Mutual Benefits of Face-to-Face and Online Interactions

Part of the Chinese Language Learning Sciences book series (CLLS)


This chapter presents the analysis of the participants’ interaction in the case of a representational tool-supported collaborative planning activity. The chapter begins with the statistical analysis results of the students’ participation information, which provides an overall picture about the distribution of interactions in different small-group settings. It is followed by the quality of group output at different phases of the task. Incorporating this quantitative information, the microanalysis of interaction provides references for understanding in what kinds of situation a representational tool could be used by participants (both students in small groups and their teacher) for facilitating group understanding development in a Chinese as second-language learning classroom.


  1. Bera, S., & Liu, M. (2006). Cognitive tools, individual differences, and group processing as mediating factors in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263–272.Google Scholar
  4. Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2007). Supporting learning: Increasing complexity? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1162–1166.Google Scholar
  6. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write (pp. 139–159). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviors during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hall, J. K., & Verplaetse, L. S. (2000). The development of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 1–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Student assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 277–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liang, M. Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 45–64.Google Scholar
  12. Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Hakkarainen, K., & Palonen, T. (2002). Effective participation and discourse through a computer network: Investigating elementary students’ computer supported interaction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27, 353–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimoa, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Muncie, J. (2002). Process writing and vocabulary development: Comparing lexical frequency profiles across drafts. System, 2(30), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computers & Education, 53, 1256–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prinsen, F., Volman, M. L. L., & Terwel, J. (2007). The influence of learner characteristics on degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1037–1055.Google Scholar
  19. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 192–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Janssen, J., & Phielix, C. (2010). Fostering complex learning-task performance through scripting student use of computer supported representational tools. Computes & Education, 55, 1707–1720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sorensen, E. K., Takle, E. S., & Moser, H. M. (2006). Knowledge-building quality in online communities of practice: Focusing on learning dialogue. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(3), 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 21, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42, 403–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Suthers, D. D., Girardeau, L., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). Deictic roles of external representations in face-to-face and online collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on CSCL 2003 (pp. 173–182). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  28. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  29. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 97–114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language Journal, 93(i), 5–29.Google Scholar
  33. van Drie, J., Van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computer in Human Behavior, 21, 575–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wong, L. H., Chen, W., Chai, C. S., Chin, C. K., & Gao, P. (2011). A blended collaborative writing approach for Chinese L2 primary school students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), 1208–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34, 451–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nanyang Technological UniversityNational Institute of EducationSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations