Using Etherpad for Online Collaborative Writing Activities and Learners with Different Language Learning Strategies

Abstract

The current study is a research on use of EtherPad platform for online collaborative writing tasks. There are lots of reports and research dealing with these platforms, the integration of technology and its use for online educational purposes. Many of them showed that online education is very new for the learners and there is little contribution to their learning process in terms of changing their traditional educational behaviors. Furthermore, the teachers are still focusing on using technology for their own sake but there is very little attention on in-class or out-class activities since most of the time, their in-service training including appropriate technological tools, syllabus integration and consultation are disregarded. It seems that there's very little interest on synchronous collaborative online writing by the language learners with different language learning strategies. Therefore, this study investigates how the learners with different language learning strategies behave in online platforms while they are using online materials and particularly writing over EtherPad. Voluntary participants could easily integrate into online platforms and spent remarkable effort and time to cooperate and complete all given tasks and especially synchronous online collaborated writing tasks. As a result of the research, it was observed that performance of two groups of participants with different language learning strategies have significantly differentiated, which suggested that such online writing activities can be implemented to diagnose such differences among the learners and be useful to manipulate their learning process in order to assist them to improve their certain learning skills and motivate them according to their needs. 

Keywords

• online learning,synchronous learning,language learning strategies,online collaborative writing

Kaynakça

1. Apple, M. W. (2012). Eğitim ve iktidar (Education and Power) (2nd ed.). İstanbul-Turkey: Kalkedon Yayıncılık.
2. Behizadeh, N., & Engelhard, G. (2011). Historical view of the influences of measurement and writing theories on the practice of writing assessment in the United States. Assessing Writing, 16(3), 189–211.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.03.001
3. Bilash, O. (2009) Strategy inventory for language learning (SILL). [Available online at: http://www.educ.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka.Bilash/best%20of%20bilash/SILL%20survey.pdf, Retrieved on Jan. 05, 2015.]
4. Blackboard, & Project Tomorrow. (2015). Trends in digital learning report (Online Report). Blackboard & Project Tomorrow. [Available online at: http://bbbb.blackboard.com/project- tomorrow-2015?s=web, Retrieved on Sep. 09, 2015.]
5. Breaking News English. (2014a). Course material-1. Texting while walking is dangerous [Available online at: http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/1403/140312-texting-while- walking-0.html, Retrieved on Feb. 14, 2015.]
6. Breaking News English (2014b). Course material-2. People use technology more, sleep less [Available online at: http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/1408/140809-sleeping-0.html, Retrieved on Feb. 14, 2015.]
7. Breaking News English (2013a). Course material-3. Galapagos tortoises out of danger [Available online at: http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/1312/131224-news-0.html, Retrieved on Feb. 14, 2015.]
8. Breaking News English (2013b). Course material-4. Studying with news in English class is useful. [Available online at: http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/1312/131224-news- 0.html, Retrieved on Feb. 14, 2015.]

9. Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: principles and classroom practices (2nded.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education ESL.
10. Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: a systematic approach to program development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
11. Brown, J. D. (2009). Foreign language and second language needs analysis. In M. H. Long, & C. J. Doughty, The handbook of language teaching (pp. 269–293). Chichester, U.K.; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
12. Chamot, A. U., Meloni, C. F., Gonglewski, M., Bartoshesky, A., & Keatley, C. (2011). Developing autonomy in language learners learning strategies instruction in higher education. USA. [Available online at: http://www.nclrc.org/guides/HED/, Retrieved on Jun. 06, 2015.]
13. Chapelle, C. A. (2006). Autonomy meets individualization in CALL. Melanges CRAPEL n°28 TIC etautonomiedansl’apprentissage des langues. [Available online at: http://ortolang.fr/IMG/pdf/melanges/5_CHAPELLE.pdf, Retrieved on Jul. 16, 2013.]
14. Coşar, M. (2015). Perspectives of foreign students towards distance education. International Journal on New Trends in Education & Their Implications (IJONTE), 6(3). [Available online at: http://www.ijonte.org/FileUpload/ks63207/File/18.cosar.pdf, Retrieved on Sep. 05, 2015.]
15. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press, USA.
16. Ellis, R. A. (2006). Investigating the quality of student approaches to using technology in experiences of learning through writing. Computers & Education, 46(4), 371–390. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.006
17. Ellis, R., & Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Second language acquisition (9thImpression). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Gleason, J. (2014). “It helps me get closer to their writing experience” Classroom ethnography and the role of technology in third-year FL courses. System, 47 (Supplement C), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.023
19. Griffiths, C., & Parr, J. M. (2001). Language-learning strategies: theory and perception. ELT Journal, 55(3), 247–254. http://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.3.247
20. Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Alvarez, I. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Effects of feedback on collaborative writing in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 34(3), 324– 338. http://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835772
21. Herold, B. (2015, June 11). Why Ed Tech is not transforming how teachers teach. Education Week. [Available online at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/06/11/why-ed-tech-is- not-transforming-how.html?tkn=SSYFLVExXA9Rje8yf2R4RakspGr7jbWQXGKa&print=1, Retrieved on June. 12, 2015.]
22. Hismanoglu, M. (2000). Language learning strategies in foreign language learning and teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(8). [Available online at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Hismanoglu-Strategies.html, Retrieved on May. 20, 2015.]
23. Howe, M. J. A. (2001). Öğrenme psikolojisi (A teacher’s guide to the psychology of learning). İstanbul: Alfa Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
24. Hsiao, T., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: a confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 368–383. http://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00155
25. Kim, H.-C.E., & Eklundh, K. S. (2001). Reviewing practices in collaborative writing. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 10(2), 247–259.
26. Leeder, C., & Shah, C. (2016). Library research as collaborative information seeking. Library & Information Science Research, 38(3), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2016.08.001
27. Limbu, L., & Markauskaite, L. (2015). How do learners experience joint writing: University students’ conceptions of online collaborative writing tasks and environments. Computers & Education, 82, 393–408. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.024
28. Lynch, M. M. (2004). Adapting your learning style to the online environment. In Learning Online: A guide to success in the virtual classroom (pp. 128–145). New York: Routledge.
29. Miura, M. (2016). Sweetie: Lightweight Web Authoring Environment. Procedia Computer Science, 96 (Supplement C), 887–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.08.267
30. Nunan, D. (1989). Toward a collaborative approach to curriculum development: a case study. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 9–25. http://doi.org/10.2307/3587505
31. Nunan, D. (2001). Syllabus design. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (Vols. 1–3, pp. 55–65). Boston: Heinle ELT.
32. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know (1sted.). Boston, Mass: Heinle ELT.
33. Oxford, R. L. (1999). Relationships between second language learning strategies and language proficiency in the context of learner autonomy and self- Regulation. Revista Canaria De Estudios Ingleses, 38, 109–126.
34. Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.), (pp. 359–366). Boston: Heinle ELT.
35. Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. Unknown. [Available online at: http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~language/workshop/read2.pdf, Retrieved on May 19, 2015.]
36. Özmen, D. (2012). Language learning strategy preferences of Turkish students. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(10), 156–161.
37. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
38. Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., & Kuhn, M. (2012). Cooperative learning. In Using technology with classroom instruction that works, (2nd ed.), (pp. 154–169). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
39. Raimes, A. (2000). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. In D. R. H. Byrd, N. Bailey, & M. R. Gitterman (Eds.), Landmarks of American Language and Linguistics, (pp. 152-164) Washington, DC: USA: Office of English Language Programs.
40. Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87–111. http://doi.org/10.2307/3586356
41. Rose, H. (2012). Language learning strategy research: Where do we go from here? SiSAL Journal. [Available online at: http://sisaljournal.org/archives/jun12/rose/, Retrieved on May 19, 2015.]
42. Savignon, S. J. (2000). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. In D. R. H. Byrd, N. Bailey, & M. R. Gitterman (Eds.), Landmarks of American Language and Linguistics, (pp. 74-83). Washington, DC: USA: Office of English Language Programs.
43. Savignon, S. J. (2001). Communicative language teaching for the twenty-first century. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.), (pp. 13–28). Boston: Heinle ELT.
44. Savignon, S. J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What’s ahead? Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 207–220. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.09.004
45. Selçuk, H., (2016). A qualitative exploration of student perceptions of peer collaboration through the medium of online short story writing among Turkish public high school EFL learners in a social media environment. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). King’s College London, London, UK.
46. Vardi, M. Y. (2012). Will MOOCs destroy academia? Communications of the ACM, 55(11), 5– 5.http://doi.org/10.1145/2366316.2366317
47. Yadollahi, H., & Rahimi, A. (2015). The effects of different task types on learners’ performance in collaborative virtual learning environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192 (Supplement C), 526–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.083
48. Yancey, K. B. (1999). Looking back as we look forward: historicizing writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 50(3), 483–503.http://doi.org/10.2307/358862