Engaging students in an online situated language learning environment

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 181-198

  Yang, Yu Fen ^a  

^a NATIONAL YUNLIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

(A)synchronous communication; E meeting; Situated learning; Student engagement; Student teacher interaction

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953156565     PISSN: 09588221     EISSN: 17443210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2010.538700     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Altinay, L., & Paraskevas, A. (2007). A computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) approach in teaching research methods. Hospitality Management, 26, 623-644.
2. Barkatsas, A.T., Kasimatis, K., & Gialamas, V. (2009). Learning secondary mathematics with technology: Exploring the complex interrelationship between students' attitudes, engagement, gender and achievement. Computers & Education, 52(3), 562-570.
3. Bower, M., & Hedberg, J.G. (2010). A quantitative multimodal discourse analysis of teaching and learning in a web-conferencing environment - the efficacy of student-centred learning designs. Computers & Education, 54(2), 462-478.
4. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
5. Burton, D. (1981). Analysing spoken discourse. In M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Studies in discourse analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
6. Cañado, M.L.P. (2010). Using virtual learning environments and computer-mediated communication to enhance the lexical competence of pre-service English teachers: A quantitative and qualitative study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(2), 129-150.
7. Carini, R.M., Kuh, G.D., & Klein, S.P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
8. Chen, H.Y., & Liu, K.Y. (2008). Web-based synchronized multimedia lecture system design for teaching/learning Chinese as second language. Computers & Education, 50(3), 693-702.
9. Chen, P.D., Lambert, A.D., & Guidry, K.R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222-1232.
10. Chesney, S., & Marcangelo, C. (2010). 'There was a lot of learning going on': Using a digital medium to support learning in a professional course for new HE lecturers. Computers & Education, 54(3), 701-708.
11. Cole, P.G., & Chan, L.K.S. (1994). Teaching principles and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
12. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2010). Cross-age peer tutors in asynchronous discussion groups: Exploring the impact of three types of tutor training on patterns in tutor support and on tutor characteritics. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1167- 1181.
14. Egbert, J., Paulus, T.M., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108-126.
15. Ekebergh, M., Lepp, M., & Dahlberg, K. (2004). Reflective learning with drama in nursing education - a Swedish attempt to overcome the theory praxis gap. Nurse Education Today, 24, 622-628.
16. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.
17. Fu, F.L., Wu, Y.L., & Ho, H.C. (2009). An investigation of coopetitive pedagogic design for knowledge creation in Web-based learning. Computers & Education, 53, 550-562.
18. Gonida, E.N., Voulala, K., & Kiosseoglou, G. (2009). Students' achievement goal orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: Co-examining the role of perceived school goal structures and parent goals during adolescence. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 53-60.
19. Hammond, J. (2006). High challenge, high support: Integrating language and content instruction for diverse learners in an English literature classroom. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 269-283.
20. Hardison, D.M., & Sonchaeng, C. (2005). Theatre voice training and technology in teaching oral skills: Integrating the components of a speech event. System, 33, 593-608.
21. Holley, D., & Oliver, M. (2010). Student engagement and blended learning: Portraits of risk. Computers & Education, 54(3), 693-700.
22. Horz, H.,Winter, C., and Fries, S. (2009). Differential benefits of situated instructional prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 818-828.
23. Kay, R.H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819-827.
24. Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41-58.
25. Kienle, A. (2009). Intertwining synchronous and asynchronous communication to support collaborative learning - system design and evaluation. Education and Information Technologies, 14(1), 55-79.
26. King, S.O., & Robinson, C.L. (2009). 'Pretty lights' and maths! Increasing student engagement and enhancing learning through the use of electronic voting systems. Computers & Education, 53(1), 189-199.ç
27. Koçak, M. (2010). A novice teacher's action research on EFL learners' speaking anxiety. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 138-143.
28. Kramsch, C., & Andersen, R.W. (1999). Teaching text and context through multimedia. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 31-42.
29. Kuh, G.D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24-32.
30. Lan, Y.J., Sung, Y.T., & Chang, K.E. (2007). A mobile-device-supported peer assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 130-151.
31. Liaw, M.-L., & Susan, B.-L.M. (2010). Understanding telecollaboration through an analysis of intercultural discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 21-40.
32. Liu, T.Y., & Chu, Y.L. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 630 643.
33. Peterson, M. (2009). Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: A sociocultural perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 303-321.
34. Riordan, M.A., and Kreuz, R.J. (2010). Emotion encoding and interpretation in computer-mediated communication: Reasons for use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1667-1673.
35. Sun, Y.C. (2009). Voice blog: an exploratory study of language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 88-103.
36. Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 82-99.
37. Wang, Y., & Chen, N.S. (2009). Criteria for evaluating synchronous learning management systems: Arguments from the distance language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 1-18.
38. Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. (2001). Discourse as data: A guide for analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
39. Yamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative language learning using synchronous computer-mediated communication: Experimental study. Computers & Education, 52(4), 820-833.
40. Yang, Y.F., Yeh, H.C., & Wong, W.K. (2010). The influence of social interaction on meaning construction in a virtual community. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 287-306.
41. Zeng, G., & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computermediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37, 434-446.