Wiki

This article was downloaded by: [University of Southampton]
On: 25 May 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773565842]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Computer Assisted Language Learning

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100697
Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer

mediated language learning: attention to meaning among students in wiki
space
Greg Kesslera; Dawn Bikowskia
a
Department of Linguistics, Ohio University, Athens, USA
Online publication date: 05 February 2010
To cite this Article Kessler, Greg and Bikowski, Dawn(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
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09588220903467335
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220903467335
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Computer Assisted Language Learning
Vol. 23, No. 1, February 2010, 41–58
Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer

mediated language learning: attention to meaning among students
in wiki space
Greg Kessler* and Dawn Bikowski
Department of Linguistics, Ohio University, Athens, USA
This study reports on attention to meaning among 40 NNS pre-service EFL

Downloaded By: [University of Southampton] At: 22:59 25 May 2011
teachers as they collaboratively constructed a wiki in a 16-week online course.

Focus is placed upon the nature of individual and group behavior when attending
to meaning in a long-term wiki-based collaborative activity as well as the
students’ collaborative autonomous language learning abilities. Phases of group
collaboration as well as individual language acts were analyzed. Student
interaction and language use appear to benefit from flexible learning environ-
ments although student use of these spaces may not be consistent with instructor
expectations. More important than the quality of the final wiki is the process
students engage in as they write collaboratively. The paper concludes with a
proposed framework for CALL research and practice.
Keywords: autonomy; collaboration; writing; collaborative writing; wiki; learning
environments; process-based learning
Introduction
An extensive literature exists on collaboration in language learning. This study
benefits from the extant understanding of the overall nature of collaboration as well
as specific insight into the nature of collaborative writing. Students were observed as
they collaboratively constructed meaning in a long-term autonomous wiki activity.
Their attention to meaning as individuals and members of a group is analyzed within
a framework of collaborative autonomy. The authors propose a framework for
CALL research and practice that integrates collaborative autonomous language
learning and computer mediated language learning.
Autonomy
Advocates of autonomy promote student control over varied aspects of their
own learning. Researchers have associated autonomy with motivation (Spratt,
Humphreys, & Chan, 2002); self-direction (Benson, 2001); individual differences
(Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003); and learner setting (Benson, 2001). Healey (2007)
*Corresponding author. Email: kessler@ohio.edu
ISSN 0958-8221 print/ISSN 1744-3210 online

Ó 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09588220903467335
http://www.informaworld.com
42 G. Kessler and D. Bikowski
provides a useful overview of the range of control assumed by teachers and students
along with the range of variable-to-fixed content in autonomous settings. Benson
(2002, p. 6) broadly defines autonomy as ‘whatever an autonomous person thinks it
is’. While some may have considered autonomous learning to be an isolating activity
in the past, others recognize that technology may promote more social opportunities
for autonomous language practice and interaction (Benson, 2001; Healey, 2007;
Schwienhorst, 2003). This perspective supports further investigation into autono-
mous language use in a variety of settings. Littlewood (1996) proposed a framework
for developing student autonomy as seen in Figure 1.
Although not evident in this figure, Littlewood (1996) specifies that autonomous
behavior is comprised of willingness (including motivation and confidence) and
ability (including knowledge and skills). The framework identifies three roles of an
autonomous individual (person, communicator and learner). Littlewood defines
these three domains:
(1) Autonomy as a communicator depends on (a) the ability to use the language
creatively, and (b) the ability to use appropriate strategies for communicating
meanings in specific situations;
(2) Autonomy as a learner depends on (a) the ability to engage in independent work
(e.g. self-directed learning), and (b) the ability to use appropriate learning
strategies, both inside and outside the classroom;
Figure 1. A framework for developing autonomy for foreign language learning (Littlewood,
1996). Reproduced with kind permission from Elsevier Ó 1996.
Computer Assisted Language Learning 43
(3) Autonomy as a person depends (in the foreign language learning context) on (a) the
ability to express personal meanings, and (b) the ability to create personal learning
contexts, e.g. through interacting outside the classroom. (p. 431)
While these are essential roles for autonomous individuals, there is no

recognition in this framework of the domain of autonomy as a collaborative learner.
Collaboration in language learning

SLA research includes many arguments for varied benefits of collaboration among
language learners (Bruce, Peyton, & Batson, 1993; Storch, 1999). Arnold and Ducate
(2006) found that collaborative learning benefits from the context, tools and
participants of a learning environment. Swain (1995) suggests that learners engaged
in meaning construction naturally reflect upon their language production.
Collaboration can occur in varied ways. Parks, Hamers, and Huot-Lemonnier
(2003, p. 40) identify four types of collaboration:
(1) joint collaboration is ‘two or more writers working on the same text who
assume equal responsibility for its production . . . although individual
contributions to the finished product may vary’;
(2) parallel collaboration is ‘two or more writers who, although working on the
same text, do not assume equal responsibility for its production . . . although
again, individual contributions to the final product varied’;
(3) incidental collaboration is ‘generally brief, spur-of-the moment requests for
help directly related to the writing task at hand’; and
(4) covert collaboration is ‘getting information from documents or other
linguistic or nonlinguistic sources during the process of producing a text.’
These types of collaboration may not be apparent in all collaborative writing
contexts.
Collaborative writing
Research into collaborative writing suggests that collaboration contributes to
increased complexity in writing (Sotillo, 2000) and higher quality of writing (Storch,
2005) and can also be a source of student motivation (Kowal & Swain, 1994;
Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Some have expressed concerns about practices associated
with collaborative writing. Ware (2004) found that students participated in web-
based writing in ways that reflected their comfort with technology, past writing
experience, comfort with peers and anticipated teacher expectations. Ware (2004)
encourages flexibility in grading collaborative written work to avoid establishing a
sense of competition rather than collaboration. The evolution of collaborative
writing may be intrinsically connected with iterations of technology since new
developments provide new opportunities for collaboration.
Computer mediation in language learning

Recently there has been extensive investigation into language learning and
computer mediation. Many studies have investigated the role of computer
mediation in language learning. Some have suggested that students are likely to
actively engage in online collaborative activities due to the public nature of the
information and sense of accountability (Sengupta, 2001). Some have investigated
the role of CMC in establishing and maintaining relationships (Belz, 2003;
Bikowski, 2008).
Others have focused on discrete skills within CMC, frequently concluding that
CMC fosters negotiation (Blake, 2000; Lee, 2002; Smith, 2003), allows increased
student control (Chun, 1994), and promotes a wider variety of linguistic strategies
(Smith, 2003). Negotiation in the target language has been identified as significantly
contributing to language learning through enhanced semantic understanding (Long,
1981; Long & Robinson, 1998), morphosyntactic understanding (Loschky, 1994)
and a greater awareness of a language learner’s role in learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
Smith (2003) found that students engaged in CMC that encouraged extensive
negotiation devoted 66% of their participation to task completion rather than
negotiation, suggesting that collaboration may be lacking. Therefore, we need to
understand better the potential for student collaboration within specific computer
mediated contexts.
Levy and Hubbard (2005) proposed a model for computer mediated language
learning as seen in Figure 2.
This model positions the computer (along with the learner and learning
objectives) at the center of learning activity. Learners interact with peers, teachers
and other materials in this context as they strive to reach learning objectives. Solid
lines represent mediated interactions while dashed lines represent non-mediated
interactions. While not explicitly stated, this model seems to rely upon learners who
are prepared to function autonomously.
Collaborative writing in autonomous wiki space is likely to be different from
other contexts such as f2f in class collaborative writing, email exchanges or other
CMC-based collaborations. Kessler (2009) found that students were able to use the
wiki environment autonomously, but that they did not strive for grammatical
accuracy due to their perceptions of the environment. At present there is little
empirical research into the use of wikis in language learning. This present study
intends to identify other characteristics of student wiki use.
Methodology
Research questions
(1) What is the nature of individual and group behavior when attending to
meaning in a long-term wiki-based collaborative activity?
Figure 2. Computer mediation in language learning (Levy & Hubbard, 2005).

(2) How do students demonstrate collaborative autonomous language learning

in wiki space?
(3) How can the development of collaborative autonomous language learning
abilities inform computer mediated language learning?
Background information
The current study analyzes data collected over a 16-week semester in an online
course. The 40 students were all pre-service NNS English teachers enrolled in a
teacher preparation course at a large Mexican university. The course was focused
upon teaching English through the content of culture. Students participated actively
in the class in a variety of ways, including discussion boards, video conferences,
virtual presentations, collaborative group projects and accessing a variety of
streaming media. The wiki activity was intended to serve as a space where students
could synthesize the content of the course. Littlewood (1996) recommends the use of
these types of activities in order to assist students in building autonomy. The specific
task in this study was to collaboratively build a class wiki defining the term
‘culture’.
Data and analysis

Data were collected during a 16-week course in which students worked
autonomously on the collaborative construction of a wiki. The final wiki consisted
of 160 iterations throughout the course. For this study, all of the iterations that
included at least one meaning-related change (MRC) were examined, resulting in the
analysis of 40 iterations. MRCs included any meaning-related change that a student
made to the wiki. Iterations that included only grammatical changes were not
examined in this study. There were a total of 83 meaning-related changes in the 40
iterations analyzed. An example of an iteration involving two MRCs would be a
student adding a new sentence to the beginning of the wiki and also in the same
iteration adding a sentence of synthesis at the end. An MRC could consist of
changing a letter, word, sentence, paragraph or the entire wiki.
After the course concluded, the researchers surveyed the entire wiki to
understand individual student behavior. Five main coding categories were identified:
new information, deleted information, clarification/elaboration of information,
synthesis of information, and the addition of URL links. Table 1 includes a
description of each category.
The researchers also analyzed the extensive task from a more holistic perspective
in order to understand group collaborative behavior. The long-term nature of this
task allowed the researchers to identify phases of student group behavior. Each
MRC was analyzed in terms of both individual and group behavior in order to
understand how students demonstrate collaborative autonomous learning. In order
to identify student ability to demonstrate autonomy as a collaborative learner,
MRCs were evaluated in terms of:
(1) use of language to independently contribute personal meanings as a

collaborative member of a group;
(2) the ability to use appropriate strategies for communicating as a collaborative
member of a group; and
(3) the willingness to demonstrate these abilities within the group. Follow up
interviews were also conducted to shed insight into student perspectives on
the activity as well as other aspects of the class.
Results
Individual student behavior in a long-term wiki-based collaborative activity
Students fell into three groups in regards to the number of overall MRCs to the wiki.
While everyone made at least one edit to the wiki, only five students were responsible
for four or more iterations. Thirteen students contributed two iterations while 22
students only edited the wiki once over the course of 16 weeks.
Table 2 illustrates the varying degree of participation among students. We can see
that a slight majority of the students engaged marginally, while a small group were
apparently more interested in continued collaboration.
As stated in the methodology, students performed five main language acts in the
wiki: adding new information, deleting information, clarifying/elaborating on

information, synthesizing information and adding web links (see Table 3).
It can be seen from this table that the most frequent language acts included
adding new information, deleting information and clarifying/elaborating. The
language acts of synthesizing information and adding web links were used less
frequently. For all the codes, an MRC could range from editing a single word or
deleting the entire wiki.
In performing these language acts, the students were able to contribute their own
information to the group product, thus acting both independently and as a
collaborative team member. For example, students adding new information to the
wiki needed to consider what had already been written (or deleted or modified) so
that their contribution benefited the final wiki product. Examples of this are included
below.
Table 1. Coding categories and descriptions.
Coding category Description of category

New information Student writes about a sub-topic not previously discussed
Deleted information Student deletes information, ranging from one word or piece
of punctuation to the entire body of the wiki
Clarification/elaboration Student adds to a sub-topic that had already been introduced
of information
Synthesis of information Student writes a sentence or paragraph that ties together
previously written information
Links Student adds a link
Table 2. The number of iterations made by students.
Number of iterations Number of students

4 or more 5
2 13
1 22
Table 3. The five language acts and the number of instances.
Language act Number of instances in the wiki

New information 25
Deleted information 25
Clarification/elaboration of information 23
Synthesis of information 6
Links 4
Total 83
New information
The following paragraph was added into the wiki during Phase I:
Culture, a very common word used by most of the people. But do we really know what
it means? Most of the people have a wrong idea about what culture is. We tend to
associate this concept to the kwoldge that a person has. However, knowledge is just part
of a big group of elements that conform Culture.
This excerpt was coded as new because the information had not been discussed
previously.
Deleted information
The following paragraph was deleted from the wiki during Phase I:
Another important aspect to consider related to culture is the amount of knowledges that
we could get from other people and places. Of course it is not necessary that we apply all
those knowledges in our daily life because ot all of them will result the best for us.
This information was coded as deleted as it was completely deleted and not just
revised.
Clarification/elaboration of information
The following paragraph was coded as clarification/elaboration because it builds on
the previous discussion of the various components of culture:
Thus, in society these patterns defined each group of people and their culture.
Otherwise, there would not be any difference among traditions, behaviors and beliefs.
Then, culture is part of each individual in society. In this way we can find diersity in
society. One of the characteristics that we can mention is the language diversity. Around
the world, there are different dialects and languages that are spoken by different people,
and this is one of the aspects that culture involves.
Synthesis information
The following sentence was added as a conclusion to the previous discussion, thus
prompting the code of synthesis:
In conclusion, culture can be defined as the characteristics shared by a certain group of

people, taking into consideration people’s values, beliefs and their behavior in society.
Link addition
The following link was added to the wiki, along with information from the site. The
topic being discussed was Mexican culture:
If we say something about religion, there are also many different sulture’s styles because
the most commont religion is Catholic but there are some others with tribes such as
Nahuatis, Huicholes, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_culture
This situation was similar to how other links were added: information was
summarized and the link was provided.
In the context of this group activity, each of these language acts offered students
the potential to demonstrate autonomy as collaborative learners.
Group behavior in a long-term wiki-based collaborative activity

Phases of collaboration
Analysis of the wiki revealed that the students’ collaboration fell into three broad
phases: build and destroy, full collaboration and informal reflection. The first phase
lasted for two weeks, the second for 10 weeks and the third for two weeks (see
Table 4). Each phase is described below.
Phase I: build and destroy

During the first 24 iterations of the wiki, 13 students collaboratively constructed an
emerging understanding of the term ‘culture’ four independent times. Between each
of these constructions, other students deleted the entirety of the wiki and replaced it
with very brief information. The first of these consisted solely of a reference to T.S.
Eliot’s definition of culture (Eliot, 1948). The others were short paragraphs
constructed by the intervening students. This phase lasted for the first two weeks of
the course.
Phase II: full collaboration

Iterations 25 through 48 also involved 13 individuals, including four from the initial
phase. This period included collaboration without the intermittent large-scale
deletions of the first 24 iterations. At the end of this phase, the final version of the
wiki was constructed. This phase lasted for 14 weeks.
Phase III: informal reflection

The final 32 iterations consisted of students using the wiki as if it were a discussion
board. Eighteen students posted during this phase for the first time. After one
Table 4. Three phases of collaboration in an autonomous wiki.
Weeks 1–2 Weeks 3–12 Weeks 12–14 Weeks 15–16

Phase I Phase II Gap Phase III
Build & destroy Full collaboration Informal reflection
student attached a comment about the class with a greeting to the instructor in
iteration 49, others soon followed suit. Twenty-one of these personal reflections
upon the course were ultimately added to the end of the wiki with none edited or
deleted. During this period two minor edits were made to the wiki content itself other
than these addendums. Thus, the final wiki consisted of 995 words in the content
portion and the personal messages consisted of 2614 words for a total of 3609 words.
After a two-week gap of activity, this final phase lasted for 11 days.
The first personal message that launched phase III:
Hi [Instructor]
Through this course I have learn many important things about culture. Few weeks ago,
culture was only a concept for me and now I have realized it is not. I learned that culture
is many things. Culture defines a society, it is music, it is how people think, how people
act, the way they dress, the things they eat, the way they eat, the traditions they have.
Culture is not just a concept; culture is much more than that. Culture is like a very
complex world that goes beyond words.
By being in contact with different cultures and also mine, I have learned to appreciate
even more my own culture, my roots and my customs. I am proud to be Mexican, to
represent my México everywhere I go, and I am glad to have the opportunity to share
what I am with people from many different parts of the world.
The final version of the wiki was by no means a perfectly refined text, but it
appears that the students thought it was complete enough for the purpose. Thus they
proceeded to use the space as a venue for public closure to the course.
Evaluating collaborative autonomous learning

Developing abilities to perform autonomously as a collaborative learner requires:
(1) the ability to use language to independently contribute personal meanings as

a collaborative member of a group;
(3) the willingness to demonstrate these abilities within the group.
Students demonstrated the ability to perform as contributing members of the

group when making meaning-related changes. However, there is evidence that some
students did not perform with the best interests of the group in mind. In order to
evaluate students’ autonomous collaborative learning abilities, each individual MRC
was identified according to observed language acts. Each instance was then identified
as either effectively or not effectively demonstrating autonomy as a collaborative
learner. Table 5 illustrates the results of this process.
It can be seen from Table 5 that students demonstrated autonomy as
collaborative learners more often than not. Students were most likely to contribute
new information or delete information. This contribution provides an example of
new information that demonstrated collaborative learner autonomy. The original
post that included:
From all of the above, I can say that culture is the set of characteristics acquired and
that tell who we are, where we are from, and whom we are with and that culture goes
hand to hand with society
Table 5. MRCs illustrating autonomy as a collaborative learner.
Demonstrating autonomy Not demonstrating autonomy

Language act as a collaborative learner as a collaborative learner
New information 20 (80%) 5 (20%)
Deleted information 20 (80%) 5 (20%)
Clarification/elaboration 16 (70%) 7 (30%)
of information
Synthesis of information 6 (100%) 0
Links 4 (100%) 0
Totals 66 (80%) 17 (20%)
was extended with new information to read:

hand to hand with society. It also involves how people behave in a society. Besides that,
it allows us to know its customs, values, beliefs and so on.
However, in 20% of these acts students did not demonstrate autonomy as

collaborative learners. An example of this can be found when a student deleted the
entire 12-paragraph wiki and replaced it with the following two paragraphs:
To complete this summary related to the word ‘‘culture’’, I want to mention
the following words mentioned by T.S. Eliot: ‘‘If we take culture seriously, we
see that a person does not need merely enough to eat but a proper and particular
cuisine [. . ] Culture may even be described simply as that which makes life worth
living’’. (p. 27)
I think that it means that we can do many things, but that there are some actions that
distinguish us from other societies and that it would be very boring if every single person
of this world had the same culture.
This example was coded as not demonstrating autonomy as collaborative

learners for two reasons: one, the student completely deleted the contributions and
insights of several other students in a manner that suggested a lack of collaborative
strategic competence; and two, the student simply included a quote and provided her
own reflection on it. There is no evidence of an attempt at collaborating as a member
of the group.
When students contributed with the clarification or elaboration of information,
they demonstrated autonomy as collaborative learners 70% of the time. Although
students did not engage in synthesis or inclusion of links frequently, they
demonstrated autonomy as collaborative learners 100% of the time when
performing these MRCs. One example of synthesis illustrating collaborative learner
autonomy is shown in this brief summary of what had been numerous divergent
examples:
hand to hand with society.
Interviews focusing on the entire course were conducted with 20 students.

Comments specifically focusing on the wiki activity revealed the following four
points:
(1) students were primarily concerned with the meaning of their contributions to
the wiki;
(2) students valued the collaborative nature of the wiki activity even though it
was unfamiliar;
(3) students valued their own contributions to the wiki and thought that their
classmates valued their contributions as well; and
(4) students valued classmates’ changes to the wiki because revisions resulted in
an improved product.
Discussion
The first research question involves the behavior of individuals and groups during
the long-term task. Students collaborated in the wiki in three phases. Each of these
phases appears to represent a growing comfort with the collaborative task. A small
group of students initially constructed a collaborative product that was repeatedly
deleted and rebuilt. These early iterations were comprehensive and included many
of the same ideas that were maintained into the final version, yet none of the text
from the initial documents was retrieved. One of the unique features of wiki
technology is the ability to revisit and possibly return the current state of a
document to any previous iteration. However, students did not utilize this feature.
Rather, they appeared to use this initial period as a form of brainstorming for later
versions.
The second phase of interaction involved a broader collaboration among
students with no large-scale deletion. This suggests that students were satisfied
with the direction that the wiki was taking. Many students only began to participate
in the wiki during this phase. The shift from phase one of deletions to phase two of
full collaboration might reflect a change in student attitudes: that as the group
worked together more they began to develop more of a willingness to interact ‘in a
relationship of equality’ and interest in what other students contributed (Belz, 2003,
p. 89).
Phase three followed a brief period of inactivity. During this phase the students
began to use the wiki in a very different manner. After one student posted a personal
reflection of the course at the end of the wiki, others began to do the same. These
personal messages, which seemed more like email messages, began with a greeting to
the instructor and ended with a signature from the student. With the exception of
one posting, these followed a chronological order, such that they became a lengthy
string of messages attached to the end of the wiki. While this type of use was not
anticipated, it seemed to provide closure for the students. All but one of the students
wrote a final reflection of this type. This suggests that students valued this space and
used it for their own needs, although they used the space differently from what the
instructor had envisioned. This is similar to findings in peripherally related research
(Fischer, 2007; Ware, 2004) that students’ technology use may not be consistent with
faculty plans or expectations. Because students can benefit from the opportunity to
use technology to suit their own needs, providing flexibility to use tools in varied
ways is crucial. Furthermore, it is important that we observe these unanticipated
forms of use in order to prepare for future trends.
This final phase included 18 students who had not yet contributed or who had
only made cosmetic wiki changes such as color. This suggests that some students
were visiting the wiki even when not posting to it and that they chose when they
wanted to begin contributing. The student behavior of interacting in a silent, or

lurking, manner is similar to the vicarious interaction observed by others
(Bikowski, 2007; Swan, 2004). It is also similar to Bikowski’s (2008) finding that
individual students used different strategies to attain their communication and
technology goals and Su et al.’s (2005) finding that students value interaction
but do not agree on how much interaction is necessary. Since the students were
communicating in a second language, they may have needed more time before they
felt comfortable contributing to the public space. Their contributions in phase
three may have been a means of establishing relationships in the community,
similar to the previous findings that relationships are important to community
members (Belz, 2003; Bikowski, 2008).
It seems that students working in autonomous spaces are inclined to engage in
tasks that require less critical thinking. Students tended to engage primarily in the
language acts of adding new information (25), deleting information (25) and
clarification/ elaboration of information (23). Synthesis was only used a total of six
times, and four hyperlinks were identified. Students did engage in clarification/
elaboration, which suggests the willingness to interact with the content rather than
only adding new information or deleting information. Some students relied upon
mass deletion as their only contribution to the wiki. Synthesis – a higher order
critical thinking skill – would have served the evolution of the wiki well on many
occasions, but students instead introduced new information or deleted extant
information. Without the extensive use of synthesis, it is difficult to succeed at
collaborative writing in a wiki setting. This lack of attention to synthesis resulted in a
final wiki that may have satisfactorily accomplished the task, but did not form a
cohesive ideal product.
Synthesis occurs primarily during the first phase (weeks 1–2) with four MRCs.
All four of these attempts to synthesize information occurred immediately after one
of the acts of destruction. It appears that students relied upon synthesis to rebuild
the wiki. Rather than using the technology to return to a previous state, these
students chose to return to similar content based on their recollection of the previous
iterations of the wiki. This use based on comfort with the technology is consistent
with previous studies (Ware, 2004).
The second research question of how students demonstrate collaborative
autonomous language learning is addressed through observed use of the colla-
borative wiki activity. During the 16-week course most students posted once to the
wiki, while a small group posted multiple times, thus claiming ownership over the
document. This suggests that the majority of students were simply fulfilling
the requirements of the course while a small group engaged in more extended
collaboration. Overall, the MRCs demonstrated students’ autonomous collaborative
language learning abilities. We can see that the students who contributed in
thoughtful and meaningful ways went beyond the base requirements of the course.
This more extensive collaborative engagement offers students opportunities to
express themselves, benefit from others’ opinions and experiment with the language.
Students who only posted once may have done so only to fulfill the course
requirement, or they may have been reading the wiki but choosing not to contribute
to it. Some comments from the follow-up interviews suggest that these students
may be participating vicariously, observing the collaboration of others without
contributing themselves. This may be a critical step toward developing their
autonomous collaborative language learning abilities.
The other two instances of synthesis occur during phase three, the phase known
as informal reflection. The two final examples of synthesis were written by one
individual during one iteration of the wiki. This iteration was one of the first in
the personal reflection portion of activity. The synthesis taking place provided
closure both for the wiki activity and the class itself. The student wrote, ‘‘culture is
something to feel ourselves proud about not to be ashamed about. Culture is what
we are and that is it.’’
The limited degree of synthesis may have resulted from the informal and open-
ended nature of the assignment. Synthesis may require a more controlled
environment with greater teacher involvement and direction. Perhaps synthesis
was encouraged as a result of students’ lack of familiarity with the technology. Each
time that the wiki was mass-replaced, this act was followed by an act of synthesis
that echoed ideas of previous iterations. Following these synthesizing acts the wiki
was in its most cohesive form.
According to the four types of collaboration identified by Parks, Hamers and
Huot-Lemonnier (2003), 22 of the students in this study engaged in joint

collaboration in that they were working on the same text with relatively equal
responsibility for constructing the text. The 18 students who contributed less
frequently engaged in parallel collaboration because they worked on the same text but
did not contribute equally. In addition, students occasionally used covert collabora-
tion; that is, they borrowed material from another source and included it in the wiki.
This material came from the course discussion board and from websites. Due to the
nature of the assignment, it was not possible to determine if students engaged in
incidental collaboration when students ask for immediate help related to their writing
task. Parks, Hamers and Huot-Lemonnier (2003) note that this type of collaboration
is rare. One means of increasing incidental collaboration in a wiki context would be to
create a meta-space for students to explicitly ask and answer questions. This type of
space could allow students to more completely examine their ideas before making
changes to the wiki, perhaps leading to higher-level critical thinking.
The third research question asks how collaborative autonomous learning
strategies can inform computer-mediated language learning. By combining elements
of the framework for developing autonomy for foreign language learning (Little-
wood, 1996) and the model for computer mediation in language learning (Levy &
Hubbard, 2005), we have constructed a framework for developing collaborative
autonomous language learning within computer-mediated contexts. First, we have
added the element of autonomy as a collaborative learner to the Littlewood (1996)
framework as seen in Figure 3.
This revision identifies the role of a collaborative learner as existing between both
elements of autonomy as a communicator and autonomy as a learner. By utilizing
learning strategies along with communication strategies within a collaborative
context, the collaborative learner requires the same characteristics of willingness and
ability identified by Littlewood (e.g. motivation/confidence and knowledge/skills). In
this model, autonomy as a collaborative learner depends on:
(1) the ability to use language to independently contribute personal meanings as

a collaborative member of a group;
(3) the willingness to demonstrate these abilities within the group.
Figure 3. A framework for developing autonomy as a collaborative language learner

(Adapted from Littlewood, 1996). Reproduced with kind permission from Elsevier Ó 1996.
In this study, students demonstrated the ability to use language to independently

contribute personal meanings as a collaborative member of a group by not only
adding information, but by deleting, clarifying and synthesizing. Students may also
independently gather, evaluate and share text from external sources for the benefit of
the group. In addition, students may demonstrate this ability by sharing extra-
linguistic artifacts such as images, videos or audio recordings.
By integrating this characterization of the collaborative autonomous learner
within the computer-mediated language learning model, the authors propose a
framework for developing collaborative autonomous language-learning abilities
within computer mediated contexts. This framework integrates the elements of both
extant models, replacing the learner in the computer mediated language learning
model with the collaborative autonomous language learner as seen in Figure 4.
In Figure 5 we see the simplified revised framework. This framework incorpo-
rates the entirety of Figure 3, identified as collaborative autonomous language
learner, within the Levy and Hubbard model.
This framework acknowledges the importance of students developing collabora-
tive autonomous language learning abilities while maintaining what Levy and
Hubbard refer to as a ‘CALL-centered viewpoint’ (2005, p. 146). This perspective is
distinct to the field of CALL in that, ‘the computer, the language learner, and the
language learning objectives are at the heart of the matter’ as opposed to other
Figure 4. An expanded framework for developing collaborative autonomous language

learning abilities in computer mediated contexts (Adapted from Littlewood, 1996, and Levy &
Hubbard, 2005).
Figure 5. A simplified revised framework for developing collaborative autonomous language

learning abilities in computer mediated contexts (Adapted from Levy & Hubbard, 2005).
contexts ‘in which the computer is a neutral delivery system or ‘‘just’’ a tool’ (p. 146).
Thus, this proposed framework incorporates both the responsibility of the
collaborative autonomous language learner and the CALL-focused context in which
successful collaborative language learning occurs. This framework is intended to
provide a perspective for future research and practice related to collaboration in
CALL contexts.
Conclusions
Students benefit from opportunities to practice autonomy in flexible learning
environments. Thus, some students need to be made aware of the potential of
autonomous learning spaces. When students are allowed to have their own space to
collaborate they are likely to build stronger relationships with one another (Belz,
2003; Bikowski, 2008). In addition, such collaboration leads to a sense of ownership
that encourages extensive utilization of the learning space. In this respect, students
begin to use the space in ways that are meaningful to them but unanticipated by
instructors or designers. Of course, some students may not immediately recognize the
potential of these spaces and the interaction that they offer. Thus, it may be crucial
that we provide students with opportunities to develop their collaborative

autonomous language learning abilities.
In addition to preparing students for the linguistics expectations of a task, we
must also prepare them to establish confidence to experiment within the autonomous
space. In order to make the most of emerging technologies, it is important that
students exploit the language and technology skills they have within the anticipated
and unanticipated potential of new learning spaces. Students may find the ever-
changing nature of these spaces to be confusing, frustrating or intimidating. The
newness of this kind of collaborative activity is inherently complex, and students
may find their role to be potentially ambiguous. Discussing these challenges
with students prior to engaging in such tasks would certainly benefit classroom
practices.
Since students prefer to interact in different ways, instructors may want to create
flexible assignments in autonomous wiki activities that allow students to decide
when, what and how much they will contribute. While some students may want to be
very active contributors, others may want to interact with only minor and cosmetic
changes. Still others may spend most of the course interacting vicariously. More
research would be needed to determine how various types of interaction affect
student engagement and learning.
Students communicated in their course-related wiki in three distinct phases:
(1) phase one: build and destroy,

(2) phase two: full collaboration, and
(3) phase three: informal reflection.
They used five language acts throughout the three phases: new information,
deleted information, clarification/elaboration of information, synthesis of informa-
tion and adding links. The language acts they used varied depending on the phase of
the wiki they were in. Not only did more synthesis occur in phase one, but this phase
is also where the most cohesive iteration of the wiki was created.
The quality of the final wiki (or any other product) may not be significant. In
fact, students may benefit more from the liberation associated with the process. It is
likely that this activity represents the first time that these students were faced with
such an autonomous task. Perhaps they would produce higher quality work if given
the opportunity to practice autonomy over a longer period of time in a variety of
contexts, if they felt sufficiently comfortable contributing to the public space, and if
they fully realized the potential of the technology.
The framework for developing collaborative autonomous language learning
abilities in computer-mediated contexts that is presented in this paper is intended to
serve as a springboard for discussion. Future research and reflection may contribute
to a more refined model.
This study leads to a number of areas that would benefit from future research.
One area to study would be with ownership; namely, research could be done on
the extent of ownership students claim within wiki space and the degree to which
feelings of ownership affect participation and types of changes made. Future
research could also focus on the language acts that students perform in varied
tasks within wiki space. Future research will lead to more understanding on the
nature of collaborative autonomous language learning within computer-mediated
contexts.
Limitations
This study reports on the attention to meaning in a collaborative wiki activity among
40 NNS students in an online course at a large Mexican University. The results are
limited to this particular group of students in this context. However, the student
behavior may reflect similar student use within wikis and other many-to-many
collaborative contexts. While the students’ active behavior was observed over the
16-week course, there is limited data to identify vicarious interaction with the wiki.
Adding the ability to record visits that result in no editing would benefit future
research.
Notes on contributors
Greg Kessler is assistant professor of CALL at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. His primary
research interests include CALL teacher education, student CALL preparation, teacher and
student behavior in constructivist CALL environments and the nexus of language and
technology.
Dawn Bikowski is the director of the English language improvement program at Ohio
University. Her research has focused on technology and intercultural education and on writing
at the graduate level.
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 October 31, 2009, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/
Belz, J.A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in
telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68–99. Retrieved October 31,
2009, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/belz/default.html
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow, England:
Pearson.
Benson, P. (2002). Rethinking the relationship of self-access and autonomy. Self-Access
Language Learning, 5, 3–7. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://lc.ust.hk/HASALD/
newsletter/newsletterSept02.pdf
Bikowski, D. (2007). Internet relationships: Building learning communities through friend-
ship. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 131–141. Retrieved October 31, 2009,
from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/
Bikowski, D. (2008). The discourse of relationship building in an intercultural virtual learning
community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish inter-
language. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120–136. Retrieved October 31, 2009,
from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/
Bruce, B., Peyton, J.K., & Batson, T. (Eds.). (1993). Network-based classrooms: Promises and
realities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chun, D.M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive
competence. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied
Linguistics, 22, 17–31.
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In
C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Eliot, T.S. (1948). Notes towards a Definition of Culture. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from
http://www.applet-magic.com/cultureliot.htm
Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what learners are actually doing? Monitoring learners’
behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 409–442.
Healey, D. (2007). Theory and research: Autonomy and language learning. In J. Egbert &
E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice and critical issues
(pp. 377–389). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Kessler, G. (2009). Student initiated attention to form in wiki based collaborative writing.
Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79–95. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://
llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote
students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93.
Lee, L. (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on non-native
discourse. System, 30, 275–288.
Levy, M., & Hubbard, P. (2005). Why call CALL ‘‘CALL’’? Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 18(3), 143–149.
Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24, 427–435.
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.),
Native language and foreign language acquisition. Vol. 379 (pp. 259–278). New York:
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Long, M.H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In
C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 15–41). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the
relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303–323.
Parks, S., Hamers, D., & Huot-Lemonnier, D. (2003). Crossing boundaries: Multimedia
technology and pedagogical innovation in a high school class. Language Learning &
Technology, 7(1), 28–45. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/
Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Neither here nor there? Learner autonomy and intercultural factors
in CALL environments. In D. Palfreyman & R.C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across
cultures: Language education perspectives (pp. 164–180). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sengupta, S. (2001). Exchanging ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a
pain? Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 103–134. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The
Modern Language Journal, 87, 38–54.
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and
asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82–119. Retrieved
October 31, 2009, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/ default.html
Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which comes
first? Language Teaching Research, 6, 245–266.
Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy.
System, 27, 363–374.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.
Su, B., Bonk, C.J., Magjuka, R., Liu, X., & Lee, S. (2005). The importance of interaction in
web-based education: A program-level case study of online MBA cources. Journal of
Online Interactive Learning, 4(1), 1–19. Retrieved March 1, 2007, from http://
www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/4.1.1.pdf
Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments.
Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/books/
interactions.pdf
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook &
B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of
H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent
French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–
337.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ware, P.D. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-
based discussions in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 21(4), 451–468.

Wiki

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Wiki

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Southampton]

On: 25 May 2011

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer

Online publication date: 05 February 2010

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer

Department of Linguistics, Ohio University, Athens, USA

This study reports on attention to meaning among 40 NNS pre-service EFL

teachers as they collaboratively constructed a wiki in a 16-week online course.

*Corresponding author. Email: kessler@ohio.edu

ISSN 0958-8221 print/ISSN 1744-3210 online

While these are essential roles for autonomous individuals, there is no

Collaboration in language learning

(2003, p. 40) identify four types of collaboration:

Computer mediation in language learning

Figure 2. Computer mediation in language learning (Levy & Hubbard, 2005).

(2) How do students demonstrate collaborative autonomous language learning

Data and analysis

(1) use of language to independently contribute personal meanings as a

wiki: adding new information, deleting information, clarifying/elaborating on

Table 1. Coding categories and descriptions.

Coding category Description of category

Table 2. The number of iterations made by students.

Number of iterations Number of students

Table 3. The ﬁve language acts and the number of instances.

Language act Number of instances in the wiki

In conclusion, culture can be deﬁned as the characteristics shared by a certain group of

Group behavior in a long-term wiki-based collaborative activity

Phase I: build and destroy

Phase II: full collaboration

Phase III: informal reﬂection

Table 4. Three phases of collaboration in an autonomous wiki.

Weeks 1–2 Weeks 3–12 Weeks 12–14 Weeks 15–16

Evaluating collaborative autonomous learning

(1) the ability to use language to independently contribute personal meanings as

Students demonstrated the ability to perform as contributing members of the

Table 5. MRCs illustrating autonomy as a collaborative learner.

Demonstrating autonomy Not demonstrating autonomy

was extended with new information to read:

However, in 20% of these acts students did not demonstrate autonomy as

This example was coded as not demonstrating autonomy as collaborative

Interviews focusing on the entire course were conducted with 20 students.

wanted to begin contributing. The student behavior of interacting in a silent, or

Huot-Lemonnier (2003), 22 of the students in this study engaged in joint

(1) the ability to use language to independently contribute personal meanings as

Figure 3. A framework for developing autonomy as a collaborative language learner

In this study, students demonstrated the ability to use language to independently

Figure 4. An expanded framework for developing collaborative autonomous language

Figure 5. A simpliﬁed revised framework for developing collaborative autonomous language

that we provide students with opportunities to develop their collaborative

(1) phase one: build and destroy,

You might also like