The development of second language critical thinking in a virtual language learning environment: A process-oriented mixed-method study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v32i3.26386Keywords:
Mixed methods research, Sociocultural theory, Ecological perspective, Virtual learning environments, L2 critical thinking, L2 negotiation of meaningAbstract
This article presents a process-oriented mixed-method study, focusing on the emergence of second language (L2) critical thinking (CT) skills in the collaborative discourse produced by a focal group of five college-level students of French working in a virtual language learning environment (the VLLE Cinet Second Life). Levels of CT ability were elicited through episodes of L2 negotiation and co-construction of meaning. The study also examines the perception by students of the impact of the VLLE on the emergence of their L2 CT skills. Motivated by the need advocated in recent CALL research for a shift in paradigm and in method to alleviate the limitations inherent to quantitative studies, the study was situated at the juncture of sociocultural theory and ecological perspective, and this article focuses on the theoretical rationale behind the selection of a mixed-method methodology.References
ACTFL. (1999, 2001). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=4236
Beißwenger, M. (2008). Situated chat analysis as a window to the user’s perspective: Aspects of temporal and sequential organization. Language@Internet, 5 (6), 1–19. Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2008/1532
Blake, R. (2008). Brave New Digital Classroom: Technology and Foreign Language Learning. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77 (2), 262–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/344508
Campbell, J., Smith, D., Boulton-Lewis, G., Brownlee, J., Burnett, P. C., Carrington, S., & Purdie, N. (2001). Students’ perceptions of teaching and learning: The influence of students’ approaches to learning and teachers approaches to teaching. Teachers & Teaching, 7 (2), 173–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600120054964
Chapelle, C. (2005). CALL in the year 2000. Still in search of research paradigms? In Y. Zhao (Ed.), Research in technology and second language learning. Developments and directions, 39–60. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.
Chi, M. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6 (3), 271–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Feldon, D. F., & Kafai, Y. B. (2008). Mixed methods for mixed reality: Understanding users’ avatar activities in virtual worlds. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56 (5), 575–593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9081-2
Felix, U. (2005a). What do meta-analyses tell us about CALL effectiveness? ReCALL, 17 (2), 269–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344005000923
Felix, U. (2005b). Analyzing recent CALL effectiveness research: Towards a common agenda. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18 (1 & 2), 1–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220500132274
Felix, U. (2008). The unreasonable effectiveness of CALL: What have we learned in two decades of research?. ReCALL, 20 (2), 141–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000323
Flower, L. (1994). The Construction of Negotiated Meaning: A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26 (3), 402–430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami014
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (3), 255–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
Huh, K., & Hu, W. (2005). Criteria for effective CALL research. In J. L. Egbert, & G. M. Petrie (Eds), CALL Research Perspectives, 9–21). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hull, D. M., & Saxon, T. F. (2009). Negotiation of meaning and co-construction of knowledge: An experimental analysis of asynchronous online instruction. Computers and Education, 52(3), 624-639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.005
Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry and meaning. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 209-219. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Jauregi, K. (1997). Collaborative Negotiation of Meaning: A Longitudinal Approach. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17 (1), 25–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1701_3
Kramsch, C., & Steffensen, S. (2008). Ecological perspectives on second language acquisition and socialization. In P. A. Duff, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd edn), 17–28. New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_194
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Kuriscak, L. M., & Luke, C. L. (2009). Language learner attitudes toward virtual worlds: An investigation of Second Life. In L. Lomicka, & G. Lord (Eds), The Next Generation: Social Networking and Online Collaboration in Foreign Language Learning, 173–198. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2. State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (1), 67–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060037
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 201–224. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Enquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking – What can it be? Educational Leadership, 46 (1), 38–43. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198809_lipman.pdf
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker / nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 126–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds), Handbook of Research on Language Acquisition: Second Language Acquisition (Vol. 2), 413-468. New York, NY: Acadmic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-012589042-7/50015-3
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meskill, C. (2005). Metaphors that shape and guide CALL research. In J. L. Egbert, & G. M. Petrie (Eds), CALL Research Perspectives, 25–40. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mroz, A.P. (2012). Nature of L2 negotiation and co-construction of meaning in a problem-based virtual learning environment: a mixed methods study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Pietkiewicz, I., & Smith, J. A. (2014). A practical guide to using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis in qualitative research psychology. Psychological Journal, 20 (1), 7–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.14691/CPPJ.20.1.7
Ohta, A. M. (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 (2), 93–121. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0zs5j7ps
Oliver, W. C., & Nelson, T. (1997). Un Meurtre à Cinet (Un homicidio en Toluca): A web and email whodunit to develop writing competence in Intermediate-level language classes. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 3 (2), 205–217. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/15140
O'Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22 (3), 433–466. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=144
Rocco, T. S., Bliss, L. A., Gallagher, S., Perez-Prado, A., Alacaci, C., Dwyer, E. S., et al. (2003). The pragmatic and dialectical lenses: Two views of mixed methods use in education. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, 595–615. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in Quantitative Content Analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52 (1), 5–18. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=19zDF-8AAAAJ&citation_for_view=19zDF-8AAAAJ:roLk4NBRz8UC http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02504769
Saarenkunnas, M., Kuure, L., & Taalas, P. (2003). The polycontextual nature of computer-supported learning. Theoretical and methodological perspectives. ReCALL, 15 (2), 202–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344003000624
Salomon, G. (2000, June). It is not just the tool, but the educational rationale that counts. Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from Keynote address at the 2000 Ed-Media Meeting: Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/conf/edmedia/00/salomonkeynote.htm
Savin-Baden, M. (2008). From cognitive capability to social performance? Shifting perceptions of learning in immersive virtual worlds. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 16 (3), 151–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687760802526731
Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26 (1), 99–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5
Schulze, M. (2001). Human language technologies in computer-assisted language learning. In A. Chambers, & G. Davies (Eds), ICT and Language Learning: A European Perspective, 111–132. Lisse: Sets and Zeitlinger.
Smith, B., & Gorsuch, G. J. (2004). Synchronous computer mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New interpretations. System, 32 (4), 553–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.09.012
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46 (1), 29–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.002
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling. A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), 77–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292430
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, 245–259. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Lier, L. (2004). The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning. A Sociocultural Perspective. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7912-5
Vandergriff, I. (2006). Negotiating common ground in computer-mediated versus face-to-face discussions. Language Learning & Technology, 10 (1), 110–138. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/pdf/vandergriff.pdf
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Nonnative / nonnative conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6 (1), 71–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/6.1.71
Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis. A Comparative and Critical Introduction. London: SAGE Publications.
Zhao, Y. (2005). Recent developments in technology and language learning. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), Research in Technology and Second Language Learning. Developments and Directions, 17–37. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.
