A Comparison between Chinese EFL Students' Peer Response Sessions Held on Networked Computers and Those Held in a Face-to-Face Setting.

This study compared techniques for teaching collaborative writing to English majors in Taiwan, focusing on the effectiveness of computer-mediated (CM) vs. face-to-face (FF) peer response sessions, measured by amount of speech produced by students and the level of participation in discussion. Subjects were 17 university sophomores in a composition course, divided into four writing groups. Peer response sessions for half of the writing assignments were conducted using synchronous discussion on networked computers, and half were conducted using face-to-face interaction. Analysis of transcripts of the sessions revealed that FF sessions were far more efficient in producing speech (2.5 times greater in five-person groups). Level of student participation in the discussion of each writing issue was much lower in the CM context, and it was only infrequently that discussion of a writing issue had full-group participation. In a typical CM discussion episode, only one student spoke, with no one responding. In contrast, a typical FF discussion episode had the participation of three students. Implications for writing instruction are drawn. (MSE) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** A Comparison Between Chinese EFL Students' Peer Response Sessions Held on Networked Computers and Those Held in a Face-to-Face Setting A paper presented at 6th International NELLE-Conference Bielefeld, Germany, Aug. 27-30, 1998 Su-yueh Huang, ED.D. Dept. of Foreign Languages & Literature, Tunghai University, Taiwan The Language Centre, University of Brighton, U.K. Abstract Recently, composition teachers in Taiwan have begun to use interactive computer networks to help students collaborate during the writing process. Even though some L2 studies have examined the effectiveness of using InterChange, a module in a computer program named DIWE which allows synchronous interaction among students, to conduct discussion in L2 language classrooms, none of the studies has looked at how Chinese students perform in peer response sessions held on networked computers by making a comparison with how these students perform in the traditional face-to-face setting. Therefore, this study was carried out in 1996-1997 to answer two research questions: (1) What are the differences between computer-mediated (hereafter referred to as CM) and face-to-face (hereafter referred to as FF) peer response sessions regarding the quantity of speech produced by students? (2) What are the differences between CM and FF peer response sessions regarding the level of student interaction in terms of participation in discussion? The subjects in this study were 17 EFL sophomores in a composition course for English majors at a university in Taiwan. The students were divided into four writing groups, with four or five members in each. The peer response sessions held for half of the writing assignments were conducted on InterChange, while the other half employed face-to-face interaction. The data consisted of transcripts made of the CM and FF peer response sessions. The results showed that the FF session was far more efficient in producing speech (2.5 times greater in 5-person groups). In addition, the level of student interaction in the discussion of each writing issue was much lower in the CM context, and it was only very infrequently that the discussion of a writing issue enjoyed whole-group participation. This was evidenced by the fact that only 5.1% and 5.7%, respectively, of the writing issues in 3and 5-person groups in the CM session had input from all group members. In contrast, there were more instances of full participation in the FF session, i.e., 16.0% and 16.2%, respectively, of the writing issues discussed in 4and 5-person groups in the FF session. In a typical episode of discussion of a writing issue in the CM context, only one student spoke, with no one else responding. In contrast, a typical episode in the FF context had the participation of three students. Clearly, the level of student interaction was higher in the FF context. Several implications can be drawn from these findings. Due to their limitations, networked computers may not be an ideal vehicle for facilitating discussion in peer response sessions. Computers could perhaps be used occasionally to provide variety in classroom activities or to provide a non-stress environment for students who are shy or overly concerned about their oral language proficiency. Writing teachers should be aware that technology does not always guarantee success in writing classrooms.Recently, composition teachers in Taiwan have begun to use interactive computer networks to help students collaborate during the writing process. Even though some L2 studies have examined the effectiveness of using InterChange, a module in a computer program named DIWE which allows synchronous interaction among students, to conduct discussion in L2 language classrooms, none of the studies has looked at how Chinese students perform in peer response sessions held on networked computers by making a comparison with how these students perform in the traditional face-to-face setting. Therefore, this study was carried out in 1996-1997 to answer two research questions: (1) What are the differences between computer-mediated (hereafter referred to as CM) and face-to-face (hereafter referred to as FF) peer response sessions regarding the quantity of speech produced by students? (2) What are the differences between CM and FF peer response sessions regarding the level of student interaction in terms of participation in discussion? The subjects in this study were 17 EFL sophomores in a composition course for English majors at a university in Taiwan. The students were divided into four writing groups, with four or five members in each. The peer response sessions held for half of the writing assignments were conducted on InterChange, while the other half employed face-to-face interaction. The data consisted of transcripts made of the CM and FF peer response sessions. The results showed that the FF session was far more efficient in producing speech (2.5 times greater in 5-person groups). In addition, the level of student interaction in the discussion of each writing issue was much lower in the CM context, and it was only very infrequently that the discussion of a writing issue enjoyed whole-group participation. This was evidenced by the fact that only 5.1% and 5.7%, respectively, of the writing issues in 3and 5-person groups in the CM session had input from all group members. In contrast, there were more instances of full participation in the FF session, i.e., 16.0% and 16.2%, respectively, of the writing issues discussed in 4and 5-person groups in the FF session. In a typical episode of discussion of a writing issue in the CM context, only one student spoke, with no one else responding. In contrast, a typical episode in the FF context had the participation of three students. Clearly, the level of student interaction was higher in the FF context. Several implications can be drawn from these findings. Due to their limitations, networked computers may not be an ideal vehicle for facilitating discussion in peer response sessions. Computers could perhaps be used occasionally to provide variety in classroom activities or to provide a non-stress environment for students who are shy or overly concerned about their oral language proficiency. Writing teachers should be aware that technology does not always guarantee success in writing classrooms.