This study examined the synchronous computer-mediated communication of 48 fifth-grade students and their teachers in a public school for large numbers of English learners during a school year. We collected all participants’ discussion threads in the first 2 months and last 2 months of the year-long activity. Students’ language complexity was assessed through descriptive statistics and content analysis of student posts. In addition, an epistemic engagement framework using a combination of top-down and bottom-up coding schemes was developed to further examine students’ collaborative engagement in knowledge construction. The results suggest that well-designed online synchronous computer-mediated communication among linguistically diverse upper elementary students is related to increased complexity in language use and sophistication in interaction.
AbediJ.GándaraP. (2006) Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice25(4): 36–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00077.x.
2.
AbramsZ. I. (2001) Computer-mediated communication and group journals: Expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System29(4): 489–503. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00041-0.
3.
AndersonL.KrathwohlD. A. (2001) Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, New York, NY: Longman.
4.
Bardovi-HarligK. (1992) A second look at t-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly26(2): 390–395. doi: 10.2307/3587016.
BlackR. W. (2005) Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of English-language learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy49(2): 118–128. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.49.2.4.
7.
BlackR. W. (2008) Adolescents and online fan fiction, New York, NY: Peter Lang.
8.
BlackR. W. (2009) English-language learners, fan communities, and 21st-century skills. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy52(8): 688–697. doi: 10.1598/JAAL 52.8.4.
9.
BlakeC. (2009) Potential of text-based Internet chats for improving oral fluency in a second language. The Modern Language Journal93(2): 227–240. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00858.x.
10.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120–136. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html.
11.
Bloch, J. (2007). Abdullah’s blogging: A generation 1.5 student enters the blogosphere. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 128–141. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/bloch/.
12.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.
13.
CaricoK. M.LoganD. (2004) A generation in cyberspace: Engaging readers through online discussions. Language Arts81(4): 293–302. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/journals.
14.
ChunD. (1994) Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System22(1): 17–31. doi: 10.1016/0346-251X(94)90037-X.
15.
ChunD.KernR.SmithB. (2016) Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. The Modern Language Journal100(S1): 64–80. doi: 10.1111/modl.12302.
16.
CoyleY.Reverte PrietoM. J.Martinez RicoD. (2017) Children’s interaction and lexical acquisition in text-based online chat. Language Learning & Technology21(2): 179–199. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2017/coylereverte.pdf.
DzekoeR. (2017) Computer-based multimodal composing activities, self-revision, and L2 acquisition through writing. Language Learning & Technology21(2): 73–95. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2017/dzekoe.pdf.
19.
ElolaI.OskozA. (2017) Writing with 21st century social tools in the L2 classroom: New literacies, genres, and writing practices. Journal of Second Language Writing36: 52–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2017.04.002.
20.
GarrisonD. R.AndersonT.ArcherW. (2001) Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education15(1): 723. doi: 10.1080/08923640109527071.
21.
GeeJ. P. (1996) Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, 2nd ed. London, England: Taylor & Francis.
22.
GeeJ. P. (2004) Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling, New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
Godwin-JonesR. (2015) Contributing, creating, curating: Digital literacies for language learners. Language Learning & Technology19(3): 8–20. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2015/emerging.pdf.
24.
GrahamS.HerbertM. A. (2010) Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report, Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence Education.
GravesD.HansenJ. (1983) The author's chair. Language Arts60: 176–182.
27.
GrishamD. L.WolseyT. D. (2006) Recentering the middle school classroom as a vibrant learning community: Students, literacy, and technology intersect. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy49: 648–660. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.49.8.2.
28.
HanedaM.WellsG. (2000) Writing in knowledge building communities. Research in the Teaching of English34(3): 430–457. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171501.
29.
HaraN.BonkC. J.AngeliC. (2000) Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science28(2): 115–152. doi: 10.1023/a:1003764722829.
30.
HartmanK.NeuwirthC.KieslerS.SproullL.CochranC.PalmquistM.ZubrowD. (1991) Patterns of social interaction and learning to write: Some effects of networked technologies. Written Communication8(1): 79–113. doi: 10.1177/0741088391008001005.
31.
HenriF. (1992) Computer conferencing and content analysis. In: KayeA. R. (ed.) Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The najaden papers, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 115–136.
32.
HsiehH.-F.ShannonS. E. (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research15(9): 1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
33.
Jacobs, J. (2003, July). Communication over exposure: The rise of blogs as a product of cybervoyeurism. Paper presented at the ANZCA 03, Brisbane.
34.
KernR. (1995) Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal79(4): 457–476. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05445.x.
35.
KernR. (2000) Notions of literacy. In: KernR. (ed.) Literacy and language teaching, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 13–41.
36.
KnobelM.LankshearC. (2007) A new literacies sampler, New York, NY: Peter lang.
37.
LankshearC.KnobelM. (2007) Sampling “the new” in new literacies. In: KnobelM.LankshearC. (eds) A new literacies sampler, New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp. 1–24.
38.
LinH. (2014) Establishing an empirical link between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and SLA: A meta-analysis of the research. Language Learning & Technology18(3): 120–147. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2014/lin.pdf.
39.
LinW.-C.HuangH.-T.LiouH.-C. (2013) The effects of text-based SCMC on SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning & Technology17(2): 123–142. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2013/linetal.pdf.
40.
LuX. (2011) A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly45(1): 36–62. doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.240859.
41.
McClayJ. K.MackeyM. (2009) Ourspace: This is not a rubric. In: BurkeA.HammettR. (eds) Assessing new literacies: Perspectives from the classroom, New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp. 113–132.
42.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Wang, K., Rathbun, A., … Bullock Mann, F. (2018). The condition of education 2018 (Report No. NCES 2018144). Washington, DC: U.S: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
43.
OlsonL. (2010) Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for california's long term english learners, Long Beach: Californians Together.
44.
PawanF.PaulusT. M.YalcinS.ChangC.-F. (2003) Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology7(3): 119–140. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/pawan/.
45.
Peeters, W. (2018). Applying the networking power of Web 2.0 to the foreign language classroom: A taxonomy of the online peer interaction process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–27. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1465982.
46.
RichardsonW. (2010) Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
47.
SauroS. (2012) L2 performance in text-chat and spoken discourse. System40(3): 335–348. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2012.08.001.
48.
SauroS.SmithB. (2010) Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics31(4): 554–577. doi: 10.1093/applin/amq007.
49.
SchleppegrellM.ColombiC. (2002) Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power, Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
50.
ShinD.-S. (2006) ESL students’ computer-mediated communication practices: Context configuration. Language Learning & Technology10(3): 65–84. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num3/shin/.
51.
Smith, B. (2012). Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 53–81. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/smith.pdf.
52.
SollieP. (2007) Computer-mediated communication and criticisms of the Internet: Hubert Dreyfus’ criticism from the perspective of Karl Jaspers’ philosophy of communication. Existenz: An International Journal in Philosophy, Religion, Politics, and the Arts2(1–2): 40–50.
53.
SoterA. O.WilkinsonI. A.MurphyP. K.RudgeL.ReningerK.EdwardsM. (2009) Corrigendum to “what the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension”. International Journal of Educational Research48(1): 77. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2009.04.001.
54.
SotilloS. M. (2000) Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology4(1): 82–119. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html.
55.
SunY.-C. (2009) Voice blog: An exploratory study of language learning. Language Learning & Technology13(2): 88–103. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num2/sun.pdf.
56.
SwainM. (1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In: DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (eds) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–81.
57.
TareM.GolonkaE. M.VatzK.BonillaC. L.CrooksC.StrongR. (2014) Effects of interactive chat versus independent writing on L2 learning. Language, Learning, & Technology18(3): 208–227.
58.
ThorneS. L.ReinhardtJ. (2008) Bridging activities, new media literacies, and advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal25(3): 558–572.
59.
TierneyR.LaZanskyJ.RaphaelT.CohenP. (1987) Authors’ intentions and readers’ interpretations. In: TierneyR.AndersP. L.MitchellJ. (eds) Understanding readers’ understanding, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 205–226.
60.
TierneyR.ShanahanT. (1991) Research on the reading/writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In: PearsonP. E.BarrM.MosenthalP. B. (eds) Handbook of reading researchVol. 2, New York, NY: Longman, pp. 246–280.
61.
WareP. (2017) Technology, new literacies, and language learners. In: ChapelleC. A.SauroS. (eds) The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 265–277. doi: 10.1002/9781118914069.ch18.
62.
WarschauerM. (1996) Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal13(2): 7–26.
63.
WarschauerM. (1997) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal81(4): 470–481. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05514.x.
64.
WellsG.Chang-WellsG. L. (1992) Constructing knowledge together, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
65.
WilliamsB. T. (2005) Leading double lives: Literacy and technology in and out of school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy48: 702–706. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.48.8.7.
66.
WitteS. (2007) “That’s online writing, not boring school writing”: Writing with blogs and the talkback project. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy51(2): 92–96. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.51.2.1.
67.
Wolfe-QuinteroK.InagakiS.KimH.-Y. (1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity, Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
68.
YinR. K. (2003) Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
69.
ZhengB.WarschauerM. (2017) Epilogue: Second language writing in the age of computer-mediated communication. Journal of Second Language Writing36: 61–67. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.014.
70.
ZhuE. (2006) Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science34(6): 451–480. doi: 10.1007/s11251-006-0004-0.
