Navigation – Plan du site
Pratique et recherche

Teacher learning under co-construction: Affordances of digital social annotated reading

Savoirs pédagogiques en cours de co-construction : les affordances de la lecture annotée en environnement numérique
Kristen Michelson et Beatrice Dupuy

Résumés

Au cours de cette dernière décennie, le principal modèle de formation des futurs enseignants de langues secondes ou étrangères a été critiqué non seulement pour son timing mais aussi pour sa portée et ses axes d'intérêts limités : un atelier d'une semaine précédant la prise de fonction, un cours de méthodologie offert pendant le premier semestre d'enseignement et généralement dédié à l'apprentissage des langues au niveau élémentaire, et une réunion hebdomadaire dont l'objectif principal est de régler tout problème administratif ou logistique. Problématique à la base, ce modèle ne prend pas en compte le fait que former des enseignants est un processus complexe et graduel qui requiert de leur part une réflexion soutenue afin de mieux faciliter l'appropriation des concepts et des stratégies pédagogiques qu'ils demandent. Suite à de nombreux appels demandant une formation plus approfondie des enseignants de langues secondes ou étrangères, cet article présente les résultats d'une activité pédagogique supplémentaire mise en place dans le cadre de la formation de six enseignants stagiaires inscrits dans le cursus Master FLE d'une université du Sud-Ouest américain où ils enseignaient le français pour la première fois. Guidée par la théorie socioculturelle, qui suggère que le processus d'apprentissage résulte d'une interaction sociale médiée par des outils matériels (par exemple, ordinateurs, logiciels) et/ou symboliques (par exemple, langage, dialogue), le but de cette activité était d'amener les participants à lire et à discuter des articles scientifiques sur la plateforme numérique – LiveMargin – outil conçu pour permettre à la fois la lecture en communauté, les annotations, et les discussions synchrones ou asynchrones. Inspirée par de nombreuses recherches qui ont démontré la capacité d'une activité de lecture en communauté à augmenter l'engagement des participants avec le texte (par exemple, Van de Pol et al. 2003 ; 2006a), notre activité de lecture annotée avait comme objectif d'apporter le soutien professionnel nécessaire pour permettre aux stagiaires de mieux comprendre les littératies multiples et les vecteurs d'intervention pédagogiques qui permettent de les actualiser en situations d'apprentissage. L'analyse du contenu des conversations entre participants a été guidée par le cadre conceptuel et méthodologique "Community of Inquiry" développé par Garrison et al. (2000) pour nous permettre d'identifier non seulement le type mais aussi d'évaluer la qualité de la co-construction des savoirs pédagogiques en communauté d'apprentissage à travers trois éléments interdépendants : les présences enseignantes (PE), cognitives (PC) et sociales (PS). Les résultats révèlent un niveau élevé de présence cognitive par rapport aux présences enseignantes et sociales, surtout en comparaison avec d'autres études qui ont examiné la présence cognitive sur des plateformes numériques de discussions traditionnelles, tels les forums.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1. Introduction

1In the past decade, the dominant professional development (PD) model of teaching assistants (TAs) has been criticized for its timing and limited scope and focus: a one-week pre-service workshop followed by an in-service methods course taken during the first semester of teaching (usually focusing exclusively on language teaching in lower-level courses), and weekly "housekeeping" departmental meetings. Consistent with Freeman's (1994) notion of "front-loading," this model, which assumes that novice teachers "can be fully equipped with the knowledge and skills to last a career" (Freeman, 1994: 11), is problematic. Teacher development is complex and gradual, and is best supported through a recursive and reflective process where conceptual knowledge and pedagogical experience overlap, since deep-seated everyday views about language, language learning, and language teaching generated by years of observation as language learners mediate teachers' understanding of pedagogical knowledge and their instantiation in the classroom (Lantolf & Johnson, 2007).

2Scholars (eg Dupuy & Allen, 2012; Allen & Dupuy, 2013) have called for expanding TAs' PD opportunities within and/or beyond the methods course so that their teaching praxis might develop beyond the techniques they experienced as learners. As underscored by Johnson (2009: 4-5), teachers need

multiple and sustained opportunities for dialogic mediation, scaffolded learning, and assisted performance as [they] participate in and learn about relevant aspects of their professional worlds.

3In light of this need, a supplemental PD activity was added to the discussion section (aka "the breakout") concurrent to a methods course with six TAs who were in their first semester of an MA program at a large public university in the American Southwest, and who were teaching French concurrently. Specifically, weekly digital social annotated reading (DSAR) of academic articles was integrated into the "breakout" in order to more fully support professional growth, especially with respect to understanding multiliteracies pedagogies.

2. Literature Review

4Recent scholarship in teacher PD has drawn attention to the social nature of learning and the role that communities of practice (CoP) can have in enhancing teachers' practice (eg Borko, 2004). PD experiences that promote a collegial learning environment and foster collaborative inquiry and reflection are particularly effective (eg Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). Peer-led reading discussion groups are one such activity, and have been used across a range of contexts including PD for pre-service and in-service teachers as described further below.

2.1. Social reading and peer-led discussions of academic literature

5Various terms and structures have been used for face to face (FTF) reading groups: grand conversation, conversational discussion group, literature circle, and book club, all of which are grounded in the belief that teaching and learning are interactive and social in nature, and that dialogue is essential for sharing knowledge and constructing meaning. Despite variations in implementation, peer-led discussion groups share several core practices:

  • Groups are organized around chosen texts;

  • Written notes guide reading and discussion;

  • Groups meet regularly;

  • Participants share learning with larger audience.

6The benefits of FTF peer-led discussions of academic literature have been well documented. They are seen as a way for teachers to deepen, change, explore, and expand their views of teaching and learning, as the comments and conversations around texts serve as tools that can help teachers access, reflect upon, and better understand new ideas while receiving support from colleagues (Kooy, 2006; Hall, 2009; Mensah, 2009; Burbank et al., 2010; Monroe-Baillargeon & Shema, 2010; Gardiner et al., 2013). Through interactions with each other and with texts, teachers can develop a kind of "connected knowing" (Florio-Ruane, 2001: 136), leading to a reconceptualization of their knowledge and practices (Kooy, 2006; Hall, 2009; Mensah, 2009).

2.2. Digitally-mediated communication

7With the growth in online learning in the last decade, instructors have increasingly turned to digitally-mediated discussion tools for peer-led discussions of academic literature including email (Klages et al., 2007), synchronous chats (Reilly, 2008), wikis (Hathaway, 2011), and the popular discussion forum (Beeghly, 2005). Asynchronous text-based digital communication provides participants with more time to ask questions and to reflect on concepts, which can potentially promote higher-order thinking, better conceptual understanding, and in-depth discussions leading to co-construction of meaning (Beeghly, 2005; Garrison et al., 2000; Klages et al., 2007). Central to the effectiveness of digitally-mediated asynchronous communication is social interaction, which provides participants with an opportunity to share, question, negotiate with others (Beeghly, 2005; DeWert et al., 2003 Hathaway, 2011; Klages et al., 2007; Reilly, 2008), and refine their own perspectives.

8Despite reported benefits for learning, recent research (eg Van der Pol et al., 2006a and 2006b) points to several inherent limitations to discussion forums' effectiveness in supporting the kinds of focused and collaborative dialogues crucial for knowledge co-construction. For example, Lambiase (2010) reports that keeping discussions focused proves difficult because of the chronologically organized structure of forums which hides the interrelationships between posts and the ideas they address. Also, since most forums boldface unread posts and list recent ones at the top, they can unintentionally shift participants' attention away from discussing more important issues, resulting in "topic degeneration" (Lambiase, 2010: 4). As a result, study findings (eg Guzdial & Turns, 2000; Pawan et al., 2003) indicate that discussion forum participants rarely integrate, elaborate on, or challenge one another's ideas, tending instead to engage in independent monologues in which exchanges are limited to sharing and comparing knowledge (Gunawardena et al., 1997). One outcome of this lack of interactivity is the lack of meaning co-construction, causing discussions to stagnate at lower cognitive levels. Several researchers have considered different instructional approaches in order to help promote higher quality discussions, such as advocating for developing more engaging online activities (eg Seo, 2007), modeling interaction norms, or adopting discussion-moderating strategies (eg Chen et al., 2011). While adopting new instructional approaches might be one way of addressing the challenges of forum discussions, several researchers (eg Van der Pol et al., 2006a and 2006b) have suggested that the lack of collaborative text-based knowledge construction might result from a lack of context, and have suggested focusing instead on a tool's affordances.

2.3. Digital social annotated environments

9Digital social annotation environments (DSAEs) are an example of new discussion spaces that can support sustained on-topic discussion, making this possible by allowing direct links from participants' shared annotations to a text, allowing readers to construct, revise, and fine-tune their understandings and interpretations of a text synchronously or asynchronously. Blyth (2014) calls this kind of web 2.0 reading activity "digital social reading (DSR)" which he defines as "the act of sharing one's thoughts about a text with the help of tools such as social media networks and collaborative annotation" (Blyth, 2014: 205).

10As research has shown, linking a discussion to a section of a text leads to more sustained and on-topic discussions (eg Guzdial & Turns, 2000; Van der Pol et al., 2003, 2006a and 2006b, 2010), as linking functions in DSAEs can serve as catalysts for building consensus in social interaction (Mühlpford & Wessner, 2005). Furthermore, citing Petraglia (1998), Van der Pol et al. (2006a) underscore that the "processing of academic learning materials might not lie very close to the personal perspectives of the participating students" and that "a link might need to be negotiated between students' personal and more academic perspectives" (Van der Pol et al., 2006a: 341). Overall DSAEs can provide this link, fostering greater communicative efficiency, promoting re-reading of key sections of text, and leading to more meaning-based discussion (Gao, 2013; Guzdial & Turns, 2000; Van der Pol et al., 2006a). Table 1 presents findings from select studies on learning and interactions in DSAEs.

Table 1–Select studies on DSAEs, types of interactions, and coding scheme.

Study

Participants/Level

Format/Activity/Context

Coding Scheme

Findings

Van der Pol, et al. (2003)

Undergraduate pre-service teachers

•FTF; DSAE and threaded discussion forum

•Participants read articles online

• Methods course

•Messages were scored along 3 dimensions: topic, grounding, constructive argumentation

•DSAE: participants read relevant section of article before replying to message more often than forum participants

•General discussion better supported by forum, specific discussion better supported by DSAE

Van der Pol et al. (2006a)

Undergraduate pre-service teachers

•FTF; DSAE and threaded discussion forum

•Weekly readings

•Developed their own

•Forum discussions: more referrals to person; DSAE: more referrals to content of other messages and text

•DSAE: more re-reading of important passages

•Forum discussions: more attention to establishing relationship and regulating the collaborative processes; DSAE: more to the point

Van der Pol et al. (2010)

Undergraduate French students

•FTF; DSAE with and without an evaluative function

•Participants read articles on French linguistics

•French linguistics intro course

•Used Sperber & Wilson (2004) and Veerman (2000) to develop own coding scheme

•Having an evaluating function in DSAE appears to increase local relevance of students' replies

Eryilmaz et al. (2014)

Graduate students in computer science

•FTF; DSAE

•Participants read articles online

•Put in place 2 attention guidance functionalities

•Used coding scheme developed by Li & Huang (2008)

•Instructor-based attention guidance functionality: facilitated students' selection of challenging concepts; increased quantity of questioning, elaborating and negotiating messages; supported students into switching from instructor-based to peer-based attention guidance functionality

Sun & Gao (2017)

Undergraduate pre-service teachers

•FTF; DSAE (Diigo) and threaded discussion forum on Blackboard

•2 learning activities (evaluation of a webpage and evaluation of a webquest) using 2 different online discussion environments

•Technology integration in the classroom course

•Used Dillenbourg & Schneider (1995) and Pena-Shaff & Nicholls (2004)

• Comments are more focused in Diigo and more general in discussion forum

•Interaction types are more evenly distributed among the 5 categories in DSAE

•Different functions of DSAE and discussion forum impacted knowledge construction

 

3. Theoretical Framework

11Vygotskian views of teacher learning underscore that knowledge building is inherently social and is co-constructed through mediational tools, which can be understood as "signs and symbols, interpersonal relations, and individual activities" (Kozulin, 1995: 120). The current study departs from the premise that DSAR is an ideal mediational tool in teacher learning, in that interpersonal relations are formed, sustained, and developed discursively among participants in the reading group through threaded margin comments, and between readers and author(s) through the affordance of the highlighting function. Compared with FTF reading groups where oral language mediates knowledge co-construction, DSAR affords interpersonal dialogues in written language, which fosters more intentional reflection, requires more careful consideration of language forms, and greater elaboration of meanings than in the oral mode, since interlocutors are not immediately present to negotiate meaning (Pena-Shaff & Nicholls, 2004).

12In the past decade, scholars have become increasingly interested in understanding the nature and characteristics of discussion afforded by digital environments. Among the existing frameworks for analyzing online interactions (eg Dillenbourg & Schneider, 1995; Pena-Shaff & Nicholls, 2004), the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework developed by Garrison et al. (2000) was selected for this study because: 1) it was specifically developed to analyze text-based online interactions and 2) it is the most widely used and researched framework to analyze digital discussions (eg Garrison, Cleveland-Innes & Fung, 2010). To our knowledge, the CoI framework has not yet been used to analyze DSAR discussions.

13Central to CoI is the notion that learning in online environments takes place through the interaction of cognitive presence (CP), social presence (SP), and teaching presence (TP) which work together to support deep and meaningful inquiry and learning. SP is defined as

the ability of participants to identify with a group, communicate openly in a trusting environment, and develop personal and affective relationships progressively by way of projecting their individual personalities (Garrison, 2016: 25).

14Garrison underscores that SP must be established and sustained in order to realize the full potential of CoI. CP refers to the extent to which students can create and confirm meaning through ongoing interaction and reflection in the community. SP and CP are held together and sustained by TP, the central organizing element, which describes "the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes" (Garrison, 2016: 27). Prior research confirms a high correlation between SP and CP, a dynamic relation between all three presences, and a causal relation of SP and TP to students' perception of CP (eg Garrison, Cleveland-Innes & Fung, 2010).

15Each of the three presences is defined through a series of categories and indicators. The definitions for each category and indicator, as well as relevant examples from our data set, are summarized in the appendix.

4. Context and Methodology

16We sought answers to the following research questions:
RQ1: What type of presence(s) emerge within a DSAR PD activity and how do these change over time?
RQ2: What is the nature of cognitive, social, and teaching presence within a DSAR PD activity and how do these change over time?

4.1. Study site and participants

17The study took place within a concurrent discussion section (aka, the "breakout") of the methods course at a large university in the American Southwest with four first-year MA students pursuing the Teaching French as a Foreign Language track. Although five of the six TAs consented to participate in this study, ultimately four were retained, as one did not complete many activities. Table 2 provides an overview of participants' profiles.

Table 2–Participant profiles.

Pseudonym

Language background

Age

Years of language teaching experience

Degree completed

Caitlin

Home: English (L1)

Studied: French (L2)–4 yrs in HS; 3.5 yrs in college

25

1 yr, TA in a high school in France

BA–French and Anthropology

Gabrielle

Home: Creole (L1)

Studied: French (L2)–16 yrs, PS, MS, HS; English (L3); Spanish (L4)

25

Informal tutoring (no language teaching)

BA–Environmental Ethics

Laura

Home: English (L1)

Studied: French (L2)–4 yrs in HS, 5 yrs in college; Spanish (L3)

36

1.5 years, TA in Department of French and Italian in US. 10 years prior to the study

BA–Humanities

Maddie

Home: Twi (L1)

Studied: English (L2); French (L3)–3 yrs in HS, 4 yrs in college; Chinese (L4)

24

1 year, TA in Dept. of Modern Languages in Africa

BA–French

 

4.2. Description of professional development activities

18Participants were concurrently enrolled in a methods course with TAs from other language departments. Course content was anchored in a single guiding concept–multiliteracies–and delivered through a hybrid format using the textbook, A Multiliteracies Framework for Collegiate Foreign Language Teaching (Paesani et al., 2016). The French TAs participated in a French "breakout session," a face to face weekly meeting that met for one hour to further read and discuss concepts related to multiliteracies pedagogies. In light of prior studies demonstrating the effectiveness of professional literature circles, readings were read and discussed in the DSAE, LiveMargin (Figure 1), which allows readers to highlight and comment on text through synchronous and asynchronous conversations within a group. Article selection was informed by the suggested supplemental readings from each chapter in the core textbook, each focusing on different aspects of language development. See tables 3 and 4 for a list of supplemental articles and reading questions.

Figure 1Screenshot of the LiveMargin interface.

Figure 1–Screenshot of the LiveMargin interface.

Source: https://www.livemargin.com/​socialbook/​

Table 3–Weekly supplemental articles discussed through DSAR.

Week

Reading

Topic

6

Thoms (2012)

Classroom discourse patterns

7

Stagg Peterson et al. (2007)

Multiliteracies-informed writing assessment

8

Redman (2005)

Interactive reading journals

9

Ajideh (2003)

Schema theory-based pre-reading tasks

10

Maxim (2009)

Textual borrowing for writing

12

Etienne & Vanbaelen (2006)

Literary analysis through TV commercials

Table 4–Sample reading prompts.

1) Highlight any portions of text that gave rise to an a-ha moment for you and use the comment feature to explain your reaction to this passage.

2) Highlight any portions of text that raise questions for you and use the comment feature to raise your question.

3) Highlight and comment on any of the 7 Principles of Literacy (Kern 2000, 2003) you see reflected in the ideas or pedagogical activities in this text.

4) Highlight and comment on any ideas you might implement in your own teaching praxis.

5) Respond to your colleagues' comments and tags.

19Each weekly DSAR activity included a similar set of questions intended to guide participants to explore personal reactions to the text, relate ideas from the articles to concepts they had been studying in the methods course, and finally, to consider how they might implement certain principles or techniques in their classrooms. Questions remained constant each week, except question 3 which varied according to the article's focus.

20DSAR began in week 6 and continued through week 12, with a one-week break. During the first five weeks of the semester, participants read the supplemental articles offline and shared their reflections through a threaded discussion forum. This was initially prompted by a need to optimize use of LiveMargin, and ultimately afforded the opportunity to establish a rhythm of reading with a standard set of prompts in a familiar technological space.

21In the DSAR weeks, participants were required to post within three different intervals in order to ensure opportunities for ongoing discussion in the DSAE. Readings and prompts were posted on Wednesdays, participants posted conceptual tags by Friday, more substantive comments and questions by Sunday, and responses or further questions for colleagues by Monday. Participants were graded on the DSAR activity through a rubric evaluating their contributions based on: careful reading and inquiry into the subject, engagement with others, connections to teaching, and timeliness of contributions.

4.3. Data collection and analysis

22The data set includes all LiveMargin comments made by the four participants and the breakout instructor. All comments were kept intact, however, following Weber's (1990) guidelines for content analysis, the basic unit of analysis used in this study was the sentence. Data for each week's discussions were coded inductively with indicators of various functions of participants' comments (eg asking a question, elaborating, expressing a belief, etc.). Indicators have been used to guide the coding of transcripts and identify presences and have proven to be useful in ascertaining and understanding the dynamics of a Community of Inquiry. To establish consistency in the coding process, both researchers coded week 6 independently, then compared and refined those codes. The resulting code list was used in subsequent independent coding of weeks 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12, which were then compared line by line. Discrepancies were discussed until both researchers agreed upon the same codes. Once all comments had been coded with distinct indicators, indicators were mapped onto the established CoI categories (see Appendix). All indicators assigned through the original ground up process fit the CoI framework neatly. However, after mapping indicators to the framework, we realized gaps in our analysis in affective and cohesive dimensions of SP, and engaged in a second round of coding in order to identify: netspeak and humor (affective); vocatives and inclusive pronouns (eg "we"), and phatics and salutations (cohesive). Generally, only one indicator was assigned to each sentence, since our initial indicators refer to what was being said. These latter categories constitute an exception since they describe attributes of the comment (ie how it was being said); thus we allowed this overlap. Finally, in line with Redmond (2014), we added "reflection" within cognitive presence. Tracking development of presences over time required a measure that would allow for comparison while accounting for differences in message length and numbers of posts between weeks. In line with Rourke, Anderson, Garrison and Archer (1999) and subsequent studies (eg Lomicka & Lord, 2007), we calculated density measures for each presence and category by taking the total number of units for a given presence or indicator divided by the total number of words for that week, and multiplied this by 1000.

5. Findings

23Six weeks of DSAR transcripts were analyzed, each week generating approximately 2700 words on average. We report our findings for each research question in turn.

5.1. RQ1: What type of presence(s) emerge within a DSAR PD activity and how do these change over time?

24Our data showed evidence of all three presences, with CP the most represented (67.97% of all units analyzed), followed by SP (29.81%), and TP (2.23%). Figure 2 reflects the overall distribution of presences and their respective densities across all weeks.

Figure 2Density of the three CoI presences.

Figure 2–Density of the three CoI presences.

25While CP gradually increased throughout the weeks, SP fluctuated, ultimately declining by semester's end. Teaching density increased slightly, however instances of TP remained infrequent overall.

26Aligning with prior applications of the CoI model, the graph above reflects participant comments within CP and SP. However, within TP, our data reveal instances of both instructor and participants taking on the role of TP.

5.2. RQ2: What is the nature of cognitive, social, and teaching presence within a DSAR professional development activity?

27Our second research question expands upon the CoI presence classification by more precisely identifying what is occurring in the discursive moves of the participants. We report each presence by looking at the distribution of sub-categories across the six weeks of LiveMargin dialogues, changes in density, the most frequent indicators, and finally, salient examples of participant dialogues.

5.2.1. Cognitive Presence

28Within CP, Integration (54.78%) was the most frequent category represented, followed by Exploration (16.39%), Triggering Event (15.85%), and finally, Resolution (12.98%).

29In order to trace changes in each category over time, we calculated a density figure for each category and week. Figure 3 displays relative density among all four CP categories over time.

Figure 3Distribution of categories within CP over time.

Figure 3–Distribution of categories within CP over time.

30Not only were indicators of Integration the most prevalent overall, they steadily increased to reach a density of 31.34 by the final week. Resolution also gradually increased as the weeks progressed, with the exception of a brief decline in week 10. Triggering remained relatively constant, while Exploration declined.

5.2.1.1. Triggering Event

31A Triggering Event is the first of four phases within CP, and describes an event where learners encounter knowledge that might create cognitive dissonance. In our data, expressing challenges occurred most frequently (22 instances), followed by critiquing institutional pedagogical practice (17), and grappling with application of concepts (16). Some challenges addressed time management and balancing teaching and graduate student responsibilities, while other challenges spoke to implementation of multiliteracies pedagogies.

Another case that can be presented though is when we start applying multiliteracy and some professors in upper level classes still use CLT. So, the point is for multiliteracy to be effective for foreign language a learner, its application has to be unified, which is something that might be hard to put into practice because different professors prefer different methods of teaching (Gabrielle, Week 6).

32Similarly, Laura stated two weeks later: "What's even more frustrating is that none of this stuff that we're talking about will be implemented before we're done with school" (Week 8).

5.2.1.2. Exploration

33In the Exploration phase, learners seek information that might resolve the cognitive dissonance experienced from a Triggering Event (Garrison et al., 2000); activities are categorized as brainstorming, demonstrating intellectual curiosity, and information exchange. In our study, stating an opinion (31 instances) and expressing a belief (26) (both seen as "Information Exchange") were the most frequently occurring indicators across the weeks. General statements constituted instances of "stating an opinion," while "expressing a belief" entailed more ideology-laden statements about learning or students, with a direct classroom impact. The following exchange illustrates examples of expressing a belief and illuminates how these beliefs emerged within dialogue as a reaction to a reading passage.

Table 5–Participant dialogues demonstrating expressing a belief.

Highlighted passage: "Multiliteracies teachers, valuing the language that children bring to the classroom, would consider how English language learners and those who speak dialects other than Standard English are learning new patterns of conventions with growing success" (Stagg Peterson et al., 2007: 31).

Participants' comments

Indicators

Categories

Laura

"Well, yes, ML teachers value this type of language, but isn't there something to be said for a correct way and an incorrect way?

Experiencing conflict with a proposition

Triggering (CP)

I struggle so much with the liberal stance here--I don't believe grading can be that far in the gray.

Expressing a belief

Information Exchange (CP)

It's a bit frustrating."

Expressing a feeling

Affective (SP)

Colleagues responding to Laura

Colleague 1: Agrees with Laura, and reflects on her own experiences of being corrected when learning French, arguing that, had her own teachers applied such an approach to her own language development and not always corrected her when "wrong," her French skills would be even less well developed. She concludes by suggesting that literacy approaches undervalue practical language use beyond the classroom.

Colleague 2: Agrees with Laura, restating what is perceived as a problem of overlooking errors within multiliteracies approaches.

Laura (To Colleague 1)

"Yep, I agree.

Agreeing with a colleague

Interactive (SP)

I still think there is a right and a wrong way to say things.

Expressing a belief

Information Exchange (CP)

Maybe I'm thinking in a different vein and what they are referring to is use of different vocabulary?

Interpreting author meaning

Direct Instruction (TP)

I just can't figure out how to justify incorrect use of grammar by calling it sociocultural.

Experiencing conflict with a proposition

Triggering Event (CP)

There is a right and a wrong.

Expressing a belief

Information Exchange (CP)

I just can't let go of that."

Expressing resistance

Triggering Event (CP)

34While reading a passage on how multiliteracies teachers can reframe traditional cognitive-oriented approaches to writing assessment, Laura highlights a passage in which authors argue for a developmental–rather than a deficit–approach to writing. She immediately takes issue with the proposition, and continues by asserting her ideological stance regarding the importance of linguistic accuracy in grading student writing. Two colleagues respond directly to her margin comment; both agree with Laura and restate their respective views–based in part on their own interpretations of this passage–that downplaying accuracy ignores practical contexts of use. Laura replies directly to the first colleague, reiterating her belief in "right and wrong" language use, and concluding her post by resisting the idea of a developmental approach to learning conventions, which she and her colleagues have interpreted as accepting "incorrect" grammar. We see in this exchange the way Laura's interpretation of the passage is filtered through her strong beliefs about grammatical accuracy, and how these perceptions are reinforced at this moment through the virtual conversation with her colleagues.

5.2.1.3. Integration

35Within the CoI framework, knowledge construction is theorized to proceed toward deeper understanding as learners progress through the four phases. It is in Integration where "learners construct meaning from the ideas developed during exploration" (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007: 161). In our data, the most prominent indicators were: elaborating on idea (82); expressing desire to appropriate pedagogical tool (39); expanding by giving an example (38); connecting with author or text (34); connecting affectively with text (32); and restating concept or knowledge (30).

36Indicators of "connecting with author or text" entailed instances where a participant made an explicit link between the article and either a classroom experience, a particular concept from the methods course, or the participant's own values and beliefs. For example, reacting to a passage about how to engage students in asking "good" open-ended questions, Laura posted:

This made me laugh simply because of the conversation we had a few weeks ago about "good" and "bad" and Maddie's exasperation! LOL! But anyway, I like this idea of explaining the difference to the students and helping them to really delve into the text to come up with their own meaning" (Laura, Week 8).

37Commenting on a passage about classroom discourse, Caitlin stated to Gabrielle "I was thinking about your class when I read the beginning of the section" (Week 6).

5.2.1.4. Resolution

38Resolution theoretically follows from integration, and involves application of a solution to a problem or a concept, after integrating potentially conflicting information. Within Resolution, reaching conclusions occurred most frequently (39), followed by reflection (35), and finally, applying new ideas (23). In many cases, participants' conclusions integrated conceptual knowledge from multiple reading and learning contexts, while synthesizing notions presented in the article being read. For example, reacting to a passage from the article on multiliteracies writing assessment, Maddie highlights the passage, "The problem with teachers envisioning the writers that children will become is that their visions may be limited to the social worlds that teachers know and value" (Stagg Peterson et al., 2007: 34) and begins her comment with: "This is something that I have experienced personally." She continues by describing her experiences of approaching her students' written texts with fixed expectations, concluding her post by linking to a talk she has attended on campus: "But from this passage and Kern's talk yesterday, the key to overcoming this challenge is by our willingness to accept the unconventional" (Week 7).

39Within Reflection, the most frequent indicators were acknowledging learning new concept (16), and acknowledging learning new pedagogical tool (11). In many cases, acknowledging new learning was directly linked to the reading, for example when Laura commented:

It has been so interesting to read and learn about the ties between culture and language learning. 5 weeks ago when we answered the questions about language learning myths, I think I said that language COULD be learned independently of culture. That view has changed dramatically since" (Week 6).

40In others, the reading helped further develop an emerging concept, for example when Laura reflected on how a particular passage helped solidify her knowledge:

I like this... it's helping me to understand the idea of genres. Also, what a great idea this is, to establish a context for learners and provide a scaffold within which for them to learn" (Laura, Week 10).

41Finally, many reflections included challenging prior beliefs about classroom practices, as in Gabrielle's case:

Before reading this article, I never thought that patchwriting is acceptable in foreign language writing. Now that I learnt it can be a pedagogical opportunity, I can certainly integrate it in my teaching praxis (Week 10).

5.2.2. Social Presence

42Within SP, the most frequent occurrences were Cohesive utterance types (41.74%), followed by Interactive (33.33%), and finally Affective (24.92%) indicators.

Figure 4Distribution of categories within SP over time.

Figure 4–Distribution of categories within SP over time.

43Overall, SP decreased over time, with some fluctuations. Most notable was a high density of affective indicators in week 8, attributable to a high number of negative feelings expressed by one particular participant. The use of inclusive pronouns (cohesive) was also high in week 6, when we also see the highest number of vocatives (14), which gradually declined to four instances in the final week.

5.2.2.1. Affective

44Affective indicators included netspeak, humor, or self-disclosure. Self-disclosure entailed critiquing own practice and abilities as a teacher, critiquing institutional pedagogical practice, expressing a feeling, and reflecting on own learning experiences. Most prevalent were critiquing own practice and abilities as a teacher (24); NetSpeak (20); and expressing a feeling (19). Some participants' self-critiques appeared to be think-aloud reflections, while others were directed to the community. All were prompted directly by a reading. Laura, for example, realizes aloud the limitations of the IRE discourse pattern: "Like you, Gabrielle, when we read about IRE for the first time I thought, "Busted!" It is something I use all the time!" (Week 6).

45In other cases, the critique was less direct, but nevertheless reflective of a constant questioning, for example, when Gabrielle stated: "I always wonder about the effectiveness of the ways I scaffold my classroom activities" (Week 10). On several occasions, positive feelings were expressed, for example: "That's when it's fun to be a teacher!" (Laura, Week 8); however many instances included a lament about something not yet learned, for example, when Caitlin posted: "I wish I was able to snap my fingers and remember everything I've ever read or learned! If only" (Week 9).

5.2.2.2. Cohesive

46Cohesive indicators included use of inclusive pronouns such as "we" or "our" (87); vocatives (43); phatics such as greetings or thanks (12), and expressing empathy (8), the latter of which included our indicators of encouraging a colleague, expressing solidarity with colleague, and sharing a feeling. Inclusive pronouns served to index two types of group membership: as students learning together in the same MA program cohort (25 references), and as TAs teaching in the same language program (60 references).

5.2.2.3. Interactive

47The most prevalent type of interactive comments were: agreeing with colleague (26), seeking feedback from colleague (21), and acknowledging colleague's contribution (19). Most statements of agreement were brief–"My thoughts exactly! :)" (Maddie, Week 8)–while others reaffirmed a colleague's contribution: "I find brainstorming activities very interesting and useful as well" (Gabrielle, Week 9). Feedback seeking primarily took the form of direct questions to colleagues, sometimes related to classroom experiences, for example, "Do you experience any of those same issues?" (Caitlin, Week 6) and other times asking colleagues how they understood various concepts. Often participants posted a specific teaching-related question, for example: "Nevertheless, if this (sic) a practice that is not too effective in a multiliteracy perspective, how are we going to incorporate/assess presentational speaking in a foreign language class?" (Gabrielle, Week 7). The following exchange illustrates how these TAs relied upon each other by asking for feedback, all while building community through inclusive pronouns and addressing one another by name.

Table 6–Participant dialogues demonstrating seeking feedback.

Highlighted passage: "That is, whenever a teacher's repetition of a lexical item in the third turn of the IRE was said with a high pitch, it indicated that the teacher was questioning the accuracy of the student's response. In contrast, if the teacher's third turn follow up/repetition was uttered in a low pitch, then that signaled that the utterance was correct and talk moved on to a different topic. In addition, Hellermann's results indicated that the timing of the teacher's utterance in the third turn also affected how students responded to the ongoing whole class discussion. When a teacher paused and did not provide an immediate follow up turn, students orient[ed] to its absence as a negative assessment and offer[ed] alternate responses" (Thoms, 2012: 18).

Participants' comments

Indicators

Categories

Maddie

"This part made me smile! It hit the nail right on the head, this is something I have been doing for years and still do when teaching or even simply chatting with friends.

Connecting affectively with text

Integration (CP)

I often raise my voice a little bit whenever I want to question how true or untrue a point raised might be.

Critiquing own pedagogical practice

Affective (SP)

In my classes, when my student gives an incorrect response to a question, instead of a forthright 'No! Wrong answer buddy!', I tend to often use the high pitch voice to ask other students to evaluate if it's right or not, based on what we've studied together.

Expanding by giving an example

Integration (CP)

Now considering Hellermann's research, I have come to see the 'error of my ways.'

Critiquing own pedagogical practice

Affective (SP)

My question though is what then is the appropriate thing to say or do in such a situation?"

Seeking advice from colleagues

Interactive (SP)

Laura

"Maddie, it made me laugh too!

Sharing a feeling/vocatives

Cohesive (SP)

Once again, I'm busted doing things that our learning in this class has told us NOT to do!

Critiquing own pedagogical practice/netspeak

Affective (SP)

I kind of have a problem with it though, same as you.

Expressing skepticism

Triggering Event (CP)

If this is inappropriate, what should we do instead?

Seeking advice from colleagues

Interactive (CP)

I honestly don't feel like it is inappropriate.

Disagreeing with author and text

Triggering Event (CP)

Sometimes there is a right and a wrong answer and I don't always like to respond with 'No.'

Expressing a belief

Exploration (CP)

I don't see anything wrong with using tone of voice, eyes or body language to indicate to a student that they should try again.

Experiencing conflict with the proposition

Triggering Event (CP)

Don't they learn something when they try again with a different answer?"

Seeking feedback from colleagues

Interactive (SP)

48In this exchange, TAs have just read a passage on classroom discourse in which the author cites research by Hellermann (2003) about the effects of pitch on students' responses in an IRE sequence. This passage resonates personally with Maddie who immediately critiques the "error of her ways" in the classroom, sharing a concrete example. She concludes with a question to her colleagues about what to do instead. Laura shares Maddie's feeling, and discloses that she has also been re-thinking her classroom practice as a result of the methods course, reiterating the plea to their colleagues about what to do instead. These pleas for advice and feedback within this community are integrated within longer stretches of dialogue in which participants mutually disclose their perceived shortcomings in the classroom and restate their beliefs about teaching.

5.2.3. Teaching Presence

49Within TP, among instructor comments, direct instruction represented 92.31% of all comments, while building understanding made up 7.69%. Instructional management was not represented, as course design and task assignments occurred outside the DSAR activity. Among participant comments, TP also consisted of building understanding (38.46%) and direct instruction (46.15%), however in slightly different proportions. For participants, building understanding included prompting a colleague's reflection (on practice), while direct instruction included indicators of explaining or defining a concept, and interpreting author meaning. Figure 5 below shows relative densities of TP by both instructor and participants across the weeks.

Figure 5Distribution of categories within TP over time (instructor and participants).

Figure 5–Distribution of categories within TP over time (instructor and participants).

50In general, direct instruction was more prevalent among both instructor and participants than building understanding, with fluctuations across the weeks. The dialogue below demonstrates a context in which TP–as demonstrated by participants–emerged in the form of prompting a colleague's reflection on practice.

Table 7–Participant dialogues demonstrating prompting a colleague's reflection on practice.

Highlighted passage: "Texts do not contain meaning, rather they have the potential for meaning" (Ajideh, 2003: 3).

Participants' comments

Indicators

Categories

Maddie

This quote from this week's reading was another big a-ha moment for me.

Connecting affectively with text

Integration (CP)

I have always believed that understanding a text means understanding what the author intended to say.

Expressing a belief

Exploration (CP)

Now I have come to understand that meaning equals the reader's interaction with the text: "the process."

Acknowledging learning a new concept

Resolution (CP)

So as FL instructors, we need to teach learners how to ask questions during reading and model "think-alouds."

Reaching conclusions

Resolution (CP)

During a reading activity, we can ask learners to ask themselves if they understand what the text is about.

Brainstorming pedagogical techniques

Resolution (CP)

They may also take notes or highlight important details, whilst asking themselves, "Why is this a key phrase to highlight?" or "Why am I not highlighting this?"

Brainstorming pedagogical techniques

Resolution (CP)

This will help them activate their schema.

Reaching conclusions

Resolution (CP)

My question though is how then do we assess students' performance if the focus is on process NOT the product?

Seeking advice from colleagues

Interactive (SP)

Laura

I guess student performance would have to be rated during the process...

Responding to colleague's request for feedback/advice

Interactive (SP)

Participation?

Grappling with application of concepts

Triggering (CP)

Since not all the students will get the same thing from the text, and this posits that we don't WANT them to all get the same thing, any assessment would have to be done during the process.

Grappling with application of concepts

Triggering (CP)

Did the student read and participate? If yes, then the assignment was completed.

Elaborating on idea

Integration (CP)

Maddie

"Hmm...but isn't that a little too easy?

Disagreeing with a colleague

Triggering (CP)

Anyone can participate in reading and discussion but have they really learnt anything new?

Prompting colleague's reflection on practice

Building understanding (TP)

This is what is a little unsettling for me."

Expressing skepticism

Triggering (CP)

51In week 9, TAs read an article arguing for viewing reading as a process, and the importance of pre-reading activities. This passage about meaning residing in the interaction between reader and text prompts two different conversation threads, the first of which we have presented. Maddie begins her post by acknowledging her new understanding of reading as a process, rather than merely as gleaning information from a text. She continues by exploring possible pedagogical techniques that could foster awareness among her students in their own reading processes, reaching the conclusion that this will help activate schemata for them. At the end of her post, Maddie realizes a gap in her strategies, and turns to the group for advice about how to reconcile the disconnect she sees between assessing reading performance versus reading process. Laura responds with a possible solution–assessing participation–given that every reader's interpretation will necessarily be unique, seeming to conclude that assessing readers' respective meanings and interpretations is impossible. Maddie does not, however, readily accept Laura's suggestion, instead challenging Laura to consider the limitations of assessing participation only, and prompting her to reflect on whether participation necessarily equals learning. Once again, we see how cognitive, social, and teaching activities are interwoven throughout this exchange. The affordances of the DSAE give Maddie the space to elaborate developments in her thinking and propose a pedagogical strategy; the strength of the social relationships within the community provides space for her to both pose a question, and to assume a teaching role vis a vis her colleague.

6. Discussion

6.1. Cognitive Presence

52Evidence of all CP categories were found in participants' DSAR discussions. Unlike discussion forum studies, which have reported learners topping off at triggering and exploration (eg Garrison et al., 2001; Pawan et al., 2003), participants in our study reached extensive levels of integration and resolution. The high degree of integration found was mostly in the form of connecting, elaborating, and expanding. Some of this can be explained by the reading prompts, which asked participants to make connections between the article and course concepts, and between the article and their teaching praxis. However, instances of "elaborating on idea" and "expanding by giving an example" are a testament to the depth and extent of participant comments, when in fact no minimum length was required. One of the other more prevalent indicators was "restating concepts or knowledge," an indicator used exclusively for instances where participants seemed to articulate in their own words a similar idea as stated in the article. This included such examples as: "The goal is to change the third part of this series into more of a discussion, leading the students to reflect and analyze, going deeping (sic) with their response" (Caitlin, Week 6). Restating concepts was not prescribed by the DSAR prompts; instead this practice emerged within the community as a way for participants to make sense of the new concepts they were encountering in the readings. Reflecting Van der Pol et al. (2006b), we speculate that having the article "dominantly present on screen seems to strengthen students' intention to discuss [the article's] meaning" (Van der Pol et al., 2006b: 308), and that a DSAE prompts participants to re-read relevant parts of an article before replying, thereby grounding the comment in relevant explanations and frames of reference (Van der Pol et al., 2003: 80).

53In addition to the facilitating role of anchoring, we surmise that the high degree of CP may also have been fostered through the pedagogical choice to center discussion around one guiding concept. Not only has it been suggested in general that one guiding concept can lead to more effective development for novice teachers, the specific concept in our study–multiliteracies–represents a major paradigm shift for these particular novice teachers, which in and of itself created continued moments of cognitive dissonance, as participants were constantly encountering ideas that contrasted with their own experiences as language learners and with the resulting teacher beliefs they had developed. The DSAE gave them the space to work through these "triggering events" in an unrestricted environment within a supportive community and allow them to reach higher levels of CP.

6.2. Social Presence

54Unlike studies which have examined forum discussions (eg Arnold & Ducate, 2006; Lomicka & Lord, 2007; Tirado Morueta et al., 2016), we found low levels of SP overall. Furthermore, SP fluctuated, ultimately declining by semester's end. Kehrwald (2008) suggests that SP develops in a two-stage process involving first "establishment" of presence followed by "ongoing demonstrations' of SP" (Kehrwald, 2008: 95). Because our participants already had solid group membership in their roles as graduate students pursuing the same degree, and as TAs teaching the same level of French, they did not need to establish SP through humor or netspeak or vocatives the way that participants in a virtual-only setting might do. Rather, they had multiple interactional spaces in which SP was already established (in the TA office, in their methods course, the breakout section, other graduate seminars). These multiple spaces became connected learning communities through the DSAE, as was evident when participants referred to a point that had been made in the methods course or a conversation they had had in the TA office. Van der Pol et al. (2006a) suggest that social and regulative communication processes may not manifest themselves explicitly, "[e]specially in situations where sufficient levels of interdependency, trust and community have already been developed" (Van der Pol et al., 2006a: 354), as in the case of our participants.

6.3. Teaching Presence

55In this study, TP largely took place outside the dialogue spaces of the DSAE, thus it is not surprising that TP remained infrequent overall. Instruction was directed in several ways: judicious selection of the articles, perspectives and notions presented in the methods course, careful articulation of prompts, and multiple spaces for expression of cognitive dissonance (eg their methods course forum posts, their FTF breakout sessions). Given the fact that participants responded to one another when prompted to reflect on teaching practice, for example, and did not necessarily return to LiveMargin to read instructor responses, we surmise that the participants' TP for each other may have been even more impactful than the instructor's within the DSAE.

56Garrison et al. (2001) and Eryilmaz et al. (2014) show that reaching the advanced stages of CP may in fact not require overt teacher facilitation but that well-formulated tasks, focused discussion, or text enhancements around a specific document can diminish the need for increased social, coordinative or regulative communication (Van der Pol et. al, 2006a). This is not to say, however, that guidance is not necessary; rather, it need not come from instructors alone. In fact, in our study, participants took on the role of "teaching" presence for one another, sharing personal self-disclosures, challenging one another by disagreeing, and/or prompting a colleague's reflection on pedagogical practice. These findings reflect Eryilmaz et al. (2014) who found that when participants switched from instructor to peer-oriented attention guidance, participants maintained their attention on challenging concepts, thus indicating that they had taken on the instructor role and understood it. Furthermore, it is possible that as participants increased their domain knowledge, they were able to take on leading roles for each other when encountering challenging notions.

57Some studies have suggested that the way to increase CP in online or virtual dialogue spaces is by increasing both SP and TP. However, given the low levels of TP and SP within the DSAE, we surmise that the DSAE itself might have been instrumental in sustaining the kind of CP that is critical to knowledge construction, ie integration and resolution through the text's co-presence.

58As Van der Pol et al. (2006a: 344) explain:

...document-centeredness of anchored discussion might naturally direct users' collaborative intentions towards the processing of that text [as] this could strengthen the link between discussion and study material and make the discussions more effective.

59For example, as seen in section 5.2.1.2, one participant's (Laura's) expressed beliefs effectively set a lens for other participants' (mis)readings of the same passage. Rather than interpreting the passage through concepts encountered in the course, other participants' interpretations are filtered through Laura's traditional beliefs about language teaching. Laura's social position within the group as an older student with more teaching experience, and the fact that she was often the first to post comments for each week's DSAR activity, may have contributed to a somewhat authoritative stance that gave her comments the appearance of more legitimacy. While participants may not have read this passage with a lens consistent with a multiliteracies approach, and while more TP would have been warranted in this instance to help reframe interpretations, this exchange nevertheless demonstrates the extent to which the anchored, written interactions effectively scaffold each other's reading and understanding.

7. Conclusions and Implications

60This study furthers the research on discussion forums and DSAEs by examining how anchoring academic literature discussions within a DSAE could enhance participant dialogues and contribute to higher and deeper levels of conceptual knowledge of multiliteracies pedagogies among L2 teachers of French. Despite several inherent limitations, for example, the small number of all female participants (four of six group members), as well as the fact that data are limited to DSAR conversations, our findings nevertheless illuminate several important theoretical implications for the CoI model and pedagogical implications for digitally-mediated discussion environments.

61As our study demonstrates, high levels of CP were achieved despite lower levels of SP and TP. However, it is important to note that these lower levels only include measured levels, which were limited to the DSAR activity. Because this learning community interacted with each other and with their professors and mentors in multiple FTF and virtual settings, a great degree of SP and TP remain unaccounted for by this framework alone. As such the CoI framework may well remain best suited for examining interactions in virtual-only learning communities. The DSAR activity in our study was supplemental to FTF course activities, making this a hybrid learning context, in contrast to the entirely online settings in many studies in which CoI has been used to analyze interactions.

62Additionally, we found evidence of TP by participants in addition to that demonstrated by the discussion facilitator, suggesting that TP is not merely manifested in "teacher" interventions. Given this, the teacher-centered nature of the CoI model might be reconsidered to account for the multiple roles that learners adopt with and for each other in a learning community. Furthermore, it is possible that in an entirely online context, TP might need to be increased in the DSAE, at least initially, especially with students with less domain knowledge and experience. One way to do this would be for the instructor to highlight and post questions about specific passages, providing guidance where needed.

63Our findings suggest that matching learning objectives and tool is critical, as tools can mediate collaborative knowledge construction and individual learning outcomes. Van der Pol et al. (2003) asked study participants to reflect on two types of discussion tools, and found that participants preferred the standard forum for general discussions and the annotation tool for more specific discussions. Authors concluded that a stronger link between discussion and article leads to more constructive specific discussions. Thus, when the learning objective is for students to engage in targeted critiques and reflections on specific passages in an academic text for greater understanding of concepts, DSAEs might be more appropriate because their affordances promote more contextualized, focused discussion. On the other hand, discussion forums might be better suited for general discussion or synthesis.

64Previous research (eg Pawan et al., 2003) has questioned whether digitally-mediated discussions can effectively bring about more advanced phases of knowledge construction without the significant mediating role of an instructor participating actively in the discussion. Based on our study findings, we conclude that more advanced knowledge construction is indeed achievable within a DSAE. While more active instructor participation in the discussions themselves may not be necessary to bring about TP, and consequently SP and CP, demonstrated learning may well be a result of a combination of both on and off line factors including well designed tasks, an indicator included under TP in the CoI framework. More studies on task design and outcomes of DSAR are needed to help determine what task features contribute most to leading participants to the resolution stage. From these findings, we wholeheartedly encourage adoption of DSAR as a PD activity for novice teachers, as well as additional studies that explore the relationship between single variables (eg gender, group size, participants' personal, academic and/or professional backgrounds, etc.) and the nature of DSAE interactions.

Haut de page

Références

Les liens externes étaient valides à la date de publication.

Ajideh, P. (2003). "Schema Theory-Based Pre-Reading Tasks: A neglected essential in the ESL reading class." The Reading Matrix, vol. 3, n° 1. pp. 1-14. http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/ajideh/article.pdf?q=activating-and-buildi

Allen, H. W. & Dupuy, B. (2013). "Evolving Notions of Literacy-Based Foreign Language Teaching: A Qualitative Study of Graduate Student Instructors." In Allen, H. W. & Maxim, H. H. (eds.). Educating the Future Foreign Language Professoriate for the 21st Century. Boston, MA: Heinle. pp. 171-191.

Arnold, N. & Ducate, L. (2006). "Future Foreign Language Teachers' Social and Cognitive Collaboration in an Online Environment." Language Learning and Technology, vol. 10, n° 1. pp. 42-66. http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2533

Beeghly, D. G. (2005). "It's About Time: Using Electronic Literature Discussion Groups with Adult Learners." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, vol. 49. pp. 12-21.

Blyth, C. (2014). "Exploring the Affordances of Digital Social Reading for L2 Literacy: The Case of eComma." In Guikema, J. P. & Williams, L. (eds.). Digital literacies in foreign and second language education, vol. 12. San Marcos: CALICO. pp. 201-226.

Borko, H. (2004). "Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain." Educational Researcher, vol. 33. pp. 3-15. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f317/c2912db1c09387a5eb17dfa66b063956afba.pdf

Burbank, M. D., Kauchak, D. & Bates, A. J. (2010). "Book Clubs as Professional Development Opportunities for Preservice Teacher Candidates and Practicing Teachers: An Exploratory Study." The New Educator, vol. 6. pp. 56-73. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ893563.pdf

Chen, N., Kinshuk, Wei, C. & Liu, C. (2011). "Effects of matching teaching strategy to thinking style on learner's quality of reflection in an online learning environment." Computers & Education, vol. 56, n° 1. pp. 53-64.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N. & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. https://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/nsdcstudy2009.pdf

DeWert, M. H., Babinski, L. M. & Jones, B. D. (2003). "Safe Passages: Providing Online Support for Beginning Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 54, n° 4. pp. 311-320.

Dillenbourg, P. & Schneider, D. (1995). "Collaborative learning and the Internet." Proceedings of the 4th international conference on computer-assisted instruction. http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/research/CMC/colla/iccai95_1.html

Dupuy, B. & Allen, H. W. (2012). "Appropriating Conceptual and Pedagogical Tools of Literacy: A Qualitative Study of Two Novice Foreign Language Teaching Assistants." In Gorsuch, G. (ed.). Working Theories for Teaching Assistant Development. Stillwater, OK: The New Forums GTA Development Series. pp. 275-316. http://www.academia.edu/27209790/Appropriating_Conceptual_and_Pedagogical_Tools_of_Literacy_A_Qualitative_Study_of_Two_Novice_Foreign_Language_Teaching_Assistants

Eryilmaz, E., Chiu, M. M., Thoms, B., Mary, J. & Kim, R. (2014). "Design and evaluation of instructor-based and peer-oriented attention guidance functionalities in an open source anchored discussion system." Computers & Education, vol. 71. pp. 303-321.

Etienne, C. & Vanbaelen, S. (2006). "Paving the Way to Literary Analysis Through TV Commercials." Foreign Language Annals, vol. 39, n° 1. pp. 87-98.

Florio-Ruane, S. (2001). Teacher Education and the Cultural Imagination: Autobiography, Conversation, and Narrative. Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Freeman, D. (1994). "Knowing Into Doing: Teacher education and the problem of transfer." In Li, D. C. S., Mahoney, D. & Richards, J. C. (eds.). Exploring second language teacher development. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic. pp. 1-20.

Gao, F. (2013). "A case study of using a social annotation tool to support collaboratively learning." The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 17. pp. 76-83.

Gardiner, V., Cumming-Potvin, W. & Hesterman, S. (2013). "Professional Learning in a Scaffolded 'Multiliteracies Book Club': Transforming Primary Teacher Participation." Issues in Educational Research, vol. 23, n° 3. pp. 357-374.

Garrison, D. R. (2016). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice. Oxon; New York: Routledge.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000). "Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education." The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 2, n° 2-3. pp. 87-105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001). "Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education." American Journal of Distance Education, vol. 15, n° 1. pp. 7-23. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.673.2691&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2010). "The First Decade of the Community of Inquiry Framework: A Retrospective." The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 13, n° 1-2. pp. 5-9.

Garrison, D. R. & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). "Researching the Community of Inquiry Framework: Review, Issues, and Future Directions." The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 10, n° 3. pp. 157-172.

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M. & Fung, T. (2010). "Exploring Causal Relationships Among Teaching, Cognitive and Social Presence: Student Perceptions of the Community of Inquiry Framework." The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 13, n° 1-2. pp. 31-36.

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A. & Anderson, T. (1997). "Analysis of a Global Online Debate and the Development of an Interaction Analysis Model for Examining Social Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing." Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 17. pp. 397-431. https://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/handle/2149/772/ANALYSIS_OF_A_GLOBAL.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Guzdial, M. & Turns, J. (2000). "Effective Discussion Through a Computer-Mediated Anchored Forum." The Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 9, n° 4. pp. 437-469.

Hall, L. A. (2009). "'A Necessary Part of Good Teaching': Using Book Clubs to Develop Preservice Teachers' Visions of Self." Literacy Research and Instruction, vol. 48, n° 4. pp. 298-317.

Hathaway, R. (2011). "A Powerful Pairing: The Literature Circle and the Wiki." The ALAN Review, vol. 38. pp. 14-22. https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ALAN/v38n3/hathaway.html

Hellermann, J. (2003). "The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves". Language in Society, vol. 32. pp. 79-104.

Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective. New York; Oxon: Routledge.

Kehrwald, B. (2008). "Understanding Social Presence in Text-Based Online Learning Environments." Distance Education, vol. 29, n° 1. pp. 89-106.

Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kern, R. (2003). "Literacy as a New Organizing Principle for Foreign Language Education." In Patrikis, P. C. (ed.). Reading Between the Lines: Perspectives on Foreign Language Literacy. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. pp. 40-59.

Klages, C., Pate, S. & Conforti, P. A., Jr. (2007). "Virtual Literature Circles: A Study of Learning, Collaboration, and Synthesis in Using Collaborative Classrooms in Cyberspace." Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, vol. 9, n° 1-2. pp. 293-309. http://jking.pbworks.com/f/Virtual+Literature+Circle+Studies.pdf

Kooy, M. (2006). "The Telling Stories of Novice Teachers: Constructing Teacher Knowledge in Book Clubs." Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 22, n° 6. pp. 661-674.

Kozulin, A. (1995). "The Learning Process: Vygotsky's Theory in the Mirror of its Interpretations." School Psychology International, vol. 16. pp. 117-129.

Lambiase, J. J. (2010). "Hanging by a Thread: Topic Development and Death in an Online Discussion of Breaking News." Language at Internet, vol. 7. http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2814

Lantolf, J. P. & Johnson, K. E. (2007). "Extending Firth and Wagner's (1997) Ontological Perspective to L2 Classroom Praxis and Teacher Education." Modern Language Journal, vol. 91. pp. 877-892.

Li, Y. & Huang, R. (2008). "An Analysis of Online Interaction Discourse in Knowledge Forum." Paper presented at the international conference on computer science and software engineering. Hubei, China: IEEE.

Lomicka, L. & Lord, G. (2007). "Social Presence in Virtual Communities of Foreign Language (FL) Teachers." System, vol. 35, n° 2. pp. 208-228.

Maxim, H. H. (2009). "'It's Made to Match': Linking L2 Reading and Writing Through Textual Borrowing." In Brantmeier, C. (ed.). Crossing Languages and Research Methods: Analyses of Adult Foreign Language Reading. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. pp. 97-122. http://www.hiramhmaxim2.com/uploads/2/0/7/5/20752962/maximtextborrow2009.pdf

Mensah, F. M. (2009). "Confronting Assumptions, Biases, and Stereotypes in Preservice Teachers' Conceptualizations of Science Teaching Through the Use of Book Club." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 46, n° 9. pp. 1041-1066.

Monroe-Baillargeon, A. & Shema, A. L. (2010). "Time to Talk: An Urban School's Use of Literature Circles to Create a Professional Learning Community." Education and Urban Society, vol. 42, n° 6. pp. 651-673.

Mühlpford, M. & Wessner, M. (2005). "Explicit Referencing in Chat Supports Collaborative Learning." In Koschmann, T., Suthers, D. & Chan, T. W. (eds.). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: The Next 10 Years! Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 460-469.

Paesani, K., Willis Allen, H. & Dupuy, B. (2015). A Multiliteracies Framework for Collegiate Foreign Language Teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Pawan, F., Paulus, T., Yalcin, S. & Chang, C.-F. (2003). "Online Learning: Patterns of Engagement and Interaction Among In-Service Teachers." Language Learning and Technology, vol. 7, n° 3. pp. 119-140. http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2447

Pena-Shaff, J. B. & Nicholls, C. (2004). "Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions." Computers & Education, vol. 42, n° 3. pp. 243-265.

Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by Design: The Rhetoric and Technology of Authenticity in Education. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Redman, J. (2005). "An Interactive Reading Journal for All Levels of the Foreign Language Curriculum." Foreign Language Annals, vol. 38, n° 4. pp. 484-492.

Redmond, P. (2014). "Reflection as an Indicator of Cognitive Presence." E-Learning, vol. 11, n° 1. pp. 46-58. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.46

Reilly, M. A. (2008). "Occasioning Possibilities, Not Certainties: Professional Learning and Peer-Led Book Clubs." Teacher Development, vol. 12, n° 3. pp. 211-221.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R. & Archer, W. (1999). "Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-Based Computer Conferencing." Journal of Distance Education, vol. 14, n° 2. pp. 50-71. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.553.8650&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Seo, K. K. (2007). "Utilizing Peer Moderating in Online Discussions: Addressing the Controversy Between Teacher Moderation and Non-Moderation." American Journal of Distance Education, vol. 21. pp. 21-36. https://aprender.ead.unb.br/pluginfile.php/66885/mod_folder/content/0/07.pdf?forcedownload=1

Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2004). "Relevance Theory." In Ward, G. & Horn, L. (eds.). Handbook of Pragmatics. pp. 607-632. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. http://www.felsemiotica.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Horn-Laurence-R.-and-Ward-Gregory-Ed.-The-Handbook-of-Pragmatics.pdf

Stagg Peterson, S, Botelho, M. J., Jang, E. & Kerekes, J. (2007). "Writing Assessment: What Would Multiliteracies Teachers Do?" Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, vol. 15, n° 1. pp. 29-35.

Sun, Y. & Gao, F. (2017). "Comparing the use of a special annotation tool and a threaded discussion forum to support online discussions." Internet and Higher Education, vol. 32. pp. 72-79.

Thoms, J. J. (2012). "Classroom Discourse in Foreign Language Classrooms: A Review of the Literature." Foreign Language Annals, vol. 45, n° 1. pp. 8-27.

Tirado Morueta, R., Maraver López, P., Hernando Gómez, Á. & Harris, V. W. (2016). "Exploring social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry to perform higher cognitive tasks." The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 31. pp. 122-131.

Van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W. & Simons, P. R. J. (2003). "Grounding in Electronic Discussions: Standard (Threaded) Versus Anchored Discussion." In Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S. & Hoppe, U. (eds.). Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments. Dordrecht, NL: Springer. pp. 77-81.

Van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W. & Simons, P. R. J. (2006a). "The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts." International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 1, n° 3. pp. 339-357.

Van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W. & Simons, P. R. J. (2006b). "Context enhancement for co-intentionality and co-reference in asynchronous CMC." AI & Society, vol. 20. pp. 301-313. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/17093/pol%20-%20context%20enhancement.pdf?sequence=2

Van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W. F. & Simons, P. R. J. (2010). "Peer evaluation in online anchored discussion for an increased local relevance of replies." Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 26. pp. 288-295.

Veerman, A. L. (2000). "Computer-supported collaborative learning through argumentation." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.126.8518&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Haut de page

Document annexe

  • Appendix (application/pdf – 117k)

    Presences, categories and indicators

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1–Screenshot of the LiveMargin interface.
Légende Source: https://www.livemargin.com/​socialbook/​
URL http://journals.openedition.org/alsic/docannexe/image/3344/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 356k
Titre Figure 2–Density of the three CoI presences.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/alsic/docannexe/image/3344/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 43k
Titre Figure 3–Distribution of categories within CP over time.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/alsic/docannexe/image/3344/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 46k
Titre Figure 4–Distribution of categories within SP over time.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/alsic/docannexe/image/3344/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 42k
Titre Figure 5–Distribution of categories within TP over time (instructor and participants).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/alsic/docannexe/image/3344/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 48k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence

Kristen Michelson et Beatrice Dupuy, « Teacher learning under co-construction: Affordances of digital social annotated reading », Alsic [En ligne], Volume 21 | 2018, mis en ligne le 10 septembre 2018, Consulté le 17 décembre 2018. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/alsic/3344 ; DOI : 10.4000/alsic.3344

Haut de page

Auteurs

Kristen Michelson

Kristen Michelson is Assistant Professor (French and Applied Linguistics) at Texas Tech University. Her research centers around innovations in L2 teaching and learning and teacher development that call explicit attention to affect, identities, and ideological discourses. Recent projects include digital social reading and global simulation organized around multiliteracies pedagogies.
Affiliation: Texas Tech University.
E-mail: kristen.michelson@ttu.edu
Address: Classical and Modern Language and Literatures, Box 42071, Lubbock, TX 79409-2071, USA.

Beatrice Dupuy

Beatrice Dupuy is Professor (French and Applied Linguistics) at The University of Arizona. Her research focuses on language teacher professional development, literacy-based approaches to teaching and learning, and on experiential learning as a theoretical and practical framework for language education in various contexts.
Affiliation: The University of Arizona.
E-mail: bdupuy@email.arizona.edu
Address: 1103 E. 2nd Street, Harvill 241D, Tucson, AZ 85721-0076, USA.

Haut de page

Droits d'auteur

CC-by-nc-nd

Haut de page