Collaborative learning methods which emphasize peer interaction
have been widely applied to increase the intensity and effectiveness of
EFL reading programs. However, simply grouping students heterogeneously
and assigning them group goals does not guarantee that effective
collaborative learning will ensue. The present research includes two
studies. In Study One, the weaknesses of collaborative learning in a
traditional EFL setting were observed. Then, in Study Two, a
mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning (MPAL) system was
developed for the purpose of addressing the identified weaknesses. Two
classes of twenty-six third grade students participated in the present
research to examine the unique contribution of MPAL to collaborative EFL
reading activities. The collaborative behavior of elementary EFL
learners was videotaped and analyzed. Detailed analysis of the
videotaped behavior indicated that MPAL helped improve collaboration in
elementary school level EFL learners and promotes their reading
motivation.
**********
INTRODUCTION
Due to increased globalization and internationalization in recent
decades, English has become the lingua franca of the world due to its
widespread use in academia, business, commerce, and technology (Spolsky
& Shohamy, 1999). As a result, study of the English language has
increased worldwide. In Taiwan, formal English as a foreign
language/English as a second language (henceforth referred to simply as
EFL) instruction begins at the elementary school level. However, because
of the limited opportunities for exposure to English, Hirvela (2004)
highlighted the importance of providing reading materials to second
language (L2) learners so that they can learn the rhetoric and writing
styles of the language through reading. Moreover, there is a growing
recognition that reading provides important opportunities for L2
development (Day & Bamford, 1998). Reading is especially important
for learners of EFL in an educational setting with limited L2 resources
(Gehard, 1996). Therefore, the teaching of English reading is receiving
increasing attention from EFL teachers and researchers.
To achieve the reading goals set for elementary learners, intensive
intervention programs have been viewed as an effective approach (Clay,
1993; Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Hiebert, Colt, Catto, & Gury,
1992; Slavin, Madden, Karweit, Dolan, & Wasik, 1992; Taylor, Frye,
Short, & Shearer, 1992). Further, collaborative learning that
includes groups working together and peer assistants has been widely
used in English reading programs to create the necessary intensity and
strong support for learning. Numerous studies have confirmed the
positive educational effects of collaborative learning on the
instruction of English reading. Collaborative learning (or peer-assisted
learning) can improve the cognitive activity of students (Hartup, 1992)
and their reading outcomes (Greenwood, 1996; Ghaith, 2003; Slavin,
1988). Collaborative learning can also increase motivation and
satisfaction (Ushioda, 1996), as well as the enthusiasm of students
through the achievement of goals as a group (Nichols & Miller,
1994).
Although the effectiveness of collaborative learning in EFL reading
has been clearly demonstrated, a collaborative learning environment in
an EFL classroom in Asia may differ markedly from one in the West. Other
pedagogical challenges (such as the diversity of students' reading
ability, social and economic differences, class size, time constraints,
and available resources) become problematic when EFL teachers try to
adopt collaborative methods for reading instruction in traditional EFL
classes (Curtis, 1998; Lan, Chang, & Sung, 2004; Reed, 2002).
Mobile technology is currently a feasible approach to overcoming
many of the obstacles in current methods of EFL reading instruction.
Standing on the shoulders of the giant, CALL (Computer Assisted Language
Learning, e.g., Barker & Torgesen, 1995; Mioduser, Tur-Kaspa, &
Leitner, 2000; Speziale & La-France, 1992; Sung, Huang, & Chang,
under review), mobile assisted language learning (MALL) has the
capability of providing EFL learners with the same opportunities for
independent and targeted reading practice and immediate corrective
feedback as CALL. In recent years, many studies have explored new
methods of language learning made possible by the unique features of
MALL, including portability, social interactivity, context sensitivity,
connectivity, individuality, and immediacy (Attewell & Webster,
2004; Chinnery, 2006; Klopfer, Squire, & Jenkins, 2002; Soloway et
al., 2001).
Research suggests that MALL has excellent potential for providing
students with rich, real time, collaborative and conversational
experiences both in and outside the classroom. However, the focus of
MALL is mostly on speaking (Kukulska-Hulme, 2005), vocabulary (Thornton
& Houser, 2005), phrases (Thornton & Houser, 2005; Morita,
2003), and grammar (Sung, Huang, & Chang, 2006), rather than early
reading skills. Furthermore, most subjects in recent studies of MALL
have been college students. Few studies have investigated how mobile
technology benefits the reading skills of elementary students. The
subjects of studies by Zurita and Nussbaum (2004) (6- and 7-year old
children) and Soloway and his colleagues (2001) (k-12 students) are
exceptions, but the learning objective in these studies was not
specifically English reading skills. Further, although the most widely
used hand-held devices (e.g., cellular phones, personal digital
assistants, and mp3 players such as iPods) have a good reputation in
MALL research, their small screens have been frustrating (Carlson,
2002).
Considering the limited number of MALL studies focusing on early
EFL reading skill training, and fewer studies using elementary EFL
learners as participants, the purpose of this research was to
investigate how mobile technology benefits collaboration in elementary
EFL learners. Rather than measuring specific learning gains, this
research focuses on the weaknesses of collaborative learning in
traditional EFL reading activities and how these weaknesses could be
overcome by using mobile technology. To achieve this objective, two
studies were conducted. In the first study, collaborative learning
behavior was observed in elementary EFL students to clarify deficiencies
in traditional reading activities. In the second study, for the purpose
of enhancing collaboration in elementary EFL learners, we first
developed a mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning (MPAL) system
based on the results of Study One. In addition to the characteristic of
mobility, the MPAL was implemented on Tablet PCs under the
considerations of its bigger screen size, compared with the hand-held
devices mentioned above, as well as the easy input equipment (stylus)
that Tablet PCs could provide. The efficacy of MPAL in overcoming the
perceived limitations of traditional collaborative learning was then
assessed.
STUDY ONE: COLLABORATIVE EFL READING ACTIVITIES WITHOUT
TECHNOLOGICAL SUPPORT
To develop a mobile-device-supported reading system that can
enhance collaborative learning in EFL students, learners were first
observed in class during traditional reading activities. All student
activities were videotaped and analyzed by two observers. The analysis
was intended to identify deficiencies in collaborative reading in
traditional EFL settings, as well as the opportune moment to introduce
mobile technology in EFL learners' collaborative reading
activities.
Methods
Design
The first study was conducted during the first semester of the
school year using a quasi-experimental design. Two classes of third
grade students using identical materials participated in this study. One
class (experimental group) learned reading using the collaborative
learning approach, and the other class (control group) learned reading
by individual learning and whole class activities led by the EFL
instructor. All reading activities were videotaped for subsequent
analysis by two observers who were instructed to record and analyze all
collaborative behavior and interactive discourse observed in the
experimental group.
Participants
The subjects in Study One included 52 third grade students (two
classes of 26 students, 14 males and 12 females in each class) from an
elementary school in Taipei, Taiwan. One class was randomly chosen as
the experimental group and the other as the control group. All enrolled
subjects were considered beginning-level learners, although they had
received two years of EFL instruction in elementary school. According to
the Taipei Municipal Education Department's standards for the
elementary school English curriculum, all third-grade students must
learn all letters in the English alphabet, 30 words, and 20 sentences of
basic daily conversation and classroom English.
The students were divided into heterogeneous reading groups based
on their level of English achievement in the second grade. Grade A
students were classified as high reading ability, those at grade B or C
were classified as medium reading ability, and those at grade D or Fail
were classified as low reading ability. As a result, the experimental
group had 6 high-ability, 11 medium-ability, and 9 low-ability students;
the control group had 7 high-ability, 10 medium-ability, and 9
low-ability students. Students with more advanced English ability
(referred to as "group leaders") were grouped with two or
three students with lower ability (medium- and low-ability students)
which resulted in both classes having seven reading groups (each
consisted of five groups with four members and two groups with three
members).
Instruments
Description of early EFL reading activities and teaching materials.
Study One employed a program with five basic-level teaching packages.
The lesson structure of the teaching materials was based on a balanced
foundation of language skills: each teaching package included
instructional material for basic linguisticskills (phonemic awareness,
phonics rules, and sight words) as well as text reading articles. This
study package was similar to the one used in the second study (Appendix
D). The basic linguistic skills training module for each teaching
package included phonics rules and selected English words for
instruction in sight identification. Based on the linguistic skill
objectives in each teaching package, a carefully tailored written text
was used as reading material to provide the students with opportunities
to apply their skills to comprehending written text.
Each teaching package included two activities and lasted for two
periods (40 minutes each period; 160 minutes for each teaching package).
In general, elementary school students in Taiwan receive two periods of
instruction on English each week; therefore, each teaching package was
taught over a period of two weeks. Thus, the five teaching packages were
applied for a total of 10 weeks. In the initial series of two-period
reading activities, both groups used printed materials to practice basic
linguistic skills together as a class or by working in pairs. In the
second series of two-period activities, the two groups learned via
different approaches. The experimental group engaged in collaborative
group reading activities in which the students were permitted to assist
each other when reading the assigned text. However, the students in the
control group received instruction from the EFL teacher or were asked to
practice individually.
Procedure
Before the experiment, the students in the experimental group were
asked to agree on and follow their own collaborative reading rules
(Appendix A). In the first two-lesson activities, the EFL teacher
instructed the students in sight words, phoneme segmentation, and
phonics rules. After direct modeling (in which the EFL teacher
demonstrated the correct pronunciation of sight words and explicitly
presented the phonics rules employed to decode and encode English
words), the EFL teacher led entire-class activities and inter-group
speed-reading contests. At the second of the two-lesson activities of
each teaching package, the students in the experimental group
participated in collaborative text reading activities while seated in
groups around a desk. Each student read the text according to a
step-by-step reading guide (Appendix B), after which they performed peer
assessment. Whenever they encountered a problem reading a word or
comprehending its meaning, the students were permitted to ask for
instructed help from their group leader or groupmates.
In contrast with the experimental group, the students in the
control group used identical reading materials but only received
instruction from the teacher in the first two-lesson activity. In the
second two-lesson activity, the students were then asked to read the
articles individually following a simplified version of the step-by-step
reading guide (Appendix C).
Data collection
During the experiment, video-cameras were installed in two corners
of the room so that each camera could videotape four reading groups.
Additionally, seven digital voice recorders were used to record oral
discourse between group members. Upon completion of the reading
activity, two observers reviewed all videotaped group reading sessions.
The observers were instructed to record and classify all intra-group
interactive behavior observed during the recorded group reading
activity. The Pearson product-moment correlation of the frequencies of
various behaviors from the two copies of the records was then computed.
To identify the most opportune time to introduce mobile technology and
associated scaffolding in EFL collaborative reading activities, the
observation was also intended to identify deficiencies in any of the
following aspects of group learning: (a) support provided by groupmates,
(b) feedback provided by groupmates, and (c) collaborative processes.
Results
After the treatment finished the two observers repeatedly watched
the videotapes and listened to the digital voice recordings until all
the discourses and interactive behavior exhibited by the experimental
group were coded. The observations focused on interactive behavior among
groupmates and the problems that might have reduced the effectiveness of
group collaboration. The Pearson product-moment correlation of the
frequencies of various behaviors computed from the two copies of the
records was 0.968.
The analytical results of the video data and discourse in the
experimental group revealed frequent peer-assisted learning behavior in
the collaborative reading groups. Examples 1 and 2 are two concrete
positive examples of the components "support provided by
groupmates" and "feedback provided by groupmates," in
which group leaders helped group members read assigned tasks and
provided feedback. Besides, in the following examples (Examples 1, 2,
and 3) if students use Chinese (their native language) to communicate
with each other, the particular discourse conducted in Chinese will be
printed in italics, followed by its Chinese version in parentheses.
Example 1.
Group 1:
Group members: Tracy, Pole, Joe and Faye
Tracy: OK, now everyone read the text. Step two, mmm ... you read
and circle the words you do not know. ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII.]) (Students read and circle unknown words.)
Tracy: Don't be afraid to circle too many unknown words.
([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) What I care is honest. ([TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) Don't cheat. ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII.]) Just let me know which word you don't know. ([TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) I will teach you. ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII.])
Pole: Tracy, how to say the word? ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII.]) (Pole points to the word 'Rat'.)
Tracy: r r /r/r/, a a /a/a/, /r/a/ /ra/, t t /t/t/, /rat/. Rat is a
big mouse, and mouse means a small one. (Rat [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII.] mouse [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) Understand? (component:
support provided by groupmates, positive)
Pole: Understand. Thank you.
Tracy: Joe, Faye, any question?
Joe: Tracy, how to say the word? ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII.]) (Joe points to the word 'Will'.)
Tracy: (Covers the last three letters, 'ill', shows
letter w to Joe and supports scaffolding.) w w, say what? ([TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) (component: support provided by groupmates,
positive)
Joe: w w /u/.
Tracy: i i ...
Joe: /i/i/.
Tracy: l l ...
Joe: (Kept silent.)
Tracy: (Models the sound of the letter "l") l l /l/l/.
/u/i/ /ui/ /l/ /uil/. Say it. ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.])
Joe: /u/i/ /ui/ /l/ /uil/. (component: support provided by
groupmates, positive)
Example 2.
Group 7:
Group members: Esther, Ann, Apple and Sandy (Students read text.)
Esther: Hey, read out loud, the guide says 'read aloud'.
([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], guidance [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII.] read aloud) Ann, listen and say "Mr. and Mrs." (Ann,
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] Mr. and Mrs) (points to the words)
Ann: 'Mr.' and 'Mrs.'
Esther: Good (component: feedback provided by groupmates,
positive), now how to say the word? ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.])
(points to the word 'had')
Ann: (kept silent.) (Apple and Sandy begin to read and discuss
together.)
Esther: When you read a word, you cover the latter letters and
sound the beginning sound, then the middle sound and say the two sounds
together, and then add up the ending sound and say them together. Like
this. ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) (covers letters a and d) h h
/h/h/, a a /a/a/, /h/a/ /ha/, then ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) d
d /d/d/, then say them together ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]), it
becomes /had/. ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] /had/) OK? (component:
support provided by groupmates, positive) Now you try. Apple, Sandy, any
question? Hey, don't chat. ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.])
Apple and Sandy: We don't. ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.])
Esther: Good, let me know if you have questions. ([TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) Ann, you say the word. ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE
IN ASCII.])
Ann: /h/a/d/ /had/.
Esther: Good. (component: feedback provided by groupmates,
positive) (Esther was keeping busy in supervising and helping her
groupmates to read.)
However, it was also found that simply placing students in groups
heterogeneously and assigning them group goals (e.g., winning the
inter-group reading contest and being rewarded) did not guarantee
effective collaboration during the whole reading activity. Several
weaknesses in the collaborative process were identified by the
observers. First, the group leaders differed in their small-group
collaborative reading activity in that some of them were constantly busy
helping their groupmates whereas others spent most of their time reading
individually. As a result, students in groups with busy leaders may have
experienced delays in assistance from their group leaders (classified as
'postponed support'), whereas leaders in other groups were
constantly available for helping anyone (including those belong to a
different group) in need of learning support (classified as
'invisible helper'). Furthermore, the medium-ability students
were frequently asked to read by themselves because their group leaders
were busy helping their low-ability groupmates. The lack of immediate
feedback resulted in medium-ability students frequently demonstrating
uncertainty or confusion during the reading activity (classified as
'absent feedback'). Other weaknesses in a small group included
group leaders teasing or ignoring groupmates because of their slower
rate of learning (classified as 'conflict-oriented collaborative
process'), resulting in increased passivity in these students. In a
specific example of the components of 'collaborative process',
Example 3 shows a negative episode in which the group leader in Group 3
lost his temper and teased his group member.
Example 3.
Group 3:
Group members: Richard, Jasmine and Angel
(Students read step-by-step reading guide handout and the copy of
the text.)
Jasmine: Richard (the group leader), how to do step 1? ([TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.])
Richard: (Reads the guide statement.) Look at the Picture and think
about its meaning. See, look and think. ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII.]) (Angel looks around. She is not sure how to do it.) (component:
support provided by groupmates, negative)
Richard: (to Angel) Hey, what are you doing? Quickly, do it. ([TEXT
NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.])
Angel: But, but, ... , I don't know how to read. ([TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.])
Richard: (Points to the handout of the reading instruction.) Look
at this and read. ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) (Richard sound
angry and ignores Angel while reading the text.) (component:
collaborative process, negative)
Angel: How to say this? ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) (Points
to the word 'six' and asks Richard.)
Richard: Who knows?! Oh, how terrible it is! ([TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) My God! (component: collaborative process,
negative) (Richard complains about the stupid question Angel asked him,
and then he chatted with Jasmine.)
Angel: (Sounding scared) Please teach me say the word. ([TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) (Points to the word 'six').
(component: collaborative process, negative)
Richard: (Says the word 'six'.) /siks/ /siks/, don't
forget.
Angel: How to say this? ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) (Points
to the word 'kids'.)
Richard: Oh, /kidz/, /kidz/, oh, my God! Teacher, teacher, she even
doesn't know how to say the letter sound. ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE
IN ASCII.]) I don't know how to teach her! ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE
IN ASCII.]) (component: collaborative process, negative) (The teacher
comes to the group and shows the peer-assisted method to Richard then
comforts and encourages Angel.)
STUDY TWO: SOLVING WEAKNESSES BY SUPPORT FROM MOBILE TECHNOLOGY
The findings of Study One appeared to show that collaborative
learning and peer-assisted learning are feasible strategies for helping
elementary EFL learners learn to read. In most of the small reading
groups, the group leaders were willing to help their groupmates and
provide their peers with necessary scaffoldings and feedback (see
Examples 1 and 2). The study also found that elementary EFL learners
require adequate support to address the above weaknesses and to enhance
the teaching of EFL reading. The weaknesses identified in Study One were
used to design a mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning (MPAL)
system implemented on the environment of Tablet PCs to support
collaborative learning in elementary EFL learners. This study revealed
how computer technology can be used to solve the shortcomings in
traditional collaborative reading activities.
Methods
Design
The second study also adopted a quasi-experimental design but was
executed in the second semester. In advance of the experiment, the
control group received training in collaborative learning to minimize
differences in the collaborative learning experience between the two
groups (the experimental and the control groups). The video data were
also collected but were analyzed quantitatively by coding the behaviors
according to the defined categories and then calculating the frequency
of each behavior for comparison of differences between the two groups.
Participants
Similarly to the evaluation of collaborative EFL reading
activities, the mobile-device-supported activities were investigated
over a 10-week period with the same subjects in the second semester of
the same school year. All subjects were grouped into the same groups as
described in Study One.
Instruments
Description of early EFL reading activities and teaching materials.
Study Two employed five additional teaching packages at more advanced
levels. The lesson structure of the materials used in the second study
was identical to that of Study One. Appendix D is an example of a
teaching package used in Study Two. The reading activities resembled
that of Study One except that the collaborative learning approach was
used in both groups.
Observation checklists. Study Two involved a more quantitative
approach. In the observation checklists (see Appendix E), the EFL
reading behaviors were categorized as learning-related and
learning-unrelated behaviors according to whether the observed behaviors
related to the specific learning activities. Additionally, the
learning-related behaviors included three reading behaviors: individual,
inter-group, and intra-group. The students were observed in four-minute
segments. For each segment, observers coded the frequency of target
behaviors at 15-second intervals. Finally, the relative frequency of
each target behavior was calculated for comparison. In Study Two,
observers focused on the weaknesses of collaborative learning activities
observed in the two groups.
Hardware: Tablet PCs. Despite the usual limitations of mobile
electronic devices (e.g., small screen), the tablet PC was a more
appropriate device in this study because of its editing support. Tablet
PCs allowed students to easily note and mark the learning materials;
consequently the effect of different levels of typing skill was limited
in this study. The hardware used in this study was TravelMate C110
Convertible Tablet PC. Appendix F lists the detailed specifications for
the device.
Mobile-device-supported Peer-Assisted Learning (MPAL) System. The
design purposes of MPAL were, first, to provide elementary EFL learners
with necessary scaffolding during individual learning, especially when
their group members are not available to provide them with feedback,
and, second, to provide a simple method for EFL learners to assist each
other, particularly when some group members are occupied. The MPAL model
consists of two modules: (1) a phonological-skills training module and
(2) a peer-assessment module. Figure 1 illustrates the learning flow for
the MPAL and the function of each module.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The phonological-skills training module was comprised of two
submodules: sight words and phonetic words. After students log into the
MPAL system, MPAL first assesses their reading skills (sight and
phonetic word identification skills) relative to a standard determined
by EFL teachers. Upon passing the test, the students were allowed to
access the peer-assessment module (Figure 1, left); students who failed
the test were returned to the phonological-skills training module for
additional practice with MPAL (Figure 1, right). With the coaching
support provided by the system, students practiced sight and phonetic
word identification for each unit until their ability reached specified
testing standard. Throughout the learning process (practice as well as
testing), the MPAL system recorded the learning results, provided both
real-time feedback and learning support, and assessed mastery of skills.
After the students mastered the target sight words and phonics
rules for each unit, under the control of the MPAL system, they
continued text reading (Figure 1, left). The MPAL system maintained a
list of qualified online helpers including the names of all students
that passed the peer-assessment process. The first five students who had
passed the Test of sight words and phonetic words, as well as finished
the step of meaning-based reading, read the text to their EFL teacher in
an online assessment via Skype. After passing the test, their names were
added to a list of those eligible to assist their peers in online peer
assessments or in text reading.
Generally, after entering the peer-assessment module, the students
first read the text individually and asked for online help via Skype (a
peer-to-peer internet-based telephony) whenever they encountered reading
or comprehension difficulties. After they were able to read individually
and comprehend the text (i.e., able to correctly answer the
comprehension questions), they would invite two available online helpers
and demonstrate their ability to read the text. The text was
continuously displayed on their screens when performing peer assessment,
and the online helpers noted mispronounced words by clicking on the word
with a stylus. Immediately after completing the assessment, MPAL
automatically evaluated the performance of the student by calculating
the accuracy ratio and assessing the result as a 'fail' or
'pass'. The reader could then become eligible as an online
assistant after receiving a 'pass' from two different online
helpers. If one of the two online helpers assessed the reader as
'fail', the readers were required to continue reading the
text. Figure 2 shows examples of the learning activities involved in
online peer assessment.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Procedure
Before the treatment, the control group was trained in
collaborative learning and was also asked to formulate collaborative
reading rules by entire-class discussion. The group was also asked to
agree to follow all rules during the study. Conversely, the experimental
group was simply asked to review the collaborative reading rules and
follow them.
Shortly after the training session for collaborative learning
skills, five advanced level teaching packages (see Appendix D) were
taught during the treatment period (10 weeks). Each package was taught
in two two-lesson activities. In the first two-lesson activity, the
teaching activities were similar to those described in Study One.
However, in the second two-lesson activity, the activities were
conducted differently. In the control group, students first reviewed the
materials (sight words and phonetic words) through direct instruction
and tests administered by the EFL teacher. They were then asked to
collaboratively read a printed text with their peers in groups following
the step-by-step reading guide (Appendix G). Finally, each student was
asked to read the text to two of their peers (peer-assessment). Students
who passed the peer-assessment were instructed to wear paper crowns and
print their names on the blackboard to signify that they were qualified
helpers available for reading assistance or assessment.
In contrast to the control group, each student in the experimental
group received a Tablet PC with a stylus and a headset which the
students used for collaborative reading activities with the support of
the MPAL system.
The main differences between the collaborative EFL reading
activities without technological support (the control group) and those
with support (the experimental group) were the following: First, during
text reading activities, the MPAL allowed the students to find available
helpers easily and receive help not only from their groupmates but also
from the online helpers (any student who had passed peer-assessment).
Additionally, two or three students spontaneously formed a learning
group by making an online call (using Skype) when performing online
peer-assessment activities or peer-assisted learning. Moreover, the
results of peer-assessment were available from MPAL immediately upon
completion of assessment. Thus, both the EFL teacher and the students
were able to precisely monitor the learning process and outcome. Second,
during phonological-skills training activities, the experimental group
received real-time learning support and feedback from MPAL during
individual reading activities when no other help was available.
Data collection
During the treatments, all activities were recorded by three
digital video cameras. Two were focused on two small reading groups (one
on each group), and one was focused on the entire class. After
completion of the experiment, the same observers reviewed the video
data. However, in contrast to Study One, the purpose of observation was
to determine the frequency of target behaviors listed in the observation
checklists (Appendix E). The Pearson product-moment correlation of the
observation results of the records was then computed. To document the
efficacy of MPAL, the observation focused on the following aspects of
collaborative behavior: (a) support provided by groupmates, (b) visible
or invisible helper, (c) feedback provided by groupmates, and (d)
collaborative processes.
Results
The observations of learning behavior recorded in this study had
two objectives. One was comparison of weaknesses due to postponed
support, invisible assistance, lack of immediate feedback, and
conflict-oriented collaboration in the two groups. Another objective was
identifying differences in collaborative behavior (learning-related and
learning-unrelated) between the two groups. After the treatment
finished, two observers tallied the frequency of each target behavior.
Pearson product-moment coefficient of concordance was then computed from
the decoded results obtained from the two copies of the records. The
Pearson correlation was 0.78 (p < .01). Comparison with weaknesses
identified in Study One
Table 1 displays the frequencies of the four target behaviors
related to support, helper, feedback and collaborative process. Each
target behavior was confirmed by chi-square analysis to identify
significant differences between the two groups. Results of chi-square
analysis revealed that the two groups significantly differed in
behaviors related to support ([x.sup.2.sub.(1,1)] = 11.46, p < .05),
feedback ([x.sup.2.sub.(1,1)] = 35.21, p < .05) and collaborative
process ([x.sup.2.sub.(1,1)] = 8.17, p < .05). These statistical
findings revealed that the incidence of postponed support, absent
feedback, and conflict-oriented collaboration was significantly lower in
the experimental group than in the control group. However, the result of
chi-square analysis related to helper type showed that there was no
significant difference between the two groups.
Comparison of collaborative learning behaviors
All the reading activities were videotaped during the treatments.
Two observers watched the video data and recorded the results based on
the observation checklists. The EFL reading behaviors were categorized
as learning-related and learning-unrelated behaviors. The
learning-related behaviors included three reading behaviors: individual,
inter-group, and intra-group. Table 2 displays the frequency of each
category of behaviors. Results of chi-square analysis revealed that the
frequency of learning-related (the sum of individual, inter-group, and
intra-group items) and learning-unrelated behaviors in the experimental
group significantly differed from that of the control group
([x.sup.2.sub.(1,1)] = 90.61, p < .05).
According to Table 2, the students in the experimental group
concentrated on EFL reading activities (fewer learning-unrelated
behaviors) with the support of MPAL. Table 2 also reveals that MPAL
benefited collaborative reading behavior (both inter- and intra-group),
especially inter-group behavior because of the use of peer-to-peer
internet-based telephony.
In addition to the above comparison, the frequency of each behavior
category in each observed turn (4minute interval) was compared between
the two groups to identify different trends in student behavior during
collaborative reading activities (see Figure 3). As illustrated in
Figure 3, students in the experimental group were more focused than the
students in the control group. The students consistently paid attention
during reading activities with the support of MPAL. Conversely, the
students in the control group tended to pay attention to learning
activities during the first half of the two-lesson reading activities
only. Subsequently, they were easily distracted, and their attention
decreased as the activities progressed.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Similar differences also appeared on learners' anxiety,
motivation, and oral reading confidence. Those students' attitudes
were identified by video data observation. It was found that students in
the experimental group, especially the lower-ability students, were
eager to practice what was instructed and ask for online help without
hesitation or fear of being teased by the helper. Furthermore, the
desire of becoming a qualified online helper also motivated them to be
willing to read to their peers over and over again until they passed the
online peer-assessment.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The goal of this study was to explore the potential application of
mobile technology for elementary EFL reading instruction. Due to limited
reference studies found in this area and to avoid careless use of mobile
technology in education, a two-study research was conducted to explore
the reasonable moments and methods for introducing mobile technology in
the teaching and learning of elementary EFL reading. In
Study One, by observing twenty-six third grade students
(experimental group) learning to read in a small group, the weaknesses
which might hinder students' collaborative learning were
identified. This in turn laid the groundwork for designing a mobile
learning system. The data analyzed in the first study indicated that
simply grouping students into heterogeneous small groups does not
guarantee effective collaboration even with collaborative and
peer-assisted learning behavior.
Careful analysis of the video data revealed the limitations of
traditional group learning, including delayed support, invisible
helpers, lack of feedback, and conflict-oriented collaborative
processes. This finding challenges traditional collaborative learning
approaches in which students are heterogeneously grouped to work
together and to reach a common goal (Johnson & Johnson, 1994;
Ravenscroft, Buckless, & Hassall, 1999; Slavin, 1986). The findings
also demonstrate that if the students are grouped heterogeneously with
different levels of critical skills needed for reading tasks, additional
learning support (scaffolding) is necessary for an effective
collaborative and peer-assisted learning process.
Based on the findings of Study One, the use of mobile technology
for elementary EFL reading activities was evaluated in Study Two. In
Study Two, a mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning (MPAL) model
was used to support the collaborative reading activities of elementary
EFL learners.
According to the results of Study Two, it is our distinct
impression that MPAL seemed to reduce anxiety in elementary EFL
learners, promote motivation to learn, and enhance oral reading
confidence. These findings are consistent with recent studies evaluating
the application of CALL in EFL such as instruction for early reading
skills by Mioduser, Tur-Kaspa, and Leitner (2000) and the study of
individualization of instructional sequence by Speziale and La-France
(1992). The present study also bears similarities to previous studies of
MALL which explored the possibility of learning vocabulary via cell
phone (Kukulska-Hulme, 2005; Thornton & Houser, 2005) or Personal
Digital Assistant (PDA) (Zurita & Nussbaum, 2004).
Furthermore, with the scaffoldings provided by MPAL, students could
read on their own or receive online help without their group leaders.
Thus they demonstrated a higher level of concentration on reading tasks,
particularly the low- and medium-ability students. This finding
underscores the value of technology for EFL students with lower reading
ability as suggested by Foster, Erickson, Foster, Brinkman, and Torgesen
(1994). The experimental results of the current study are also
consistent with the findings of Attewell and Webster (2004) that mobile
learning inspires enthusiasm in young adults and increases their
motivation to improve their reading skills. In addition to the positive
effect on collaborative learning, the weaknesses identified in Study One
were effectively addressed by the support of MPAL.
In summary, it appears that the use of mobile devices in
collaborative EFL reading activities reduces the stress experienced by
students and facilitates student collaboration. Use of these devices
also opens a new world of possibilities where students can individually
engage in EFL reading activities anywhere and at any time with the
assistance of learning support and real-time feedback. Immediate
responses to requests for help or feedback allow students to learn
reading according to their individual needs and individual pace.
Furthermore, it seems likely that the availability of online helpers not
only enhances the usability of the help resource but also encourages
students to pass the peer-assessment process and thereby achieve the
status of online helper. This study provides further evidence that a
mobile-device-supported EFL reading program is an emerging portable and
potential solution that can provide students with adaptable and
ubiquitous support for collaborative EFL reading activities at virtually
any place and time.
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Collaborative Reading Rules
I will:
1. take good care of the learning materials and equipment.
2. concentrate.
3. be willing to learning with others.
4. follow the reading guide.
5. work hard.
6. ask for help when I need it.
7. be nice in discussions with others.
8. answer the requests of others for learning help.
9. be a responsible peer.
10 tidy up the material when I have finished reading.
I will not
1. tease others.
2. chat or play with others when learning.
3. fight with others.
4. make noise.
5. discuss in a loud voice.
6. wander around.
Appendix B. Step-By-Step Reading Guide Used in Experimental Group
in Study One
Story Title:-- Group:-- Name:-- Date:--
* Do and check.
( ) 1. Look at the picture and think about its meaning: who, what,
where, and when?
( ) 2. Read aloud the story. If there are some words that you
cannot read:
(1) Circle the words you do not know.
(2) Try to read them using phonics rules.
(3) Are they sight words?
(4) Ask your groupmates to help you.
( ) 3. Read aloud again.
( ) 4. Read the story to your group.
Peer assessment:
Appendix C. Step-By-Step Reading Guide Used in Control Group in
Study One
Story Title:-- Group:-- Name:-- Date:--
* Do and check.
( ) 1. Look at the picture and think about its meaning: who, what,
where, and when?
( ) 2. Read aloud the story. If there are some words that you
cannot read:
(1) Circle the words you do not know.
(2) Try to read them using phonics rules.
(3) Are they sight words?
(4) Ask your teacher to help you.
( ) 3. Read aloud again and assess your reading. Self-assessment:
Appendix D. An Example of Teaching Packages Used in Study Two
Group:-- Class:-- Name:-- Number:-- Date:--
Today's mission:
1. Practice the sight words (Sight words_a.ppt)
2. Practice the phonetic words (Phonetic words_a.ppt)
3. Read the article "What is it in the box?" & answer
the questions
4. Peer-assessment: Read the article to two of your classmates.
Sight words:
by, asked, guess, said, isn't, can, does, doesn't, baby,
sing, know, will, who, so, no, look, like, her
Phonetic words:
o ob cob hob job mob rob
ock chock cock dock hock lock nock rock shock sock
op chop cop hop lop pop shop top
ot cot dot got hot jot lot pot rot shot
ox box pox fox
ob cob hob job mob rob
ock chock cock dock hock lock nock rock shock sock
Peer-Assessment
Signature:-- Date:--
What is it in the box?
Doctor Dodd sits on a log by the pond.
Doctor Dodd has a big box.
"What is it in the box?" asked Tom.
"Guess," said Doctor Dodd.
"Is it a doll?" "No, it isn't."
"Is it a fox?" "No, it isn't."
"It has spots. It can hop.
It does not look like her baby.
It likes to sing in the pond."
"What is it in the box?" asked Doctor Dodd.
"I know it. It is a ...," said Tom.
What is it in the box?
Doctor Dodd sits on a log by the pond. Doctor Dodd has a big box.
"What is it in the box?" asked Tom. "Guess," said
Doctor Dodd. "Is it a doll?" "No, it isn't."
"Is it a fox?" "No, it isn't." "It has
spots. It can hop. It does not look like her baby. It likes to sing in
the pond." "What is it in the box?" asked Doctor Dodd.
"I know it. It is a ...," said Tom.
Answer the questions:
( ) 1. What is it in the box?
(1) A rabbit. (2) A bug. (3) A frog.
( ) 2. Which animal doesn't look like her baby?
(1) Butterfly. (2) Cat. (3) Pig.
( ) 3. What is the baby of a frog?
(1) Kitten. (2) Tadpole. (3) Puppy.
( ) 4. Draw a line to match the baby animals and their moms.
Piggy Sheep
Lamb Bear
Duckling Pig
Cub Hen
Chick Duck
Appendix E. Observation Checklist Used in Study Two
Appendix F. The Specification of Travel Mate C110 Convertible
Tablet PC
Operation system: Microsoft[R]Windows XP Tablet PC Edition
Platform: Intel[R] Centrino[TM] mobile technology
Processor: Low Voltage Intel[R] Pentium[R] M processor at 800 MHz;
512KB L2 cache memory
Chipset: Intel[R] 855GM chipset with 400 MHz front-side bus
Wireless technology: Integrated, coexistent, Intel[R] PRO/Wireless
2100 network connection 802.11b
Memory: 256MB of DDR memory and a Flash BIOS can be upgraded to
2GB, 512KB; support shadow RAM
Screen: 512 Flash BIOS; support shadow RAM; The notebook screen can
be swiveled up to 180[degrees]
Storage: 30 GB of DASP (Disk Anti-Shock Protection) hard disc
storage
External drive: IEEE1394 DVD
Size/weight: 257 by 216 by 25.4 mm/ 1.45 Kg
Appendix G. Step-By-Step Reading Guide Used in Study Two
Story Title:-- Group:-- Name:-- Date:--
* Do and check.
( ) 1. Look at the picture and think about its meaning: who, what,
where, and when?
( ) 2. Read aloud the story. If there are some words that you
cannot read:
(1)Circle the words you do not know.
(2) Try to read them using phonics rules.
(3) Are they sight words?
(4) Ask your groupmates to help you.
( ) 3. Read aloud again.
( ) 4. Answer the questions by yourself.
( ) 5. Discuss the answers with your group members.
Self-assessment:
( ) 6. Read the story to two of your classmates. Peer assessment:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by a grant from the National Science
Council, Republic of China, under contract no. NSC
96-2520-S-003-012-MY3.
REFERENCES
Attewell, J., & Webster, T. (2004). Engaging and supporting
mobile learners. In Proceedings of MLEARNING 2004: Mobile learning
anytime everywhere (pp. 15-20). London, UK: Learning and Skills
Development Agency.
Barker, T. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1995). An evaluation of
computer-assisted instruction in phonological awareness with below
average readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(1),
89-103.
Carlson, S. (2002, October 11). Are personal digital assistants the
next must-have tool? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(7). Retrieved
November 30, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i07/07a03301.htm.
Chinnery, G. (2006). Emerging Technologies - Going to the MALL:
Mobile Assisted Language Learning. Language Learning & Technology,
10(1), 9-16. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/emerging/default.html.
Clay, M. M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy
achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Curtis, A. (1998). What