臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

中文摘要

過去數十年，同儕評改於第二語言寫作領域中已大量被討論及應用。值得注意的是，相關文獻多僅探討同儕評改之影響與效果。然而，極少研究將同儕評改視為一社會建構過程，因而忽略探討其社會文化層面。

本研究透過Vygotsky (1978) 的社會文化理論 (sociocultural theory) 檢視在為期一學期大學英語寫作課中的三次同儕評改活動。研究目的在於探索線上同儕評改中所產生的互動型態、參與者由語言認知調節階段 (cognitive stages of regulation) 中所呈現的社會關係、以及參與者所接受之協助及其認知調節階段之關係。研究資料收集自參與者進行同儕互評的即時通訊 (IM) 紀錄。研究者修改de Guerrero及Villamil (1994) 和 Wood、Bruner及Ross (1976) 所提出之基模，以將參與者的同儕互動種類、認知調節階段、社會關係、及鷹架式協助予以編碼及分類。

研究結果顯示，參與者在透過電腦為中介的同儕評改中，除了仍保有五種面對面溝通的互動模式，更創造出一種透過網路尋求協助的同儕互動形式。在此互動模式中，參與者藉由網路虛擬專家（如：線上字典、翻譯軟體）的協助，得以在認知階段上獲得成長及進行線上即時的評改討論。再者，參與者之間的社會互動關係不僅呈現出個人認知調節階段上的差異，更反映出同儕間的角色認知與其變動。另外，參與者所接受之協助及其認知階段間的高相關性，更凸顯出同儕可感知彼此最大發展區 (Zone of Proximal Development; ZPD) 並給予適當協助之能力。最後，本研究也呈現出網路溝通所帶來的社會文化影響、同步溝通的E化語言、以及不具鷹架式協助作用的同儕互動。依據研究結果，研究者也指出本研究之缺失，及提出針對英語教學上的應用與未來相關研究之建議。

Abstract

Peer revision as an aid to process writing in the second language (L2) classroom has been amply discussed and employed in the past decades. As a complicated practice encompassing both cognitive and social aspects of language, yet it has mostly been explored for such cognitive issues as impact and effectiveness. Little literature has looked into its sociocultural dimension, in which peer revising behaviors, as one kind of language use and learning, are considered to be a socially constructed process of collaboration, interaction, and communication (Barnes, 1976; Cazden, 1988; Vygotsky, 1978).

The study adopted Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory as the theoretical framework to examine three writing cycles of L2 peer revision sessions in an 18-week, college-level English writing course. A total of 20 pairs of the students were recruited as the target participants due to their rich and representative instant message (IM) protocols. To probe the nature of electronic peer interaction, the study aimed to explore three sociocultural dimensions of peer revision via an on-line medium – the types of interaction between members of a dyad, the kinds of social relationships from the participants’ cognitive stages of regulation, and the relationships between the participants’ cognitive status and their received scaffolding. Data were collected from instant conversation logs. The data were analyzed based on five coding schemes – four were adapted not only from those of de Guerrero and Villamil (1994) for types of episodes, types of on-task episodes, cognitive stages of regulation and social relationships, and the other one was adopted from Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) for scaffolding functions.

The results showed that the peers, in addition to engaging in the five traditional revision episodes, would also create a new CMC facilitated interaction type, in which on-line sources might serve as virtual experts scaffolding to activate deeper communication and to move the
peers forward to higher levels of cognitive stages. Moreover, the changing social relationships between the reviewers and reviewees revealed not only the peers’ symmetrical/asymmetrical cognitive status but also their dynamic role awareness and shift. Furthermore, the high correlation between the peers’ regulatory stages and the scaffolding received displayed the peers’ sensitiveness to each other’s ZPD. In addition to the three abovementioned findings, the social impacts of synchronous CMC, the electronic variety of language, and the non-scaffolding assistance were also found. Finally, pedagogical suggestions were provided.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

中文摘要 i
Abstract iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
Background and Rationale 1
Purposes of the Study 3
Organization of the Thesis 4

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
Peer Revision 5
Studies on Efficacy of Peer Revision 8
Limitations of Traditional Face-to-Face Peer Revision 10
Sociocultural Theory 12
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) 13
Internalization 15
Scaffolding 17
Peer Scaffolding 19
Regulation 21
CMC Overview 23
Perspectives on Comparison between CMC and Face-to-Face (FTF) Communication 24
Linguistic Perspective on CMC 27
Cross-cultural Perspectives on CMC 30
Collaborative Perspectives on CMC 31
Conclusion 32

CHAPTER 3 METHOD 34
Setting 34
On-line Reviewing Environment – MSN Messenger 34
Participants 36
Procedure 37
The Pilot Study 39
Data Collection and Analysis 40
Coding Schemes 40
Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis 47

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 48
Research Question 1 48
Peer interactions along the continuum: Weaker vs. stronger “Reader/Write Interactive Revisions” 50
Attitude awareness and shift: Readers’ self-assumed responsibility vs. writers’ great sense of dependence 53
“Reader/Writer/Expert Interactive Revisions”: Experts as the stimuli to the reader/writer interactions 56
Research Question 2 58
Authoritative vs. collaborative: Two subtypes of OTR/SER recapitulating ZPD 62
Symmetrical social relationships: SER/SER, OTR/OTR, and OBR/OBR 65
Research Question 3 70
“Marking Critical Features” vs. “Demonstration”: The distinction between asymmetrical OTR/SER and OBR/SER interactions 71
Intrinsic vs. extrinsic: Two scaffolding types featuring OTR/SER interactions 74
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 80
Discussion 80
Synchronous CMC as social milieu 80
Types of on-line interaction in the synchronous CMC context 81
Social impacts of synchronous CMC 82
Regulation and patterns of interaction during on-line peer revision 85
Mediated scaffolding during on-line peer revision 87
Non-scaffolding assistance 91
Conclusion 93
Limitations of the study 95
Pedagogical implications 96
Suggestions for future research 98

REFERENCES 99

APPENDIXES 112
Appendix A Consent Form 112
Appendix B Background Questionnaire 113
Appendix C Peer Editing Sheet 115
Appendix D Types of Episodes 117
Appendix E Types of On-Task Episodes 118
Appendix F Cognitive Stages of Regulation 119
Appendix G Social Relationships 121
Appendix H Scaffolding Functions 123

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Types of Episodes 41
Table 3.2 Types of On-Task Episodes 43
Table 3.3 Cognitive Stages of Regulation 44
Table 3.4 Social Relationships 44
Table 3.5 Scaffolding Functions 47
Table 4.1 Observed Frequencies and Percentages for Types of Episodes 48
Table 4.2 Observed Frequencies and Percentages for Types of On-Task Episodes 49
Table 4.3 Observed Frequencies and Percentages for Regulatory Stage Categorizations 59
Table 4.4 Observed Frequencies and Percentages for Regulatory Stage Categorizations according to Reader and Writer Roles 59
Table 4.5 Observed Frequencies and Percentages for Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Relationships in On-Task Episodes 60
Table 4.6 Observed Frequencies and Percentages for Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Relationships in Reader/Writer and Reader/Writer/Expert Interactive Revisions 61
Table 4.7 Observed Frequencies and Percentages for Types of OTR/SER interactions 62
Table 4.8 Observed Frequencies and Percentages for Scaffoldied Assistance according to Social Relationships in Interactive Episodes 70
Table 4.9 Observed Frequencies and Percentages for Scaffolding Categorizations according to Authoritative/Collaborative Interventions (OTR/SER) 75



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 The contact list window 35
Figure 3.2 The conversation window 36
Figure 3.3 The writing cycle 38

REFERENCES

Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
Amores, M. J. (1997). A new perspective on peer-editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 513-523.
Anton, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 303-318.
Arapoff. N. (1969). Discover and transform: A method of teaching writing to foreign students. TESOL Quarterly, 3, 296-303.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin Books.
Beauvois, M. H. (1998a). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198-217.
Beauvois, M. H. (1998b). E-talk: Computer-assisted classroom discussion-attitudes and motivation. In J. Swaffar, S. Romano, P. Markley. & K. Arens (Eds.), Language learning online: Theory and practice in the ESL and the L2 computer classroom (pp. 99-120). Austin, TX: Labyrinth.
Beauvois, M. H. & Eledge. J. (1996). Personality types and megabytes: Student attitudes toward computer mediated communication (CMC) in the language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 27-45.
Belcher, D. (1990). Peer vs. teacher response in the advanced composition class. Issues in Writing, 2(2), 128-150.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbanaum Association
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136.
Braine, G. (1997). Beyond word processing: Networked computers in ESL writing classes. Computers and Composition, 14, 45-58.
Brannon, L. & Knoblauch, C. H. (1982). On students’ rights to their own texts: A model of teacher response. College Composition and Communication, 33, 157-166.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of the mankind.” College English, 46(7), 635-652.
Bruner, J. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In S. R. J. Jarvella & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), The child’s conception of language (pp. 214-256). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chou, M. C. (1999). How peer negotiations shape revisions. In J. Katchen, & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), The proceedings of the seventh international symposium on English teaching (pp. 349-359). Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC Journal, 15, 1-16.
Chien, C. W. (2005). Effects of online peer response on EFL college writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
Clifford, J. (1981). Composing in stages: Effects of feedback on revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 37-53.
Collot, M. & Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic language: A new variety of English. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp, 47-63). Amsterdam, The Netherland: John Benjamins.
Connor, U. & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257-276.
Cononelos, T. & Oliva, M. (1993). Using computer networks to enhance foreign language/culture education. Foreign Language Annals, 26(4), 527-534.
Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.
Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural illiteracy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
de Guerrero, M. C. M. & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Socio-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 484-496.
de Guerrero, M. C. M. & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68.
DiCamilla, F. J. & Anton, M. (1997). The function of repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 609-633.
Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Preface. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), In arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 12-15). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
DiPardo, A. & Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response group in the writing classroom: Theoretical foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58, 119-149.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27-50). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Dunn, W. E. & Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and Krashen’s i+1: Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48(3), 411-442.
Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: The relation of L1 and L2 texts. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 211-228.
Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Emig, J. (1971). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128.
Fanderclai, T. L. (1995). MUDs in education: New environment, new pedagogies, Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, 2, 8-10.
Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language writing in English as a second language. In Barbara Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 71-106). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Freiermuth, M. R. (2002). Internet chat: Collaborative and learning via e-conversations. TESOL Journal, 11(3), 36-40.
Garnsey, R., & Garton, A. (1992, September). Pactok: Asia pacific electro-media gets earthed. Paper presented via the Adult Open Learning Information Network Conference, Australia.
Goldstein, M. & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443-460.
Gonzalez-Bueno, M. (1998). The effects of electronic mail on Spanish L2 discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 55-70.
Gumpert, G. (1990). Remote sex in the information age. In G. Gumpert & S. L. Fish (Eds.), Talking to strangers: Mediated therapeutic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 143-153.
Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 76-88.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 255-276.
Herring, S. (1996). Introduction. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.1-13 ). Amsterdam, The Netherland: John Benjamins.
Hiltz, S. R. (1986). The virtual classroom: Using computer-mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36, 95-104.
Hiltz, S. R. & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Huff, C. & King, R. (1988). An experiment in electronic collaboration. In J. D. Goodchilds (Ed.), Interacting by computer: Effects on small group style and structure. Atlanta: American Psychological Association.
Jacobs, G. M. (1989). Miscorrection in peer feedback in writing class. RELC Journal, 20, 68-76.
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing : taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307-317.
Johansson, S. (1991). Time change, and so do corpora. In K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics. London: Longman.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 458-476.
Kern, R. & Warschauer, M. (2000). Introduction: Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Networked-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kozuliln, A. (1990). Vygotsky’s psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kroll, B. (1991). Teaching writing in the ESL contexts. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 245-263). New York: Newbury House.
Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Second language learning as a mediated process, Language Teaching, 33, 79-96.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. (2003). Intrapersonal communication and internalization in the second language classroom. In A. Kozuliln, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyer, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 349-370). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J. & Aljaafreah, A. (1996). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 619-632.
Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian approaches to second language research. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 1-32). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Lay, N. (1982). Composing processes of adult ESL learners: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 406-407.
Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 5-19.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guiford Press.
Liu, J. (2000). Understanding Asian students’ oral participation models in American classrooms. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 10(1), 155-189.
Liu, J. & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Liu, J. & Sadler, W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193-227.
Lockhart, C. & Ng, P. (1993). How useful is peer response? Perspectives, 5(1), 17-29.
Lockhart, C. & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 605-655.
Lotman, Y. M. (1988). Text within a text. Soviet Psychology, 26, 32-51.
Ma, R. (1996). Computer-mediated conversations as a new dimension of intercultural communication between east Asian and north American college students. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp, 47-63). Amsterdam, The Netherland: John Benjamins.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1989). Parallels between speaking and writing in second language acquisition. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 134-145). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Mangelsdorf, K. & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 235-254.
Maynor, N. (1994). The language of electronic mail: Written speech? In G. Little & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Centennial usage studies (pp. 48-54). Tuscaloosa, AL. University of Alabama Press.
McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A. & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combing interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 194-204.
McGroarty, M. E. & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning, 47(1), 1-43.
McGuire, W. J., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917-930.
Meagher, M. E. & Castanos, F. (1996). Perceptions of American culture: The impact of an electronically-mediated cultural exchange program on Mexican high school students. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural Perspectives (pp, 47-63). Amsterdam, The Netherland: John Benjamins.
Mendonca, C. O. & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-769.
Meskill, C. & Ranglova, K. (2000). Sociocollaborative language learning in Bulgaria. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern, (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Metz, J. M. (1994). Computer-mediated communication: Literature of a new context. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 2(2), 31-49.
Min, H. -T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308.
Min, H. -T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34-51.
Negretti, R. (1999). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence in the virtual foreign language classroom. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern, (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, G. L. & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131.
Nelson, G. L. & Murphy, J. M. (1992a). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 171-193.
Nelson, G. L. & Murphy, J. M. (1992b). Writing groups and the less proficient ESL student. TESOL Journal, 2(2), 23-26.
Nelson, G. L. & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-141.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1984). Social constraints in laboratory and classroom. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 172-193). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 93-122.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Re-thinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lnatolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning, (pp. 53-80). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
Rice, R. E. & Case, D. (1983). Electronic message systems in the university: A description of use and utility. Journal of Communication, 33(1), 131-152.
Rice, R. E. & Love, G. (1987). Electronic love: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14, 85-108.
Rogoff, B. & Wertsch, J. (1984). Children’s learning in the “zone of proximal development.” San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.
Rothschild, D. & Klingenberg, F. (1990). Self and peer evaluation of writing in the interactive ESL classroom: An exploratory study. TESL Canada Journal, 8, 183-204.
Ruetten, M. K. (2003). Developing composition skills: Rhetoric and grammar (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Salaberry, M. R. (1996). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 14(1), 5-34.
Sanaoui, R. & Lapkin, S. (1992). A case study of an ESL senior secondary course integrating computer networking. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 48(3), 525-552.
Schultz, J. M. (2000). Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language curriculum. In M. Warschauer and R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp.121-150). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shield, L., Davies, L. B., & Weininger, M. (2000). Fostering (pro)active language learning through MOO. ReCALL, 12(1), 35-48.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378-388.
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writers. College Composition and Communication, 33, 148-156.
Spitzer, M. (1986). Writing style in computer conference. IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication, 29(1), 19-22.
Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organization communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217-233.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 83, 320-338.
Swaffar, J. (1998). Networking language learning: Introduction. In J. Swaffar, S. Romano, P. Markley, & K. Arens (Eds.), Language learning online: Theory and practice in the ESL and L2 computer classroom (pp. 1-15). Austin, TX: Labyrinth Publications.
Tsui, A. B. M. & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefits from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Villamil, O. S. & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.
Villamil, O. S. & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491-514.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Volume 1. Thinking and speaking. New York, NY: Plenum.
Walther, J. B. & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Wang, Y. M. (1996). E-mail dialogue journaling in an ESL reading and writing classroom. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon at Eugene.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2&3), 7-26.
Warschauer, M. (1998). Researching technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumental, and critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 757-761.
Warschauer, M. & Lepeintre, S. (1997) Freire’s dream or Foucault’s nightmare: Teacher-student relations on an international computer network. In R. Debski, J. Gassin, & M. Smith (Eds.), Language learning through social computing (pp. 67-89). Parkville, Australia: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.
Wells, G. (1994). The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a
‘language-based theory of learning.’ Linguistics and Education, 6, 41–90.
Wells, G. (1998). Using L1 to master L2: A response to Anton & DiCamilla’s ‘Social-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom.’ Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 343-353.
Werry, C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet relay chat. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp, 47-63). Amsterdam, The Netherland: John Benjamins.
Winograd, T. & Flores, F. (1988). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp, 47-63). Amsterdam, The Netherland: John Benjamins.
Young, R. F. & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519-535.
Zahner, C., Fauverge, A., & Wong, J. (2000). Task-based language learning via audiovisual networks: The LEVERAGE project. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern, (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-101.
Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697-715.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantages of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.
Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 1(4), 492-528.