
fashioning themselves through language. Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 175–94.
Gee, J., & Hayes, E. (2011). Language and learning in a digital age. New York: Routledge.
Geertz, C. (2000). Local knowledge: further essays in interpretive anthropology. New
York: Basic Books.
Hanks, W. (1996). Language form and communicative practices. In J. Gumperz &
S. Levinson (Eds), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 232–70). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kramsch, C., & Ware, P. (2004). Intercultural competence online? What teachers need
to know. CARLA Working Papers #24. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Kulick, D., & Schieffelin, B. (2004). Language socialization. In a. Duranti (Ed.), A
companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 349–68). Oxford: Blackwell.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching as learning in practice. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3, 149–64.
Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2010). Teaching languages online. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Meskill, C., Mossop, J., & Bates, R. (1999). Electronic texts and English as a second
language environments. Albany, NY: National Research Centre on English Learning
and Achievement.
Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2000). The internet: an ethnographic approach. London: Berg
Publishers.
Neuman, S., & Celano, D. (2012). Giving our children a fighting chance: poverty, literacy,
and the development of information capital. New York: Teachers College Press.
Norton, B., & McKinney, C. (2011). An identity approach to second language
acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language
acquisition (pp. 73–94). New York: Routledge.
Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Rogoff, B. (2008). Pedagogy and practice: culture and identities (pp. 58–74). Ed. K. Hall,
P. Murphy & J. Soler. London: Sage.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: a discourse approach
(Language in society). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Shapiro, I. (2005). The flight from reality in the human sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Taylor, P., Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Patten, E. (2011). The digital revolution in higher
education. Pew Charitable Trust Foundation. Retrieved on 1 May 2012 from www.
pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP-Online-Learning.pdf
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). The instructional conversation: teaching and
learning in social activity. UC Berkeley: Center for Research on Education, Diversity
and Excellence. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5th0939d
Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication.
Language Learning Technology, 7, 38–67.
Valsiner, J., & van der Veer, R. (2000). The social mind. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes.
Trans. and ed. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
— (1991). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wertsch, J., del Rio, P., & Alvarez, A. (Eds) (1995). Sociocultural studies of mind.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Part One
Diversity/Identity Online
1
Learning in New Online Cultures:

East Meets West
Gulnara Sadykova
Introduction
The growing popularity of cross-border online learning in the United States and
around the globe has significantly increased the possibilities of cross-cultural
interactions within a single course. Bridging cultures in the context of
computer-mediated learning environments could be as complex as the concept
of culture itself. Not attempting to do so, however, might prove to be detrimental
for successful learning to happen. The dominance of a single culture may result
in miscommunication (Reeder, Macfadyen, Roche & Chase, 2004) or missed
communication (Ware, 2005), ineffective strategies of communication with the
instructor (Biesenbach-Lucas, 2005), dissatisfaction with team work (Thompson
& Ku, 2005), high anxiety and stress (Pan, Tsai, Tsai, Tao & Cornell, 2003), and
confusion with course requirements and unmet course expectations (Shattuck,
2005). Consequently, US-centric online (and traditional) courses may lead
to silencing, isolation and marginalization of students whose background is
different from that of the dominant culture.
On the other hand, statistical data show a steady increase in the number of
international students who study at US universities and colleges and most of
these students come from Asian countries (Open Doors, 2011). Studies suggest
that international students may show academic engagement and achievements
comparable to, or even surpassing accomplishments demonstrated by their US
peers (Zhao, Kuh & Carini, 2005). Thus while international students, specifically
those studying online, may experience significant challenges when studying in
a class designed by US instructors for in-home consumption, they are still able
to succeed and gain desirable learning outcomes in contexts that may not be
particularly sensitive to their cultural background. The questions then arise: what
are these students’ learning experiences and how do they manage to survive and
thrive in the academic discourse that is significantly different from their native
discourse? How do they balance two intersecting discourse systems and what
impact may this have on their future studies or work?
Purpose of the study
This chapter reports on part of a larger, two-stage study that focused on the
learning experiences of international students who took fully online courses in
a large US research university. The primary goal of the study was to examine the
interplay of host and native cultures in an online learning environment and study
its effect on international students’ learning experiences. With this goal in mind,
a mixed-method study was undertaken and involved a survey, follow-up online
interviews, as well as an in-depth case study. While the survey and follow-ups
with selected survey participants provided information on trends and assisted
in establishing an initial pool of participants, it was a year-long case study that
enabled the research to gain rich data and that, consequently, yielded the most
interesting findings.
This case study centred on the learning experiences of Cathy, a female
international graduate student from China. Cathy held a bachelors degree in
international economics and foreign trade from a Shanghai institute. However,
she chose to pursue a new career in the field of education and therefore enrolled
into a masters program in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages) in a large US university. Her first encounter with the US academic
discourse happened online as she started taking a fully online course while
continuing to living in Shanghai. After a semester studying online, she moved to
the United States to take on-campus courses, and thus she was able to reflect on
her prior online experiences from the new perspective of a US-based student.
While studying on campus, Cathy found herself immersed in the host culture
but she also anticipated her impending return to her native country. All these
learning experiences made her case interesting from a research point of view as
they bore essential characteristics of the US academic discourse as compared
to the discourse of Chinese classrooms and highlighted how individual and
contextual factors may affect the learning experiences in a particular case.
Learning in New Online Cultures: East Meets West 23
The reported research focused on the following questions:
1. How might Cathy’s affiliations to her native Chinese academic discourse

and culture affect her learning experiences in an online course in the United
States?
2. How might newly adapted affiliation to the US academic discourse affect
Cathy’s view on her native academic discourse?
Perspectives
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework of this study is situated within the sociocultural
paradigm, pioneered by the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky and later
extended by other scholars including Ron Scollon and Suzanne Wang Scollon
who proposed a discourse approach to the study of intercultural communication.
Scollon and Scollon in their work ‘Intercultural communication: a discourse
approach’ first published in 1995 were able to build a framework whereby
culture and an individual person exist as one inseparable entity and as a single
unit of analysis. Their study is the examination of ‘how the ideological positions
of cultures or of discourse systems become a factor in the interpersonal
communication of members of one group with members of other groups’
(Scollon & Scollon, 2001, p. 139).
For the current study Scollon and Scollon’s ideas were of primary significance
not only because they provided the framework where individual/contextual and
national/cultural factors were placed in a shared co-ordinate system, but also
because much of the empirical data that they used to develop their framework
was based on the discussion of Western and Eastern (Asian, Oriental) cultures.
This fact became very important when Cathy, a native of the Chinese city
Shanghai, became the key informant of the case study.
East and West, however, are not placed in direct opposition in the Scollon and
Scollon’s framework. In their non-binary view of culture, a person belongs to a
number of discourse systems based on age group, gender, occupation, SES, and
so on. A person may also belong to two or more intersecting (or cross-cutting,
as Scollon and Scollon put it) discourse systems which may lead to conflicts
of identity. Using ESL (English as a Second Language) teachers as an example,
the Scollons demonstrate that multiple memberships in discourse systems
may result in (1) conflicting ideologies, (2) fragmentation of socialization and
experience, (3) dilemmas in choosing the most appropriate forms of discourse

and (4) multiple faces. Each of these conflicts will be discussed in detail in the
Findings section.
US academic discourse versus Chinese academic discourse

The Scollons’ detailed discussion of the conflict of identity that an individual
may experience when two cultures intersect was highly valuable for enabling
this study to examine how simultaneous affiliation to Chinese and US academic
discourses might affect experiences of a student. No previous studies located
used Scollons’ framework to research this question. However a number of
studies addressed this topic from other perspectives.
Generally the literature that studies the experiences of Chinese learners in
US classrooms focuses on the differences that exist between Western Socratic
and Eastern Confucian approaches to teaching and learning. Western education
based on the Socratic approach ‘manifests itself in the emphasis on developing
critical-thinking and problem-solving skills as the highest priority educational
outcome’ (Greenholtz, 2003, pp. 122–3). The Confucian approach emphasizes
acquisition (accumulation) of content knowledge coming from ‘authoritative
sources (usually textbooks and classics)’ (Hu, 2002, p. 98). Differences in
epistemological beliefs might be so prominent that ‘if students come from
an educational tradition that does not emphasize the process of generating
knowledge (but rather, the product), they may not recognize what is happening
in a Socratic classroom as legitimate pedagogy’ (Greenholtz, 2003, p. 123).
Greenholtz (2003) observed this with Japanese students who studied in Canada.
Several other studies also reported international students’ dissatisfaction with
instructional methods practised by their US professors (Pan et al., 2003; Shattuck,
2005; Wang, 2007). Keeping this in mind, the current case study was launched
to collect substantial data to examine the experiences of a single student who
used to be a Confucian learner but who voluntarily placed herself in the Socratic
context of a US online course.
Method
The year-long case study was a part of a larger mixed-method two-stage

study conducted in a large research university in the northeast of the United
States. Cathy, a native of Shanghai, was recruited as the key informant after
she completed a survey and follow-up online interviews. Besides the survey
and follow-up interviews, Cathy’s case data sources also involved: (1) online
course logs (all Cathy’s discussion posts and her written assignments, as well as
discussion posts of seven of her American peers and message exchanges with
Cathy’s online instructor), (2) online interviews with Cathy based on course
logs, (3) online interviews with Cathy’s online instructor, (4) a 59-minute long
face-to-face interview with Cathy and (5) Cathy’s reflective journals she kept
after she finished her online course and moved to the United States to study on
campus.
This portion of the study employed qualitative methods of data analysis.
To answer the research questions, the study used Scollon and Scollon’s (2001)
discourse approach to the study of intercultural communication; particularly
it employed their method of analysing conflicts of identity that an individual
may experience when she/he belongs to two or more cross-cutting discourse
systems.
Findings
During the course of the study, it became evident that Cathy’s learning
experiences in a US online course could be described as requiring effort
at balancing membership in cross-cutting discourses of the native and
host academic cultures. Cathy was caught in the midst of two intersecting
discourses – her native Chinese, the involuntary discourse system that she
belonged to from birth, and the discourse system of the US academy, which she
joined voluntarily once she signed up for a course offered by a US university.
Such multiple membership resulted in a conflict of identity that manifested
itself in four domains: ideology, socialization, forms of discourse and face systems
(Scollon & Scollon, 2001).
Ideology
Scollon and Scollon argue that multiple memberships in discourse systems may
result in conflicting ideologies when ‘the purpose of the two (or more) systems
pull the person towards different goals, and as he or she places a value on both
sets of goals, it becomes a recurring problem to decide in any particular case
which set of goals to emphasize’ (2001, p. 217). If the purpose of education is
to prepare young people to take their place in society as advocated in Arendt
(1968) and supported in Greenholtz (2003), then the question arises: what
society does an international student prepare to serve?
For Cathy the answer was straightforward: she studied in the United States
in order to apply her newly acquired knowledge in her native country of China.
However, it became evident that what she learned at a US university was
sometimes not what might be appreciated and welcomed in the educational
system of her native country. The student-centred learning philosophy
promoted in each of the courses she took online and on campus, and the
communicative approach to language teaching that she was taught in one of
her on-campus TESOL classes were not teaching and learning approaches
that Cathy previously experienced before taking US courses. Nor were these
approaches that, according to Cathy, would be readily embraced and integrated
into the Chinese classroom. How did Cathy handle such a situation?
In her journals, interviews and online course posts she shows her strong
interest in and approval of a student-centred learning environment. She finds US
classrooms ‘more inspiring and productive, since it is more individual-centered
and a qualified American teacher is required to [be] able to encourage creative
and challenging ideas from his/her students’.
Data indicate that Cathy sees the discrepancies in the educational systems
practised and promoted in the United States and her native country. She seems
to be so enchanted with the American way that she openly criticizes her native
academic discourse:
Personally, I should say the authoritarian role of Chinese teachers is in its

greatest need of change, given that it could hinder the development of students’
creation, imagination and independent thinking which are all crucial elements
for their future academic growth.
However, Cathy also uncovers why the Chinese classroom might be set up the
way it is:
In China . . . we always have classes more than 40. . . . It is beyond possibility
to provide each student with an opportunity to express his/her idea freely to
cultivate independent thinking.
Moreover, Cathy is able to identify flaws that a student-centred classroom may

have:
I noticed that teacher in our class allowed us spontaneous class discussion

anytime we want, which always resulted in the endless and distractive talking. . . .
It is good that we can talk whenever we feel inspired or puzzled, the problem is
that it could leave the main task of the class unfinished/unlectured. Personally, I
argue that teacher should sometimes stop-and-state to ‘drive’ the class in a more
organized manner.
Cathy does not just unthinkingly embrace the student-centred learning/

teaching philosophy but carefully weighs its benefits and drawbacks in
the context of her native discourse. While understanding all its potential
advantages for Chinese students, she understands that its integration would
require ‘a tremendous ideological transfer from conventional wisdom’ (Cathy’s
discussion post) that has been embedded into the system of education in China
for centuries and whose roots lie in the Confucian approach with its emphasis
on the accumulation of knowledge coming from authoritative sources (Hu,
2002). Cathy believes that while Socratic classroom activities that develop
critical-thinking and problem-solving skills and might be more engaging and
less ‘plain’, Chinese classroom ‘could be more harmonious and rich in content’
(Cathy’s discussion post).
Data suggest that the most acute consequences of the conflict of ideologies
may have surfaced after Cathy changes her status from a US student to an alumni
of a US university and tries to apply the newly acquired knowledge and skills
in her home country. The acuteness of the possible conflicts is probably best
illustrated in the following face-to-face interview excerpt:
I am Chinese and I come from country where Confucius culture is quite valued
where people are supposed to be very modest, to be even shy, always obey the
rules set by authority and respect the elders, senior people who are at the higher
status over you. And you are supposed to be a good listener in the classroom
setting. If I get back home and work with other Chinese teachers, it could be a
problem for me to always have my own ideas, which are different from theirs.
They will probably think of me as a kind of aggressive person and I could be
isolated.
Cathy’s data also illustrate the conflict of identity related to her membership in
smaller professional discourse systems – the discourse system of ESL teachers
in the United States and the system of EFL teachers in China. In the following
quote she describes the real dilemma she expects to face if she tries to apply
a context-based approach to teaching a foreign language (that emphasizes
communication skills) to the Chinese classroom where language teachers focus
on the form (grammar rules and vocabulary) rather than function:
Here comes my big concern. As I want to be an EFL teacher working back

in China, I figure I will face up to a lot of practical problems in teaching my
students, one of which concerns the assessment system in China, a system that
focus mainly on students’ declarative language knowledge rather than procedural
knowledge. If I were to start from the very basic question which is ‘What I
want my students to get out of the class/unit?’ and use context-based materials,
instructional strategies and evaluations, students will be very likely to fail in
their final exam which is crucial in deciding whether they will be academically
allowed for their higher level study. I feel frustrated by it.
Clearly, goals established for the language classroom by two educational

systems – Chinese and the US – seem to be incompatible. Cathy is caught in the
midst of conflicting ideologies she has to deal with on her own. She anticipates
that she will face serious obstacles if she tries to practise the American way but
she is still determined to do so:
I’ll do it, I’ll do it. . . . The problem is that I have different audience. Students here
in the US have a very different learning styles comparing with learning styles
Chinese students have. They are not very comfortable if you teach the US way.
They will think that you are just a crazy teacher.
While being labelled ‘a crazy teacher’ does not scare Cathy, behind her courage
lies the acuteness of the problem she will most probably face when implementing
US teaching approaches in her native discourse.
Socialization
Besides conflicting ideologies, multiple membership in discourse systems may
result in fragmentation of socialization and experience. In Scollon and Scollon’s
(2001) framework, socialization refers to the process of learning culture and has
to do with experiences that a person acquires in the process of informal learning
(informal interaction with family members, peers, etc.) and formal education
(pp. 163–4). They argue that a feeling of fragmentation may happen when ‘a
person must select from among his or her total experience as a human just those
aspects each discourse system values’ (p. 217). In Cathy’s case, one may expect
that some experience that she acquires in the United States may not be valued
in China, while some of her previous Chinese experience may not be valued in
the United States.
Cathy had ample chances to experience fragmentation of socialization.
Having been socialized in Confucian society and having experienced Confucian
approaches to teaching and learning, she was well prepared to diligently

accumulate words of wisdom from authoritative books and her teacher who
she was taught to respect and obey. However, when joining the US academic
discourse, she was faced with the fact that the Western student-centred
approach, rooted in Socratic methods of learning, valued critical-thinking and
problem-solving skills, encouraged questioning of authoritative sources and
self-generation of ideas, and perceived the instructor as a facilitator and equal
partner in the creation of knowledge. Moreover, when signing up to her first US
course, Cathy had faulty expectations concerning the size of the workload she
might have in a graduate course. As a result, the beginning of the course was
rough for Cathy: she fell behind with readings, failed to follow instructions for
the written assignments and was unable to keep up with the work done by her
group members and the rest of the class. However, because the US academic
discourse dominated within the courses that Cathy took when being a student,
she had to learn the values of this new discourse and practise the behaviour that
fit its paradigm.
The research data suggests that the acquisition of the new value system was
neither short term nor easy. The following excerpt from the face-to-face interview
demonstrates that Cathy was distressed when she had to alter, sometimes
radically, her perception of acceptable and approved learning strategies and
classroom behaviour:
To be honest at the very beginning I felt very uncomfortable with this kind of
learning style in the US because in China what we do is listen to lectures and
we never ever try to challenge him whenever we want. . . . But in the US I found
that students always raise hands whenever they want, just cut and jump and do
everything but it’s crazy to me. [laughing]. But I am learning it. I actually did it.
[laughing again] . . . I don’t want to do this rude thing but everyone did that.
We see that initially Cathy perceived the situation as ‘crazy’ and her classmates’
behaviour as ‘rude’ and ‘aggressive’ because what she experienced in the
US classroom clashed with the values of her native discourse. However, she
gradually came to the realization of the acceptability and usefulness of such
behaviour:
Professors . . . really want you to have some response or interaction with them,
so they like the challenge, to make the topic go further even beyond the frame
that is expected. And it is very helpful when you can get into it by challenging
your professor or even your peers questions and you can actually get into this,
this whole process. Yeah, I think it is good.
In her interviews Cathy proudly mentions that she also practised jumping
in to ask a question, express an opinion and challenge the instructor’s or her
classmates’ ideas. She said that she gradually started perceiving such a behaviour
as ‘normal’ and ‘natural’.
However, the analysis of her online discussion posts and messages to the
instructor revealed that Cathy was unable to fully disassociate herself from her
native discourse even though the contextual factors called for this. Cathy used
communication strategies that one does not expect to find in the US academic
discourse such as the use of overly polite and too formal request phrases and an
overabundance of adjectives showing admiration, enthusiasm and exaltation:
Can you kindly let me know your usual ‘meeting hours’ so that I can check if I
can be available online.
Wonderful class with wonderful professor and dear classmates!
In several cases Cathy humbled herself when praising others as the following
example shows:
I bet you all have more much better ideas re this interesting and worth-talking
question.
While Cathy did not observe silence in relation to her instructor (which is
expected from a Chinese student), her messages were polite, respectful and
grateful of the help she received. Even closer to the end of her second semester
taking US courses she continued believing that ‘it is wiser to listen and analyse
reasons behind’ classmates’ opinion.
Thus Cathy’s behaviour in the US classroom reflected the values she acquired
in the process of socialization (formal and informal learning) both in her native
country and in the US industry; harmony with others, humbleness, loyalty to
superiors, solidarity with others and non-competitiveness are among the most
valued characteristics of a Chinese person (The Chinese Cultural Connection,
1987 as cited in Neuliep, 2009) that she/he learned not only in school but also at
home and other public places. The US classroom, in its turn, reflects US values,
such as self-interest, self-expression, self-gratification and independence (Hsu,
1969 as cited in Neuliep, 2009). Data shows that Cathy had to learn to be more
competitive, openly express herself and critique authoritative sources. However,
she felt it was impossible to do so without striving for group harmony and
presenting herself as a humble and respectful person. This suggests that Cathy
was unable to avoid fragmentation of socialization and experience.
Forms of discourse
The third problem that Scollon and Scollon (2001) expect to arise in situations
of cross-cutting discourses is ‘dilemmas in choosing the most appropriate forms
of discourse: each of the multiple systems favors different forms of discourse,
and difficult selections must sometimes be made’ (p. 217). This may concern
choice of language and language forms including choice of a genre or style. The
Scollons illustrate this by recalling situations when ESL teachers criticize the
language of a research proposal in the meeting of a faculty research committee
instead of focusing on the content of the proposal.
In Cathy’s case, the selection of the language seems not to be problematic: in
the US classroom she speaks and writes in English, while when she communicates
with her Chinese relatives or friends, she speaks in Chinese. However, the most
difficult choices that Cathy might have had to make concerned the choices of
English forms. Here it is appropriate to talk not about purely linguistic choices
related to vocabulary and grammar, but rather the choices related to language
pragmatics, that is, contextually appropriate use of language. Being raised and
educated in Confucian society she seemed to be inclined to select forms that
made her English sound too polite, formal and powerless. The examples of
such sentences were provided above, but it will not hurt to offer an additional
illustrative phrase that shows Cathy’s adherence to the fundamental Chinese
value of humbleness:
I quite enjoy the way you follow the thread of connecting all 5 articles which is
much much better than that of mine.
This example demonstrates how Cathy transfers a pragmatic form appropriate

in her native discourse to US academic discourse. Such influence of the native
culture on the use of English as a foreign or second language is well known to
ESL and EFL teachers and documented in many research studies (Kachru, 1983;
Mesthrie & Bhatt, 2008).
Another clash of forms of cross-cutting discourses might be anticipated
when Cathy starts applying knowledge she acquired in her American TESOL
classes to a Chinese EFL classroom. As it became apparent in the discussion
of ideologies, Cathy might experience misunderstanding and criticism from
her colleagues if she adapts the context-based language teaching approach that
emphasizes functions of language forms and involves students in communicative
activities. The discourse forms of a CLT (Communicative Language Teaching)
follower might be incomprehensible to language teachers that design test-driven
language classrooms that focus on form and offer students lists of words and
grammar rules for rote learning and drilling. As a proponent of the CLT
approach, Cathy may speak in a different language than her colleagues when
designing curriculum, discussing the choice of activities, drafting learning
materials, offering assessment, and so on, and this may result in conflicts with
her colleagues.
Face systems
Scollon and Scollon (2001) argue that in a situation of cross-cutting discourse
systems, a person might have to assume two or more sets of face relationships,
thus feeling ‘two-faced’ (p. 217). The scholars distinguish three types of politeness
(face) systems:
1. difference politeness system: when participants consider each other to be

on the same social level but are distant (e.g. university professors who met
recently);
2. solidarity politeness system: when both sides feel equal in social status and
feel close and use involvement strategies (e.g. two close friends);
3. hierarchical politeness system: when participants see each other to be on
different social status levels (e.g. a boss and a low-rank employee).
While one may probably find all three of these face systems in US academic
discourse, student-centred learning environments are generally described as
horizontal, that is, ‘characterized by informal student–student and student–
teacher interactions without much emphasis on hierarchical relationships’ (Lee,
2007, p. 30). In the Scollon and Scollon framework horizontal relationships are
found in difference and solidarity politeness systems. Scollons also show that
developing close and equal relationships with students and colleagues is not
unusual for ESL teachers who practise a communicative language approach.
On the other hand, a traditional educational system is hierarchical in nature
as it is based on a strict vertical relationships between teachers and students. In
the Chinese classroom, this hierarchy is very tangible, and therefore one does
not expect to find here a face system other than hierarchical.
For Cathy, membership in the US academic discourse system, as well as her
affiliation with the ESL/EFL professional discourse that espouses CLT, required
her to engage in horizontal relationships with peers and instructor, which was
evident in the communication strategies she employed. The analysis of Cathy’s
online course messages demonstrated that more often than not she utilized
what Scollons call involvement politeness strategies, that is, strategies that show
her involvement in communication. For example, she pointed out common
in-group membership (I am so proud of being a member of this family) or claimed
a common point of view (In China, we share the same problem, even to a greater
extent). These examples show that Cathy made attempts to fit into the solidarity
politeness system where one expects to find a high concentration of involvement
politeness strategies (Scollon & Scollon, 2001).
On the other hand, Cathy’s journals and interviews showed that she initially
felt discomfort speaking up, interrupting her professors and classmates and
critiquing authoritative sources. Moreover, independent politeness strategies,
which one expects to find in either hierarchical or difference politeness systems,
were not absent in Cathy’s posts. For example, in her conversations with peers
and instructors she used phrases where she apologized
(Very Sorry for the [i]nconvenience I caused to the group) and was pessimistic
(I am not quite sure if I interpret your problem in a right way).
Thus, these data suggest that it was problematic for Cathy to adhere to a single
face system and that maintaining both face relationships was not easy for her.
Cathy’s attempts to marry multiple face systems are also demonstrated in her
using two first names for herself – her native Chinese and American:
My name is Lian Wang.1 You can also call me Cathy Wang.
What is interesting is that Cathy uses several ways of naming herself: Cathy
Wang, Cathy and Lian Wang. However, Cathy Wang was used most frequently,
which seems to illustrate her desire to combine two discourse systems, two
cultures – American and Chinese.
This desire also surfaces when Cathy mixes ‘we’ that refers to her US peers/
colleagues and ‘we’ that refers to Chinese people:
We can’t let it happen that our students lose their will and their ability of reading.
In Chinese colleges and universities, we have book clubs joined by members of
students.
Discussion
The situation when a learner is placed in an academic discourse which

significantly differs, if not opposes, the familiar native academic discourse, could
be modestly described as complicated. Cathy’s description ‘crazy’, however,

seems illuminating in this regard. This study showed that an international
student that finds her-/himself in the midst of cross-cutting discourses may
experience conflicts of identity. Following the Scollon and Scollon’s (2001)
approach to the analysis of multiple discourse membership, the research found
evidence of conflicts of identity in the areas of ideology, socialization, forms of
discourse and face systems. Evidently for Cathy these conflicts are most significant
in the differences that exist between teaching and learning philosophies and
approaches endorsed in the student-centred US academic discourse and in the
Chinese (academic) discourse based on Confucianism.
Why then does Cathy, as well as most other international students who
participated in the larger study, feel very positive about her learning experiences –
both online and on campus? What made her experiences satisfying in spite of
communication, relationship, linguistic, logistic and other difficulties that many
international students experience according to data from the current study and
previous research (e.g. Al-Harthi, 2005; Shattuck, 2005; Thompson & Ku, 2005;
Zhang & Kenny, 2010)? Why do conflicts of identity that evidently complicate
Cathy’s learning in a significant way not ruin her overall impression from her
first US course? I would argue that the conflicts of identity that international
students like Cathy experience may contribute to students’ development – both
professional and personal, and a thinking student appreciates that.
In Cathy’s case this growth was most evident in the shift in epistemologies
(see Figure 1.1). Online course transcripts, interviews and reflective journals
provided evidence showing that Cathy re-evaluated the nature and sources of
knowledge. Her immersion into learner-centred pedagogical practices rooted
in the Socratic teaching approach brought her to the realization that existing
us academic International Native academic

discourse student discourse
Shift in
epistemologies
Figure 1.1 Shift in epistemologies

knowledge could be critically deconstructed while new knowledge could be

co-created by students and instructors in the active, collaborative, critical and
equal process of knowledge building. Having been engaged in online learning,
Cathy also opened herself up to the educational value of communication
technology as a tool for global learning and a legitimate space for knowledge
creation.
This shift in epistemologies seems to signal true changes in Cathy’s
development as an individual. Apparently she acquired new psychological tools
(Vygotsky, 1978) and new conceptual frames for further studies. These changes,
however, might be a source of new conflicts that she might face when bringing
her new vision of teaching and learning back to her native discourse, that is,
to Chinese classrooms. In her interviews Cathy anticipated that her Chinese
students might perceive her as a ‘crazy teacher’, while her colleagues might see
her as ‘aggressive’.
Optimists would probably argue that Cathy’s strong determination to create
learner-centred environments in her classroom and her strong belief in the
necessity to reform education in her native country might yield viable fruit and
eventually result in shifts in epistemologies and changes in the instructional
practices of those around her. Cathy and her confederates, whom she will most
probably find among other Chinese alumnae of US universities, may serve as
innovators and early adopters (Rogers, 2003) who will inspire and ignite others
for educational reforms. However, caution should be taken in expecting any
quick reforms in such a large and conservative system as Chinese education.
Moreover, integration of learner-centred pedagogical practices might be
problematic and challenging in cultures that value modesty, obedience to
authorities (including teachers) and where ‘silence is gold’ (Yang, 2010).
External factors, such as in very large classes,2 the nature of the assessment
system and extensive curricula to cover, might also prevent teachers from
introducing learner-centred course activities (Dautermann, 2005; Jacobson et
al., 2010; Yang, 2010).
Conclusion and implications
Overall the research findings suggest that international students like Cathy may
be faced with the need to balance the academic discourses of their native and
host cultures. The simultaneous membership in two cross-cutting discourses
results in conflicts of identity. While complicating learning experiences, these
conflicts may also stimulate individual growth and result in cognitive shifts such
as the shift in epistemological beliefs as was the case with Cathy.
This study and its findings have several important implications for research
and practice. First, the study suggests that research exploring the learning
experiences of international online students, as well as the experiences of other
culture groups in different contexts, will benefit from case studies that focus on
contextual and individual factors and involve a variety of data collection methods
including interviews, reflective journals and the use of course transcripts.
Such studies may avoid blaming US online programs for imposing cultural
imperialism, colonialism and hegemony (which Moore (2006) shows to be
inappropriate and useless for understanding the problem) and help researchers
and practitioners gain a clearer and more balanced picture of how international
students learn and feel in online US courses.
Second, this study enabled extension of the applicability of sociocultural
frameworks, particularly the Scollon and Scollon (2001) contextual approach
to the discourse analysis of intercultural communication. Scollons’ methods of
studying politeness strategies and analysing cross-cutting discourses were found to
be very relevant to the study of international students’ behaviour in a US online
classroom. Specifically, it was the Scollons’ approach to the study of multiple
discourses that enabled this study to show that the identity conflicts experienced
by Cathy were not destructive but rather had formative and constructive effect
on her growth as a student and individual. Thus, sociocultural concepts may be
as useful and productive for the study of learning experiences of diverse cultural
groups.
From a practical point of view, the study findings may inform course designers
and facilitators. This research confirmed that courses need to be inclusive of
multicultural content and sensitive to the linguistic and learning styles as well
as affective needs of international students, recommendations that have been
voiced numerous times previously (see, for example, Moore, 2006; Sadykova &
Dautermann, 2009; Shattuck, 2005, Thompson & Ku, 2005; Tierney, 2006; Zhao
& McDougall, 2008). Moreover, this study suggests that all course participants
would benefit from tasks where students need to reflect on the applicability of the
content knowledge in their own cultures and to suggest ways of reconstructing
the content/skills making them applicable in their native contexts. Public
discussions of these issues might not only help all students increase their
cultural awareness but also foster a deeper understanding of the subject matter
and develop critical analysis skills. Such tasks might be complicated to carry out
but benefits might justify the effort.
Notes
1 The name is changed to protect participant’s identity.

2 Yang (2010) reports that English language classrooms in China may have as many as
60–70 students or even over one hundred students in a class.
References
Al-Harthi, A. S. (2005). Distance higher education experiences of Arab Gulf students

in the United States: a cultural perspective. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 6(3). Retrieved from www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/
article/view/263/406
Arendt, H. (1968). The crisis in education. In Between Past and Future (pp. 173–96).
New York: Penguin Books.
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2005). Communication topics and strategies in e-mail
consultation: comparison between American and international university students.
Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 24–46.
Dautermann, J. (2005). Teaching business and technical writing in China: confronting
assumptions and practices at home and abroad. Technical Communications
Quarterly, 14, 141–59.
Greenholtz, J. (2003). Socratic teachers and Confucian learners: examining the benefits
and pitfalls of a year abroad. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3(2), 122–30.
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: the case of
communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
15(2), 93–105.
Jacobson, M. J., So, H.-J., Teo, T., Lee, J., Pathak, S., & Lossman, H. (2010). Epistemology
and learning: impact on pedagogical practices and technology use in Singapore
schools. Computers and Education, 55, 1694–706.
Kachru, Y. (1983). Linguistics and written discourse in particular languages: contrastive
studies – English and Hindi. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 3, 50–77.
Lee, E. L. (2007). Linguistic and cultural factors in East Asian students’ oral
participation in U.S. university classroom. International Education, 36(2), 27–47.
Mesthrie, R., & Bhatt, R. M. (2008). World Englishes: the study of new linguistic varieties.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, M. J. (2006). Editorial: questions of culture. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 20(1), 1–5.
Neuliep, J. W. (2009). Intercultural communication: a contextual approach (4th edn).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Open Doors (2011). International student enrollments increased by 5 percent in 2010/11.
Retrieved on 3 May 2012 from www.iie.org/Who-We-Are/News-and-Events/
Press-Center/Press-Releases/2011/2011–11–14-Open-Doors-International-Students
Pan, C.-C., Tsai, M.-H., Tsai, P.-Y., Tao, Y., & Cornell, R. (2003). Technology’s
impact: symbiotic or asymbiotic impact on differing cultures? Educational Media
International, 40(3–4), 319–30.
Reeder, K., Macfadyen L. P., Roche, J., & Chase, M. (2004). Negotiating cultures
in cyberspace: participation patterns and problematics. Language Learning &
Technology, 8(2), 88–105.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th edn). New York: Free Press.
Sadykova, G., & Dautermann, J. (2009). Crossing cultures and borders in international
online distance higher education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(2),
89–114.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: a discourse approach.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Shattuck, K. (2005). Glimpses of the global coral gardens: insights of international
adult learners on the interactions of cultures in online distance education (D.Ed.
dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, USA.
Thompson, L., & Ku, H.-Y. (2005). Chinese graduate students’ experiences and attitudes
towards online learning. Educational Media International, 42(1), 33–47.
Tierney, R. J. (2006). Global/cultural teachers creating possibilities: reading worlds,
reading selves, and learning to teach. Pedagogics: An International Journal, 1(1),
77–87.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, M. (2007). Designing online courses that effectively engage learners from diverse
cultural backgrounds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 294–311.
Ware, P. (2005). Missed communication in online communication: tensions in a
German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2),
64–89.
Yang, X. (2010). The globalization and localization of ‘learner-centered’ strategy from
an international horizon. Asian Social Science, 6(9), 78–81.
Zhang, Z., & Kenny, R. F. (2010). Learning in an online distance education course:
experiences of three international students. International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, 11(1), 17–36.
Zhao, C.-M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student
and American student engagement in effective educational practices. Journal of
Higher Education, 76(2), 209–31.
Zhao, N., & McDougall, D. (2008). Cultural influences on Chinese students’
asynchronous online learning in a Canadian university. Journal of Distance
Education, 22(2), 59–80.
2
Projection of Teacher Identity in

Introductory Posts: A Critical Discourse
Analysis of Strategies of Online
Self-Presentation
Denis Samburskiy
Introduction
With online teaching becoming widespread, many educators are coming

to understand the value of virtual instruction as a convenient’ timesaving
environment. However, the shift from face-to-face to online teaching can be
hampered not only by required computer skills, but also by a prerequisite change
in teachers’ self-concept. Those instructors who are accustomed to their powerful
classroom roles find it difficult to maintain them in virtual environments, where
students feel more at liberty to share their opinions and exercise critical thinking
(Kern, 1995). Online, some teachers experience a change in self-perception, as
they feel that their professional identity has to accommodate the egalitarian
atmosphere of the new teaching environment. Others defy this change and persist
in projecting a more authoritarian stance, which may render virtual instruction
more challenging (Saltmarsh & Sutherland-Smith, 2010). Self-presentations
can communicate various ways of being online and contribute to broader
understanding of how teacher identity manifests itself linguistically.
This chapter examines online identity-presentational strategies that were
employed by instructors in their introductory posts in a collaborative project
between the State University of New York at Albany, New York, and the European
Humanities University in Lithuania. Applying Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
(Fairclough, 1989; van Dijk, 1993), I analyse the content of introductory posts of
five teachers in the course management platform Moodle. My goals were to find
discursive patterns of displaying expertise and power in the introductory posts
and examine the themes that yielded more response from the students.
Identity and self-presentation online and face-to-face
There is much debate about the role of teachers, teacher performance and their
connection with the development of professional teacher identity. This active
interest in professional identity formation is fuelled by the idea that a teacher’s
concept of self as an educator affects her professional accomplishments in the
classroom and in her interaction with students. An ample body of research has
argued that identity is a volatile, socially constructed phenomenon that takes
various forms according to the environment (see Bucholtz, 1995; Cook-Gumperz,
1995). Our identity permeates our behaviour, appearance and language. To
negotiate the complex nature of our identities, we assume specific features of
discourse to project our position in respect to the interlocutor.
On the whole, teacher identity could be shaped by personal beliefs about
teaching and perception of self (e.g. self-concept and self-efficacy (Bandura,
1995)) with teachers’ beliefs shaping student–teacher interactions. For example,
Gibson and Dembo (1984) reported that high self-efficacy teachers were less
critical and more helpful to struggling students than low self-efficacy teachers.
Since teacher identity includes epistemological beliefs, concepts and expectations
about teaching, professional self-awareness and self-efficacy, all these factors
play a vital role in the formation of teacher self-presentation.
Self-presentation (or impression management) is a fundamental, powerful
and important psychological process – one that influences virtually every
interpersonal encounter (Leary, Allen & Terry, 2011). It has been persuasively
argued that people tend to match their self-presentations to those with whom
they are interacting, but they are usually not aware of doing so (Baumeister,
Hutton & Tice, 1989). Thus, Schlenker (1980) distinguished between an image
that a person desires to present (the desired image) and an image that was socially
desirable in terms of other people’s judgements or social norms (a desirable
image). However, conveying a desired image that would match a desirable one
could be hindered in computer-mediated communication (CMC) between
people. In face-to-face encounters interlocutors take a plethora of cues into
account, most of which may not be perceivable on computer screens or completely
Projection of Teacher Identity in Introductory Posts 41
absent in text-based CMC (email, chat, blog, etc.). When other cues are vague
or non-existent, interlocutors rely on the textual content of the message to make
an accurate judgement of its sender. Being aware of the additional importance
that the words carry for the recipients, senders may embellish their messages to
enhance the projection of a positive self-image. On the other hand, recipients
react negatively when their interlocutors do not satisfy the images they project
(Schlenker & Leary, 1982), so people realize that conveying reasonably accurate
images works best for their positive self-presentation. As a result, people invest
much of their self-presentational efforts in conveying truthful information about
themselves, despite the occasional ‘beautification of truth’ it entails (Schlenker,
1980; Schlenker & Pontari, 2000).
When teachers need to introduce themselves but are unaware of their
prospective students, they understandably place extra emphasis on their academic
affiliations, accomplishments and prior professional or personal experiences
because that information could enhance their self-image as competent and
seasoned educators. Meskill and Sadykova’s (2007) findings showed that
graduate students in an online education course presented themselves with a
heavy emphasis on their ‘progress in achieving the next level on the academic/
professional membership trajectory’ (p. 129). They all self-identified either
through their academic status and/or as professionals of some sort. Therefore,
educators’ professional identity and self-concept are so closely linked that,
when they are asked to introduce themselves, the introduction revolves around
educational and professional life achievements.
The major challenge in constructing an introductory post is to disclose
just enough personal information without making it egocentric. Although
a list of personal achievements and awards would probably make the writer
look professional and knowledgeable, it might also create an unnecessary gap
between the instructor and the students. Therefore, sharing enough to seem
professional without appearing to be ‘superior’ is not always easy, especially for
those educators who view their teacher identity in terms of their professional
accomplishments (Farrell, 2011). People tend to identify themselves with their
professional role and social rank, that is, they describe who they are in terms
of what they do. Thus revealing to students how far they have come in their
academic career seems to add extra value to their opinions and claims.
In analysing the introductory posts of five teachers, this study sought to
answer the following questions:
ll
How do online educators introduce themselves to their virtual students?
ll What do texts of such introductions reveal about online teacher identity

expression online from a critical discourse perspective?
ll
Which themes from teachers’ introductory texts do students more readily
associate with in their responses?
Theoretical framework
The analysis of the introductory posts was conducted implementing the

framework of CDA. CDA originated from a critical theory of language that
views the use of language as a form of social practice (Janks, 1997). CDA is not
one method but a ‘shared perspective on doing linguistic, semiotic or discourse
analysis’ (van Dijk, 1993, p. 131). Fairclough (1989, 1995, 2002) defined CDA as
a research model that investigates three dimensions of discourse:
1. analysis of texts (description)

2. analysis of discursive processes (interpretation)
3. analysis of the socio-historical conditions governing these processes
(explanation)
CDA facilitates a perception of language as having meaning in a particular

historical, social and political condition. The text is comprehended in a particular
manner because of its enclosure in a discursive and sociocultural practice of
the reader/writer. McGregor (2003) maintains that ‘discursive practice refers
to rules, norms, and mental models of socially acceptable behavior in specific
roles or relationships used to produce, receive, and interpret the message’ (p. 3).
The sociocultural setting refers to the environment in which discourse takes
place (e.g. online learning management platform Moodle). The environment
determines what rights and obligations the participants possess, that is, what
each is allowed and expected to do. Any text in CDA is more than just a number
of words – it discloses how words are used in a particular social context (Huckin,
1997).
Central to CDA is power that producers of text exhibit via words. Wodak
(2002) stated that ‘the notions of ideology, power, hierarchy and gender together
with sociological variables [are] all seen as relevant for an interpretation or
explanation of text’ (p. 6). She maintained that discourse is both ‘socially
constitutive’ and ‘socially conditioned’ because it creates situations, objects of
knowledge, people’s identities and relationships between each other. This power
lurks behind the choice of vocabulary, positioning of agents and recipients of
actions (transitivity), intentionally including or excluding determining factors

(foregrounding/backgrounding), incorporating words of uncertainty or
probability (modality), using a specific register, or words that assume the truth of
a statement (presupposition), and so on. These strategies help producers of texts
communicate a specific identity – a way of being perceived by their readership.
Background of the study
This study was part of a larger project involving the State University of New York
at Albany, New York, and the European Humanities University in Lithuania.
The larger project was called Teaching English Well Online (TEWO) and aimed
at facilitating a transition into online teaching for a group of six instructors
whose experience was mainly English as a Foreign Language (EFL) face-to-face
instruction.
In one of the phases of TEWO, Lithuanian teachers were to observe a
two-week EFL course conducted by teachers from Albany using the online
teaching management platform Moodle. The two-week observation was to
improve teachers’ understanding of Moodle’s potential and show a wide range of
strategies and methods of teaching English in an online setting.
Prior to conducting the two-week course, the Albany teachers discussed
learner-centredness and various techniques of creating a student-driven
learning environment. The course was designed to engage the Russian-speaking
undergraduate students located in Lithuania and Belarus (all attending EHU) in
conversations about US and Belorussian cultures, English language and language
learning technology. However, the topics were to be introduced implicitly
without suppressing other emergent topics of interest. All teachers started the
course with self-introductions that became the focus of this paper.
Five teachers took part in the course: three native speakers of US English
(Simon, Jack and Dwight), two non-native speakers (Jasmine and Daniel). All
the teachers were enrolled at State University of New York at Albany as Ph.D.
candidates. Their names have been changed.
Data collection and analysis
In order to collect data for this paper, I was granted access to the two-week
course taught by the five teachers. For a thorough analysis, I needed introductory
posts of the teachers and subsequent responses of their students to examine the
students’ reaction to the teachers’ introductory texts.
Textual analysis
I used the 3D approach of CDA to determine the amount of power, affinity and
commitment to the course objectives exhibited by each teacher. As pointed out
by Fairclough (1995), I used all three levels of discourse should be analysed
equally, as each level tends to reveal ideas that permeate the other two.
The analysis of teachers’ texts showed an interesting pattern that I describe
as a continuum of egocentrism. This concentration on self could be attributed to
the teachers’ endeavour to show themselves in the best light and to assert their
suitability for the course as highly competent professionals. This resonated with
the concept of self-promotion developed by Jones and Pittman (1982) in their
taxonomy, as it addressed the discourse in which speakers intentionally focused
on their accomplishments.
Both ends of the continuum represented manifestations of power/
egocentrism in its extreme manner. The left end showed the utmost focus on
self and the tightest grip on power in interaction. The right end signified the
least amount of power expressed and, consequently, the weakest position in
interaction. The percentage of text that teachers devoted to descriptions of their
personal and academic achievements was a determinant in their positioning
on the egocentrism continuum. The location on the line was hypothetical and
defined in relation to both the extreme ends and other teachers. To calculate
the percentage of self-promoting text, I counted words in the texts that did not
address students as an intended audience or that were not related to the online
course per se.
The matter of egocentric self-presentation not only concerned the amount of
text that was devoted to positive self-image. As CDA closely looks at discourse
strategies of constructing power in text, use of personal pronouns is often cited
as an effective manoeuvre. I examined the number of pronouns of first and
second person utilized by our teachers. Of interest were ‘I’, ‘me’ and ‘my’ – related
to self, and ‘you’, ‘your’ – related to the addressee. Table 2.1 shows numbers of
occurrences of the abovementioned pronouns in the teachers’ introductory
posts.
The frequency of first-person pronouns (self-directed) in Jack and Simon’s
texts clearly indicated a self-promoting trajectory of their discourse, with
I-centredness being the focus of their entire posts. A large number of ‘you’s
Table 2.1 The ratio of first- to second-person pronouns

Name I My Me You Your
Jack 33 12 1 2 0
Simon 31 10 2 13 0
Jasmine 18 8 2 7 4
Dwight 11 5 0 1 0
Daniel 10 3 0 15 4
in Simon’s text, however, could point to his awareness of the audience and
inclusion of the audience in his writing. Most teachers shifted their focus
on the students (i.e. became more audience-oriented) only at the end of
the introductory posts. Table 2.2 shows the ratio of first- to second-person
pronouns (i.e. self- and other-directed pronouns, respectively) in relation to
one another and the entire text.
According to Table 2.2, Daniel’s ratio of ‘I’ to ‘you’ pronouns demonstrated
that only in his text the other-directed discourse dominated. This was supported
by the highest percentage of other-directed pronouns (‘you’ and its derivatives)
in his introductory post. Despite a surprisingly high percentage of self-directed
pronouns, Jasmine balanced it out by using 11 ‘you’s in a relatively small post
of 316 words. Therefore, Jasmine’s text represented an intermediary entity
where egocentrism was intertwined with an appreciation of the reader. On the
other side of the continuum are Jack, Simon and Dwight – all dedicating a tiny
percentage of their text to the readers. Although Simon’s frequent use of ‘you’s
was notable, his 678-word post (largest of all) made it seem insignificant. Jack’s
voluminous description of his travelling and prior academic accomplishments
ended with only one student-directed sentence. Lastly, Dwight’s post had one
single mention of his audience, in which he stated that they had a 6-hour
Table 2.2 Self- and Other-directed pronouns in teachers’ texts

Name Self-directed vs Self-directed in Other-directed
Other-directed entire text in entire text
Number Ratio Percentage Percentage
Jack 46:2 23:1 8.35 0.36
Simon 43:13 3.31:1 6.34 1.92
Jasmine 28:11 2.55:1 8.86 4.35
Dwight 16:1 16:1 7.62 0.48
Daniel 13:19 0.68:1 5.14 7.51
Sociocultural Context (explanation)
Discourse (interpretation)
Text (description)
Figure 2.1 Dimensions of Critical Discourse Analysis
time difference. Overall, the textual analysis supported the grouping that was
established in Figure 2.1 with Dwight, Jack, Simon located closer to the I-centred
end, Jasmine around the centre and Daniel closer to the Other-centred end.
I do not claim that personal pronouns undoubtedly indicate a causal link
between ‘focus on self ’ and ‘focus on other’. This link could also be established by
other means and on other levels of discourse for example, choosing a topic that
interests the teacher, requiring the use of a specific register that could constrain
students’ self-expression, and so on. The choice of content in self-introduction,
however, illustrated what approach teachers used to satisfy the same goal of
affirming their legitimate status as experts or experienced instructors. On the
one hand, some decided to emphasize their previous academic feats and work
experience related to the course content. On the other hand, some chose to
acknowledge their students’ presence by giving them ‘voice’ or shifting the focus
on the readers of the post, not the writer.
Discursive and social analysis

The introductory texts were coded according to five general themes. In outlining
the themes I looked beyond mere words to meanings that the teachers were
working to convey. Needless to say, part of any introduction was disclosure of
personal information, professional standing and achievements, interests and
leisure activities, and so on. However, every teacher had an indefinite number
of possible discourse strategies at hand. Critical discourse analysts claim that
speakers masterfully conceal their intentions behind the words. Thus, the speaker’s
choice of words and sentence structures is never arbitrary but is revealing of how
they wish to be perceived by their audience. It is even truer of written discourse
because its content is not as ephemeral as the content of oral speech.
All in all, I specified five themes in the introductory posts of the teachers:
1. Sense of Professionalism
2. Awareness of the Audience
3. Sense of Affinity
4. Multifaceted Self-Image
5. Sense of Erudition
The Professionalism theme revolved around personal and professional

achievements, social and institutional statuses, ambitions, and so on. The
teachers found it essentially relevant to their pedagogical role in the course to
establish a trustworthy and knowledgeable image of themselves. In addition,
Professionalism included parts of discourse where the teachers mentioned (or
elaborated on) any accomplishments that defined them as educated, well-travelled
and competent adults.
The Awareness of the Audience comprised discourse in which the teachers
addressed students as the audience of the posts and outlined possible topics
for further discussion. This strategy added to the view of those teachers as
goal-oriented and willing to assist new students with getting acquainted with
the course and with the teachers as the course facilitators. However, the main
value of this discourse was that it acknowledged the presence of the students in
the interaction and encouraged the readers to be active participants. Any text in
which the students were addressed or mentioned was coded as Awareness of the
Audience because it clearly indicated an endeavour to engage the readers in the
topic and validate their opinion.
The Affinity theme comprised different discourse strategies that helped the
teachers to project themselves as personable, amusing and approachable (of
course, only in its abstract sense). This was achieved largely by sharing personal
information with students. Each teacher decided how many private details
were sufficient for the construction of an amicable self. The limits of openness
to the unknown audience and revelation of one’s own sensitive side tend to be
determined by the cultural and ethical norms of the teacher’s background (Kim,
Lee & Gim, 2011; Kim & Papacharissi, 2003). Another aspect of Affinity was the
manifestation of the positive attitude to the course. This undoubtedly created
a favourable environment from the start, which enabled students to put more
trust in the efforts of the instructor. Lastly, many teachers provided emotional
assessment of the content of their own posts or prospective posts of the students.
For example, positively loaded words or phrases such as ‘really happy’, ‘excited’,
‘brimming with ideas’, ‘peace!’, and so on, created a benevolent setting in which
the teacher seemed more like a source of inspiration than a dour professional.
Many participant teachers strove to show themselves as well-rounded
individuals who lead active lives beyond their classrooms. Such information
was referred to as Multifaceted Self-Image theme. This theme included any

indication of hobbies, recreational activities or preferred pastime of any sort.
Such information helped to establish an emotional link between teachers and
students, find a common ground for subsequent conversations, and portray the
teacher as a source of expertise that went beyond the subject of the course.
Lastly, the Erudition theme was ascribed to an overt display of encyclopaedic
knowledge or unnecessarily detailed description of a concept. This theme included
various facts, data, statistics, and so on, which could be omitted without any damage
to the introductory value of the posts. This information created an impression of
an ostentatiously intelligent person who ‘flaunted’ knowledge where it appeared
unnecessary. For example, elucidating the average annual temperatures, precise
geographic location and demographics of a region, and so on.
The results of thematic coding are presented in Table 2.3 and Figure 2.3.
The distribution of themes in the teachers’ texts was noticeably unequal.
Interestingly, Figure 2.3 resembles the continuum of egocentrism that was
displayed in Figure 2.2. The degree of I-centredness or Other-centredness was
dependent on the amount of discourse that each writer employed to create an
effective egocentric self-presentation or bolster his/her connection with the
reader.
I-centredness Other-centredness
Dw
Ja
Si
Ja
Da
mo
ck
nie
igh
mi
n(
(
ne
l (1
91
t(
86
94
.1%
(6
6.2
.7%
.8%
9.9
%
)
%
)
)
)
Figure 2.2 Continuum of egocentrism in participant teachers
Table 2.3 Distribution of thematic codes (in percentage) in teachers’ texts
Affinity Professionalism Multifaceted Erudition Awareness

Self-Image of Audience
Dwight 49 6.2 0 40.5 4.3
Jasmine 42.7 14.4 11.7 0 30.1
Simon 37.6 13.9 15.9 19.3 13.3
Jack 29.4 44.4 3.3 14.1 8.8
Daniel 3.6 13.1 0 0 83.3
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Dwight Jack Simon Jasmine Daniel
Awareness of Audience Affinity Professionalism

Multifaceted Self-Image Erudition
Figure 2.3 Distribution of themes in teachers’ texts
The discourse techniques of the teachers in this study revealed their efforts to
establish a particular view of themselves from the very start of the interaction in
the online course. All teachers chose to foreground a specific kind of information,
thus, giving importance to certain aspects of their identities. Thus, in Dwight’s
text two themes were dominant: Erudition and Affinity. His focus was mainly
on exhibiting his knowledge of the particulars of his region and giving details of
technological obstacles at work that prevented him from posting to Moodle in a
timely manner. Dwight had no experience in teaching, let alone EFL instruction.
Therefore, his understanding of how a teacher could introduce himself might
be rooted in traditional beliefs about a teacher being an authority. Gee (1990)
argued that practices of discourse involve ‘ways of being in the world’ that
depict specific and recognizable social identities. Being a teacher, undoubtedly,
involves a number of obligations and rights – what is allowed and expected. In
Dwight’s vision, making the introductory post was a sufficient contribution on

the teacher’s part and students did not need another incentive to start adding
to the thread. As a result, his post remained unanswered for several days, despite
the fact that the course had officially started with his introduction. I may only
hypothesize about true reasons for the passiveness of his students, but Dwight’s
emphasis on bland factual knowledge and lack of topics that could potentially
appeal to the students might have been one of the factors. Not until Dwight
started a new thread with another introduction did the students start to become
more active. His second post started with ‘hi friends’ and had a few pictures,
which worked as an effective visual hook and stimulated a number of positive
responses from his students.
Jack’s foregrounding of his academic accomplishments was not surprising, as
he had made ample achievements in the field. He had rich experience as an online
instructor, teaching a course in computer-mediated learning and studying for a
Ph.D. Jack presented himself as a competent language instructor and his extensive
travelling added to that self-image. The Professionalism theme was often mixed
with affinity-oriented evaluative remarks. He dedicated less effort to displaying
erudition; nevertheless, he wrote a passage about demographics and climate of
his place of origin. Jack’s details of a personal nature went along with mention of
his academic achievements and teaching experience. It seemed that those parts
of his background were inseparable in displaying him as a well-travelled, reliable,
knowledgeable instructor. Jack’s formal tone communicated his experiences as
facts, not as stories to be elaborated on or questioned. He addressed his students
only in the two last sentences of his post. Jack attached one picture to his post – a
small image of himself formally dressed.
Simon made noticeable efforts to make an amicable impression, which was
evident from an extensive monologue about his hometown, travelling and
recreational interests. According to Table 2.3, almost 40 per cent of his post
was coded with the Affinity theme. The amount of text that Simon employed
to display a sense of erudition, professionalism, multifaceted interests and
awareness of the readers was approximately equal. With the Awareness of the
Audience being the smallest portion of his post, Simon managed to create an
affiliation with his students at the end, where he asked a few questions and
addressed the students directly. Although Simon foregrounded his personal
and professional lives, he tried to find common ground with his students. He
mentioned his excitement about the course twice, referred to good Russian
friends of his (all students were Russian-speaking), dwelt on his love for sports
and the outdoors, and so on.
Jasmine’s introductory post covered a range of topics that helped her students
to perceive her as a personable and well-informed host. It was especially
important for cross-cultural communication to avoid any confusion regarding
names. A native Malaysian, Jasmine expected her name to sound unusual to
her students; so she spent some time explaining where her name came from
and what it meant. After sharing some personal background information
about her home and travel, Jasmine went on to give a few details about her
professional experience and academic aspirations. As a personal interest, she
mentioned tending to her personal YouTube account. By showing her love for
web 2.0 technology, Jasmine implicitly encouraged her students to use digital
media. Sharing interests like that in the introductory post served to establish
common ground, especially if interests were directly related to CMC. At the end
of her post, Jasmine encouraged her students to ask questions and learn about
each other too. To set the tone for subsequent discussions, she presented a list
of possible topics: likes and dislikes, interests, happiest memories, most difficult
decision ever made, and so on. These broad themes were unrestrictive and led
towards similar topics that could involve all students.
Daniel’s post was quite different from the others because he chose to say
little about himself. His text clearly ascertained his role as an instructor but
did not foreground his accomplishments or competencies. His focus was
primarily on his audience and the course objectives. Daniel created an image
of a facilitator (not an authoritarian instructor) by stating that students could
follow the pattern of his post but did not have to do that. He gave them an
outline of possible self-expression, with his pattern being merely an example.
He used only three short sentences to describe his academic affiliation and
home country. He used expressive language to indicate his exhilaration and
enthusiasm about the course. Like Jasmine, he gave his students an outline of
possible topics to write about in their introductions, which served as a guide for
those at a loss for words.
Jasmine and Daniel were the only teachers who incorporated a guide with
possible topics for discussion into their posts. The guide indicated that Jasmine
and Daniel did not wish the introduction to be merely about them. Their
understanding of what it meant to be a teacher was different. In his discussion
of progressive education, Ellis (2004) referred to famous statement by John
Dewey that the best education occurs when the teacher becomes a learner, and
learners become teachers. Ellis argued that this view implied modelling on the
part of teachers and an opportunity for students to share their experience. It
‘opens up the possibilities for peer teaching, for co-operative efforts, and for the
teacher to study and therefore become more knowledgeable about the students
themselves’ (p. 33).
Discussion
By presenting themselves in terms of their achievements and ambitions, teachers

unwittingly prescribed a mode of behaviour to their students. In response to
teachers’ introductions, the students thought they were expected to ‘follow
suit’ and provide similar information about themselves. This was where a gulf
between a producer and a recipient of the text could be created. Since most
students did not possess significant academic or professional accomplishments,
they might feel inferior to more experienced teachers. A quick look at students’
responses supported this assumption, as almost all students could relate to their
teachers’ descriptions of non-academic interests (Multifaceted Self-Image) but
none dwelled on their academic careers. The traditional perspective on education
and the role of the teacher in post-Soviet countries views the instructor as an
incontestable authority, whose expertise must not be questioned. Students
educated in the system of absolute teacher power become accustomed to never
questioning any information conveyed by the teacher. Therefore, all details
about our teachers’ academic lives might have been approached as enlightening
stories that did not require any feedback. The students were simply not used
to evaluating or reacting to their teachers’ discourse. On the other hand, the
mentioning of non-academic interests revealed the instructors’ personable sides
and many of their pastime activities coincided with their students’.
As for Jasmine’s and Daniel’s students, nearly all of them followed a proposed
list of topics. A few students also commented on Jasmine’s love for web 2.0,
which led to a discussion about a particular social networking website. Some
of Daniel’s students were thankful for having ‘good’ topics to write about and
not having to think of their own. Perhaps, it was due to the fact that Jasmine
and Daniel were the youngest of all teachers participating in the project, so they
saw their students as belonging to the same age group. In addition, Daniel’s and
Jasmine’s teaching and scholarly experiences were not on a par with the other
teachers’, so they did not bring forward those aspects of their identity from the
very start of the course.
Social psychologists have long argued that a key factor in self-construction
is the public nature of self-presentation because one’s awareness of an audience
magnifies the effect of self-presentation on identity (Kelly & Rodriguez, 2006;
Tice, 1992). Teachers have to constantly negotiate who they are and who
they want to be, and after creating a desired public image, they adhere to it.
This process is known as ‘public commitment’ (Schlenker, 1980; Schlenker,
Dlugolecki & Doherty, 1994) and is part of a more permanent sense of self.
Douglas and McGarty (2001) demonstrated that despite a seeming lack of social
cues, individuals can perceive themselves as being public online. This may be
especially true in online contexts that require people to introduce themselves to
a wide audience.
CDA often considers the producer and recipient of the text to be lacking direct
contact; neither the producers nor the consumers know who their counterparts
are. Therefore, the producers create their ideal viewers, readers or listeners, that
is, their ideal subject. Since the teachers in this study had a vague idea about
their audience, they unconsciously created a subjective understanding of what
their students might or might not be like based on the teachers’ prior experience.
Moreover, by generating an image of ‘ideal’ students, the teachers strove to match
it with the image of themselves as ‘ideal’ instructors (e.g. Baumeister, 1982). For
that purpose, they inevitably drew on their personal beliefs and notions of what
an ideal instructor was, which might be different for each of them. Fairclough
(1995) contended that ‘discourses include representations of how things are and
have been, as well as imaginaries – representations of how things might or could
or should be’ (p. 16). Therefore, self-presentation for an imaginary audience
could imply the creation of a desired or idealized concept of self, for example,
a highly experienced, knowledgeable teacher. I used the notion of egocentricity
that resulted from the discourse analysis of the teachers’ introductory posts to
answer one general question: Whose interests were being served by the choice
of words?
The power imbalance has always been woven into the discourse between
teachers and students. Bourdieu’s (1977) concept of cultural capital, which
metaphorically refers to economic capital, can be accumulated through access
to and the possession of certain ‘cultural goods’: education, use of language,
access to exclusive social institutions, their practices, high-ranking positions,
and so on. These cultural goods are unevenly distributed in society and not
accessible to all members in the same quantity. Thus, the social structure of a
teacher–student relationship reflects their unequal status in terms of academic
accomplishments, social rank, belonging to a more privileged social group, and
so on. The interaction of both sides is often perceived as that of ‘the haves’ and
‘the have-nots’, as teachers possess the cultural goods that students pursue: that
is, expertise.
The inequality is also manifested in cultural affiliations. Two of the teachers

were non-native speakers who had high language proficiency, years of living
in English-speaking environments and wide-ranging experiences related to
language instruction. The other three teachers were native speakers of English,
which placed them in a more privileged position by default – a view that has
been criticized in ESL/EFL research (e.g. Edge, 1988; Medgyes, 1994; Modiano,
2005; Moussu, 2010). On the other hand, our students all resided in Lithuania or
neighbouring Belarus, where English usage is limited (mainly to classrooms) and
near-native proficiency is hard to come by. Needless to say, our teachers made
up a community of experts that possessed the skills their students badly needed
to develop, hence the unavoidable power imbalance that led to a disadvantaged
role of the students (‘have-nots’).
In addition, the teachers were disparate as well, since not all of them were native
speakers of English. However, some may contest the notion that non-native
speakers are inferior to those born in a language because acquiring a language in
childhood does not guarantee an understanding of all its complexities. People who
have learned a language may be more acutely aware of other language learners’
problems. Therefore, there was a shift in Jasmine’s and Daniel’s focus from themselves
probably to express solidarity and appreciation of their students’ difficulties. In this
sense, non-native speaker teachers and their students share a similar ‘culture of
learning a language’, not ‘culture of possessing a language’.
Finally, the analysis of the teachers’ discourse revealed different patterns of
identity construction. The posts of three teachers had significantly more text
dedicated to their own achievements and academic interests, putting relatively
little emphasis on acknowledging their students’ presence in the course. Jack
and Simon wrote extensively about various life experiences, never asking
for students’ opinions or stories of a similar kind. Their interaction with the
readers appeared only at the end and made up a tiny part of their introduction.
Although Dwight’s goal was to share information about himself, his text mainly
concerned knowledge about his whereabouts and work-related facts. Based on
these findings, I concluded that these three teachers employed the discourse
of hegemony (albeit unintentionally) because their introductions did not offer
opportunities for the students to be equitable contributors to the course. Jasmine’s
and Daniel’s introductions displayed more readiness to include the audience
into conversation by providing a choice of topics the students could relate to
and constructing a sense of solidarity via inclusive pronouns. The amount of
investment in the discourse of dominance was minimal. The teachers shifted
the focus from their self-presentations to the presentation of the course as a
platform for the students to communicate and share information. According to

the analysis of themes that emerged in their posts, the teachers were positioned
on a continuum of egocentrism.
Since all students were required to participate in the conversation, the
teachers’ posts were not analysed in terms of response count. Hence, the
number of responses a post generated did not necessarily account for the notion
of ‘successful’ strategies. The students had a specific rubric to follow and were
obliged to contribute to the conversations a certain number of times during the
two-week course. I propose that ‘successful’ posts were the ones that generated
the most uptake of their themes in students’ replies, for example, when students
narrated about their hobbies in response to the teacher’s text about hobbies. In
this respect, the Other-centred teachers generated more uptake than I-centred
teachers, as every student picked up on one or more of Jasmine’s and Daniel’s
topics for discussion.
Conclusion
Critical analysis of verbal and non-verbal communication between teachers

and students can reveal unanticipated trends that belie beliefs that are no longer
feasible in our post-modern world. Post-modern identity is flexible, multiple and
extended (Weedon, 1987) as the boundaries of cultures become fuzzy. Post-modern
teachers are intercultural educators and professional learners; students are their
apprentices (Diaz-Rico, 2004). This new focus radically repositions interaction in
face-to-face or online classrooms and calls for intercultural educators who could
become learners about the language and culture of students.
This epistemological change requires a shift in power relations between
teachers and students. In the post-modern educational environment power
circulates, as students now have the right to speak and share their opinion, even
if it runs contrary to their teachers’ beliefs. Power must be negotiated because
the traditional view of the teacher being endowed with incontestable authority
has become obsolete. CDA is an approach to studying language that helps to
disclose if and how this power shift takes place. As Wodak (2002) points out,
‘the constant unity of language and other social matters ensures that language
is entwined in social power in a number of ways: language indexes power,
expresses power, is involved where there is contention over power and where
power is challenged’ (p. 11). In an educational setting, language is a medium
for a constant negotiation of power in classrooms. Teachers are realizing that
giving the students more opportunities to voice their opinions promotes an

egalitarian power distribution thus enhancing students’ sense of self-efficacy.
Online education could benefit from such egalitarianism too because teachers
often attempt to compensate for the lack of their physical presence by excessive
control over teacher–student and student–student interaction. Empowering
learners is in itself a powerful move that acknowledges students’ active role in
educational processes.
I suggest that online instructors endow their students with more authority by
doing the following in self-presentations:
ll
remembering their audience and validating their presence continuously
ll dedicating more of their message to students by addressing them directly
ll encouraging students to be active readers by asking them to react to the text
ll sharing more information that is likely to be relevant to students’ lives (e.g.
personal interests, leisure activities, favourite books, movies, music)
ll
letting students believe they have something that the teacher may have an
interest in knowing
ll
providing students with a number of possible topics to discuss
ll putting less emphasis on the teacher’s power – empower the students
ll learning more about students’ culture and language
ll minimizing detachment from students, as online environments may already
seem impersonal
ll
personalize your communication by adding an amicable picture to your
account or a post
These ideas are simple heuristics that originated from the critical analysis of
online introductions. The list is not exhaustive, as many new strategies might be
added. Online teaching platforms like Moodle have a wide range of possibilities
for instructors to turn their course into effective and empowering experiences
for both parties.
References
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University

Press.
Baumeister, R. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological
Bulletin, 91, 3–26.
Baumeister, R., Hutton, D., & Tice, D. (1989). Cognitive processes during deliberate
self‐presentation: how self‐presenters alter and misinterpret the behavior of their
interaction partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 59–78. doi:

10.1016/0022‐1031(89)90039‐5
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Reproduction in society, education, and culture (with J. Passeron).
Los Angeles: Sage.
Bucholtz, M. (1995). From mulatta to mestiza: passing and the linguistic reshaping of
ethnic identity. In K. Hall & M. Bucholtz (Eds), Gender articulated: language and the
socially constructed self (pp. 351–73). New York: Routledge.
Cook-Gumperz, J. (1995). Reproducing the discourse of mothering: how gendered talk
makes gendered lives. In K. Hall & M. Bucholtz (Eds), Gender articulated: language
and the socially constructed self (pp. 401–20). New York: Routledge.
Diaz-Rico, L. (2004). Teaching English Learners Strategies and Methods. Boston: Pearson
Education.
Douglas, K., & McGarty, C. (2001). Identifiability and self-presentation:
computer-mediated communication and intergroup interaction. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 40, 399–416.
Edge, J. (1988). Natives, speakers, and models. Japan Association of Language Teachers
Journal, 9, 153–57.
Ellis, A. (2004). Exemplars of curriculum theory. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
— (1995). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. London: Longman.
— (2002). The dialectics of discourse. Retrieved on 5 October 2011 from www.ling.lancs.
ac.uk/staff/norman/2001a.doc
Farrell, T. (2011). Exploring the professional role identities of experienced ESL teachers
through reflective practice. System, 39(1), 54–62.
Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: ideologies in discourse. London: Falmer.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569–82.
Huckin, T. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches
to written text (pp. 78–92). Washington, DC: United States Information Agency.
Janks, H. (1997). Critical discourse analysis as a research tool. Discourse: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education, 18(3), 329–42.
Jones, E., & Pittman, T. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation.
In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives of the self (pp. 231–61). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Kelly, A., & Rodriguez, R. (2006). Publicly committing oneself to an identity. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 28, 185–91.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: effects
on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal,
79(4), 457–76.
Kim, H., & Papacharissi, Z. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in online
self-presentation: a content analysis of personal Korean and US home pages. Asian
Journal of Communication, 13(1), 117–36.
Kim, J., Lee, S., & Gim, W. (2011). Culture and self-presentation: influence of social
interactions in an expected social relationship. Asian Journal of Communication, 14,
63–74.
Leary, M., Allen, A., & Terry, M. (2011). Managing social images in naturalistic versus
laboratory settings: implications for understanding and studying self‐presentation.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 411–21. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0257
McGregor, S. (2003). Critical science approach – a primer. Retrieved on 2 October 2011
from www.kon.org/cfp/critical_science_primer.pdf
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London, England: Macmillan.
Meskill, C., & Sadykova, G. (2007). The presentation of self in everyday ether: a corpus
analysis of student self-tellings in online graduate courses. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 11(3), 123–38.
Modiano, M. (2005). Cultural studies, foreign language teaching and learning practices,
and the NNS practitioner. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers:
perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp. 25–43). New York:
Springer.
Moussu, L. (2010). Influence of teacher-contact time and other variables on ESL
students’ attitudes towards native- and nonnative-English-speaking teachers. TESOL
Quarterly, 44(4). doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.235997
Saltmarsh, S., & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2010). S(t)imulating learning: pedagogy,
subjectivity and teacher education in online environments. Special Issue of London
Review of Education, 8(1), 15–24.
Schlenker, B. (1980). Impression management: the self-concept, social identity, and
interpersonal relations. Monterey/California: Brooks/Cole.
Schlenker, B., Dlugolecki, D., & Doherty, K. (1994). The impact of self-presentations
on self-appraisals and behaviors: the power of public commitment. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 20–33.
Schlenker, B., & Leary, M. (1982). Audiences’ reactions to self‐enhancing,
self‐denigrating, and accurate self‐presentations. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 18, 89–104. doi:10.1016/0022‐1031(82) 90083‐X
Schlenker, B., & Pontari, B. (2000). The strategic control of information: impression
management and self‐presentation in daily life. In A. Tesser, R. Felson & J. Suls
(Eds), Perspectives on self and identity (pp. 199–232). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Tice, D. (1992). Self-presentation and self-concept change: the looking-glass self is also
a magnifying glass. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 435–51.
van Dijk, T. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. London: Blackwell.
Wodak, R. (2002). Aspects of critical discourse analysis. ZfAL, 36, 5–31.
Part Two
Shifts in Practice
3
An Exploration of 3D Virtual Worlds through

ESL/EFL Teachers’ Perspectives in Second Life
Ozan Varli
Upon arriving at the performing arts centre, I start eavesdropping and hear what
everyone is talking about. One student complains about having an exam in his
real life (RL) soon. Another one asks if anyone is up for hanging out together in
a virtual cafe after class. All the students must be from different countries as they
have very distinctive accents; however, it is almost impossible to tell by looking
at them as their avatars are not self-representative.
I look around and see that the place is a replication of a typical performance
hall from its wooden stage to the red velvet curtains hanging on both sides (see
Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1 The performing arts centre

To my left, there is an interactive bulletin board mounted on the wall where

pictures from previous shows are displayed along with a notification box to click
to get the script of the play which is going to be performed. I click on the box and
get my copy. It reads as ‘The Argument Clinic by Monty Python – Live at City
Center’. I take a quick look at the material by scrolling down on the note card
and find out that it is the original script of one of Monty Python’s comedy shows
with a glossary at the end. While skimming through the text, I hear the teacher
giving instructions about reading it out loud and assigning roles. Meanwhile,
there are students standing in front of the stage and constantly checking if
everyone can hear them. Some are still having problems with echoing and
cannot hear the others properly, yet the teacher and a few volunteers support
them by simultaneously typing what they are talking about in the local chat area.
From time to time, avatars automatically animate and take different postures.
This adds a sense of liveliness to the setting. They start studying the text by
reading out loud while the teacher helps them work on their pronunciation skills
and explains the unknown idiomatic expressions by using the new patterns in
different sentences.
‘Ok, well, what do you think festering gob means? Have you ever heard of that
before?’ asks the teacher. As the students try to answer, another native English
speaker, who is an inhabitant of the city, adds to the conversation by giving a
further reference from real life: ‘Oh yea, like . . . like . . . Uncle Fester in the
Addams Family?’ Giggles arise when students start talking about the Addams
Family. They all try to guess the meaning of the expression with the help of the
examples and clues given, and eventually agree on its meaning which the teacher
then confirms.
The students pay attention to the notes for non-verbal actions given in
brackets in the script, such as ‘clears throat, stunned, exasperated’, and do their
best to incorporate these actions in their performances. Once the rehearsal is
over, the teacher says, ‘All right, now, it is time to put it on stage!’
The teacher asks for volunteers, and some students step forward onto the stage.
The stage is already furnished with the appropriate décor for the performance,
and the acting students immediately dress up in their costumes which are
distributed by the teacher and stored in the students’ Second Life (SL) clothes
inventories. The dress rehearsal begins. The teacher stands next to the stage as
the ‘director’ and gives constant feedback and support (see Figure 3.2). The other
students watch the play and giggle. Voices rise in volume on the stage: ‘NO, I
DIDN’T! . . . YES, YOU DID! . . . NOOO, I DIDN’T! . . . YES, YES, YOU DID!’
By their performance, one can easily tell that these students are all having fun.
An Exploration of 3D Virtual Worlds 63
Figure 3.2 The students as actors/actresses and the teacher as director
The interest in the use of virtual worlds (VWs) in education is becoming

more widespread, especially with the emergence of 3D graphical venues, such
as SL. Numerous educators have been attracted to use these environments for
both teaching and research purposes. Thanks to their rich and multimodal
nature, they promote the sense of social presence, and therefore support life-like
collaboration and social interaction experiences more than their predecessors
did. According to a 2011 Linden Lab report (Second life education, 2011), there
are over 700 educational institutions from all over the world in SL. This number
shows how persistent immersive 3D VWs have started integrating into current
understandings of teaching and learning in online environments.
Educational research in SL: Teachers’ perspectives
Although the potential these worlds offer seems to be quite promising in

terms of shaping the teaching practices of the future (Baker, Wentz & Woods,
2009; Childress & Braswell, 2006; Dede, 1995; Stevens, 2006), the dynamics
of collaborative virtual environments need to be understood thoroughly by
more qualitative explorations as is the case with any initial work done when a
new technology emerges. One way of contributing to this understanding is by
making in situ observations and by listening to the voices of practicing teachers
in VWs. Research on teachers’ perceptions and perspectives emphasizes that

investigating teachers’ beliefs and expectations about teaching and learning
is highly important while exploring their teaching practices (Pajares, 1992;
Williams & Burden, 1997). At this point, it is of paramount importance to find
answers to how 3D VWs accommodate sociocultural aspects of teaching and
learning languages, and how language teachers perceive such teaching and
learning activities, and thereby adapt their pedagogies, design course content
and deliver courses in a virtual setting. Attempts made to seek answers to these
questions will consequently expand our understanding of teaching and learning
in collaborative virtual environments.
Data collection: Observations and interviews
With the above questions in mind, one of the most popular 3D VWs, SL, was
chosen as the research site and explored by descriptions, explanations and
analyses in order to develop a descriptive and in-depth comprehension of the
educational activities in virtual learning environments (VLEs). Several hours
of in-world observations were made to examine the experiences and, through
one-on-one interviews, a closer look into the world of teachers was taken to
find out about their interpretation of SL as an educational medium so that
connections between their practices and the nature of the SL environment could
be drawn. The broad aim was a holistic understanding of SL’s sociocultural
potential in language education.
Observations referred to in this chapter were made from 2008 to 2009, in
various language teaching contexts. Each took between 60 and 90 minutes.
The sessions were also recorded with a third-party screen capture application
so that they could easily be referred back to when needed. The primary
concern during the recorded sessions was to avoid any sort of immersion
and interaction with the participants. Since SL features the camera view,
zooming in and out from far distances without attracting attention was easily
accomplished.
Upon completion of the observations, I rendered into observational vignettes
from the chunks of raw data drawn from the field notes as well as the recorded
sessions. These include specific captions and lively images from the research
setting, and therefore portray the teaching and learning activities in SL through
the lens of sociocultural theory.
The vignette at the start of the chapter is from one of my observational tours
to English City which was created as a VLE for language learners by Languagelab,
one of the first private, for-profit educational initiatives in SL. English learners of
varying ages and mixed backgrounds can sign up for classes and practise their
language skills in real-life-like situations as the city offers an abundant selection
of venues – a bank, a restaurant, a hospital or even an airport. The educational
activities are carried out either by certified English teachers or native English
speakers from different professions so that the experience is very similar to the
immersion experience in real life. The city also has its inhabitants who help the
learners perform their daily tasks in English.
In addition to the observations, personal interviews provide integral,
supporting information as it is assumed that ‘the interviewer has the opportunity
to probe or ask follow-up questions, and interviews are generally easier for the
respondent, especially if you are seeking opinions and impressions’ (Trochim
& Donnelly, 2008, p. 120). Since all the participants were from different
countries and different time zones, I negotiated with them to set appropriate
times and places, and a common means of communication. Among available
tools were the integrated audio/text-chat tool of SL and other third party IM
(instant messaging) applications. Due to the nature of the interview questions
(see Appendix 3.1) and provocative discussions, the interviews took about 45 to
60 minutes each.
Purposive sampling was preferred for the interviews because of the time
constraints and number of available English teachers in SL. According to
Trochim and Donnelly (2008, p. 47), ‘with a purposive sample, you are likely to
get the opinions of your target population, but you are also likely to overweight
subgroups in your population that are more readily accessible.’ The results and
findings might have been overweighed, which might be considered as a bias;
however, the conclusions drawn are based on the explorations within this
specific study and they try to ascertain the presence of specific phenomena
within language classes in 3D VWs.
The participants of this study were five English teachers whose names are
encoded as Amber, Dana, Irene, Jade and Jillian. Although personal characteristics
of these teachers might have connections with their practices, I tried not to
involve this information in my research because their professional experiences,
opinions, beliefs and expectations about VWs are of primary concern. However,
I thought a bit of personal background (see Appendix 3.2) might provide further
insights in understanding the pedagogical approaches in SL.
Results and discussion
In analysing my observational notes and interview data, various themes emerged

regarding the different aspects of the 3D VWs. However, since the main focus
of this research is on what teachers say about the instructional processes they
employ, my speculations will be more on the nature of the activities designed by
teachers and how these activities are supported by the environment.
My initial reactions to language learning situations in SL including the
findings from other observational sites and teachers’ self-reported practices are
discussed in the following themed sections.
Online immersion
According to Warschauer (1997, p. 471) a language teacher’s focus should be
on how to construct a setting in which individuals ‘learn language, learn about
language, and learn “through” language’ by exploring the roles of interaction in
a social and cultural context. Therefore, the basic assumption is that language,
being the most significant semiotic tool according to Vygotsky (1978), plays a
very important role while mediating purposeful action, and social interaction
which is claimed to be the origin of all higher-order functions (Wertsch, 1985).
As far as language classes in SL are concerned, learners are engaged socially
online; they either talk by means of the voice chat tool or type in the local chat
area to interact with each other. Participating teachers find these tools quite
effective and report that 3D VWs support the integration of highly sociocultural
activities in online language classes as Dana states:
I was intrigued by what I heard SL had to offer to learners and teachers. I am

a visual learner with an interest in technology and the internet. As a teacher, it
was the immersive and collaborative nature of SL that appealed to me. I had also
been looking for motivating ways to teach online, and the game-like nature of SL
seemed to be one such way. . . . Because of the feeling of real presence, I think it
can enhance distance education.
By pointing to immersive and collaborative features of 3D VWs, Dana

mentions that these environments can also be motivating for teachers because
of their high potential for participation and interaction. Moreover, she draws
attention to the sense of presence by underlining its advantage in distance
education.
Collaborative dialogue
Swain (2000), investigating the dynamics of social interaction as collaborative
dialogue, claims that ‘in second language learning, it is dialogue that constructs
linguistic knowledge’ (p. 97). That is to say, language learning co-occurs in
such a cognitive and social activity because novice speakers are engaged in
problem solving and knowledge building processes when they converse.
Comprehensibility of input in a dialogue with an expert depends on negotiation
of meaning which also leads to successful learning outcomes for the novice.
Being another significant element of interaction, output also plays an important
role for ‘output may stimulate learners to move from the semantic, open-ended,
strategic processing prevalent in comprehension to the complete grammatical
processing needed for accurate production’ (p. 99). Language learning takes
place in collaborative dialogue since ‘internal mental activity’ originates from
‘external dialogic activity’ (p. 113). Indeed, when discussing other application
of 3D avatars in her teaching, Irene notes how useful these are in student
role-playing.
Participation and engagement

Applying Sfard’s (1998) participation metaphor to second language learning
contexts, Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) emphasize the importance of participation
as it is distinguished from acquisition by certain tasks like ‘doing, knowing, and
becoming a part of a greater whole’ (p. 156). From this perspective, language
learning becomes more like a process of involvement in action and participation,
rather than the acquisition of prescriptive rules.
Offering distinctive tools for multimodal activities SL provides the content for
learners to engage in the learning community. Jillian states:
The way that you can have multiple channels of communication is great – instant
messaging for a shy student, or for peer learning, a private voice call, open chat,
music, textures with text; I think that all of them are useful to make it engaging.
In addition, holodecks and other menu-based scene generator tools are also quite
popular in the SL world, as they grant numerous new settings appropriate for the
lesson content. Teachers, equipped with these tools in their inventories, conjure
appropriate settings (e.g. an airport scene with a check-in desk) to immerse
learners in situations they were likely to encounter in RL.
The fact that you don’t have to set the scene is great. You don’t need to say ‘Oh,
imagine you are in the train station, etc’. . . . They are there . . . SL saves time!
(Jillian)
Facilitation and ZPD

Within traditional sociocultural perspectives in second language learning,
learners are treated as novice participants in a community where they develop
their knowledge and skills by interacting, engaging in conversations with
more proficient users of that language. These learning processes take place
within the realms of what is known as the zone of proximal development
(ZPD). Vygotsky (1978) defines this notion as ‘the distance between the actual
development level as determined through independent problem solving and
the level of potential development as determined through problem solving
under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’ (p. 86).
SLA theoreticians identify the ZPD as a social domain in which novice
learners cannot fully perform the competences on their own in the target
language and culture; therefore, with the support of either native speakers
or more knowledgeable learners, they learn how to accomplish certain tasks
through the use of language. Collaborative scaffolding becomes a significant
process in this stage as it assists learners in doing what they would not be able
to do without assistance, such as gaining control over L2 forms and meanings
(Dixon-Krauss, 1996; Kozulin, 2003; Lantolf & Poehner, 2008; Wells, 1999).
Teachers facilitate activities whereby students use the target language to
accomplish tasks, such as performing as actors/actresses on a stage. When
students work on such a task, teachers prefer to stay at the background, observe
their students and assist them only when they have difficulty in performing
the tasks. Regarding their self-reported practices, teachers report that they
enjoy the activities in which they are the facilitators, providing guidance to
their learners. Teachers describe their favourite activities in SL as going on
fieldtrips, carrying out intercultural activities and taking part in interactive
games. For example, Jillian says:
Ok, so, my favorite activity is ‘Dark Mines’ – an MMO style sim where the
students have to work out puzzles, and then there are zombies, robots, very dark
stuff going on . . . and a mine full of drill bots :) You are more of a facilitator and
they work as a team.
Authentic materials and culture

Felix (2002) outlines three common characteristics of educational tasks shared
between the sociocultural and communicative approaches to language teaching.
So that tasks are contextualized, authentic and meaningful to students, SL
teachers do not necessarily use commercial materials and they value authentic
materials as they can effectively use them while presenting new language forms.
Instead of following a traditional course book, teachers digitize authentic
materials and store them in their inventories to be used in their lessons when
needed. Thanks to authentic materials and contexts, the target culture is also
immediate and accessible.
Like the target culture, multiculturality is also very evident in SL language
classes. Users represent diverse cultures as they log in from different countries,
and this enriches the social environment. Indeed, it might be viewed as a teacher
reward as Jade states:
I just love hearing about the other cultures. I’m obviously fascinated when I hear
students from China, Germany, Poland, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. . . . I keep a
list; I got an Egyptian, also somebody from Lebanon.
Anonymity and risk-taking

Learners from various age groups and backgrounds practise their language
skills by conversing with teachers and other native speakers without any
hesitation. They share personal stories from both their RL and SL and spend
time together by hanging out in a virtual club or going shopping for their avatars
after class. While engaging in these activities, they never feel shy or reluctant
since these environments support a considerable degree of anonymity. Jillian
mentions that:
I think that the students are relaxed behind their avatars. I have taught mixed
nationality classes in London and people’s prejudice and cultural mores are
much stronger in the physical world. . . . Also, the dynamic between the ages is
great here; we have students in their 60’s and they enjoy the fact that they can
represent themselves how they like!
In addition to the levels of anonymity, it is also observed that students who

represent themselves behind a surrogate digital persona are doing better when
it comes to risk-taking. According to what Jillian says, the new roles that come
with their new avatars can eliminate social and emotional barriers. As in RL,
avatars take roles in SL, too. Therefore, when students are given a collaborative
task, as in performing on a stage, they share the responsibility to accomplish the
task by assigning new roles to themselves within their learning community.
Flexibility and resources

Teachers believe that 3D VWs provide unbeatable educational opportunities.
They draw attention to the different aspects of online education while sharing
their ideas. For example, according to Dana, 3D VWs are flexible open spaces
for learning:
The classroom [main meeting point] is in a garden. . . . [We have] some sessions
in my house. . . . But we use many different locations in SL depending on the
lesson. . . . It’s a shame to stay in one place in SL. . . . Even worse to replicate real
life classrooms.
In SL, it is possible to experience many things which sound ‘fantastic’ in RL,

such as flying and teleporting oneself. Likewise, building skills empower those
users who would like to contribute to the design processes of the VLEs. These
skills bring creative and participatory dimensions to teaching and learning
activities.
Because SL has rich, diverse and continually expanding content and it is
possible to change locations easily, Dana finds no value in getting stuck in a
classroom where learners are comparably passive participants. She thinks that
SL provides great opportunities for social immersion and interaction which
simulate those in RL.
In addition to their educational opportunities, 3D VWs offer flexible
opportunities in terms of time, space, energy and cost. Amber says:
I homeschool my children and cannot teach outside of the home. All my

teaching has to be done online. [I prefer Second Life because it] can be done
from home without leaving the children.
She emphasizes that she has the ease of being able to work from home, not
necessarily having to leave her children. Similarly, Irene and Jillian also agree
with Amber by saying:
People don’t want to pay, they don’t want to use transportation time, and they
don’t want to use transportation money, so the idea of having an e-learning
platform at work is very very cool. (Irene)
Real Life vs Second Life
• Full range of non-verbal • Limited non-verbal

actions • Nature of actions
content
• Mostly monocultural exchange • Multicultural
classrooms classrooms
• Real time,
• Physical limitations of synchronous • Limits of virtual space
real world
• Multimodality
• Pressure of social features • Easier interaction with
mores while interacting strangers through
with strangers • Pacing of digital personae
lessons
• Use of imagination • Immersion in
experience
Figure 3.3 Similarities and differences reported by the teachers
When they are asked about the similarities and differences they noticed in
their teaching, they report that 3D VWs are both similar to and different from
educational contexts in RL (see Figure 3.3).
Teachers all agree on the statement that nothing can ‘beat’ face-to-face classes.
However, teachers can make the most of 3D VWs and know more about the
opportunities they offer.
All participants are passionate about teaching and learning in 3D VWs
because these environments have a promising future as places and tools for
education:
It is where education is going to be in the future. . . . It has the potential to be a

major player long term. (Amber)
I believe we are only at the beginning of this adventure with virtual worlds and
one day they will become normal at least for online education! (Dana)
I definitely want to say that I’m not even in little bit in doubt now. Maybe SL,
may be not; but, definitely a virtual classroom. . . . I’m here to stay, I just started a
company that’s called virtual learning, I will be here, you talk to me in ten years,
I will be here, and I will always be with the best one. (Irene)
I always thought that tech would change how students learn but I don’t think in
my wildest dreams I could have thought of them, SL and English city. (Jade)
Comparing observational and interview data, it is notable how teachers’ observed

practices align their self-reported practices. There were several repeating themes
with the teachers’ personal statements from the interviews supporting the themes
that emerged from the observations. The common perspectives of teachers about
the 3D VWs can be synthesized as follows:
ll
potential for social collaboration, interaction, engagement, participation and
immersion
ll
authentic tasks, contexts, experiences
ll sense of community, sense of self
ll anonymity, risk-taking
ll multiple channels for conversation and discourse possibilities
ll flexibility for teachers and students in terms of resources.
I believe that these reported characteristics provide insights about what

constitutes pioneering language teachers’ understanding of language teaching
and learning in 3D VWs among teaching professionals.
Conclusion
My aim in exploring 3D VWs through ESL/EFL teachers’ perspectives in SL

provided observations of current teaching practices in VLEs and commentary
by SL language teachers. Analyses suggest a number of common themes and
statements that provide further insights on how sociocultural aspects of teaching
and learning ESL/EFL can manifest in 3D VWs in terms of pioneering language
teachers’ understanding.
In relation to the first research question ‘What constitutes pioneering language
teachers’ understanding of language teaching and learning in 3D VWs?’,
observations and personal statements suggest that the elements of sociocultural
perspectives in language teaching and learning were reasonably evident in the
practices and personal statements of the teachers who participated in this study.
Teachers’ practices illustrate that they are following the sociocultural paradigms
which explain language learning as it occurs in social environments:
ll
with assisted activity (Thorne, 2000)
ll
through social participation in a community of practice (Rogoff, 1994)
ll
by taking part in collaborative dialogue (Swain, 2000)
ll
by performing authentic tasks and becoming a social self and active member
in a community (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000).
It can be concluded that 3D VWs provide several opportunities for ESL/

EFL teachers to accomplish teaching and learning activities suitable to such
educational paradigms.
In relation to the second research question ‘How do perceptions and
perspectives of ESL/EFL teachers steer their instructional practices in VLEs?’,
teachers observe they:
ll
are excited and passionate about the opportunities 3D VWs offer for their
students, their course content and their teaching
ll
are curious and impatient about the innovations in VWs technologies
ll have positive expectations about the educational practices in VWs
ll are aware of that fact that teaching in VWs is a different phenomenon than
teaching in RL
ll
are in favour of social and collaborative learning activities and
ll are hopeful about the future potential of these online worlds.
However, they still think that they need more time to explore the dynamics of
this new setting and more training in building and design skills so that they can
also have a say in design processes. Having these perceptions and perspectives,
teachers are motivated to explore new tools and adopt best practices.
There are also some practical implications for teachers and researchers.
The findings about the current educational practices in VWs suggest that 3D
VWs have significant potential in language education in light of sociocultural
perspectives of teaching and learning. The collected data portray a rich picture
of the current situation of language education in VWs; particularly, how courses
are delivered, what kind of inworld tools are effectively used and what sorts of
activities have proven to be useful by the teachers. Therefore, it is suggestive
regarding roles of teachers, the nature of activities and learning processes.
Since teaching and learning in VWs is becoming a growing interest, it can be
concluded that more teachers will soon be needed. For this purpose, professional
development programs might consider encouraging teachers, particularly the
tech-savvy ones, to apply such teaching tools in their classes. Teacher education
programs might include courses in their curricula to train the teachers of the
future who are equipped with all the skills and dispositions to facilitate learning
in 3D VWs.
It was interesting to see how practices have evolved since the first time
researchers started to talk about education in VLEs. Looking at the point
where we are today, I see that the opportunities are increasing more and
more as innovative technologies advance. More in-depth studies exploring

the affordances and constraints of these worlds are needed. Focusing more on
design and instruction processes, it would be interesting to investigate what kind
of pedagogical practices teachers should adopt to make the best use of these
worlds in language education.
Appendix 3.1. Interview questions
1. Tell me about how you first started teaching in Second Life (SL)?
2. Why do you prefer SL as the medium of your teaching?
3. What are your beliefs and expectations about teaching in a virtual
classroom?
4. What do you think the similarities and differences between teaching
face-to-face and teaching online are?
5. How would you describe your teaching in SL?
6. How would you evaluate the course material presented in SL?
7. What is your most favourite activity in your virtual classroom?
8. What do you think about the future of teaching in SL?
Appendix 3.2. Participant profiles
Amber did both her bachelors and masters degrees in education with a
concentration in communication in the United States. She started her teaching
career in 1991 and has been teaching online and face-to-face classes since then.
She also initiated and ran a private school at some point in her life. Currently
she has a managerial position in an online educational initiative along with her
teaching activities in SL. She is homeschooling her children and has been in SL
since November 2008.
Dana was raised as a German–Turkish bilingual in Germany. She trained as
a photographer and started her own business as a part of her first professional
career. Then, she studied translation and interpretation for two semesters
in Turkey. She changed her mind again and got interested in becoming a
multilingual secretary and learned French in addition to her English. She first
started teaching by giving private English courses at home, and then went
on in a language school in Germany. She liked teaching and got her CELTA
(Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults). She taught English in
Germany, the United Kingdom and Turkey. She has been teaching in SL since
the summer of 2008.
Irene was born in South Africa although her parents are from Denmark.
She lived in several other countries like China, Canada, Australia, the United
States and Denmark. She studied Sinology in Taiwan and did her master’s in
ICT (Internet and Communication Technologies). She started teaching ESL
when she was in Australia and she has been teaching English, communication,
cultural understanding at a professional training centre of a college. She teaches
English and builds courses in SL with more than 300 hours of experience.
Jade got her degree in real estate and worked as a property valuator for several
years in the United Kingdom. Her experiences as a valuator included teaching
business lectures at university level. She later moved to Australia and wanted to
teach English there. She qualified for a CELTA degree and started her teaching
career. She has been teaching business English in SL since February 2009.
Jillian was raised as a Welsh–Indonesian bilingual in the United Kingdom.
She started with social anthropology as her bachelors and got a masters degree
with a concentration in digital culture and technology in the United Kingdom.
She also did CELTA and taught English in Chile, Indonesia and the United
Kingdom. She has been teaching online EFL classes in SL and working as the
customer relations manager of an English school in SL.
References
Baker, S., Wentz, R., & Woods, M. (2009). Using virtual worlds in education: Second
Life® as an educational tool. Teaching of Psychology, 36(1), 59–64.
Childress, M., & Braswell, R. (2006). Using massively multiplayer online role-playing
games for online learning. Distance Education, 27(2), 187–96.
Dede, C. (1995). The evolution of constructivist learning environments: immersion in
distributed, virtual words. Educational Technology, 35(5), 46.
Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the classroom: mediated literacy instruction and
assessment. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Felix, U. (2002). The web as a vehicle for constructivist approaches in language teaching.
ReCALL, 14(1), 2–15.
Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis,
V. Ageyev & S. Miller (Eds), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context
(pp. 15–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural
theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J., & Poehner, M. (Eds) (2008). Sociocultural theory and second language
teaching. London: Equinox.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–32.
Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf., J. (2000). Second language learning as participation and
the (re)construction of selves. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners.
Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 209–29.
Second life education: the virtual learning advantage (2011). Retrieved from http://
lecs-static-secondlife-com.s3.amazonaws.com/work/SL-Edu-Brochure-010411.pdf
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Stevens, V. (2006). Second life in education and language learning. TESL-EJ, 10(3), 1–4.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language
learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thorne, S. (2000). Second language acquisition theory and the truth(s) about relativity.
In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J. (2008). The research methods knowledge base (3rd edn).
Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: theory and practice.
Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–81.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: towards a sociocultural practice and theory of
education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: a social
constructivist approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4
Collaboration Unpacked: Tasks, Tools and

Activities
Andreas Lund
In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to
collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.
Charles Darwin
Introduction: Are two heads better than one?
The networked society (Castells, 1996) challenges teachers, students, teacher

educators and educational systems in a number of ways. What counts as valid
knowledge in a fragmented myriad of available information, how to make sense
of such fragments, how to represent and turn such information into coherent
insights are but a few overarching questions.
This chapter seeks to respond to two related questions: How can we
understand learning as collaboration when digital networks afford (and
constrain) group efforts? And what are some of the pedagogical implications
when network-mediated collaboration is integrated in schooling? The purpose
of the chapter is to make a contribution to teacher education as well as praxis;
how theory informed practice and practice informed theory are mutually
constitutive of development (Roth & Lee, 2007). But the purpose of the
chapter is also didactical in the sense that it seeks to visualize how productive,
technology-mediated interactions can be developed in the classroom.
A large number of languages, English and Norwegian (the author’s L1)
among them have proverbs such as ‘Two heads are better than one’. Behind
such observations we find assumptions and experiences that point to better

results when people join forces in problem solving; in short, that collaboration
‘pays’. But the gains of such collaboration are not always immediately visible in
learning trajectories. There are certain prerequisites involved, for example, that
we have a shared understanding of the tasks we encounter (Rasmussen, Krange
& Ludvigsen, 2003) and can draw on common set of suppositions – what the
sociologist Emile Durkheim (1898/1974) named collective representations.
Another prerequisite is that we organize problem solving as object-oriented
and productive division of labour (Engeström, 1987, 1999). When educational
psychologists Jaan Valsiner and Rene van der Veer examine where and how
ideas originate and how they are sustained and cultivated, they find that a long
history of humans engaged in collaborative dialogue and collective cognition
(Valsiner & van der Veer, 2000). This view is not restricted to the Vygotskian
(1978, 1986) legacy; Valsiner and van der Veer show how such perspectives can
be traced in pre-Vygotskian scholarship in Europe as well as in the United States.
Such perspectives are sociogenetic, that is, that ideas and their development are
grounded in thinking as a social phenomenon. Learning and cognition emerges
and is sustained and cultivated through human interaction, through humans
interacting with artefacts (material as well as linguistic and symbolic), and as we
relate to the cultural and historical institutions we construct.
Recently research interest in collaboration has increased and from many
diverse scientific and domain specific positions; for example, in philosophy,
psychology, informatics and the learning sciences we see how researchers seek
to document, examine and support collective cognition (see, for example, Lund,
2005 for an overview). One seminal factor for such interest is found in digital
technologies that support and, indeed, require collaboration. There are obvious
socio-economic reasons. Just like Karl Marx (1867/1983) analysed the material
basis for capitalism, Manuel Castells (1996) analysed the networked society.
The network has become a powerful metaphor for how we organize our world,
socially as well as technologically, and how we encounter, share and develop
knowledge through webs of information. But where we traditionally have
cultivated collaboration in relatively small, co-located groups with established
relations, online networks open up for mass collaboration between agents who
may only temporarily share an object or have a common need, independent
of time, place and culture (Lund & Rasmussen, 2010). There is a particular
responsibility for teacher education to prepare student–teachers for practices
where they can engage in, lead and guide different types of such collective
knowledge advancement.
Collaboration Unpacked 79
However, there may be reasons to ask whether our understanding of

collective knowledge advancement and technology-mediated collaboration
is sufficiently developed, conceptually as well as in educational practices and
teacher education. Certainly we have for many years engaged in different types
of group work, but more critical, principled and theory informed approaches
from a network perspective have not always travelled beyond the researchers’
domain. Thus, we can in a Norwegian newspaper read headlines such as ‘Danish
researcher apologizes for having introduced group work in schools. Norwegian
experts cheer’ (Dypvik, 2011). Such slightly tabloid statements might lead us
into assuming that two heads are certainly not better than one but rather a
dysfunctional constellation. Also, such a statement calls for empirical studies
that can help us assess what collaboration in the network society entails and to
what extent it is conducive to knowledge advancement.
In order to pursue the two questions I raised at the start of this introduction,
I will report from a longitudinal research project, TWEAK,1 where a series of
different wikis were put to use at two different senior high schools in Norway.
The school subjects in question are English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and
Modern History (MH). Our experiences are summarized and discussed as four
cumulative findings and with a particular view to task design. Briefly, our findings
can be listed as needs to (1) match tasks with available cultural tools (artefacts),
(2) align individual and collective contributions in networked environments,
(3) develop tasks that draw on curricular goals as well as learners’ lifeworlds and
(4) exploit situations where boundaries of traditional teacher and learner roles
are not distinct. These findings will be elaborated in the discussion.
However, I will first seek to conceptualize the term collaboration since it is a
fundamental concept for the following rendition and so that author and readers
have a shared notion of how this term is used in the following.
Collaboration versus co-operation
Studies of group dynamics and interaction patterns have since the 1950s been
linked to problem-based learning (see, for example, Hare, Borgatta & Bales,
1955). In particular, important contributions have been made by David W.
Johnson and Roger T. Johnson who, during the 1980s, focused on the ‘we’ of
the classroom in the form of mutual, positive dependence. Another important
contribution is found in ‘the jigsaw classroom’ (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes
& Snapp, 1978) in which participants work in groups on subtasks of a larger
assignment and assemble pieces that add up to a relevant response to the overall
assignment (pre-Google, the jigsaw pieces were most often provided by the
teacher).
This and similar approaches to collaborative learning are different from what
we find in studies that focus on technology-mediated communication, social
media and new literacies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Gee & Hayes, 2011; Gee, Hull
& Lankshear, 1996; Thorne, 2009; Thorne, Black & Sykes, 2008). The distinction
between the jigsaw approach and collaborative approaches has been explicitly
articulated by Pierre Dillenbourg using the conceptual pair co-operation and
collaboration:
In cooperation, partners split the work, solve sub-tasks individually and then
assemble the partial results into the final output. In collaboration, partners do
the work ‘together’. However, some spontaneous division may occur even when
two people do really work together. (1999, p. 8)
Thus, in collaboration we find a continuous, shared focus on the whole task.

Collaboration goes beyond the individual perspective so prominent in the
co-operative approach. But such a collective focus, and, consequently, a
joint response to the problem to be solved, requires constant negotiation of
procedures and relevant strategies for meaning making on a group level. This
does not exclude a division of labour – everybody cannot do everything – but the
participants always relate to the totality of the task and where they can connect
their own contributions to the overall task and relate their own contributions to
the multivoicedness (Bakhtin, 1979/2000) of their peers. This is a most important
distinction when we turn to the empirical data from the wiki studies.
In research the distinction has consequences for the unit of analysis. In
studies of co-operation the unit of analysis can be the individual. Studies of
collaboration are often anchored in social and cultural theories of learning
and cognition and where dialogism (e.g. Bakhtin, 1979/2000; Wertsch, 1998),
artefact-mediated development (e.g. Roth & Lee, 2007; Säljö, 1999; Vygotsky,
1978) and distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995) constitute established
approaches. In studies of collaboration, processes of collective cognition and
joint meaning making are in focus. In order to avoid this remaining a ‘black
box’ we need to understand how agents who engage in such processes interact
over time and how they make use of available cultural resources. Such processes
must also be related to the contexts they are part of, whether it is the co-located
classroom or the distributed digital network, learners’ lifeworlds (Cope &
Kalantzis, 2000) or all of these. Such complexity requires that we develop
research designs and use a unit of analysis that makes it possible to capture
technology-mediated interaction.
Collaborating through digital and networked technologies also affords
potential for developing new knowledge. The reason is found in the fact that
through networks an indefinite number of human and material resources can
be rapidly linked and combined (Akkerman et al., 2005; Hakkarainen, Palonen,
Paavola & Lehtinen, 2004; Mäkitalo-Siegl, Zottmann, Kaplan & Fischer, 2010;
Sawyer, 2007). Combining networked technologies, powerful broadband
infrastructure, web 2.0 applications and social media affords a communicative
ecology characterized by many-to-many situations and trajectories. Mass
collaboration is possible on a much larger scale and in modes that we are not
yet accustomed to, at least not in schooling. In collaboration on such a scale we
find emerging practices that have not yet been ‘didacticized’, that is, they have
not been identified, cultivated and put to systematic use in order to support
learning and teaching. Nevertheless, our learners must be prepared to work
and contribute in such environments whether they materialize in the form of
large organizations, networks of expertise, and local and global communities.
Recent research also indicates that mass collaboration holds rich opportunities
for taking on especially complex tasks (Kafai & Peppler, 2011).
By examining various forms of collaborative learning we have seen
how collective knowledge advancement, at a group level as well as at a mass
collaboration level, challenges today’s and tomorrow’s classroom practices. The
first question in the introduction concerned how we can understand learning
as collaboration when digital networks afford (and constrain) group efforts.
The response has been to evoke the notion of collaboration but also to extend
it to the mass collaboration level. This approach does not mean that we neglect
the contributions from individuals but that neither collaborative processes nor
results can be reduced to an individual level (Stahl, 2006). Tensions may remain
between individual and collective levels, for example, regarding ‘ownership’
and assessment of contributions. This represents a considerable challenge when
making collective cognition and communication part of the formal educational
repertoire. The following section summarizes some attempts.
Why collaborate? Some responses from research
With the previous conceptual discussion of concepts as a backdrop it is worth

asking whether research on collaborative learning gives us any indication as to
its potential, to what extent collaboration is conducive to learning, how such

learning materializes and if there is an aggregated result that ideally amounts to
more than the sum of individual contributions. Such questions are among the
most ambitious and challenging within the learning sciences (Stahl, 2006) as
they involve cognitive processes that comprise participants’ interactions that are
linguistic and communicative and include their use of available cultural tools.
Sawyer (2006, 2007) shows how more than 20 years of educational research on
collaborative discourse has documented the value of collaboration for learners as
well as teachers. This pertains to a number of various school subjects such as for
example, mathematics, biology, computer science, and in a number of language
arts, also when we include comparative studies where individual and more
competitive educational settings have been included. However, it is essential
that collaborative learning needs clear objectives, structure and coaching. It is
never sufficient to establish a group of learners and assume that learning will
take place.
Similar findings are presented by Hämäläinen and Vähäsantanen (2011).
In a survey of 193 studies of possible links between collaborative learning
and creativity they find that ‘orchestration’ – here understood as, on the one
hand, a balance between design, structure and leadership and, on the other,
improvisation, flexibility and openness – is crucial for learners’ knowledge
advancement. The Finnish researchers found that collaborative learning can be
developed through object oriented activities, well-designed tasks, productive
interactions and available resources such as digital technologies. However, they
also found that teachers who engage in and commit themselves to such practices
are often deterred by rigid administrative routines and control regimes, lack of
institutional trust and a shared space for pedagogical exploration.
Collaboration in practice: The TWEAK project
In light of such findings I now turn to a longitudinal research project in two

Norwegian senior high schools where collaborative technologies in the shape
of wikis were used. Between 2006 and 2011 a series of interventions resulted
in transformation of tasks, tools, activities and assessment approaches. Among
the technologies that support collaborative learning we – a team of researchers,
programmers and web designers together with teachers and learners – chose to
use wikis. The reason we opted for wikis was that they are widely used across
professions, they are simple and flexible to use, often based on open-source code
and therefore lend themselves to further development and rest on principles of
reciprocity among its users (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001). To start with, we tested
a series of collectively oriented tasks. Next, we developed the wiki according to
needs and requirements we could identify from the first phase. Also, assessment
of individual as well as collective production made this necessary.
Detailed studies of separate interventions and pursuit of specific research
questions are described elsewhere (see the references listed in Table 4.1 below).
Table 4.1 seeks to summarize five interventions, mostly initiated by researchers
but often in collaboration with teachers. These interventions came about partly
as a need to change the tasks given to learners, partly by developing the wiki
with certain features that made the collaborative activities more visible for
those involved. Further, Table 4.1 shows how these interventions were driven by
different research questions (column 2), a brief description of central activities
(column 3) and findings (column 4). As human interaction and the use of
artefacts constitute the analytical focus of the research project we have drawn on
activity theoretical and dialogic perspectives (Bakhtin, 1979/2000, 1986/2004;
Engeström, 1987; Engeström, Miettinen & Punamäki, 1999; Hauge, Lund &
Vestøl, 2007; Wertsch, 1991, 1998). Activity theory was chosen because it links
mediated collaborative human activity to a collective motive or object. In the case
of the TWEAK project, such objects would typically be relevant collaborative
responses to tasks with high ecological validity. Many of the research questions
(column 2 in Table 4.1) pertain to the role of mediating artefacts (the wiki),
how division of labour emerged and how such mediated collaboration was
conducive (or not) to object oriented activity. Dialogic perspectives guided
the more interaction oriented studies (Jordan & Henderson, 1995) where we
sought to find participatory patterns in how learners engaged in many-to-many
communicative actions.
Table 4.1 constitutes a synthesis of five years of research into learners’ and
teachers’ use of collaborative technologies. Throughout the TWEAK project we
aimed to see tasks, activities, technologies and assessment as an amalgamation
and not as separate entities, except for analytical purposes. An intervention in
the form of, for example, introducing new technological features in the wiki
should not merely be seen as a technological concern; it is intimately related
to the tasks the learners met and how their teachers could assess the outcomes.
Based on these five interventions we arrived at four cumulative findings which
will be discussed immediately following the table.
84
Table 4.1 Overview of research questions, activities and findings from five interventions pertaining to the use of wikis
Intervention Research questions Activities. Analytical focus Findings
1 To what extent can a wiki Subject: EFL. Two tasks: (1) Learners We found two main types of collaboration: (1) co-located, tightly
contribute to collective collectively convey how young knit collaboration in pairs or small groups, (2) loosely knit
knowledge advancement? Norwegians perceive the United States networking on wiki contributions that relate to the larger task.
How can teachers take part (duration: two weeks). (2) Learners build Collaborating in a wiki entails an epistemology anchored in
Online Teaching and Learning

in wiki-based activities? a virtual ‘typical British town’ in the wiki collective knowledge production. This is quite challenging
(duration: one semester). Production for learners as well as teachers as it represents a shift from
is extensive but it is difficult to keep a an epistemology anchored in individual knowledge (re-)
shared object in focus. Activities are production.
analysed in light of different types of The wiki environment does not afford a natural space for the teacher
communities of practice. who easily loses touch with what learners are doing. The teacher
needs to design her-/himself into the activities.
Detailed analysis: Lund & Smørdal, 2006.
2 What is the role of a Subject: EFL. Identical tasks as above. We identified tensions between the educational system’s traditional
wiki when fostering Learners contribute to improving each emphasis on graded, individual efforts and the networked society’s
collaborative competence other’s linguistic competence but hesitate emphasis on collective and distributed production.
in foreign language in revising the content submitted by Collaborative technologies such as wikis are conducive to knowledge
learning? peers. The analytic focus is on collective advancement and linguistic development by affording an extended
What types of interactions processes and mutual development of repertoire of interactions.
do learners engage in? learning communities as well as language It is essential to redefine the relationship between task types (that
communities. have a collective orientation), available resources (material as well
as social), and assessment types and criteria.
Detailed analysis: Lund, 2006, 2008.
3. How do relations between Subject: EFL. Learners examine how Collective knowledge advancement takes place locally in pairs or small
tasks and available Anglo-American culture manifests itself in groups as well as in the larger learning community. It is difficult for
resources influence the world. They resort to a series of diverse learners (and teachers) to be equally aware of the two levels.
collective knowledge collaborative strategies, also when the wiki There is a need to develop task types and assessment criteria that
advancement? breaks down immediately before they are capture individual as well as local and global activities.
What types of participatory to present their work for the class. The Individual and local contributions must be assessed depending on
patterns emerge? analytic focus is on how learners make use how they relate to contributions from others as well as how they
of collaborative technologies in order to relate to the total, aggregated result.
respond to a collectively oriented task. Detailed analysis: Lund & Rasmussen, 2008.
4. How can researchers Subject: Modern History. Design of The co-design resulted in technological development as well
and teachers jointly technological environments (re-design as pedagogical practices conducive to collaborative learning,
Collaboration Unpacked
design learning of a wiki) and pedagogical activities including assessment types that capture how individual
environments conducive that support and boost collaborative contributions relate to the collectively oriented task.
to collaborative learning learning. The analytic focus is on Teachers experience a dilemma: when struggling with trying to
and collective cognition? co-design – a process where agents fulfil innovative ambitions and being accountable towards existing
from diverse activity systems (teachers practices it is tempting to give up the former.
and researchers) develop a shared, Detailed analysis: Lund, Rasmussen & Smørdal, 2009.
technological–pedagogical object.
5. How do teachers work Subject: Modern History. A team of There is a mismatch between the information ecology of the
in order to develop teachers discuss and develop task types networked society and the textbook tradition.
collectively oriented that reflect competence needed in the In traditional tasks there is a strong connection between tasks and
tasks? networked society. Learners work with textbooks; it is a ‘closed universe’. In collectively oriented tasks
tasks in different ways, e.g. by recreating learners encounter an ‘open universe’ that invites exploration,
the political discourse during the Cold negotiations and to make meaning of fragmented and partly
War and asking a multicultural cohort to contradictory information.
produce a jointly written immigrant story. Collectively oriented tasks can suspend the dichotomy between
The analytical focus is on tensions between learning and teaching. Teacher and learner roles shift rapidly.
traditional, co-located and networked, Detailed analysis: Lund & Hauge, 2011; Lund & Rasmussen, 2010.
distributed practices (up to 120 learners
simultaneously in the wiki). Implications
85
for teacher education are discussed.
Discussion: Four cumulative findings
From the summary of interventions and findings in Table 4.1 I seek to respond to
the second question asked in the introduction about the pedagogical implications
when network-mediated collaboration is integrated in schooling. Although I have
made a point of emphasizing the unity of tasks, activities, tools and assessment,
this discussion will for analytical purposes treat the cumulative findings (cf. the
introduction) separately and connect them to certain challenges – not least for
teacher education.
The need to match collaborative tasks and available cultural tools

Historically, school tasks have been individually oriented, closely linked to
material in a textbook, and learners have been assessed according to their
ability to ‘solve’ the task isolated from human assistance or tools available in
the out-of-school environment. This tradition has over recent decades been
modified to include use of tools (dictionaries, calculators) but at exams learners’
access to the internet is still uncommon.2 The combination of collaborative
activity and access to available and relevant resources places the traditional
approach to problem solving under quite some pressure; ‘The explosion of new
social network technologies has highlighted the awkward relationship between
new “21st century” media practices and existing educational systems’ (Hickey,
Honeyford, Clinton & McWilliams, 2010) and, consequently, ‘current methods
of testing are incapable of validly measuring sophisticated intellectual and
psychological performances’ (Clarke-Midura & Dede, 2010, p. 310).
But if tasks are to have legitimacy and validity in the networked society they
must correspond to curricular aims as well as learners’ lifeworlds. To sustain
test situations where learners are deprived of human or technological assistance
will violate their ecological validity and fail to foster the competences required
in the twenty-first century. Consequently we need to approach task types and
structures with fresh eyes. If a task can be solved without extensive collaboration
and without the use of networked technologies it does not make much sense to
introduce such artefacts.
In column 3 (Activities and analytical focus) in Table 4.1 we can see that
learners were asked to take on tasks that are too extensive, difficult or complex
to be met at an individual level, for example, by ‘building’ a typical English
town in the wiki, complete with a history, population, vital communal services,
business life and educational services, and so on. The tasks we designed for
the TWEAK project built on O’Neil, Chuang and Chung (2003) who define a
collaborative task as ‘a task that requires that no individual has all the resources
and it is unlikely that one single participant can solve the problem or reach the
goals without at least some contributions from others in the group’ (p. 366). This
represents a discontinuity of the traditional ‘task universe’ which builds on a
strong connection between task and textbook, a universe that has only allowed
for limited access to human and material resources. This is a ‘closed universe’
in the sense that it requires recognizable skills and competences on, mostly, an
individual level. The solutions to such tasks are mostly known or predefined, and
they can be controlled against accountable and dependable sources. Through
teacher education and textbook practices teachers are socialized into this task
universe.
Networked technologies, social media and web 2.0 applications represent
an ‘open universe’ which invites and requires exploration, negotiation and
competence in making sense of fragmented, often unaccountable or even
contradictory information. If we merely copy the task culture from the ‘closed
universe’ into the ‘open universe’ it will result in copy-and-paste practices, simply
because such tasks can be ‘solved’ that way with minimal effort. For learners, the
aim of the task will continue to be understood as finding the ‘correct’ answer,
something which already has been done by others and which can easily be found
on the net. Still, it should be noted that not all copy-and-paste practices amount
to blind and senseless plagiarism. Studies show that many learners (also quite
young ones) use this as a strategy for problem solving where bits and pieces
of information harvested from the net are put into ‘scrapbooks’ (usually a
temporary word processor document) to be reorganized or synthesized as part
of responding to the given task (Rasmussen, 2005; Rasmussen et al., 2003).
This growing concern with matching tasks and available cultural tools finds
its historical parallel in Vygotsky’s (1978) principle of double stimulation where
the first stimulus is the task to be negotiated and the second stimulus a ‘neutral’
artefact that is appropriated by the learner in order to assist her/him in a cognitive
effort. In networked and digital environments, however, learners have to
appropriate various complex artefacts and practices and eventually use them as a
second stimulus. Thus, we need to align the principle of double stimulation with
situations where we have a series of complex tools as second stimulus, instead
of a neutral relatively stable tool as was the case in Vygotsky’s experiments.
Investigating which tools are actually picked up and appropriated by learners
and how they put them to use for object-oriented endeavours is a foundational
issue (Lund & Rasmussen, 2008). According to Ritella and Hakkarainen (2012)
investigating students’ and teachers’ strategies of such tool selection and tool use
also appears to be a promising area of research.
The need to align individual and collective contributions

Closely related to the matching of tasks and tools is the need to align individual
contributions to the collectively produced wiki. Learners need to demonstrate
how their individual contributions are relevant to the larger, collective
perspective and also how their contributions relate to contributions from others.
For teachers, it is also essential to be able to identify both levels for purposes of
assessment.
Our research revealed that it is challenging for learners (and also for teachers)
to at any time be aware of how individual and local work (pair, small group)
relates to the collective level and the global production. This is a critical and
often decisive factor when learners meet collectively oriented tasks. When we
observed learners in such situations over time, an activity pattern emerged,
which can roughly be outlined as follows:
ll
Learners spent considerable time approaching the task. This implied opting
for certain elements they wanted to work on, teaming up with classmates,
planning ahead, considering relevant resources and loosely agree on
division of labour. The teacher was very much present and assisting learners
in this phase, but it still proved to be taxing for the learners.
ll
Crucial moments appeared as learners tried to juxtapose their individual
or pair/small group work with the emerging wiki content produced by all
learners together. This proved to be an exercise of communicative awareness.
In this phase of the process, co-ordination of contributions was essential,
usually by making links between and commenting on contributions from
classmates. It resulted in revised contributions but learners hesitated in
revising others’ content while readily improving each other’s linguistic
productions. At this stage the teacher tended to lose sight of what the
individual learner was doing, and without a teacher present, learners could
easily become lost or isolated in their local production. This led directly to
an intervention in the form of a redesign of the wiki and the feature of the
‘activity map’ (see intervention no. 4 in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1).
ll
In practice we experienced how some learners became peripheral to the
totality of the tasks. In interviews with the participants we learned that
the notion of private ownership to written production is deeply etched
into schooling, the question of different epistemologies loom large in the
background. This is a considerable challenge for teacher education when
preparing practitioners for collaborative and distributed practices.
Figure 4.1 Activity map with icons for different types of contributions and diagonal
connectors between collaborating participants. The pop-up window shows the
contribution (e.g. the difference between the original and a revised text) and a white
space for commentary. In this case, the teacher makes a comment on a learner’s analysis
of a movie used in the school subject, English as a foreign language.
Depending on the nature of the task, the outcome at a collective level could
be described as a result that ideally amounted to more than the sum of the
individual contributions. In other words, a possible synergy and aggregated
result was achieved as learners revised contributions, linked between them and
added comments. However, such an aggregated result failed to materialize in a
task where learners were asked to produce a collective perception of the United
States. Faced with this task, they (individually, in pairs or in small groups) typically
produced somewhat unconnected wiki pages on US politics, the entertainment
industry, famous people and historical events, and so on. On the other hand, the
construction of the English town in the wiki produced an aggregated, collective
result and where the various aspects of the town were nicely linked to constitute a
whole. The same was the case in a task where learners adopted the political views
of the United States and the Soviet Union and re-enacted the argumentation
from the Cold War. In this latter case the log files indicated a ‘lived’ experience
as well as an increased awareness of argumentation and political rhetoric.
After the first interventions in the TWEAK project, researchers, programmers,
web designers and teachers joined forces in redesigning one of the wikis
(Confluence3), we found to be suitable for our needs. In particular the need for
an ‘activity map’ – a feature that could track the individual trajectories as well as
the collaborative patterns – arose (see Figure 4.1). In this way learners as well as
teachers could keep up with what the others were doing at all times while they
could see how contributions related to each other and the overall task. Each
time a learner contributed in the form of a new wiki page, a revision, link, a
comment or a ‘label’ (key words) materialized in the form of a specific icon and
was assigned to the learner involved. The icons added up to a horizontal line
which chronologically represented the learner’s trajectory over time; a feature
called ‘swim lanes’ by the participants. Whenever a learner (or teacher) placed
the cursor over an icon, a pop-up window showed the contribution and at the
same time offered a small window for comments from the teacher or peers. In
addition to the horizontal, individual trajectories, the activity map also showed
the connecting lines between the one who made a comment or link and the
one who was on the receiving end. Thus, diagonal lines added up to a graphical
representation of wiki collaboration over time. By zooming in on a short and
intense collaborative spell or zooming out in order to map collaboration over,
for example, several weeks, participants could easily keep track of the collective
efforts; who was involved, to what extent, and in what ways.
The need to develop tasks that draw on curricular goals

as well as learners’ lifeworlds
The activity map made it easier for the teacher to assess what was going on in
the wiki but also for the learners to be involved in the assessment practices that
developed. We introduced two fundamental principles that accompanied every
task. Learners were always asked to demonstrate the following:
ll
How my contribution(s) relate to the overall task. Point to the relevance.
ll How my contribution(s) relate to (some of) the contributions from my
peers. Point to the relevance.
These two questions were usually answered by learners as they made oral
presentations for the class of their work in the wiki, accompanied by PowerPoint
slides or some other visual aids. While the tasks developed by teachers and
researchers closely adhered to aims in the Norwegian subject curriculum
for EFL, we quickly discovered how learners, in their wiki work as well as in
their presentations, drew on their own contexts, their out-of-school social and
cultural experiences, their lifeworlds (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). Where there
were connections or contrasts between curricular aims and learners’ lifeworlds,
learners were invited to reflect on this. For example, during their work of
developing the ‘typical English town’, a small group of boys started describing
a part of the city (‘Southside’) dominated by gangs named ‘the Gatblasters’, ‘El
Muertos’, and the like. One of the classmates intervened by using the comment
function in the wiki to produce the following statement: ‘I think you should swap
the american [sic] gangsters with some more typical Englishmen [sic]. More like
the characters in the Football Factory movie.’ This learner used the wiki feature
to impose a control mechanism and her/his reference to a movie dealing with
English football violence proved to be a relevant comment displaying cultural
competence.
This and similar instances prompted a task that built more directly on learners’
local contexts. At one of the schools where the TWEAK project was conducted,
approximately 70 per cent of the learners had an immigrant background, quite
a few being second- or even third-generation immigrants to Norway. We asked
them to write about how they or (by interviewing) their parents/grandparents/
significant others experienced settling in Norway. Learners from Norwegian
descent were likewise asked to interview family members or others how they
experienced immigration to the areas they lived in. As the narratives and interviews
materialized, learners linked texts and parts of texts where they found similarities,
contrasts and generally issues that were illustrated from different points of
view. Thus, a dialogical and multivoiced text emerged in the wiki, mediated by
learners’ opportunities to draw on their lifeworlds as well as linguistic practices
that transcended the curricular aims. Such ‘hybrid’ and ‘3rd space practices’
(Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, Alvarez & Chiu, 1999; Kostogriz, 2005) seemed to
give usually reticent learners a voice. Also, the teachers who knew their learners
well pointed to the fact that those who collaborated online were not necessarily
the same who stuck together during breaks or outside of school.
In sum, when access to networked resources is sought, combined with
curricular accountability as well as the educational affordances found in learners’
lifeworlds, we found that our tasks tended to become increasingly meta-oriented;
that is, they activated scenarios and alternatives, hypotheses, connections and
correlations, and often an element of making syntheses out of fragmented
and even contradictory information. Along with the need to match tasks and
tools and align individual and collective contributions, we found that blending
curricular accountability with lifeworld contexts seemed conducive to learners’
communicative development. Tasks that can be characterized as ‘meta-tasks’

seem to lend themselves to technology-mediated collaborative learning.
Traditional teacher and learner roles are not discrete entities

Connected to the previous point, possibly as a consequence, we saw how
traditional separation of learner and teacher roles was suspended; learners
temporarily took on teacher roles and teachers increasingly acknowledged the
value of this. Collectively oriented tasks tend to blur the teaching–learning
dichotomy.4 In collaborative and networked learning environments teachers
as well as learners tend to commute between such positions. For example,
immediately after the first iteration (in Table 4.1) learners were asked to
participate in a survey and to complete statements such as ‘I liked working in
a wiki because . . .’, or ‘I did not like working in a wiki because . . .’. We received
responses such as, ‘I like this because it is a win/win situation. To help others and
get help back is nice. Co-operating is very important in our daily lives and our
future jobs!’; ‘We never worked alone, and many helped me with my work’ and
‘Because then I don’t have to be afraid of making a mistake ’cause [sic] there will
always be someone there to clear it up!’
The statements reflect situations where learners momentarily acted as teachers.
Together with the collaborative patterns revealed by the activity map (Figure 4.1)
we see how learners commuted between responding to a task as learners while
extending such a response to include peer support and, indeed, accomplishing
in promoting inclusive education where teachers and learners produce together
(Tharp, Estrada, Dalton & Yamauchi, 2000). However, and in accordance with
Vygotskian pedagogy, teachers have a particular responsibility for scaffolding
and orchestrating activities. Immediately after the first wiki iteration, the teacher
involved in a videotaped interview offered the following observations:
I lost the learners . . . it was difficult to trace, for me as a teacher . . . and I felt that
I lost the learners, I did not know where to go in order to guide them . . . because
in general there is no extensive space for a teacher [in a wiki], it becomes a
separate world . . . they [learners] tend to disappear into their separate worlds and
it becomes difficult for me to guide them and maintain my job as a knowledge
provider.. . . I don’t know what is the end product, what I am supposed to assess
at the end.
This teacher points to several problems which in sum make her feel unconnected
to the wiki work of the learners. This teacher’s voice articulates many of the
profession’s core practices and how they suddenly become disrupted: a felt
presence for the learners, close supervision and monitoring of learners’ activities,
providing knowledge and being responsible for assessment. Such essential
practices became threatened in the wiki environment with the result that the
learners ‘tend to disappear into their separate worlds’ as this teacher aptly puts
it. As it was not sufficient merely to observe only parts of what was going on in
the wiki (the production was substantial) the teachers involved in the project
became directly instrumental in developing the activity map feature. For them,
the situation as summarized by the teacher (above) was a learning experience.
TWEAK synthesis: Interaction and transformation
Let us briefly consider the mechanisms at work behind the teachers’ description
in the previous section. Metcalfe’s law (Tongia & Wilson, 2007) has often been
used to document the dramatic increase in the number of relations between
participants engaged in networking. Mathematically, the number of relations is
expressed as follows:
n(n – 1)/2
This means that if we take the number of members (n), multiply by the number
minus one and divide by two we get the number of possible relations in a network.
In a class of 30 learners the number of possible relations will be 30(30 – 1)/2 =
435. In the TWEAK project we had up to 120 learners in the wiki (4 classes in
Modern History) which results in 7,140 possible relations. No wonder the teacher
felt she lost the learners and struggled to find a space for her own professional
practices like she was accustomed to from the co-located classroom.
Teachers and student–teachers are not prepared to work under such
conditions. If the potential of digital networks is to be realized, teachers need to
meet and take part in the practices that are emerging and given opportunities
to design learning environments and trajectories conducive to learning. We still
know little as to what this entails, although work life increasingly depends on
collaboration (Sawyer, 2007; Tapscott & Williams, 2006). If teachers are not given
support and guidance in developing such designs they will risk losing sight of
learners and new learning as reflected in the teacher’s statement quoted above.
Networked, distributed collaboration necessitates technologies that support
and regulate such processes. But technologies alone do not guarantee learning
outcomes. No matter how sophisticated the application and how quick and
reliable the digital infrastructure is, the need for a teacher’s presence and
leadership is crucial. Within a sociocultural perspective, this view of the teacher
as the most important scaffolding element can be traced back to Vygotsky
(1978) who shows development depends on instruction or assistance from
one or more knowledgeable peers. Whereas teachers have relied on experience
from co-located classrooms, they now encounter very different challenges in
networked and distributed settings.
This chapter has sought to argue that when digital and networked
technologies impact communicative practices in classrooms we need to study
the interrelationship between tasks, tools and activities. Often, we find studies
that are confined to examining the possible effect of one specific technology in a
particular school subject, the time spent on teaching with or without technologies
or activities that have a limited duration. This means that subjects, learning and
teaching are treated as stable elements while technology seems to be perceived as
a tool that may enhance learning or ‘fail’ to do so. In the latter case investments
in technologies are perceived to be a waste of time and money.
But digital and networked technologies cannot be regarded as mere tools or
instruments that ideally result in ‘better’ or ‘more effective’ learning. Over time
we see that the use of such technologies transform existing practices and bring
about new ones. The current chapter has argued that networked collaborative
technologies afford transcending many of the restrictions found in traditional
knowledge production. Based on the findings from the TWEAK project we
would argue that the affordances of such transformed and emerging practices
need to be addressed in teacher education. However, there is also a tension
between individual and collective knowledge advancement. Such tensions need
to become central in teacher education as well as in-service training.
The TWEAK project also taught us much about how teachers, researchers
and programmers can collaborate in designing new technologies as well new
practices for the knowledge society by developing tasks and tools as part of the
larger learning environment and in a learning trajectory perspective. In this
collaboration, specific and proprietary interests converged in a shared objective:
a praxis that makes collective knowledge advancement feasible and relevant
for schooling. Such interdisciplinary collaboration often seems to be a missing
link between the domains of research and the practice. Kollar (2010) points
to the fact that such a missing link would be inconceivable within domains
such as medicine and how separation results in attempts at forcing potentially
innovative practices into existing structures and procedures. The consequence
is that teachers and policy makers may perceive technologies as failing to serve
education or prove to be downright counter-productive.
Practicing their craft in networked environments represents no modest

challenge for language educators as well as for learners. At the same time, we
see increased opportunities as new communicative ‘outputs’ (Crystal, 2011)
emerge. Implicitly, our findings also point to an imminent need for rethinking
assessment types and criteria with high ecological validity for situations where
networked technologies function as representations of knowledge as well as
learning environments. We would argue that here is considerable – but exciting –
developmental work awaiting teachers as well as teacher educators.
Notes
1 TWEAK is short for Tweaking Wikis in Education for the Advancement of

Knowledge. The research project was conducted at InterMedia research centre,
University of Oslo, between 2006 and 2011.
2 In Norway spring 2012 the National Directorate for Education and Training opened up
for an experiment in which some EFL classes were allowed to have unrestricted access
to the internet during national exams. Preliminary results show that learners as well as
teachers were very satisfied and that, contrary to common assumptions, learners with
grades below average benefited more than those with grades above average.
3 www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/overview
4 Note that Vygotsky used the Russian term obuchenie – a dialectic concept for an
activity that unifies teaching and learning. This has caused quite a lot of problems
when translating the Russian term to languages (e.g. English as well as Norwegian)
where teaching and learning are conceptualized as distinct entities (Cole, 2009; Lund
& Hauge, 2011).
References
Akkerman, S., Van Bossche, P., Admiraal, W., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Simons, R.-J., &
Kirschner, P. (2005). Shared mind in groups: cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives.
Paper presented at the Eleventh Biennial European Conference for Research on
Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, CY.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bakhtin, M. (1979/2000). The dialogic imagination. Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
— (1986/2004). Speech genres & other late essays. Trans. V. W. McGee (9th edn). Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Clarke-Midura, J., & Dede, C. (2010). Assessment, technology, and change. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 309–28.
Cole, M. (2009). The perils of translation: a first step in reconsidering Vygotsky’s theory
of development in relation to formal education. [Editorial]. Mind, Culture and
Activity, 16(4), 291–95.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds) (2000). Multiliteracies. Literacy learning and the design
of social futures. London and New York: Routledge.
Crystal, D. (2011). Internet linguistics: a student guide. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In P. Dillenbourg
(Ed.), Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–16).
Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.
Durkheim, E. (1898/1974). Individual and collective representations. Trans.
D. F. Pocock. In C. Bouglé (Ed.), Sociology and Philosophy (pp. 1–34). New York &
London: Free Press.
Dypvik, A. (2011, 4. januar). – Gruppearbeid er ein katastrofe, Dag og Tid. Retrieved
from http://framtida.no/articles/gruppearbeid-er-ein-katastrofe
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: an activity – theoretical approach to
developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit.
— (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström,
R. Miettinen & R. Punamäki (Eds), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38).
Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. (Eds) (1999). Perspectives on activity
theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gee, J., & Hayes, E.(2011). Language and learning in the digital age. New York: Routledge.
Gee, J., Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order: behind the language of the
new capitalism. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., Alvarez, H., & Chiu, M. (1999). Building a culture
of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory into Practice, 38, 87–93.
Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of
networked expertise. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Earli.
Hare, A., Borgatta, E., & Bales, R. (Eds) (1955). Small groups: studies in social
interaction. New York: Alfred A. Knops.
Hauge, T., Lund, A., & Vestøl, J. (2007). Undervisning i endring: IKT, aktivitet, design
[Teaching in transformation: ICT, activity, design]. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
Hickey, D., Honeyford, M., Clinton, K. A., & McWilliams, J. (2010). Participatory
assessment of 21st century proficiencies. In V. Schute & B. Becker (Eds), Innovative
assessment in the 21st century: supporting educational needs (pp. 107–38). New York:
Springer.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hämäläinen, R., & Vähäsantanen, K. (2011). Theoretical and pedagogical perspectives
on orchestrating creativity and collaborative learning. [Review]. Educational
Research Review, 6(3), 169–84.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: foundation and practice.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.
Kafai, Y., & Peppler, K. (2011). Beyond small groups: new opportunities for research
in computer-supported collective learning. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake &
N. Law (Eds), CSCL 2011 conference proceedings. Volume 1 – long papers. Connecting
computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and practice (Vol. 1 – Long
papers, pp. 17–24). Hong Kong: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Kollar, I. (2010). Turning the classroom of the future into the classroom of the present.
In K. Mäkitalo-Siegl, J. Zottmann, F. Kaplan & F. Fischer (Eds), Classroom of the
future: orchestrating collaborative spaces (pp. 245–55). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Kostogriz, A. (2005). Dialogical imagination of (inter)cultural space: rethinking the
semiotic ecology of second language and literacy learning. In J. K. Hall, G. Vitanova
& L. Marchenkova (Eds), Dialogue with Bakhtin on second and foreign language
learning (pp. 189–210). Mahwah, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: quick collaboration on the web.
Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Lund, A. (2005). Collective epistemologies in an upper secondary school. A preliminary
analysis. Paper presented at the Earli conference, Nicosia, CY.
— (2006). WIKI i klasserommet: individuelle og kollektive praksiser [WIKI in the
classroom: individual and collective practices]. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 90(4), 274–88.
— (2008). Wikis: a collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(1), 35–54.
Lund, A., & Hauge, T. (2011). Designs for teaching and learning in technology-rich
learning environments. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 4, 258–71.
Lund, A., & Rasmussen, I. (2008). The right tool for the wrong task? Match and
mismatch between first and second stimulus in double stimulation. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 25–51.
— (2010). Tasks 2.0: education meets social computing and mass collaboration. In
C. Crawford, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price & R. Weber
(Eds), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education
international conference 2010 (pp. 4058–65). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Smørdal, O. (2009). Joint designs for working in wikis: a
case of practicing across settings and modes of work. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards,
Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher & S. Ludvigsen (Eds), Activity theory in practice:
promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 207–30). Oxon, UK and New
York: Routledge.
Lund, A., & Smørdal, O. (2006). Is there a space for the teacher in a wiki? Proceedings
of the 2006 international symposium on wikis (WikiSym ’06) (pp. 37–46). Odense,
Denmark: ACM Press.
Marx, K. (1867/1983). Kapitalen, bind I [Capital, volume I]. Trans. E. Kielland &
S. Rafoss. Oslo: Oktober.
Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Zottmann, J., Kaplan, F., & Fischer, F. (Eds) (2010). Classroom of the
future: orchestrating collaborative spaces. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
O’Neil, H., Chuang, S.-H., & Chung, G. (2003). Issues in the computer-based
assessment of collaborative problem solving. Assessment in Education, 10(3), 361–73.
Rasmussen, I. (2005). Project work and ICT. A study of learning as trajectories of
participation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo, Oslo.
Rasmussen, I., Krange, I., & Ludvigsen, S. (2003). The process of understanding the
task: how is agency distributed between students, teachers and representations
in technology-rich learning environments? International Journal of Educational
Research, 39(8), 839–49.
Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated
learning: from double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 239–58.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). ‘Vygotsky’s Neglected legacy’: cultural-historical
activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.
Sawyer, R. (2006). Analyzing collaborative discourse. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The
Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 187–204). Cambridge, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
— (2007). Group genius: the creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: computer support for building collaborative knowledge.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Säljö, R. (1999). Learning as the use of tools. a sociocultural perspective on the
human-technology link. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds), Learning with computers.
Analysing productive interaction (pp. 144–61). New York: Routledge.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2006). Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes
everything. London: Portfolio/Penguin.
Tharp, R., Estrada, P., Dalton, S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed.
Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Thorne, S. (2009). ‘Community’, semiotic flows, and mediated contribution to activity.
Language Teaching, 42(1), 81–94.
Thorne, S., Black, R., & Sykes, J. (2008). Second language use, socialization, and
learning in internet interest communities and online gaming. Modern Language
Journal, 93(1), 802–21.
Tongia, R., & Wilson, E. (2007). Turning Metcalfe on his head: the multiple costs
of network exclusion. Paper 120. Department of Engineering and Public Policy.
Carnegie Institute of Technology.
Valsiner, J., & van der Veer, R. (2000). The social mind. Construction of the idea.
— (1986). Thought and language. Trans. A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action.
— (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5
Synchronous Online Language Teaching:

Strategies to Support Learner Development
Iryna Kozlova and Evon Zundel
Online learning has become more mainstream in the academic community in

the past several years for a number of reasons. For many students, it increases
the educational opportunities they otherwise may not have when specific classes
are not offered at their educational institution. Further, it reduces conflicts
in students’ schedules (Picciano, Seaman, Shea & Swan, 2012) as it provides
flexibility for learners to participate from any location and at any time (Garrison,
Anderson & Archer, 2000). Another reason why learners might consider online
learning as a positive option is that contemporary web conferencing applications
such as Wimba Classroom, Elluminate Live! and Blackboard Collaborate Web
Conferencing can be used in supporting increased student participation in
class activities. These applications feature multimodal tools that allow many
participants to take part in activities at the same time through synchronous
multimodalities.
Sociocultural theory purports that language learning is socially mediated
and language is both the object of learning and the tool that assists in language
development (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). From this perspective, students’
participation in collaborative dialogues with their peers and the instructor
becomes essential for language learning. While traditional classroom interaction
affords one student talking at a time, web conferencing applications allow
for simultaneous contributions from multiple students as they can engage in
instructional conversations with their teacher and classmates utilizing both
audio- and text-based communication channels.
In this qualitative study, we analysed 25 archived synchronous sessions from

5 different foreign language instructors. Analyses of these sessions were aligned
with interview and questionnaire data to understand how and why instructors
engage multiple students in instructional conversations through multimodalities.
The instructional conversations examine and instructor commentaries about
them provide illustration of how teachers guide learners to simultaneously
participate in construction, reconstruction and transformation of situated
meanings by communicating in multimodalities.
Sociocultural approaches see learning as socially mediated and occurring
within the zone of proximal development defined as ‘the distance between
the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving
and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving
under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’ (Vygotsky,
1987, italics in original). Learning is a process through which learners, with
assistance of an expert, come to understand how to solve the problem or how to
perform. According to Tharp and Gallimore (1991), teaching also ‘occurs when
performance is achieved with assistance’ (p. 3, italics in original). Thus, from a
sociocultural perspective, learning and teaching are dialogical in nature and
are rooted in the interaction between a learner and an expert. Not all types of
interaction, however, may result in learner development; only that type which
assists new skills are needed for the individual performance on similar tasks
(Ellis, 2003). Teacher–learner interaction that leads learners to building new
skills is known as scaffolding or instructional conversations defined as ‘the
questioning and sharing of ideas and knowledge that happen in conversation’
(Tharp and Gallimore, 1991, p. 5). When scaffolding occurs, the expert does not
provide answers to a learner. Instead, they invite them into a collaborative dialog
through which the learner is not only able to accomplish the task, but also gains
new skills that can be applied to a variety of similar tasks.
Due to its emphasis on learning with others in the course of achieving
a certain instructional goal, task-based approaches are compatible with
sociocultural perspectives on teaching and learning. The task as an instructional
activity is goal-oriented and ‘requires learners to process language pragmatically
in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the
correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed’ (Ellis, 2003,
p. 16). Meaning-oriented, language learning tasks may be designed to coerce
learners to use specific forms in situations resembling authentic communicative
situations and ‘can engage productive or receptive, and oral or written skills, and
also various cognitive processes’ (p. 16). Since tasks force learners to produce
Synchronous Online Language Teaching 101
language, and thereby make decisions about language use, participation in

communicative tasks provides learners with an opportunity for self-regulation
as it ‘requires the learner to mobilize and orchestrate knowledge and abilities in
a direct way which will become a catalyst for learning’ (Foley, 1991, p. 69).
While tasks, according to Foley (1991), provide learners with opportunities to
apply their knowledge to achieve performance, the same task can be accomplished
‘through different actions and with different forms of mediation’ (Lantolf, 2000,
p. 9). Because participants have different motives for accomplishing the same
task, they can perform different actions for its achievement, and their actions
‘can result in very different kinds of activity’ (Ellis, 2003, p. 185). This is shown in
the well-known example from the cross-cultural study by Wertsch, Minick and
Arns (1984, as cited in Lantolf, 2000) who compared the means of mediation
provided by Brazilian urban school teachers and rural mothers to the children
when performing the same task of copying a barnyard scene from the model.
Although the two groups achieved the same goal of copying the barnyard scene,
the task resulted in different types of activities because participants had different
motives. Since the rural mothers were motivated by the economic considerations
of error-free performance, they directed the children’s performance to avoid
errors. Although the rural children made fewer errors, they ‘failed to learn
much about how to orient themselves toward and copy models’ (Lantolf, 2000,
p. 10). The urban teachers, on the other hand, were motivated by educational
considerations of teaching children to think independently. They gave the
children strategic help and guided them through the process by scaffolding
‘which allowed the child to figure out for him- or herself what to do at each point
along the way’ (Lantolf, 2000, p. 10). This illustration suggests that in terms of
educational considerations, scaffolding is the type of activity that facilitates
learning in the process of achieving the completion of a specific task.
While uses of synchronous multimedia for language teaching are on the rise,
there has been little research on how these uses support student engagement
in instructional activities. Most studies focus on technical advantages and
disadvantages (Hampel, 2003; Wang, 2004), evaluation of technology in practice
and instructors’ and learners’ experiences (Hampel & Hauck, 2004), task design
(Hampel, 2010; Kötter, 2001; Rosell-Aguilar, 2005; Wang, 2007) and the use of
audio-channel or audio-channel supported with video for language instruction
(Ko, 2012).
This study seeks to explore (1) how online instructors use multiple modalities
to engage students in instructional conversation and (2) what factors influence
these uses.
Study
Context
Completely online foreign language courses that combine synchronous and
asynchronous learning – offered by a US-based, not-for-profit educational
organization – were the focus of the inquiry. Online real-time live sessions
were conducted using multimodal web conferencing platforms such as Wimba
Classroom and, Elluminate Live!, platforms with video- and audio-conferencing
tools, text-chat and an interactive whiteboard. Live sessions were archived by
each of the five participating instructors using an integrated recording function.
While Elluminate Live! records all features from synchronous live sessions
including the activity on participation panels, for example, raising hands,
polling, status change, displaying emotions and private chat messages, Wimba
Classroom does not save students’ messages sent to private chat.
Methodology
To examine how online instructors use multiple modalities to engage students
in instructional conversations, we watched five randomly chosen archived live
sessions from five foreign language courses, twenty-five sessions in total. The
five courses taught by five different instructors include second-year high-school
Arabic, third-year high-school German, second-semester college Japanese
and two first-year high-school Russian courses. In each of the five classes, the
participants used multiple modalities for greeting, saying good-bye, answering
routine questions requiring formulaic type responses, reporting technical
problems, making off-task comments and asking instructors questions not
directly related to the task. For the purpose of this study, we analysed only
task-based activities which required students’ performance. Participants’
interactions were transcribed using transcription conventions adapted from
Jefferson (1984; for transcription conventions see Appendix 5.1).
To handle transcriptions of instructors’ interactional practices during the
task-based activities to account for how students and the instructor collaborated
on achieving task performance, we took a Conversation Analysis approach.
Conversation was thus viewed as a collaboratively constructed product
(Schegloff, 1995). Conversational outcomes depend on how participants
interpret each others’ contributions to the talk and how with each turn they
achieve constructed meaning collaboratively. During interaction, participants
attend to visual input such as body language and eye gaze. In online environments,
these types of input are not available when the video modality is not utilized;
however, there are additional sources of input that can provide the learner
with information such as text-chat and the interactive whiteboard. To help
explain how instructors and students make meaning of their actions to achieve
performance in such environments, the slide on the whiteboard at the time of
the instructional conversation and text-chat messages were examined. Actions
such as pointing, circling, drawing and typing/writing on the whiteboard were
also noted.
While the sequential analysis of instructional conversations can explain how
performance is achieved, it is not apparent through this analysis alone why
some of the instructors utilize affordances involving multiple modalities. To
help address this question, we gave each instructor a preliminary questionnaire
to collect information about their teaching experience, training to teach
online and their uses of the synchronous multimodalities to develop students’
communicative skills. We then asked each instructor to view specific recordings
of class activities and prompted them to discuss the lesson goals, processes and
their choices of modalities during the live session.
Participants
Five instructors participated in the study. Ghada, Daniel and Julia teach Arabic,
German and Japanese respectively. Olga and Anna both teach Russian. The
instructors’ teaching experience varied. Ghada and Anna have taught online
the longest at five to ten years. Anna has taught for over ten years in a face-to-
face environment but less than five online. Daniel and Olga taught languages in
face-to-face classrooms for less than five years and online for less than a year. All
instructors received training when hired. Ghada and Olga took courses on online
pedagogy. Only Ghada was trained specifically in how to use multimodalities
when engaging students.
Data analysis and discussion

In this section, we discuss our analyses of the focal class sessions and
corresponding commentary by the instructors. It is notable that, as we worked
with each teacher, we began to see that the instructors’ theoretical perspective on
teaching and learning languages framed the types of observable tasks that took
place in the sessions.
Performance as an imitation
We observed that not all of the instructors used multimodalities to support student
engagement; not all engage students in conversation to assist them in achieving
performance. Rather, instructors’ distinct perspectives on student performance
resulted in different practices for providing assistance. Indeed, some instructors
do not treat performance as the independent solving of linguistic problems, nor
as a collaborative effort to achieve successful performance.
For Olga, for example, performance seems to equate with students’ accurate
imitation of a linguistic structure. Her online teaching practices are geared
to providing all possible forms of support for accurate oral pronunciation.
She pronounces the utterance several times for the students and provides
romanization of the target utterances next to the Russian vocabulary on the
slide.
The slide design for the instructional task (Figure 5.1) requires students to
ask about the locations of the animals in the pictures and respond to these same
questions. This design assumes students are not expected to make decisions about
the use of language as both the questions and the answers to these questions
are visible on the slide. The questions are arranged in a column on the right
demonstrating a pattern of combining a question word Где ‘Where’ and a noun
Figure 5.1 Slide design of the speaking task from Olga’s class
following the question word. The answers are also arranged in a column with
the Prepositional Case endings highlighted and demonstrating another pattern.
While the questions and the answers are in Russian, the answers are followed by
the English translation and romanization. In the English translation, the words
on the are also highlighted.
Olga starts this activity by telling students that if they want to ask about the
tiger, the question would be Где тигр? ‘Where is the tiger?’ In addition, she
adds the translation of the question, for example, ‘Does anyone want to ask
the question? Where is the tiger?’ For Olga and the students who participate in
the task, repetition of the target sentence means performance. This is also evident
for Nick who does not seem to be paying attention. He asks, ‘What was that?
What do you want me to say?’ Olga repeats the question, provides its translation,
‘Где тигр? Where is the tiger?’, and also points to the question on the slide. Nick
imitates the question and the instructor evaluates his answer as correct.
The instructor’s calling on volunteers to answer a known-answer question also
suggests that for Olga, student performance is not independent construction of
the target structure. While Olga’s translation of the question allows students to
find the answer on the slide by matching the English versions of the question
with the answer and then to read either the Russian version or its romanization,
Olga asks students if anyone remembers how to say ‘on the chair’ in Russian.
Although she uses the verb ‘remember’ thus asking students to make an effort to
think about the answer, she provides the first part of the response на::: ‘on’ and
waits for someone to complete the utterance. Simultaneously, she points to the
answer on the slide. Since all of the information about the meaning and the form
of the response is on the slide, her query about whether students remember how
to say ‘on the chair’ is more likely to refer to pronunciation. Despite the fact that
Olga includes romanization of the answers on the slide, students need to apply
their knowledge of the Russian sound system to correctly read the romanization
and when Peter correctly pronounces the response, Olga evaluates it as correct.
Olga goes on to assess whether each student is pronouncing the target correctly
by listening to each student individually using the audio function.
Performance as a final product

While Ghada engages students in independent solving of linguistic problems,
performance means a final product rather than part of learner development
that can be supported via the instructor’s assistance. In this regard, teaching
is the transmission of the instructor’s knowledge that culminates in students’
products. This can be observed through such practices as explicit correction and
a detailed explanation of students’ errors. Although Ghada does engage students

in independent performance, she corrects errors without providing them with
an opportunity for self-correction under her guidance.
To engage her students in language production, Ghada designed a slide
(Figure 5.2) in such a way that students can write sentences on it using the
whiteboard pen tool. The goal of this task is to use Arabic plural nouns and
adjectives in sentences such as ‘They are Egyptian teachers.’ The instructor keeps
students focused on the task by placing the Arabic personal plural pronouns that
students are supposed to use at the top of the slide.
Each student is assigned to write two sentences. Since the whiteboard is a
shared tool annotations are instantly visible to all participants as soon as they
write them and enables the teacher to view the output as soon as it appears on
the screen. When the students complete their sentences, she provides feedback
using audio along with different coloured annotations. Ghada provides feedback
to Caitlin on her sentence by explicitly stating what is wrong, ‘You don’t need ‫ و‬/
and here.’ and crosses it out. Then, she indicates that it is plural, writes ‘are’ above
the sentence, and adds the plural ending to a noun and an adjective. Although
the instructor explains the errors thus transmitting her knowledge to Caitlin,
she does not encourage Caitlin to self-correct the errors by providing strategic
assistance.
In this writing task, students and the instructor work in two modalities, the
whiteboard and audio. The use of the whiteboard for the writing task works well
as all students can participate at the same time and each can receive instructor
feedback. Instructor feedback alone, however, does not guarantee that students
Figure 5.2 Slide of Ghada’s writing task

understand their errors as the instructor does not cue them to make changes
themselves. Although the instructor does not engage students in assisted
performance, her explanation of the students’ errors via audio may be useful for
other students still working on their sentences.
Performance as a collaborative effort

Practices observed in Daniel’s, Julia’s and Anna’s classes are similar to one
another in that the instructors treat individual problem solving and teaching and
learning as a collaborative effort between the teachers and students to achieve
successful performance. If students experience difficulty, these instructors do not
provide the correct answers but instead provide scaffolding that pushes students
to perform on their own. Only after students produce the desired output do
these instructors provide a brief follow-up. Examples 3 and 4 from Daniel’s and
Julia’s classes demonstrate how these practices are implemented in listening and
reading tasks.
Listening comprehension task

Daniel often uses pictures that he has taken when travelling as a source of authentic
cultural information while developing student listening comprehension skills.
The slide (Figure 5.3) for the listening is a picture of a door to a corridor in a
building in Germany. Use of the picture provides anchored visual clues to assist
students in understanding what the instructor says in German.
Example 1 shows how during the listening task, the instructor and students
collaborate on the meaning construction of the German word Studentenheim
‘dorm’, abbreviation UG and the meaning of negative one depicted on the door.
Daniel facilitates students’ listening comprehension by providing them
with written input along with the focal aural talk about German numbering
systems. For example, when asking students about the meaning of the word
Studentenheim ‘dorm’, he simultaneously types it in the text-chat area. He also
provides students with visual and aural hints as he waits for students’ responses.
When two students, Jack and Rick, provide the meaning of the words in chat,
Daniel confirms that their responses are correct, and continues his narrative
about German logic.
When Daniel asks a question, ‘Und in welchem Stockwerk lebte er?’, he does
not scaffold its meaning, but translates it and asks what the depicted floor is
called. This time he does not type hints in chat. After the 7-second pause where
students do not respond to his question, he further scaffolds their response by
Figure 5.3 Slide design of the listening comprehension task from Daniel’s class
providing more input in the chat, ‘UG = Untergeschoss’ which helps Kate to
understand and respond.
Reading comprehension task

Similar to Daniel, Julia also collaborates with students while they are working on
the task and further follows up on the students’ performance after it is achieved
with her assistance. Julia presents the reading text on the slide (Figure 5.4). The
instructor reads sentence by sentence orally and asks the students to send their
translated sentences using a different modality, private text-chat. She uses the
private text-chat so student individual performance would not be influenced
when seeing their peers’ answers. As soon as a student’s response is posted, Julia
provides her feedback via chat and audio. If needed, she scaffolds individual
student answers.
Students, messages sent to the private text-chat were not recorded because
the Wimba Classroom tool records only teachers’ private messages. However,
their responses are inferred from the instructor’s comments. While some of the
students are still working on sentence 8, Julia circles sentence 9 and reads it in
Japanese (lines 2–5). It seems that students have difficulty with the word おき
Figure 5.4 Slide design of the reading comprehension task from Julia’s class
ました ‘woke up’ as there is a 4-second pause (line 4). Julia then calls on Jenny
to ask what it means. She tells her to think about the context and provides her
with hints (lines 7, 8, 11, 13, 16, 17). While collaborating with Jenny via the
audio-channel, Julia also provides feedback to Nicole’s contributions in chat
(line 15), and then, she again addresses Jenny using audio (line 19) to check if
Jenny was able to find the meaning of the word. Jenny, finally, sends her correct
response as Julia responds in chat, ‘Yes, Jenny’ (line 21). Only after Jenny correctly
translates the sentence, does Julia explain the strategy of how to find the word in
the dictionary, which, apparently, Jenny has already used (lines 21, 22).
(3) 1 T OK, I am still waiting for most of you to do number 8

2 [((circles 9, underlines words as reads them))
3 [きゅうばん、おかあさんも　おそく　おきました。/
4 number 9, Mother also woke up late.
5 (4)
6 Jenny-san, さん、おきました。/‘woke up’.
7 What might you do late on Sunday? Think about
8 context. おかあさんも　おそく　おきました。/ Mother
9 also woke up late.
10 (3)
11 What might you do until late on a Sunday or Saturday?
12 (6)
13 Have we had church, any discussion on church in this textbook?
14 (3)
15 yes Nicole
16 then it’s probably not church, if you did not have to go to church,
17 what would you do on a Sunday morning?
18 (3)
19 You can’t find おきます?/wake up
20 Yes Jenny
21 Because you need to use the short form to look at everything at
22 the back
While the listening and reading tasks are similar in that they are designed to
engage multiple students in the instructional dialogue, these tasks differ in that
Julia uses private chat for students’ responses whereas Daniel uses the public
text-chat area. When using private chat, students cannot see each other answers
and the instructor can evaluate and scaffold each student’s isolated individual
performances. Daniel’s listening task is not intended for checking students’
knowledge, but for co-construction of new knowledge. Therefore, students’
viewing each others’ responses assists them in co-construction of new meaning.
Speaking task
Anna also engages multiple students in the production of the target language
structures and assists their performance like Daniel and Julia. However, one
practice was observed only in Anna’s class. This practice is engaging students
in peer–peer instructional conversations while she is interacting with other
students via audio.
In the following task, students are to perform dialogues in which they inquire
where different people live. The slide (Figure 5.5) displays the model of the
dialogue and pictures of France and Japan. Since students need to use the nouns
denoting countries in the Prepositional Case, the prepositional case ending is
underlined in the model. Above each of the pictures, there is a name of a person
and a country in Russian which students are asked to include in their dialogues.
Anna does not translate the words above the pictures requiring students to solve
this problem using prior knowledge.
While Anna is talking to Jack (Example 5), who has volunteered to participate
in an earlier dialogue, Harry raises his hand (see lines 1, 2, 6, 11, 12). At the
same time, Terry, Sam and Nick negotiate the meaning of the words denoting
the countries in the chat. Terry appeared to not read the words Франция
‘France’ and Япония ‘Japan’ above the pictures, but relied on the pictures, as
he incorrectly guesses ‘PARIS’ and ‘CHINA’ as seen in the chat (lines 3, 5). Sam
Figure 5.5 Slide design of the speaking task from Anna’s class
types the correct meaning of the word Франция ‘France’ (line 8), but incorrectly
guesses the meaning of Япония ‘Japan’ and refers to it as Asia (line 13). Nick
corrects Sam by typing, ‘that’s Japan, not China’. By collaboratively constructing
the meanings of the Russian words denoting countries, students prepare for
participation in the task.
(5) 1 T: We have a couple of more minutes, so we can do one more slide,
2 so who is now? Now, I remember Jack [Brown
3 Terry: [PARIS!!!!
4 T: um [wanted to ask a question
5 Terry: [CHINA!!!!
6 T: and who will help him?
7 (3)
8 Sam: france and
9 (2)
10 Terry: EVAN!!!!!
11 T: YEAH! Harry! […]
12 ok, Jack and Harry …
13 Sam: asia
15 Nick: that’s Japan, not China
Students initiate instructional conversation before using the geographical

names because they need to be able to read and understand them. Therefore,
Terry seems to seek assistance from others and to invite others to participate
in meaning negotiation by offering his guesses. While only two students can
participate in a dialogue, the students waiting for their turn to participate
engaged in planning their responses for the next dialogue.
Discussion: Instructors’ uses of multimodalities

for student engagement
Although the scope of our study included a small sample, we found that these
online teachers’ theoretical perspectives on how students learn language seem
to be a major factor in whether and how they employ multimodalities to engage
students. As the analysis of the teacher–student interaction shows, Daniel, Julia,
Anna and Ghada, who treat performance as student independent production,
use the audio-channel jointly with one of the text-based channels, text-chat or
the ability to write text on the whiteboard. Since text-based channels allow all
students to participate at the same time, using them provides all students with
opportunities to perform. Instructors can simultaneously provide feedback or
assist multiple students with their performance using the audio or text-chat.
Although the four instructors provide feedback to students’ responses, not
all types of feedback provide instructors with evidence of students’ learning. For
example, despite the fact that Ghada engages all students through the whiteboard,
she does not scaffold their performance. Therefore, there is no indication that
students are able to incorporate her feedback as evidence of their learning.
Daniel, Julia and Anna, on the other hand, scaffold students’ performance. In
doing so, they are able to see whether students need more assistance as students’
assisted performance provides them with evidence of learning.
Another reason for using multimodalities, discussed mainly during the
instructor interviews, is to actualize students’ attention and gain evidence
that students are engaged in class activities. In synchronous online learning,
instructors do not see their students if they do not turn on the video and,
consequently, cannot detect whether or not students are distracted. To check if
students are paying attention, all of the instructors regularly call on students, ask
them to respond to questions using the polling tools and monitor the text-chat
area for off-task discussions. Daniel, Julia, Ghada and Anna also reported that
they engage students through multimodalities to have observable evidence of
their participation. The only instructor who does not do so is Olga. This may be
explained by her approach to language learning in general. For Olga, students
learn language through imitation and, therefore the audio-channel is the main
channel to engage students. She may be able to guess that students are distracted
since they do not always respond to her questions. However, she does not
engage them all since it is impossible for everyone to participate through the
audio-channel at the same time.
We found that another factor in using multimodalities to engage students
was to solve a problem they had in the virtual classroom, for example students’
using chat for personal conversations. For example, Anna explained during
her interview that she began to engage students through multimodalities when
students in her new classes engaged in disruptive text-chat. In this instance, she
told us she had to redirect the students’ attention and alter classroom management
to make students’ online experiences more rewarding. Daniel and Julia reported
that if they notice that students stop responding during a task, they immediately
change the activity in such a way that each student can provide responses.
Although we predicted that teacher training might influence instructors’ uses
of multimodalities, we found that training did not appear to play a decisive role
in instructors’ choices concerning the use of several communication channels
for instructional activities. While only Ghada was trained on how to use
multimodalities, the other four instructors had not. Nevertheless, all of them
but Olga employed multimodalities for teaching.
Concluding remarks
This study on the use of multimodalities in synchronous online teaching helps

us understand the relationship between instructors’ teaching practices and
whether and how they make use of multimodalities in their teaching. Where
employing multimodalities might make good sense from one perspective, it
does not from another epistemological stance that sees learning and teaching as
teacher-fronted and didactic.
In order to provide more meaningful language learning experiences for
students taking online language courses with a synchronous component, the
teacher training and continual professional development for using these tools
should include components on how language learning theories and effective
classroom management correspond to using multimodalities with multiple
students simultaneously. Specifically, the notion that languages are learned
through a collaborative process and through guided student production suggest

very strongly that the affordances that allow this to take place should be utilized
in ways that encourage students to learn in this way.
Appendix 5.1. Transcription conventions
T: teacher
Terry: student
T: Jack Voice-based utterances are typed in regular font
Terry: EVAN Utterances from text-based chat are in italics
Helen: [‫تافيطل‬/are pleasant Utterances written on the whiteboard are in bold
italics
T: YEAH!!! Utterance pronounced in a loud voice
(5) The pause length
T: Фран[ция square brackets indicate the onset of overlapping
Jack: [кто utterances or actions
на::::: semicolon indicates prolongation of a vowel sound
Франция ((wrong case)) double parentheses include transcriber’s comment
Где?/Where? slash separates a foreign word and its translation
and/or romanization
‘hom la te fat’ quotation marks include romanization of a foreign
utterance
Appendix 5.2. Instructor background questionnaire
1. Please provide your first and last name.

2. How long have you been teaching languages?
ll
0–6 months
ll7 months to 1 year
ll13 months to 5 years
ll6 to 10 years
llmore than 10 years
3. How long have you been teaching languages online?
ll
0–6 months
ll7 months to 1 year
ll13 months to 5 years
ll 6 to 10 years
ll more than 10 years
4. Did you receive any training from blendedschools.net before teaching your
online language classes?
ll
Yes
ll No
5. Have you taken any courses on online pedagogy?
ll
Yes
ll No
6. List any advantages (if any) to teaching communicative skills in
synchronous web conferencing tools (e.g. Wimba Classroom, Elluminate
Live! and Blackboard Collaborate)?
7. List types of activities that you believe facilitate students’ development of
communicative skills in synchronous online environment?
8. Based on your experience, how do students use the chat function in web
conferencing tools during synchronous class sessions?
9. Does the students’ use of chat ever become disruptive?
ll
Yes
ll No
References
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Foley, J. (1991). A psycholinguistic framework for task-based approaches to language
teaching. Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 62–75.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a text-based
environment: computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
Hampel, R. (2003). Theoretical perspectives and new practices in audio-graphic
conferencing for language learning. ReCALL, 15(1), 21–36.
— (2010). Task design for a virtual learning environment in a distance language course.
In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds), Task-based language learning and teaching with
technology (pp. 131–53). London, New York: Continuum.
Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards and effective use of audio conferencing in
distance language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 66–82.
Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcript notation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds),
Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis (pp. ix–xvi). London:
Cambridge University Press and Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
Ko, C. (2012). Can synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) help

beginning-level foreign language learners speak? Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 25(3), 217–36.
Kötter, M. (2001). Developing distance learners’ interactive competence:
can synchronous audio do the trick? International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 7(4), 327–53.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching,
33, 79–96.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and genesis of second language
development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Picciano, A., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2012). Examining the extent and nature
of online learning in American K-12 education: the research initiatives of the Alfred
P. Sloan Foundation. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 127–35.
Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2005). Task design for audiographic conferencing: promoting
beginner oral interaction in distance language learning. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 18(5), 417–42.
Schegloff, E. (1995). Discourse as interactional achievement III: the omnirelevance of
action. Research on Language Social Interaction, 28(3), 185–211.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1991). The instructional conversation: teaching and learning
in social activity. National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second
Language Learning.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum
Press.
Wang, Y. (2004). Supporting synchronous distance language learning with desktop
videoconferencing. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 90–121.
Part Three
Shifts in Participation
6
The Educational Value of Student Talk

in Online Discussions
Sedef Uzuner Smith and Ruchi Mehta
Introduction
Since Socrates and Plato, dialogue has been assigned a fundamental position in
the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Educational theorists of all times
have consistently recognized the potential of dialogue to mediate learning.
A particular approach that highlights the mediating role dialogue plays in
learning is sociocultural theory. One of the assumptions guiding this theory is
that learning is an interactive process that relies on social interaction. Vygotsky’s
(1978) concept of internalization, which emerged from sociocultural theory,
helps to explain this process. Internalization holds that learning occurs on two
planes. First, it appears on a social plane (between people), then it appears on an
internal plane (within an individual). The quote below by Wertsch (2007, p. 187)
illustrates this point:
Higher mental functioning appears first on the ‘intermental’ and then on the
‘intramental’ plane. . . . this means that the first stages of acquaintance typically
involve social interaction and negotiation between experts and novices or
among novices. It is precisely by means of participating in this social interaction
that interpretations are first proposed and worked out and, therefore, become
available to be taken over by individuals.
As part of this sociocultural perspective, Wenger (1998) identified learning as

negotiation of meaning, referring to ‘continuous interaction’ and ‘give-and-take’
through which individuals ‘extend, redirect, dismiss, reinterpret, modify or
conform to’ meanings (pp. 52–3). These perspectives together provide good
theoretical reasons for viewing learning as a social phenomenon.
The idea that meaning making does not solely take place in the minds of
individuals, but instead in the interactions with their social partners is supported
by much research that investigated classroom talk and student learning (Applebee,
Langer, Nystrand & Gamoran, 2003; Brown & Hirst, 2007; Jennings & Mills,
2009; Mercer, 1994; Mercer & Wegeriff, 1999; Wegeriff, Mercer & Dawes, 1999).
Among these studies, Mercer’s (1994) work is particularly significant in that it
relates the discussion of classroom interaction as the medium of learning to a
consideration of the quality of that interaction. In this work, Mercer distinguished
between three types of talk: cumulative, disputational and exploratory talk, the
latter being the quality talk associated with the best learning outcomes. Mercer
and Wegeriff (1999, p. 97) defined exploratory talk as follows:
Exploratory talk is that in which partners engage critically but constructively

with each other’s ideas. Statements and suggestions are sought and offered
for joint consideration. These may be challenged and counter-challenged, but
challenges are justified and alternative hypotheses are offered. In exploratory
talk, knowledge is made accountable and reasoning is visible in the talk [italics in
original].
The general consensus of the studies conducted by Mercer and others

(Rojas-Drummond & Zapata, 2004; Webb & Treagust, 2006) is that learners’
engagement in exploratory talk is crucial because it is in such talk that they
acquire or produce knowledge and create new meanings that transform their
understanding.
It is important to note here that Mercer’s conceptualization of exploratory
work originated from research with young children, but viewing it as primarily
related to children’s learning would be an error. In fact, Mercer’s ideas have been
taken up and validated in studies conducted with post-secondary students (e.g.
Atwood, Turnbull & Carpendale, 2010; Fisher, 2011). Findings of these studies
also suggest that higher education students’ use of talk in exploratory ways
makes an important contribution to their thinking and learning.
There is a growing amount of research and scholarly work directly linking
sociocultural theory, especially its view of the social nature of learning, to online
learning. Much of this research turned attention to the asynchronous discussions
generated in online learning environments to identify the social learning
processes that are unique to these environments. Such research provided evidence
to suggest discussion boards in online courses as venues for collaboratively
The Educational Value of Student Talk 121
constructed meaningful learning (Agee & Uzuner Smith, 2011; Bassett, 2011;
Nicol, Minty & Sinclair, 2003; Tsai et al., 2008). However, drawing on Mercer’s
notion of exploratory work, Uzuner (2007) cautioned that not all interactions
produced in online discussions can lead to collaborative constructivist learning.
She distinguished between two types of online talk: educationally valuable talk
(EVT) – talk that is constructive, critical and substantiated; and educationally
less valuable talk (ELVT) – talk that lacks substantiated reasoning and reflection.
Uzuner further suggested that meaningful learning in online courses happens
through interactions that are grounded in EVT. This idea provided the impetus
for this study. We believe that the focus of contemporary research exploring the
interactive processes of learning in online courses should be on the production
(or lack thereof) of EVT. Therefore, taking a fully online course as our context,
we asked the following questions:
1. Was there evidence of EVT as the students discussed the course material
among themselves in online discussions?
2. How often did the students engage in EVT in their discussions?
3. Did the students relate their perceived learning in the course to the quality
of talk that took place in the online discussions?
Methodology
Context
A fully online, master’s level course offered by a large university in the
northeastern United States provided the context for this study. The course
consisted of seven modules/units that dealt with issues related to language,
literacy and technology. Each module lasted two weeks and included individual,
small and large group activities, readings/discussions and presentations.
The study examines the weeklong whole-class discussions generated in three
modules: Module II, Module III and Module IV. We focused on these three
because they were the only modules where whole-class discussions constituted
the main learning activity.
Participants
Nineteen students were enrolled in the course (seventeen masters, two Ph.D.
students). Only two students had no prior experiences with online learning.
Researchers
The first author was the teaching assistant for the course, assisting the instructor
in facilitating discussions and grading. To reduce potential bias, the second
author who was not involved in teaching the course in any way joined the study
during its design. As a non-participant, she was potentially less biased in the
analysis process.
Course structure
The instructor for the course was committed to developing an interactive
environment that supports learning. So, she made a concerted effort to encourage
meaningful contributions to class discussions. For example, during the first
week, she asked students to construct norms, referred to as discussion norms.
The norms the students came up with were presented to them in all modules as
a reminder of class expectations.
In addition, for each posting, the instructor asked the students to conduct
a self-evaluation using Grice’s (1975) maxims. The following information was
provided to the students in the syllabus:
ll
Quantity: make your contribution as informative as is required, but not
more, or less, than is required.
ll
Quality: do not say that which you believe to be false or for which you lack
evidence.
ll
Relation: be relevant.
ll Manner: avoid ambiguity and obscurity; be clear, brief and orderly.
The students were asked to rate their posts in terms of quantity, quality, relation
and manner on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 meant ‘my posting reflects this maxim
100 per cent’, and 4 meant ‘I could do much better when it comes to this
maxim.’
Finally, twice in the course (at the end of Modules III and IV), the instructor
asked the students to conduct a retrospective analysis where they reflected on their
learning, discussion participation, as well as the quality of the overall discussions.
Data sources and analysis

Two sources of data were used in this study. The first data source included the
printouts of the weeklong whole-class threaded discussions that took place in
the 3 modules selected for analysis. The printouts consisted of 285 postings,
excluding those made by the instructor, teaching assistant, as well as the
2 students who knew about the study. We analysed these data using quantitative
content analysis, which includes the process of searching text for recurring
trends to identify core consistencies and frequencies (Adler & Clark, 2011). This
analysis allowed us to examine the presence of EVT in the discussion postings
and to quantify our findings – processes that were useful for investigating the
first two research questions of the study.
We conducted the content analysis using Uzuner’s (2007) EVT and ELVT
coding scheme (see Appendix 6.1), which was previously used in Bliss and
Lawrence (2009). Our unit of analysis was sentences/paragraphs in a post that
were representative of EVT or ELVT. We read each post carefully to code for all
possible EVT/ELVT indicators in them. When a post’s text was representative of
more than one indicator, we counted both instances as separate indicators. To
ensure that we were applying codes consistently, we worked together to resolve
any disagreements that arose during the coding process. Once all the posts
were coded, frequency counts for each code were conducted to look at the total
representation of codes.
The second data source included the retrospective analyses students
conducted at the end of Modules III and IV. As we read through this data set, we
made ‘marginal remarks’ (Miles & Huberman, 1984) about students’ evaluations
of their own learning and their perceptions of the talk quality in the discussions.
These remarks then became the descriptive material that allowed us to answer
our third research question.
Results
Research question #1
Was there evidence of EVT as the students discussed the course material among
themselves in online discussions?
The whole-class discussions analysed from the three modules included
multiple threads. Although most of these threads could be used as examples
showing evidence of EVT, due to space limitation we focus only on one thread
from Module II to answer our first research question. We present messages
from the thread as they were posted, without changing the order in which they
appeared, to provide a snapshot of an actual conversation. With this mode of
presentation, we hope to preserve the data in the context of the whole. Each
message is followed by our analysis that draws on the EVT framework (Uzuner,
2007).
Before proceeding to the analysis, we provide some contextual information
which we regard as important in framing the contents of Module II from which
we selected the discussion thread to showcase our findings.
Module II focused on the role of technology in literacy instruction. The
learning objectives for this module included understanding various definitions
of literacy and exploring ways in which teachers can use technology to help
promote literacy instruction in today’s classrooms. The required readings were
three book chapters and a journal article. The module relied on discussions with
discussion participation being the only form of assessment in the module.
In the first week of Module II, the students were placed in groups of five and
each group was assigned an article or a book chapter from the list of required
readings. Members in each group read and discussed the assigned reading, and
before the end of the week, they created a product (e.g. a PowerPoint presentation,
picture, summary chart, quotation list) that represented their collective
understanding of the topics they had read and discussed. At the beginning of
the second week, each group posted their products to the whole-class discussion
area for other students to comment and raise questions.
A total of 104 messages were posted to the whole-class discussion area in
Module II. Most messages were in response to the group products, while others
were in response to individuals’ messages, as shown below. (The names of the
students are all pseudonyms.)
The post below by Judy was one of the first messages that initiated a thread
in which there were several responses showing evidence of EVT. Judy began
her post by alluding to a quote she saw in one group’s final product (a summary
chart with quotes from the assigned reading):
I want to comment on this quote in particular: ‘Teachers must ensure that

the technology they use supports and enhances their curriculum, instead of
distracting from it, which could easily occur when teaching new skills.’ As I
stated in an earlier thread in this module, I’ve familiarized myself with most of
the technologies my school offers. And while I can’t say I’m ‘fluent’ compared to
my younger colleagues, I’ve used most of these technologies, as appropriate, in
the classroom, including a multi-media cart. However, I’d like to add that some
of the most truly engaging classes I’ve facilitated and witnessed involved no
technology at all; the classes (in my experience) where learning occurred most
actively were the classes in which rich circle discussions took place. Teachers
shouldn’t feel pressured to use technology simply because ‘it’s there.’ In fact,
to do so under those conditions will surely distract from (rather than add to)
the curriculum. Technology, along with all resources at a teacher’s disposal, is
secondary to common sense. If a lesson is going well in and of itself, then what
need is there for artificial enhancement? I can’t think of a more valuable learning
experience than a meeting of minds in conversation.
Judy used this message as a springboard for critically examining the question of
whether new technologies offer real improvements in student learning. Although
at one point she sounded very much like an advocate of technology-supported
instruction, she immediately negated this position with her concern that merely
using the available technology does not automatically enhance student learning.
She then made explicit connections to her personal experiences to offer
discussion-based approaches as an alternative to technology-based approaches
in classroom instruction. Her framing of the issue in light of her personal
experiences is suggestive of critical reflection, which is characteristic of EVT.
Modality in word choice (‘shouldn’t feel pressured’, ‘will surely distract’) and the
if/then grammatical structure of the question that follows, which reflect Judy’s
argumentative position, serve as discussion starters, inviting others to comment.
All in all, Judy’s talk reflects several elements of EVT including the exploratory,
invitational, argumentational, critical, reflective and implicative functions.
We now turn to Jim’s posting which was introduced in response to Judy’s
message. In this post, Jim elaborated on and validated Judy’s claims about
teachers’ uncritical use of technology by making connections to his observations
as a substitute teacher:
I definitely agree with you on this point. While I am just a substitute right now,
I have witnessed the forced use of technology in the school that I work at. I have
noticed that the administrators seem to force the use of the technology that the
school has available on the teachers, regardless of whether it is appropriate or not.
The use of technology in the class should be fluid, not forced. I think this forced
use of technology might be a justification for having the technology. I think that
teachers and administrators feel that the technology that they have must be used
in order to justify having it. I think there might be a feeling on the part of the
teachers that if we don’t use the technologies that we currently have, we will be
unable to procure new technologies at a later date. If they don’t use what they
currently have, how will they be able to justify needed new technologies to the
district?
Jim’s message includes substantiated agreement to the ideas presented by Judy

in the earlier message. He built on and added to Judy’s claims by locating the
problem in the school (‘the forced use of technology in the school’). Note that
his use of hedges/qualifiers such as ‘might’ invites disagreement. In addition,
the question he posed in the end is thought-provoking, inviting discussion of
contrasting views. Like Judy, in this post, Jim’s talk also has elements of EVT
including the explanatory, invitational, reflective and implicative functions.
In the next post, Kyle joined his peers in expressing his concern about the
forced use of new technologies in classrooms. He took this topic one step further
by revealing another issue (the issue of teacher training) to investigate:
In Chapter 3, Principled Uses of Media and Technologies, the author describes

the teacher as being an ‘orchestrator’ of mediated language learning activities.
As an orchestrator, it is the teacher’s responsibility to be ‘the engineer of
productive linguistic activity between and among her students.’ This involves
‘facilitating collaborative learning with media and technologies . . . to help
mediate a particular focus and provide tools with which learners can get
things done.’ And what is ‘done’ in this context is very different from what
used to be ‘done’ in the pedagogical context of the blackboard and the text
book: ‘In contrast to the past where textbook dialog prevailed, media and
technologies allow us to base our models of language in use on oral language
and the target culture in addition to texts representing these.’ In short, the
result of the application (or ‘orchestration’) of the technology is a qualitatively
different experience for the learners that would occur in a non-electronic
learning environment. In order for this to occur the teacher has to learn how to
become a master orchestrator who can construct learning experiences which
are multi-modal. MANDATING THAT ELECTRONIC MEDIA BE USED
IN CLASSROOMS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL IN-DEPTH TRAINING
FOR TEACHERS IS SHEER FOLLY, AND A WASTE OF MONEY. It is like
throwing books in front of people who do not know how to read. It would be a
defensible assertion to say that the level of skill and training needed to become
an effective reading teacher is little different from the level of skill and training
needed to become a teacher who is able to ‘orchestrate’ the complexities of
an electronic learning environment. Just giving teachers technology greatly
underestimates the challenge at hand.
Kyle began his post by referring to the course text as an authoritative tool to show
the changing nature of teachers’ roles and responsibilities in today’s classrooms
as a result of the new pedagogical context of technology-mediated learning.
This textual integration wherein connections are made between a text that was
read and a situation/issue at hand is a characteristic of higher-order thinking.
After doing a great deal of textual integration, Kyle makes a claim. His use of
capital letters implies importance of his argument and his depth of feeling as he
framed the problem. He then drew on an analogy to reiterate his argument and
ended on a note of caution and concern. All these features that exist in Kyle’s
post are consistent with EVT as they include language use for explanatory,
informative, implicative, exploratory and argumentational purposes.
In the last post on this topic, Ellen responded in an affirmative modality to
Kyle. She wrote:
I like your comments, Kyle. I would like to add that there are many older
teachers who are not educated in the new technology but are, nevertheless,
effective teachers. Many are also resistant to change from any methodology that
they feel successfully works for them and their students. I think that what has
to be kept in mind is the GOAL of education, not how much technology can be
implemented in the classroom, nor how innovative each teacher can be with the
technology available to them. Not everyone is talented in the use of technology,
and because of this limitation perhaps not all teachers should be expected to
incorporate it extensively into their instruction. They may not be effective in its
use, whereas they would be effective through more traditional means. For myself
(at the age of 54), I have utilized the technology that has been applicable to my
university courses; but not having been previously involved in education, I have
not had the pressing need to engage in a variety of classroom technology. As my
plans are to educate adult ESL learners, I do realize, however, that I should be
prepared for the possibility of working with both technologically deprived and
technologically savvy individuals.
EVT indicators visible in Ellen’s talk include explanatory, interpretative and

heuristic features. In her opening statement, Ellen was supportive of what Kyle
had said, but also built on his ideas. This reflects the explanatory feature of her talk.
Ellen then changed the discourse – instead of talking about teacher training (a
topic brought up by Kyle), she wrote about ‘the goals of education’ for technology
integration. After this, she began hypothesizing about possible reasons that
could affect teachers’ readiness and enthusiasm for teaching with technology.
These exemplify the interpretative, and to some degree argumentative, nature
of her talk. And in the rest of her post, Ellen personalized the topic by raising
issues that are important for her to keep in mind in her future teaching. This last
feature illustrated the heuristic nature of Ellen’s post.
As mentioned earlier, the messages analysed above are from a single

discussion thread from Module II. We used this thread to illustrate the kinds
of talk the students were generating in the whole-class discussions. Our
analysis demonstrated that educationally valuable conversations characterized
as substantiated, exploratory transactions were taking place among the course
participants. As we compared the discussion transcripts from the three modules
with each other, it appeared that the generation of EVT was the norm rather
than exception in students’ online dialogue in the course. The frequency of EVT
use in the discussions we analysed is shown in the section below.
How often did the students engage in EVT in their discussions?
Modules II, III and IV included a total of 285 posts in the whole-class
discussion area. The breakdown of the number of posts in each module was 104,
110 and 71 in Modules II, III and IV, respectively. Each post was coded for any
presence of EVT.
In Module II, 81.25 per cent of the coded instances of talk was found to
be educationally valuable as opposed to 18.75 per cent that was found to be
educationally less valuable (see Figure 6.1). The share of EVT in Module
III increased to 85.4 per cent and, as a result, ELVT was down by more than
4 per cent, representing approximately 14 per cent of the total coded talk in that
module. Module IV had 81 per cent occurrences of EVT and the remaining
19 per cent were found to be ELVT. Overall, a key finding was that instances
Module IV
EVT
Module III
ELVT
Module II
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 6.1 EVT and ELVT shares in each module

of EVT outweighed the instances of ELVT in all three modules, and they were
consistently over 80 per cent.
In all three modules, 334 instances of EVT were found. As mentioned earlier,
one post may have been coded for multiple indicators from the coding scheme.
Hence, the number of total indicators should not be confused with the total
number of posts in the three modules.
The indicators that were most frequently found in the total EVT count in
the three modules included explanatory talk at 10.8 per cent and interpretative
talk at approximately 15 per cent. Both invitational and interpretative talk were
found to have equal shares (about 13.5%) (see Figure 6.2).
The total number of instances coded as ELVT was 70 for the three modules.
This was less than one-fourth as compared to the instances of EVT (N = 334).
As Figure 6.3 shows, a bulk of the ELVT (40%) produced in the discussions
was experiential in nature, referring only to personal experiences not followed
IMP
EXPL
INF
ANL
INTP
REF Percentage of EVT indicator
HE
CRT
ARG
INVT
EPL
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 6.2 Share of EVT indicators found in three modules
MIS
REP
EXP
JDA
Percentage of ELVT indicator
JA
ASP
AA
AF
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 6.3 Share of ELVT indicators found in three modules

by a reflection. Miscellaneous talk, such as non-content-related talk, was

15.7 per cent, and reproductional talk, talk that is repetitious and unelaborated,
was 13 per cent of the total ELVT produced. 11.4 per cent of the ELVT included
affective statements adding social presence to the discussions. Although such
statements do not contribute to the meaning-making process, they are important
in creating and supporting a community in online courses. Therefore, their
presence in the analysed discussions was expected.
Did the students relate their perceived learning in the course to the quality of
talk that took place in the online discussions?
The data source that provided insight into this question was the retrospective
analyses students conducted at the end of Modules III and IV. These analyses
were not graded and they were confidential. Each consisted of five open-ended
questions that allowed students to reflect on their learning and experiences in
small-group and whole-class discussions. Among these questions, those that
were most relevant to our third research question were:
ll
What do you think about the discussions we had in this module? Were they
productive? Did they have any teaching value for you? Why/Why not?
ll
Are you satisfied with the quality of your posts as well as those of your
peers? Why/Why not?
ll
What did you learn?
The students’ responses to these questions were very positive. The following
excerpts illustrate their responses to the first two questions:
I am usually very careful about writing my posts, with regards to both the content
and the manner, so I would have to say that I am quite satisfied with the quality
of my posts. For the most part, I am quite happy about others’ posts as well. I
think most postings have been relevant and well-thought.
I am satisfied with my quality of the posts as well as my group members. Every
time before posting, I read, think carefully and try to find something new to join
the discussion.
The quality of the posts has been very good. Our group members have been
posting thoughtful questions and responses. The posts are not too long and
generally stay on topic.
In general, the posts in this course have been better than what I’ve seen in some
of the other online courses. There is less of ‘fluff ’n stuff ’ or essentially vacuous
replies posted for requirement’s sake only.
Although not asked, one student commented in her retrospective analysis that
knowing the discussions norms for the dialogue and being reminded of it at
all times provided an impetus for her to make substantive contributions to the
discussions:
Almost no discussion goes without several responses, most responses are

substantive and well thought-out because there are guidelines that prevent us
from just answering yes or no.
Several students also commented on how self-evaluating their own posts using
Grice’s maxims gave them a framework they could use to know how to contribute
to the discussions and to do so in ways that generate meaningful discussions:
Self-evaluating our own posts was a very good idea, even though we stopped
doing that, it still remained in our mind.
The quality of the posts was very good. A major part of our discussion for this
module involved sharing our thoughts and experiences, which can lead to
long-winded, off-topic discussions. With self-evaluation everyone did a great
job of making sure their responses were relevant and only long enough to make
their point.
The excerpts above show that the students valued the online discussions highly,
seeing them as having high quality. When asked about their learning developing
through those discussions in the course, most students commented on how they
took up aspects of each other’s ideas and thoughts and saw things in a different
light as a result of the conversations they had with each other. In their view,
the discussion postings which included a great deal of EVT provided them
with opportunities for discovery, exploration and knowledge building. In their
comments, the students almost always connected their perceived learning to
the talk quality in the discussions. The excerpts below, which echo what most
students have said, illustrate this:
For the most part, I found the submissions and discussion flows in this class
very beneficial. As a result, I am learning different ways to interpret technology’s
effect in education, as well as tips for its integration.
I thought the majority of the postings were well thought out and well connected
with each module’s content. So I thought they were productive and I learned
a lot from them. They helped me gain a deeper understanding of the articles’
content.
The discussions are enlightening and I often walk away from my computer
thinking about the ideas being introduced. My ideas need to be much better
developed and clearer. Several of the other students in the class set the bar quite
high.
These excerpts suggest that students’ perceptions of their learning were related to
their perceptions of the quality of the online discussions. This has implications
for a theory of online learning as social interaction that considers the quality of
that interaction as a significant predictor of learning.
Conclusion
Although our findings are confined to one study and need to be replicated with
different types of online courses, they reiterate the importance of talk quality
in online discussions as a precursor to meaningful learning. Our analysis of
both the whole-class discussions and students’ own accounts of their perceived
learning developing through those discussions provide support for Vygotsky’s
conceptualization of learning as a social process. In addition, and more
importantly, they provide support for an explicit focus on talk quality within the
context of social learning.
Despite a recognition of the social nature of learning in online courses, there
have been surprisingly few studies focusing on the link between talk quality
and meaningful learning in online course discussions. This study’s significance
lies in its attempt to bring this link to the fore using the EVT framework. We
conclude that as our understanding of online learning continues to expand, a
Vygotskian framing of learning complemented with Mercer’s call for an explicit
focus on talk quality provide a sound theoretical basis from which to launch
future research.
Appendix 6.1. Uzuner’s (2007) EVT/ELVT coding scheme
EVT indicators Acronym Definition

Exploratory EPL Recognition of some confusion/curiosity or
perplexity as a result of a problem/issue arising out
of an experience/course readings; posing a problem
and enticing others to take a step deeper into it.
Invitational INVT Inviting others to think together, to ponder, to
engage by asking questions, requiring information,
opinion or approval.
Argumentational ARG Expressing reasoning (with analogies, causal,
inductive and/or deductive reasoning, etc.) to
trigger purposeful discussions.
Critical CRT Challenging or counter-challenging statements/ideas
proposed by others OR playing devil’s advocate.
Heuristic HE Expressing discovery (similar to ‘A ha!’ moments
or expressions like ‘I find it!’); directing others’
attention to a newly discovered idea.
Reflective REF Examination of past events, practices (why/how they
happened) or understandings in relation to formal
content.
Interpretative INTP Interpretation of formal content through opinions
that are supported by relevant examples, facts or
evidence.
Analytical ANL Interpretation of content through the analysis,
synthesis and evaluation of others’ understanding.
Informative INF Providing information from literature and relating it
to course content/topic of discussion.
Explanatory EXPL Chain of connected messages intended to explain/
make clear OR statements serving to elaborate on
the ideas suggested in previous posts.
Implicative IMP Assertions that call for action OR statements whereby
participants formulate a proposal/decision about
how to achieve a certain end based on the insights
they gained from the course readings/discussions.
Affective AF Short posts that ONLY contain a statement of
personal feelings (likes & dislikes).
AA Short posts that ONLY contain appraisal (praising &
thanking someone).
ASP Questions or comments that add social presence
to the discussion but do not contribute new
information.
Judgemental JA Short posts that ONLY contain brief statements of
agreement.
JDA Short posts that ONLY contain brief statements of
disagreement without elaboration.
Appendix 6.1 Continued
EVT indicators Acronym Definition

Experiential EXP Posts that only contain personal experiences,
narratives, descriptions that are not followed by
reflection.
Reproductional REP Repeating/reproducing the ideas mentioned/
proposed in the previous posts without
elaboration.
Miscellaneous MIS Opinions that seem to be off topic OR statements
regarding technical problems/course logistics.
References
Adler, E., & Clark, R. (2011). An invitation to social research: how it’s done. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Agee, J., & Uzuner Smith, S. (2011). Online discussions in a doctoral research methods
course: ‘Like a text by many authors’. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(3), 301–19.
Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based
approaches to developing understanding: classroom instruction and student
performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research
Journal, 40(3), 685–730.
Atwood, S., Turnbull W., & Carpendale, J. (2010). The construction of knowledge in
classroom talk. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 358–402.
Bassett, P. (2011). How do students view asynchronous online discussions as a learning
experience? Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 7, 69–79.
Bliss, C., & Lawrence, B. (2009). Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? A
comparison of small group and whole class discussion board activity in online
courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(4), 25–39.
Brown, R., & Hirst, E. (2007). Developing an understanding of the mediating role of
talk in the elementary mathematics classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction,
41(2), 18–28.
Fisher, A. (2011). Creating an articulate classroom: examining pre-service teachers’
experiences of talk. Language and Education, 25(1), 33–47.
Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds), Studies in syntax
and semantics III: speech acts (pp. 183–98). New York: Academic Press.
Jennings, L., & Mills, H. (2009). Constructing a discourse of inquiry: findings from a
five-year ethnography at one elementary school. Teachers College Record, 111(7),
1583–1618.
Mercer, N. (1994). The quality of talk in children’s joint activity at the computer. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 10, 24–32.
Mercer, N., & Wegeriff, R. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in
the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new
methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nicol, D., Minty, I., & Sinclair, C. (2003). The social dimensions of online learning.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(3), 270–80.
Rojas-Drummond, S., & Zapata, M. (2004). Exploratory talk, argumentation and
reasoning in Mexican primary school children. Language & Education, 18(6), 539–57.
Tsai, I.-C., Kim, B., Liu, P.-J., Goggins, S., Kumalasari, C., & Laffey, J. (2008). Building
a model explaining the social nature of online learning. Educational Technology &
Society, 11(3), 198–215.
Uzuner, S. (2007). Educationally valuable talk: a new concept for determining the quality
of online conversations. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 400–10.
Vygotsky, L.(1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webb, P., & Treagust, D. (2006). Using exploratory talk to enhance problem-solving
and reasoning skills in grade – 7 science classrooms. Research in Science Education,
36(4), 381–401.
Wegeriff, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual
reasoning: an empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive
development. Learning and Instruction, 9(6), 493–516.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. New York:
Wertsch, J. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole & J. V. Wertsch (Eds), The
Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178–91). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
7
Focusing on the Social: Research into the

Distributed Knowledge of Novice Teachers
in Online Exchange
Melinda Dooly
Introduction
In a presentation at a UNESCO conference a decade ago, Dirke Van Damme

described globalization at that time as:
(i) the driving force of technological innovation, more specifically in ICT;

(ii) [bringing about] intensification and space-time compression of social
communication and giving way to a global network society; and
(iii) increasing the importance of knowledge and information in various levels
of the organization of society. (2002, p. 1)
Ten years after the UNESCO conference placed ICT at the forefront of social
advances and transformation there have been even further technological,
political, economic and cultural changes that continue to affect society. Given
the central role of education in today’s knowledge society, teacher development
becomes critical as educators are consequently obliged to rethink what and how
they are teaching generally, and in terms of language and literacy in particular.
Core to this review of teaching is careful consideration of exactly
what comprises knowledge within a framework of continuous expanding
interconnectivity of individuals and collectives across the world.
Interconnectivity implies that knowledge is not located in any given place;
it is constituted through networks of connections formed from multiple
experiences of sharing, creating, participating and interacting with a knowing
community (Downes, 2010). Of course, this definition is applicable to many

types of configurations of knowing communities, from informal discussion
groups about how to overcome levels in video games to twitter communities of
geologists promoting higher critical awareness of environmental issues.
Along these lines, the concept of Communities of Practice, or CoPs (Kahan,
2004; Wenger, 1998) has grown in popularity as both model and investigatory
tool for online education. This notion encompasses the idea of expert and novice
participants engaged in a common professional domain, such as teaching,
wherein they share views and expertise while pursuing common goals of
inquiry about issues that emerge from their practice. Concepts such as CoPs
and professional learning communities (Stoll & Louis, 2007) have enriched the
‘theorisation of school-based learning’ and ‘the understanding of learning-to-
teach in school and classroom contexts’ (Wright, 2010, p. 282).
However, as opportunities for geographically distanced interconnectivity
between individuals interested in exploring a common subject grows
exponentially, a revised understanding of community (virtual, transient,
ebbing and flowing) is needed. This dovetails into a need for redefining what
is understood as situated, contextualized learning and an expansion of our
understanding of online socially constructed knowledge. Is the context local or
global, physical or virtual? Does the notion of socially constructed knowledge
include the incorporation of folksonomy that has ‘gone viral’? And perhaps more
importantly, how can research and practice in teacher education understand and
integrate these new concepts of knowledge and knowledge building?
In circumstances of what one might call ‘deliberate’ learning experiences such
as those in formal educational settings, it can be argued that interconnectivity
can and should be helpful for student–teachers gain in developing conceptual
thinking (Johnson, 2009). Teachers must be able to understand a situation
by identifying patterns or connections and then integrate these factors into a
conceptual framework that draws from professional training, direct experiences
and inductive reasoning in order to come up with viable teaching strategies
in varying circumstances. Recently researchers working in the area of teacher
education have begun to refer to professional vision to describe teachers’ cyclical
process of noticing situations and events and then applying knowledge-based
reasoning (Seidel, Blomberg & Stürmer, 2010; Sherin, 2007; Sherin, Jacobs
& Philipp, 2011; Sherin & Van Es, 2005). Lefstein and Snell (2011) use the
term to describe the knowledge-based processes of directing attention and
information processing and Minaříková and Janík (2012) propose that teacher
professionalism integrates three key dimensions: professional knowledge
Focusing on the Social 139
(knowing and understanding theoretical principles), professional vision (ability

to identify situations and events that are instrumental for successful pedagogical
action) and professional action (pedagogical interventions based on the other
two features).
Of course, suggesting that there needs to be a paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1962/1996)
in the processes of teacher development is neither new nor radical. As Johnson
(2009) indicates, teacher education has experienced shifts in epistemologies
continuously and over decades; one of the more recent shifts being increasing
support for sociocultural foundations. Villegas-Reimers (2003) suggests that
teacher development must be perceived as a long-term, collaborative process.
Basing her premise on sociocultural perspectives, Villegas-Reimers argues that
technology can play a major role in requiring student–teachers to engage in
higher-order thinking, acquire deep knowledge of both content and process and
make connections to the real world (see also Arnold & Ducate, 2006; Chapelle &
Hegelheimer, 2004; Dooly & Sadler, 2013; Guichon, 2009; Hubbard, 2008; Meskill
& Anthony, 2010, who pose similar arguments). The underlying paradigms of
sociocultural models of teacher education can be traced back to a ‘constructivist
view of how people learn to teach’ (Freeman & Johnson, 1998, p. 402) and this
same epistemic stance is now quite prominent in teacher education approaches
based on computer-mediated communication.
Conceived and situated within such paradigms of teaching and learning, the
teacher development program outlined in this study aimed to enact the notion
of knowledge sharing that is so fundamental to today’s society, thus promoting
greater teacher awareness of local–global relationships as well as the role
technology can play in sustaining these. Through a mixed methods approach, this
study examines the ways student–teachers display teacher conceptual thinking.
Whether and how student–teachers progress from intuitive ideas towards more
concrete thinking (e.g. from vague objectives of language teaching such as ‘getting
them to use the target language’ to explicit display of complex language teaching
strategies involving moment-by-moment understanding of pupil development,
tool and artefact uses, and content within context) is examined in the context of
online professional development collaborations.
The online international exchange program
Online professional development conversations between two groups of student–

teachers – one group in Catalunya (Spain) and the other group in Illinois
(USA) – are examined. Both groups are studying to become foreign language
teachers. The online exchange is designed to involve student–teachers in various
online collaborative activities throughout the academic year, culminating in
co-developed products (e.g. teaching sequences, podcasts and complementary
educational activities). Interactions took place via Skype, Moodle, Voicethread
and Second Life (SL).
Activities in the first year principally consisted of personal information
exchange (text-chats about professional aims, general learning processes, etc.)
and tandem-peer correction of in-class activities. Gradually the amount of online
collaboration increased and after the second-year participants worked in small,
online collaborative groups to help each other design and improve teaching
sequences to be implemented during their teaching internships in schools. The
amount of collaboration was further augmented as they include shared work on
the design and creation of teaching materials that used technology (e.g. podcasts)
and subsequent reflection and evaluation on both the process of creating the
materials as well as the implementation of the activities that accompanied the
materials.
A key component to the exchange – and one which is too often treated as
corollary to existing frameworks rather than an integral part of the approach –
is the holistic embedding of technology into the development process. With
this in mind, the latest version of the curriculum for both classes is 80 per cent
transdisciplinary and carried out through collaborative online exchange
facilitated through an institutional agreement between the two institutions.
Analytical approach
There is considerable divergence in opinion as to how to measure the effectiveness

of teacher development programs. Apart from the traditional divide between
quantitative and qualitative research paradigms, the fact that teacher development
encompasses infinite and intrinsically complex factors of context, content and
human variables and is, first and foremost, a process implies that measuring the
effectiveness of any program may best be approached by balancing observable
data at both macro- and microlevels. Thus, a mixed methods approach is used to
triangulate (Croker, 2009) two types of data: quantitative and qualitative. This also
has the advantage of providing a manageable approach to a very large database.
The qualitative data (online artefacts, transcripts of online conversations)
constitute the main focus. These data are examined to provide a rich description
of one student’s progress during a one-year period. It has been argued that
triangulation cannot ensure complete validation of any results, given that each
source must be understood on its own terms (Bazeley, 2004), however, it can
also be argued that the use of diverse data types can complement each other
and provide multiple perspectives, especially when considering complex human
processes. First, the frequency of use of field-specific terms related to teacher
education was taken from students’ internship final reports was determined. This
provides a macroperspective of acquired teacher knowledge. Then, in order to
provide a richer, detailed description, one student’s output and related artefacts
was taken from the same tutorial course and examined for recurring patterns
that might be contrasted with the internship group’s overall corpora.
Combining these perspectives allows for a line of investigation that clearly
considers learning as a ‘process that is directly observable, evolving on a local
moment-by-moment basis’ so that not only the overall, general results are
considered but also ‘how learners and their co-participants construct “learning”
activities locally, and how they continuously demonstrate to each other that they
are engaged in a “learning” activity’ (Hougaard, 2009, p. 3). Lastly, students’ final
marks (averages and ratio of students grouped according to these averages) give
a longitudinal glimpse of the efficiency of the program over a four-year time
period.
Main themes discussed in students’ final reflections
Using a Grounded Theory (GT) approach to manage a large amount of qualitative

data in a systematic, yet flexible way, allows for the analysis to emerge from the
data rather than having preconceived notions of what will be found (Charmaz,
2006). Moreover, the version of GT proposed by McCallin (2009) embraces the
multiplicity of world realities and recognizes the subjectivity of generalizations,
subsequently acknowledging the researcher’s purpose underlying the creation
of themes, and thus ensuring meaningful descriptions that are pertinent to the
research questions. In this data set, all of the student–teachers’ final reports
from the tutorials during one year are culled for educational themes significant
to language teacher strategies and understandings. The ten most frequently
mentioned themes appear in Table 7.1. The third column indicates the number
of times the theme was explicitly linked to a specific episode from the online
collaboration (e.g. providing a chat transcript as evidence or explanations of
learning).
Table 7.1 Most frequently mentioned themes from student–teachers’ reports

Theme Frequency Mentioned within
context of online
dialogue
Using a communicative approach to teach an FL 47 35
Student motivation 44 28
Creating ‘authentic’ communicative 42 36
opportunities for learners
Classroom management 38 17
Importance of planning and teaching objectives 29 25
Working through integrated competences 27 9
Use of ICT for language teaching and learning 23 18
Lifelong learning 19 2
Assessment 14 11
Teaching grammar 9 3
The final reports required that the student–teachers reflect on their previously
negotiated learning objectives and on the processes they had engaged to
appropriate (or not) these objectives. These high-frequency themes will now be
examined from a microperspective of one student–teacher’s specific experience
during the academic year.
Tracing one student–teacher’s learning through artefacts
Bogdan and Biklen (1992) describe qualitative data as ‘rough materials

researchers collect from the world they are studying; they are the particulars
that form the basis of analysis’ (p. 106). The ‘rough materials’ or artefacts chosen
for this study stem from different phases of the 2010–11 tutorial sessions and
activities. At the beginning of the course students were asked to complete a
self-diagnosis of their own learning needs, based upon a ranking system that
was adapted from the EPOSTL: European Portfolio of Student Teachers of
Languages (Newby et al., 2007). Using their initial self-analysis, along with
classroom discussion of vignettes and recordings from a three-week internship
in a school at the beginning of the year, students wrote their own specific learning
objectives and proposed an action research project on a topic that they were
interested in delving into further. In addition, students had to design teaching
sequences to be implemented in a second internship carried out in the middle of
the course. Parallel to this, students were exploring theoretical issues related to
the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). These different areas of

face-to-face and/or individual activities and knowledge construction converged
with the online exchange activities through critical discussion, peer feedback
and learning activities carried out in virtual collaborative groups.
One student, Andrea, was randomly selected to explore regular, recurring
patterns of interaction and behaviour in these activities. To locate recurrent
patterns, all the artefacts were systematically scanned and a code was assigned
to subcategories (naming of variables) that emerged from a preliminary analysis.
Analysis included locating recurrent episodes in more than one domain or
artefact (minimum three occurrences) in the student’s learning process, which
were then cross-referenced with the frequency patterns of the larger data set
discussed above. The most recurrent themes that emerged in this particular
student’s artefacts and which are also frequent in the general group’s themes
are then examined in more detail. Specifically, these are (1) teaching through
integrated competences, (2) importance of objectives in planning and assessment,
(3) use of online collaborative exchange and (4) relevance of ICT for teacher
development and for language teaching. Each of these themes and an example
from the artefacts or online interactions in which they emerge are discussed in
detail in the following sections.
As previously mentioned, the students were asked to carry out self-reflection
on their own needs as future teachers, based on an intensive (full-day) three-week
period of internship at a school. Resources the students had for this reflection
were video-recordings of brief interventions they had carried out in the school,
guiding questions and a self-ranking document (Figure 7.1), based on EPOSTL.
In one section on planning, Andrea1 ranks the following teaching competences
as the top three she felt she needed to work on during the course:
1. Structure lesson plans and/or plan for periods of teaching in a coherent and
varied sequence of content.
2. Identify curriculum requirements and set learning aims and objectives
suited to the learners’ needs and interests which also challenge learners to
reach their full potential.
3. Plan when and how to use the target language, including meta-language
needed in the classroom.
Andrea places the need to plan for learner presentations and learner interaction in
the eighth position of importance. Later on, however, this particular competence
takes on another dimension for her, as it emerges as a recurring topic for her and
her peers through the online exchange.
Figure 7.1 Extract from Andrea’s EPOSTL self-ranking
Figure 7.2 Andrea’s personal learning objectives shared with online peers
Following their self-ranking and revision of the video-recordings, the students

then presented their proposed learning objectives to their peers (face-to-face
and online) for small-group discussion (Figure 7.2). At this point, Andrea’s
interventions are quite broad; she appears unable to diagnose in specific terms
where her needs lie.
It is not until further in the first term, when the students begin to actually
work together online, that specific domains of planning and more specific
details of organizing learning events begin to emerge in the conversations.
In one of the first discussions of an early draft of Andrea’s teaching sequence
(Extract 1), her online partner (Tony) remarks on the ‘sociocultural elements’
in her planning, emphasizing the need to focus on these features over ‘linguistic
goals’ (turn 15:00:32). It is important to note, too, that it is Tony who signals the
need for Andrea to state her goals and objectives for the unit (turn 14:57:31). In
turn 15:06:01, he insists on more specific content for the mural that Andrea has
designed for the teaching sequence and had sent to him before their online chat.
Despite her previous diagnosis of needing to learn to get unwilling students to
participate, Andrea’s planning does not include specific strategies for grouping
beyond dividing students into groups for each season, (which in a class of 25–
30 students implies quite large groups), see turn 15:06:01. She does, however,
pinpoint an opportunity for the students to reflect on their own learning by
having them make and comment on the season mural (turn 15:06:39). Her
partner then responds by suggesting a wider audience for the learners for their
output by including the students’ parents.
Extract 1: Online chat 26 October 2010 – Andrea, Tony

[14:55:34] Andrea: ok
[14:56:04] Andrea: So we can start
[14:57:31] Tony: yes. Shall we talk about your draft first? What is your overall
plan for the unit? Goals/objectives etc.
[14:57:37] Tony: It looks great!
[14:59:18] Andrea: Thank, it took me time to think about it. I started planning
the unit for three weeks ago.
[15:00:32] Tony: i really like the sociocultural elements to it. I think it is so
important that you considered factors over and above linguistic goals. These
are important: cooperative learning, learning to learn, personal autonomy. . . .
excellent!
You mentioned murals, poems, make luggage, postcards. These are vital as they
are visual ‘right-brain’ activities. . . . so important for the age of the students
[15:01:51] Tony: what do you think the murals will look like/include?
[15:06:01] Andrea: I thought that each mural would include important aspects
of each season. I will divide the class into four groups and each group will have
to work with the season that they will have chosen.
[15:06:39] Andrea: I think that it is a good opportunity for kids to realise what
they have been learning during these sessions.
I will plan a general structure that they could follow to build their murals.
[15:08:35] Tony: true. Perhaps at the end of the unit, the parents could come in
for a mural/poster exhibition? The children display their work and the parents
walk around asking questions about it???
Two days later, Andrea meets with a different online peer (Extract 2). She
mentions the feedback she had already received from Tony (turn 15:35:14),
indicating that she is going to incorporate his ideas into her planning. This
time her peer, Missy, brings Andrea’s attention to the need for more thought
in her sequencing of activities and to just how these activities are going to be
introduced to the students (turn 15:38:11). Missy tries to facilitate Andrea’s
planning by providing her with some guiding questions meant to both prompt a
reply as well as provide new ideas. Andrea does not respond directly to Missy’s
intensive questioning. Instead she indicates that she will send her a fuller version
of her teaching sequence later on (turns 15:38:58–15:39:32). Continuing along
the lines of detailed planning of each session, and in particular, the introduction
of topics, Missy gives Andrea some ideas for warm-up activities (turn 15:42:17).
In the next turn, Andrea reiterates that her draft is still very general and then, a
bit more abruptly this time, tells Missy that she will send a fuller version soon
and begins setting up dates for their next online meeting.
Extract 2: Online chat 28 October 2010 – Andrea, Missy

[15:31:28] Andrea: I won’t use textbooks
[15:31:49] Andrea: I will create my own material for the six sessions.
[15:32:19] Missy: Then are you going to teach for six sessions?
[15:32:37] Andrea: yes
[15:32:39] Missy: And are you going to teach 4 seasons for 6 sessions
[15:34:16] Missy: I’m wondering what kind of materail are you going to use in
the classroom . May that deicde the development of your class. .
[15:35:14] Andrea: Two days ago I spoke with Andy about what I will plan for
the six sessions and he gave me an idea that was: Last session it will be about
collectiong all the information and preparing murals of each season. Then, he
told me that it will be a good idea that when students finish their murals, they
come in front the class to expalin what they have been learning, what they writhe
down on their murals and time for asquing questions between them.
[15:36:17] Andrea: the first session will be related to introducing the seasons,
then the four following seasons will be to talk about each one and then, for the
last on (6 session) will be to sump up this teaching sequence.
[15:38:11] Missy: Then in the first session, how are you going to introduce the
four seasons? Are you going to ask some questions? or Are you going to show
them some video-clips related with four seasons? What kind of activities are you
planning to?
[15:38:58] Andrea: In this session I am going to introduce the topic that kids
are going to work with during the following six sessions and it will be about
seasons.
[15:39:31] Andrea: During these weeks I will send yourthe teaching sequence
of each session
[15:39:32] Andrea: ok?
The draft that I sent you was related to general information of my teaching
sequence. Now I have started preparing each session.
[15:42:17] Missy: Usually as a warm-up, using vedio-clip can attratc students
attention for the lesson. But finding the right English video-clip takes lots of
time. At the beginning of the class, something interesting or fresh is quite useful.
How about your idea about warm-up?
[15:43:05] Andrea: I thought to do play different games, present activities such
as: Mixt game, flashcard . . .
[15:44:21] Andrea: Missy . . . I will sent you all the information about the sessions
and the warn-up that I will present. Now I have to leave. We meet next Tuesday
at 3pm in Chicago and 9 pm in Spain.
[15:45:06] Missy: All right. See you then!
The overall tone of the two conversations is quite different. In the first chat,
Andrea seems more open to suggestions by her online peer and even mentions
them to Missy. In the second chat, Andrea is more evasive and, rather than
answer all of her peer’s questions, she prefers to set up another meeting when
she has the teaching sequence more fully developed.
Interestingly, however, following these discussions and before finalizing
her teaching sequence to be implemented in her January–February mid-term
intensive internship, Andrea begins to focus more on the issue of carefully and
completely planning classroom interaction. Moreover, when elaborating her
Action Research Project for which she will compile data during the internship,
she decides to focus on this very topic. In her online discussions about her project
with another peer (Julia), it is Andrea who seeks more peer feedback about setting
up effective classroom interaction, in particular, how to promote collaborative
work between pairs and groups (turns 10:39:18 and 10:47:20). Julia then gives
her a long answer about the setting up of collaborative groups, including having
individual roles and goes on to explain how this can help students feel more
responsibility for their own learning. In turn 10:47:20 Andrea agrees emphatically
(using capital letters in the text-chat) about using peer collaboration and then in
10:49:54 Andrea brings up the importance and challenges for the teacher to plan
the interactions carefully, to which Julia agrees.
Extract 3: Online chat 28 November 2010 – Andrea, Julia

[10:38:27] Andrea: Julia . . . first Thank you very much for your attention
[10:38:38] Andrea: I really apreciate it
[10:39:18] Andrea: According into the first vignette: Is it important to give
roles
to the groups to have each one a signed activity? What do you think?
[10:40:45] Julia: oh, I agree that it is important to assessing roles to students as
you encourage a positive interaction and group processinng
[10:41:23] Julia: we should choose roles that will help students overome
communication difficulties to get the project done and done well
[10:41:40] Andrea: it is truth
[10:42:46] Julia: besides, each student should get a role, a task to accomplish
as it makes him to feel important, that he somehow contributes to the activity
completion, that he is a part of an assignment
[10:44:22] Julia: when a student feels responsible for something, that his input
into a certain activity is also crucial, you know, that he has a job to do, so he kind
of focus more, works harder to carry out his duties, tasks the best he can
[10:45:47] Julia: it’s important to give a role to a certain student but a role that is a
part of the whole; as studnets at the end might analyze their ideas, discuss them
and improve their communication skills as well as teamwork
[10:46:49] Julia: Assiging roles to studnets also allows diffrent individuals to
develop and utilize diffrent skills / abilities
[10:46:50] Andrea: I agree about what you say.
[10:47:20] Andrea: Giving roles so that everyone can feel involve with activity:
PEER COLLABORATION
[10:48:27] Julia: yes, they know that they have kind of job to do in order for
whole to work,,, so they feel responsible and involved ;)
[10:49:54] Andrea: Yes but for doing this, it must be a hard work for part of the
teacher. She/He must plan a very good lesson.
In the final stages of her planning (end of January), a more focused approach to
planning and implementing group work is evident in Andrea’s teaching sequence.
She underscores this personal goal in her online declarations of self-diagnosed
areas for improvement (Figure 7.3).
• What areas should I target for improvement?

I will like to improve peer-collaboration because I want all kids to feel involve in the actvities such as, working in group
school where I will implement my teaching sequence, there is a lot of diversity and newcomers with different level
want them to feel part of this unit.
• What could I do differently if I could?

I will chang the way I planned some activities for the newcomers because some of them were too difficult to follow.
• Why?
Because I think that they have to do the same activity but I could have adapted the content to be easier for them to underst
• What features from the ECML language teacher portfolio do I see that I can do?
I can create a supportive atmosphere that invites learners to take part in speaking acvivities and I can evaluate and select
of meaningful speaking and interactional activitis to develop fluency such as: discussion, role play, problem solving, among
• What features form the ECML language teacher notfolio do I see that I need to work on?
Figure 7.3 Andrea’s prezi about areas for action research
Transcript of prezi
• What areas should I target for improvement?
I would like to improve peer collaboration because I want all kids to feel involve in
all the activities such as working in groups. In the school where I will implement
my teaching sequence, there is a lot of diversity and newcomers with different
levels of language learning and I want them to feel part of this unit.
At the end of February, in her reflection about achieved objectives looking back
at the planning and implementation of the teaching sequence, Andrea highlights
this in her online wiki. Her online partners give her positive feedback while
acknowledging the teacher knowledge that Andrea has acquired.
Moving on in the semester, during a Skype chat that took place in March
(Extract 4), there is a role reversal. Andrea now gives her online peer advice on
setting objectives. In turn 8, Andrea recommends that her partner make the
learning objectives explicit to the learners and that she unpack how to plan and
explain objectives through the use of SWBATs (an acronym for Students Will Be
Able To), which is, in fact, a term first introduced to the Catalunya group by the
US peers earlier in the semester.
Extract 4: Online Skype chat – Kimmy, Andrea

1.
Kimmy: in my school we also have computer class for our students
2.
Andrea: ah ok
3.
Kimmy: so maybe I can ask for some help from computer teacher
4.
Andrea: OK
5.
Kimmy: And then we can work together
6.
Andrea: ok nice
7.
Kimmy: yeah that’s a great idea thank you
8.
Andrea: (laughs) you’re welcome_ another thing that I thought that you
could explain them what they are going to learn during these sequences
because in your draft in the in the interaction I didn’t see that you you
wrote about how to to explain what the students will be able to do or
what they are going to do during these teaching sequences so I thought
that it could be a good idea for them to explain what they are going to
achieve during these session_ or not?
9. Kimmy: oh I see_ you mean during the three hours?
10. Andrea: yeah
11. Kimmy: oh I see yeah yeah I have to make it in detail
In turn 13 (Extract 5), Andrea’s partner asks her for suggestions on what her
objectives should be. Andrea appears to understand the question as a request
for a more detailed explanation of objectives as a concept. In line 20, however,
Andrea realizes that Kimmy is asking for the objectives of her teaching sequence,
to which Andrea once again provides the formulaic phrase ‘students will be able
to’ along with at least one suggestion.
Extract 5: Online Skype chat – Kimmy, Andrea

12. Andrea: ah ha
13. Kimmy: yeah yeah thank you_ do you have any suggestion?
14. Andrea: Sorry?
15. Kimmy: do you have any_ good idea what the objectives
16. Andrea: the objectives_ I mean do you have you seen my dropbox
17. Kimmy: yeah I I saw yours
18. Andrea: ah you tell me to think about your objectives no (1)
19. Kimmy: ahm ahm I mean do you have any suggestion for my draft as
for objectives
20. Andrea: objectives I mean so students will be able to (.) to umpreh
comprehend different reading texts
21. Kimmy: ah_ I see OK yeah that would be great
22. Andrea: Students will be able to I don’t know
23. Kimmy: (laughs) OK that sounds yeah oh good fine
In her final report, Andrea reflects on the changes she has observed in her own
teaching strategies. Change #3 (Figure 7.4) describes in detail the importance of
carefully planning the type of interaction that will promote learning. She then
goes on to link the use of SWBATs for specific planning of the interaction in
teaching activities.
In her conclusion about her learning trajectory in the final report, Andrea
highlights the convergence of the blended learning environment (local factors):
‘without the guidance of Melinda and my school placement teacher, I could
not have had a successful teaching sequence’ with the global theoretical issues
Figure 7.4 Slide from Andrea’s final reflection

always prevalent through the dialogic interaction in class and online: ‘[with
Julia] we talked about readings and materials about key teaching concepts to
understand better’; ‘the AR [Action Research] has helped me to understand
planning interaction’; ‘I have learnt critical awareness so that I will always seek
more knowledge.’
Conclusion
The emergence of context- and content-specific topics on teaching across

different domains of interaction as reflected in the qualitative data suggests
that the participants are engaged in ‘conceptual thinking’ by ‘making their
everyday concepts explicit, . . . reflecting on and critiquing them, . . . beginning
to think in concepts about aspects of their teaching which are relevant to their
daily professional lives’ (Johnson, 2009, pp. 64–5). Tracking and analysis of
one student’s online interactions suggest a shift from merely communicating
information to true collaboration aimed at extending her and others’ knowledge
in order to better apply, refine and generalize developing teacher know-how.
Instances of teacher development in the online conversations reflect joint inquiry
through which the participants constructed meaning and deeper understanding
of teaching concepts that had been vague to them at the beginning of the year. By
the end of the year, not only is Andrea able to reify the conceptual underpinnings
of language learning strategies, she is able to make them explicit for her peers in
their own development suggesting her emerging professional vision of herself as
a professional educator.
Chris Dede, a staunch promoter of distributed-learning communities in
teacher development, challenges us thus:
How a medium shapes its users, as well as its message, is a central issue in
understanding the transformation of distance education into distributed
learning. The telephone creates conversationalists; the book develops imaginers
who can conjure a rich mental image from sparse symbols on a printed page. . . .
As we move beyond naive superhighway concepts to see the true potential
impact of information infrastructures, society will face powerful new interactive
media capable of great good or ill. . . . The most significant influence on the
evolution of distance education will not be the technical development of more
powerful devices, but the professional development of wise designers, educators,
and learners. (Dede, 1995, Transforming, para. 4)
As teacher educators across the globe provide more opportunities for future
teachers to experience and learn from similar distributed-learning communities,
holistic embedding of technology into these teacher professionalization processes
is clearly warranted.
Note
1 All participants’ names have been changed to protect their identities (except the
researcher/author’s).
References
Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers’ social and cognitive
collaboration in an online environment. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1),
42−66. Retrieved on 15 July 2011 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/pdf/
arnoldducate.pdf
Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research.
In R. Buber, J. Gadner & L. Richards (Eds), Applying qualitative methods to
marketing management research (pp. 141–56). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Chapelle, C., & Hegelheimer, V. (2004). The language teacher in the 21st century. In
S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds), New perspectives on CALL for second language classroom
(pp. 299−316). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. London: Sage.
Croker, R. A. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. In J. Heigham &
R. A. Croker (Eds), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: a practical introduction
(pp. 3–24). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dede, C. (1995). The transformation of distance education to distributed learning.
[Online] Retrieved on 8 April 2013 from www.hbg.psu.edu/bsed/intro/docs/
distlearn
Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (2013). Filling in the gaps: linking theory and practice through
telecollaboration in teacher education. ReCALL Journal, 25, 4–29.
Downes, S. (2010). Learning networks and connective knowledge. In H. H. Yang
& S. C.-Y. Yuen (Eds), Collective intelligence and e-learning 2.0: implications of
web-based communities and networking (pp. 1−26). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language
teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417.
Guichon, N. (2009). Training future language teachers to develop online tutors’

competence through reflective analysis. ReCALL, 21(2), 166–85.
Hougaard, G. (2009). Legitimate peripheral participation as a framework for
conversation analytical work in second language learning. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(2), 1–16, article 4, Retrieved
on 11 May 2011 from http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs090247
Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. Calico Journal,
25(2), 175−88.
Johnson, K. (2009). Second language teacher education. A sociocultural perspective. New
York & Abingdon: Routledge.
Kahan, S. (2004). Engagement, identity and innovation: Etienne Wenger on
communities of practice. Journal of Association Leadership, 2(3), 26−37.
Kuhn, T. (1962/1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd edn). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2011). Professional vision and the politics of teacher learning.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 505–14.
McCallin, A. (2009). Grounded theory online. Retrieved on 4 July 2012 from www.
groundedtheoryonline.com/what-is-grounded-theory/classic-grounded-theory
Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2010). Teaching languages online. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Minaříková, E., & Janík, T. (2012). Profesní vidění učitelů: od hledání pojmu k
možnostem jeho uchopení [Teachers’ professional vision: from conceptual searching
to seizing opportunities]. Pedagogická orientace, 22(2), 183–201.
Newby, D., Allan, R., Fenner, A.-B., Jones, B., Komorowska, H., & Soghikyan, K. (2007).
European portfolio for student teachers of languages. A reflection tool for language
teacher education. Graz: ECML.
Seidel, T., Blomberg, G., & Stürmer, K. (2010). OBSERVE: Validierung eines
videobasierten Instruments zur Erfassung der professionellen Wahrnehmung
von Unterricht [OBSERVE: Validation of a video-based tool for detecting the
professional perception of teaching]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 56(Supplement),
296–306.
Sherin, M. (2007). The development of teachers’ professional vision in video clubs. In
R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron & S. J. Derry (Eds), Video research in the learning
sciences (pp. 383–96). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sherin, M., Jacobs, V., & Philipp, R. (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: seeing through
teachers’ eyes. New York, London: Routledge.
Sherin, M., & Van Es, E. (2005). Using video to support teacher’s ability to notice
classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475–91.
Stoll, L., & Louis, K. (2007). Professional learning communities: elaborating new
approaches. In L. Stoll & K. Louis (Eds), Professional learning communities:
divergence, depth, and dilemmas (pp. 1–14). Berkshire, England: Open University
Press.
Van Damme, D. (2002). Outlooks for the international higher education community
in constructing the global knowledge society. Paper presented at First Global
Forum on International Quality Assurance, Accreditation and the Recognition of
Qualifications in Higher Education: ‘Globalization and Higher Education’. October,
2002. Paris: UNESCO.
Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: an international review of
the literature. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.
Wenger E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:
Wright, T. (2010). Second language teacher education: review of recent research on
practice. Language Teaching, 43(3), 259−96.
8
Perceptions of Humour in Oral Synchronous

Online Environments
Natasha Anthony
Introduction
In teaching and learning that prioritize meaningful interactions and negotiation

of meaning, humour and language play represent great opportunities. Humour
is ‘an inextricable part of the human experience and thus a fundamental aspect
of humanity’s unique capacity for language’ (Askildson, 2005, p. 45). As such,
humour in face-to-face classrooms has been the subject of recent research in
language education (Bell, 2005; Broner & Tarone, 2001; Cook, 2001; Tarone,
2000). However, the role of humour in the context of online, and more specifically,
oral synchronous, online environments with their lack of non-verbal cues such
as gaze, gestures, facial expressions and body language has yet to be addressed.
This chapter examines humorous episodes in the oral synchronous portions of
online Russian classes. The various roles humour plays in this embodiment-free
environment are discussed from both instructors’ and students’ perspectives
along with implications for professional development and future research.
Humour in language teaching and learning
The theoretical framework for this study is sociocultural (Bakhtin, 1981;

Vygotsky, 1978) and foregrounds the importance of active social interaction
in human development. Humour, as an integral part of human interaction that
distinguishes humankind from the rest of the world and ‘stands as one of the
few universals applicable to all peoples and all languages throughout the world’
(Askildson, 2005, p. 45), is an integral component of instructional interaction.
Numerous studies report that humour plays an affective role in language
learning particularly in assuaging the anxiety and stresses that can negatively
impact language acquisition (Askildson, 2005; Forman, 2011; Tarone, 2000).
Studies examining oral synchronous environments in online language courses
indicate that the specifics of this disembodied and mostly autonomous
environment with often restricted turn-taking opportunities can influence
anxiety levels (de los Arcos, Coleman & Hampel, 2009; Hampel, 2006; Hampel &
Stickler, 2005; Hampel, Felix, Hauck & Coleman, 2005). Indeed, factors such as
physical separation, with learners and teachers isolated from one another, result
in deprivation of immediate reactions to humour and language play in the form
of smiles, laughter, approving face expressions, nodding and other non-verbal
visual cues. This is compounded by the one-at-a-time talking constraint. Even
though oral synchronous might be ‘an ideal medium for collaborative learning
through social interaction’ (Hampel & Hauck, 2004, p. 68), it challenges both
teachers and students as regards their stress levels. Clearly, there is need for
research investigating ways of reducing stress and anxiety in this medium with
humour being one possibility.
Some studies speculate that humour and language play have an emotional,
and thereby salient impact on language acquisition (Bell, 2005, 2009; Bushnell,
2009; Cook, 2001; Wagner & Urios-Aparisi, 2011). It has even been suggested
that ‘humorous language play may aid in the acquisition of L2 vocabulary and
semantic fields in particular, by allowing lexical items to be processed more
deeply, making them more memorable’ (Bell, 2009, p. 253). Indeed, recent
studies conducted in non-language online courses demonstrate that students in
humour-integrated courses have significantly better retention rates than those in
no-humour courses (Fitzpatrick, 2010; Schmidt, 2002). It has also been argued
that learners’ awareness of linguistic forms increases in humorous contexts thus
facilitating their noticing and internalization (Belz & Reinhardt, 2004; Sullivan,
2000; Swain, 2000; Tarone, 2000). However, research on non-language classes
demonstrates that humour increases learning at the comprehension level but
not at the application level (Hackathorn, Garczynski, Blankmeyer, Tennial &
Solomon, 2011).
Humour in face-to-face language classes seems to emotionally engage
learners, keeping them interested, focused on tasks and actively negotiating
meaning (Askildson, 2005; Bushnell, 2009; Forman, 2011; Schmitz, 2002),
while prompting them to manipulate language in creative and imaginative ways
Perceptions of Humor in Online Environments 159
(Pomerantz & Bell, 2011). Further, the social role of humour is associated with
contributing to a sense of social presence in online venues. While research on
humour in face-to-face language classes indicates that it helps teachers and
students build a sense of mutual trust and rapport and contributes to a sense
of community (Askildson, 2005; Belz & Reinhardt, 2004; Hall & Walsh, 2002),
research on oral synchronous online environments suggests these are not the
best for social presence and community building (Yamada & Akahori, 2007).
While a need for appropriate uses of humour in online courses has been
voiced (James, 2004), there is scarce research on the roles humour can play
in online instruction. The few existing studies confirm that, as is the case in
the regular classroom, humour in online courses facilitates retention (Garner,
2006), positively affects participation and productivity in discussion forums
(Shatz & LoSchaivo, 2006), adds to a sense of social presence (Goldsmith, 2001)
and advances student attention and interest in the subject (Taylor, Zeng, Bell
& Eskey, 2010). Humour and playfulness in online language courses, while
not being directly addressed, have been suggested as essential elements for
successful instructional practices (Darhower, 2002; Meskill & Anthony, 2010;
Sotillo, 2000). In short, research devoted to humour and language play in
language education suggests that it can play a facilitating role in the following
seven respects: Affective, Mnemonic, Linguistic, Cultural, Engaging, Social and
Attentional. Online language teacher and student perceptions are discussed as
they align with each.
Methodology
The data for this qualitative research study came from the following four
sources:
ll
Archived oral synchronous portions of online Russian classes that were
conducted via the audio-conferencing programs in Wimba Classroom,
Elluminate Live and Blackboard Collaborate in three schools: online K-12, a
university and a community college, all located in the United States.
ll
Interviews with three online Russian educators (Appendix 8.2) whose
experiences with teaching Russian online with oral synchronous venues
varied from four to nine years and whose range of language levels
taught varied from high school to college and from beginning to high
intermediate.
ll Interviews with five former online Russian college level students (Appendix
8.1) whose expertise in Russian varied from beginning to high intermediate.
These students were recruited using lists of emails provided by the
interviewed instructors. Only students who had graduated from online
Russian courses and with final grades issued were asked to participate
in these interviews. Student participants were included based on their
willingness to participate in the study.
ll
An online anonymous survey of online Russian students created with
Survey Monkey www.survey monkey.com. The questionnaire contained
ten open-ended questions (Appendix 8.1). Only current students from the
first and second semester Russian classes over the span of three consecutive
semesters of 2011–12 were invited to participate in the survey. The number
of responders totalled 52.
The interviews were recorded using the Wimba recording feature and were
transcribed and analysed. Each interview session lasted from 30 to 65 minutes.
Participants were asked questions regarding their view of humour in the oral
synchronous portions of their online Russian classes (Appendices 8.1 and
8.2). The interviews were followed up with specific questions arising as the
data from the archived portions of the courses continued to emerge. These
follow-on questions were addressed via emails and the text-chat portions of
Skype.
Analysis
The archives of oral synchronous portions of online Russian courses, student

surveys and teacher and student interviews were analysed and arranged by the
seven roles for humour previously discussed: Affective, Mnemonic, Linguistic,
Cultural, Engaging, Social and Attentional. Each will be presented and discussed
in turn.
Affective role of humour

In accordance with previous research indicating that humour reduces the
anxiety and stress associated with speaking foreign language in the context of a
face-to-face classroom (Forman, 2011; Tarone, 2000), many students’ responses
were supportive of this observation. To the question ‘Do you find the instances
of humor in your online live sessions helpful in your learning/acquiring Russian

and if yes, in what respect?’ learners responded:
It helped with the anxiety levels. The times we had humor, it did kind of lighten
the mood and took the pressure off. . . . Nothing necessarily has to be humorous,
but humor definitely takes some pressure off and allows you to relax and
concentrate on the topic at hand. (Student 3)
It helps me to relax and not felt pressured. (Anonymous survey response)
It makes it more fun and makes it more ok to try and make a mistake then being
afraid to speak b/c you’re not perfect. (Anonymous survey response)
There are a lot of misunderstandings that can easily occur when trying to learn
a new language online. Making it funny helps people feel less insecure about
messing up. (Anonymous survey response)
I believe that teacher-initiated humor relaxes the classroom and leaves us all
more willing to participate because we aren’t afraid to mess up because there is a
portrayed sense of light-heartedness. (Anonymous survey response)
It (humor) just makes it easier to feel relaxed and speaking in conversation is less
intimidating. (Anonymous survey response)
When Student 1 was asked about the humorous comments he made in the chat
area during his class’s oral tasks, his response was: ‘Learning another language
especially as hard as Russian is a lot of stress. I think everyone is stressed and
anxious to speak Russian. I think humour reduces stress levels and anxiety levels.’
When the student was asked whether he used a particular humorous comment to
reduce his own anxiety or the anxiety of his classmates, his answer was ‘A little bit
of both. I just wanted it to be less stressful for both Jonathan and me.’ The professor
teaching this class commented on this situation by saying ‘The class became
tedious. The students were slow to respond, and because I couldn’t see them, I
wasn’t sure whether they did or did not know what or how to say . . . or maybe they
were having technical troubles. Such situations are always a bit stressful. Feels like
the whole class is falling apart. John’s comment really took some pressure off.’ As
regards affect, then, these data suggest that the use of humour in oral synchronous
environments can play an affective role by reducing levels of anxiety and stress.
Mnemonic role of humour

Recent research points to humour and language play as having effects on memory
in language learning (Bell, 2005; Bushnell, 2009; Cook, 2001). The memorable
impact of humour may be influenced by the specifics of an embodiment-free

environment with its lack of visual cues. When participants were asked the
question ‘Do you think vocabulary items presented in humorous contexts
would be more memorable?’ Many answers belied appreciation of humour as a
mnemonic device.
I believe every single rule should be visually represented and with humor. It will
help them memorize them better. (Teacher 1)
The grammar in the course was pretty intense and I thought some entertaining
examples might help in making the forms stick in their heads. I hope it did help.
(Teacher 2)
It’s easier to remember something funny than something that is boring. . . . Words
are remembered better when presented in humorous situations. (Student 1)
Often humor makes the content more memorable and therefore helps to learn it
faster and better. (Student 2)
I tend to remember things more easily if I have a phrase to associate them
with, and humorous phrases are particularly memorable. (Anonymous survey
response)
Students will seek to come up with and memorize witty comments which will
increase their vocab and willingness to learn. (Anonymous survey response)
Some, however, were sceptical about the salience of humour:
Humor would not necessarily cause help the learning process more than ease the
learning experience. (Anonymous survey response)
It was a section about marriage I think . . . and Elizabeth Taylor came up
somehow. That was pretty funny but as far as helping me memorize or helping
learn things easier that would not necessarily be the case for me. I think it would
be about the same as if I was trying to memorize using regular ways in situations
without humor but you know humor is always a good thing. (Student 3)
Not really. Vocab is more just memorization to me. (Anonymous survey
response)
I know when I was younger we studied the multiplication table by using these
silly rhymes to remember what order they were coming in. Something like that
might help with languages but I don’t know. (Student 4)
One of the survey respondents wrote, ‘Certain words that sound weird like
глупый [dumb; stupid] being presented as humorous makes me remember it.
There was a class where we were supposed to describe a pop star as pretty/ugly
and intelligent/dumb and it was funny.’ The teacher who taught the class did
not see the above episode as humorous by saying ‘I thought it would be more
engaging for them to talk about some celebrity especially notoriously famous,
somebody that is from the real world they all could relate to but I don’t remember
it being particularly funny and I don’t remember anybody making me think it
was funny.’
Few of the students who favoured humour as a mnemonic device were able
to support this belief with specific examples from the live online sessions of their
Russian courses. Some, while expressing the memorable impact of humour,
could retrieve only the funny parts of their humorous exchanges and/or English
translations of the Russian phrases used in those but not the Russian lexical
items or the grammatical structures associated with the mentioned instances
of humour. The typical response to the question about whether humour helps
learners remember words better was ‘Yes, but I cannot remember a specific
example.’ This topic clearly calls for further investigation.
Linguistic role of humour

Humour and language play arguably contribute to increased noticing of
linguistic forms and subsequent internalization in language classes (Belz &
Reinhardt, 2004; Swain, 2000; Tarone, 2000). However, in these data, even
though form noticing occurs within episodes of humour and language play,
there is insufficient evidence for a cause–effect explanation. Indeed, when asked
their views of humour as supportive in noticing linguistic forms, participant
responses indicate that, while playing some role in learning language or learning
about language, humour may not necessarily play any significant role in acquiring
language.
When the teachers in the study were asked ‘Do you think grammatical
forms presented in humorous contexts are more noticeable to students?’ they
responded:
I try to present grammatical concepts in humorous contexts and provide

examples and models that I believe are quite funny. I do believe it helps them
understand the notions but usually it doesn’t matter if you present it in a funny
way or boring way, they make the same number of mistakes when they are
engaged in an activity, especially requiring their concentration. (Teacher 2)
Some students do pay attention to the endings and ask questions like
‘Why do we use Genitive case here?’ or ‘Is this Accusative case?’ but I don’t
think humor has anything to do with this. Some students are simply more
grammar-oriented than the others. And some don’t pay attention, humor or
no humor. (Teacher 3)
In response to the question ‘Have you noticed grammatical forms better if they
were presented in humorous contexts?’ Student 3 responded, ‘It doesn’t matter
to me at all. It doesn’t need to be humorous for me to understand; it has to
be clearly spoken.’ Student 1 and Student 2 responded positively to the above
question but were not able to provide specific examples.
Student 4, a female, recalled, ‘I remember once I said something like “Я делал”
[I did (masculine ending)], my professor said something like that I was a boy,
he called on me. I think that was pretty funny.’ When asked to comment on
this, Teacher 3 who taught the class said that he sometimes did tease students
by making gender-related mistakes because ‘it helped them pay attention to the
endings better and understand what they stand for.’
In spite of claims of direct links between humour and noticing, these data
do not provide clear evidence that humorous contexts contribute to noticing
linguistic forms.
Cultural role of humour

Previous research on humour in language education revealed that learning culture
through and with humour is beneficial (Askildson, 2005). The embodiment-free
environment, however, creates the need for careful structuring of tasks and
activities due to time constraints. Also because of time constraints, rarely is
there sufficient time to focus on culture. During tasks, as both the archived oral
synchronous portions of the online classes as well as the interviews with the
teachers revealed, teachers are not inclined to deviate from their preplanned
activities to make comments about culture. As a result, spontaneous discussions
about various cultural phenomena were rare in the synchronous portions of
these online classes.
It’s all about focus. In regular class, there are many ‘by the ways’ when you just
briefly describe instances of culture as they come up in the lesson. Here if we
have too many ‘by the ways’, students will get distracted and it would be hard to
focus them on the task again, especially if you put them into the breakout rooms
where they are pretty much on their own. But if you talk about culture, you try
to make it humorous so that it could grab their attention and have an impact on
them. (Teacher 2)
Responding to the question ‘Do you find the instances of humor in your online
live sessions helpful in your learning/acquiring Russian and if yes, in what
respect?’ many students in the study reported viewing humour as a positive
element in learning about the Russian culture.
To use the language effectively, there must be some understanding of the culture.
Humor varies among different cultures, so I think it is helpful to include humor
as part of language learning. (Student 1)
It makes some of the figures of speech more obvious. Like a lot of American
jokes are hard to understand for people who don’t get the double entendres.
(Anonymous survey response)
People use humor in everyday lives and some cultures humor is different than
others. It is important to know what is considered humorous if you are learning
a language. (Anonymous survey response)
I like the funny comments about Russian culture. (Anonymous survey response)
Interviews with students indicate that they were able to recall instances of
presenting Russian culture with humour in their online lessons. For example,
Student 2, who had taken her online Russian courses three years prior to the
time this research was conducted, mentioned an episode about her online
Russian teacher talking about picking mushrooms in Russia and comparing it
to playing Russian roulette. She commented that the humour of the story about
this part of Russian culture had made her remember this for a long time. Thus,
it seems humour may have a more significant memorable impact on learning
about culture than, for example, on studying vocabulary.
Engaging role of humour

Language acquisition calls for spontaneous, situational and purposeful use
of language (Savignon, 1991). Indeed, the need for humour as a trigger for
spontaneous and lively interactions is consistently voiced in the literature, for
example, ‘We contend that engagement in spontaneous humorous performances
can provide rich opportunities for language use and development, beyond those
habitually found in more tightly controlled classrooms’ (Pomerantz & Bell, 2011,
p. 157). However, the demand for careful preplanning and task design for oral
synchronous environments in order to meet the challenges of this medium is
also emphasized in a number of studies (Duensing, Stickler, Batstone & Heins,
2006; Rosell-Aguilar, 2005). Such forethought in structuring a lesson, coupled
with the embodiment-free specifics of the medium may have both positive and
negative effects resulting in ‘fewer student–student exchanges outside allocated

tasks’ (Heins, Duensing, Stickler & Batstone, 2007, p. 292). In these data, humour
appears to play a role in engaging learners and prompting them to use the target
language in a more spontaneous and lively manner.
Humor can encourage the participants to interact more with each other outside of
just doing the exercises kind of going back and forth with the classwork. Humor
possibly adds little more spontaneity and it helps feel peoples’ personalities
instead of just responding to exercises each time you speak. (Student 3)
Even the funny name of the activity makes the activity itself less boring. I do
many things to engage students and keep them interested, for example, I do ‘a
garage sale’ sometimes selling the nice items on the slide for the right answers.
(Teacher 1)
I try to make jokes to provoke them to use language in more personable manner
and let them say whatever they think on the subject. (Teacher 2)
The use of humor during Russian usually makes the activities we do in class
more engaging and fun. It’s easier to learn when you’re enjoying yourself.
(Anonymous survey response)
I enjoy humor. It makes the class interesting and engaging. It adds a level of
personality to the lessons. It makes things much more interactive! (Anonymous
survey response)
It has been observed that in oral synchronous portions of language classes there
is a higher ratio of teacher talk versus student output (de los Arcos & Arnedillo
Sánchez, 2006; Heins at el., 2007). It is notable in the current data that humour
triggered students to produce comments in Russian in the text-chat area in
parallel with the oral discussion going on in class, thus raising their linguistic
production.
When I made a joke about students watching too many sitcoms, the students in
class began chatting in Russian, laughing at each other you know with emoticons
and lols. I remember somebody typed ‘Ли любит смотреть корейские драмы’
[Li likes to watch Korean dramas] about one of the students who happened to be
Korean. There was lot of teasing. I remember thinking like wow, they can say so
many things in Russian I even had no clue. (Teacher 3)
Humor triggers me to speak in Russian or chat in Russian. (Student 4)
These observations support the notion of humour prompting spontaneous

interactions in the target language and thereby increasing student output in the
context of the oral synchronous medium.
Social role of humour

In language education studies, it has been observed that in oral synchronous
sessions a sense of social presence is measured as low compared to classes
utilizing other venues of instruction such as video conferences or text-based
channels of communication (Yamada & Akahori, 2007). The need to foster a
sense of social presence in oral synchronous modes is acute. The majority of
the participants in the current research agreed that humour can contribute to a
sense of online community.
I remember each time when something funny was said, people started laughing
in the chat box. We were able to laugh about something together. So it did not
feel like we all were disconnected. (Student 4)
I believe humor brings the classroom to a more connected level. It causes
students to want to learn more words/phrases. It can be used to break the ice of
some more nervous students. (Anonymous survey response)
Sometimes I feel like I’m in heaven, you know, or a Purgatory with the souls
roaring around with no bodies, no real people. When students react to my jokes
by typing something in the chat box, I feel they are more human, like there are
real people behind the screen. (Teacher 2)
When asked ‘How do you respond normally to humorous situations in your

online class?’, several students in the study reported using private chat for
exchanging humorous comments privately with the other students thus creating
a kind of ‘underground community’ through humour.
If I think it’s truly funny, I send a chat to another person. (Anonymous survey
response)
Usually I laugh to myself or comment privately to other students so as not to
disturb everyone. (Student 4)
I laugh at my computer a fair bit. And with private chat in wimba. (Anonymous
survey response)
It is hard for both sides to gauge each other’s reactions since we can’t see facial
expressions or hear laughs or smiles – which can make it hard to see if the
humor is successful or not. Humor is clearly very language-based since there
is no visual component to the classes, but I think that lends its own special
kind of humor to the class – if that makes sense haha. (Anonymous survey
response)
Humour also seems to contribute greatly to teacher presence, transforming what

some students called a ‘voice in a computer’ into a real person.
Because your teacher is not there, humor makes your professor more
approachable. (Student 2)
I think that humor in our lessons is very enjoyable without being distracting. I feel
very relaxed speaking with the teacher in the classroom and she comes off more
as a person than just a voice in my computer. (Anonymous survey response)
It’s a little harder to respond to humor in the Wimba classroom, because nobody
can hear if other people are laughing, but it’s also more important because it
helps to establish the instructor as a human being, instead of just a voice over the
internet. (Anonymous survey response)
Not all of the students in the study recognized humour as a social tool. Student 3
was the exception in stating a ‘sense of community would have been nice but I
did not expect to form friendships in the Wimba Classroom because we are using
computers and headsets and it makes it, you know, a little more difficult’. However,
all the other participants appreciated humour in making social presence happen
and its significance in doing so pertained to this particular environment.
Attentional role of humour

The demands of attention distribution and concentration in oral synchronous
environments are challenging. Humour may represent one possibility for
alleviating this problem. The data from this study suggest that the specifics of an
embodiment-free environment call for the attentional role of humour.
Humor is important online because it grabs their attention. I always tease

students when I don’t hear them typing in chat or raising hands. I’m like ‘Уилл
и Джон, вы смотрите YouTube?’ [Will and John, are you watching YouTube?]
(Teacher 1)
I often tease students when I feel they are not paying attention because someone
is too slow to respond. Just recently we were discussing what they had in their
closets, and the student who was supposed to respond was not saying anything
for a while. I was afraid that the others could begin wandering around the
Internet instead of listening. So I said ‘Джон, что у тебя есть в шкафу? Кроме
скелета?’ [John, what do you have in your closet? Besides a skeleton?] And they
started typing in chat like ‘ha ha’, ‘lol’, smiley faces . . . showing they are there.
(Teacher 2)
In response to the question ‘Do you find the instances of humor in your online
live sessions helpful in your learning/acquiring Russian and if yes, in what
respect?’ many students in the study indicated that they appreciate humour as
an attentional aid.
It keeps me focused. (Anonymous survey response)

Humor makes it fun and holds your attention. (Student 2)
I remember once that some student was not paying attention and we were talking
where we’d go after the class. And the professor said ‘Are you on your way to a
bar already?’ We all laughed about it. (Student 4)
Research in language education suggests that visuals are highly valued by

students in calling their attention to the focal points of instruction (Anthony,
2010; Meskill & Anthony, 2007, 2010). Oral synchronous, embodiment-free
environments are the places where attention cannot be drawn by using gestures
or other non-verbal cues. Humour when coupled with visuals can be effective in
addressing the attentional demands of the environment.
I had a situation when one of the students struggled with the task and took him
a while to figure out what and how to say. He seemed to be quite stressed out
and I felt sorry for him. Besides, I wasn’t sure if the others were paying attention.
I drew a head on the slide with smoke coming out of the ears. They like what?
What’s going on? Is somebody bored? And I said that we worked so hard that
we had smoke coming out of our ears. It’s a Russian expression. Дым из ушей
идёт. [Smoke comes out of the ears.] They giggled and I seized the moment
to inject some grammar explanations that I thought would help to finish the
activity. (Teacher 1)
Not seeing students and not being able to hear them unless they push the talk
button creates an atmosphere of uncertainty. Students might be engaged in
multitasking, using social networks, texting or checking emails, activity that
research suggests negatively impacts learning (Reynold & Cotten, 2012). Thus,
calling for attention is one of the central roles that humour may play in online
oral environments.
Discussion and implications
Study participants were probed regarding their perspectives on humour and

its roles in oral synchronous environments. Data that address the Affective,
Mnemonic, Linguistic, Cultural, Engaging, Social and Attentional dimensions

of humour are suggestive.
Affective
Participants’ responses, in conjunction with the archives of recorded oral
synchronous lessons, indicate that both the teachers and the students viewed
humour as instrumental in dealing with the stress and anxiety associated with
speaking Russian online. The specifics of the environment with its lack of
non-verbal information can lead to misunderstandings. Such situations can
exacerbate the stresses of speaking Russian. Humour was reported to mitigate
this.
Mnemonic
While some students in the study appreciated a mnemonic role for humour,
others were reluctant to identify humour as having a memorable impact on
them. In addition, when asked to supply specific examples of humour that helped
them remember features of the Russian language, students were only able to
recall non-subject related incidents. This finding aligns with Carlson (2011) who
reported inconsistent results in humour’s effect on memory. The lack of visual
cues in oral synchronous modes could reduce the impact of humour on memory
as well. The memorable effects of humour in the context of audio-conferencing
modes of instruction should be investigated further.
Linguistic
These data suggest that humour may be used as a tool to help online teachers focus
on forms within meaning-focused activities. However, there was little evidence
that students notice forms better in humorous contexts. The issue of salience via
humour as a means to encourage learner noticing calls for substantial research.
Cultural
Study participants unanimously rated humour very highly when used in the
context of learning about Russian culture. This directly supports Schmitz’s
(2002) call for culture presented with and through humour to be implemented
at all the levels of instruction.
Engaging
The rigidity of oral synchronous environments requires tightly structured
activities. Indeed, teachers work harder than in a face-to-face classes to connect
with students and engage students with content. Lack of non-verbal cues does not
always allow teachers to digress from the tasks at hand rendering the instruction
potentially monotonous. These data suggest that humour was used to engage
students in more spontaneous and lively uses of Russian while triggering them
to interact in Russian more both orally and textually.
Social
Establishing and maintaining social presence in oral synchronous environments
have been identified as problematic in recent research (Yamada & Akahori, 2007).
This study indicates that humour is an excellent tool in turning the ‘voices in the
computers’ into real people and making these computer-mediated interactions
more human.
Attentional
Holding students’ attention in an environment devoid of most devices for doing
so is not an easy task. Both the teachers and the students in this study recognized
humour as a tool for securing and maintaining attention.
As we have seen, five out of the seven roles that humour plays in oral
synchronous environments – Affective, Cultural, Engaging, Social and
Attentional – were illustrated and praised by study participants. The other
two – Mnemonic and Linguistic – were not strongly evidenced. As concerns
implications for professional development in online education, clearly while one
cannot learn how to be funny and humorous, the ways of employing humorous
elements in designing and orchestrating instructional tasks are something that
can be highlighted.
Conclusion
As illustrated here, humour can be a teaching tool to complement language

instruction in oral synchronous environments, the disembodied nature of which
presents certain challenges. Humour apparently contributes to making live
online sessions less stressful, engages students into more spontaneous and lively
uses of language, raises cultural awareness, and unites instructors and students
as a community. Humour can also apparently be instrumental in addressing the
attentional demands the medium carries. The parts of this research addressing
memorable and linguistic impacts of humour suggest further exploration.
Appendix 8.1. Interview and survey questions for students
1. Do you find humour important in learning foreign languages? Why or why

not? If yes, in what aspects? Can you give a specific example?
2. Do you find the instances of humour in the live sessions helpful in your
learning/acquiring Russian? If yes, in what respect? Can you give a specific
example?
3. What do you think about vocabulary items presented in humorous
contexts during the live sessions? Does it help you memorize them better
and retain them better? Can you give a couple of specific examples?
4. What do you think about grammar presented in humorous contexts during
the live sessions? Does it help you memorize the grammatical forms better
and retain them better? Can you give a couple of specific examples?
5. How do you respond normally to humorous situations in the live
sessions? Laughing by yourself? Typing in the chat area your comments or
emoticons (lol, smiley faces, ha ha, etc.) to the whole class or privately to
some students? Commenting aloud for everybody to hear?
6. Do you have any comments about humour and language play during the
live sessions?
7. What do you think about teacher-initiated humour in the live sessions? Do
you think teacher humour can help you learn Russian? Why or why not? In
what ways?
8. What do you think makes humorous exchanges in the live sessions
difficult and/or restricted? What can be done to overcome those
difficulties?
9. What would help humour in the live sessions be better perceived?
10. What makes humour in the live sessions different from humour of a
traditional language classroom? How to you think the digital features of
the audio-conferencing programs can make humorous exchanges more
effective?
Appendix 8.2. Interview questions for instructors
1. Do you find humour important in learning foreign languages? Why or

why not?
2. Do you include/involve humour in your preparation for the live sessions?
Why or why not? Do you find humour in the live sessions helpful in your
teaching Russian?
3. What do you think about vocabulary items presented in humorous contexts
during the live sessions? Do you think those are memorized better?
4. What do you think about grammatical forms presented in humorous
contexts during the live sessions? Do you think those are more noticeable to
students?
5. What do you find difficult about humorous exchanges in the live sessions?
What can be done to overcome those?
6. How to you think the features of the audio-conferencing programs can
make humorous exchanges more effective?
References
Anthony, N. (2010). Refocusing focus on form in the context of online language

teaching via audio conferences. Slavic and East European Journal, 54(1), 76–95.
Askildson, A. (2005). Effect of humor in language classroom: humor as a pedagogical
tool in theory and practice. Arizona Working Papers in SLAT, 12, 45–61.
Bakhtin, M. (1981 [1935]). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic
imagination: four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (pp. 259–422). Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Bell, N. (2005). Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: a case study of humor in
NS–NNS interaction. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 192–218.
— (2009). Learning about and through humor in the second language classroom.
Language Learning Research, 13(3), 241–58.
Belz, J., & Reinhardt, J. (2004). Aspects of advanced foreign language proficiency:
internet-mediated German language play. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 14(3), 324–62.
Broner, M., & Tarone, E. (2001). Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish
immersion classroom. Modern Language Journal, 85(3), 364–79.
Bushnell, C. (2009). ‘Lego my keego!’: an analysis of language play in a beginning
Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 30, 49–69.
Carlson, K. (2011). The impact of humor on memory: is the humor effect about humor?
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 24(1), 21–41.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57, 402–23.
Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated
communication in the intermediate L2 class: a sociocultural case study. CALICO
Journal, 19, 249–77.
de los Arcos, B., & Arnedillo Sánchez, F. (2006). Ears before eyes: expanding tutors’
interaction skills beyond physical presence in audio-graphic collaborative virtual
learning environments. In P. Zaphiris & G. Zacharia (Eds), User-centered computer
aided language learning (pp. 74–93). Hershey: Idea Group.
de los Arcos, B., Coleman, J., & Hampel, R. (2009). Learners’ anxiety in audiographic
conferences: a discursive psychology approach to emotion talk. ReCALL, 21(1), 3–17.
Duensing, A., Stickler, U., Batstone, C., & Heins, B. (2006). Face-to-face and online
interactions – is a task a task? Journal of Learning Design, 2(1), 34–44.
Fitzpatrick, R. (2010). The Impact of integrated humor on memory retention and recall
aspects of adult learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. EPSY.
Forman, R. (2011). Humorous language play in a Thai EFL classroom. Applied
Linguistics, 32(5), 541–65.
Garner, R. (2006). Humor in pedagogy: how ha-ha can lead to aha! College Teaching,
54(1), 177–80.
Goldsmith, D. (2001). Communication, humor, and personality: student’s attitudes to
learning online. Academic Exchange Quarterly, Summer, 108–12.
Hackathorn, J., Garczynski, A., Blankmeyer, K., Tennial, R., & Solomon, E. (2011). All
kidding aside: humor increases learning at knowledge and comprehension levels.
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(4), 116–23.
Hall, J., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186–203.
Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: a framework for language
teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105–21.
Hampel, R., Felix, U., Hauck, M., & Coleman, J. (2005). Complexities of learning and
teaching languages in a real-time audiographic environment. German as a Foreign
Language, 3, 1–30.
Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards and effective use of audio conferencing in
distance learning courses. Language Learning and Technology, 8(1), 66–82.
Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: training tutors to teach
languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311–26.
Heins, B., Duensing, A., Stickler, U., & Batstone, C. (2007). Spoken interaction in online
and face-to-face language tutorials. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3),
279–95.
James, D. (2004). A need for humor in online classes. College Teaching, 52(3), 93–4.
Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2007). Form-focused communicative practice via CMC:
what language learners say. CALICO, 25(2), 69–90.
— (2010). Teaching languages online. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pomerantz, A., & Bell, N. (2011). Humor as safe house in the foreign language
classroom. Modern Language Journal, 95, 148–61.
Reynold, J., & Cotten, S. (2012). The relationship between multitasking and academic
performance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505–14.
Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2005). Task design for audiographic conferencing: promoting
beginner oral interaction in distance language learning. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 18(5), 417–42.
Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: state of the art. TESOL
Schmidt, S. (2002). The humor effect: differential processing and privileged retrieval.
Memory, 10, 127–38.
Schmitz, J. (2002). Humor as a pedagogical tool in foreign language and translation
courses. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 89–113.
Shatz, M., & LoSchaivo, F. (2006). Bringing life to online instruction with humor.
Radical Pedagogy. Retrieved on 20 October 2012 from http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.
org/content/issue8_2/shatz.html
Sotillo, M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and
asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82–119.
Sullivan, P. (2000). Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a
Vietnamese classroom. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language
learning (pp. 115–32). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf, (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language
learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tarone, E. (2000). Getting serious about language play: language play, interlanguage
variation and second language acquisition. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. Anderson,
C. Klee & E. Tarone (Eds), Social and cognitive factors in SLA: proceedings of the 1999
second language research forum (pp. 31–54). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Taylor, C., Zeng, H., Bell, S., & Eskey, M. (2010). Examining the dos and don’ts of using
humor in the online classroom. Proceedings of the 15th Annual TCC (Technology,
Colleges, and Community) Online Conference.
Ed. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wagner, M., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (2011). The use of humor in the foreign language
classroom: funny and effective? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,
24(4), 399–434.
Yamada, M., & Akahori, K. (2007). Social presence in synchronous CMC-based
language learning: how does it affect the productive performance and consciousness
of learning objectives? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 37–65.
9
Face-to-Face and Online EL Writing

Tutorials: A Comparison
Jason Vickers
Introduction
This chapter investigates differences between face-to-face (f2f) and online

asynchronous writing tutorials specifically drawing upon Steven North’s
(1984, 1994) view that the function of tutorials in a writing centre context is
to make better writers, not better writing. His vision is that better writers are
made through discussion of the writing process with a piece of writing being an
artefact to facilitate the conversation. In line with North’s view of focusing on a
writing process through exposure and conversation is a social constructionist
epistemology which focuses on dialogic interactions between the writer and
tutor and subsequent knowledge generation necessary for the writer to write
successfully in different culturally contextualized disciplines (Bartholomae,
1986; Bizzell, 1986; Bruffee, 1973, 1984, 1986; Faigley, 1986; Lantolf, 2000;
Swales, 1988). I do not make the case that one medium is superior to another;
rather, I set out to discuss how each medium contributes to a English Learner’s
(ELLs) writing and how each assists in shaping them as academic writers.
A writing process
A general model of the writing process often contains four areas or ‘episodes’:
planning, drafting/writing, revising and editing (Gillespie & Lerner, 2008; Ryan
& Zimmerelli, 2010). In planning writers may ask themselves their purpose
for writing, what they know and need to know about the topic, and audience
considerations. They may brainstorm to better understand what they know
about the topic and conduct research on the topic about which they are writing.
Drafting/writing entails creating an initial draft. The writer may engage in
focused freewriting or outline prior to composing. Revising is where the writers
review what they have written looking at higher-order concerns such as the
thesis statement and its relation to the entire paper, organization of the paper,
transitions and clarity, and whether detail needs to be added. The writer may
merge points, reorganize paragraphs and rewrite sentences to make them clearer
as well as conduct additional research to strengthen arguments. In editing, the
writer typically proofreads with focus on lower-order concerns such as grammar
and spelling. The writing process as described here is recursive and non-linear.
Note that I use the phrase ‘a writing process’ here. This is because, as North
believes, there is no one approach to the writing process. Writers and tutors will
likely have their own unique process when writing. Tutors, however, will typically
approach tutorials with these four episodes in mind. This was certainly true in
the writing centre where I was the English as a Second Language consultant for
five years. In f2f tutorials with both native and non-native speakers of English,
the primary concern is talk. In this talk, tutors may request that writers explain
what their papers are about as well as have them describe the process they used
to arrive at the papers they bring to the tutorials. Tutors might focus on what
they and the writers identified as the key issue in the papers, which is frequently
organization, and talk about these points. The tutorials might progress from
there with tutors asking questions to the writers in order to elicit more detail
about their papers. Often, tutors will have writers read their papers aloud, which
Gillespie and Learner (2008) fit into the editing episode of writing since writers
may catch surface-level errors.
But the talk may never go past talking about prewriting. The talk may have
been exclusively used to flesh out the writer’s initial process and included things
they might do differently at the prewriting stage including questions the writer
may ask about what he or she knows about the topic, how the writer might
brainstorm, and what research to get and where to get it. Or the talk might make
it to the editing stage where tutors talk about ways a writer could edit the paper.
Frequently, the tutorial is far messier than that as tutors tended to dip in and out
of each episode.
Face-to-Face and Online EL Writing Tutorials 179
These are the types of interactions I am talking about when I discuss writing
tutorials – tutorials where there is conversation either in an f2f situation or
through asynchronous email exchanges between the tutor and writer about
processes the writer used and can learn to use when composing. This type of
writing tutorial aligns with North’s vision of a tutorial where ‘talk-about-writing’
occurs. This is the type of tutorial capturing Bruffee’s (1984) idea that the spirit
of collaborative writing work is not about editing or proofreading; collaborative
writing involves conversation about the subject, assignment and writing process
because writing is a conversational act between the writer and reader and, in the
instance of peer tutoring using a process-based approach espoused by North, a
conversation in its purest sense. This genre of peer tutorial allows for ‘unfettered
conversation’ (Williams, 2005, p. 37).
Data sources
Asynchronous email tutorials were taken from archived email tutorials between
the author and Asian writers during the 2009 and 2010 academic years. F2f
tutorials were between native English speaking tutors and Asian EL writers
during the 2011 academic year. These tutorials, along with interviews with both
tutors and writers, were conducted, digitally recorded and transcribed by the
author as part of a larger study (Vickers, 2012).
Complications in comparing f2f and

asynchronous email tutorials
Comparing the two tutorial types is inherently difficult due to the nature of
interaction (or perhaps it is a lack of interaction or different nature of interaction)
in many asynchronous email tutorials. Admittedly, providing clear examples for
each episode in email tutorials is difficult due to several factors. In most cases,
writers submit either a draft or piece they consider to be a near completion to
work on. This situates the tutorial in the revision or editing episodes if the paper
is being presented as a complete piece. Where papers are partial, as is sometimes
the case, the tutorial might logically fall in the drafting episode.
Further complications that arise in comparing the two may be a result of a
general lack of sequencing in comments tutors make on papers in asynchronous
tutorials. In looking at papers in asynchronous tutorials, the paper and comments

are presented as a whole with comments being linear. It is difficult to see how
the tutor may have prioritized issues, especially if the tutor has made comments
addressing multiple episodes. Tutor commenting on many aspects of a writer’s
product is not unusual as tutors in asynchronous tutorials have a proclivity for
over-commentary on writer drafts (Hewett, 2010; Rathford, 2009). In other
words, tutors may feel compelled to address most, if not all, of the issues they see
in writer drafts. This may especially hold true when the tutor believes that the
exchange will be limited exchanges consisting of the writer sending a draft and
the tutor commenting on the draft and returning it to the writer.
The remainder of this chapter is broken down into three sections. In the first
two sections, I present f2f tutorials and asynchronous email tutorials that are
working on similar episodes of the process. The first set of scenarios focuses on a
tutorial that involved a drafting, or more realistically, a (re)drafting episode. I say
‘(re)drafting’ because both writers present drafts that could technically situate
each tutorial in the revising episode. In the second group of three scenarios, I
discuss the editing episode and how scaffolding can occur in each. In my last
section, I compare each set of tutorials and draw conclusions based on what
occurred in each.
(Re)drafting in f2f and email tutorials
There are some instances when writers enter into a tutorial with a paper that
appears to be off-topic or where the tutor identifies serious organizational issues.
In both cases, this may necessitate revisiting an earlier episode in the writing
process such as the prewriting or drafting episodes. How this work is done in
each tutorial medium can be very different due to interactional affordances or
constraints, with writers in f2f tutorials being more active in the real-time process
than feasible in asynchronous email tutorials. I present in this section two cases
where the tutors identified issues in the writers’ presented papers and assisted
by providing opportunities to redraft the papers. In the f2f tutorial, the tutor
assisted the writer in brainstorming and outlining so the writer could continue
on his own. In the asynchronous email case, the writer asked the tutor to review
organization. This review resulted in the tutor identifying organizational issues
in the paper and providing the writer with an outline so the writer could rework
the piece.
(Re)drafting in the f2f tutorial

This f2f example is the last tutorial in a series of three tutorials between a male
tutor and a male Korean writer. The tutorial began with the tutor reading a paper
draft that the writer had been working on for two weeks with assistance from
the tutor. We enter into the tutorial with the tutor identifying a focus issue in
the draft:
t I’m tr- I’m trying to figure this (pause) so you’re telling me- and this is
what I’m reading – is Frost consistently shows man struggling with nature
or trying to control it, right?
w I think his poems . . . I don’t know about how he did in the poem ‘Out,
Out’, yeah
t well isn’t the poem about – er sorry, isn’t this paper supposed to be about,
about ‘Out, Out’ specifically?
w yeah. right.
t this is- I think why we’re running into- so you need to be focused more on
the poem. the individual poem
w yea:h
t this is – this is good. I mean it’s good research in the sense that you’re
setting the contents to Frost, but you’re not telling me anything specific
about this particular poem which is your primary source
w yeah
t so one of the things that I think you need to figure out is how is nature
represented in ‘Out, Out’
w yeah
t so how is it represented in ‘Out, Out’?
In this exchange, the tutor, who was reading the writer’s most current draft,
identified that the writer was not writing about the primary source, ‘Out, Out’
by Robert Frost, and recommended that they look at the poem again in order to
develop a claim focusing on the poem.
Over the next 120 tutor–writer conversational turns, the tutor probed
the writer with questions specific to the poem and recorded the notes in
Figure 9.1.
Figure 9.1 contains four blocks with each block representing a portion of the
tutorial where the tutor elicited information from the writer. In Block 1, the tutor
had the writer list elements of the poem. Block 2 represents the tutor’s discussion
Figure 9.1 Writer/tutor generated notes
about how this information would be used to lead to a thesis statement. Block 3
was a result of the following exchange:
t that perhaps he’s just not ready for – see where I’m going with all this? okay
so one of the things (pause) alright do you wanna back up you look a little
confused
w yeah back up
t back up? okay. alright. so. it seems that we have a couple of components to
the poem. alright? you have as we discar- discussed. machine. nature and
where I’m proposing is that there’s a third element which comes: in the
very end of the poem
w mhm?
t it’s the commu:nity. and at the center of all of this is the boy ((tutor
drawing on notes))
w yeah
t mkay so. he sees nature in the background and I remember there were
portions of that poem that said eh-he wishes only to do what boys can do
and that’s you know run off and play but he has to do man’s- a man’s work
w yeah
t alright and he’s alone doing it. he’s alone with the machine with another
individual. and finally when the machine attacks the boy
w m?
t I think it’s pretty accurate to say attack
w yeah
t is . . . we’re left with no real sense of a community are we?
w right
t people go on- I understand that we can read it as if they’re emotionally
numb but the fact is they go on with their affairs
w yeah
t life goes on
w mhm
t so, I can’t tell you exactly what to do with all that but those seem to be
three very important underlying aspects to the poem itself
w ng
t and so you need to focus on nature. I’m sorry not focus on nature you need
to focus on machinery industry and technology and what that does to our
lives
w so do I need to change my thesis statement? thesis statement.
t you will- I would suggest that you do change it to make it more specific.
so here it eventually shows how life is fragile and boyd and- VOID by
juxtaposing life and death, but. there’s a cause for the boy’s death and that’s
the machine
Through this complex series of exchanges, the writer identified the need for
changing his thesis statement and eventually arrived at the new thesis stating
‘how life is diminishing and become fragile from alienation of human being
from community and nature by machine’ (Block 4).
The writer here did not specifically comment on changes in his process of
outlining or brainstorming during his post-tutorial interview. Instead, he
reported that he learned how to better analyse a poem through the questions the
tutor asked during the tutorial. He did mention that the outlining here helped
him to construct a better thesis statement, but he credited the majority of that
construction to the conversation he had with the tutor about the poem and
earlier research he did as a result of prior tutor prompting.
Email tutorial: Outlining

Verbal negotiation in email tutorials is not as interactive since there is reduced
ability to discuss what should or will be worked on in the tutorial. When emailing
their papers, writers may include what they would like the tutor to focus on.
Figure 9.3 is an example of a female Korean writer specifying what she would
like the tutor to focus on.
Hello. [tutor name]. It is [writer name].

However, I have to post this essay on black board until Sunday. Before I posted
this essay, I would like to hear your feedback. The professor said that she will pay
attention to purposeful organization this time.
Attached to the email was the writer’s paper with an outline at the beginning.
Upon reviewing the paper, the tutor concurred with she needed to work on
problematic organization. In his feedback he provided the writer with suggestions
on how to create a more detailed outline both for the paper she had sent and in
future papers (Figure 9.2).
Your outline could be a little more detailed. It seems like you’re jumping
around in the paper. You should consider restructuring the paper. Here is
one way you could structure your paper.
You could talk about things you saw and did in America that you either
can’t do (or don’t have) in Korea, differences in scenery (this includes land
and architecture – and I don’t see where you develop the architecture portion),
difficulties you have in America that might not occur in Korea, and differences
in culture (people in Korea minding their business, things like that). You can
start off with the things you did.
Either that, or address the same thing in the same order (this is parallel
structure). So, talk about a place and (1) what you did, (2) how it was different,
(3) difficulties along the way, (4) cultural differences.
So, your outline might be something like:
1. Introduction
a. You’ll talk about what you did
b. You’ll talk about how it was different than in Korea
c. You’ll talk about the difficulties (easy/hard, environment, everything is

larger?)
d. You’ll talk about cultural differences
2. Body paragraphs
a. Universal
i. General info
ii. How it was different
iii. Difficulties along the way
iv. Cultural differences
b. Water park
i. General info
c. Las Vegas
i. General info
d. San Francisco
i. General info
e. Grand Canyon
i. General info
3. Conclusion
If you structure your paper similar to the outline above, your reader will be able
to follow your thoughts better.
One general suggestion I have is that you create more detailed outlines before
you write your papers. This will allow you to see the overall structure of the
paper.
Figure 9.2 Tutor provided outline

The tutor provided this possible outline along with comments in the body of
the email suggesting the writer review articles and verb tenses. He stressed the
need for the writer to reorganize her paper and how outlining might improve the
cohesion of her papers. The writer’s response to this was:
Based on your comments, I changed my oultine a little bit~ How does it look like?
I selected an outlilne which is general info, what I did and cultural differences. . . .
It is seven pages in totall. . . . I think it is way too much. . My professor replied
back to me that I have a lot of examples, so I need to focus some examples and
try to describe in depth. .I think I did but I am not positive. .
The writer’s revised paper followed the outline the tutor suggested and was a
more cohesive piece.
In subsequent email tutorials, this writer began to include outlines like this
one:
Reflections of the class which I have learned in class Outline
Introduction:
The thought and my career plan I have had before taking this course
Body
1. Career development
– Example: 1. MBTI and SII test
– definition and explanation both tests and my result from the test
2. Class activities:
– Informational interview, mock interview
3. Job research paper:
– What did I get from that assignment?
4. Working experience as a teacher
– Working as a Korean teacher in America
Conclusion
What changes do I have throughout the semester?
Did I develop my career planning?
Reflections of this semester about taking EPSY course.
While the outline the writer presented here was not as detailed as the outline
the tutor provided in the earlier asynchronous tutorial, it reflects a change in the
writer’s drafting process. In a follow-up conversation, the writer expressed that
outlining assisted her in writing what she considered to be better papers.
As seen in the two examples, work in the f2f setting was more of a back and
forth. This was necessary interaction as the writer did not realize that his thesis
statement was somewhat off-topic. In the asynchronous tutorial example, the
writer identified the potential for organizational issues in her writing. This
allowed the tutor to suggest an outline without first having to discuss the reason
for doing so.
Scaffolding the editing episode
Many times, EL writers visit the writing centre and request that the tutor work
on grammar and editing. Grammar and editing as a primary concern for EL
writers attending tutorials has been consistently identified in research (Blau, Hall
& Sparks, 2002; Carter-Tod, 1995; Ritter, 2002; Williams, 2004, 2005). There is,
though, a difference between a tutor serving as an editor and making corrections
in writers’ texts and a tutor serving as a peer who is more experienced with the
editing episode of the writing process. In cases of editing as a process, the goal
typically is to equip writers with editing skills that will allow them to become
better self-editors in all papers. It is a part of the writing process that may be very
difficult to address in any tutorial situation.
Assisting writers in being better editors is difficult because it entails the
writer learning how to identify surface errors and knowing how to make the
corrections. Grammar correction or, more specifically, assisting writers in
becoming more fluent in self-identifying errors and making the corrections,
has been a long-standing conversation in second language composition
research (Ferris, 1995; Truscott, 1996; Truscott & Hsu, 2008). Feedback may
be direct by crossing out unnecessary words, inserting missing words or
providing the correct form (as in verb tense). Also included in this corrective
method is providing explanation of grammatical features (Bitchener, 2008;
Ferris, 2003). Indirect corrective feedback occurs when errors are identified by
circling, highlighting or underlining the error, marginally noting that an error
is present in a sentence and indicating the type of error, and, more broadly,
simply indicating that an error is present in the sentence (Ferris, 2003; Ferris
& Roberts, 2001). Truscott (1996) asserts that writers need to be provided
with both written and oral feedback on treatable, rule-governed errors such as
tense and definite/indefinite article use. Truscott and Hsu (2008) additionally
recommend that focus be limited to one or two grammatical features in order
to make the task manageable.
While tutor training manuals typically recommend delaying grammar work

until the end of tutorials (Bruce & Rafoth, 2009; Gillespie & Lerner, 2008;
McAndrew & Reigstad, 2001; Murphy & Sherwood, 2008; Ryan & Zimmerelli,
2010), Blau, Hall and Sparks (2002) believe that simultaneously working on
grammar and other writing issues addresses legitimate concerns EL writers bring
to the tutorial. In the spirit of process-based approaches, working on grammar
allows tutors to focus on the editing episode of the process. Making a better
writer does not mean correcting a writer’s grammatical mistakes. In fact, in my
previous research (Vickers, 2012) writers expressed a desire to learn how to edit
versus having the tutor correct their errors. One method for assisting writers in
developing editing skills is through scaffolding.
Weissberg (2006) reasons that a writing tutorial is a ‘unique opportunity to
address the needs of individual L2 writers through dialogic scaffolding’ (p. 262).
Scaffolding, as discussed by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) allows a novice to
‘carry out a task which would be beyond his unassisted efforts’ (p. 90). In writing
centre tutorials, tutors can assist writers in becoming more proficient and
independent in isolating and correcting grammatical errors by providing cognitive
and motivational scaffolding. Cognitive scaffolding occurs by tutors asking
open-ended questions, breaking the problem into smaller, more manageable tasks,
and prompting. Motivational scaffolding happens when tutors reinforce successful
task completion by the writer (Cromley & Azevedo, 2005; Thompson, 2009). How
scaffolding manifests in each setting can be different because of delayed or absent
bidirectional interaction of asynchronous communication. Below I describe how
scaffolding can occur in both f2f and asynchronous settings.
F2f scaffolding grammar correction in f2f tutorials

During f2f tutorials, tutors may be better able to gauge the level of success a writer
has with completing certain tasks and can immediately reinforce successful task
completion accordingly. In my prior research, I explored how tutors scaffold
lower-order concerns in the form of grammar work with EL writers. Typically,
the tutor can introduce one or two grammatical elements for the writer to work
with. Take the following f2f tutorial exchange in between a male tutor and female
Chinese writer:
t u:m . one th- two things that- two things tuh tuh: really pay attention to .
one is articles . so u:m so-and-so the, a– you know uh-um you know that
type of thing you know
w yeah
t so one is articles another one is, um, is tense. So like here she, um, so.
((reading writer’s paper))
Willa found that in the end of-
((stopped))
okay so
((reading))
following the bible uh: wrote by Luwana Packerville .Willa found that in the-
((stopped))
so this is past tense . so Willa found this. Willa found– so found is the
verb of that Wi- ((inarticulate utterance)) found is the action that Willa is
performing here
w m.
t so
((reading))
so Willa found (·h) that in the end of her life. she. lose her faith and even
said there can be no god
((stopped reading))
so in this case it would actually be lost (0.44) because it- it’s the past so it’s–
w oh yeah–
t referring back to the- the original – you know – tense of the sentence. so
those are: those are basically eh: two things I think to look for is like the
use of articles and making sure that that your: your tenses match up
you know
w yeah.
t so you know the present and past tense
In this instance of cognitive scaffolding, the tutor identified two things for the
writer to work on: articles and tense. He indicated a and the as being things the
writer could look for. He also provided an answer with ‘so this is past tense.’
The tutor went through and initially provided direct correction over several
conversational turns. He moved on to providing alternatives to the writer and
eventually turned the grammar correction over to the writer and employed
motivational scaffolding as seen below:
w ((reading))
the novel presented the society who was- which was dominated by men.
wo- women . was in the role of serving the foil to . men ((stopped reading))
t r:ight okay. so. so here we’ve got um . um this one is
w oh:
t yeah:
w were
t you got it! see? yeah. it just takes a little bit of a: you know just a little bit of
time with it you know . . .
In this exchange the tutor identified an error, the writer made the verb tense
correction (‘were’), and the tutor followed up with reinforcement. He also
discussed how error correction takes time. As the tutorial continued, the writer
began to identify tense changes on her own; these instances were positively
reinforced by the tutor.
In addition to the tutor providing this scaffolding, the tutor tied line-by-line
error identification and correction back to the writing process. In addition to
mentioning elements such as articles and verb tense, the tutor identified that the
writer needed to pay attention to her future editing and use his personal writing
process for editing as illustrated in the following exchange:
t you know, like we were talking about your thesis and then your supporting
evidence you know that type of thing . . . and then I’ll go back later and
read it for grammar and make sure I’ve got all my tenses matched up so i- I
may read my same paper maybe ten times, you know, before I turn it
w ten times!
t yeah. yeah-yeah. yeah. it- it’s a- I mean I won’t- you know, I won’t read it
for grammar ten times but by the from the time I start writing until the
time I turn it in I will probably have read it maybe ten times
The scenarios just described illustrate how f2f scaffolding and subsequent
redirection to the writing process can be a quick exchange; these scenarios, for
example, occurred within a 30-minute time frame. The post-tutorial interview
with the writer revealed that the writer appreciated the time the tutor spent on
showing her how she might go about editing. She came out of the tutorial with a
better understanding of editing as a process, how to identify and work on one or
two grammatical features, and indicated that she saw how looking for grammar
early in the process of writing her paper might prevent her from focusing on
global concerns such as organization.
Scaffolding grammar correction in asynchronous email tutorials

Addressing editing in asynchronous tutorials more often uses direct and
indirect error identification with the tutor initially providing direct correction
and slowly moving towards more indirect methods of error correction. Take,
for instance, the work seen in Figure 9.3.
In this exchange, the tutor indicated three grammatical issues: comma usage,
pronoun use and verb tense. Ideally, the writer would subsequently begin to
identify patterns in writing such as consistent use of verb tense.
Asynchronous tutorials also allow for more focused and detailed teaching
moments. In a later tutorial with the same writer, a female Korean, the tutor
explained the difference between precede and preceded by after encountering
the sentence, ‘Social obligation and nor should be preceded by comfort and
fascination.’ Because the tutor was uncertain about whether the writer was
conveying her thought correctly, he highlighted the sentence and provided the
text seen in Figure 9.4.
Figure 9.3 Direct feedback to writer’s product
Note on ‘precede’ versus ‘preceded by’

When using ‘precede’, the word ‘by’ changes the meaning; meaning is also
changed when you include a modal verb. Look at the following three sentences:
A) The dog precedes the cat.

B) The dog is preceded by the cat.
C) The dog should be preceded by the cat.
In the first sentence (A), who is first? The dog. The sentence means the dog came
first, and then the cat came (or went) . . .
Now, the second sentence (B) means the opposite. The cat came before the dog.
The sentence is written in passive voice and basically means ‘The cat came before
the dog.’
The third sentence (C) does not actually mean that one came before the
other. The modal ‘should’ changes the meaning in a couple of way (depending on
context). For instance, it might mean that you anticipate the cat coming before the
dog. Or, you might mean that the correct (appropriate) order of things is that the
cat comes before the dog – a rule of sorts.
Figure 9.4 Explanation of grammatical feature

This technique prevented the tutor from taking over the writer’s text, which
is something Ferris (2003) cautions against when using direct and indirect
error correction. Note that mini-lessons of this form have been identified
by Hewett (2010) as being weak because they do not require further writer
action.
Ideally, the forms of scaffolding just mentioned are modified to provide more
indirect methods of error identification and correction. Figure 9.5 illustrates an
example of this type of error identification.
In Figure 9.5, we see how direct identification of grammatical issues has been
replaced with highlighted, marginal notations that an error has occurred by
directly stating ‘error’ or prompting the writer to look at the highlighted area
again. The scaffold of meta-linguistic information on the error type is slowly
replaced with this more general error identification in an effort to have writers
become more proficient at proofreading and self-identifying errors.
The writers in the samples above reported that the type of correction here was
beneficial since they had time to think about and research the error (Severino,
Swenson & Zhu, 2009). Ferris’s (1995) findings indicate that increased time
may contribute to a reduction in writer error because of the increased time for
editing. In situations where time for editing was limited, writers’ writing tended
to contain more surface errors.
Figure 9.5 Indirect feedback to writer’s product

Discussion and conclusion
All five scenarios above illustrate ways f2f and asynchronous tutorials can
address writers’ concerns within a writing process framework. While there is
a noticeable difference in the type of interaction that occurs, with f2f tutorials
containing more tutor–writer talk, both modes can result in significant change
in writers’ reported processes.
The exception here is the first f2f tutorial presented where the writer was
working on the poem ‘Out, Out’. The tutor indicated that one of his goals in
that segment of the tutorial was to teach the writer better outlining skills.
The writer, however, indicated that the major changes in his process were the
need for research on the poem as a result of the tutorial process. Through his
conversations with the tutor, he also became aware of how to approach analysing
poetry. In the asynchronous tutorial dealing with outlining, the tutor provided a
model outline to the writer and suggested that she create more detailed outlines
in the future prior to writing her papers. She indicated that this was beneficial.
Although the f2f tutorial contained more interaction between the writer and
tutor, that the writer in the asynchronous tutorial picked up on the process
change of outlining the tutor targeted may reflect Rathford’s (2009) suggestion
that streamlined comments in asynchronous tutorials are better than attempting
to address multiple issues in the text. The tutor in this case largely ignored
grammatical issues and focused on having the writer outline prior to writing. In
the f2f tutorial, the tutor modelled how to take notes and loosely outline, but the
majority of the dialogue in the session targeted the writer’s generation of ideas.
In the second section of this chapter, I provided scenarios illustrative of how
scaffolding can occur in editing episodes. While all of the writers reported a better
understanding of how to edit, the writer in the f2f tutorial was more vocal about
the impact the tutorial had on her because of the tutor’s description of his own
editing practices. This tutorial also allowed for the tutor to monitor the writer’s
performance in editing. A constraint in online asynchronous exchanges are that
the only way to determine if the writer understood the comments and made
changes would be through follow-up email exchanges, analysis of subsequent
drafts and analysis of other writing where targeted forms were used correctly. In
tutorials typical of writing centres, analysis of revisions or new drafts is unlikely,
especially if the writer has only one or two writing tutorials. If an asynchronous
email tutorial consists only of one exchange where the writer emails the tutor
and the tutor provides assistance with grammatical features and suggests ways
for the writer to improve as a self-editor, it is virtually impossible for the tutor
to know how beneficial suggestions were. This concern is greatly assuaged in f2f
tutorials since there is consistent interaction. Even in a single tutorial, the tutor
is able to somewhat gauge whether and how the writer has benefited from the
scaffolding.
The type of interaction in both f2f and asynchronous email tutorials changes
the way the tutorials progress and changes what is possible for writers and tutors
to accomplish. Extended time is one benefit of asynchronous email tutorials
because writers are presented with the chance to repeatedly read and refer back
to tutor comments until the comments are fully understood (Severino et al.,
2009). Conversely, this same extended time can also be enjoyed by the tutor, yet
in a different way. The tutor can spend more time reading and digesting a writer’s
text instead of taking a quick minute to skim the text and deciding on where
to begin the tutorial. Regardless of tutorial medium, tutors ultimately need to
be selective with their comments and, in a process-based model, directly tie
the tutorial back to the different process episodes if their goal is to make better
writers, not better writing.
References
Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the university. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 4–23.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–18.
Bizzell, P. (1986). Composing processes: an overview. In A. R. Petrosky &
D. Bartholomae (Eds), The teaching of writing (pp. 49–70). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Blau, S., Hall, J., & Sparks, S. (2002). Guilt-free tutoring: rethinking how we tutor
non-native-English-speaking students. Writing Center Journal, 23(1), 23–44.
Bruce, S., & Rafoth, B. (Eds) (2009). ESL writers: a guide for writing center tutors (2nd
edn). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Bruffee, K. (1973). Collaborative learning: some practical models. College English,
34(5), 634–43.
— (1984). Collaborative learning and the ‘conversation of mankind’. College English,
46(7), 635–52.
— (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: a
bibliographical essay. College English, 48(8), 773–90.
Carter-Tod, S. (1995). The role of the writing center in the writing practices of L2
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University. United States – Virginia.
Cromley, J., & Azevedo, R. (2005). What do reading tutors do? A naturalistic study of
more and less experienced tutors in reading. Discourse Processes, 40(2), 83–113. doi:
10.1207/s15326950dp4002_1
Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: a critique and a proposal. College
English, 48(6), 527–42.
Ferris, D. (1995). Can advanced ESOL students become effective self-editors? CATESOL
Journal, 8(1), 41–62.
— (2003). Response to student writing: implications for second-language students.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: how explicit does
it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–84.
Gillespie, P., & Lerner, N. (2008). The Longman guide to peer tutoring. New York:
Pearson Education.
Hewett, B. (2010). The online writing conference: a guide for teachers and tutors.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Lantolf, J. (Ed.) (2000). Sociocultural theory of second language learning. New York:
Oxford University Press.
McAndrew, D., & Reigstad, T. (2001). Tutoring writing: a practical guide for conferences.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Murphy, C., & Sherwood, S. (Eds) (2008). The St. Martin’s sourcebook for writing tutors.
Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.
North, S. (1984). The idea of a writing center. College English, 46(5), 433–46.
— (1994). Revisiting ‘The idea of a writing center’. Writing Center Journal, 15(1), 7–19.
Rathford, B. (2009). Responding online. In S. Bruce & B. Rathford (Eds), ESL writers:
a guide for writing center tutors (2nd edn, pp. 149–60). Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/
Cook.
Ritter, J. (2002). Negotiating the center: an analysis of writing tutorial interactions
between ESL learners and native-English speaking writing center tutors.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Ryan, L., & Zimmerelli, L. (2010). The Bedford guide for writing tutors (5th edn). New
York: Bedford/St Martins.
Severino, C., Swenson, J., & Zhu, J. (2009). A comparison of online feedback requests
by non-native English-speaking and native English-speaking writers. Writing Center
Journal, 29(1), 106–29.
Swales, J. (1988). Discourse communities, genres and English as an international
language. World Englishes, 7(2), 211–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–971X.1988.tb00232.x
Thompson, I. (2009). Scaffolding in the writing center: a microanalysis of
an experienced tutor’s verbal and nonverbal tutoring strategies. Written
Communication, 26(4), 417–53. doi: 10.1177/0741088309342364
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46(2), 327–69.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305.
Vickers, J. (2012). Anatomy of process-based writing center tutorials with NNES
writers: what writers take away. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State University
of New York at Albany, NY. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/103
2674778?accountid=14166
Weissberg, R. (2006). Scaffolded feedback: tutorial conversations with advanced L2
writers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds), Feedback in second language writing:
contexts and issues (pp. 246–65). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: second language writers in the writing center.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3), 173–201. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.009
— (2005). Writing center interaction: institutional discourse and the role of peer tutors.
In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. S. Hartford (Eds), Interlanguage pragmatics: exploring
institutional talk (pp. 37–65). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1469–7610.1976.
tb00381.x
Part Four
Informal Online Learning

10
Rapport Management and Online Learning:

L2 Socialization in Livemocha
Adrienne Gonzalez
Introduction
In traditional language classroom contexts, pragmatics instruction often takes a

backseat to more ‘teachable’ aspects of language (Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor,
2003). While it is widely accepted that effective language learning requires
meaningful communicative experiences, including actual experience with
intercultural communication (e.g. Belz and Thorne, 2006; Canale and Swain,
1980; Kramsch and McConnell-Ginet, 1992), language learners often suffer an
omission of the context-rich, high-stakes interactions that are not just important
to second language pragmatic development, but also to online learning in general.
Web 2.0 tools have become a valuable resource for learners, since they represent
opportunities for connections between individuals, both experts and novices.
This paper is a case study that examines how one student leverages the power of
a social networking site (SNS), Livemocha, to build rapport, and relationships,
online. I will begin with a discussion of previous work on language socialization
and SNSs, followed by a description of the study’s methodology, the results and,
finally, the conclusions, including a discussion of the pedagogical implications
of participation in Livemocha for language learning.
Language socialization and rapport management
Gaining aptitude in the contextual complexities of language use is crucial in

the process of language learning. As Belz and Kinginger (2002) state, ‘learning
to use the forms and to understand their meaning is as much a function of

language socialization as of rule-based language acquisition’ (p. 208). Language
socialization is a notion that ‘draws on sociological, anthropological, and
psychological approaches to the study of social and linguistic competence within
a social group’ (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986, p. 163). This linguistic competence
within social contexts is crucial to successful second language acquisition. The
process of acquiring language cannot be separated from the process of becoming
a competent member of a given society, an accomplishment that is realized to
a large extent through language, by acquiring knowledge of its functions, social
distribution and interpretations in and across socially defined situations (Ochs
& Schieffelin, 1984).
The idea that becoming a competent member of society is also greatly tied
into the principles of situated learning. Gee’s (2004) assertion that ‘people learn
best when their learning is part of highly motivated engagement with social
practices which they value’ (p. 77) spans across disciplines and is relevant for
learners of any subject matter.
As many scholars have suggested, a language socialization perspective is
particularly valuable for examining socialization into new literacy practices,
identities and communities in new media such as SNSs (e.g. Black, 2007, 2008,
2009; Lam 2000, 2004, 2009; Reinhardt & Zander, 2011). One highly important
aspect of language socialization is politeness. While there have been many models
attempting to explain politeness (e.g. Brown & Levinson, 1987; Fraser & Nolan,
1981; Leech, 1983; Scollon & Scollon, 1983, 2001), rapport management is one
that is particularly useful when examining how learners become socialized into
new educational spaces.
Rapport management is ‘the management of social relations’ (Spencer-Oatey,
2000, p. 12). Rapport management strategies include speech acts, such as
requests, expressions of gratitude, apologies and refusals. A number of
factors can influence strategy choice, such as rapport orientation (rapport
enhancement, rapport maintenance, rapport neglect or rapport challenge),
contextual variables (such as power, distance and number of participants),
pragmatic conventions (both sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic) and
interactional wants (Spencer-Oatey, 2000, 2005). In situations of cross-cultural
rapport management, as is often the context for language learners, speakers
must consider additional elements including contextual assessment norms,
sociopragmatic conventions, pragmalinguistic conventions and fundamental
cultural values in their rapport management strategies. Members of more than
one community of practice must learn to move fluidly between different cultural
Rapport Management and Online Learning 201
conventions in order to maintain successful communicative interactions. One

type of community in which participants must learn to navigate and manage
their social relations is SNSs.
Social networking
Thorne and Black (2011) discuss early participation by language learners in

open internet environments, primarily newsgroup discussions (Cononelos &
Oliva, 1993) and public internet discussion (Hanna & de Nooy, 2003). Today
this has extended to include gaming and social networking. The result of
participation in these internet spaces is the newly emerging literacy practices of
said environments. Participants in Black’s (2007, 2008 and 2009) studies learned
to employ transcultural knowledge in fan fiction in order to develop identities
as authors, while Lam’s participants (2000, 2004, 2009) created transborder
networks to more comfortably and confidently participate in fan communities.
In such environments, language learners are immersed in not only the target
(or heritage) language, but specific contexts of new environments with language
reflecting newly evolving norms for participation. Here they leverage their
own personal strengths and experiences to become socialized into the target
context.
Since 1997 and the launch of the first SNS, social networking via the internet
has become a mainstream practice. These web-based platforms allow individuals
to ‘(1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2)
articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view
and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system’
(Boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 211). An 80–90 per cent of digital natives – those people
who have grown up and interacted with digital technology from an early age –
have profiles on SNSs (Lampe, Ellison & Steinfield, 2007; Tufekci, 2008). Still,
experience growing up communicating and receiving information in new ways,
however integral to their lives and learning styles, doesn’t necessarily imply that
contemporary students will readily adapt to SNS. Students of this generation
often require a lengthy training period (Jones & Bissoonauth-Bedford, 2008;
Kolaitis, Mahoney, Pomann & Hubbard, 2006) and show diminished enthusiasm
when engaging in language and culture activities through computer-mediated
communication (CMC) (McBride & Wildner-Bassett, 2008; Thorne, 2003).
Other studies, however, indicate that integration of internet social networking
communities into higher education courses has a positive effect on motivation,
affective learning and classroom climate (e.g. Mazer, Murphy & Simonds, 2007).
Since SNSs are so popular in students’ personal lives, McBride (2009, p. 38)
suggests that they are an ‘obvious possibility to consider’ in terms of finding
computer-assisted language learning activities with which students are familiar.
Research has suggested many benefits of social network communities for
language learning, such as providing exposure to authentic language (e.g.
Arnold and Paulus, 2010; Blattner and Fiori, 2009). SNSs are easily accessed
environments that learners can participate in and thereby increase their
awareness of new pragmatic territory as well as develop multiliteracy skills.
Blattner and Fiori (2011) assert that meaningful connections with NSs are
essential for learners to become familiar with different conventions and cultural
aspects of the second language (L2). In addition, as McBride explains, ‘if students
gain skills in communicating and connecting with others through SNSs in the
L2 through a class, they will be well poised to establish relationships with other
speakers of the L2 via SNSs in the future and to become autonomous, lifelong
learners’ (2009, p. 35).
Livemocha
The purpose of Livemocha is twofold: (1) to provide users a space in which to
practise their target language and (2) to build new relationships with speakers
of their target language, making it unique among many other SNSs. In this
study, data was collected in Livemocha. This internationally used, online social
network connects native speakers (NSs) and language learners, emphasizing
the interaction required in language development. Livemocha has designed
a place in which people from all over the world meet with a common goal:
communication. Livemocha users share a conscious awareness of the importance
of connections to other language learners, particularly with those who are NSs
of another’s target language. This unique, user-driven collaboration provides
language learners with a new platform to acquire both linguistic and cultural
competencies. Because of the reciprocal, collaborative nature of Livemocha,
participants were encouraged, but not required, to seek out chat partners who
were NSs of Spanish, learning English, rather than learners of a language other
than English who may have less to gain from the collaboration.
The text-chat function in Livemocha offers a number of tools and resources
for learners to enhance their conversational experience. Each chat window has
a translator, a keyboard to enter special characters and diacritics, suggested
conversation topics and scenarios, and a bank of emoticons. The chat window (see
Figure 10.1) also provides information relevant to the status of the conversation.
Notifications appear in the text of the conversation itself when a potential chat
partner is connecting, has opened the chat window, and closed the chat window.
An icon also appears when an interlocutor is currently entering text, and an
audio notification sounds when new text has been entered.
Other important elements of the Livemocha learning community include
learner profiles containing personal information and photos, language lessons,
activities for peer submission and video chat. These additional features and
venues for communication serve critical roles in the formation of the social
network as a whole by motivating and supporting the relationships built on the
site. The host of tools and features included in SNSs are additional elements
through which learners can manage rapport – through friending, sharing,
posting, joining groups, and so on (Reinhardt and Zander, 2011).
Stevenson and Liu (2010) discuss various social networking features of
foreign language learning websites, including Livemocha, Palabea (www.
palabea.com) and Babbel (www.babbel.com), to examine both pedagogical and
technical usability of the sites (Melis & Weber, 2003). Of the programs evaluated,
Livemocha was the overall preferred site by potential users, though they did
express mixed opinions regarding technical usability. The usability issues did not
Figure 10.1 Livemocha chat window

negate the users’ interest in the potential of collaborative language learning in

conjunction with more traditional content (Stevenson & Liu, 2010).
The following section will discuss the questions addressed in this study,
describe the participant in question and the methodology for both data collection
and analysis.
The inquiry
In order to begin to investigate rapport management among language learners via

SNSs, this study addressed the following question: What rapport management
strategies does a Livemocha participant employ in his text-based synchronous
computer-mediated communication (SCMC)?
While the original study examined seven Spanish learners, this chapter
focuses on the Livemocha interactions of one participant: Vincent. Of the
original participants, Vincent was one who showed notable success in building
rapport with his interlocutors and was the only participant who had multiple
conversations with the same interlocutor. As such, this chapter will examine
his conversations to determine what rapport management strategies he and his
interlocutors employed.
At the time of data collection, Vincent was a 21-year-old junior at a large
public university in the United States. He grew up in Houston, Texas, but had
also lived in Belgium and France. He had travelled recreationally to both Mexico
and Spain for one-week periods, but his exposure to Spanish comes strictly from
school.
Vincent was a serious and focused Spanish language learner. During chat
sessions he put on headphones with music and often maintained several chat
conversations for the duration of the class period. This solitary approach
was unique to Vincent, since many of the other students in the group would
collaborate and communicate with each other in order to understand their
chat partners, form utterances or navigate the website. He did not log into
Livemocha outside of class, but he did attend department-organized extra credit
sessions, which involved chatting in Livemocha. Although he had never studied
Spanish formally, Vincent’s mother was from Belgium and so he grew up in a
French-speaking environment.
Vincent was an experienced user of both SNSs and online chatting programs.
Before the study, he had used Facebook and Skype to chat daily with friends and
family and had used Facebook daily for networking. He was very open to the
idea of using these tools in the classroom and thought that chatting in Spanish
would be a good use of his internet time.
Data
Although there are common concerns about longitudinal studies, such as

time demands, heightened mortality of the initial sample and complex data,
the collection of longitudinal data can yield important insights. Through the
use of this ‘underpracticed’ but ‘necessary’ methodological approach in SLA
(Markee & Kasper, 2004, p. 495), studies can chart growth and development,
analyse change at the individual/microlevel and show how changing properties
of individuals fit into systematic change (Kasper & Rose, 2002). The data in this
study consist of one participant’s natural, authentic discourse with NSs of Spanish
in a textual SCMC environment. Natural data has been shown to best depict
realistic language use, whereas elicited data, such as discourse completion tasks,
does not inform actual language use. Rather, this elicited data can only provide
insight into speakers’ own intuitions about the language (Bou Franch & Lorenzo
Dus, 2008).
Most non-native speaker authentic discourse has been collected in
institutional settings, such as academic advisement or writing tutoring sessions
(Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1996) or oral proficiency interviews (Young & He,
1998). In addition to being rich sources of conversational data, interactions in
these particular contexts are comparable, interactive and consequential, while
displaying ‘authentic language use by speakers who are speaking as themselves,
in genuine situations, with socioaffective consequences’ (Bardovi-Harlig &
Hartford, 1996, p. 13). Some have argued that data collection in these institutional
environments solves the numerous methodological issues that can arise
when examining natural discourse, including unpredictability, lack of control
variables or potential scarcity of the feature in question in a given sample (Beebe,
1994; Beebe & Cummings, 1996). However, the fact remains that much human
communication occurs in spontaneous, natural contexts, and as such, analysis
of language use in uncontrolled, spontaneous contexts is key in understanding
communicative practices and L2 development in the real world. Furthermore,
Livemocha conversations provide an excellent opportunity to explore rapport
management between language learners in an SNS.
A conversation analytical (CA) method was used to interpret the transcripts
of Vincent’s online interactions. This method was chosen because it ‘has
accrued the largest and most coherent cumulative body of research, lending
high credibility to its theoretical foundations and methodology’ (Kasper, 2006,
p. 283), and this approach to data analysis is particularly well suited for analysis
of interaction within SCMC, given its highly contextual nature (González-Lloret,
2007). Analysis aims to discover recurrent patterns in the data and describe how
participants orient to these patterns, the goal being to ‘describe how participants
create social order by understanding the ways and structures in which social
practices are configured and what they can achieve’ (Pallotti & Wagner, 2011,
p. 3). This microanalytic, case-study approach facilitates close examination of
the data of one learner in terms of the sequential organization, conversational
inference and non-verbal components of his interactions with the NSs. Kasper
and Rose (2002) explain that ‘the combination of microanalysis with an
ethnographic perspective makes interactional sociolinguistics and ethnographic
microanalysis particularly powerful approaches for the analysis of intercultural
interaction’ (pp. 67–8).
Doing a conversation analysis relies on ‘unmotivated looking’, since it requires
being open for discovery rather than searching for hypotheses and according to
Seedhouse (2004) involves the following steps:
1. Locate an action sequence or sequences.

2. Characterize the actions in the sequence or sequences. In the case of
this study, the primary action being analysed is the conversation closing,
including the smaller actions that constitute these closings. Seedhouse
explains that a major advantage of CA is that it can ‘portray the multiplicity
of actions performed’ by a single utterance (p. 40).
3. Examine the action sequence(s) in terms of the organization of turn taking.
4. Examine the action sequence(s) in terms of sequence organization.
5. Examine the action sequence(s) in terms of the organization of repair.
6. Examine how the speakers package their actions in terms of the actual
linguistic forms which they select from the alternatives available and
consider the significance of these. This is essentially a form–function
analysis, focusing on the forms which are used to manifest the functions.
This is particularly interesting when analysing the conversations of language
learners, as they may not yet have acquired the desired functions and are
working with a limited repertoire.
7. Uncover any roles, identities or relationships that emerge in the details of
the interaction.
8. Attempt to locate this particular sequence within a bigger picture.
The data analysis yielded interesting trends regarding this language learner’s
rapport management practices in Livemocha.
Online rapport management
Vincent’s Livemocha conversations rely heavily on laughter, humour, emoticons,

and small talk as rapport management strategies. As Glenn states:
Laughter has been part of the human communicative repertoire for a very long
time, probably even predating speech, and our higher primate cousins also
enact behaviors that look and sound like laughter and serve similar purposes. It
appears to be a universal in form and function across diverse human languages
and cultures. Plenty of evidence suggests that plenty of laughter provides
significant physical and psychological benefits that contribute to individual
well-being. (2003, p. 1)
This section will examine the forms and functions of laughter and humour
in intercultural and multilingual interactions between language learners in
Livemocha.
Previous work has pointed out the importance of humour and laughter in
the management of social relations, discussing how these two components of
language can serve to create solidarity, enhance self-esteem, gain approval,
manage embarrassment or stress, and express opposition (e.g. Anthony, this
volume; Collinson, 1988, 2002; Coser, 1959; Haakana, 1999; Jefferson, 1984;
Meyer, 2000; Mulkay, 1988; Vinton, 1989). Specifically within the mediums of
CMC, humorous performance is a tool that is used for the creation of group
solidarity, group identity and individual identity (Baym, 1995), since humour
is embedded in shared knowledge (Chiaro, 1992; Oring, 1992; Palmer, 1994).
Humour and laughter manifest in a number of ways in these data. Many scholars
have discussed the nature of CMC and its potential for disrupting the cues used
for humour in face-to-face interaction, such as tone of voice, facial expression,
laughter, and so on (e.g. Dresner & Herring, 2010; Palmer, 1994). However, these
data indicate that language learners adopt a number of methods for expressing
humour and conveying laughter in their written conversations.
One common way in which Vincent and his interlocutors express humour or
acknowledge humour is to convey laughter textually and explicitly, as Hubler and
Bell (2003) describe, by writing out indicators such as ‘Nice one!’, ‘Hilarious!’, or
most commonly in these data ‘lol’ (laugh out loud) or variations of ‘hahaha’.
(1) 20 Interlocutor: Tienes un nombre maravilloso.

You have a marvelous name.
21 Interlocutor: Asi se llama mi hermano.xD
That’s what my brother is named.xD
22 Vincent: lol
(14 October 2009, #2, 20–2)
Example 1 shows Vincent expressing laughter after his interlocutor states that he
has a marvellous name and that her brother shares the same name. This reaction
to her statements may also be a response to her use of the smiley emoticon
(xD) as a way of showing appreciation for or acknowledgement of her attempt
to establish rapport through the use of light-hearted joking and establishing
something in common.
As also seen in Example 1, participants also use emoticons to express joking
or humorous intent. As Dresner and Herring (2010) describe, emoticons can
serve one of three functions: (1) to express emotion, mapped directly onto a
facial expression, (2) to express non-emotional meaning, mapped conventionally
onto facial expressions and (3) to indicate illocutionary force that does not map
conventionally onto a facial expression. In line 21 of Example (1) above, the
interlocutor’s emoticon serves to express non-emotional meaning: to imply
that the statement made is of a sarcastic or joking nature. Likewise in Example
2, Vincent’s smiley emoticon in line 80 might function as a way for Vincent
to modestly acknowledge the light-hearted or joking complement that his
interlocutor delivered.
(2) 76 Vincent: estudio los negocios internationals

I study international business
77 Vincent: y tambien español, frances, y economía
and also Spanish, French, and economics
78 Interlocutor: wwooooww que muchacho tan estudioso! :D
wwooooww what a studious boy! :D
79 Interlocutor: jejejej
80 Vincent: :)
(27 January 2010, #3, 76–80)
Vlahovic, Roberts and Dunbar (2012) refer to emoticons and laughter indicators
in text as ‘symbolic laughter’ and explain how ‘emoticons can elicit positive
affect, and that emoticons are used is a similar way to laughter’ (Derks, Bos &
von Grumbkow, 2008; Provine, Spencer & Mandell, 2007; Walther, Loh &
Granka, 2005). Their study concluded that, in CMC, laughter has a greater effect
on levels of interlocutors’ happiness than the duration of the conversation. As
such, the high occurrence of laughter and emoticons in his conversations might
explain how Vincent was able to build positive rapport with his interlocutors in
spite of the short amount of time spent conversing with them. Vlohovic et al.’s
(2012) study also suggested that this tendency is not limited to particular types
of relationships and can be applied across all types of social relationships. This
suggests that, as with speakers of the same language, laughter promotes positive
affect and prosocial behaviour in novice/expert conversations, particularly in
newly forming intercultural relationships.
It is true, however, that not all instances of laughter stem from humour or
humorous situations in these data. Dresner and Herring (2010) discuss how
in CMC a standard smiley can serve mitigating functions by downgrading
an utterance to be less face-threatening for the interlocutor. In CMC between
language learners, Reinhardt (2008) showed how what he calls ‘textualized
paralanguage-like laughter’ (p. 228) is a task-appropriate solidarity move that
can also be used to indicate lexical appropriateness to an interlocutor. Some
computer-mediated forms of laughter between language learners in Livemocha
serve similar functions, such as in Example 3.
(3) 29 Vincent: hablo ingles y frances, y deseo mucho aprender espangol.

I speak English and French, and I really want to learn Spanish.
30 Interlocutor: Pero ya estas hablando perfectamente.
But you are already speaking perfectly.
31 Vincent: todos mi amigos hablan espangol . . . pero mi. lol
all my friend speak Spanish . . . but me. lol
(14 October 2009, #2, 29–31)
In these cases, laughter is not directly related to humour of any type, but
regardless, the case above is still significant to rapport management. By saying
that he is the only one of his friends who does not speak Spanish, Vincent places
heightened importance on his conversation with the interlocutor and in his
involvement in the Livemocha community since these will help him learn his
target language.
Small talk can be defined as a discourse strategy used to manage social
interactions (Holmes, 2000). While this type of talk may be ‘non-obligatory talk
in terms of task requirements’ (McCarthy, 2000, p. 84), it can serve important
social functions, such as ‘constructing, expressing, maintaining, and reinforcing

interpersonal relationships’ (Holmes, 2000, pp. 47–8). Pullin (2010) defends the
function of small talk, explaining that transactional or goal-oriented aspects
of language and interactional functions of language are ‘intrinsically linked
as all goal-oriented talk is dependent to some extent on the establishment of
relations’ (p. 458), and as such, this type of language use is closely related to
Spencer-Oatey’s (2000, 2002, 2005) concept of rapport.
In Vincent’s conversations, he did not have a pre-existing relationship with
his interlocutors, so small talk is prevalent. In these cases, the small talk serves to
establish the relationship and possibly set the tone of relationship maintenance
and the potential for future communication. One very common way in which
Vincent connected with his interlocutors through small talk was through shared
cultural references.
As Pullin (2010) discovered in her study on small talk, topic selection in
conversation appears to be important for rapport management. She discusses
how certain topics, such as music and food, promote the creation of common
ground that ‘not only transcends international borders but also allows non-face
threatening discussions that may still reflect individual tastes and aspects of
identity’ (p. 469). The creation of common ground through shared cultural
references is an important strategy that Vincent and his interlocutors employed
to establish rapport. While the ability to reflect individual taste and identity
is still important in the building of their relationships, careful or strategic
topic selection is also an opportunity to identify with each other and establish
‘understanding and affective links between staff [or in this case language learners]
of very different cultures and hence nurture solidarity’ (p. 464).
Example 4 illustrates how Vincent employs the use of a shared cultural
reference, the phrase ‘hasta la vista’ (line 170), into his conversation closing.
The interlocutor both recognizes Arnold Schwarzenegger’s famous line from
Terminator 2: Judgment Day and builds on this now established common
reference by completing the initial phrase ‘hasta la vista baby’ (line 173) and
working in an additional phrase from the prequel The Terminator: ‘i’ll be back’
(line 177). Both participants in this conversation are amused, to say the least,
by the discovery and evocation of this reference when their laughter progresses
from the written expression (i.e. haha) to the acronym indicating outwardly
verbal expression (i.e. lol, the acronym for laugh out loud).
(4) 161 Interlocutor: bueno amigo

well friend
162 Interlocutor: tengo que salir

I have to leave
163 Vincent: yo tambien. voy a mi clase de espangol
me too. I’m going to my Spanish class
164 Interlocutor: fue un placer hablar contigo
it was a pleasure talking with you
165 Vincent: mucho gusto, [name of interlocutor]!
nice to meet you, [name of interlocutor]!
166 Interlocutor: el gusto es mio
the pleasure is mine
167 Interlocutor: te cuidas
take care
168 Interlocutor: hablamos otro dia
we’ll talk another day
169 Vincent: si! hasta pronto
yes! see you soon
170 Vincent: hasta la vista (es mejor)
hasta la vista (is better)
171 Interlocutor: claro
of course
172 Interlocutor: jajaja
hahaha
173 Interlocutor: hasta la vista baby !!
174 Vincent: lol
175 Interlocutor: lol
176 Vincent: ciao
bye
177 Interlocutor: ill be back
178 Interlocutor: ciao
bye
179 *** Interlocutor ’s IC window is closed
(28 October 2009, #2, 161–79)
In this example, both participants co-operatively construct their closing by

employing some of the most famous closing components in US and international
popular culture. As mentioned above, humour can be used for the creation of
group solidarity; the fact that this occurs during the conversation closing is
significant, since closings are the last opportunity for speakers to set the tone
of the interaction and establish the possibility for future interaction. It is clear
that in this example, Vincent and his interlocutor connect with one another and
build rapport.
While shared cultural references work to strengthen the bond between
interlocutors and assist in building and maintaining positive rapport,
interlocutors in Livemocha also rely on discussing and sharing elements
of their own culture. In Example (5), Vincent asks whether many people in
Colombia have cars. As he learns something about the culture (in this case,
that many Colombian people do have cars), he also learns something about his
interlocutor and works to build rapport by identifying with this.
(5) 65 Vincent: tienes un coche? hay mucha gente que tienen coches a
columbia?
do you have a car? are there many people that have cars in
Colombia?
66 Vincent: (yo no tengo un coche, pero no me importa)
(I don’t have a car, but I don’t care)
67 Interlocutor: jajaja
68 Interlocutor: Aquí sí hay mucha gente que tiene coche, infortunadamente
no me
69 puedo incluir en ellos.
Here there are many people who have a car, unfortunately I
can’t include myself among them.
70 Interlocutor: Pero tengo moto.
But I have a motorcycle.
71 Vincent: aprendí a manejar la moto hace dos semanas
I learned to drive a motorcycle two weeks ago
72 Interlocutor: Qué bien, y te has caido?
How great, and have you fallen?
73 Vincent: no fue tan dicícil pero estaba muy divertido!
no it was difficult but was very fun!
(31 March 2010, #1, 65–73)
As seen in previous work (e.g. Pullin, 2010), Examples 4 and 5 illustrate how
Vincent’s small talk served to help him build, maintain and reinforce rapport
between his language learner conversation partners in Livemocha. This was

primarily done through trying to identify with his interlocutors and searching
for commonalities as a rapport management strategy.
Discussion and conclusions
It is clear from Vincent’s interactions that participants in the Livemocha space

make a concerted effort to establish positive rapport with their interlocutors.
As discussed in the previous section, it appears that learners in this community
heavily rely on laughter and small talk to assist in managing rapport. Because
this is a self-motivated learning environment, it is in the best interest of every
participant to care for his or her network of language partners. These relationships
are paramount to learning in this online space, since it is founded on learning
as socially manifest.
Access to native speakers is an invaluable asset to any language learner,
and Vincent’s interactions in Livemocha confirm the importance of the social
elements of language learning, particularly online. Livemocha is essentially based
on a rewards system for those participants who successfully navigate the social
aspect of the community. Those learners who build and maintain relationships
with other participants have more access to the resources that those participants
provide such as conversation partners, activity reviewers, sources for cultural
information, and so on. Inability to adapt to the social norms of this space would
result in a less rewarding experience for the learner. In this sense, Livemocha is
a perfect microcosm for the real world.
For classroom learning, Livemocha might be a useful tool if incorporated well
into the curricular flow. As Reinhardt and Zander (2011) suggest, more guidance
and structure of the activity would be required to assist students to utilize the SNS
and take advantage of their newfound connections. For example, students could
be guided to use Livemocha as a data source by gathering information about
various topics from NSs from various countries and then using this information
for class discussions or compositions. Students might also use Livemocha as a
venue for practicing specific tasks and forms by engaging in conversation and
attempting to follow conversation prompts that direct them to practise specific
forms within the context of real, meaningful conversation.
Still, there is something to be said for the 100 per cent self-motivated
approach. González-Lloret (2011) argues that the use of SCMC outside of class
could promote autonomous learning and encourage students to engage in more
interactions with more interlocutors, allowing them to build relationships and

experience a wide range of pragmatic rules. This idea could be applied to online
learning in any discipline; if learners are provided the freedom to establish their
own social identity online, their relationships with both the subject matter and
their fellow learners will carry more significance and flourish.
References
Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning:
appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building. Internet and Higher
Education, 11(2), 71–80.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1996). Input in an institutional setting. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 17, 171–88.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (Eds) (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington,
DC: US Department of State.
Baym, N. (1995). The performance of humor in computer-mediated communication.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved on 14 September 2012
from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue2/baym.html
Beebe, L. (1994). Notebook data on power and the power of notebook data. Paper
presented at the annual TESOL Conference, Baltimore, MD.
Beebe, L., & Cummings, M. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written
questionnaire data: how data collection method affects speech act performance. In
S. M. Gass & N. Joyce (Eds), Speech acts across cultures: challenges to communication
in a second language (pp. 65–86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Belz, J., & Kinginger, C. (2002.). The cross-linguistic development of address form use
in telecollaborative language learning: two case studies. Canadian Modem Language
Review/Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 59(2), 189–214.
Belz, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education
and the intercultural speaker. In J. Belz & S. Thorne (Eds), Internet-mediated
intercultural foreign language education (pp. xii–xxv). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Black, R. (2007). Digital design: English language learners and reader reviews in online
fiction. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds), A new literacies sampler (pp. 95–114).
New York: Peter Lang.
— (2008). Adolescents and online fan fiction. New York: Peter Lang.
— (2009). Online fan fiction, global identities, and imagination. Research in the
Teaching of English, 43, 397–425.
Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2009). Facebook in the language classroom: promises and
possibilities. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning,
6(1). Retrieved from http://itdl.org/journal/jan_09/article02.htm
— (2011). Virtual social network communities: an investigation of language learners’

development of sociopragmatic awareness and multiliteracy skills. CALICO Journal,
29(1), 24–43.
Bou Franch, P., & Lorenzo Dus, N. (2008). Natural versus elicited data in cross-cultural
speech act realisation: the case of requests in Peninsular Spanish and British English.
Spanish in Context, 5(2), 246–77.
boyd, d., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved on 22
July 2010 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
Chiaro, D. (1992). The language of jokes: analysing verbal play. London: Routledge.
Collinson, D. (1988). Engineering humour: masculinity, joking and conflict in shop
floor relations. Organization Studies, 9(2), 181–99.
— (2002). Managing humour. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 269–88.
Cononelos, T., & Oliva, M. (1993). Using computer networks to enhance foreign
language/culture education. Foreign Language Annals, 26(4), 527–34.
Coser, R. (1959). Some social functions of laughter. Human Relations, 12, 171–81.
Derks, D., Bos, A., & von Grumbkow, J. (2008). Emoticons and social interaction on
the internet: the importance of social context. Computers in Human Behavior, 23,
842–49.
Dresner, E., & Herring, S. (2010). Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: emoticons and
illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20, 249–68.
Fraser, B., & Nolan, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93–109.
Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: a critique of traditional schooling.
London: Routledge.
Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
González-Lloret, M. (2007). What do language learners attend to when their
environment changes? In Carlos Periñán Pascual (Ed.), Revisiting language learning
resources (pp. 223–42). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
— (2011). Conversation analysis of computer-mediated communication. CALICO
Journal, 28(2), pp. 308–25.
Haakana, M. (1999). Laughing matters: a conversation analytic study of laughter in
doctor-patient interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Helsinki: University
of Helsinki.
Hanna, B., & de Nooy, J. (2003). A funny thing happened on the way to the forum:
electronic discussion and foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology,
7(1), 71–85. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/hanna/default.html
Holmes, J. (2000). Doing collegiality and keeping control at work: small talk in
government departments. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 32–61). Harlow,
England: Pearson Education.
Hubler, M. T., & Bell, D. C. (2003). Computer-mediated humor and ethos:
exploring threads of constitutive laughter in online communities. Computers and
Compositions, 20, 277–94.
Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In
J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds), Structures of social action (pp. 347–69). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, H., & Bissoonauth-Bedford, A. (2008). Developing a bilingual blog as a platform
for language learning in French: a pilot study. Proceedings of the Emerging
Technologies Conference, University of Wollongong, 18–21 June 2008.
Kasper, G. (2006): Beyond repair. Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA
Review, 19, 83–99.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Kolaitis, M., Mahoney, M., Pomann, H., & Hubbard, P. (2006). Training ourselves to
train our students for CALL. In M. Levy & P. Hubbard (Eds), Teacher education in
CALL (pp. 317–32). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kramsch, C., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (Eds) (1992). Text and context: cross-disciplinary
perspectives on language study. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Lam, E. (2000). Second language literacy and the design of the self: a case study of a
teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457–83.
— (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: global and local
considerations. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 44–65. Retrieved from http://
llt.msu.edu/vol8num3/lam/default.html
— (2009). Multiliteracies on instant messaging in negotiating local, translocal, and
transnational affiliations: a case of an adolescent immigrant. Reading Research
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2007). A familiar face(book): profile elements
as signals in an online social network. Paper presented at the CHI – Online
Representation of Self, San Jose, CA. Retrieved on 22 July 2010 from www.msu.
edu/~steinfie/CHI_manuscript.pdf
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
McBride, K. (2009). Social-networking sites in foreign language classes: opportunities
for re-creation. In L. Lomicka & G. Lord (Eds), The next generation: social
networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 35–58). San
Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO).
McBride, K., & Wildner-Bassett, M. (2008). Interpersonal and intercultural
understanding in a blended second culture classroom. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.),
Mediating discourse online (pp. 93–123). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
McCarthy, M. (2000). Mutually captive audiences: small talk and the genre of
close-contact service encounters. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 84–109).
Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: an introduction. Modern Language
Journal, 88, 491–500.
Mazer, J., Murphy, R., & Simonds, C. (2007). I’ll see you on ‘Facebook’: the effect of
computer-mediated teacher self-discourse on student motivation, affective learning
and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56, 1–17.
Melis, E., & Weber, M. (2003). Lessons for (pedagogic) usability of eLearning systems.
Paper presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government,
Healthcare, & Higher Education, Phoenix, AZ.
Meyer, J. (2000). Humor as a double edged sword: four functions of humor in
communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310–31.
Mulkay, M. (1988). On humour: its nature and its place in modern society. Cambridge,
UK: Polity.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, D. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization: three
developmental stories. In R. Shweder & R. LeVine (Eds), Culture theory: mind, self,
and emotion (pp. 276–322). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oring, E. (1992). Jokes and their relations. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Pallotti, G., & Wagner, J. (Eds) (2011). L2 Learning as a social practice:
conversation-analytic perspectives. Honolulu, Hawai’i: National Foreign Language
Resource Center.
Palmer, J. (1994). Taking humour seriously. London: Routledge.
Provine, R., Spencer, R., & Mandell, D. (2007). Emotional expression online: emoticons
punctuate website text messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(3),
299–307.
Pullin, P. (2010). Small talk, rapport, and intercultural communicative competence:
lessons to learn from BELF. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 455–76.
Reinhardt, J. (2008). Negotiating meaningfulness: an enhanced perspective on
interaction in computer-mediated foreign language learning environments.
In S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediated discourse online (pp. 219–44). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Reinhardt, J., & Zander, V. (2011). Social networking in an intensive English program
classroom: a language socialization perspective. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 326–44.
Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge:
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1983). Face in interethnic communication. In J. Richards &
R. Schmidt (Eds), Language and communication (pp. 156–88). London: Longman.
— (2001). Intercultural communication: a discourse approach (2nd edn). Boston:
Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). Conversation analysis methodology. Language Learning, 54(S1),
1–54.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: a framework for analysis. In H.

Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking. New York: Continuum.
— (2002). Managing rapport in talk: using rapport sensitive incidents to explore
the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of
Pragmatics, 34, 529–45.
— (2005). (Im)Politeness, face, and perceptions of rapport: unpacking their bases and
interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 95–119.
Stevenson, M., & Liu, M. (2010). Learning a language with web 2.0: exploring the use of
social networking features of foreign language learning websites. CALICO Journal,
27, 233–59.
Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication.
Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67.
Thorne, S., & Black, R. (2011). Identity and interaction in internet-mediated contexts.
In C. Higgins (Ed.), Negotiating the self in a second language: identity formation and
cross-cultural adaptation in a globalizing world. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tufekci, Z. (2008). Grooming, gossip, Facebook and MySpace. Information,
Communication, and Society, 11, 544–64.
Vinton, K. (1989). Humor in the workplace: it’s more than telling jokes. Small Group
Behavior, 20(2), 151–66.
Vlahovic, T., Roberts, S., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2012). Effects of duration and laughter
on subjective happiness within different modes of communication. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 436–50.
Walther, J., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005). Let me count the ways: the interchange of
verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 36–65.
Young, R., & He, A. (Eds) (1998). Talking and testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
11
‘We don’t have to always post stuff

to help us learn’: Informal Learning
through Social Networking in a
Beginners’ Chinese Group
Marie-Noelle Lamy
Introduction
The notion of exploiting social networking sites (SNSs) for learning and teaching
has invoked Messianic responses from the language education community.
However, empirical evidence is often limited to descriptions of conventional
online projects, for example, telecollaborations. Yet to be explored are
differences between instructed activities online which are instructor-directed
and non-instructed participation on SNSs. Lamy and Zourou (forthcoming)
argue that there is a difference between interacting (characteristic of online
language classes since the early 1990s) and networking (characteristic of what
occurs on SNSs). If participants are meeting on an SNS rather than on a
conventional discussion board, then following what we have learnt from task
design scholarship over two decades (Hampel, 2006), they should engage the
specific affordances of such sites. This chapter addresses the need to better
understand the nature of adjunct networking for language learning practices. To
frame the inquiry, two schemes are used: (1) criteria for identifying SN practices
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2008a; Musser, O’Reilly & O’Reilly Radar Team, 2006)
and (2) tools for analysing social learning in informal settings (Fenwick and
Tennant, 2004; Schugurensky, 2000, 2007).
Informal learning
It is helpful to distinguish between formal/informal learning, and formal/

informal settings. Formal learning can take place in a formal setting (e.g.
instructor-anchored courses) or an informal one (e.g. Facebook adjuncts to
courses). Informal learning (IL) too can occur in formal settings or informal
ones. SN websites can be either formal spaces where participation is dependent
on being registered with an institution, or informal spaces where the minimum
prerequisite for participation is to have set up one’s profile. This study deals with
IL in informal settings.
Despite its substantial roots in adult and citizenship education going back
to Paulo Freire, research into IL is scarce. Schugurensky (2000, 2007) explains
this by the difficulty of evidencing any type of learning, compounded by the
fact IL data is difficult to track down. IL can be intentional but can also be
non-intentional and non-conscious, becoming conscious long after exposure
to the learning event. He conceptualizes three forms of IL. First, self-directed
learning refers to ‘learning projects’ undertaken by individuals (alone or as part
of a group) without the assistance of an educator (teacher, instructor, facilitator).
It is intentional because the individual has a purpose for learning something
even before the learning process begins, and it is conscious, in the sense that the
individual is aware that she or he has learned something’ (Schugurensky, 2000,
p. 3). Secondly incidental learning ‘refers to learning experiences that occur
when the learner did not have any previous intention of learning something out
of that experience, but after the experience she or he becomes aware that some
learning has taken place.’ (p. 4). Finally, socialization ‘refers to the internalization
of values, attitudes, behaviors, skills, etc. that occur during everyday life, [for
example] some people may not be aware that they have learned something in
a particular experience until they have a conversation with a person who asks
questions about their learnings, eliciting retrospective recognition’ (pp. 4–5).
Fenwick and Tennant (2004) propose the following four lenses on adult
learning, warning that these should not be viewed as discrete or mutually
exclusive but as synergistic, having the potential to ‘illuminate learning processes
and suggest educative responses in particular pedagogical situations’ (p. 56).
ll Learning as acquisition: this lens considers knowledge as substantive and
something an individual obtains through learning experiences
ll Learning as reflection: this lens focuses on learners as active constructors
of knowledge, creating new meanings and realities rather than ingesting
pre-existing knowledge
Informal Learning through Social Networking 221
ll Practice-based community: this lens focuses on human ability to participate

meaningfully in everyday activities within particular communities of practice
ll Learning as embodied, co-emergent processes: sees learning as emerging via
relationships that develop among all participants in a given context and
includes participants, ‘spatial arrangements and movements, tools and
objects’ (p. 56).
Table 11.1 Three examples of IL processes in the beginners Chinese SNSs
Acquisition Reflection Community orientation

Student KC, 15 September Student OS, 3 September Student ZX, 8 June 2011,
2011, 19:11 2011, 10:36 18:46
Alright guys – quick So has anyone else found Eeek [Assignment] 5 already !
question: Looking at the de their Mandarin starting Only two more to go :o/
shihou verb construction – to ‘click’ recently? I Student OS, 8 June 2011, 18:57
do you need to use ‘Le’ think I’ve reached a Yep, but at least this isn’t a
after the state verb to show kind of tip-over point speaking one!
that the action is past where previously I Student KC, 8 June 2011, 19:30
tense?So to say – ‘when i had difficulty thinking Jesus – i’ve just listened to
was in London i was very in Mandarin (I kept the mp3 for [assignment] 5.
busy’ would you say: resetting to German for Woosh – straight over me
我在伦敦的时候，我很忙了 some reason) I find that head.
Wo zai lundun de shihou, I can now unconsciously Student ZX, 8 June 2011, 19:32
wo hen mang le? translate a lot more, and Oh no ! I’m still behind too.
Or I can better remember I’m scared !
我在伦敦的时候，我很忙，。 words and phrases. Student PH, 8 June 2011, 22:13
Wo zai lundu de shihou, wo I’m also finding myself The next one is a speaking one
hen mang? leaning less on Google though :( I really panic with
[There follow 8 posts translate when I have sending the files together
expressing various views text conversations after what happened in
and joking] (although my character [assignment] 1 :( x
Student OQ, 15 September recognition is still Student OS, 9 June 2011, 14:43
2011, 23:59 terrible.) Well, I’ve done Part A!
i like to argue . . . either would I’ve still got a lot of work Student ZX, 9 June 2011, 14:44
be OK IMO. If you are to do on my speaking Well done you ! I’m yet to
confident and able enough and listening, but overall brave looking at the paper :o/
to add several ‘le’ markers, I I’m feeling a lot more Student OS, 9 June 2011, 14:51
think they are OK. confident, and I’m really Part A (listening) is more
Language wise . . . its not enjoying it, rather than intimidating than part B
wrong, its just that you actually trying to avoid (writing)
dont need to repeat time Mandarin conversations Student PH, 9 June 2011, 14:52
and time again as its now I agree O !! The listening
already assumed. terrified me and took me ages
Student KC, 17 September of repeating and repeating to
2011, 17:07 get even a guess at the answer
Checked with tutor last !! This time though I really
night, no need for a Le. enjoyed the writing
Table 11.1 shows how the first three lenses are employed to examine forms of IL
on the SNSs. Explicit in the student posts,1 these illustrate acquisition (Student
KC’s acquisition of a grammatical rule), reflection (Student OS’s review of his
progress) and community orientation (students bonding and reflecting on
shared experiences of study anxiety).
The fourth IL feature, the co-emergent process, can be understood in
reference to rich online learning environments being co-built up by the learners
through their social networking, as illustrated in Figure 11.1. Inside the black
Figure 11.1 An example of the co-emergent IL process

frame is the overall learning environment. Inside the speckled grey shape are the
environments that have been created or included by students as their learning
needs emerged, including the two Facebook groups, a range of spaces (top of the
figure), as well as digital learning objects (bottom of the figure).
Learning mediated through social networking
The mid-2000s saw the publication of work from a range of disciplines that
converge in general consensus on ways to distinguish between web 1.0 and
web 2.0 (or the social web) on the basis of an industrial and post-industrial
characterization. Originating in an analysis of trends in internet and software
commerce, O’Reilly’s (2005) account saw web 1.0 as embodying an industrial
view of products and production, where value is a function of scarcity, while the
web 2.0 reflects a service-oriented, post-industrial ethos where value is a function
of dispersion and relies on collective expertise. Within the scholarship of new
literacies meanwhile, Lankshear and Knobel (2006) structured their analysis of
digital literacies for web 1.0 and web 2.0 through contrasting a physical-industrial
and a digital take on literacies. In the second of these two mindsets, web 2.0 is
not a collection of material artefacts but a network of enabling services; the focus
is no longer on software firms and companies publishing and disseminating
websites but on leverage and non-finite participation. Tools are no longer for
producing but are for ‘mediating and relating’ (p. 38). The authors add that ‘the
more a literacy practice can be seen to reflect the characteristics of the [second]
mindset and, in particular, those qualities . . . that internet commentators like
Tim O’Reilly have associated with the concept of Web 2.0, the more it is entitled
to be regarded as a new literacy’ (p. 60, italics in original). In line with this,
Lankshear and Knobel (2008b) note that participation in web 2.0 social software
applications involves work that ‘gets done by means of encodification that is
significantly different from more familiar literacy practices in physical-print space
(e.g., letter writing) as well as in digital media spaces like weblogs, email clients,
conventional websites, and so on’ (p. 275). They go on to point to the way that
users of conventional spaces make meaning primarily through text manipulation,
while users of SNSs enjoy easier, faster ways of entering into negotiations with
others due to (1) the SNSs’ many automated processes for meaning making – for
example, ‘liking’, ‘poking’, gift-sending, and so on, (2) the one-click facilities for
adding applications and sharing complex multimedia objects such as images,
audios and videos and (3) a preference on SNSs for abbreviated textual material
(e.g. status updates or Tweets). This leads Lankshear and Knobel (2008b)
to concentrate on SN spaces that ‘require specialized interfaces that help
participants manage information about themselves, facilitate connections with
selected others through quick links to their profiles and automated updates etc,
and help them manage diverse interpersonal interactions with others (e.g. text,
image, video and audio messaging systems; testimonial spaces; song clip sharing
facilities; interactive games; quizzes; photo sharing and tagging)’ (p. 250).
The current study researches uses of these SN-specific features as they arise
in Facebook and a more conventional online discussion format with some SN
enhancements (full visual and textual profiles, linked blogs and wikis, and RSS
feeds).
Building on Musser et al. (2006), Zourou (2012) identifies these authors’
three criteria of user participation and re-use, openness and network effects as key
to seeing whether possibilities for learning differ between the pre-social web and
post-social web eras of language education. The first criterion, user participation
and re-use, has been researched in web 1.0 forums in language classes (Lamy
and Hampel, 2007, p. 18). In web 2.0, however, these are augmented forms
of participation that include remixing of digital objects (hence we name this
category re-use throughout the chapter) through aggregating, combining, tagging
or annotating them. For example, in language learning, re-use of digital content
might involve ‘embedding it in the social networking routines that learners
develop outside formal learning settings rather than reporting it formally on
class blogs, as happened in earlier telecollaboration projects’ (Zourou, 2012).
Figure 11.2 is an abbreviated discussion thread that illustrates re-use from
the Beginners Chinese data. The topic is a public YouTube video created by a
Westerner speaking Chinese well posted by a student that draws comments from
13 others. The conversation includes unplanned character-writing and reading
practice in response to this re-use.
In this example, the initial learning object (the video) is appropriated by
the group as a stimulus for conversational exchange. This exchange in turn is
used as a learning object by student KC in Post 13, prompting him to reflect
(self-deprecatingly) on his own proficiency, and leading student ZX in Post 14 to
provide linguistic assistance.
Openness refers ‘to the conceptual change between creating in closed
spaces (for instance: creating software with exclusive copyright and no editing
possibilities for a private software company) and doing so with the community
using an open, participatory method’ (Zourou, 2012), one example being the
user-created dictionary bab.la. In our data, openness is illustrated when students
Figure 11.2 An example of re-use
open blogs for their study mates, inviting them to add to photo collections on
free photographic repository sites, or creating free study aids for sharing among
their peers.
The third feature, network effects, occurs ‘when a product or service becomes
more valuable as the number of people using it increases’ (Musser et al., 2006,
p. 13). Examples include word-of-mouth dissemination, viral phenomena and
‘other no-cost mechanisms’ (p. 13). Figure 11.3 illustrates this with respect to the
Chinese Beginners corpus.
Here again the initial learning object on offer is a video whose potential
value to the viewers is enhanced by additional documentation (wikipedia link)
Lion Dance
Student SP Post 1, 7 February 2011, 21:50
This is a video of my Wing Chun Kung Fu club performing the Lion Dance at [name of
hometown].
The Lion Dancers are all members of the club and it was the Yellow and the White Lions first
year of participating, really they have only been practicing for the dance for about two months
so they did really well.
I took my daughter to see it in the end so I didn’t end up drumming but I am going to be doing
the drumming for the next event that we have in [name of neighbouring town] next weekend if
anyone is about :)
http://www ......
Student KA, Post 2, 7 February 2011, 22:08

excellent – i love the waggling tail on the blue one. Also love the way they drum on the big
static drum – almost like they’re drumming in reverse (so instead of hitting the skin down your
hitting the skin on teh way up)....
what’s the story behind the lion dance – what does it represent?
Student ZX, Post 3, 7 February 2011, 22:18

Brilliant video. I liked the red lion. The drummer was excellent. If your drumming is as good
then I’m very impressed ☺
Here is the story –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_dance
Student LX, Post 4, 7 February 2011, 23:03

Like the dragons dance but not the racket! I’d need earplugs!
Student TW, Post 5, 8 February 2011, 07:05

☺ Thank you for sharing – I’ve downloaded both to share with the kids in my school! ☺
Figure 11.3 An example of network effects
and enhanced again by becoming a learning object for a wider audience (the
student’s own school students) and thereby as a means for the student to add
no-cost value to her professional practice.
The terrain and population of the study
In their formal programs, good distance teaching institutions try to take

account of the socialization needs of students, recognizing this as key to student
achievement in non-campus-based learning (Lamy, 2013). To assist social
contact and compensate for isolation from peers, the Open University provides
staff-moderated forums, with participation optional though institutionally
encouraged. In these forums students are under no formal learning constraints.

Instructions for the use of these informal spaces typically declare:
This forum is open to all students in this module. It is similar to a Café area
where you can meet other students in the module and chat about general matters
of interest to you related to the module (emphasis added). You can draw help and
support from each other.
However in the Chinese module under study here, the staff moderator decided
to complement this general forum with another informal space entitled Culture,
with this more specific instruction:
This forum is for you to share and discuss your thoughts raised by the Culture
Notes and in particular the 想一想xiǎng yi xiǎng ‘have a think’ sections in the
[module’s] books.
Thus the one forum, henceforth OUGeneral, was designed for ‘study-related
exchange’ (Wodzicki, Schwämmlein & Moskaliuk, 2012, p. 9) or, expressed
in terms of Schugurensky’s IL model, study-related socialization. The latter,
henceforth OUCulture, was aligned more closely with the formal course
although no set tasks were associated with it.
This study’s data come from adult Chinese learners’ interactions in these two
spaces, plus another two on Facebook. Shortly after the opening of OUGeneral,
a student decided to create a Facebook group. This having been greeted
enthusiastically by peers, she opened a public group (henceforth FBPublic). A
few weeks later another student suggested on FBPublic that the cohort might
like to use a private Facebook group. This idea also met with approval, and she
created a second FB Group (henceforth FBPrivate). About 30 of the students
took part in all 4 spaces during the period September 2010 to August 2011.
The data in this chapter comprises posts contributed by these users during that
period, corresponding to the formal study year.2 The corpus consists of 5,372
posts, of which 4,016 were collected from both OU forums (the OU subcorpus)
and 1,356 from both Facebook groups (the FB subcorpus).
Whole-corpus quantitative analysis: How students

use SN features
On first reading, it was clear that to the three features of SN suggested by

Zourou, – user participation, openness and network effects – a fourth needed to
be added: link-display. A prevalent rhetorical move in digital meaning-making

is when users display a link, thereby inviting others to visit it. In this study, the
category link-display contains all occurrences of such invitations when they
are met with no responses. Link-display refers to a prevalent rhetorical move
in digital meaning-making, in which users display a link, inviting others to ‘go
and see’, yet there is no follow-up from peers. The OU forum software allows
researchers to see which posts have been read, and by whom (a facility not
available on Facebook). Many of the (by definition unanswered) link-display
items in the data were in fact ‘seen’ by other participants. Link-display is
therefore an ambiguous category in that communication may have taken
place or may not. From a methodological point of view, it requires a different
treatment, since SN cannot be evidenced in the posts alone. However,
acknowledging the statistical importance of link-display, even if this category
cannot be qualitatively analysed here, is a step towards a useful (negative)
characterization of SN, since ‘although they carry and amplify messages,
networks are not primarily broadcast channels’ (Pegrum, 2010, p. 348). It
also prompts socio-educational questions about the inequalities in digital
skills that lead large numbers to reduce their SN input to pasting links rather
than engaging with creation or transformation of digital objects. Using posts
as units of analysis was problematic as this method risked inflating category
statistics: for example, a user may post data for re-use, which does get taken
up by others in a thread consisting of, say, 12 other posts about the same topic.
While this might count as an example of networking on the part of each of
the participants, the messy reality of human interaction means that not all 12
posts are likely to be entirely focused on re-use of the initiator’s data. Some
posts will be only partly concerned with it, others may initiate a new topic
within the same thread. For these reasons, entire threads were chosen as
units of analysis. In other words a thread of whatever length that contains at
least two interacting posts instantiating re-use counts as one instance of that
category. Similarly, threads with two or more posts in the categories openness
or network effects count as one instance of the relevant category. Threads of
whatever length which fit none of the four categories, for example, discussions
about exams or workload, are excluded from the analyses.
On the institutional spaces OUGeneral and OUCulture combined, out
of a total of 187 threads, the top category was re-use, with 68 threads (36% of
all posts), followed by link-display with 54 threads (29%), then openness and
network effects with 3 threads (3%) for each category. Figure 11.4 summarizes
these findings.
40
35
30
25 OU forums
(both)
20
Facebook forums
15 (both)
10
5
0
User Link Openness Network
participation display effects
Figure 11.4 Percentage of threads in each SN category in all spaces
Subcorpus quantitative analysis: Differences and similarities

in SN use
Next, the two institutional forums were examined to assess different SN practices.
OUGeneral had 64 (34 %) threads from the category re-use, 41 (22%) from the
category link-display, 3 (3 %) from openness and 3 (3%) from network effects.
In OUCulture, on the other hand, link-display was the most frequent category,
totalling 13 threads (7%), while 4 threads (2%) were from re-use, with no data in
the other two categories. In the Facebook subcorpus, most of the threads (120
out of 129) did not involve dedicated SN features but were limited to text-based
exchanges. The only SN category found in FBPublic was the non-interactive
category link-display: 7 (5%) instances.
Using this category scheme, it appears that Facebook was not being used as
an SN space. One possible reason is that the period when FBPublic was active
(September–December 2010) was when the new cohort was not yet socialized as
a group, having freshly enrolled. In contrast, FBPrivate seems to have picked up
where FBPublic left off: two of the SN categories were substantially represented:
out of 1,227 (100%) posts, threads belonging to the category re-use represented
3 per cent, while 2 per cent were from link-display and 0.2 per cent contained
instances of openness. Network effects were not evidenced.
Finally, qualitative analysis suggests that exchanges in FBPrivate were broadly
similar to those in the OU forums in terms of category distribution, although
there was a difference in the volume of interaction with the institutional forums
generating more. Re-use was the main form of SN practice in the OU forums. In
the Facebook groups it ranks above link-display. The second-ranking category on
the OU forums, with equal top-ranking on the Facebook groups, was link-display.
Openness and network effects were not very productive categories on the OU
forums, and they were respectively negligible and non-existent on the Facebook
groups. These low frequencies are interesting, or disappointing, depending on
perspective, because openness and network effects are seen as integral to the
idea of social networking in web 2.0. Yet, based on this quantitative analysis,
students appeared to underutilize the SN affordances of specialized SNSs. To the
extent that they engaged with SN practices, they did so more frequently on the
enhanced forum provided by the institution.
Qualitative analyses
Re-use
The dataset was broken down into two subsets: one where students found existing
resources on the internet, and the other where the resources were student
created. Threads in the category re-use typically involved a mix of elements from
all four categories of IL. An elaborated example will be presented at the end of
the section (Figure 11.5).
Re-use of found resources

Students typically shared links to existing, third-party resources such as poems,
magazine articles, songs, photographs, videos and audios. They discussed,
reviewed and sometimes modified them. Contents varied widely, ranging from
news items (Li Na’s tennis victories) to art and entertainment (Chinese performers
of Western classical music, Chinese pop songs, Ai Weiwei’s Sunflower Seeds
installation, Chinese circus and dance, or China-relevant Western products
such as John Adams’ opera Nixon in China or a Chinese dubbed version of the
English children’s cartoon Postman Pat, or the popular automobile television
program Top Gear in Chinese).
The category also includes exchanges concerning Chinese-learning software,
including character recognition applications, applications for transcribing
Mandarin into Pinyin, speech-slowing and tone-recognition aids, and other
aids for use on computers, games consoles and mobile devices. Students also
discussed the educational merits of various free educational Chinese websites.
The most popular genre of site featured a humorous or transgressive import,
such as websites about social etiquette in China or about swearing in Chinese.
Re-use of student-generated resources

Students also generated their own resources, typically creating linguistic and/or
cultural stimuli that peers then used as a basis for independent study. Created
stimuli could be personal photographs or videos, for example, items filmed
by students in China or in the United Kingdom; for example, a Chinese New
Year dance in a student’s hometown in the United Kingdom, or a UK student’s
Chinese wife preparing a favourite Chinese recipe. One imaginative example
bringing together the found and the created categories was a homemade video
of a student singing along to a Chinese pop song karaoke-style posted with an
invitation to peers to enjoy the song and comment on the pronunciation. The
most popular created resources were designed for mutual help with culture,
vocabulary, tone and character-writing, as well as cultural learning.
Students’ responses to the found and created materials suggest that peers
worked with these materials either at the invitation of the initial poster: ‘Got
any good Chinese recipes or tips for eating out? Post them here’, or of their own
accord: ‘I was reading with great interest the thread about idioms that Kim
started. Whilst reading some on the internet, I stumbled upon some Confucius
quotes and thought a similar thread would also be fun and possibly inspiring.’
They constructed for themselves, bearing in mind that their formal course
commitments were running in parallel, what amounted to mini extension
projects. Some of these took an issue from the formal course and explored
it further; for example, an informal group debrief after the completion of an
assignment, or the use of wikipedia and a travel blog to solve a long debate about
a sociolinguistic topic that came up in their formal course. Other such projects
were supportive of study across the course modules; for example, the sharing of
aids for tone work, or vocabulary memorization in preparation for assignments.
Others yet had no direct relationship to the course other than in enhancing
students’ exposure to Chinese language and culture generally.
An illustration of the way the four indicators of IL structured the qualitative
analysis of SN practices is offered in Figure 11.5. It represents one thread from
OUGeneral that falls into the category of re-use. The thread, condensed here,
contains 27 posts by 18 students contributed between 12 October and 9 November
2010. The trigger was a section of the formal course about the importance of
lucky numbers in Chinese culture. Representing the build-up of information
during the life of the thread, the curved arrows represent the co-emergence of
a new learning object (a composite resource for thinking about lucky numbers)
created and shared by the group to support their formal study which, together
with the forum contents, make up the student-enhanced learning environment.
co-emergent process acquisition, reflection

community
acquisition
reflection
reflection
acquisition
community
community
community
reflection
community
community
community
Figure 11.5 Analysing the IL features of an example thread

Openness
On FBPrivate, four short threads can be seen as examples of openness: a student
created a blog and dedicated it to discussing the marks that the group received
for its formal assignments. Four times over three weeks she invited peers to avail
themselves of this open resource. In spite of her persistence, only two posts were
made: the student’s brief presentation of her blog and one reply.
On OUGeneral the following three instances of openness were found:
Thread 1 (2 posts, 2 participants): a student posted to say that he had used

nciku (an online Chinese pedagogical wiki) to create 2 vocabulary learning
sessions for his course mates. The post received 1 response on the forum,
but each of the original poster’s vocabulary items on nciku displayed
numbers of visits between 7 and 47, which may indicate that peers read
them and/or listened to the pronunciation audios. However, it may also
indicate that the original poster made repeated visits to his own items, and/
or that his nciku page was visited by random internet users.
Thread 2 (9 posts, 5 participants): a student posted personal photos taken in
China. Following positive comments from peers he invited the group to
visit an open-source photographic repository where he kept more photos,
suggesting they might add their own. There is no evidence whether the
peers used the external open-source site.
Thread 3 (24 posts, 8 participants): a student posted to say that he had created
‘a small flashcard program/application that will eventually test people
on the key vocabulary [in the course]’ and invited others to test it. The
thread developed over 16 days, with 7 students testing and reviewing the
user-generated open product offered by the original poster.
While Threads 1 and 2 illustrate community-minded creation of open access

digital resources, no evidence transpires from the posts that any IL came from
these student-led initiatives. In contrast, Thread 3 meets two of the conditions for
IL in that the created object was used by peers who reflected on it and enhanced
its potential future value to their community and beyond by providing feedback
to its creator.
Network effects
There are only three examples of network effects, all on OUGeneral. Thread 1
is the Lion Dance thread already seen in Figure 11.3. In Thread 2 (11 posts, 5
participants including 1 tutor) a tutor posted a link to a pedagogical website.
Student A posted her positive review of the site. Student B recommended the
tutor’s blog. Student C posted his positive review of the tutor’s blog. Student D
reported on her visit to the blog and what she has learnt there: ‘I found out from
Tutor J.’s blog I’m a 外曾祖母 wai zeng zu mu.’3 In Thread 3 (6 posts, 3 participants)
Student J invited reviews of the Nintendo DS Chinese Learning Game to see
whether he should buy it as a study aid. Student K posted an 81-word review of a
similar product (an iPhone application). Student L asked for more information.
Student M responded with 3 links to external reviews. Finally Student N posted
a 201-word review of the Nintendo game.
We can interpret the elements of IL in Thread 1 (Lion Dance) by reference
to the co-emergent process: the final poster, Student TW, was able to benefit
from the input of Student SP (who posted the video), Student KA (who reflected
on the video and asked a question) and Student ZX (who provided a resource
relevant to the question). Student TW synthesized these posts and used the
information to enhance her professional activities. The co-emergent dimension
of IL is apparent in Threads 2 and 3 where participants co-create a new learning
object, distribute this across these spaces and their reflective work (reviews)
provides organizing principles for using this new resource.
Discussion
In all four spaces, students favour link-display and re-use. A smaller number of
users create open resources (openness) and very few are involved in building
network effects. The qualitative analysis suggests some reasons for this. The
practice of openness is least successful where the core institutional culture goes
against it: it is likely that the blog for discussing marks failed because the OU
does not have a culture of open discussion of assignment marks; conversely,
it is possible that the nciku vocabulary sessions failed because the formal OU
course offers students opportunities for structuring their vocabulary building
and students may be unwilling to replicate this in the time that they spend on
SNSs. In the data, network effects involve small groups of students reflectively
collaborating on multiple sites. Although the complexity of this practice
is well managed by the participants, examples of this feature are very few,
suggesting that managing complexity is either a rare skill among the cohort, or
is too time-consuming for most students in the process of completing formal
coursework. Finally, the success of the SN feature of re-use may be explained by
the possibility that students use social networking to compensate for the gaps that
they perceive in the provision available through the institutional environment,
and to bring to each other the benefits of the student-enhanced environment; for
example, sharing cultural knowledge through a variety of digital resources. The

data offers examples of students declaring acquisition, reflecting on resources
and processes, offering community-oriented inputs and, although much less
frequently, co-creating resources, which indicates that all four elements in the
IL model are represented.
These SN participation patterns carry implications for practitioners. The
study suggests that when SN opportunities are made available for adjunct
learning, participation can falter depending on how the opportunity is cast.
A first example is that OUCulture has only 4 threads in the category re-use,
suggesting that students may be hesitant to contribute to a forum headed by
the possibly intimidating instruction to ‘have a think’ about specific sections
of the formal materials. This is in contrast to OUGeneral, a very productive
forum, with its friendly rubric inviting students to treat it as a Café. A second
example is the failure of more directive students to persuade their peers to join
in structured activities; for example, the group’s reluctance to use their peer’s
blog for discussing marks, or the unanswered plea by one student to a peer who
had clicked ‘Like’ when he suggested collaborating: ‘don’t just like it R., tell me
if you’re up for it.’ Most popular, instead, are personal contributions. Personal
photos or videos on Chinese themes were enthusiastically commented on for
their content as well as for what they reveal of the personality of the poster. In
these cases, SN is seen principally as dedicated to study-related socialization.
The current study suggests that even teachers who are keen to go beyond a
transfer of conventional activities to an SNS, and are intent on drawing from
dedicated SN functionalities and designing specific medium-relevant tasks,
may find factors working against them. For example, bearing in mind that the
interpersonal dimensions of SN-mediated learning are strong attractants and that
the culture of SN is characterized by casual frequentation, then teacher-fronted
invitations to join in prescribed talk or tasks may be experienced as going counter
to SN practices and may thereby induce more restricted forms of interaction
such as answering the teacher or halting the interaction altogether. Earlier work
on teacher intervention in online conferencing (Lamy and Goodfellow, 1999;
Lamy and Shield, 2001; Jiang and Meskill, 2000) would seem to support the
transfer of this trend to SN-mediated educational settings.
Finally, the study suggests some ideological issues for students, teachers and
researchers working in SN. The Facebook groups included content that was not
found in the institution’s spaces, likely due to the fact that the Facebook groups
are not moderated. On FBPublic, for example, one intrusive advert for a slimming
cure appeared. This caused complaints by members and swift suppression by
the student administering the group. Another example was the appearance
alongside a student’s photograph of a meal he was served when visiting China

of insulting comments about Chinese cuisine. Because of the design and access
protocols of public pages on Facebook, it was not possible to ascertain whether
the anti-Chinese postings originated from a student, or from a non-student
member of the public. Pedagogical and ideological issues are raised by this type
of occurrence but the swift deletion of the offensive comments by an unidentified
person made this incident unavailable for archiving as part of the research (a
typical drawback of research on non-institutional SNSs). FBPrivate was less
vulnerable to this kind of disruption, but by the time the site was archived, some
videos posted by the students were listed as ‘Now unavailable’, removed by an
unidentified party. Copyright reasons may explain these deletions. In some cases
political motives for deletion were possibly involved.
Limitations
Among the limitations of the study was the instability of primary data on
SNSs mentioned above. Secondly, the multimodal nature of the data (texts,
audios, videos, images and Likes) was not aptly represented because the
chosen analytical frameworks were inherited from text-based research
traditions. More work should be done in future to adapt multimodal discourse
analysis methods to the research topics (IL and SN) addressed here. Finally,
this chapter has relied on a purely observational methodology for identifying
participation patterns for informal learning. Collection of instructor reports
was by definition impossible (SN activities being informal) and student
self-reporting of IL was deemed unreliable (Schugurensky, 2007). However,
as that author also suggests, there are possible counter-strategies which could
be employed in future research of this type such as asking respondents for
narratives rather than survey answers or interviews, and pooling narratives so
respondents may use each others’ stories as critical recall points for their own
IL experiences. Such techniques could help determine in what ways common
but apparently non-interactive practices such as link-display contribute to
community building and to learning.
Conclusion
The research presented in this chapter suggests that social media’s specific web
2.0 affordances are not deployed evenly by student users: those affordances with
more intimate, personal dimensions (e.g. working with someone else’s proposals
or personal artefacts) are more favoured than those with a more abstract purpose
(e.g. building an open resource). However, those SN practices that were observed
were conducive to IL as an adjunct to formal course activities. It also appears
that sites specifically designed for SN such as Facebook do not serve the interests
of those engaging in study-related socialization any better than traditional sites
such as forums enhanced with multimodal functionalities. Finally, although
some forms of interaction may be implicitly inhibited on institutional sites for
commercial or ethical reasons, public SNSs are prone to forms of constraint too,
ideological or political.
Finally, it seems the question of how SN can be harnessed to support language
education is the wrong one to ask. More relevant to an understanding of learning
opportunities, perhaps, is the question of how language students’ prior learning
cultures – including their language learning and IT literacy antecedents – may
prepare them to recognize and avail themselves of the different features afforded
by SNSs.
Notes
1 All names and initials in the chapter have been changed. Spellings of student posts
are as found.
2 I obtained permission from the creator of FBPrivate to join the group after the end
of the study year, thus protecting the data from contamination by the display of my
name on the members list during the research period itself. Due to its public status,
FBPublic did not display the names of observers.
3 Maternal great-grandmother.
References
Fenwick, T., & Tennant, M. (2004). Understanding adult learners. In G. Foley (Ed.),
Dimensions of adult learning: adult education and training in a global era (pp. 55–73).
Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: a framework for language
teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1),
105–21.
Jiang, M., & Meskill, C. (2000). Analyzing multiple dimensions of web-based courses:
the development and piloting of a coding system. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 23(4), 451–69.
Lamy, M.-N. (2013). Distance CALL online. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders & M.

Warschauer (Eds), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 141–58).
London and New York: Continuum.
Lamy, M.-N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). Supporting language students’ interactions in
web-based conferencing. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 12(5), 457–77.
Lamy, M.-N., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and
teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lamy, M.-N., & Shield, L. (2001). Deux types de téléconférences pour l’apprentissage
des langues. Proceedings of Usages des Nouvelles Technologies et Enseignement des
Langues Etrangères. Vol. 3. Bibliothèque de l’Université de Compiègne. Online
publication. Retrieved on 13 September 2012 from www.utc.fr/~untele/volume3.pdf
Lamy, M.-N., & Zourou, K. (Eds) (forthcoming). Social networking and language
education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: everyday practices and classroom
learning. London: McGraw Hill.
— (2008a). Digital literacies: concepts, policies and practices. New York: Peter Lang.
— (2008b). Digital literacy and participation in online social networking spaces. In
C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds), Digital literacies: concepts, policies and practices
(pp. 249–78). New York: Peter Lang.
Musser, J., O’Reilly, T., & the O’Reilly Radar Team (2006). Web 2.0 principles and best
practices. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0?: design patterns and business models for the next
generation of software. Online publication. Retrieved on 29 September 2012 from
http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Pegrum, M. (2010) ‘I link, therefore I am’: network literacy as a core digital literacy,
E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(4).
Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: towards a conceptualization
of the field. New Approaches to Lifelong Learning (NALL) Working Paper 19. Online
publication. Retrieved on 10 October 2012 from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bi
tstream/1807/2733/2/19formsofinformal.pdf
— (2007). ‘Vingt mille lieues sous les mers’: addressing four challenges of informal
learning. Revue Française de Pédagogie: Recherches en Education, 160, July–
September, 13–27. Online publication. Retrieved on 1 October 2012 from http://rfp.
revues.org/583
Wodzicki, K., Schwämmlein, E., & Moskaliuk, J. (2012). ‘Actually, I wanted to learn’:
study-related knowledge exchange on social networking sites. Internet and Higher
Education, 15, 9–14.
Zourou, K. (2012). On the attractiveness of social media for language learning: a look
at the state of the art. Apprentissage des Langues et Systèmes d’Information et de
Communication (ALSIC), 15(1), 2–15. Online publication. Retrieved on 10 October
2012 from http://alsic.revues.org/2436
Index
action research 142, 147, 152 Facebook 204, 220, 223, 224, 227, 228,
activity theory 83 229, 230, 235, 236, 237
anonymity 69, 72 Folksonomy 138
assistance 4, 5, 6, 68, 86, 94, 100, 104, 105,
106, 108, 112, 181, 193, 220, 224 Google 80, 221
audio conferencing 13, 102, 159, 170, 172, grounded theory 141
173
avatar 61, 62, 67, 69, 70 holodeck 67
blended learning 151 identity expression 42

immersion 34, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 72
chat 41, 62, 65, 66, 67, 102, 103, 107, 108, instant messaging 65, 67
109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 140, 141, instructional conversation 13, 99, 100,
145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 160, 161, 166, 101, 102, 103, 110, 112
167, 168, 172, 202, 203, 204, 205, 227 intercultural communication ix, 11, 23, 25,
collective cognition viii, 78, 80, 81, 85 36, 199
Communicative Language Teaching internalization 6, 7, 119, 158, 163, 220
(CLT) 31, 32 Internet Communication Technology
communities of practice (CoPs) 84, 138, (ICT) viii, 75, 137, 142, 143
221
computer mediated communication learner agency 3
(CMC) vii, viii, 40, 41, 51, 139, 201, 204, learner development 99, 100, 105
207, 209 learner identity 8
Confucian approach 24, 27 lifeworld 11, 79, 80, 86, 91
corpora 141 Livemocha 14, 199, 202, 203, 204, 205,
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) 11, 39, 207, 209, 212, 213
42, 44, 53, 55
cultural capital 53 Moodle 40, 42, 43, 49, 56, 140
multimodal activities 67
dialogism 80 multiple discourses 36
digital literacy 10 multivoicedness 80
digital resources 233, 235
discussion forum 159 new literacies 80, 223
distance education ix, x, 66, 152
online course vii, ix, 9, 11, 13, 22, 23, 24,
English as a foreign language (EFL) vii, ix, 25, 26, 32, 34, 44, 49, 120, 121, 122, 130,
x, 27, 28, 31, 32, 43, 49, 52, 54, 61, 72, 73, 131, 132, 158, 159
75, 79, 84, 85, 89, 91, 95, 143 online discourses 10
English as a second language (ESL) viii, ix, online identity 10, 21
x, 13, 17, 31, 32, 54, 61, 72, 73, 75, 178, 217 online teaching 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
English Learner (EL) 65 13, 14, 39, 53, 56, 104, 113
240 Index
podcast 150 target language 68, 110, 139, 143, 166,

praxis 77, 103 202, 219
pre-service teacher 13 task design 79, 101, 165, 219
prezi 149 teacher development 137, 139, 140, 143, 152
process, writing 177, 178, 179, 180, 187, teacher epistemologies 12, 139
190, 193 teacher know-how 152
professional development ix, 11, 13, 34, 73, Teaching English as a Foreign Language
113, 152, 157, 171 (TEFL) vi, 143
professional learning community 138 Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL) ix, x, 22, 26, 31
real life 61, 62, 65, 70, 71 teleporting 70
triangulation 141
scaffolding 13, 68, 92, 94, 100, 101, 107, Twitter 138
180, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194
Second Life 11, 61, 62, 63, 70, 71, 74, video games 138
140 virtual world 12, 61, 63, 71
Skype 140, 150, 160, 204 Voicethread 140
social media 80, 81, 87, 236
social networking viii, 14, 52, 199, 201, Web 2.0 51, 87, 199, 223, 224, 230, 236
203, 219, 222, 223, 224, 230, 234 Wikipedia 225, 231
social presence 63, 130, 133, 159, 167, Wiki 12, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89,
168, 171 90, 91, 92, 93, 149, 224, 233
Socratic approach 24 Wimba classroom 99, 102, 108, 115, 159, 168
Survey Monkey 160
synchronous audio conferencing 13, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) 68,
102 100

Meskill Carla Online Teaching and Learning - Sociocultural Perspectives Bloomsbury Academic 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Meskill Carla Online Teaching and Learning - Sociocultural Perspectives Bloomsbury Academic 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meskill Carla Online Teaching and Learning - Sociocultural Perspectives Bloomsbury Academic 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Online Teaching and Learning:

Titles in the Series

Advances in Digital Language Learning

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

First published 2013

© Carla Meskill, 2013

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, Chennai, India

List of Contributors vii

Introduction: Sociocultural Research Perspectives for Online

Part 1 Diversity/Identity Online 19

1 Learning in New Online Cultures: East Meets West

2 Projection of Teacher Identity in Introductory Posts:

Part 2 Shifts in Practice 59

3 An Exploration of 3D Virtual Worlds through ESL/EFL

4 Collaboration Unpacked: Tasks, Tools and Activities Andreas Lund 77

5 Synchronous Online Language Teaching: Strategies to Support

Part 3 Shifts in Participation 117

6 The Educational Value of Student Talk in Online Discussions

7 Focusing on the Social: Research into the Distributed Knowledge

8 Perceptions of Humour in Oral Synchronous Online

9 Face-to-Face and Online EL Writing Tutorials:

Part 4 Informal Online Learning 197

10 Rapport Management and Online Learning: L2 Socialization

11 ‘We don’t have to always post stuff to help us learn’:

Natasha Anthony is Assistant Professor and Director of the International

Dr Melinda Dooly is Lecturer at the Education Faculty of the Universitat

international conferences on topics related to second/additional language

M. N. Lamy is Professor of Distance Language Learning at the UK Open

Dr Andreas Lund is Professor at the Department of Teacher Education and

Ruchi Mehta is an instructional designer at San Jose State University, California.

Carla Meskill is Professor, Department of Educational Theory and Practice

Gulnara Sadykova is Associate Professor at the Department of English

Denis Samburskiy earned an MS in TESOL and is pursuing a Ph.D. in

Sedef Uzuner Smith is Assistant Professor at Lamar University, Beaumont,

Ozan Varli is an instructor at the English Language Center (ELC) at Koc

Jason Vickers graduated from the Department of Educational Theory

Ms Evon Zundel is the co-ordinator of the blendedschools.net (BSN) Language

It is through others that we develop into ourselves.

Mutuality of individuals and their sociocultural environments

Assistance from others

Appropriation of social practices

Internalization via verbalization

Dynamism of learner identity and development

Primary mediating tool in human development: Language

shifts in applied linguistics away from language as object to language as dynamic

Examining sociocultural dimensions of

Sociocultural approaches to the study of online learning and teaching take as

genetic or developmental methodologies most often the observation of in-process

reveals a continuum of egocentricity that can inform both the interpretation

women and minorities in particular – are finding voice in online contexts

Informal online learning

Contemporary online venues are eminently social contexts with instructional

Atkinson, D. (2011). A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition.

1 Learning in New Online Cultures: East Meets West

2 Projection of Teacher Identity in Introductory Posts:

3 An Exploration of 3D Virtual Worlds through ESL/EFL

4 Collaboration Unpacked: Tasks, Tools and Activities Andreas Lund 77

5 Synchronous Online Language Teaching: Strategies to Support

6 The Educational Value of Student Talk in Online Discussions

7 Focusing on the Social: Research into the Distributed Knowledge

8 Perceptions of Humour in Oral Synchronous Online

9 Face-to-Face and Online EL Writing Tutorials:

10 Rapport Management and Online Learning: L2 Socialization

11 ‘We don’t have to always post stuff to help us learn’: