doug worsham: Final Project, ENG 724

Final Project:

Discussion Board or Discussion Bored?

A Lesson in Effectively Integrating Online Discussion with Classroom Activities

Doug Worsham
doug@lss.wisc.edu
&
Chizuko Yamamoto
chizuko_ya@yahoo.com

for ENG 724, "Technology for TESOL"
Instructor: Karla Frizler Octavio
San Francisco State University
May 23, 2001

Outline

Report

A. Topic & Research Questions
B. Relevance of Topic
C. Research Process
D. Findings
E. Recommendations for Instructors & Students
F. Conclusions
G. Sources
H. Appendices

Lesson Plan

A. Description of the Class
B. Overview
C. Rationale
D. Goals/Expected Outcomes
E. Performance Objectives
F. Technologies & Materials Required
G. Required Facilities
H. Procedure
I. Alternative Plan
J. Practical Considerations
K. Sources
L. Appendices

Report

A. Topic & Research Questions

How can teaching assistants (TAs) use a class discussion board and a class website to help students with academic reading and writing?

B. Relevance of Topic

Chi's personal reasons for conducting this research.

I had following ideas and expectation in mind upon starting this project.

Including Chat room on the class website was mainly from my exciting experience of Chat in Eng.724. After we tried Chat in Eng.724, both wished that we could use this tool to have one-to-one tutoring session with the Ss in Eng.310, especially who were too busy to have a tutor in school time.
I realized a few Ss have difficulty to keep up with the in-class discussion probably because of the weak listening skills, lack of attention and concentration, and the quite first pace of each lesson of this class. Therefore, if the discussion was continued or reviewed on the discussion board, these problems could be avoided and Ss would receive more benefits from the discussion with other.
I expected that the result of our research would give us the idea of how we can use the on-line group discussion effectively and how we should keep balance between CALL and in-person assistance.

What we were hoping to achieve and learn through this research.

Our goal for the website and discussion board was to provide the students (Ss) in English 310 with a forum to communicate and collaborate with each other outside of class. Because English 310 is a demanding class and the ESL Ss at SFSU have such heavy workloads, we felt that it was important to explore the ways in which we could offer the students extra possibilities for communication and collaboration through technology.

About English 310

Students

Ages	Juniors and Seniors at San Francisco State University
Native languages	Cantonese, Farsi, Hebrew, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Nepali, Thai, Turkish, Vietnamese.
English proficiency level	High-Intermediate to Advanced
Previous reading classes	Many of the lower level students (Ss) began with English 204. All of the Ss have taken English 209.

Class

Length of term	one semester (Feb.2001 -May, 2001)
Class Size	26
Overall class goals	This course focuses on academic writing from sources. Reading goals include critical evaluation of and interaction with readings. Writing goals include improving Ss skills in academic essay organization and development, developing an effective academic writing process including the ability to evaluate and revise drafts, and academic citation and documentation.

English 310 fulfills SFSU's learning objectives for written communication. These objectives state that, among other things, Ss exiting the course must be "capable of understanding discipline specific texts thoroughly and using them as a basis for their writing assignments" (General Education Segment I Policy). To this end, our Ss wrote three essays on three different topics: the cultural values represented by quiz shows like Survivor and Who wants to be a Millionaire?, Global Trade, and Gene Therapy/New Reproductive Technologies.

Unlike the majority of writing that Ss have done in previous English classes, the essays in English 310 are highly "text-responsible" in that they require students to demonstrate a thorough understand of the readings (Leki and Carson, 1997). Rather than simply using the readings as a springboard for an essay in which they explore their own opinions or present their own experiences, English 310 essays require the students to synthesize and analyze the ideas of multiple authors and then extend, illuminate, and analyze those ideas in their essays. In short, Ss in English 310 have to learn a new and quite demanding form of writing, with its own unique set of rhetorical features. This combination of difficult readings and new writing requires that the students climb several steep learning curves simultaneously: they must quickly build the schemata necessary to comprehend the ideas of various writers representing multiple perspectives on complex issues while at the same time learning the structure and formal schemata of academic and argumentative essay writing.

Since class time is limited, and often concerned with teaching writing skills, we felt that extra opportunities to discuss the readings would be invaluable for the students. In addition, we felt that since the Ss face a steep learning curve in multiple areas, S collaboration outside of class would be a particularly useful, if not an essential, part of the learning process.

Student Workload

However beneficial it might be for students to collaborate outside of class, some students are just too busy to do it. Our experience with SFSU ESL students has been that they are extraordinarily busy; most of the students we have worked with in previous semesters balanced several classes with part-time jobs while performing a significant role in their household. This semester's English 310 students turned out to be no exception. The following information on student workloads (see Appendix A) comes from the student information sheets collected at the beginning of the semester:

the average student in the class worked 14 hours/week while taking over 12 units
10 Ss reported working more than 20 hours/week
14 Ss reported taking 15 or more units
9 Ss in the class reported a combined workload (units+work hours) of 35 hours or more.
(note: 26 students were enrolled in the class at the beginning of the semester; 2 Ss did not fully respond to the questions about workload.)

Given the Ss' heavy workloads, it became clear that they probably had very little time to communicate and collaborate with each other outside of class. We felt that a class discussion board, allowing both asynchronous and synchronous communication would be an ideal solution.

Note: What Is A Class Discussion Board?

Discussion boards can be set up through either commercial services (e.g., http://www.blackboard.com; http://www.webct.com) or free services (e.g., http://www.groups.yahoo.com; http://www.beseen.com; http://www.freeforums.com/; http://www.beseen.com/; http://www.coolboard.com/; http://www.multicity.com/).

Research on the Potential Benefits of Computer-Mediated Communication

Benefits for Reading

In their chapter on Syllabus Design and Lesson Planning, Ferris and Hedgcock (1998) suggest that syllabus designers allow "generous time" for reading assignments and "provide for effective discussion in class" (p. 68). While this is certainly an ideal, it is not always easy to conduct extensive reading discussion in class when the syllabus requires that several writing objectives be met in each unit. In a writing class, it seems that there is just never quite enough time for class discussion. Our mentor teacher mentioned several times that she often encourages her Ss to meet outside of class to discuss their readings, since much of the time in class has to be devoted to fulfilling the writing objectives. Since the Ss face several challenges that make it difficult to meet outside of class (see the results of our final survey on collaboration below), we felt that the discussion board would provide the Ss with a place to continue and extend upon in-class discussions, generate new discussions outside of class, and gain insight into the reading processes and strategies used by their peers. Also, because the readings for English 310 come from various content areas, the Ss have varying degrees of background knowledge on each topic. We felt that the discussion board would allow the Ss extra time to share their background knowledge with each other.

Participation, Motivation, and Learning Styles

In addition to merely providing extra time for discussion, we hoped the discussion board would provide the Ss with an open forum for self-directed exploration of the readings. Warschauer and Lepeintre (1997) cite the work of several teachers and researchers (Kern 1995; Sullivan, 1993; Barson, Frommer, & Schwartz, 1993; Batson, 1988; Beauvois, 1992; Chun, 1994; Cummins, 1991; DiMatteo, 1990, 1991; Faigley, 1990; Kelm, 1992) who have found that in computer mediated communication, Ss not only participate more often but also exhibit more leadership and control over the discussion. This shift of control from the teacher to the students is one of the great potential benefits of computer-mediated communication. In addition to encouraging greater participation, six studies reviewed by Sproul and Kessler (1991, as cited in Warschauer, 1996) showed that computer-mediated communication "was decidedly more balanced" than face-to-face communication. They discovered that "those who are traditionally at the bottom of the totem pole [are the ones] who benefit most from [the] increased equality" of computer mediated communication (Warschauer, 1996).

The increased and more democratic communication that takes place electronically may be due in part to the fact that computer-mediated communication seems to help Ss whose learning styles might keep them from communicating extensively during face-to-face communication. It seems that asynchronous communication allows shy or more reflective students the opportunity to compose their contributions in a safe, low stress environment. Also, because class discussion boards are able to have dynamic content like pictures, they may help visual learners access course materials (see discussion of the "picture of the week" below).

Benefits to the Writing Process

We hoped that the discussion board would allow for more communication both between the Ss and their teachers/TAs and between Ss and their peers. Warschauer, Shetzer, and Meloni (2000 pp. 32-34) point out a number of ways that computer-mediated communication can "open up an extra channel for teacher-student communication":

Ss e-mail teachers with "minor questions" that they might otherwise not have asked
Ss set-up appointments, and inquire about assignments
Giving feedback on student writing via e-mail "allows more frequent exchanges, especially if a class meets only once or twice a week, and it provides a convenient written record of all the drafts and communications"

In addition, the discussion board seemed like an excellent way to help the Ss with the writing process by giving them more opportunities to communicate with each other. Barker and Kemp (1990) and Flores (1990) found that the "easy transfer of documents and one-to-many communication facilitate collaborative thinking and writing" (as cited in Warschauer & Lepeintre, 1997). We hoped that the end result of this "collaborative thinking and writing" would be more extensive and more productive idea generation, increased exposure for Ss to the writing processes of their peers, and increased opportunities for reflection on the writing process.

C. Research Process

1. Research on Online Collaboration and Website Design

While setting up the class website and discussion board we found a number of invaluable resources:

Elizabeth Castro's (2000) HTML for the World Wide Web, Fourth Edition was a very useful HTML reference guide.
The Online Tutoring e-book (ed. Carol A. Higgison, 2000) is a fabulous (and ever-expanding) resource for online teachers. In particular, we found chapter 3, "Building an Online Community" an essential primer for online communication with our students. The e-book can be accessed by visiting http://otis.scotcit.ac.uk/onlinebook/.
Purdue's Online Writing lab (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/) provides some great advice on tutoring online; we found their explanation of the differences between face-to-face and on-line tutoring quite valuable (see in particular, Blythe, S. (1997), Online Tutoring Discussion: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/lab/owl/tutoring/tutoring.html).

2.Discussion with the mentor teacher

A few weeks after the semester started, we asked the mentor teacher what she thought about our idea of using the technology to assist Ss in her class. Although she had already created a lesson plan for the whole semester, she generously let us try this project with her Ss.

3. The first survey (before the study)

After receiving the mentor teacher's permission, we conducted oral surveys with the Ss in order to learn the Ss' familiarity with the use of e-mail and the on-line discussion board. This informal survey showed that most of the Ss were familiar with e-mail and only one S had the experience of using a discussion board before. The Ss also agreed with our conducting the project in this class.

4. Creating the class Website and setting up Ss' account

With the result of first survey in mind, we created a class website (http://www.geocities.com/english310web). By studying a few other course management options of using the discussion board such as BLACKBOARD (http://www.blackboard.com) and ICQ (http://web.icq.com), we decided to use the Yahoo! Groups site because we found that it allowed us to use a discussion board and chat room in one place without making the Ss download any software or sign up for anything new. Since we respected Ss privacy, we created Yahoo! e-mail account for each S so that the Ss did not have to use their private e-mail account on the class discussion board. In addition, since the TAs set up the e-mail account for them, the Ss' focus could be less on the technology, and they could avoid any potential technical problems. One weakness of this setting was, however, the Ss needed to sign-in by their 310 e-mail account every time they tried to access to the class discussion board.

5.Participation on the discussion board

We introduced the class website and the class discussion board to the Ss in class. With the mentor teacher's approval, we provided a detailed handout explaining the function of all features of the website in detail (see appendix B). We especially emphasized the usefulness of the discussion board and encouraged the Ss to use it for their benefits. Although we provided Chat on the class website, we were not sure at that moment whether we could actually conduct online tutoring sessions by using Chat because students were not familiar with it and might not need it. We thought we might use it eventually later the semester, therefore, we did not emphasize or explain about Chat on the class websites.

We did the following things in order to encourage the Ss' participation and collaboration on the discussion board:

We put a "picture of week" on the class homepage and discussion board and changed it regularly. The pictures were related to the essay topics that the Ss were working on (visit http://www.geocities.com/english310web/picoweek.html to see all of our pictures of the week).
We posted a few questions weekly, which were about the readings the Ss were using in class. The questions were intended to encourage the Ss to respond the questions on the discussion board and help them understand the readings and generate the ideas for the essays.
Each of us posted comments, responses, and questions on the discussion board, which showed the Ss the models of on-line discussion.
In the classroom, we often encouraged the Ss to use the discussion board in order to reduce their workload for the class. We also had a chance to hear some Ss their comments on or reaction to the discussion board during the tutoring sessions.
We put our office hours on the website and encouraged the Ss to make an appointment with us on the discussion board (see http://www.geocities.com/english310web/office.html)

6. Spring break

The school had one week off for spring break. Since the Ss had to hand in the final draft after the break, we encouraged the Ss to post any questions regarding the readings and essays during the week in order to get help from TAs and other Ss. Only one S posted the message asking for help with her essay. The S posted a message literally 'asking for help' and did not specify the problems or difficulty. Although the TAs responded to her message, there was no response from her on the discussion board.

7.The mid-semester survey (the 2nd survey) (see Appendix C for the Survey & Appendix D for the Results)

Time	About one and half month after we started using the class websites.
Type of questionnaire	Anonymous. Outside of class
The number of Ss' responses	14
The purpose of questionnaire	to learn the frequency of Ss' use of the discussion board, their reaction and comments on the discussion board.

8.The final survey (the 3rd survey) (see Appendix E for the Survey & Appendices F-L for the Results)

Time	Three months after starting the discussion board.
Type of questionnaire	Anonymous. In class
The number of Ss' responses	20
The purpose of questionnaire	to receive the Ss' feedback to the discussion board and the class websites in general. - to learn how often the Ss collaborate each other to work on assignments in Eng.310 and in other classes and what kinds of assignment the Ss prefer to collaborate more.

D. Findings

Technical Issues

Extensive Set-up time

We found that setting up a website and discussion board takes a considerable amount of time and planning. The first hurdle, once we had decided to use technology to help students communicate, was to choose just which technology to use. Although commercial services like Blackboard (http://www.blackboard.com) are quite popular and have been implemented in several classes at SFSU, we decided that, as TAs, we would be better off using one of the many free services available on the internet. Using one of these free services seemed like the best way to ensure that we did not impose on our mentor teacher by asking her to set up a Blackboard account with the school. The disadvantage, of course, was that the free services require somewhat more adaptation for use in an academic setting.

Early on we began discussing just which resources we wanted to make available to the students. We debated the use of several discussion board platforms and internet chat utilities. Ultimately, we decided to use Yahoo! Groups as our platform, since it integrated a number of resources that we were interested in, including a discussion board, a chat room, and a website (through Yahoo!'s geocities service). We thought that we would offer several methods of communication to the students, since we were not sure which resources the students would find most useful.

The next step was to set up the student's accounts. Again, we debated how to do this, eventually deciding to set up new accounts for the students in order to avoid any privacy issues that might arise through their sharing of personal email addresses. We also discovered that while Yahoo! Groups will send list messages to members whether or not they use a Yahoo! email address, it only allows access to services like the Chat room to those members who go through a rather complicated sign-up process. Thus, since we did not have access to a computer lab, and did not want to use class time to instruct the students in how to set up their accounts, we decided to set up accounts for all 26 students ourselves. This turned out to be a very labor intensive process, thanks mostly to Yahoo! Groups complicated sign-up process.

Sensory Overload

Two responses to our mid-semester survey (see appendix D for complete results) indicated that having a class website as well as a discussion board/chat room was causing the Ss a bit of sensory overload:
§ One S responded to a question about the class website by saying that s/he had been unable to post messages to the discussion board, indicating a confusion about the difference between these two resources.
§ Another S wrote, "I think you can get more involvement if you use the discussion board for students to sign up conference with you. This will inform student of your available time & which time slots are taken." This response indicates that the S did not know that our hours were posted on the class website and shows that expecting the students to visit two different online resources for class information was asking too much.

Interaction

Throughout this semester (Feb.2001-May.2001), TAs posted 28 messages on the discussion board (TAs' initial postings 12, TAs' responses to the Ss' messages 16) while only 4 of the 26 Ss in the class participated in online discussion (Ss' postings were 13 in total). Only one message was posted by a S to another S's question, and other 12 messages were either questions to TAs or responses to TAs' responses to the Ss' initial questions.

Student Messages (13)

T/TA Messages (28)

Initial Posts (9)

Responses (4)

Initial Posts

Responses

to T/TAs

to Ss

to T/TAs

to Ss

The Results of Mid-Semester Survey.

The results of this survey (Appendix D) revealed some interesting points:

More Ss had visited the class website than the discussion board, even though the discussion board was intended to be the really useful resource.
As the reasons of not posting any messages on the discussion board, eight Ss pointed out their busy schedule and six Ss said that they could not think of anything to say. Interestingly, one of them, who responded that s/he had not posted any messages because s/he "couldn't think of anything to say", said that the discussion board would be better "if we could get feedback or advice on how to improve our drafts." This S clearly did not know that the discussion board was in fact a place to ask for advice or feedback on drafts. Another S commented that "If we can get the feedback in the discussion board as what we have in school that will be good". These comments indicate that some Ss didn't understand the main purpose of the discussion board such as posting questions about the drafts, getting feedback etc. In addition, although we thought we mentioned these functions of the discussion board orally in class, the survey result clearly shows that we had not done an adequate job explaining what sorts of things Ss were able to do on the discussion board. One S suggested in the questionnaire that we use the discussion board for Ss to sign up conference with us. It seems that this S felt that the real value of the discussion board was for administrative uses (setting up a conference) rather than collaborative uses, which seems to represent some other Ss' ideas and images of the discussion board.(This finding was based on other comments in questionnaire and informal feedback from the Ss in class).

Collaboration

Although we tried to generate class collaboration on the discussion board by modeling on-line discussion and positing questions regularly, only two Ss responded to our questions or comments. Also, there was only one student-student interaction on the discussion board. We assumed that one of the main reasons for the lack of collaboration and poor participation on the discussion board might be that the Ss were too busy to use the discussion board. Since the participation on the discussion board was completely optional and the all assignment did not require the Ss to use the discussion board, it was understandable that Ss did not use the discussion board, which might be extra work for the busy Ss.

The Results of the Final Survey

The results of the final survey showed that all Ss think that collaboration with others outside of class (Eng.310 and other classes) is either very useful or somewhat useful (See Appendix F). However, in reality the majority answered that they worked on assignments with their classmates in Eng.310 only a few times during the semester, and only one S said s/he worked with classmates more than twice a week (Appendix G). The Ss collaborated a little more in other classes (The number of Ss who collaborated more in Eng.310 were 3. The number of Ss who collaborated more in other classes were 8).

It is interesting to note that there was a gap between the Ss' responses to the question #4 "How do you usually communicate with your classmates when you work on class assignments?" and their responses to the question#2 "How often do you work on assignments with your classmates outside of class?" (compare Appendices G and J). In response to question #4, one third of the Ss said they contacted their classmates in some degree, while many of them said they rarely worked with other classmates when answering question #2. This contradictory result could be considered as unreliable data. Or, we could read it that the Ss understood the two questions differently since the question #2 asked whether they work on assignments with classmate and the question #4 asked whether they communicate with classmates when they have assignment. The Ss might think that the question#4 did not ask them about collaboration with classmates but asked whether they somehow contact the other classmates regarding the assignment, such as asking for clarification of assignment and catching up the lesson if the Ss were absent for the class.

The most useful data from the questionnaire was the types of assignment/study parts that Ss prefer to collaborate with their classmates.

The Ss chose `Understanding the readings' (11 out of 19) and 'Researching, collecting ideas and information' (9 out of 19) as the ones for which collaboration is VERY USEFUL. As assignment for which collaboration is SOMEWHAT USEFUL, many Ss chose 'Generating ideas for essays' (11 out of 19) and "Discussing final draft of essay" (9 out of 19). 'Paraphrasing and summarizing' and 'Discussing final draft of essay' were selected as ones which are better to work on alone (see appendix I).

As the biggest problems with meeting their classmates outside of class, the Ss raised 'conflicting schedules' and 'Not enough time to meet' as the very big problems (see appendix K).

We assumed that one of the main reasons might be that the Ss were too busy to use the discussion board. Since the participation of the discussion board was completely optional and the all assignment did not require the Ss to sign in the discussion board, it was understandable that Ss did not use the discussion board, which might be extra work for the busy Ss.

Issues for the Teacher and TA's

Integration

As the semester progressed, we realized that the discussion board was falling far short of our expectations. Rather than increasing student participation and control, we found that they TAs were posting far more messages than the students in their attempts to generate discussion. We discussed several possibilities for this lack of interaction, and decided that one of the main factors was that the class discussion board was not well integrated into the curriculum; the students were busy enough finishing their daily assignments, what motivation would they have to add to their workload by visiting the discussion board? We approached our mentor teacher and asked if we could try to better integrate the discussion board into the curriculum, perhaps by having the students do one or two of their assignments online. Understandably, she told us that even though it was a good idea to assign homework using the discussion board, these sorts of changes need to occur before the semester begins. Adapting an assignment to work online takes a considerable amount of time that the T and TAs could not spare while the semester was rolling along full-steam ahead.

Plagiarism

One consideration that neither of us had thought about was the possibility that Ss might use the discussion board for plagiarism. We have both heard ESL teachers at SFSU mention that student plagiarism is a recurring problem in the department. Because there was no time in the schedule for peer review during units 2 and 3, we felt that the discussion board would help out by allowing Ss to share and review their peers' papers outside of class. Unfortunately, our mentor teacher felt that this use of the discussion board might make it easier for some Ss to plagiarize the work of others.

E. Recommendations for Instructors & Students

Technical Issues

Our findings indicate that it is very important to simplify online resources, only using those that are absolutely necessary. Trying to use a class website as well as a discussion board/chat room amplified the potential for technical problems and confusion. It also increased the amount of time required to set-up and maintain online resources, and created a greater need for training the Ss. We also recommend as much hands-on training as possible, since we found that despite a very thorough handout some Ss still experienced technical problems.

Interaction

In an online learning community, "learning takes place through collaboration and through writing and question formation." (Zimmer, B., Harris, R. & Muirhead, B. section 4.1) Therefore, the Ts should integrate the use of discussion board into the curriculum, rather than adding on (The TAs, who want to use the discussion board for their assisted class, should collaborate with the T and propose these ideas before the Ts make the curriculum or lesson plan. ) The online component of a class must be an integrated part of the class rather than something that is merely tacked on. The ideal is a "seamless" integration of electronic and traditional classroom resources, in which "we study and learn and interact in the physical and virtual spaces without thinking about how we do it � taking the best from both worlds" (Higgison, 2000). Online interaction should extend from and build upon classroom interaction. Thus, planning on how technology should be integrated should be started before the class begins. As one of the ways of integration, the Ts can assign some homework using the discussion board (generate essay topics, paraphrasing etc). In other words, the Ss' participation should be required for some type of homework. In addition, considering the study which shows asynch communication might need to be tied to tasks without immediate deadlines (Blythe, 1997), the Ts can assign the Ss to generate ideas or ask questions each other on the discussion board. The participation can be worth to a certain percentage of class grade. All of this will make it possible that the participation is on the discussion board is not extra work but the part of assignment/learning process.

Collaboration

As the final survey result shows, the Ss think collaboration with other classmates outside of class is useful in certain degree. But, the conflicting schedules with other classmates and their busy schedule make meeting with classmates impossible outside of class. Here is really the use of discussion board should come. First, the T/TAs make it really clear to the Ss what they can do with the discussion board. Probably, the T/TAs can show them how they can help each other collaborate each other with a specific example. Second, the T/TAs should take into consideration which assignment/tasks their Ss prefer working with others(In the case of Ss in Eng. 310, they were 'understand the readings' and 'researching, collecting ideas and information ) and integrate the use of the discussion board into the particular assignment, encouraging them to collaborate each other to do the homework.

Issues for the Teacher and TA's

Integration

As we found, it was impossible for our mentor teacher to incorporate technology into her lesson plans after the semester had already started. Planning and implementation of online resources takes quite a bit of time; therefore, if electronic resources are to be used, Ts and TAs need to start the process of integration early, well before the beginning of the semester. The integration of technology should include:

making online participation a compulsory part of class participation
determining which lessons and activities might benefit from increased collaboration and then adapting them to the online environment
creating new tasks, activities, and assignments that exploit the benefits of computer-mediated communication
determining effective ways to asses the success or failure of new tasks, activities, and assignments (source � somewhere in CALL environments)

Simplicity

As mentioned above, Ts and TAs should make sure that the online resources used in a class are simple and easy to use. Trying to incorporate too many resources, or tacking on resources just in case they might be used can cause quite a bit of extra work for the T/TAs.

Also, Ts and TAs need to consider what will happen if the Ss do use the technology � will there be enough time to respond to student questions? Pieter Nagel (1999) asserts that "if e-mail is a core component of the course the success of the course depends on the quantity and quality of electronic traffic generated. Continuous teacher involvement is very important in this regard as the teacher has to steer with pedagogical leadership on issues and ensure constant participation and active encouragement." Ts and TAs should incorporate technology only when they are sure they will be able to handle the extra workload that might be caused by increased S participation.

Needs assessment & Class Setting

Warschauer, Shetzer, and Meloni (2000) assert that when student-centered learning is not a priority in a class, attempts to integrate computer mediated communication have shown poor results, "as the students view computer activities as another form of teacher-mandated busy work" (p. 109). Choosing to integrate technology into a class curriculum should ultimately be based on a thorough analysis of the class setting and student needs.

F. Conclusions

Our research this semester has shown that it is quite difficult for TAs to use a discussion board and class website to help the Ss with academic reading and writing. However, if Ts and TAs are able to work together before the semester begins to integrate computer mediated communication tools into their lesson plans, the Ss will be able to take advantage of these resources (personal communication with Kohn, 2001).

We have also learned that computer mediated communication can be a tremendous tool for collaborative writing. This semester we have exchanged well over 100 email messages while working on various projects. In each of these emails we have asked questions, negotiated meaning, reflected our works in progress, and synthesized each others ideas.

G. Sources

Bishop, Ana L. (1999). CALL issues: setting policy for the evaluation of the CALL environment. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments � research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 272-283). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Blythe, S. (1997). Online Tutoring Discussion. Purdue Online Writing lab. Retrieved from the World Wide Web April 27, 2001: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/lab/owl/tutoring/tutoring.html

Building a class website. (2001, January 12). The University of Washington. Retrieved March 4, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://depts.washington.edu/catalyst/planning/class_web.html

Castro, E. (2000). HTML 4 for the world wide web, fourth edition: visual quickstart guide. Berkeley: Peachpit Press.

Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition � purpose, process, and practice. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS, SFSU (2000) Retrieved from the World Wide Web May 23, 2001: http://www.sfsu.edu/~bulletin/current/ge.htm

Higgison, C. (Ed.) (2000). Online Tutoring e-book. Online Tutoring Skills Project (OTIS). Retrieved from the World Wide Web March 4, 2001: http://otis.scotcit.ac.uk/onlinebook/.

How to teach and facilitate discussion online. no date. Online Teaching and Learning for Nursing Faculty. The University of Victoria-Learning Technology Group. Retrieved from the World Wide Web March 11, 2001: http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/ltg/nursweb/

Kelly, Charles. (1997). How to make a successful ESL/EFL teacher's web page. The Internet TESL Journal. Vol. III, No. 6, June 1997. Retrieved from the World Wide Web March 6, 2001: http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Articles/Kelly-MakePage/

Leki, I., & Carson, J., (1997). "Completely different worlds": EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 39-69.

Nagel. P. (1999). E-mail in the virtual ESL/EFL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, V(7). Retrieved from the World Wide Web March 6, 2001: http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Articles/Nagel-Email.html

Warschauer, M. (1995). Heterotopias, panopticons, and Internet discourse. University of Hawai�i Working Papers in ESL 14(1). 91-121. Retrieved from the World Wide Web March 6, 2001: http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/heterotopias.html

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal 13(2), 7-26. Retrieved from the World Wide Web March 4, 2001: http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/comparing.html

Warschauer, M., & Lepeintre, S. (1997). Freire's dream or Foucault's nightmare: Teacher-student relations on an international computer network. In R. Debski, J. Gassin, & M. Smith (Eds.), Language learning through social computing (pp. 67-89). Parkville, Australia: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. Retrieved from the World Wide Web March 4, 2001: http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/freire.html

Warschauer, M., Shetzer, H., & Meloni, C. (2000). Internet for english teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

H. Appendices

Student Workload
English 310web Handout
Mid-semester survey
Mid-semester survey results
Final Survey
Final Survey Results � Chart 1 - How useful is working on assignments with your classmates outside of class?
Final Survey Results � Chart 2 - How often do you work on assignments with your classmates outside of class?
Final Survey Results � Chart 2a - Comparision of collaboration in English 310 and other classes
Final Survey Results � Chart 3 - When do you think it is useful to work with your classmates outside of class?
Final Survey Results � Chart 4 - How do you usually communicate with your classmates when you work on class assignments?
Final Survey Results � Chart 5 - What are the biggest problems with meeting your classmates outside of class time?
Final Survey Results � Chart 6 - How many hours a week do you work alone on your assignments outside of class?
Discussion Board Message Classification Table

Lesson Plan

Outline

A. Description of the Class
B. Overview
C. Rationale
D. Goals/Expected Outcomes
E. Performance Objectives
F. Technologies & Materials Required
G. Required Facilities
H. Procedure
I. Alternative Plan
J. Practical Considerations
K. Sources
L. Appendices

A. Description of the class

Students

Ages Juniors and Seniors at San Francisco State University

Native languages Cantonese, Farsi, Hebrew, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Nepali, Thai, Turkish, Vietnamese.

English proficiency level High-Intermediate to Advanced

Previous reading classes Many of the lower level students (Ss) began with English 204. All of the Ss have taken English 209.

Class

Length of term one semester (Feb.2001 -May, 2001)

Class Size 26

Overall class goals This course focuses on academic writing from sources. Reading goals include critical evaluation of and interaction with readings. Writing goals include improving Ss skills in academic essay organization and development, developing an effective academic writing process including the ability to evaluate and revise drafts, and academic citation and documentation.

B. Overview

In Unit 2 of English 310 the Ss compose an argumentative essay. In preparation for this essay the Ss read at least 4 articles representing various perspectives on a controversial issue. In the essay itself the Ss must synthesize arguments from at least 4 sources and set forth and refute opposing viewpoints. Both of these tasks require a much higher degree of "text-responsible" writing (writing that requires a thorough understanding of a text (Leki and Carson, 1997)) than the Ss have been previously asked to do in their writing classes. This lesson (adapted from Lindsay, 2001) uses a class discussion board to help Ss begin the process of synthesizing the ideas of several authors and identifying the relationships between the arguments and counter-arguments on both sides of an issue.

Note: What is a class discussion board?

Warschauer, Shetzer, and Meloni (2000) define a discussion board as a "program on a Web site that enables you to have asynchronous conversations with others; also known as a Web Board. The conversations are organized by subject heading, or thread" (p. 169). In an academic setting, a discussion board functions as a the class center for online communication, allowing Ss to communicate readily with their peers, Ts, and TAs. Discussion boards can be set up through either commercial services (e.g., http://www.blackboard.com; http://www.webct.com) or free services (e.g., http://www.beseen.com; http://www.freeforums.com; http://www.beseen.com; http://www.coolboard.com; http://www.multicity.com). This lesson makes use of the database feature of a Yahoo! Groups discussion board. To set up your own Yahoo! Group visit http://www.groups.yahoo.com.

C. Rationale

Using a class discussion board for this activity meets each of Joy Egbert's (1999, p. 4) eight "Conditions for Optimal Language Learning" more effectively than a similar paper-based activity.

1. Learners have opportunities to interact and negotiate meaning

Without the use of a class discussion board, the Ss have only a short amount of time in class to share the arguments and counter-arguments that they identify on their own. In this activity, the Ss interact and negotiate meaning in class while working in groups to identify arguments and counter-arguments; further, the students have the ability to continue interacting and negotiating meaning outside of class on the discussion board. The list of arguments and counter-arguments that the students compile in class becomes a common writing resource that the students can draw on and adapt from throughout the writing process. This common resource provides a foundation for continued interaction and meaning negotiation.

2. Learners interact in the target language with an authentic audience

The discussion board allows Ss to continue interacting in the target language outside of class, their authentic audience being their peers, teachers, and teaching assistants.

3. Learners are involved in authentic tasks

Being able to synthesize ideas from multiple sources and present and refute counter-arguments is essential for academic writing. In addition, collaborative project work through asynchronous communication is becoming more and more common in the workplace (reference????).

4. Learners are exposed to and encouraged to produce varied and creative language

The discussion board in this activity allows students more opportunities to produce, share, and receive feedback on the rhetorical aspects and writing strategies that are necessary in an argumentative essay (e.g., reported speech, paraphrasing, and citation).

5. Learners have enough time and feedback

In this activity Ss start working together in class, and then continue collaborating outside of class. The discussion board allows Ss to continually develop their common writing resource on their own time, giving them extended opportunities to generate language and receive peer and teacher feedback.

6. Learners are guided to attend mindfully to the learning process

By allowing more time for the Ss to share their ideas, the use of a discussion board for this activity allows Ss more exposure to the writing processes of their peers. As such, it encourages a more reflective and thoughtful approach to writing, in which Ss are able to observe others learning, and consequently adapt and reflect on their own learning.

7. Learners work in an atmosphere with an ideal stress/anxiety level

Rather than having to interpret, analyze, and synthesize the arguments and counter-arguments alone, this activity eases stress and anxiety by allowing for more cooperative and collaborative learning.

8. Learner autonomy is supported

The approach here is to use the writing class as a training ground for writing in content classes. As such, Ss work collaboratively to tackle the demands of academic writing. They learn important collaboration skills which they might be able to use in their future classes, and, through their own efforts and their observations of the efforts of others, develop their own approach to synthesizing arguments and counter-arguments.

D. Goals/Expected Outcomes

Previous Lessons

Before this lesson, Ss will have already:

read and annotated 4 or more argumentative essays representing various perspectives on a controversial issue (e.g., Free Trade, Gene Therapy, Cultural approaches to education).
identified and annotated the arguments presented in their readings
had extensive practice using the Yahoo! Groups website to collaborate with their peers both in and out of class

Objectives for this lesson:

In this lesson, the Ts objectives will be to:

Help students synthesize arguments and counter-arguments from a variety of sources
Help students collaboratively create a writing resource that they can refer to while writing their argumentative essays
Prepare Ss to identify and evaluate different kinds of evidence (in an upcoming lesson)

E. Performance Objectives

Students Will Be Able To:

identify relevant arguments from a variety of sources
identify relevant counter-arguments from a variety of sources
enter arguments and counter-arguments into the database area of the class discussion board
print out the list of arguments and counter-arguments
(optional) export list of arguments and counter-arguments to disk

F. Technologies & Materials Required

Hardware:

Internet enabled PC or Macintosh computers with a minimum of 64 MBs RAM
Internet enabled presenters workstation with projector
(optionally, 1 diskette for each student).

Software:

Internet Browser (Navigator or Explorer)
Yahoo! Groups website

G. Required Facilities

This lesson can be done in a classroom computer lab with a presenter's workstation (with projector) and minimally one internet enabled computer for every 4 students.

H. Procedure

Preparation

Set up two column database on Yahoo! Groups website (see appendix #)

Activity

Introduce Ss to Yahoo! Groups database feature.
Model entering arguments and counter-arguments into the database (see appendix #).
Group work � Ss work in groups of 4 to identify key arguments from the readings and then enter these arguments into the appropriate column of the database. Each group is assigned to look through one of the readings and identify as many of the arguments as possible. Each group should choose a 'typist.'
Whole Class � Go over the arguments that have been posted on both sides of the issue identifying similar arguments from different authors and arguments on either side of a particular debate.
Group work � Ss work in groups of 4 to identify the counter-arguments to 2-3 arguments and then enter these counter-arguments into the appropriate column of the database
Whole Class � Discuss arguments and counter-arguments, encouraging Ss to continue finding connections between the arguments and counter-arguments presented in various readings
Model printing the arguments and counter-arguments (and optionally exporting them to a disk).
Review finding the database section of the class discussion board and encourage Ss to continue updating it.

Possible Follow-ups

HW (adapted from Lindsay, 2001) � Referring to the list of arguments and counter-arguments created in class today, answer the following questions in your writing journal:

What is the most convincing PRO � argument? Why is it convincing?
What is the least convincing PRO � argument? Why isn't this argument convincing?
What is the most convincing CON � argument? Why is it convincing?
What is the least convincing CON � argument? Why isn't this argument convincing?

Continue posting arguments and counter-arguments throughout the writing process.
Revisit the list of arguments and counter-arguments, identifying each as statistics, facts, examples, or logical reasoning (adapted from Lindsay, 2001).
Revisit the list of arguments to practice academic citation
Use the S generated list of arguments to practice paraphrasing and quoting.

I. Alternative Plan

Given the possibility of a computer failure, the T should prepare handouts so the Ss can do the assignment on paper, and then perhaps enter the info into the database at a later time.

J. Practical Considerations

Since the Ss are creating a common writing resource, it is possible that they might have trouble accepting the idea that any other student in the class will be able to modify their work. In some situations, Ts may want to address this issue in advance.

K. Sources

Egbert, J., & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). Computer-enhanced language learning environments: an overview. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments � research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 1-13). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Leki, I., & Carson, J., (1997). "Completely different worlds": EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 39-69.

Lindsay, D., (2001). English 310 course materials.

Warschauer, M., Shetzer, H., & Meloni, C. (2000). Internet for english teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

L. Appendices

A. Example of an online database printable report.
B. Arguments and Counter-Arguments handout (coming soon!)