Janpha Thadphoothon
Generally,
language teachers are concerned with the use of the Internet to enhance language
learning. Many of its features and
functions have been utilized to foster collaborative learning. Many studies have
reported such a learning to be desirable. Obviously, the Internet provides ample
opportunities for learners to engage reality by using English with people from
other countries around the world. More importantly, several contemporary
concepts such as Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal
Development,
Krashen’s input hypothesis, Bandura’s social learning theory support the
notion of collaborative learning in many respects. Computer-mediated
collaborative learning has been found to have positive effects on language
learners. It has empowered them. Though there is some evidence supporting that
collaborative learning enhances critical thinking and problem-solving, little
research in ELT has been carried out to find the relationships between
computer-mediated collaborative learning and critical thinking in language
learning.
This
paper proposes an intellectual framework for computer-mediated collaborative
learning, based mainly on the notions of awareness, autonomy, and achievement
posited by Lian (1993). Central to its argument are two assertions.
Firstly, computer-mediated collaborative learning requires autonomy in learners.
Secondly, thinking critically in language learning can only occur in learners
after they
have become aware of the critical elements or “ things that matter” in
language learning. Hence, the more they are aware of such elements, the more
they think critically in language learning. This paper argues against
the idea of grouping learners so as to make them work together using a common
means toward a common goal. An alternative model of computer-mediated
collaborative learning is the model where learners have more control over their
own learning. Their needs will arise when they engage reality. The paper also
suggests positive roles that teachers should play in this framework.
Three main factors constitute this paper. First, theoretically and practically, the ideas of collaborative learning has gained popularity among ELT researchers. Its positive outcomes have been reported and documented. Secondly, in recent years there has been considerable emphasis on using the Internet to enhance language learning. Apparently, the Internet has features and functions e.g. text-based, anytime, anywhere, many-to-many, which can be applied to foster collaborative language learning. And such technology is progressing. In many contexts it has been designed to mediate collaborative language learning, and several results have been positive (Warschauer, 1997). Finally, though much research has been done on critical thinking as skills in general, little research has been done on critical thinking in language learning. As a result, this paper will try to determine the relationships between computer-mediated collaborative language learning and critical thinking in language learning.
However, while promoting the use of online technology, this paper admits that there are a great number of contexts and circumstances where critical thinking in language learning in learners can be fostered, which can be operated in such a fashion that the use of cutting-edge technologies are minimal. This paper recognizes that individual differences e.g. personality, attitudes, motivation, and so on, contribute to success in language learning in several aspects. Also, it realizes that there remain external factors to be accounted for. Despite, questions and scepticism that may arise, the framework proposed has something to share with the professional community. Essentially, what this paper wishes to accomplish is to offer the reader, for consideration, an intellectual framework in which critical thinking in language learning can be enhanced via the utilization of the Internet.
There are a few terms that need to be clarified. First this paper uses the terms collaborative learning and cooperative learning interchangeably. Second the term ‘computer’ is used to mean ‘computer with the Internet access.’ The idea of collaborative learning is not new in education (See Johnson, Johnson, and Smith p. 16). Basically, what is meant by knowledge has still been problematic. For convenience, it has been regarded as something the majority of people agree upon. Language, likewise, is a construct we has made. Computer is another tool men have created. Collaborative learning has welcomed the possibilities and potentialities computer is offering.
Slavin (1995) refers to collaborative learning as “ a variety of teaching methods in which students work in small groups to help one another learn academic content (p. 2). Johnson, Johnson, & Smith (1991) are of the opinion that cooperative learning is a new paradigm of college teaching. And they describe it as “ the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning (p. 14).” Jacobs (2001) regards collaborative learning as a ‘theme’ in education: “ Teachers who use cooperative learning have learning objectives that are academic, affective, and social. Students are encouraged not to think only of their own learning but of their group members as well. …. Teachers cooperate with one another and let their students know about this collaboration.” But why does collaborative learning welcome computer? It appears that they have benefited from one another. In fact, the history of the Internet is that it is meant to be a means of doing something together. In short, it allows learners to have access to more ' stimuli.'
Warschauer (1997) has analysed five features of computer-mediated communication that have potentials in enhancing collaborative language learning. Such features are that computer-mediated communication is:
1. text-based and computer-mediated;
2. many-to-many;
3. time and place independent;
4. long distance;
5. distributed via hypermedia links.
It has been found to increase students’ achievement, inter-group relations; acceptance of academically handicapped classmates, and self-esteem. The realization that cooperative learning is an excellent means to help students learn to think, to solve problems, and to integrate and apply knowledge and skills (Ibid.)
Literally, the word consists of 4 parts:
1. Computer: Here the term refers to computer with Internet access. According to Microsof Press Ò Computer Dictionary (1997), the Internet offers a range of services such as “ FTP, e-mail, the World Wide Web, Usenet news, Gopher, IRC, telnet, and others.”
2. Collaborative learning is a group of students learning together.
3. Mediate: The second connotation of Cobuild English Dictionary for Advanced Learners is quoted here as:
“ If something mediates a particular process or event, it allows that process or event to happen and influences the way in which it happens.”
4. Learning: “ The process of gaining knowledge through studying” (Cobuild English Dictionary for Advanced Learners).
In this paper computer-mediated collaborative learning is referred to as ‘a group of students learning together using computer with Internet access to enhance such learning.’ It presupposes that computer with Internet access per se, like a knife, is neutral by nature, and can be properly utilized to improve the quality and efficiency of language learning. Having defined that the paper shall next look at certain learning concepts supporting the concepts of computer-mediated collaborative learning.
Vygotsky’s ZPD has probably been the most popular concept in the literature when it comes to collaborative education. Vygotsky (1935) himself defined ZPD as ‘ the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (p. 86).’ He conducted his research by studying the acquisition of scientific concepts and the learning of language. Based on his socio-historical perspective, by nature, individual learners have potential ability to develop themselves. Essentially, what they need is help from a heterogeneous group --- the group that includes more-equal-less capable members. The task should allow them to do more than they can do alone in order to make it possible for them to develop further.
Albert
Bandura, a social psychologist, has proposed his theory of social learning since
the 1970s. Central to the theory is probably his stance on the issue of mental
states or thoughts which are believed to regulate actions. In his view,
behaviour, personal factors, and the environmental factors “ all operates as
interlocking determinants of each other (p. 9).” Human beings can learn by
observing the environment, which enables them to form ideas that can be
retrieved for later purposes. Bandura seems to argue against the
behaviourist’s stance on the issue of learning. “ A theory that denies that
thoughts can regulate actions”, attacks Bandura (1977, p. 10) “, does not
lend itself readily to the explanation of complex human behaviour”. And
‘language’ is one of such. In deed, this theory is a versatile one.
In the
context of ELT, the Internet offers learners countless models whereby learners
can observe. When they confront or are confronted by such models, they observe.
Their behaviour and perception are shaped through reinforcement, which, in this
regard, Bandura, like Chomsky, does not deny certain roles of Skinner’s
reinforcement. In observational
learning, “ reinforcement is considered a facilitative rather than a necessary
condition because factors other than response consequences can influence what
people attend to (Ibid, p. 37).” One of such factors is our anticipation that
acts as stimuli.
In
computer-mediated collaborative learning context, the Internet, like television,
is full of ‘symbolic models’, which can play important roles in shaping our
behaviour and perception. “ With increasing use of symbolic modelling”,
predicts Bandura, “ parents, teachers, and other traditional role models may
occupy less prominent roles in social learning (Ibid, p. 39).”
It is worth noting here that his prediction in the 70s has been proven
quite valid, as the age of global online communication has begun.
This is a more specific concept of language acquisition. Krashen (1981) tries to draw the line between ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition.’ What is consciously acquired is supposed to be learned. And what is learned unconsciously is supposed to be acquired. Apparently the distinction has raised more questions than it can answer. Krashen hypothesizes that in order to acquire, learners need to comprehend the input. There are two elements: what learners know and what they do not know (which need to be ‘a little beyond’ their current competence). To move forward, learners use both linguistic and non-linguistic competence. His hypothesis also emphasizes on meaning rather than structure. If communication is successful, in addition to learners understand the meaning, they will acquire the structure by default. Thus, grammar should not be taught explicitly.
Similar to Vygotsky’s ZPD, the input hypothesis recognizes the learners’ current ability. Unlike Krashen, Vygotsky’s current ability is still developing --- it is dynamic. Though both concepts aim at further development of learners’ current ability, Vygotsky ‘s idea offers more space in such development: the zone needs not to be ‘a little beyond’. In the context of Vygotsky’s ZPD, learners may perform the task far beyond their current ability, provided that they are assisted by more competent peer. Thus, the area the group can move forward is fairly broad.
Krashen and his associates (Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, 1982) recognize individual differences in language acquisition. To account for that, they have proposed another hypothesis called the ‘filter hypothesis’. Such a filter is somewhere in processing function of the brain, said to be comprised of psychological or attitudinal factors like motivation, needs, or emotion. Such filter, operated subconsciously, may enhance or obstruct learning. Krashen gives an example:
“ Those whose attitudes are not optimal for second language acquisition will tend not only to seek less input, but they will also have high or strong Affective Filter --- even if they understand the message, the input will not reach part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, or the language acquisition device (p. 31)”
He also realizes the significance of output. “ Output aids learning because it provides a domain for error correction (Ibid, p. 61).” Based on the norm of reciprocity, the input is the function of the output. Hence, the more learners produce linguistic output, the more input they will have. So, output has a high correlation with input. The situation of the deaf learning an oral language is more obvious. Because the deaf cannot get the same kind of feedback from their output as the hearing persons, they have great difficulties monitoring their own speech and feedback from others. As a result, they seldom become native speakers of an oral language (Cicourel and Boese, 1972).
In view of humanistic psychology, human beings’s inner nature is basically good or at worst neutral. Two proponents of the field, Carl, R. Rogers and Abraham H. Maslow, promote such a basic assumption. Maslow (1968) has put it that: “ The basic needs (for life, for safety and security, for belongingness and affection, for respect and self-respect, and for self actualisation), the basic human emotion and the basic human capacities are on their face either neutral, pre-moral or positively ‘good’ (p. 3)”
Educators, therefore, need to regard learners as a ‘person’. Rogers (1978), while promoting the idea of ‘person-centred education’, has criticised the politics of power play in traditional education. In the teacher-centred education, Rogers describes some of the typical scenes:
- The teacher is the possessor of knowledge, the student, the recipient. There is a great difference in status between instructor and student.
- The lecture, as the means of pouring knowledge into the recipient, and the examination as the measure of the extent to which he [sic] has received it, are the central elements of this education.
- The teacher is the professor of power, the student the one who obeys. The administrator is also the possessor of power, and both the teacher and the student are the one who obey. Control is always exercised downward.
- Authoritarian rule is the accepted policy in the classroom. New teachers are often advised, “ Make sure you get control of your students the very first day.”
(p. 69)
All the concepts above and elsewhere, reflecting the constructivist view of learning, strongly support the notion of collaborative learning on the Internet.
There are three basic questions as the preamble of this part: (1) How do we know? (2) How do we learn a language?, (3) How do we think? Bearing well in mind the three questions are massive philosophical ones, this paper wishes not to drag the questions out of the ether, but simply as the pretext to the heart of the matter. Such big questions are almost always necessary should one wish to make better sense of the things discussing here. One bothers to be sceptical is its reward as Ayer (1956) put it: ‘ … we are brought to distinguish the different levels at which our claims of knowledge stand. In this way we gain a clearer understanding of the dimensions of our language; and so of the world which it serves us to describe (p. 222).’
The question of how human beings know has been posited for thousands of years. Answers have been varied. In fact, if one thinks critically, one does not know how things are. Leahey (1997) mentions that Kant was of the view that man’s mind is “ like an immense map, with only a few places illuminated (p. 141).” More radically, in the words of Jung (1964): “ Man, as we realize if we reflect for a moment, never perceives anything fully or comprehends anything completely (p. 4).” Lian (2000), like Jung, opines that man’s communication can never be perfect: “ There is an illusion that we understand each other because through experience and observation of the attending practices, we are able to shortcut the whole process of questioning of ‘understanding’ on the basis of probability.” There are still secrets of the universe, it seems. Reminding us long ago, Socrates put it: “ One thing only I know: that is that I know nothing.” Reality and truth may not be found by our perceptions through language and reasons.
However basic, this is a big question reflecting Hume’s empirical bon mot: How do you know? Notwithstanding its metaphysical orientation, such a question can be a tool to raise our awareness and make some senses of the world. According to Charles Peirce (Cited in Kerlinger, 1969), there are four ways of knowing:
- The method of tenacity i.e. one knows something to be true because one holds firmly to it, because one has always known it to be true.
- The method of authority i.e. people in power have said so.
- The a priori method i.e. something is self-evident (logical), hence further explanation is unnecessary e.g. 2+2 = 4.
- The scientific method i.e. One needs to be objective, free from biases or our past.
(pp. 5-6)
A. J. Ayer (1956) has discussed that there are problems of knowing. ‘ The necessary and sufficient conditions for knowing that something is the case’, concluded Ayer, ‘ are first that what one is said to know be true, secondly that one be sure of it, and thirdly one should have the right to be sure (p. 35).’ How we know is related to how we learn a language. When one says, ‘I know English’, for instance, at the superficial level, one may mean that one has learned it somehow and can use it successfully. It is therefore logically sound to say that knowing a language i.e. English has resulted from learning: consciously or unconsciously, formally or informally.
Human beings are born with potentials and one of such is their potential to communicate through speech. Most people have succeeded in using their first language even before they are schooled. Some of them have become bilingual.
From an anthropological point of view echoed by Beals, Hoijer, and Beals (1977), language is considered a part of culture learned through enculturation --- “ the process whereby all normal human individuals learn how to talk, to act, and presumably to think in the ways characteristic of their cultures (p. 576).” Similarly, Vygotsky (1962) regarded language as a product of, in addition to naturally development processes, historical and cultural determinants.
Following John B. Watson’s radical behaviourism, B. F. Skinner proclaimed in Verbal Behaviour that one learns to speak through operant conditioning:
“ Men [sic] act upon the world, and change it, and are changed in turn by the consequences of their action. Certain processes, which the human organisms share with other species, alter behaviour so that it achieves a safer and more useful interchange with a particular environment. When appropriate behaviour, its consequences work through similar process to keep it in force. If by chance the environment changes, old forms of behaviour disappear, while new consequences build new forms.”
(p. 1)
His work, in addition to other forces such as recording equipment, somehow, has given birth to a new teaching method: the audio-lingual approach. By audio-lingual, Lado (1964) refers to as: “ Approach to language teaching that considers listening and speaking the first and central task in learning a language, and reading and writing as skills that follow speaking and listening (p. 214).” Clearly, the approach based on scientific information is an alternative to the grammar-translation method and the direct method. Based on the notion that knowing a language is being able to “ use its complex mechanism through bundles of habits” (Ibid, p. 41), the approach emphasizes patterns practicing through short dialogues in order to memorize and imitate.
However, Noam Chomsky (1987) thinks differently. “ To learn a language”, Chomsky argues, “ is to construct for oneself this abstract system [generative grammar], of course, unconsciously. … The linguist and psychologist can proceed to study the use and acquisition of a language only insofar as they have some grasp of the properties of the system that has been mastered by the person who knows the language (p. 140). Chomsky thinks that man possesses inborn language generating mechanism --- the Language Acquisition Device (LAD).. Thus, “ A person who knows a language has acquired a system of rules and principles --- a ‘generative grammar,’ in technical terms --- that associates sound and meaning in some specific fashion (p. 140).”
His successful attack on Skinner’s radical stance on verbal behaviour (see Chomsky’s review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour, 1959/1967) has given rise to cognitive scientists’ view of language learning, and Bandura is one of them. Similar to Chomsky, Bandura (1977) has rejected John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner’s claim that apart from genetic endowment and reinforcement govern all aspects of human behaviour. Obviously, Bandura disagrees with Skinner. He has proposed a new model which takes into account a human’s faculty of minds. “ If human behaviour could be fully explained in terms of antecedent and response consequences” reasons Bandura, “ there would be no need to postulate any regulatory mechanisms. However, most external influences affect behaviour through intermediary cognitive process (p. 160).”
Bandura’s social learning theory supports the information processing theory’s notion of mental representations. Central to the theory is the belief that mental states cause behaviour. His support of the innate grammatical pre-dispositions is obvious when he has put it that: “ It is abstract modelling, with its perceptual, cognitive, and reproductive component processes, rather than simple verbal mimicry, that is most germane to the development of generative grammar (p. 174).” Based on the social learning theory, to communicate symbolically, a child “ must acquire verbal symbols for objects and events and the syntactic rules for representing relationships among them (p. 176).”
It is worth noting here that Bandura, like Bourdieu, takes no sides in the debates between the nativists and the empiricists. Bandura has put it that: “ The dichotomy of behaviour as either learned or innate has a declining number of proponents as knowledge of behavioural processes increase (Ibid, p. 16).” Likewise, Bourdieu has noted: “There is clearly no reason to take sides in the debates between the nativists (overt or not), for whom the acquisition of the capacity to speak presupposes the existence of an innate disposition, and the empiricists, who emphasize the learning process. So long as not everything is inscribed in nature and the acquisition process is something more than a simple maturation, there exist linguistic differences capable of functioning as sings of social distinction (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 259).”
In short, so far as we have come to know about the business of language learning, Mccarthy (2001), has listed many points, and two of which are that: “ (1) All normal humans acquire a first language with little or no formal tuition and (2) Humans can, with varying degrees of proficiency, learn one another’s languages (p. 27)”. One shall recognize that English, as the main lingua franca of international communication, has been imprinted on our retinas, recorded in our eardrums, through media, including TV and the Internet. So learners of English are almost unable to avoid its intrusion. It is also the fact that students as learners also acquire English outside the class. In many cases, bilingual children acquire two languages simultaneously, prior to schooling.
When one uses the term ‘think’, one, whether one likes that or not, has assumed that thinking is mental states in human mind. Please bear this in mind right through the discussion that we rely heavily on the a priori method of knowing. Dewey viewed human beings’ ability to think as the ‘ distinguishing power that marks man off from the lower animals (p. 18).’ Likewise, Vygotsky (1962), after summing up several studies and ape language and intellect, maintained that: “ Anthropoids display an intellect somewhat like man’s in certain respect (the embryonic use of tools) and a language somewhat like man’s in totally different respects (the phonetic aspect of their speech, its release function, the beginning of a social function (p. 41).” Behaviourists like Watson or Skinner would surely ask, “ Exactly, where does thinking process occur?” In an organic called brain? For Skinner, thinking is nothing but behaving, and speech is verbal behaviour. If one holds that thinking occurs somehow in one’s brain as chemical or organic interaction, that’s another biological point of view, so, it seems, one cannot shy away from Skinner’s challenge. Whether thinking occurs in the brain or not, or otherwise, is obviously beyond this paper. This paper simply would like to point out the existence of such scepticism or doubts since Aristotle’s era.
Reflecting the cognitive psychologist’s view, Ericsson and Simon (1984) have written that thought process, similar to computerized information processes, can be described as “ a sequence of state, each state containing the end products of cognitive processes, such as information retrieved from long-term memory, information perceived and recognized, and information generated by inference (p. xiii).” Again, Skinner’s question from the back of the room has hit it hard: Where exactly do such the processes take place? The debate continues.
Vygotsky (1962) has looked into the genetics roots of thought and speech, and concluded that:
- In brief ontogenetic development, thought and speech have different root.
- In the speech development of the child, we can with certainty establish a pre-intellectual stage, and in his thought development, a pre-linguistic stage.
- Up to a certain point in time, the two follow different lines, independent of each other.
- At a certain point these lines meet, whereupon thought becomes verbal and speech rational.
(p. 44)
So it is safe to regard thinking and language as inseparable. The two entities need each other to function. There is thinking and there are better ways of thinking. In the formal educational context, critical thinking has been widely discussed. In his book, How We Think, John Dewey (1933) has written that there exists a better way of thinking. He called it “ reflective thinking” and proposed that it be the educational aim. According to Dewey, “ Active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends constitutes reflective thought (Ibid. p. 9).”
Similarly, Cohen (1971, cited by Jacobs, 2001) holds that men think critically when they use basic thinking processes to analyse arguments and generate insights into particular meanings and interpretations. However, some individuals may ask, “When one thinks, what is it that thinks?” It worth noting here that the more one can answer the complicated the thing seems.
The preamble shows how complex the ideas of critical thinking in language
learning can be. A popular view is that critical thinking is regarded ‘a
cognitive strategy’ that involves higher-levels of mental manipulation of
ideas, images, symbols, etc so as to check ansd test possible solutions for some
purposes. This line of thinking has brought about the teaching of strategies for
learning a language. However, such an approach is often too rigid and
mechanical. Quite often, the teaching leads to rote memorisation. The memorized
strategies have been enhanced, which is often out of reality. It is the teacher
who is an expert on learning, who knows how best to learn.
So far the paper has tapped on three important topics as a preamble. The next part is on the notion of critical thinking in language learning.
Thinking critically in a language learning can occur only after learners have become aware of the critical elements or “ things that matter” in communicating using language as one of human phenomena. Traditionally, such things that matter often include grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. Little attention has been paid to context and circumstances in which the language is used. However, in complex real -life situations, learners, to function properly, need more than just grammatical rules and memorized words or sentences. If learners have to communicate face to face, when spontaneity is a crucial matter, they often run into the problem of having insufficient time to refer to such rules (Lian, 1993). What learners should be able to do, rather than simply learning grammatical rules and memorizing words, is to engage reality. In reality, a broad range of phenomena and circumstances provides learners with massive opportunities to confront, contrast, and contest their existing perceptions with their current perceptions of the real world (Lian, 2000).
When learners are confronting/are confronted by the real world, they rely on their memory and innate ability of sensing. Lian (Ibid) calls such the ability the ability to mean through 'the meaning making mechanism.' David Hume, when discussing the origin of ideas, divided our perceptions of human mind into two species: thoughts or ideas and impressions. By employing the word 'impressions', he referred to " all our more lively perceptions when we hear, or see, or feel, or hate, or desire, or will (p. 18)." It seems our less lively perceptions have been called ideas or thoughts. In his words, " these faculties may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses; but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment (p. 17)." Hume implied that impressions are innate and thoughts are learned. Similarly, J. J. Rousseau, in his classic Emile, suggested that our ideas are acquired and our feelings are innate. While asserting we have feelings before we have ideas, he noted that: " In some respects ideas are feelings and feelings are ideas...when we are chiefly concerned with the object and only think of ourselves as it were by reflection, that is an idea; when, on the other hand, the impression received excites our chief attention and we only think in the second place of the object which caused it, it is a feeling (p. 253)." To make sense of the world, many thoughts or ideas are linked. Hume suggested that thoughts or ideas, if we scrutinize them, we will find that they have been derived from " a preceding feeling or sentiment (Ibid, p. 19)."
According to Lian (Ibid), what needs to be developed in learners is an ability that will enable them to contrast and contest their past and the stimuli. In a similar vein, to contrast, according to Hume (Ibid), also means to make a connection between ideas or objects. And to Hume, there are only three principles of connection among ideas: (1) Resemblance, (2) Contiguity in time or place and (3) Cause or Effect. He noted that: " Contrast is also a connexion among Ideas: but it may, perhaps, be considered as a mixture of Causation and Resemblance (p.24)." He added, " Where two objects are contrary, the one destroys the other; that is, the cause of its annihilation, and the idea of the annihilation of an object, implies the idea of its former existence (Ibid.)." We can contrast our linguistic output with feedback from conventions of the majority, based on our perceptions. For example, to exaggerate, we can contrast English characters or sounds with those of the Japanese or Bengali ones.
From another perspective, there are levels in awareness as J. Krishnamurti has pointed out. The basic level is of the superficial one i.e. English is a language human beings use to communicate with each other. And the Internet is a place where most people, regardless of their race and nationality, actually use English, for communication. And there is our ‘response’ to things e.g. the thing called English and the people who use it or are associated with it, etc. Our response is our thought, feeling, and emotion. According to Krishnamurti, when one becomes aware of this response, one is said to be at a higher level of awareness. Such awareness is personal. When there is a psychological response to English as a language, this response is a conditioned one, mainly by the society and our past. Based on one’s past experiences or memory, one may like or dislike English, certain people who use English, for instance. However, it seems most of the time we are unaware of our psychological responses. The moment we perceive something through our senses, we almost always attach our psychological attitude to it. To distance oneself from one's history is not an easy thing. To some degree, we all have developed stereotyped attitudes towards others who are different from us.
As adults, we have learned to classify and differentiate what matters from what does not. One shall not put one’s fingers in the electric light socket, for example. Young children, however, if we observe them carefully, seem to pay attention to almost everything, through every sense available to them. They use all the devices. They have to see, hear, feel, smell, and taste things, mainly in order to make sense of the world. Moreover, they are almost always curious to learn, and for them all things seem to matter. Upon discussing the values of thinking, Dewey (1933) opined on how young children and adults differ in their perception of the world: “ To a baby things are at first only patterns of colour and light, sources of sound; they acquire meaning only as they become signs of possible, but not yet present and actual, experiences (p. 20).” Now imagine this somewhat grotesque picture where each small child were being chained to his/her bed, limiting their space of moving around to see, feel, smell, taste, and hear things, and interactions with other human beings. It would not be too hard for us to imagine how fool such chained children could be when they grew up.
As
children grow up, they, along the way, have learned little by little from the
environment. Vygotsky (1962) has said “ The nature of the development itself
changes, from biological to sociohistorical (p.51).” In addition to the
evolution process, they have been determined by the historical-cultural factor.
For example, they have become aware that uttering arbitrary sounds and words are
unwise. Unlike Humpty Dumpty, we simply cannot use a word and choose it to
mean just what they want it to be meant. Conventions exist. We can hardly go
beyond the parameter of a word agreed upon by the society. Also, we need to
use the language appropriately. Unless one lives in the jungle, for example, one
ought not to say Ah---ee---ahhhhhh!
like Tarzan. If one did, sanctions by the society would follow. In many Asian
cities, many features of English have been adjusted to fit the locality. In the
Thai context, for example, most teachers can rely on their 'Thai accent' in
the classroom, where the Thai students have little difficulty following them. The
feedback in the context is that it does not matter much. Another example is the kind
of English currently used on the Internet. Some words have been shorten and
certain rules have been compromised. Abbreviations and images with emotion
flourish. The main reason is that those things do not matter in the context. Indeed,
we need to be aware that language is, according to Bourdieu (1991), a
socio-historical phenomenon.
Let’s look at some other things that matter. Come to think about it--- ‘time’ is perhaps the most important factor. On The Book of life, Krishnamurti gives an example of how important time means to learners: “ I am not, but I will be; I don’t know, but I will know; I don’t know this particular language, but I will learn give me time. (p. 12).” Time does matter in everything. It constrains us and everything. ‘Distance’ as in Physics is another thing that matters. If one has a chance to go to England and converse with the English regularly, one’s proficiency of English will improve. ‘People’ is another thing. And there are divisions i.e. ‘me’ and others. There is a variety of Englishes. There are divisions within native speakers of English. And there are divisions within non-native speakers of English. As English is a product of a living organism, it evolves. The Internet makes it possible for us to travel to other counties indirectly. Yet, these things are simply superficial awareness.
With proper interventions, learners can do things together for their mutual benefits. With the Internet’s features mentioned earlier, one can shorten the distance and play with the time to some extent. And one can ‘talk to people’ when one ‘does things at the market.’ By talking to people, this paper means something as simple as greeting, thanking, apologizing, etc as seen from email exchanges or chat-rooms, for instance. Also, it refers to situations when learners, upon carrying out their duties, are regulated by their own desires and the demands of the task to talk to one another. This situation can be seen in the real world. In the past, because of the limitations, most learners lacked opportunities to be immersed in the target language communities, which is one of the best ways to be proficient in such a language. Nowadays, however, virtual worlds have been created. And it has empowered learners. Rousseau said it well that: “ To acquired knowledge it is not enough to travel hastily through a country. Observation demands eyes, and the power of directing them towards the object we desire to know. There are plenty of people who learn no more from their travels than from their books, because they do not know how to think; because in reading their mind is at least under the guidance of the author, and in their travels they do not know how to see for themselves (p. 415).” Experience has taught that we can learn from indirect experience as well. Thus language learning can be viewed as a by-product of our awareness that can be raised by ‘doing’ something together.
The more learners are aware of things that matter and things that do not, the more they develop their ‘critical thinking in language learning.’
In the two previous parts the paper has discussed the notions of computer-mediated collaborative learning and critical thinking in language learning. This following part will look into their relationships. In particular, how does computer-mediated collaborative learning enhance critical thinking in language learning?
Many studies reveal there exists a relationship between thinking and collaborative learning. Jacobs (2001) has summarized 10 studies on cooperative learning and thinking. He concludes that most studies reviewed “ found cooperative learning to be more effective than other modes of instruction on higher level tasks. In studies where cooperative learning did not clearly improve quality thinking, it nonetheless led to gains in other areas, which are often associated with cooperation.” Such conflicting results revealed probably led him to believe that only certain cooperative techniques enhance higher-order thinking. Ironically, one of such is called ‘ cooperative controversy’ --- ‘different views foster cognitive development by causing disequilibrium’ --- introduced by Johnson and Johnson (1992, cited in Jacobs, 2001.) However, all studies reviewed did not directly address the issues concerning second language learning. And the roles of teachers were still somewhat traditional.
- to learn about learning, to learn better and
- to increase their awareness about language, and about self, and hence about learning;
- to develop, as a result, meta-communicative as well as communicative skills;
- to confront, and come to terms with, the conflicts between individual needs and group needs, both in social, procedural terms as well as linguistic, content terms;
- to recognize the decision-making tasks themselves as genuine communicative activities.
(p. 3)
Nunan obviously refers to the typical classroom context. Nevertheless, he recognizes that there are certain problems and difficulties involved in the collaborative efforts of learners, teachers, and curriculum specialists, suggesting that this enterprise is useful, but a complex one that entails unpredictable factors.
Warschauer & Lepeintre (1997) report the research by Barson and Debski (1996), Barson et al. (1993) and Vilmi (1995), which suggest that collaboration with other learners on the Internet with autonomous access to information “ facilitates a problem-solving approach to learning.” They also review the studies of DiMatteo (1990/1991) and Kroonenberg (1994/1995) which have found that the written mode of communication helps learners to think deeply.
Through proper intervention: creating context and circumstances in which they can distance themselves from their past, learning will be in the position of contrasting and contesting their own understanding with that of the world. However, unless they are empowered, their learning is limited.
On one hand, learning collaboratively does not mean having learners sitting around a table and do things and talk in English as they being told. Such thinking impedes many opportunities in raising their awareness. On the other hand, being autonomous does not mean being a loner all the time. Rather, it means being able to make one’s own decision based on one’s own preferences. Ultimately, what autonomy will lead us to is more integrity. My stance is that computer-mediated collaborative learning requires autonomy in learners, which can make their collaboration with others meaningful, particularly in their personal level.
One of the common factors other models of collaborative learning shared is perhaps their reliance on a considerably high level of ‘control.’ It is the teacher, as an expert, who controls most of the learning. One definition of cooperative learning is “ the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991, p. 14).” However, in reality it is the teacher who controls: “ Class members are split into small groups after receiving instruction from the teacher. They then work through the assignment until all group members have successfully understood and completed it (Ibid, p. 15).” According to Bruffee (1993), the teachers usually do these four things:
- They divide a large group --- the class --- into small groups.
- They provide a task, usually designed (and, preferably, tested) ahead of time, for the small group to work on.
- They reconvene the large group into plenary session to hear reports from the small groups and negotiate agreement among the group as a whole.
- They evaluate the quality of student work, first as a referee, then as judge.
(p. 28)
The above description is probably the most common practice representing one type of collaborative teaching --- group work. One can sense the power of the teacher who conducts the orchestra of learning, from the beginning until the end. Learners are restricted in making their own decision.
Pause and reflect for a moment. Primitive men stayed and did things in groups for survival, which is part of the evolution process. Groups are formed and reformed, and sometimes dispersed, which is a normal phenomenon. We do things together for various reasons. What brings them together is mainly work and play. At present, employees have freedom to quit and join other companies. Some travellers have to join the parade simply to get to somewhere. Group process is therefore dynamic by nature.
Holec (1979) defines an autonomous learner as someone who is “ capable of taking charge of his own learning…(p. 3).” Such a definition implies that learners have ‘freedom with responsibility’. This is important in the online world where independence and individualistic are enhanced. The main reason this paper argues against the idea of grouping learners so as to make them work together using a common means toward a common goal is that it ultimately leads to certain practice, which often, dispowers learners. It is, as mentioned earlier, the teacher who is in ‘control’ of almost everything.
For more mature learners, according to McConnell (1995), the following aspects are useful and important in designing online cooperative learning:
- Openness in educational process --- the learning community
- Self-managed learning
- A real purpose in the cooperative process
- A supportive learning environment
- Collaborative assessment of learning
- Assessment and evaluation of the ongoing learning process.
(p.
235)
The new direction proposed to be taken as an alternative approach is, on one hand, upon engaging reality, dictated principally, by the ‘task’. The task here refers to “ anything that arises in response to reality and in order to affect reality (Ania Lian’s lectures in Applied Linguistics, 2001).” Their needs will arise as they are carrying out the task. On the other hand, it is directed to learners as individuals who have their own world. Typically, collaborative learning models often emphasize ‘ grouping’ learners at the expense of their preferences and individuality. But the fact is that learners are individuals who carry with them their history and culture should not be overlooked. Their anxiety and motivation, and so on are most of the time beyond the teacher’s perception. Bourdieu (1991) talks about the concept of habitus that inclines an individual to perceive and act on the world in certain ways; whereas, Dulay and Burt (1977, cited by Krashen, 1982) hypothesise the concept of affective filter.
With the
possibilities and potentialities allowed by the Internet, the new environment,
collaborative learning and individuality have become essential. Learners need to
feel empowered and are actually empowered to be motivated.
New environments require new roles. The teacher should be a helper rather than an expert.
Lian and Mestre (1985) suggest that the desirable teacher-learner relationship be as follows:
- The teacher provides the learners with a learning model which does not demand that they conform to a specific pedagogic model in order to achieve success.
- The teacher should change his or her attitudes as he or she ought no longer to be the focus of attention. The teacher’s task would now become one of providing sympathetic assistance and support. Their first priority would be to assist learners to determine their needs (which are not necessarily those of more traditional models) as well as a realistic self-assessment of their abilities.
-
Learners,
on the other hand, should be encouraged to break away from their total reliance
on teachers and learn to focus their learning capacities upon themselves thus
taking a giant step toward autonomy.
The teacher can play roles by helping learners setting up goals that are manageable, yet challenging. Based on the notion of achievement, any objectives, to be valuable, according to Lian (1993), must be designed in ways that allow students to feel that they are making noticeable progress, step-by-step, and in fact are progressing.
An alternative model of computer-mediated collaborative learning is the model where learners have more control over their own learning; it requires more autonomy in learners. Obviously, the notion of critical thinking in language learning discussed may appear different from those generally understood and accepted. This paper, however, has the will to delve into the core of 'thinking' --- the place where the wheels touch the road and where everything operates. Learners’ can only think critically after they have become aware of things that matter on a personal level. The Internet can be viewed as the ‘global market’ where people ‘talk’ and ‘do things’, and most of the time they do things together. Upon engaging reality, facing the world, contrasting and contesting what they have perceived with those of the real world, learners will become aware of themselves, the language, and its context and circumstances. And the teacher, despite taking a back seat as a helper, along with other support systems, plays crucial roles in the intervention. This new roles with new responsibilities are another step towards the more professional integration.
The
paper simply points to another ‘road’ for consideration.
[1] John Wilson thinks teachers of English as a foreign language should be more empathetic. See the article in details at: http://www.geocities.com/janphajustincase/empathetic_listening.html
[2] Market’ is used here as an ordinary language, and is not to mean as Bourdieu’s notion of market. Rather it is similar to that of Luke’s ‘linguistic market.
[3] Connexion