Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
DIETHILD STARKMETH
TEACHING IN A
SYNCHRONOUS LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A Case Study of ESL Tutors and Their Students
Mémoire présenté
à la Faculté des études supérieures et postdoctorales de l’Université Laval
dans le cadre du programme de maîtrise en linguistique
pour l’obtention du grade de maître ès arts (M.A.)
DÉPARTEMENT DE LANGUES, LINGUISTIQUE ET TRADUCTION
FACULTÉ DES LETTRES
UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL
QUÉBEC
2012
© Diethild Starkmeth, 2012
ii
Résumé
Cette étude a exploré des séances de tutorat d’anglais, langue seconde, dans le contexte de la plateforme
Elluminate, un environnement numérique d'apprentissage en mode synchrone. Les participants de cette étude
étaient des étudiants inscrits à un programme de formation à l’enseignement de l’anglais, langue seconde, au
Québec et des élèves de première année secondaire au Mexique. L’étude porte sur trois questions de recherche :
(1) les types d’échafaudage mises en œuvre par les tuteurs, (2) les perceptions des tuteurs quant à ce type
d’enseignement, et (3) les perceptions des élèves quant aux expériences vécues en tant qu’apprenants. Les
données ont été cueillies notamment à partir d’enregistrements des séances en ligne et de questionnaires. Quatre
types d’échafaudage préalablement définis par Pawan (2008), soit de type linguistique, conceptuel, social et
culturel, ainsi qu’un cinquième de type technique, ont été relevés. Les participants ont généralement trouvé leurs
expériences vécues en ligne positives.
Abstract
The study explored ESL tutoring sessions in the context of the Elluminate platform, a synchronous language
management system (SLMS). The participants were ESL pre-service teachers from Québec who provided
tutoring to small groups of secondary 1 ESL students located in Mexico. The study focused on three research
questions: (1) the types of scaffolding provided by the tutors, (2) the tutors’ perceptions of teaching within this
environment, and (3) the learners` perception of their learning experience. Data collection included screen
capture of the online sessions and surveys. In addition to the four types of scaffolding previously identified by
Pawan (2008) – linguistic, conceptual, social and cultural, a fifth type, particular to the SLMS environment –
technical scaffolding, also emerged. Both tutors and ESL students were generally positive about their online
experiences.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“It always seems impossible until it’s done.” (Nelson Mandela, 1997)
A thesis seems to be an all-absorbing project that leaves the writer not only with knowledge, but with an
experience that transforms her way of looking at the world. In social science, a thesis is also a result of successful
teamwork. This thesis would not have been written neither without the sustained support of the people named below,
nor without the help of many others. To every one of them, whom I consider part of my team, I am grateful.
First and foremost, my thanks go to my thesis supervisor Dr. Susan Parks for her guidance and her expert
scaffolding. Her willingness to collaborate face-to-face and online kept the project on track and encouraged me to
continue this journey to the end. I would also like to thank Dr. Shahrzad Saif and Dr. Kirsten Hummel for reviewing the
project and for their helpful remarks.
I am especially grateful to Dr. Sabrina Priego, Joep van der Werff, Irene Violante, and Rosario Hernández. Without
their support, this project would not have been created and carried out. Moreover, I would to thank Dr. Julieta Fierro,
Sara Downs, and Olga García for their invaluable advice and their time to listen to me when I needed advice on topics
beyond academia.
My heartfelt thanks go to all participants of this study, in Quebec and in Mexico. Without their interest and their
willingness to participate in the activities of this project, this thesis would not have been written. In particular, I would like
to thank the professor in Quebec and the school principle in Mexico for their logistic support during data collection.
I would like to express my gratitude to my family in Quebec for their patience and understanding from the
beginning of this project and throughout the time this thesis occupied my life. In particular, I am grateful to Huguette
Vermette for telling me more than once that I was able to finish this thesis whenever I seemed to need to hear it. Without
their interest and support, I may have had to miss out on the pleasure of sharing the progress I made while working on
this project.
Last but not least I would like to thank my husband, Dr. Luc Binette, for his love, patience, unconditional support.
Without his encouragement, I would neither have started nor completed this project. I am especially thankful to him for
having shown me what we can do with computers, and for being my partner in my ongoing discovery of the World Wide
Web.
iv
Table of contents
CHAPTER 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.0. Problem statement .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) – a historical overview ................................ 1
1.2. Learning management systems (LMS) ..................................................................................... 5
1.3. Pertinence of the study ............................................................................................................. 6
1.4. Research questions ................................................................................................................... 7
1.5. Summary................................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2: Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 8
2.0. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 8
2.1. Sociocultural Theory ................................................................................................................ 8
2.2. The term “scaffolding” in child psychology ............................................................................ 9
2.2.1. The analysis of tutoring as a developmental method……………………………..…….10
2.2.2. Factors that promote internalization – the social process………………………..……..10
2.3. The term “scaffolding” in SLA .............................................................................................. 11
2.3.1. One-on-one instruction by tutors or teachers…………………….……………………..11
2.3.2. Peer interaction…..……………………………………………………………………..13
2.3.3. Whole class instruction…………………………………………………………………14
2.4. Tools within a Vygotskian perspective .................................................................................. 16
2.5. The choice of the theoretical framework for this study .......................................................... 17
2.6. Summary................................................................................................................................. 18
CHAPTER 3: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 19
3.0. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 19
3.1. Synchronous technologies involving studies of interaction with a teacher/tutor focus ......... 19
3.1.1. Chat……………………………………………………………………………………..19
3.1.2. Messaging systems………………………………………………………………………21
3.1.3. Synchronous Learning Management Systems (SLMS)…………………………………22
3.1.4. Other studies…………………………………………………………………………….25
3.2. Scaffolding within CMC environments involving a teacher/tutor focus................................ 26
3.2.1. Asynchronous environments……………………………………………………………26
v
3.2.2. Synchronous environments……………………………………………………………..26
3.3. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER 4: Methodology .......................................................................................................... 29
4.0. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 29
4.1. Research paradigm and design of this study .......................................................................... 30
4.2. Context of the study................................................................................................................ 30
4.3. Participants ............................................................................................................................. 31
4.3.1. The tutors……………………………………………………………………………….31
4.3.2. The ESL language learners……………………………………………………………..32
4.3.3. The researcher…………………………………………………………………………..33
4.4. Data collection instruments .................................................................................................... 33
4.4.1. Recordings and transcriptions of tutoring sessions ............................................................. 33
4.4.2. Surveys ................................................................................................................................ 34
4.4.3. Interviews ............................................................................................................................ 35
4.4.4. Discussion forum ................................................................................................................. 36
4.4.5. Tasks .................................................................................................................................... 36
4.5. Data collection procedures ..................................................................................................... 37
4.5.1. Tutoring sessions: Schedule and training ............................................................................ 37
4.5.2. Recordings and transcriptions of tutoring sessions……………………………………..38
4.5.3. Surveys………………………………………………………………………………….38
4.5.4. Interviews……………………………………………………………………………….38
4.5.5. Discussion forum……………………………………………………………………….39
4.6. Data analysis ........................................................................................................................... 39
4.6.1. Scaffolding in the online environment………………………………………………….40
4.6.2. Tutors’ perception of the online teaching environment…………………………………41
4.6.3. Learners’ perception of the tutoring sessions……………………………………………42
4.7. Ethical considerations ............................................................................................................. 42
4.8. Summary................................................................................................................................. 42
vi
CHAPTER 5: Results .................................................................................................................... 43
5.0. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 43
5.1. Research Question 1 .............................................................................................................. 43
5.2. Research Question 2 .............................................................................................................. 53
5.2.1. Tutor surveys……………………………………………………………………………53
5.2.2. Tutor interviews…………………………………………………………………………58
5.2.3. Discussion forum………………………………………………………………………..64
5.3. Research Question 3 .............................................................................................................. 67
5.3.1. Student surveys…………………………………………………………………………67
5.3.2. Student interviews………………………………………………………………………71
5.4. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 80
CHAPTER 6: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 81
6.0. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 81
6.1. Areas of discussion ................................................................................................................. 81
6.1.1. Scaffolding in a SLMS………………………………………………………………….81
6.1.2. Tutor perception of teaching in a SLMS………………………………………………..82
6.1.3. Corrective feedback…………………………………………………………………….83
6.1.4. Students’ perception of the tutor role…………………………………………………...84
6.1.5. Training…………………………………………………………………………………85
6.1.6. Technical problems……………………………………………………………………..85
6.2. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 86
CHAPTER 7: Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 87
7.0. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 87
7.1. Summary of results ................................................................................................................. 87
7.2. Limitations of the study .......................................................................................................... 88
7.3. Possible areas of further inquiry ............................................................................................. 89
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 90
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... 96
Appendix A: Background information sheet (tutors) .................................................................... 96
Appendix B:Teaching with Elluminate ......................................................................................... 98
vii
Appendix C : Learning ESL with Elluminate ............................................................................. 101
Appendix D : Formulaire de consentement à l’intention des tuteurs … ..................................... 103
Appendix E : Consent form Mexican learners (translated into Spanish) .................................... 106
Appendix F : Consent form for parents (translated into Spanish) ............................................... 108
Appendix G : Information letter to parents (translated into Spanish) ......................................... 111
Appendix H : Information letter to the school (translated into Spanish) .................................... 113
Appendix I : Lesson plan tutoring session 1 – Getting to know each other ................................ 114
Appendix J : Lesson plan tutoring session 2 – Time zones ......................................................... 118
Appendix K :Lesson plan tutoring session 3 – Winter in Quebec .............................................. 123
Appendix L :Lesson plan tutoring session 4 – Antarctica ........................................................... 127
Appendix M :Lesson plan tutoring session 5 – Friendship ......................................................... 130
Appendix N :Transcription conventions (Duff, 2008) –from Chapter Methodology ................. 132
viii
List of tables
Table 4.1. Research questions, data collection, and mode of analysis
Table 5.1. Scaffolding Categories and Examples from Data
Table 5.2. Number of scaffolding episodes observed
Table 5.3. Tutor survey - compiled answers to closed questions
Table 5.4. Tutor survey - compiled answers to open questions
Table 5.5. Tutor participation in discussion forum - quantitative analysis
Table 5.6. Student survey: responses to closed questions
Table 5.7. Student survey: compiled responses to open questions
ix
List of figures
Figure 4.1. Elluminate screen
Figure 4.2. Excerpt data transcription of a tutoring session
Figure 5.1. Teaching with Elluminate: positive and negative experiences
Figure 5.2. Comparing teaching on Elluminate with a face-to-face classroom
Figure 5.3. Giving feedback
Figure 5.4. Teaching techniques
Figure 5.5. Tutors’ perception of students’ benefits
Figure 5.6. Perceived problems and solutions
Figure 5.7. Tutors’ perception of online activities
Figure 5.8. Adapting online activities
Figure 5.9. Teaching with Elluminate
Figure 5.10. Technical aspects related to using Elluminate
Figure 5.11. The tutoring tasks
Figure 5.12. Comparing Elluminate to face-to-face classrooms - general remarks
Figure 5.13. Comparing Elluminate to face-to-face classrooms - online activities
Figure 5.14. Comparing Elluminate to face-to-face classrooms - classroom activities
Figure 5.15. How did the tutors help you during the activities?
Figure 5.16. What makes a good tutor?
Figure 5.17. Self-perceived ESL learning
Figure 5.18. Comparing sessions 5 and 1
Figure 5.19. Learning about Elluminate
Figure 5.20. Problems on Elluminate
Figure 5.21. Solutions to problems on Elluminate
Figure 5.22. Impact of problems on Elluminate
Figure 5.23. What students liked - didn't like
Figure 5.24. Favourite activities
Figure 5.25. Reasons for choosing the favourite activity
Figure 5.26. Peer-to-peer help – frequency
Figure 5.27. Peer-to-peer help – context
Figure 5.28. Peer-to-peer communication modes
1
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
1.0. Problem statement
Second language acquisition (SLA) that involves the use of information and communication technologies
(ICTs) has been an area of research for more than four decades. Most of the studies have focused on one of the
several types of computer mediated communication (CMC; e.g., chat, emails, and discussion forum). However,
ICT tools are evolving rapidly. New applications, referred to as learning management systems (LMS), integrate
tools for writing, speaking and viewing, and afford their simultaneous use. Up to now, very few studies have been
carried out with these new multimodal applications in the context of SLA. The purpose of this study is to
contribute to this area of research by analyzing ESL tutoring sessions that took place via the Elluminate platform,
one particular type of synchronous (real time) language management system (SLMS). The study involved pre-
service teachers from Quebec who provided tutoring to small groups of ESL learners located in Mexico. In this
chapter, to better situate the use of LMS platforms, I will first present a brief historical overview of computer
assisted language learning (CALL) involving second language learners. I will then focus more specifically on the
learning management systems tool. Finally, I will discuss the pertinence of the study I plan to undertake and
present the research questions that guided this project. In the second chapter I will present the theoretical
framework of this study. Following this in Chapter 3, I will review relevant research. In Chapter 4, I will explain
the methodology which will be used to carry out the study. In Chapter 5, I will present the results for each
research question. In Chapter 6, I will discuss the results in terms of previously published research. Finally, in
Chapter 7, I will summarize the findings, identify the limitations of this study, and recommend areas for further
research.
1.1. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) – a historical overview
Warschauer and Healey (1998) provide a historical overview of computer assisted language learning
(CALL), which foregrounds how the technical affordances of available tools and changes in approaches to
language teaching have both been implicated in terms of the way computer technology has been used to foster
second language learning. The authors divide the period between the 1960’s and today into three main stages:
behaviouristic CALL (1960s and 1970s), communicative CALL (1970s and 1980s), and integrative CALL (since
the 1990s).
During the behavioristic CALL period, the behaviourist approach to language teaching focused on having
students form new linguistic habits. In order to develop these habits, this approach required the learners to
2
complete a lot of repetitive activities, called drills. Within the behavioristic CALL period, computers were
primarily conceived of as mechanical tutors. An example of language teaching software of this period was
PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations). It was developed at the University of Illinois
and was originally intended to teach students to translate written Russian text into English. Students who worked
with language learning software programs like PLATO typically completed vocabulary and grammar drills,
received grammar explanations, and took translation tests (Ahmad, Corbett, Rogers, & Sussex, 1985, p.30).
During this period, interaction between the computer and the learner followed a rigid pattern: the
computer presented a question or a problem, the learner was required to answer by typing a response on the
keyboard, and the computer evaluated the response as true or false. This evaluation was impersonal and free of
emotional elements, since it was emitted by the machine. The large mainframe computer allowed students who
were sitting at workstations connected to the computer by a cable to see information on the screen and to enter
input by using the keyboard. Instruction was therefore limited to written language, and typically the software was
conceived for college or university students who were learners at a beginner level. It was considered an
advantage that the students could work at an individual pace. Although the teacher was not present when the
student worked with the computer, his role was considered important (Ahmad et al, 1985, p. 37) insofar as he was
expected to motivate, to correct, and to help the students.
During the communicative CALL period in the late 1970s language teachers began to reject the
behavioristic teaching approach. Instead, humanistic methods became popular. These methods engaged the whole
person, their emotions and feelings; the affective dimension of learning became widely accepted (Levy, 1997,
p. 21). The communicative approach to language teaching implied that the focus of language teaching shifted
from “form to function” and from “product to process”, with a corresponding shift in perceptions of students
from their being “learners - through teaching- to acquirers - through discovery” (Stevens, 1989, pp. 29-43). At
this time, learners’ needs regarding second language learning were increasingly influenced by growing
international commerce and tourism. Travelling to other countries, on business or on vacation, became common
place for a growing number of people who wanted to communicate with the people in their host countries. From a
technological perspective, in the early 1970s microcomputers appeared on the market. Although their memory
capacity was very limited compared to the mainframe computer, these relatively inexpensive machines triggered
a boom in CALL because it was henceforth very easy for learners to have access to a computer, at least in the
industrialized countries. The microcomputers had better graphics and more possibilities for animation, as well as
audio-output by means of a computer-controlled cassette recorder (Kenning & Kenning, 1983). Over time, as the
3
technical affordances increased, the software became more sophisticated. One such example was the software
developed by the Athena Language Learning Project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) which
combined the use of videodisc, cable, television, digital audio, graphics and CD-ROM (Levy, 1997, p. 27).
During the communicative period, teachers who wanted their students to work with microcomputers had
the choice between using prefabricated software and programming their own exercises. Teachers could use
authoring software such as WORDSWIN to create exercises involving multiple-choice (translation, synonyms,
antonyms, definitions), sentence completion (fill in the blanks), and sentence scramblers (Siegrist, 1988, p. 292).
The other option was to learn the computer language BASIC in order to create the structure and content of the
activities themselves. Students were able to guide themselves through the activities that avoided the use of their
native language. In addition to computer activities which involved self-instruction, certain pedagogical
approaches encouraged pairs or groups to work together on one computer (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). More
generally, as noted by Underwood (1984), there was “a growing interest in investigating the use of the interactive
computer as a language teaching aid and possible supplement or as a replacement for language lab hardware”
(p. 38).
From a technical perspective, electronic mail is mentioned as a new way of communication during this
developmental stage of CALL and was used by second language teachers who were encouraged to overtly correct
students’ mistakes, rather than to model the structures (Underwood, 1984, p. 66). Regarding this novel way of
communication, Hiltz (1984) was one of the first researchers to apply the term “computer-mediated
communication systems”, meaning the "use of a computer to create, store, process, and distribute
communications" between individuals and among groups of people.
The third stage, integrative CALL, began in the 1990s. By this time, microcomputers had evolved to
become desktop computers with a rapidly growing memory capacity. These personal computers could be
connected to each other in the form of Local Area Networks (LANs). The US Department of Defense had
invented the Internet, and the scientific community had begun to use this network to exchange emails and to
search for information. In 1992, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) had released the World
Wide Web (WWW), a hypertext-based system for finding and accessing Internet resources. It should be noted
that hypertext was not a new concept. Nelson (1965, p. 96) had coined this term to refer to “text displayed on a
computer or other electronic device with references (hyperlinks) to other text that the reader can immediately
access, usually by a mouse click or key-press sequence”.
4
Following the release of the Word Wide Web, the number of Internet pages grew at an exponential rate.
During the first years English was the dominant language used, but publications in other languages or translations
of the English websites were also published. More and more businesses and private households used the Internet
to look for information and to send emails. Since emails were much faster than traditional mail, and since this
application was offered to the general public free of charge or at a low price, this type of communication soon
became popular. Email is an asynchronous technology, because the sender and the receiver of the message do not
have to be connected to the Internet at the same time. As Internet technology advanced and connection speeds
became faster, chat applications were used in addition to email. Chat messages are written and instantaneously
delivered, but chatting requires the exchange partners to be connected to the Internet at the same time. Chat is
thus one example of synchronous computer-mediated communication.
During the first decade of the Internet’s existence, programming skills were needed to publish
information, a fact which at first limited the number of organizations and users who acted as publishers.
However, computer prices continued to drop, whereas the storage capacity soared even more dramatically. In
addition, Internet providers began to offer reliable Internet connection services in developing countries, which
contributed to the diversification of languages used on web pages.
At the end of the 1990s, the Internet underwent a significant transformation that allowed users without
programming skills to publish content (text, audio and video files, as well as pictures) created by themselves.
DiNucci (1999) coined the term “Web 2” for this new form of Internet that made every user a potential publisher.
DiNucci predicted that the hardware and software that we use to view Web content would multiply. It took only
about a decade to confirm this prediction as correct. New and often free Internet applications became available
that allowed people to publish their own information (texts, photographs, audio and video files) without having to
learn the then widely used programming language html. By 2007, blogging had been discovered by many Internet
users as a way to make their ideas known to people around the globe, and social networking applications such as
Facebook were becoming increasingly popular among young Internet users.
During the first decade of the 21st century, second language teachers were divided over the use of the
Internet in the classroom. Those who had never used the Internet did not see the necessity for using this
technology, whereas some of those who were Internet users began to ask how their students could benefit from
this technology. It is clear that the teacher’s role was affected by the use of Internet technology in the classroom.
Teachers sometimes found themselves in the role of learners rather than information providers regarding ICTs,
and sometimes their learners became ICT teachers. Moreover, Warschauer and Healey (1998) point out that
5
teachers were “no longer the sole source of L2 information” (p. 58), with an increasing number of Internet pages
available with information on second language grammar, online dictionaries and newspapers as well as other
authentic texts written in the second language readily available for the learners. Instead of a source of
information, they had become facilitators of learning who had to be able to respond to students’ needs instead of
merely preparing their classes. One example of how teachers facilitated learning is reflected in email projects
organized by second language teachers. For instance, the International Email Tandem Network (Brammerts &
Little, 1999) gives teachers and individuals the opportunity to form learning partnerships between people who
live in different countries. This project is based on the principles of reciprocity – mutual help of the learners --
and learner autonomy, meaning that every learner is responsible for his/her success.
A number of studies have reported on projects which linked learners with Internet applications (Belz &
Kinginger, 2003; Kötter, 2003; Liang, 2010; Priego, 2007; Ushioda, 2000) and tried to understand how the
learners contributed to each other’s language learning and what communication strategies the learners applied.
Another line of research attempted to understand the communication process in CMC peer collaboration and
issues that impact the L2 learning process in this context (Dippold, 2009; O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006; Schwienhorst,
2003). Whereas some findings affirmed that learners benefited from peer collaboration with Internet
technologies, other studies reported on issues such as technical problems and their effect on the learners’ benefit.
In addition, some researchers (Rossel-Aguilar, 2005; Blake, 2000) began to analyze task design in CMC and its
effect on the learning process.
It is evident that Internet technology continues to develop dynamically, and that new types of applications
continue to be created, some of which are potentially of interest for second language teaching and learning. In the
following paragraph, I will present one of these applications.
1.2. Learning management systems (LMS)
Learning management systems evolved out of the development of asynchronous CMC (email, discussion
forums, and web pages) and synchronous CMC (chat, audio and video) tools. In these systems, several of these
technologies were integrated into one and the same online computer application. Asynchronous LMS platforms
such as Moodle and WebCT integrate several asynchronous CMC tools. However, synchronous LMS platforms
such as Lyceum and Elluminate integrate several synchronous CMC tools. In an exploratory study, Sancerni
Beitia and Villar Hernández (2008) evaluated the Elluminate Synchronous Learning Management System
(SLMS). They remark that Elluminate can be characterized by the potential to expand the limits of the traditional
6
classroom. The platform allows people from different geographical locations to hold real-time meetings and to
orally communicate. The researchers also remark that this SLMS promotes active learning due both to the ability
to interact orally and the provision of various tools, discussed below, which foster interaction.
To interact in the Elluminate virtual classroom, the teacher and the students can use three areas: the
participants’ window, the chat window, and the whiteboard. In the participants’ window, the students interact
with the teacher by raising their hand or by clicking on icons to express their opinion or to answer the teacher’s
questions. The teacher can control students’ access to the functionalities such as using chat and the whiteboard in
this area. She can also publish the group’s responses to questions by using a polling tool. The chat window allows
public and private chat as well as announcements to all participants. Teachers are able to see the students’ private
chat if they wish. The whiteboard is equipped with tools for writing, drawing, and posting images. Multiple files
can be created and stored in this area before the session to be used during class. It is also possible to convert
PowerPoint presentations and to show them in this area. Students can be given access to the whiteboard tools, all
at the same time or one by one. A special tool allows the teacher to see which student made which contribution to
this area. In addition to these three areas, other available tools include audio and video tools, a tool for guided
tours to selected websites, a note-taking tool, a tool for applying and evaluating online quizzes, a feature to create
breakout rooms for group work, and a desk-top sharing feature. Moreover, a screen-caption feature allows for
recording and playback of all interaction between the participants of an online meeting in this environment. So
far, very little research has been carried out that analyzes SLMSs such as Elluminate. I will present an overview
of these studies in Chapter 3.
This study focuses on tutoring in the Elluminate platform. To date, very few studies have been carried out
that describe the interaction of ESL tutors and learners in SLMSs. This research gap has been noticed by some
researchers. White (2006), for example, remarks that “a crucial avenue for research concerns how students work
within online learning environments, both individual and collaborative.” and further points out that “the challenge
for research is to provide an understanding of ... different learning environments, and the affordances of those
environments from learners’ perspectives” (p. 259).
1.3. Pertinence of the study
To date, most studies of second language learning carried out in the context of CMC environments have
focused on analyses involving one mode of communication, either asynchronous (e.g., email) or synchronous
(e.g., chat). Few studies have involved SLMS learning platforms, which as discussed above integrate several
7
types of ICT tools. Also of note is the fact that the majority of these studies focus on interaction amongst peers.
As Egbert, Huff, McNeill, Preuss, and Sellen (2009) point out, within these latter studies, the role of the
classroom teacher or tutor and their perspectives are rarely discussed. Regarding the participants of the studies,
the vast majority were university students and adults. As noted by Liu, Moore, Graham and Lee (2010), very little
research has been done with K-12 students.
1.4. Research questions
The purpose of this study was to contribute to CMC research by exploring, from a sociocultural
perspective, the interaction between tutors and small groups of learners in Elluminate, a Synchronous Learning
Management System (SLMS). More specifically, the tutors were pre-service ESL teachers enrolled in a teacher
education program in the province of Quebec; the learners were secondary 1 (Grade 7) high school students
located in Mexico City. The study was guided by the following three research questions:
Q1) What types of scaffolding are provided by ESL tutors during interaction with students in an SLMS
platform?
Q2) How do ESL tutors perceive their experience teaching a second language in an SLMS platform?
Q3) How do ESL learners perceive learning English in an SLMS platform?
1.5. Summary
In this chapter, I have presented an overview of the research on CMC. I have explained how this study is
situated in the field of research, and I have presented the three research questions. In the next chapter, I will
discuss how scaffolding will be used as a theoretical framework for this study.
8
CHAPTER 2: Theoretical Framework
2.0. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present the theoretical framework used in the present study. In qualitative
research, a theory is an instrument that permits the distinction of specific phenomena in a situation. Peirce (1995)
takes the position that theory informs the questions researchers ask, the assumptions we make, and the
procedures, methods, and approaches we use to carry out research projects. In turn, the questions asked will
influence what kind of data are collected, how they are collected, and what conclusions we are able to draw on
the basis of data analyses. We can thus compare theory with an astronomical observatory, a place from where we
look at some phenomenon of the universe we are interested in. The research question can be compared to the
instruments installed in the observatory. It is evident that the location and the instruments allow for the collection
of a specific and limited range of data contained in complex situations. Thus, the choice of a theory for a specific
research project resembles the selection and calibration of observational instruments. The metaphor of
astronomical observatory seems appropriate, since neither astrophysics nor applied linguistics is experimental
science. One cannot set up galaxies a certain way to see how they behave and neither can we design learners to
act a certain way.
In this chapter, I will first present Sociocultural Theory (SCT) and its core ideas. Then, I will report on
how the term “scaffolding” is understood in child psychology and in second language acquisition. Next I will
define the construct “tools” within a Vygotskian perspective, and following this, I will justify the choice of the
theoretical framework for this study.
2.1. Sociocultural Theory
Lev Semenovich Vygotsky created Sociocultural Theory in the context of Soviet science between 1924
and 1934. As Wertsch (1985, p. 14) points out, there are three themes that form the core of this framework: (a) a
reliance on genetic or developmental method, where the term “genetic” is used in connection with developmental
processes such as geneses; (b) the claim that higher mental processes in the individual have their origin in social
processes; and (c) the claim that mental processes can be understood only if we understand the tools and signs
that mediate them, and where tools can be physical (technical) or psychological. Vygotsky defined the general
genetic law of cultural development of a child as a process with two stages. First, a function to be learned appears
between people as an interpsychological category, and then within the child as an intrapsychological category.
9
(Vygotsky, 1981, p.163, cited in Wertsch, 1985, p.60). The transition from the interpsychological to the
intrapsychological category is called internalization.
Vygotsky applied his theory to ontogenesis and microgenetic processes. He observed how young children
learned from adults in informal settings. Regarding instruction as a microgenetic process, Vygotsky (1934, cited
in Wertsch, 1985, p. 71) thought that “it is good only when it proceeds ahead of development. Then it awakens
and rouses to life an entire set of functions which are in the state of maturing, which lie in the zone of proximal
development.” The construct Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), defined as the distance between a child’s
“actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the higher level of potential
development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable
peers” allowed Vygotsky to examine the functions that have not yet matured but are in maturation (Vygotsky,
1978, p. 86). It may be the interest in the efficiency of this guidance that has caused sustained interest in
Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory among teachers until today.
Wertsch (1985) observes that Vygotsky saw social interaction as providing the motivating force for the
transition from the level of thinking in complexes and pseudoconcepts to thinking in concepts. He quotes
Vygotsky: "We have seen that the speech of adults surrounding children, with its constant, determinant meaning,
determines the paths of the development of children's generalizations, the circle of formations of complexes.
Children do not select the meaning of a word. It is given to them in the process of verbal social interaction with
adults. Children do not construct their own complexes freely. They find them already constructed in the process
of understanding others' speech. They do not freely select various concrete elements and include them in one or
another complex. They receive a group of concrete objects in an already prepared form of generalization provided
by a word ... In general, children do not create their own speech; they master the existing speech of surrounding
adults." (1934, p. 133, cited in Wertsch, 1985, p. 107). Hence, Vygotsky identifies speech as a tool for social
interaction and describes a process that Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) named “scaffolding”.
2.2. The term “scaffolding” in child psychology
In this section, I will present the study in which the term “scaffolding” was first used. I will then present
several studies from the field of child psychology that used the notion of scaffolding to explain the learning
process.
10
2.2.1. The analysis of tutoring as a developmental method
Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) examined the interaction of adults and young children who were learning
to carry out a small task with building blocks. In the context of this study, the term “scaffolding” was applied for
the first time. For the researchers, scaffolding consists essentially of the adult "controlling" those elements of the
task that are initially beyond the learner's capacity, thus permitting her to concentrate upon and complete only
those elements that are within her range of competence. The researchers pointed out that comprehension of the
solution must precede production, which is an indirect reference to the ZPD. The findings of this study led the
researchers to define scaffolding as a process with six functions: 1. Recruitment; 2. Reduction in degrees of
freedom, which involves simplifying the task; 3. Direction maintenance; 4. Marking critical features, marking
discrepancies; 5. Frustration control, reducing stress; and 6. Demonstration - demonstrating or "modelling"
solutions to a task. These categories do not describe a linear sequence. During the tutoring session, the tutor will
use these functions according to the needs of the tutee. Bruner (1986, p.76) remarks that Wood continued this
research and was able to show that tutoring (the effective use of scaffolding) is a skill that can be learned.
2.2.2. Factors that promote internalization – the social process
If tutoring facilitates learning, the question to ask is “What factors have an impact on the transition from
the interpsychological to the intraspsychological category in a learner?” In order to understand this, we must
acknowledge that the adult and the child in the experimental study of Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) each began
the task with a different understanding, and that they arrived at a shared understanding as they proceeded with the
task. This “temporarily shared social reality”, as Thorne (2000) describes it, is called intersubjectivity in
Sociocultural Theory. Wertsch (1985, p.162) distinguished four levels of intersubjectivity. On the first level, the
child's situation definition is so different from the adult's that communication is very difficult. On the second
level, the child at least seems to share the adult's basic understanding of objects in the setting. However, the child
does not yet understand the nature of the goal-directed action in which these objects are embedded. On the third
level, he can respond appropriately to other-regulation by making the inferences needed to interpret the adult's
directives even when they are non-explicit and rely on an adult-like situation definition. Intrapsychological
functioning is beginning to account for much of the child's performance. On the fourth level, the child takes over
complete responsibility for carrying out the goal-directed task. At this point there is almost complete
intersubjectivity between adult and child on the situation definition, a fact that makes further other-regulation
unnecessary. Other researchers also identified these levels and named the progress of the learner from level one
to four “fading” of the scaffold (Collins, Brown, and Newman 1989, cited in Pea, 2004).
11
Wertsch (1985, p.166) identifies five factors that encourage the transition from inter- to intrapsychological
functions: 1. a cognitive readiness on the part of the child; 2. a willingness on the part of the adult to transfer
strategic responsibility to the child; 3. the adult’s use of "reflective assessments" to inform the child of the
significance of his or her behaviours; 4. the explicitness of the adult's directives; and 5. the possibility for the
dialogic structure of interpsychological functioning to be mastered on the intrapsychological plane through the
differentiation of language functions.
2.3. The term “scaffolding” in SLA
In this section, I will present several SLA studies that used SCT as a theoretical framework. I will
illustrate how the term “scaffolding” was defined in the following contexts: one-on-one instruction by tutors or
teachers, peer interactions, and whole class instruction.
2.3.1. One-on-one instruction by tutors or teachers In their article, Aljafreh and Lantolf (1994) reported on data obtained in the context of a broader study
that focused on other-regulation between tutors and adult ESL university students. They investigated a way to
link learning outcomes with specific feedback procedures involving error correction during one-on-one tutoring
sessions. Negative feedback was given during oral interaction between a tutee and a tutor, who collaboratively
corrected preselected error types in texts written by the tutee. The tutoring sessions were audiotaped and
transcribed. Aljafreh and Lantolf identified five levels of regulation, the first three of which represent other-
regulation, and the remaining two levels of self-regulation. At the first and most basic level of regulation, the
learner is not able to notice or correct the error on his/her own; at the second level, the learner can notice the
error, but cannot correct it, and at the third level, the learner can notice and correct the error, but only when
provided with other-regulation. Levels four and five show the learner begins with partial self-regulation. At level
four, the learner notices and corrects an error with minimal or no obvious feedback from the tutor and begins to
assume full responsibility for error correction. However, the learner continues to still often produce the target
form incorrectly. At level five, the learner becomes more consistent in using the target structure correctly in all
contexts. The researchers identified the following three characteristics of scaffolding, which they refer to as
“effective help in the ZPD”. First, interventions should be graduated. The tutor has to estimate the minimum level
of guidance, which should start with implicit help and progressively become more specific. Second, help should
be contingent, which means it should be offered only when it is needed, and withdrawn as soon as the novice
12
shows signs of self-control and the ability to function independently. Third, collaborative interaction is needed
that includes continuous assessment of the novice`s abilities and the tailoring of help to those conditions.
In a follow-up study to Aljafreh and Lantolf (1994) that analyzed the same data, Lantolf and Aljafreh
(1995) reported on a set of findings which demonstrate that development from interpsychological to
intrapsychological functions is not uniform and linear, but dynamic and irregular. They state that Vygotsky
recognized that since development is dynamic and heterochronic, what he referred to as "regressive phenomena"
form a legitimate component of any theoretical framework that attempts to account for human mental growth.
Their findings show that regression is not only manifested in the linguistic performance of L2 learners, but
crucially shows up in the kinds of regulation negotiated between learner and tutor.
Lee (2008) also drew on Aljafreh and Lantolf (1994) and analysed dyads of experts, advanced non-native
speakers of Spanish, and novices, beginners of Spanish, who interacted in chat rooms. The participants were
university students who collaborated on three types of tasks: information gap, spot the difference, and opinion
exchange. Data were obtained from chat scripts and reflective logs provided by the novice learners. This
researcher agrees with Aljafreh and Lantolf (1994) insofar as scaffolding should start with general help and then
gradually offer more specific assistance as needed. For example, in some instances, the novice’s L1 was used to
explain complex grammatical structures. Aljafreh’s and Lantolf’s (1994) model of five transitional levels in
microgenetic analysis was used to observe scaffolding. In the author’s opinion, successful scaffolding relies on
collaborative efforts on the part of both parties. Absence of intersubjectivity impeded successful scaffolding. The
results of this study show that during the scaffolding process the nature of the task may affect the amount of
feedback, negotiation on grammar, and lexical errors. Another finding of this study was that, over the course of
several sessions, the learners moved from other- to self-regulation regarding some grammatical structures.
Matthey (2003) analysed oral interaction between teachers and young learners of a second language in an
experimental study that involved a one-on-one story-telling task. She points out that the relationship in
scaffolding is asymmetric and represents a form of collaboration where the participants share the tasks at hand
according to their respective proficiencies. Matthey (2003, p. 62) drew on Dowley McNamee’s (1987) work
involving first language acquisition and defined four types of scaffolding during oral interaction in a second
language: 1. repetition; 2. asking a question to move the story-telling forward; 3. asking the question “why?”; and
4. suggesting a way to formulate the next idea. Her findings (p. 72) show that scaffolding differs according to the
task. Drawing on Py (1990) and Bartning (1992), Matthey used the notion “potential acquisitional sequences
(PAS)” to analyze the learner’s active participation in the oral interaction. Py (1990, p. 83) defines PAS as
13
“sequences that show two complementary movements: the movement of self-structuring, where the learner
himself continues the narration for two or more statements, each of which constitutes a step in the formulating of
the message; and an other-structured movement, where the native speaker intervenes in the development of the
first movement in order to make it longer or to reorient it towards a linguistic norm considered acceptable by
native speakers”.
2.3.2. Peer interaction
In a study on collective scaffolding, Donato (1994) drew on data from a previous study (Donato, 1988)
that involved the collaboration of three university students, native speakers of English and intermediate learners
of French, whose one-hour interaction was audio-taped and transcribed. The purpose of the interaction was to
plan an oral activity that would take place in the following class. In his earlier 1988 study, Donato had argued
that the message model of communication (sender message – receiver message) “masks fundamentally important
mechanisms of L2 development and reduces the social setting to an opportunity for ‘input crunching’" (Donato,
1994, p. 34) and considered Vygotskian theory as a more suitable theoretical framework for the analysis of
interaction in small groups. Drawing on Wood, Bruner, and Ross’ (1976) work involving adult-child interaction,
Donato (1994) expanded the notion of scaffolding to include peer-to-peer interaction in small groups during
problem-solving tasks. In his study, Donato demonstrated how peers co-constructed knowledge, which resulted in
linguistic change among and within individuals during joint activity. This study showed that “learners are capable
of providing guided support to their peers during collaborative L2 interactions in ways analogous to expert
scaffolding documented in the developmental psychological literature” (p. 51).
Ohta’s (2001) longitudinal study of seven adult learners of Japanese found that peers, working together on
a variety of tasks such as role play, interviews, and picture description, not only built upon each other’s
grammatical and lexical knowledge, but were also able to perform beyond the level that each learner was able to
attain individually. Data were obtained from class recordings and transcriptions. This author used the notion of
the ZPD in the context of SLA and observed the following methods of scaffolding during peer interaction:
waiting, prompting and co-construction, explaining, and assistance when a peer makes a linguistic error (next
turn repair initiators). Ohta also observed that overhearing teacher-student interactions could serve as form of
scaffolding and contribute to learner performance. As well, Ohta maintains that “assistance is not only provided
by teacher or peers, but by instructional materials acting as supportive structures that learners may turn to for
assistance” (p. 74).
14
Villamil and De Guerrero (1996) also investigated scaffolding in relation to peer revision of written texts.
Their participants were 54 college students, native-speakers of Spanish and ESL learners who worked in dyads to
revise the text one of them had written. Data were obtained from the draft and the revised version of the text, a
revision sheet with the participants’ notes, and transcripts of the tape recorded sessions. These authors defined
scaffolding as a strategy to assist each other and developed a taxonomy of fourteen scaffolding strategies:
requesting advice, advising, responding to advice, eliciting, responding to elicitation, reacting, requesting
clarification, clarifying, restating, announcing, justifying, instructing, giving directives, and making phatic
comments.
2.3.3. Whole class instruction
Antón (1999) drew on the scaffolding functions proposed by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) and
identified them in an SLA context. She narrowed her study of classroom interaction between an L2 teacher and a
group of first-year university students to the analysis of prolepsis, which, according to Stone (1993, p. 174) is "a
special type of conversational implicature in which the necessary context is specified after the utterance rather
than before it". The observed classes were taught according to a pedagogical approach identified as “learner-
centered”. Data were obtained from class recordings and observations. The researcher identified the first four of
the six scaffolding categories mentioned by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976). These were as follows:
Function 1 - recruitment: The teacher involved the whole class in the resolution of the problem
presented by one of the students.
Function 2 - reduction in degrees of freedom: The teacher simplified the task by giving meta-cognitive
support and breaking the task into smaller steps.
Function 3 - direction maintenance: The teacher asked questions that encouraged self- and other-
evaluation of the response, and gave commands to show her intention to engage learners in the solution
of the problem.
Function 4 - marking critical features: The teacher encouraged a student to self-correct by simply using
nonverbal cues (the raising of an eyebrow).
In an exploratory study, Kinginger (2002) interpreted the zone of proximal development (ZPD) for
foreign language teaching in the US. In this researcher’s view, “the ZPD construct underscores Vygotsky’s claim
that learning takes place not on the basis of fully established functions, but instead through assisted use of
15
functions whose structure is inferred and not yet completely integrated as a series of cognitive tools” (p. 249).
She presented scaffolding as a possible interpretation of the ZPD. Drawing on the results obtained by Antón
(1999), she interpreted the teacher-student interaction according to the pattern “initiation – response -
evaluation/initiation – response”, where evaluation is distinct from feedback. She stressed the point that
scaffolding implies the eventual handover of the interactional control to a student in a move toward dialogic
teaching. This characteristic was not observed by Antón (1999).
In another exploratory study, Ohta (2005) defined scaffolding as an “instructional design (that) allowed
the teacher to assess the current level of functioning of students and provide support for students to move to a
higher level of functioning” (p. 510). The study drew upon three studies situated in whole-classroom settings:
Takahashi (2001), Samuda (2001), and Yoshimi (2001). Building on Samuda’s (2001) study, the researcher
defined four phases of instruction and types of teacher intervention: Pre-focus (group work prior to receiving
guidance on use of a new grammar structure), implicit focus (teacher intervention in groups, but only on
meaning, so as to expose learners to a new structure), explicit focus (teacher rephrasing of students’ utterances
using the target structure, writing targets on the board, providing direct instruction and giving corrective
feedback), and post-focus (teacher standby role as students resume group work). For Ohta (2005), the scaffolding
process in class has the purpose to facilitate students’ use of the target structure outside the classroom. For adult
learners who are exposed to or who have access to the target language outside the classroom, she distinguishes
two domains of scaffolding: other-management inside the classroom and self-management outside the classroom.
Whereas in other-management the helper generates scaffolding, in self-management the learner herself chooses
modality and level of help, either from another person or from books or Internet sources.
Pawan (2008) analyzed the scaffolding strategies reported on by 33 in-service content area teachers in the
context of a discussion forum. In addition, the teachers filled out two written surveys. With regard to this study,
scaffolding was defined as “an approach that provides teachers an effective means to integrate English language
instruction into content-area instruction and to enable English language learners to demonstrate their knowledge
without complete reliance on language” (p. 1450). The author identified four scaffolding strategies the teachers
used to help ESL learners learn: linguistic, conceptual, social, and cultural. Linguistic scaffolding in the context
of Pawan’s study meant that the teacher simplified the English language to facilitate comprehension and
expression. For example, teachers would speak more slowly or engage students in dialogue instead of delivering
a lecture. Conceptual scaffolding meant that the teacher provided students with supportive frameworks for
meaning, such as organizational charts or metaphors to facilitate comprehension. By pre-teaching difficult
16
concepts, by structuring the lesson in clearly outlined steps, and by showing their learners examples of the
concepts in contexts learners could relate to, teachers facilitated their learning process. Social scaffolding referred
to the use of social interaction to support and mediate learning. For example, the teachers would set up activities
as group work and pair English language learners with native speakers. The native speakers would collaborate
with their non-native peers and help them with difficult aspects of the task. Another example of social scaffolding
was teacher one-to-one assistance. During this type of interaction, the teacher could also focus on affective
aspects of learning and offer encouragement to individual learners. Cultural scaffolding consisted of using
artifacts, tools and informational sources that were culturally and historically situated within a domain familiar to
the learners. The teachers would use artifacts and information in class that the learners had already been exposed
to at home or in other contexts outside of school. This could include providing the learners with explanations in
the students’ first language or making links with references familiar to students in their first language). Pawan
concludes that cultural competency should include teachers’ dialogic engagement and relationship building with
students. As the analysis was based solely on reported data, Pawan points out that the findings in this study would
have benefited from classroom teacher observations.
2.4. Tools within a Vygotskian perspective
Vygotsky’s perspective of psychology followed the humanistic tradition that emphasized the description
and understanding of mental activity (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Within a Vygotskian perspective, the term
“tools” refers to mediational means which can be both material and psychological. Material tools can be simple in
design, such as a hammer, and they can be complex, such as a computer. For the purpose of this study, computer
software, which is a code that can be executed by a computer, as well as their interface on the computer screen,
will be regarded as complex material tools. From the user’s perspective, the computer keyboard is part of the
computer tool that permits him to mediate communication in two ways, with the software itself and with other
users. An example of an interaction with the software is the log in procedure, whereas interaction with other users
is possible by using certain affordances of the software such as the chat or the audio tool. Examples of
psychological tools, also referred to by Lantolf and Thorne (2006) as higher-level cultural tools, are literacy,
numeracy, categorization, rationality, and language. For Vygotsky, language is used as a psychological tool in the
process of internalization. Wertsch (1985, p. 80) explains that psychological tools are social in the sense that they
are the products of sociocultural evolution. They are neither invented by each individual nor discovered in the
individual`s independent interaction with nature. In the SLA context, the second language can be the tool of
17
interaction, which is the case when the second language is used by the teacher and the learner in the classroom.
However, developing an independent use of the second language is also the intended outcome of instruction.
Pea (2004) expands the idea of the dual aspect of the term “tools” and suggests that there are primary axes
that pertain to the processes of learning. One axis is social and mostly concerned with the interactive
responsiveness that is contingent on the needs of the learner and the provision of resources that enable the learner
to do more than he would alone. The other axis is technological and concerns designed artifacts. Pea goes on to
say that “in online learning environments that are mediated by computer technologies and computer-based
versions of symbolizing technologies for representing linguistic, mathematical, scientific, and other concepts and
relationships - but nonetheless incorporating between people support components … the ways in which
scaffolding is made possible are extraordinarily diverse” (p. 430). In this regard, it is important to keep in mind
that, although technological tools such as software programs and platforms such as Elluminate offer certain
affordances, the degree to which tools like these might contribute to learning is also influenced by teachers’
conceptualization of teaching and how they might involve them in their teaching (Parks, Huot, Hamers, &
Lemonnier, 2003; Warschauer & Healy, 1998).
2.5. The choice of the theoretical framework for this study
Dunn and Lantolf (1998) point out that Vygotsky distinguished three views regarding the relationship
between learning and development. According to the first perspective, denominated the separatist view, learning
and development are completely independent. A contemporary example of such a perspective would be
Krashen’s psycholinguisitic perspective on language learning whereby “the learner is fundamentally a loner who
possesses a Language Acquisition Device that does all the acquiring” (Dunn & Lantolf, 1998, p.423). The second
perspective, the identity position, claims that both learning and development are fundamentally the same. The
third position, as illustrated by Vygotsky’s work, emerges from a perspective, which synthesizes the separatist
view and the identity position. According to this perspective, some kinds of development depend on maturation,
while other kinds depend on instruction. For Vygotsky, learning and development depended on the material and
interactional circumstances and were open and uncertain. In this regard, Dunn and Lantolf note that “the learning-
development … arises in the coming-together of people with identities … histories and linguistic resources
constructed in those histories” (p. 427). In this sense Dunn and Lantolf further clarify that “second language
learners have a second chance to create new tools and new ways of meaning”.
18
In research on L2 language acquisition, numerous studies have been conducted within a cognitivist/
psycholinguistic framework, which make the individual learner the focus of attention. By contrast, in the context
of the present study, the objective, as stipulated in the first research question is to focus on the scaffolding in
terms of how tutors and learners interact with each other, and to observe how they make use of the affordances of
the Learning Management System. Although, as noted within this chapter scaffolding has been analysed in a
variety of ways (Matthey, 2003; Ohta, 2001; Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996), for the purpose of this study the
taxonomy proposed by Pawan (2008) was retained. This choice was made for two reasons. First, in contrast to
most of the studies discussed which focus on peer interaction, Pawan’s (2008) study mainly focused on how
teachers provided scaffolding to students. In the present study, the objective will be to analyse how the tutor-
teachers scaffolded the ESL learners. Second, in a number of the studies cited, especially those related to ESL
teaching, the analysis of scaffolding is restricted to linguistic aspects of the interaction. In Pawan’s analysis of
scaffolding, in addition to linguistic scaffolding, three other categories of scaffolding are acknowledged, namely,
conceptual, social and cultural. As will be demonstrated in Chapter 4, these types of scaffolding were also
resorted to by the tutor-teachers of the present study.
2.6. Summary
In this chapter I presented studies that used sociocultural theory to explain the learning process. I also
explained how scaffolding is defined in child psychology and in studies pertaining to SLA. As previously noted,
the first research question of the present study will focus on an analysis of the types of scaffolding provided by
the tutors in the context of the online tutorial sessions. I justified the choice of sociocultural theory as an
appropriate framework for this study and explained why Pawan’s (2008) taxonomy of scaffolding was used for
the data analysis. In the next chapter, I will review research studies of particular relevance to the present study.
19
CHAPTER 3: Literature Review
3.0. Introduction
As previously discussed, the major focus of this study is to investigate the scaffolding provided by ESL
tutors during interaction with ESL tutors in an SLMS platform. In regard to this focus, it should be mentioned
that research pertaining to the teacher role in studies involving second language learners in CMC environments is
generally very limited. Based on a review of 850 articles published form 2000 to 2008, Egbert, Huff, McNeil,
Preuss, and Sellen (2009) remark that “the pedagogical focus and the role of the teacher have been overlooked in
the research process” (p. 755). As they noted, teacher voice was generally not used as a resource for
understanding contexts or providing additional information that would help explain findings. With this in mind,
the literature review for the present study is divided into two sections. In the first section, I will present studies
which involved a teacher/tutor focus in synchronous environments. Following this, I will present studies that
focus more specifically on an analysis of scaffolding from a teacher/tutor perspective in asynchronous and
synchronous CMC environments.
3.1. Synchronous technologies involving studies of interaction with a
teacher/tutor focus
Synchronous technologies refer to software applications that permit two or more interlocutors to
communicate in real-time mode. Examples of this type of technology are chat, messaging systems, and SLMSs.
While chat permits the interlocutors to exchange written messages, messaging systems include audio- and
sometimes videoconference tools in addition to chat. SLMSs are software applications that allow users to interact
in an online environment via chat, audio, and sometimes video at the same time. In addition, an integrated
whiteboard serves the purpose of a common place of writing and showing images, presentations, etc. Some of the
SLMSs facilitate the exchange of documents, note-taking and guided visits of websites. In the teaching context,
this type of environment is also known as “virtual classrooms”. Although a number of studies have analyzed peer
interaction, few have undertaken to look at the involvement of teachers and tutors in this environment.
3.1.1. Chat
In a study situated in a chat room, Fiori (2005) examined the role of error correction for grammatical
development. The study compared the corrective feedback given to two groups by the same teacher who also
taught these groups in a face-to-face context. The students were 19- to 25-year-old Anglophones who studied
Spanish as a second language. The first chat group received form-and-meaning-focused (FMF) feedback, whereas
20
the second chat group received meaning-focused (MF) feedback. The study was carried out according to a pre-
test/treatment/post-test design. The chat scripts of both groups were analyzed to find out whether error correction
assisted in the emergence of correct use of two target structures. In addition, the teacher was interviewed. The
results show that clarification requests and recasting were the error correction types most often used by the
teacher in both groups. The teacher observed that, while both groups were dynamic and respectful in the face-to-
face classroom, such was not the case in the chat room. In this instance, the FMF group remained serious and
generally on task, whereas the MF group tended to joking and bullying. Evidence found in the chat scripts of the
FMF group also showed that this group tended to recognize the recasts and produced more syntactically complex
language compared to the MF group, where it seemed that the recasts went unrecognized, at least in some
instances. The FMF group also obtained higher scores in the post-test than the MF group. The author points to the
potential synchronous communication tools hold for grammatical development when combined with error
correction activities that include focus on form.
The study of Loewen and Reissner (2009) compared the amount and the characteristics of incidental focus
on form. For the purpose of this study, chat room transcripts and transcripts of oral data of the face-to-face
context were analyzed. Fourteen university students with diverse native languages who were studying English as
a second language were divided into four groups. Two groups participated in chats monitored by a teacher,
whereas the chats of the two other groups were not monitored. In addition, three intact face-to-face classes at a
private language school were observed. These face-to-face groups worked in the presence of their teacher. All
seven groups performed the same task. The data were gathered according to a pre-test, treatment, post-tests
design. A comparison of the monitored and non-monitored chat groups showed that twice as many focus-on-form
episodes occurred in the monitored chat group. However, four times as many focus-on-form episodes occurred in
the face-to-face context, compared to both chat groups. Self-correction was frequent in monitored chat and non-
existent in unmonitored chat. No data about self-correction were available from the face-to-face classes.
Regarding the characteristics of focus on form, data from the chat scripts revealed that spelling mistakes were
corrected most often in the monitored chat room, whereas no evidence regarding the correction of spelling
mistakes was found in the unmonitored chat room. In the face-to-face context, error correction was equally
distributed between vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. The authors of this study encourage continued
research on the teacher’s role and potential effects of teacher presence in the L2 classroom.
Loewen and Erlam (2006) partially replicated a study in a synchronous environment that had originally
been carried out in a face-to-face environment (Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006). In the face-to-face study that used
21
interaction theory as a theoretical framework, a group that had received metalinguistic feedback outperformed
both the recast and control groups on an oral elicited imitation test and on an untimed grammaticality judgement
test. Loewen and Erlam (2006) analysed the interaction of adult ESL learners in chat rooms who worked in four
treatment groups and one control group. The researchers served as teachers for the treatment and control groups.
Data were collected from the chat scripts and showed that corrective feedback, given in chat rooms during
meaning-focused tasks, did not lead to an increase in learners’ performance on timed and untimed grammaticality
judgement tests. Data also showed that there was no difference in the effectiveness of more implicit and more
explicit feedback types. The chat scripts also showed that feedback was not given immediately, since there was
an overlap of turns between the contributions of the chat participants. There was also very little evidence in the
chat scripts of learner uptake. The researchers suggest that this lack of uptake could be linked to the issue of
keeping students on task during the chat activity. The authors conclude that it is not clear whether the difference
between the chat room and face-to-face contexts is responsible for the difference in results between the two
studies and the learners’ apparent inability to benefit from the feedback in the context of this study.
3.1.2. Messaging systems
A study by Sotillo (2005) explored availability and form of corrective feedback in Yahoo Messenger
audio-and videoconferences. The participants, who interacted in dyads, were ESL learners with diverse native
languages and native speaker and non-native speaker pre-service teachers who had received previous training
about corrective feedback. The questions asked in this study concerned the comparison between the NS and NNS
tutors regarding corrective feedback and learner uptake. For the data analysis from an interactionist perspective,
chat and oral exchanges of the conferences were recorded and transcribed. The findings showed that the ratio of
errors the learners made vs. errors corrected by the teacher was 70% for NNS vs. 30% for NS. The NNS also
gave ten times more reactive direct feedback than the NS teachers, who gave more indirect feedback in the form
of recasts. Most of the corrected errors concerned vocabulary followed by grammar mistakes, primarily
morphosyntactic mistakes. According to the researcher, NNS may have been compelled to correct directly due to
their experience as language learners. Evidence of learner uptake was found, and it was noted that immediacy of
feedback may have affected learner uptake. The author concluded that corrective feedback is available to learners
in CMC environments in the context of communicative and problem-oriented activities.
In an exploratory pilot study, Hauck and Haezewindt (1999) used an audio conferencing application
(voice box), a predecessor of the SLMS Lyceum, to explore the teacher’s role in distance education. These
researchers sought an understanding of “how to facilitate students' learning through the use of technology rather
22
than to see how useful technology could be to support learning languages at a distance” (p.47). The authors
compared two groups of university students, native English speakers who were studying German or French. Data
analysis focused on the students’ perception of the German and the French tutors’ error correction strategies, their
changing roles, warm-up activities, and main teaching activities. Some students commented on their
improvement of oral skills and perceived the tutor`s feedback and the opportunity to work in a group as helpful.
The authors conclude that “teaching in electronic and distance learning environments opens up a whole new
range of roles and relationships” (p. 53). Citing Johnston (1999, p. 87), they further point out that “online
education has the potential to re-centre control in the educational experience from the teacher to the student”
(p. 53). The exploration of the tutor role, begun in this study, was continued in a number of subsequent projects
that I will present in the next section.
3.1.3. Synchronous Learning Management Systems (SLMS)
In this section, I will first present five studies which were carried out with an SLMS called Lyceum. It
was developed by the Open University (UK) and used for language tutorials. It included chat, audio conferencing,
and whiteboard tools. The Lyceum project operated from 2002 to 2010, when it was shut down. Following this
section, one study that used NetMeeting and another one that used Skype and Adobe will be presented.
In an early version of Lyceum, Shield, Hauck, and Hewer (2001) conducted an exploratory study in the
context of a pre-service teacher course that also included asynchronous elements such as a course website and
email communication between the tutors and the student. Data were obtained from several previously carried out
pilot studies. The researchers compared two tutoring groups of English NSs who studied French and German,
respectively. Drawing on the study of Hauck and Haezewindt (1999), they defined five different roles the tutors
could play (confidant, nervous parent, trouble shooter, student, and human being) and remarked that the tutors
changed these roles throughout each of the learning activities. An analysis of the learners’ perception of the
tutors’ role revealed that the learners expected the tutors to take a cognitive role. This means that they preferred
the tutor to concentrate on accuracy-focused feedback, administered immediately after the error was made. The
researchers conclude that tutors need to ensure that students understand the feedback they give in both cognitive
and social terms and point out that it is essential for tutors to demonstrate linguistic ability, task management
skills, and confidence in the use of the media involved.
Hampel (2003) looked for a theoretical framework for synchronous CMC and attempted to evaluate the
use of audio-graphic conferencing in practice on the Lyceum platform. This study proposed the theory of
23
multimodality, defined by Kress and van Leuwen (2001, p. 2) as the new reality of “the simultaneous existence of
visual modes (graphics), verbal modes (writing, text chat), and the acoustic mode in one medium, all of which
can be operated by one person”. Data were gathered from online class observations, tutors’ and learners’
logbooks, and a questionnaire. The study reports on perceived problems from the students’ and tutors’
perspective. In addition to technical problems, the tutors noticed a lack of practice with the software tools on their
part. On the other hand, they perceived the availability of different tools, improvement of oral skills of students
and the fairly regular attendance and motivation of students as benefits. This author concludes that it is important
to include students’ and tutors’ voices in further research.
In a subsequent study that partly drew on the data obtained by Hampel (2003), Hampel and Hauck (2004)
analyzed the process of development and implementation of online tutoring with respect to Lyceum that
examined activity design, tutor training and student support. Thirteen university students, native speakers of
English, and 19 tutors participated in this study. Data were obtained from logbooks, questionnaires, interviews
with students and tutors, and observations during training and tutoring sessions. The tutors remarked that they
found their training sessions helpful. Some students had an issue with equal participation in the online group
activities and reported on several technical issues regarding the installation and use of the software. They also
mentioned problems with audio. Tasks that continued from one session to the next were not accepted by all
students. On the other hand, the warm-up activities were perceived as useful by the students since they gave them
extra practice with the software tools. The authors conclude that more work is needed to explore the design of
tasks (implementation in a virtual learning environment using audio-graphic conferencing for the delivery of
tutorials).
Hauck and Youngs (2008) investigated the learners’ and tutors’ perceptions of the use of Lyceum and
blogs in language learning and telecollaboration. The analyzed data included recordings of the audio-conferences
and the blog texts, pre- and post-treatment questionnaires and post-treatment interviews with students and tutors.
The findings report that only a minority of learners demonstrated increased familiarity with the ICT tools
afforded by Lyceum during their participation in the study. Moreover, technical problems had a negative impact
on interaction between tutors and students. Regarding the tasks, learners found it useful to work towards a goal
and reported that they had learned something about the culture of the second language. The tutors reported that
they simply could not “connect” with the students in the virtual classroom. The authors concluded that
asynchronous ICTs afford a better opportunity to develop a relationship among participants than synchronous
ICTs.
24
Jeannot and Chanier (2008) carried out a case study that describes one adult native French ESL learner’s
strategies who participated in a small tutoring group on Lyceum. Data were gathered from the transcriptions of
the tutoring sessions, a questionnaire, and a semi-structured interview. The learner was given the opportunity to
reflect on his participation in the tutoring sessions by viewing their recordings. The researchers identified four
types of learning strategies employed by the learner: meta-cognitive, cognitive, social and affective. The learner
had a positive perception of the tutor’s scaffolding and judged the participation of all participants during the
tutoring sessions as balanced. The authors conclude that it should be a tutor’s best practice in this kind of
environment to encourage learners to participate and to generate a positive group climate.
In the context of the discussion of teacher talk, Heins, Duensing, Stickler, and Batstone (2007) compared
tutor talk in Lyceum and face-to-face environments. Tutoring sessions were recorded, transcribed, and coded
according to types of oral interaction. Coding identified the use of L1 and L2, interlocutors, organizational and
general talk, talk related to teaching and learning with several sub-categories, as well as unstructured talk. The
data analyzed the occurrence of these types of talk in the Lyceum and face-to-face contexts. Lively interaction
and communication was observed in both contexts, with learners’ preference for role-play. In the online
environment, the amount of tutor talk was higher than in the face-to-face context. It was observed that the tutors
engaged in more organizational talk online than in the face-to-face sessions. The results also showed that, in the
face-to-face sessions, students addressed the whole group more frequently than in the online sessions.
Wang (2006) analyzed NetMeeting videoconference sessions. This researcher explored the dynamics of
focus on form in task completion during five one-on-one teacher-learner sessions. The participants were a
Chinese second language teacher and five English NS university students who studied Chinese as a foreign
language. The sessions were recorded, and focus-on-form episodes were transcribed. The video transcripts
included non-verbal communication. Follow-up interviews were conducted at the end of the study. The
quantitative data of this interactionist study identified the number of focus-on-form episodes and how they were
triggered. The findings showed that the video tool was the one most frequently used in the negotiation of
meaning, followed by the whiteboard. Learners commented that facial expressions, body movements and hand
gestures used by the teacher were helpful in the communication between the teacher and the learner. This
researcher concludes that teachers need to be prepared for teaching in the video-conferencing context in order to
take full advantage of the affordances of this technology.
In a teacher-centered case study, Lee (2009) attempted to understand the use of SLMSs in spoken English
teaching. The participants were seven Chinese learners of English and four NS tutors. Skype and Adobe Connect
25
were the technologies used in this study. Data collected from semi-structured interviews with teachers and
learners focused on the teaching aspect of the interaction, participant observation and course evaluation. The
findings showed that the instructors were generally satisfied with online teaching. They understood that they
tended to create an environment similar to a face-to-face context. Three of the four tutors commented that they
would rather work in a face-to-face environment due to the personal interaction they saw possible in such a
context. The tutors identified competencies in technology, pedagogy, and psychology as necessary for online
teaching. All tutors perceived the use of synchronous technologies for teaching as positive and used a variety of
teaching strategies to help learners to be more interactive and involved. Their choice of strategies depended on
the learning activities and the learners’ background. The author concludes that future research with other
synchronous technologies is needed, and that other skills need to be explored in studies with different
participants.
3.1.4. Other studies
Ko-Li Compton (2009) investigated the pre-service teachers' common preconceptions, misconceptions,
and concerns with regard to virtual schooling. Data were obtained from 65 pre-service language teachers who
were enrolled as students in a virtual seminar at their university. They kept journals, posted messages to a
discussion forum and filled out questionnaires. Additional data were obtained from an interview with their course
instructor and the researcher’s journal. A taxonomy of teacher’s skills developed by the researcher identifies
technological, pedagogical and evaluation skills as necessary for online teaching. The participants expressed
concern for the level of interaction in virtual classrooms. The researcher also identified a preconception of the
participants regarding the lack of rigor in virtual courses. Pre-service English teachers tended to think that virtual
schooling had limited potential for teaching, especially regarding class discussions and group work, while pre-
service Spanish teachers seemed to be more open to the possibility to teaching in virtual schools. The students’
instructor commented that guidance and the opportunity to reflect on their online learning experience as students
was helpful and recommended that the students practice with live learners, which, in his opinion, would be better
than observing classes. This study found evidence suggesting that learning about virtual schooling should take
place in a virtual environment. Learning activities should include participation in online courses as a student and
pre-service teachers’ online teaching.
26
3.2. Scaffolding within CMC environments involving a teacher/tutor focus
Very few studies have been published about scaffolding in CMC environments from the teacher’s
perspective. In this section I will first present a literature review about scaffolding in asynchronous environments.
Next, I will present two studies that involved scaffolding from the learners’ perspective in a synchronous learning
environment. Finally, I will present an exploratory study that analyzes the presence of the teachers’ voice in SLA
research.
3.2.1. Asynchronous environments
In a literature review, Murray (2005) discusses two types of literacies at the intersection of ICT and L2
learning: how new technologies facilitate acquisition of L2 literacies and what L2 literacies are needed for
learners to participate in an increasingly digital world. In this context, the author mentions three examples of
how learning can be scaffolded with asynchronous ICTs: teachers select web sites for students to visit (Corbel &
Taylor, 2003; Murray, 2003), design web pages for their students (Murray & McPherson, 2004) and provide
support for web site reading for L2 learners (Murray & McPherson, 2004). The latter type of scaffolding consists
in “structured activities that have helped learners acquire the skills to search and navigate the Web by
themselves” (p. 3). Murray (2005) concludes that “several studies have now emerged indicating that, far from the
technology automatically causing autonomy, just as in other instruction, the teacher needs to support learners’
progress toward autonomy; that is, teachers need to scaffold instruction using technology” (p. 196).
3.2.2. Synchronous environments
To my knowledge, only two articles published by Lee (2004 and 2008) shed light on scaffolding in
tutor/teacher ESL contexts. For both studies, Lee drew on studies of peer collaboration in face-to-face
environments, in particular those by Donato (1994) and Aljafreh and Lantolf (1994), and used a five-level model
of scaffolding types adapted from the model used by Aljafreh and Lantolf (1994). Situated in a sociocultural
framework, the studies report on chat room sessions between expert speakers of Spanish who worked in dyads
with novice learners. All participants were university students and in both studies the Blackboard chat room was
used.
The first study (Lee, 2004) looked at the collaboration from the novices’ perspective. The participants of
this study were native speakers of English with an intermediate proficiency level of Spanish (the novices) and
native speakers of Spanish who lived in the United States and were enrolled in an undergraduate course for pre-
service Spanish teachers. Data were collected from a questionnaire filled out prior to the study by the novices,
27
which focused on general information, linguistic background and digital literacy. In addition, chat scripts and the
novices’ learning logs prepared according to guidelines provided by the researcher were analyzed. The results
showed that linguistic scaffolding may help maintain the balance between function, content and accuracy of the
learners’ language production. The online activities with the experts also offered authentic language discourse for
the novices and opportunities to acquire new lexical items and correct grammatical structures through
collaborative scaffolding. The researcher argues for the importance of carefully designed tasks that engage the
learners and maintain that task selection appropriate for participants, along with sufficient network training,
maximizes the potential benefits of integrating networked collaborative interaction to language learning.
In an expansion of Lee’s (2004) study described above, Lee (2008) asked three questions: (1) whether
collaborative interaction between expert and novice speakers of Spanish fosters a focus-on-form procedure during
synchronous CMC, (2) how expert speakers provide timely corrective feedback to draw learners’ attention to L2
forms that lead to learner-generated corrections, and, (3) from the learners’ perspective, how expert scaffolding
affects the way corrective feedback is negotiated. The participants of this study were novice learners of Spanish,
all of them English native speakers, and expert speakers of Spanish who had obtained high scores on an advanced
Spanish proficiency test. Some of the experts were native speakers of English, while some where native speakers
of Spanish from several Latin American countries. The results show that the experts assisted their partners
linguistically and cognitively in the process of feedback negotiation. The experts used the learners’ L1 to reduce
their cognitive burden. Lexical and syntactic items were negotiated between experts and novices. The data
suggest that corrective feedback provided by the expert had a positive effect on drawing learners’ attention to
form that led to self-repair. These results corroborate the findings of the studies conducted by Lai and Zhao
(2006) and Lee (2006). Evidence found in the data seems to suggest that open-ended questions promoted the use
of the second language in the scaffolding process. In conclusion, this researcher suggests that the role of the
expert affected the ways that the students responded to corrective feedback. She pointed to the necessity of
appropriate training of the experts in order to provide effective scaffolding. In particular, the instructors must
create appropriate awareness-raising activities through which focus on form is guaranteed during meaning-
oriented interaction is shared in CMC. Furthermore, use of the learner`s native language as a mediating tool for
scaffolding and asynchronous CMC as complementary tools were evaluated as important.
3.3. Conclusion
In this chapter, I first presented studies with a focus on the teacher/ tutor in the context of synchronous
ICTs. I then presented studies that analyzed scaffolding in asynchronous and synchronous environments. As
28
shown by this review of the literature, instruction in synchronous learning environments needs to take into
account that it is not the same as face-to-face instruction. To date, few studies have focused on teaching within
SLMS environments and none have involved an analysis of scaffolding by a teacher/tutor. As well, the previous
studies involving SLMS environments have involved adults. To respond to these gaps in the research, the present
study will focus on ESL high school students and will involve an analysis of scaffolding by tutors.
29
CHAPTER 4: Methodology
4.0. Introduction
This research focuses on identifying the types of scaffolding provided by ESL tutors as they interact with
small groups of secondary school learners while teaching via the Elluminate platform, an SLMS environment
(see Figure 4.1). It also seeks to investigate how tutors perceive their experience teaching ESL, and how learners
feel about learning ESL in this environment. The following chapter is divided into eight sections. In the first
section, I will present the research paradigm and the design of this study. Next, I will lay out the context of this
study. In the following four sections, I will describe the participants of this study, the data collection instruments,
the data collection procedures, and the data analysis. Following this section, I will discuss how the ethical
considerations relative to this study were dealt with, and finally, I will briefly summarize this chapter.
Figure 4.1. Elluminate screen
30
4.1. Research paradigm and design of this study
This study was carried out according to the principles of naturalistic inquiry. The reasons for this choice
were theoretical as well as practical. I will first present the theoretical considerations. As already mentioned in the
chapter “Theoretical Framework”, according to Peirce (1995, p. 569) “theory informs the questions researchers
ask; the assumptions they make; and the procedures, methods, and approaches they use to carry out research
projects”. This study attempts to understand how ESL tutors, who were pre-service teachers, provide scaffolding
in an SLMS and how they, as well as the ESL learners, perceive this interaction. This study does not attempt to
establish a relationship of cause and effect between isolated events. Rather, it attempts to understand what is
happening, and acknowledges that none of the events this study investigated could have been known before the
fact. Regarding the practical considerations, Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, and Allen (1993, p. 16) mention the
following principles of naturalistic inquiry that apply to this study: a) a natural setting was used for data
collection and b) both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyze the data. In terms of design, the
project may be described as a single-case holistic case study (Yin, 1984) which focused on both the tutors and the
ESL learners who participated in the online tutoring.
4.2. Context of the study
This study involved educational institutions located in two distinct geographical areas: a Francophone
university in an urban area in the province of Quebec and a private junior high school in Mexico City.
The tutors for this study came from a group of second-year students enrolled in a four-year Bachelor
degree in teaching English as a second language. At the time of the study the tutors were enrolled in a mandatory
second-year course about language and culture and were given the opportunity to participate in this study as part
of a course project. The 61 students registered in this course had the choice between four course projects, all of
which involved the use of ICTs in ESL teaching. One of these projects involved tutoring ESL learners in Mexico.
Although it was not mandatory for the students to participate in this study, all those who had signed up for this
course project volunteered to participate in the study. In order to acknowledge the tutors` participation in the
study, a 50-dollar bookstore coupon was raffled off among them after the data collection had been completed.
In terms of facilities, several computer labs in the faculty building were open to the students, and a
wireless internet connection was available to all for a small fee. Some students also brought their laptops to class
and used them for note taking and group tasks. None of the courses offered in the tutors’ program of study used
Elluminate as a means of instruction or offered training in how to deliver ESL courses using this software.
31
In Mexico, elementary and secondary school (K12) education is divided into public and private schools.
Although private schools generally follow the curriculum prescribed by the Ministry of Education, they can
obtain permission to create their own ESL curriculum by offering mandatory French as a second language
courses. This was the case in the school of the students who participated in this study, a small family-owned
junior high school in Mexico City. The family also owned a kindergarten and a primary school, and most students
enrolled in the junior high school had visited the primary school owned by the same family. The school director,
one of the owners, decided to invite the students to participate in this study because she saw it as an opportunity
for them to work with novel technology that is currently used in some Mexican universities, but, to the
knowledge of the researcher, is only available to K12 students who visit the country’s most prestigious private
schools. At the time of the study, a SMART board and a desktop computer with a beamer were installed in every
classroom. There was also a computer lab with 30 desktop computers, which was used for the tutoring sessions of
this study. None of the teachers at this school and none of the students had seen or used an SLMS before the
study.
The group targeted for the study was a K-7 class of 24 students in their first year of junior high school (i.e.
secondary 1). In terms of their academic program, all subjects were taught in Spanish, with the exception of
computer science and the ESL class, which were taught in English. The ESL class involved ten 50-minute-
periods per week. More specifically, five hours per week were devoted to skills classes (Keystone B and C and
Cambridge PET Plus), three to English literature (five abridged novels for teens were read during the whole
academic year), one hour to conversation, and one to PET practice tests. The students in this class were generally
in a low intermediate-intermediate range of ESL proficiency. Although all the ESL students participated in the
tutoring sessions with the university tutors as part of their ESL class, data were gathered for only those students
who had given their consent for the study. The learners who had given their consent were put in the same groups.
Considering the Canadian and the Mexican context of this study, it can be said that the technology used
and the opportunity to teach and learn with the SLMS was a novelty for the ESL tutors as well as for the students.
4.3. Participants
4.3.1. The tutors
Of the 61 students enrolled in the language and culture class, twelve volunteered to participate in this
study as tutors. Eight of these tutors worked with the fourteen learners who had given their consent to participate
in the study, while four tutors worked with ten learners who did not participate in the study. The tutors were
32
assigned to the learner groups at random. Of the twelve tutors involved in the present study, nine were native
speakers of French and two were native speakers of English. The twelfth tutor was of Mexican origin and spoke
Spanish as a native language. Prior to the study, the tutors had taken a mandatory course on ICTs and second
language teaching as well as two courses on ESL methodology. In the second ESL methodology course, the
tutors had been introduced to the concept of corrective feedback according to Lyster and Ranta (1997). In terms
of teaching experience, eight tutors had completed two practicums in local schools whereas two tutors had
completed four. The Mexican tutor indicated she had been exempted from the practicums because of prior
teaching experience.
When asked to rate their computer skills, all tutors said they knew how to use Word (7 excellent skills, 5
good) and Power Point (6 excellent, 5 good, and 1 fair). All tutors knew how to create and maintain a blog (3
excellent, 5 good, 2 fair, and 1 poor). Regarding social media, three tutors said they knew how to use both Twitter
and Facebook and indicated their skills were excellent or good, whereas six had knowledge of Facebook only and
three had no knowledge of such media. Regarding chat tools, a feature also used in Elluminate, eleven of the
twelve tutors reported they had skills (nine excellent and two good). The tutors were also asked about their
experience of using these computer applications in the context of their teaching, namely during the practicums.
While all of them had used Word and Power Point as teachers, only two of the tutors had created and maintained
a teacher blog, and only three of them had used chat as teachers. None of the tutors had used an SLMS as a
student or teacher before participating in this study.
The tutors participated in the five tutoring sessions required for the study during the time allotted for
tutorials in the computer lab; these tutorials were part of the regularly scheduled activities for all students enrolled
in the language and culture course. While the tutors were not graded on their performance during the tutoring
sessions, they were expected to participate in all the tutorial sessions and had to prepare a written reflection about
their course project. This latter requirement was the same for the other students in the course who were involved
in doing other types of ICT projects. All tutors were told before the project started that they would be invited to
fill out two surveys and to participate in a 30-minute interview. All tutors accepted this invitation.
4.3.2. The ESL language learners
Of the 24 students enrolled in the K-7 (secondary 1) class, 14 agreed to participate in this study. They
were 13 to 14 years old and came from middle-class families, which entails that the vast majority of them had
Internet access at home. It was also common among these learners to have a Facebook account and to use the
33
Internet during their free time. The students participating in the study will henceforth be referred to as the
learners or ESL learners (so as to avoid confusion with the university students who were the tutors.
Although within their ESL class no marks were given for their participation in the tutorials, the learners
were informed that these activities would give them an opportunity to practice English in a context different from
their classroom as well as enable them to learn something about a new type of ICT platform. Students
participated in the tutoring sessions during one of their ESL classes.
4.3.3. The researcher
The researcher of this study is a native speaker of German who has experience in teaching English and
German as a foreign language. She has worked in Mexico for a number of years. In preparation for this study, she
worked as a teacher assistant in one of the mandatory university courses, which the tutors volunteering for this
research study had taken. Prior to the study, the researcher participated as a graduate student in a course that used
the same SLMS as in the study. In addition, she had successfully completed a teacher certification course for this
software. The researcher provided training in the use of the SLMS to the tutors and learners who participated in
this study.
4.4. Data collection instruments
Data were collected from four sources: recordings and transcriptions of the tutoring sessions, surveys
completed by the tutors and the ESL learners, interviews with the tutors and the ESL learners, and tutors’ posts to
a discussion forum about the project. In what follows, I will describe each of these instruments and their purpose.
4.4.1. Recordings and transcriptions of tutoring sessions
The screen capture tool available in Elluminate was used to record the tutoring sessions. The files with the
recorded data were generated automatically and sent to a website where they could be viewed immediately after
the end of the session. Two issues were anticipated regarding the transcription: multimodality and transcription of
oral data. The term “multimodality” refers to data obtained from interaction between tutors and learners via
audio, chat, the whiteboard, and other communication tools such as emoticons in the participants’ window.
Regarding multimodality, previous research provides several examples of how this type of data can be
transcribed. Betbeder, Reffay, and Chanier (2006) emphasize the issue of multimodality in transcriptions. Their
transcription format was used for the purpose of this study. One column each was established for the time line,
the modality plus the number of turns in this modality, the interlocutor, the session and task number, and the
content of the communication. Data from chat and audio were copied into the column for content. Regarding the
34
task of transcription of oral data, the conventions suggested by Duff (2008) were used (see Appendix N). An
example of how the data were organized in the EXCEL file is shown in Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2. Excerpt data transcription of a tutoring session
Date Time Modality and turn number
Code participant
Content (using Duff, 2008 conventions for voice transcription)
Feb-03 33:22 PW1 S5-I ((enters the room)), is assigned microphone &
chat Feb-03 33:35 voice1 T4-I Hello, S5-I! Do you hear me?
Feb-03 33:43 voice2 S5-I ((very low)) Can you hear me? Yes?
Feb-03 33:52 voice3 T4-I Hello, S5-I. Do you hear me.
Feb-03 33:56 PW2 S5-I ((opens & closes microphone))
Feb-03 34:04 voice4 T4-I Do you hear?
Feb-03 34:10 voice5 S5-I (x) hear you
Feb-03 34:14 voice6 T4-I How are you today.
Feb-03 34:26 voice7 T4-I How are you, how are you, S5-I?
Feb-03 34:27 wbd1 T3-I ((switching between several whiteboard screens,
then displaying welcome screen))
Feb-03 34:38 voice8 T4-I Hi S5-I!
Feb-03 34:45 PW3 S5-I ((opens & closes microphone))
Feb-03 34:52 voice9 T4-I Do you hear me right now? Give me a smiley
face. Feb-03 34:59 voice10 S5-I (Xxx)
Feb-03 35:09 voice11 T3-I Hello S5-I, if you can hear me, give me a smiley
face, please.
Feb-03 35:15 PW4 S5-I smiley
4.4.2. Surveys
Mackey and Gass (2005) use Brown’s (2001) definition and describe surveys as ”any written instruments
that present respondents with a series of questions or statements to which they are to react either by writing out
their answers or selecting them among existing answers“ (p. 25). A mixed questionnaire with closed and open
ended questions was administered to tutors and learners. The majority of the questions were closed questions.
This choice was made for two reasons. First, by asking closed questions, greater reliability was achieved
regarding the quality of the answers. Second, answers to closed questions are easier to compare. For the purpose
of this study, a four-point Likert scale was chosen as a survey format. An even number of points was chosen to
avoid participants choosing an “indifferent” answer by selecting the middle point of the scale. Some open
35
questions were included in the survey. The purpose of these open questions was to give the participants the
opportunity to elaborate on a previous closed question in one or two sentences. The surveys were elaborated
according to the recommendations of Dörnyei (2003). They consisted of a title, instructions about the study, the
organization responsible for the study, the clarification that there were no right or wrong answers, the promise of
confidentiality, and the acknowledgement of the participant’s contribution.
All surveys were created by the researcher for the purpose of this study. A review of literature in this
regard did not yield useful examples of instruments that could be adapted. A possible reason for this is that the
environment of observation, the SLMS platform, has been the focus of few studies so far. No previous studies
were found that used surveys for the same purposes as this study. Two types of surveys were created: 1. A
background information sheet, filled out by the tutors (Appendix A), and 2. Surveys to understand the experience
of tutors and learners during the tutoring sessions (Appendices B and C) The purpose of the background
information sheet (Appendix A) was to gather information about their language skills, the courses they had taken
at the university, and a self-evaluation of their ICT skills, namely their experience as users of different software
programs and social networks, both in their free time and in the context of ESL teaching practicums. The purpose
of the tutor survey (Appendix B) was to understand their experience of tutoring learners in an SLMS
environment. This survey was divided into three sections. In the first section the tutors were invited to evaluate
the pedagogical aspect of the experience. The questions asked focused on actual aspects (what the tutors did) as
well as the emotional aspect of the tutors’ experience (preference for the use of Elluminate tools). In addition,
they were asked to evaluate certain aspects of the tutoring sessions (time available, comparison to traditional
classes, teaching skill improvement). In the second section the tutors were given the opportunity to reflect on the
technical aspects of the tutoring sessions. In the third section they were asked to evaluate the tutoring tasks.
English was the language used in this survey, since the tutors’ competency of this language was judged sufficient
to fully understand the questions.
The purpose of the ESL student survey (Appendix C) was to gain an understanding of their experience of
the tutoring sessions. The learners were invited to reflect on their experience of learning English and to explore
the emotional as well as perceptive aspects of their experience. They were asked to express their opinion about
the activities their self-perceived learning progress. Moreover, they were given the opportunity to evaluate the
help they received from the tutors and the Elluminate tools.
4.4.3. Interviews
For this study, semi-structured interviews were carried out. Nunan (1992) defines these as situations
where “the interviewer has a general idea of where the interview will go, and what should come out of it, but does
36
not enter the interview with a list of predetermined questions” (p. 149). Nunan suggests (p. 152) that the
interviewees should have a briefing at the beginning, the topic-related conversation, and a debriefing section.
During the briefing, the researcher mentioned her motives and intentions and the project’s purpose. She then
clarified that the interview would be recorded, and that she would protect the identity of respondents through the
use of codes. Next, she clarified that she invited the interviewee to be her partner in the research, and that her/ his
contribution during the interview would be taken into account as an element that helps in the understanding of the
situation under investigation in this study. Finally, she invited the tutors and learners to communicate in the
language of their choice. In order to prepare the questions of the topic-related conversation, the researcher drew
on the structure of the surveys, as well as on the answers the participants had provided. At the end of each
interview, the participant was given the opportunity to ask questions related to the SLMS and to the research
project.
4.4.4. Discussion forum
The tutors used a discussion forum on the course platform of the university to communicate with the
researcher and to share their reflections on each tutoring session with the professor and their peers. Brief
discussion posts were entered by one of the two tutors after each session. The posts were written in English.
4.4.5. Tasks
All tasks were designed by the researcher to be used by all groups. During each session, one warm-up task
and one or more main tasks were carried out. The majority of the tasks used in this study were based on activities
suggested in the teacher’s manual of the book (Keystone B and C) the learners use in class. They were related to
the following topics: 1. Getting to know each other; 2. Time zones; 3. Winter in Quebec; 4. Antarctica; and 5.
Friendship (see Appendices I to M). All tasks focused on oral activities, with complementary components of
short readings and/ or tasks related to the whiteboard. For all five sessions, tutors were given the task description,
a detailed lesson plan (see Appendices I – M), and any material required to carry out the tasks. The lesson plans
included prompts to give feedback as the tutors thought appropriate. Moreover, the tutors were given the option
to prepare the welcome screen (the whiteboard the learners saw upon connecting to the Elluminate session) on
their own. The tasks were designed based on the recommendations by Rossell-Aguilar (2005), who carried out a
study with Lyceum that involved tutorials with small groups. This author recommends the following type of
activities in multi-modal learning environments: language games, personal information exchanges, interviews,
role plays, descriptions, collaborative narrative, giving directions and instructions, sequencing, grouping,
matching, gap filling, and information gaps.
37
4.5. Data collection procedures
4.5.1. Tutoring sessions: Schedule and training
In total, five 50-minute tutoring sessions were scheduled in five consecutive weeks, always at the same
time. For these sessions, the participants were divided into groups of three or four learners with two tutors which
remained intact for the duration of the project. Both tutors and learners were randomly assigned to groups. The
fourteen learners who participated in this study were divided into four groups (A, B, with three learners each and
C, and D with four learners each). One tutor did not participate in the first session due to a health issue. The tutors
were in contact with the researcher via Skype to receive help regarding technical issues, if necessary. Although
the tutors were given a choice of using their own computers or the computers at the university lab, all tutors chose
to use the lab and sat next to their respective tutoring partners. The tutor partners were given the opportunity to
decide who acted as lead teacher and support teacher-monitor, respectively. The lead teacher would mainly use
the microphone, whereas the teacher-monitor would mainly use chat to interact with the learners. The learners
used the computer lab at their school to access the SLMS. The researcher and a technician were present in the
computer lab at the learners’ school to help with sign in to Elluminate as well as with technical issues.
The Elluminate screen capture tool was used to record all tutoring sessions. The setting of this tool
allowed the recording to start automatically as soon as the first person connected to the session. All interaction in
the main room was recorded, with two exceptions. On the one hand, private chat messages that the students sent
to each other and to the tutors were only visible to the tutors and therefore not recorded by the screen capture
tool. The tutors were reminded after the first tutoring session to download their chat protocols as text files and to
send them to the researcher. The tutors complied with this request as of the second session, with the exception of
Group A during the second session. In total, the private chat of 15 tutoring sessions was integrated into the
transcripts by looking at the activity halos in the Elluminate participant window and comparing these with the
timeline of the chat protocol. On the other hand, the warm-up phase of session 3 (Winter in Quebec) could not be
recorded, because the students were sent to breakout rooms. These breakout rooms were created by the tutors and
have the same interactive tools as the main room.
To prepare the tutors, two training sessions on the Elluminate platform were conducted. The purpose of
this training was to get the tutors acquainted with the Elluminate software before the start of the tutoring sessions.
At this time, the communication modes possible in this environment (e.g., chat, audio, the white board) were
explained. In the training sessions, the tutors were given the opportunity to experience the environment both from
the perspective of the moderator (who had access to all tools) and the learners (who had access to a more
38
restricted range). In the second session, the tutors were given additional practice in using the Elluminate tools. No
discussion about how to give feedback was included in the training sessions. The recordings of the training
sessions were accessible for the tutors for reviewing. In addition, the researcher offered to help the tutors with
questions and issues they might encounter during the tutoring sessions. After the second training session, the
lesson plans were uploaded to the discussion forum used by the tutors, along with instructions regarding
download and necessary preparation of the tutoring sessions. The learners also participated in one two-hour
training session with Elluminate prior to the tutoring sessions, For logistic reasons, the school was not able to
schedule two one-hour training sessions. The objective of this training was to teach the learners how to use the
tools available to learners in Elluminate. For the purpose of clarification, the learners were invited to ask
questions in their native language or in English. Both languages were used during the training.
4.5.2. Recordings and transcriptions of tutoring sessions
The files of the session recordings stored on the university server were viewed and transcribed by the
researcher. All recorded sessions were transcribed. As a first step, the spoken data were transcribed into a WORD
file. Then, the audio data and chat data from the participants’ window, and the whiteboard data were integrated
into EXCEL files (see Figure 4.2). On some occasions, the learners used private chat messages to communicate
with the tutors or with each other. The chat protocols for 15 of the 20 tutoring sessions were saved by the tutors,
sent to the researcher as a text file, and included in the transcripts.
4.5.3. Surveys
The tutor survey “Background information” (Appendix A) was emailed to the tutors after the second
training session. The survey “Teaching with Elluminate” (Appendix B) was emailed immediately after their last
tutoring session. The tutors completed the surveys and returned them via email. The answers of the individual
surveys were compiled into an EXCEL spreadsheet.
The learner surveys were administered on paper immediately after the fifth tutoring session. They were
distributed and collected by the researcher in their classroom. English was used in this survey, and the language
was kept simple to make sure the learners understood the questions. The information of the individual surveys
was also compiled into an EXCEL spreadsheet.
4.5.4. Interviews
All tutors were invited to volunteer for interviews at the time they signed their consent form. The
interviews were conducted within 15 days following the last tutoring session at a mutually agreed-on time. As the
39
researcher was in Mexico, the tutor interviews were conducted using the Elluminate platform, and were
automatically recorded. During the interview the tutors were asked to elaborate on the responses they gave on the
survey questionnaire. Although the non-native tutors’ proficiency level in English was in general advanced and in
some cases near-native, all tutors were invited to express themselves in English or in French or Spanish, their
native languages, if they preferred. One tutor chose to repeat the interview in French after having completed one
in English, indicating he felt that he could provide more precise information in his native language. For the
purpose of this study, only the information of the interview conducted in French was used. The ESL learners’
native language, Spanish, was used throughout the interviews, with the exception of one learner who chose to
communicate in English. All learners participated in an interview, which took place within 10 days following the
end of the tutoring sessions. Contrary to the interviews with the tutors, these interviews were carried out face-to-
face at the learners’ school in a room reserved for this purpose and were tape-recorded. All interviews were
transcribed before data analysis. After transcription, the responses were compared, labeled and categorized. They
were then compiled into an Excel spreadsheet as text. Next, the counts per category were transferred to another
spreadsheet and converted into the tables presented in the Chapter Results.
4.5.5. Discussion forum
During the study, the researcher was in charge of the discussion forum, which was set up on the language
and culture course portal. Following the last tutoring session, all messages posted were copied and pasted into an
EXCEL file. A separate column was created for each tutor.
4.6. Data analysis
In this section, I will discuss the source of data used to respond to a given question as well as the
procedures used to analyze the data (for an overview, see Table 4.1).
40
Table 4.1. Research questions, data collection, and mode of analysis
Research question Data source (to be used for analysis) Mode of analysis
1. What types of scaffolding are
provided by ESL tutors during
interaction with learners in an
SLMS platform? (SLMS)?
1.1. Recordings and transcriptions of
tutoring sessions
1.1. A taxonomy of the types of
scaffolding used by the L2 tutors was
developed based on the data obtained.
Analysis regarding the modality resorted
to while providing scaffolding. The
results will be tabulated and presented in
a graph.
The number of scaffolding episodes per
task was determined.
A comparison between task types and
between tutors for each task was made.
The results were tabulated and presented
in a graph.
2. How do ESL tutors perceive
their experience teaching a
second language in an SLMS
platform?
2.1. A written survey filled out by tutors
following the fifth tutoring session.
2.2. Semi-structured interviews with tutors
following the fifth tutoring session
Duration – 15 to 20 minutes
2.3. Discussion forum posts
2.1. Answers to closed questions
involving Likert scale type answers were
tabulated and presented in a graph
(descriptive statistics).
Answers to open questions were
compiled for each question.
2.2. Responses were compiled and
related to the relevant questions in the
survey.
2.3. Messages were compiled and related
to themes mentioned in the surveys and
interviews.
3. How do ESL learners
perceive learning English in an
SLMS platform?
3.1. A written survey filled out by learners
following the fifth tutoring session.
3.2 Semi-structured interviews with tutors
following the fifth tutoring session.
Duration – 15 to 20 minutes
3.1. Answers to closed questions
involving Likert scale type answers were
tabulated and presented in a graph
(descriptive statistics).
Answers to open questions were
compiled for each question
3.2. Responses were compiled and
related to the relevant question in the
survey.
4.6.1. Scaffolding in the online environment
In order to respond to the first research question (What types of scaffolding are provided by ESL tutors
during interaction with learners in an SLMS platform?); the transcriptions of the tutoring sessions were analyzed
41
in order to identify episodes of scaffolding. For the purpose of this study, a scaffolding episode was defined as the
action taken by a tutor or tutors to help a learner successfully complete a task. The beginning of a scaffolding
episode was marked as an utterance where a) a learner requested help or b) a tutor communicated with a learner
with the intention to help the learner. The end of a scaffolding episode was marked as an utterance where a) the
learner explicitly expressed she had understood the tutor’s intention to help her or b) the tutor moved on to
another subject.
Although, as noted in Chapter 2 (Theoretical Framework), scaffolding has been analysed in a variety of
ways (Matthey, 1996; Ohta, 2001; Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996), for the purpose of this study the taxonomy
proposed by Pawan (2008) was retained as a point of departure. This author defined four types of scaffolding,
namely linguistic, conceptual, social, and cultural (see Section 2.3.3 for definitions). Following transcription of
the sessions, the transcription files were analysed in order to identify instances of scaffolding episodes according
to Pawan’s taxonomy. In the transcription file, a label was added to indicate the beginning and the end of each
episode, including a note to indicate the category that had been assigned. The scaffolding episodes were then
labeled and assigned a number before being copied and pasted into another Excel file that contained all
scaffolding episodes. Next, the following information about all identified episodes was compiled in a table:
episode number, group name, task, beginning and end of an episode, modality of communication (audio, chat,
whiteboard), participating learners and tutors, and who initiated the scaffolding episode. A comment was added
to indicate why an episode had been assigned to a particular category. Following initial coding, the episodes and
categories were compared to each other in order to screen for consistency and refine the coding system. This
process was iterative and was pursued until a coherent taxononmy emerged. The final coding scheme with
examples is presented in Chapter 5 (Table 5.2). In addition to the creation of a scaffolding taxonomy, the number
of scaffolding episodes per category, per session and per group were tabulated and presented in a table so as to
compare differences between task types and between tutor teams for each task.
4.6.2. Tutors’ perception of the online teaching environment
In order to answer the second research question (How do ESL tutors perceive their experience teaching a
second language in an SLMS platform?), data from the tutor surveys filled out following the fifth tutoring
session, the semi-structured interviews carried out following the surveys, and the posts to the discussion forum
were analyzed. Regarding the survey, answers to the closed questions involving the Likert-scale type format were
tabulated and presented in graphs (descriptive statistics). The answers to the open questions were compiled for
42
each question. Regarding the interviews and the discussion forum, the responses were compiled, presented in
graphs, and related to the relevant questions in the surveys.
4.6.3. Learners’ perception of the tutoring sessions
In order to answer the third research question (How do ESL learners perceive learning English in an
SLMS platform?), data from the student surveys following the fifth tutoring session and semi-structured
interviews carried out following the surveys were analyzed. Regarding the survey, responses to the closed
questions involving Likert-scale type format were tabulated and presented in graphs. The responses to the open
questions were compiled for each question. Regarding the interviews, the responses were compiled and related to
the relevant questions in the surveys.
4.7. Ethical considerations
As Mackey and Gass (2005) remark, "second language research usually poses minimal to no risk and
often provides added benefits, such as language production practice” (p. 25). With respect to carrying out
research with human subjects, these authors give practical advice regarding four issues: supplying sufficient
information to participants about the research project, withholding information, obtaining participants’ consent
and recruiting volunteers. These issues (and others) were addressed in the documents that were submitted to
Laval University’s ethics committee (Comités d’éthique de la recherche avec des êtres humains de l’Université
Laval). Consent forms and letters submitted to the ethics committee are included in Appendices D to H. The
project was approved by the University’s ethics committee and the guidelines for implementing it were respected.
For the Mexican participants, a phone number of a person working at a public university was provided. This
Spanish-speaker had agreed to receive any comments and complaints.
4.8. Summary
In this chapter, I first presented the research paradigm and design of the study. Following this, I described the
context for the study and the procedures for data collection and analysis. Finally, I mentioned how the ethical
concerns of the study were addressed. In the following section, I will present the findings regarding the three
research questions that guided this study.
43
CHAPTER 5: Results
5.0. Introduction In this chapter, the results for each research question will be presented.
5.1. Research Question 1: What types of scaffolding are provided by ESL tutors during interaction with students in an SLMS platform?
The transcriptions of the tutoring sessions were analyzed to identify instances of scaffolding. As discussed
in Chapter 4, Pawan's (2008) taxonomy was used as a basis for identifying types of scaffolding and was adapted
as necessary in order to take the requirements of the data into account. Table 5.1 provides an overview of the
types of scaffolding identified. Definitions and examples of each type of scaffolding taken from the data are
included in the table. For the purpose of this study, five types of scaffolding were identified: I. linguistic
scaffolding, II. conceptual scaffolding, III. social scaffolding, IV. cultural scaffolding, and V. technical
scaffolding.
For the analysis of the data, the definition of linguistic scaffolding proposed by Pawan (2008) was
retained, i.e. simplifying the English language and making the English language more accessible. As reflected in
Table 5.1, linguistic scaffolding was used in a variety of ways, notably to assist students with vocabulary items,
to assist students with reading strategies to help them understand a reading passage, and to clarify task
instructions.
With respect to conceptual scaffolding, Pawan's (2008) definition specifies that various tools, methods or
informative elaborations (e.g., organizational charts, metaphors) are incorporated by the teacher to achieve a
shared understanding of various new ideas and concepts. It is to be further recalled that in Pawan's study,
elementary and high school students were in an English-medium school and were thus involved in content-based
learning within their various disciplinary subjects. By contrast, in the context of the present study, the students
were participating in a language class where the focus was on language learning and few concepts which the
learners didn’t already know in their first language needed to be introduced. To better reflect the needs of the
present study, Pawan’s original definition of conceptual scaffolding was thus modified to refer to tutors’ use of
supportive frameworks or explanations to enable second language learners to access new conceptual knowledge.
It should also be noted that within the context of the present study, the main new conceptual knowledge in
fact pertained to learning how to use certain Elluminate tools such as the web tour or breakout rooms (see
example in Table 5.1). Prior to this study, the learners had never participated in classes on the Elluminate
platform. Therefore, they did not comprehend the concept of certain Elluminate tools and had not used them
44
before. As a case in point, one might note, for example, that Example 3: clarifying task instructions (Table 5.1)
was coded as linguistic scaffolding to reflect the fact that students were having difficulty understanding the
language aspect of the instructions. By contrast, learning how to use an Elluminate tool (Table 5.1) was coded as
conceptual scaffolding as this particular tool, both in terms of the name and how it was used, was unknown to the
learners
With respect to social scaffolding, the definition suggested by Pawan (2008) was retained: mediating and
situating students' learning in a social context involving the engagement and support of others. It is to be recalled
that in the Pawan study students were taught in a traditional face-to-face classroom context. Within this context
students were involved in either whole-class activities or in peer or group work. The social scaffolding that
Pawan wished to target basically referred to two types: scaffolding provided by peers when the students were
asked to work in pairs or groups, or one-on-one scaffolding provided by the teacher to individual students who
needed extra help. It is particularly in this latter context that social scaffolding could also involve encouragement
so that students would continue on in the task and not give up. As noted by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), one
function of scaffolding involves recruitment of the learners to the task. In the present study, students were
interacting online in a small group moderated by a tutor. As a result, only two instances were observed where
scaffolding was provided by peers. Social scaffolding involving tutors was limited to instances where they
encouraged individual students to engage in a task or to continue with it to completion (see example in Table
5.1).
The fourth scaffolding category defined by Pawan (2008) is cultural scaffolding. This author broadly
defined cultural scaffolding as the use of artifacts, tools, and informational sources, including the L1 (code-
switching) in order to explain something new in the target language. In the context of the present study, cultural
scaffolding was limited to the use of the students’ L1 to explain vocabulary items (see Table 5.1).
Finally, episodes of technical scaffolding were identified in the data. This type of scaffolding was not
defined by Pawan (2008), since this author’s study took place in a face-to-face classroom. In the present study,
however, the interaction between tutors and learners took place in an SLMS platform. For the purpose of this
study, technical scaffolding was defined as the tutor’s suggestion of a particular tool to facilitate the ESL learners'
successful participation in an activity in response to a technical problem. The example presented in Table 5.1
involves a situation where in the case of a learner having problems with the microphone; the tutor suggests chat
as a means to enable this learner to participate in the targeted activity.
45
Table 5.1. Scaffolding Categories and Examples from Data Modalities see also Figure 4.1.: voice: audio; PW – participant window; chat – chat window; wbd - whiteboard I. Linguistic Scaffolding Definition retained for this study: Simplifying the English language, and making the English language more accessible (Pawan, 2008).
Example 1: assistance with vocabulary items The learners are participating in a cloze activity. The text is on the whiteboard, and the learners take turns in reading the text, first without filling in the blank. In this episode, S12-W is asked to read the following sentence: The continental ice sheet of Antarctica contains about 7 million miles3 of ice, _____ % of the world's total. In this example, S12-W did not know how to say 7 million cubic miles and read it as 7 million miles 3. The teacher corrected what he said by supplying the word cubic. 1:06:46 voice759 S12-W "The continental ice sheet of Antarctica contains about 7 million
miles three of ice, of the world’s total."
1:06:58 voice760 T5-W Ok, good job! The 3 after miles I think is for # not square meters # but how do we say # cubic, ok?
Example 2: assistance with reading strategies
The tutor is asking comprehension questions after the learners read a text on time zones. During this episode, the part of the text where the answer to the question can be found is posted on the whiteboard. Chunks of the text are color-coded (appear in blue, green, red, and purple) to more easily indicate to learners what section they should read if called on. In this example, the tutor asks a question which none of the students can answer. To help them, the tutor suggests that they read the text to look for the answer. In addition, the tutor points to specific parts of the text where the learners can find additional cues for the answer. The tutor also expands on the partial answers given by the learners until they succeed in finding the complete answer. 51:29 voice328 T8-H Excellent answer! Good job! All right, question number two. Why
did people decide to use this system? Why did people decide to use this system? If you think you know, you can lift up your hand. Hm? So why did people decide to use the system of standard time?
51:53 PW175 S1-H ((raises hand))
51:56 voice329 T8-H Excellent, S1-H, go ahead!
52:06 voice330 S1-H Because # hm, because # hm because # because # [ I don’t know.
52:27 voice331 T8-H [Ok so, you don’t know? That’s ok! All right, thank you for trying. Is there someone who knows and wants to answer the question? # - ((no one else raises hand.))
52:41 voice332 T8-H ((Suggesting a strategy.)) So read the text. Why did people decide to use this system? Why did they not just stay with the time # with the sun? Why did they decide to choose eh standard time? So it’s not the same for everyone, it’s different for each part of the world? Why do you think they did that?
46
52:58 PW176 S3-H ((raises hand))
53:01 voice333 T8-H All right, S3-H? You think you have an answer? Go ahead, S3-H!
53:07 voice334 S3-H Because they got confused with the hour of another part of the world?
53:12 voice335 T8-H Excellent answer, very good. Yes, that’s correct! That’s correct! ((Guiding learners toward the end of the answer.)) And why do you think # it says in the purple, if I can help you, eh, if you look at the purple text, there’s another reason why it was important. To create the system. Do you see?
53:37 PW177 S2-H ((raises hand))
53:38 voice336 T8-H All right, S2-H, go ahead
53:42 voice337 S2-H Because it was necessary with the development of rapid railways?
53:50 voice338 T8-H Exactly. Ok? So it’s if you live in the same small part, and you never move, it does not matter the time. Right? But if you take a train and you go to different places in the world, it’s important to change the time? Ok? So can you imagine the complications? Can you imagine what complications they had? Why was it confusing, if it’s all the same time if you’re in one part of the world, or another part? How can that be confusing? Do you have an idea?
Example 3: clarifying task instructions
The tutor introduces an oral activity during the first tutoring session. On the whiteboard, the learners see key words that are supposed to guide them in the oral presentation they are expected to deliver. In this example, one of the students (S1-H) did not understand tutor T7-H’s instructions. In order to help, the learner, the tutor re-explained her instructions in a simplified way with more examples. Following this explanation, S1-H confirmed he understood what to do. 52:54 voice88 T7-H So, I want you to take turns and to present yourselves, using
these questions ((The learners are looking at the whiteboard with the questions, which the tutor has read to them)). And while someone talks, I want someone to write the important key words in the chat box.
53:12 chat27 S3-H ok
53:14 voice89 T7-H So we will give you an example, me and T8-H ((the other tutor)), we will start to show you how it works. Ok. So if you understand, give me a smiley please, and then we’ll give you an example.
53:23 PW50 S2-H smiley
53:23 PW51 S4-H smiley
53:23 PW52 S1-H ((raises hand))
56:26 voice90 T7-H Ok, so S1-H, do you have a question? Just take your microphone,
53:30 voice91 S1-H I didn’t understand you.
53:30 chat29 S3-H better write to me
53:37 voice92 T7-H Ok, I’m gonna explain it again.
47
53:41 voice93 T7-H Ok, so we’re gonna make an activity, and we’re gonna present each other, and we’ll answer the questions on the whiteboard. So, eh, for example, you say your name, your age, the city you live in, your brothers and sisters, etc., ok?
54:01 voice94 T7-H So we’re gonna present ourselves to the others, and, as people talk, you write the important key words in the chat box, ok? So for example, if I say “my name is T7-H”, someone writes “T7-H” in the chat box. Ok, so do you understand, S1-H?
54:24 voice95 S1-H Yes, I understand.
II. Conceptual Scaffolding
Pawan’s (2008) definition: The incorporation of various possible tools, methods or informative elaborations to achieve and share understanding. Providing supportive frameworks for meaning, providing organizational charts, metaphors, etc. Definition retained for this study: Supportive frameworks or explanations to enable second language learners to access new conceptual knowledge.
Example: learning how to use an Elluminate tool.
The tutor introduces the first activity of the second session, which includes the task of individual preparation of a short preparation in breakout rooms (Breakout rooms are an Elluminate tool that permits the tutors to create separate virtual rooms within the tutoring session that can be accessed from the main room. This feature allows for individual and team work in a room that looks exactly the same as the main room, without interaction with the other rooms.) While the tutors learned how to set up and use breakout rooms during their training preliminary to the project, the learners did not. In this example, the learners do not understand what breakout rooms are Tutor T3-I first shows the learners where the breakout rooms appear on the screen of the main room (voice497) and then explains what they will be doing there. Tutor T4-I reinforces T3-1 explanation in a chat message (chat305). Students confirmed they understood what they had to do.
36:43 voice495 T3-I Ok, super! So now, as I told you, today we’re going to talk about winter, so you will see on the left hand side that we have some breakout rooms. Do you know what breakout rooms are? Give me a smiley face if you’re familiar with breakout rooms.
37:10 voice496 T3-I Did you understand my question?
37:11 chat298 T4-I Listen carefully!
37:25 chat299 S5-I no can you repeat the question please
37:29 chat300 S5-I please
37:27 voice497 T3-I Ok. My question is that we will be using breakout rooms today. (realizing the learners do not understand) Ok. You see on the on the left, you see the names, you have (says all the names), and then after you have three different folders. Can you see that?
37:43 chat301 S6-I yes
37:38 chat302 S6-I yeah
37:52 chat303 S7-I yes
48
37:49 voice498 T3-1 Ok. Excellent! So these # are like individual rooms. So you will work for a little bit of time individually. And you will have to hm you will see pictures, and you will have to prepare a short presentation about your pictures. Ok? I will give you five minutes to do that. So you will see pictures, of eh somebody doing an activity, ehm and you will have to prepare a short presentation. OK? Is that clear? Give me a smiley face if you understand.
37:50 chat304 S5-I yes
38:15 chat305 T4-I Today you are going to use breakout room to do individual work
38:29 PW102 S6-I smiley
38:29 PW103 S7-I smiley
38:30 PW104 S5-I smiley
III. Social Scaffolding
Definition retained for this study: Mediating and situating students' learning in a social context involving the engagement and support of others (Pawan, 2008).
Example: encouraging an individual learner’s participation.
The learners are looking at a photo of a winter scene in Quebec that the tutor posted on the whiteboard. In this example, S5-I suggests that S7-I begin with the task. However, S7-I declines. Tutor T3-I acknowledges that S7-I doesn’t want to begin, then encourages her (“Ok, excellent”) and repeats her invitation. Following this, S7-H accepts and engages in the task. 58:46 voice565 T3-I Ehm, so now, I will ask you to describe what you can see in the
picture, ok? I want you to say what you can see, and I want you to ask question <SIC> about winter. Ok, so you can ask us question <SIC> if you want to, you can be curious, and if you want to know about how we live during the winter, (( laughs about S5-I’s comment in the chat))
59:05 chat372 S5-I ladies first S7-I
voice566 T4-I Ladies first! What a gentlemen you are, S5-I, well I agree, S7-I why don’t you go?
59:12 chat373 S7-I Jaja ((Spanish expression for laughing))
59:13 chat374 S6-I yes
59:20 voice567 T3-I Just tell me a few things that you can see on the picture.
59:22 chat375 S7-I no
59:23 voice568 T3-I No? You don’t want to? Don’t be shy, ok? Ok, excellent. So just tell me what you can see on the picture.
57:25 chat376 S7-I Jaja
57:32 chat377 S7-I ok
59:34 voice569 S7-I Eh I can see many people, walking and there is the cars that have some problem with the snow, because they are like, the cars are turned on, and there’s a like a building, and there is snow covering all area, all the street.
49
IV. Cultural Scaffolding Pawan’s (2008) definition: Using artifacts, tools, and informational sources that are culturally and historically situated within a domain familiar to the learners, for example, using students’ prior knowledge or Spanish-speaking teacher uses L1 in instruction. Definition retained for this study: Resolving a problem with language; this involves the use of the first language (code-switching).
Example: Spanish-speaking tutor helps learners with vocabulary word.
In this activity, learners share and discuss their preferences (favorite food, favorite music, etc.) In the example below, S8-R writes in the chat box that her favorite country is holanda. The tutor T1-R indicates that she doesn’t know what country that is. When questioned by tutor T2-R, it becomes clear that the students do not know how to translate the word in English. Tutor2-R, a Spanish-speaking native speaker, tells everyone that it is Holland and also helps one of the students with the correct spelling in the chat box.
39:42 chat 405 S8-R holoanda
39:42 voice725 T1-R Hmm. Yeah. S8-R, you’re gonna have to write it in the chat # oh!
39:47 voice726 T1-R There you go! Holoanda. I don’t know where that is.
39:49 chat 406 S8-R holanda
39:50 voice727 T1-R Holanda. Holanda. Cool! All right!
39:52 chat 407 S8-R s
39:54 chat 408 S10-R ha
39:57 voice728 T1-R So, S9-R, I give you the tools, so you write it in the in the chart here.
And then it’s gonna be S8-R. You’re gonna have to use the chat today.
That’s too bad.
39:58 PW305 T1-R ((assigns wbd tools to S9-R))
40:03 wbd105 S9-R ((creates text box & writes)) S8-R Holanda
40:10 voice729 T2-R Eh, guys, and how do you say “Holanda” in English. Do you know?
40:26 chat 409 S8-R sittzerland
40:29 voice730 T2-R Ok. I’ll give the answer for you, in English, it’s Holand [pronounces
holeland]. ((writing in the chat))
40:33 wbd106 S9-R ((corrects her text in text box)) Holand
40:37 chat 410 T2-R Holland
40:38 voice731 T2-R Ups! Here you are.
40:39 chat 411 S8-R holand
40:47 voice732 T2-R Double L.
40:48 chat 412 S8-R Holland
40:49 wbd107 S9-R ((corrects her text in text box)) Holland
50
40:53 voice733 T1-R Ok, that’s great! So now, it’s S8-R’ turn to ask your question, I think
you’re gonna have to write it in the chat box. And ask your question.
And then you can write it on the board. Go ahead.
V. Technical Scaffolding No definition provided by Pawan (2008). Definition retained for this study: in response to a technical problem, suggestion of a particular tool to facilitate the ESL learners' successful participation in an activity.
Example 1: tutor suggests that learner uses a technical tool Before the activities of the first tutoring session begin, the tutor wants to make sure the learners can communicate with the audio and microphone tools. In the following episode, S12-W is having audio problems and is directed by a chat message from tutor T5-W as to how to proceed to resolve the problem. 36:41 voice7 T6-W Ok, so everyone hello and welcome to the first session, ehm, of
ESL teaching by Elluminate, I was just wondering if your microphones are working, ok? So if your microphones are working, I want you to try it, ok? So we’ll try with S12-W first, ok? So if you can hear me, I want you to click on the little microphone at the bottom of your page and try to speak. Ok this way we’ll check if your microphone is working, so we can continue with our work, ok? So S12-W, can you please click on your microphone on the bottom of your page. Just under the chat room, ok?
37:00 chat10 S11-W S10-R
37:08 chat11 S10-R S11-W
37:32 voice8 T6-W So S12-W? Can you try it? I can’t see you're trying it.
37:38 chat12 S12-W i cannot listen ((means: hear))
37:41 voice9 T6-W You cannot # you don’t hear, ok. So you can’t hear what I’m saying. So did you do the audio setup?
37:50 chat13 S11-W me yes
37:52 voice11 T6-W Ok good, S11-W. So if you do the setup, you go to “tools”, ok, so it’s at the top of your page, you have a little icon here, it’s written “tools” T O O L S, so click on that, click on “audio”, then do “audio setup wizard”. OK?
38:20 PW6 S10-R ((opens and closes microphone))
38:23 voice12 T6-W Ah, so S10-R? Can you hear me, S10-R? Can you speak? Ok, so what I’ll do is I’m gonna get off the mike, so I’m gonna leave S10-R the mike, a:nd then we’ll see if it’s working. Ok, S10-R?
38:36 chat14 T5-W ((helping S12-W to resolve his problem)) S12-W click on TOOLS, go on AUDIO, do AUDIO SETUP WIZARD
38:45 voice13 T6-W Can you, can you speak, S10-R?
38:50 voice14 S10-R (( static noise))
38:56 PW7 S12-W ((audio setup wizard activated)) ((Problem resolved))
51
Example 2: tutor suggests use of an alternative technical tool In this activity the learners ask each other questions in order to get to know each other. The question words they are supposed to use are posted on the whiteboard. The activity is designed as an oral exchange. However, as not all learners' microphones are working properly, tutor T5-W suggests that the latter submit their questions via the chat box. 1:24:09 voice192 T5-W Ok. S10-R and S11-W, because you can’t grab ((means: use)) the
mike, ok, because of the difficulty, you will write down your
question in the chat window. In the chat box. Ok?
In addition to identifying and classifying types of scaffolding, the number of episodes per type, per
session and per group was also tallied. The results are presented in Table 5.2. As shown in this table, a total
number of 111 episodes of scaffolding were identified. The most frequent category of scaffolding provided by the
tutors was linguistic scaffolding with 79 episodes, followed by conceptual scaffolding with 14 episodes. The
other types of scaffolding were seldom resorted to; technical scaffolding was limited to 9 episodes, social
scaffolding to 7, and cultural scaffolding to 2. A comparison of the total episodes across the four groups revealed
that the tutors from Groups B and C provided the most assistance, with 41 and 37 episodes, respectively. The
tutors of Groups A and D groups provided less assistance, with 18 and 15 episodes, respectively.
Linguistic scaffolding was the only type found across all groups and in all sessions. However, a difference
between groups can be observed. The tutors of the Group B assisted their learners 33 times with linguistic
problems, compared to the tutors of Group A, who offered assistance in just 10 episodes.
The second most frequently used category was conceptual scaffolding, where 14 instances were observed,
mostly in the third session (Winter in Quebec, 3 episodes) and in the fifth session (Friendship, 5 episodes). The
tutors from two teams (Groups A and C) used this scaffolding category more often (4 and 6 episodes,
respectively) than the tutors from the other two teams with 2 episodes each. As noted above, the other types of
scaffolding were rarely resorted to.
52
Table 5.2. Number of scaffolding episodes observed
Scaffolding type
Total number of episodes
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Linguistic scaffolding
Session 1 11 2 5 2 2
Session 2 25 3 8 9 5
Session 3 9 2 3 3 1
Session 4 12 0 3 8 1
Session 5 22 3 14 1 4
Subtotal linguistic scaffolding
79 10 33 23 13
Conceptual scaffolding
Session 1 2 0 0 2 0
Session 2 0 0 0 0 0
Session 3 4 3 1 0 0
Session 4 3 1 1 1 0
Session 5 5 0 0 3 2
Subtotal conceptual scaffolding
14 4 2 6 2
Social scaffolding
Session 1 2 1 0 1 0
Session 2 0 0 0 0 0
Session 3 3 0 2 1 0
Session 4 1 0 0 1 0
Session 5 1 0 0 1 0
Subtotal social scaffolding
7 1 2 4 0
Cultural scaffolding
Session 1 0 0 0 0 0
Session 2 0 0 0 0 0
Session 3 0 0 0 0 0
Session 4 1 1 0 0 0
Session 5 1 1 0 0 0
Subtotal cultural scaffolding
2 2 0 0 0
Technical scaffolding
Session 1 4 0 0 4 0
Session 2 0 0 0 0 0
Session 3 4 0 4 0 0
Session 4 1 1 0 0 0
Session 5 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal technical scaffolding
9 1 4 4 0
Total 111 18 41 37 15
53
5.2. Research Question 2: How do ESL tutors perceive their experience teaching a second language in an SLMS platform?
In this section, I will present the data related to the second research question: How do ESL tutors perceive
their experience teaching a second language in an SLMS platform? Data were collected from three sources: 1. the
tutor survey; 2. the semi-structured interviews; and 3. the tutors’ posts on a discussion forum. I will first present
the data from the tutor survey. In the next two sections I will summarize the findings from the interviews and the
discussion forum, respectively.
5.2.1. Tutor surveys
The tutor survey was divided into three sections: I. Teaching with Elluminate; II. Technical aspects
related to using Elluminate; and III. The tutoring tasks. Although all three sections involved closed, the first and
the third section also included open questions. In what follows, the answers to the closed and open questions of
each section will be reported (see Table 5.3 and Table 5.4).
Regarding their teaching experience (Section I, Table 5.3, questions 1-15), six out of twelve tutors totally
agreed and the other six tutors agreed somewhat with the statement that they enjoyed teaching learners on the
Elluminate platform (question 1). Eleven out of twelve tutors agreed (totally or somewhat) that they gave
feedback to the learners (question 2), but only eight tutors reported that they felt at ease while doing so (question
3). Nine tutors felt that their feedback helped the learners (question 4). The majority of the tutors felt that
teaching with Elluminate contributed to the development of their teaching skills. Nine tutors said it helped them
develop confidence in their teaching skills (question 5), and six said it helped them develop their ability to give
feedback (question 6). Although eight of the twelve tutors reported that not seeing their students’ faces affected
the teacher-student relationship (question 8), eight of them, which includes six of the tutors who agreed with
question 8, also reported that they got to know their students well during the tutoring sessions (question 7).
All tutors except one disagreed that teaching in Elluminate is the same as teaching in a face-to-face
classroom (question 9). All tutors stated that they would like to teach with Elluminate in the future (question 10;
seven totally agreed and five agreed somewhat with this statement). Regarding their perception of stress during
the tutoring sessions, eight tutors disagreed somewhat or totally disagreed that the experience was more stressful
compared to teaching in a face-to-face classroom (question 11). All tutors stated that the training they received
was sufficient (question 12; nine totally agreed, and three agreed somewhat).
The Elluminate tools the tutors most liked to use were uploading of images (question 14; eleven tutors),
followed by the chat and the audio tools, which received the highest rating from nine tutors. Nine tutors gave the
54
highest rating to both the upload tool and chat. Regarding the usefulness of the Elluminate tools for the students’
learning, these two tools also received the highest ratings.
The three open questions included in this section were: 9.a. Teaching in Elluminate is the same as
teaching in a face-to-face classroom context. Please explain why you think the way you do; 11.a. Teaching in
Elluminate is more stressful than teaching in a face-to-face classroom context. Please explain why you think the
way you do; and 13. If you think the training could be improved, please explain how (See Table 5.4 for compiled
results). With respect to question 9.a, ten out of twelve tutors mentioned that they had noted the lack of visual and
physical contact in the Elluminate classroom as a difference compared to face-to-face teaching. Four tutors also
reported they had enjoyed teaching on Elluminate, whereas one tutor commented to the contrary. Of note with
respect to 11.a is that six mentioned that technical issues caused them stress in some way. Regarding question 13
If you think the training could be improved, please explain how, three tutors said no improvement was needed for
the preliminary training. One tutor requested more training sessions, and another one would have liked additional
training regarding classroom management on Elluminate. Two students identified technical issues as an area of
future training.
With respect to Section II (Technical aspects related to Elluminate, see Table 5.3, questions 16-19), the
tutors reported on general issues with connectivity and problems with the audio tool. Eleven tutors stated that
connecting to the Elluminate platform was generally easy and sufficiently quick (question 17), and that uploading
images and whiteboards worked well (question 19). However, nine tutors reported that they had difficulties
hearing their students well (question 16).
Regarding section III (The tutoring tasks, see Table 5.3, questions 20-25), eleven tutors found it easy to
carry out the tasks (question 20), and all twelve tutors enjoyed working with them (question 21). Ten tutors also
thought their learners equally enjoyed working with the tasks (question 22) and that there was sufficient time to
carry them out. The most popular tutoring activities (question 24) were Friendship (session 5), Getting to know
each other (session 1), and Antarctica (session 4), with an average rating of 2.42, 2.27, and 2.08 on a scale from 0
to 3.0, respectively. Regarding the usefulness of the tasks for the students’ learning (question 25), the tasks of
sessions 3 (Winter in Quebec), session 4 (Antarctica), and session 5 (Friendship) received the highest ratings,
with an average of 2.08 each. The topics mentioned in reply to the open question 26 (other comments), mostly
concerned the tasks and technical issues. Regarding the tasks, two tutors commented that they found the
intercultural experience valuable. One tutor mentioned the lack of peer-to-peer interaction due to task design and
commented that more student focused tasks would have implied a more active learner participation. Whereas one
55
tutor acknowledged that technical issues decreased from session to session, another mentioned that these issues
absorbed a lot of time in class.
Table 5.3. Tutor survey - compiled answers to closed questions The answers to the 12 surveys were compiled by answer per question (a choice between A, B, C, and D). The median, mean, and standard deviation were calculated on the values assigned to each question (A = 3, B=2, C=1, and D=0).
I. Teaching with Elluminate A:
totally agree
[3]
B: agree some-what
[2]
C: dis-agree some-what
[1]
D: totally
dis-agree
[0]
Total re-sponses
Median
Mean / average
SD
1. I enjoyed teaching the students on the Elluminate platform.
6 6 0 0 12 2.50 2.50 0.50
2. I gave feedback to my students. 4 7 1 0 12 2.00 2.25 0.60
3. I felt at ease giving feedback to my students.
3 5 4 0 12 2.00 1.92 0.76
4. I had the impression that my feedback helped the students.
3 6 3 0 12 2.00 2.00 0.71
5. Teaching with Elluminate helped me develop confidence in my ability to teach.
5 4 3 0 12 2.00 2.17 0.80
6. Teaching with Elluminate helped me develop skill in my ability to give feedback.
1 5 6 0 12 1.50 1.58 0.64
7. I got to know my students well during the five tutoring sessions.
1 7 3 1 12 2.00 1.67 0.75
8. Not seeing my students' faces affected our teacher-student relationship.
7 2 1 2 12 3.00 2.17 1.14
9. Teaching in Elluminate is the same as teaching in a face-to-face classroom context.
1 0 3 8 12 0.00 0.50 0.87
10. I would like to have the opportunity to do more teaching with Elluminate.
7 5 0 0 12 3 2.58 0.49
11. Teaching in Elluminate is more stressful than teaching in a face-to-face classroom context.
0 4 6 2 12 1 1.17 0.69
12. The training I received prior to the sessions with Elluminate was sufficient.
9 3 0 0 12 3 2.75 0.43
Note: 13 is an open question.
56
14. During the tutoring sessions, I liked to use the following Elluminate tools
a. Chat 9 2 1 0 12 3 2.67 0.62
b. audio 9 1 2 0 12 3 2.58 0.76
c. polling options in the participants' window
7 5 0 0 12 3 2.58 0.49
d. upload images onto whiteboard 11 1 0 0 12 3 2.92 0.28
e. writing tools on whiteboard 8 4 0 0 12 3 2.67 0.47
f. drawing tools on whiteboard 5 5 1 1 12 2 2.17 0.90
g. tool to identify who inserted objects on the whiteboard
5 6 1 0 12 2 2.33 0.62
15. I found the following Elluminate tools helpful for facilitating students' learning:
a. Chat 11 1 0 0 12 3 2.92 0.28
b. audio 9 2 1 0 12 3 2.67 0.62
c. polling options in the participants' window
5 4 1 2 12 2.5 2.25 0.92
d. uploaded images on the whiteboard 10 1 1 0 12 3 2.75 0.60
e. writing tools on whiteboard 8 4 0 0 12 3 2.67 0.47
f. drawing tools on whiteboard 4 5 2 1 12 2 2.08 0.86
g. tool to identify who inserted objects on the whiteboard
3 3 3 3 12 1.5 1.50 1.12
II. Technical aspects related to using Elluminate
16. I could hear the students well. 0 3 5 4 12 1 0.92 0.76
17. Connecting to the Elluminate platform was easy and sufficiently quick.
10 1 0 1 12 3 2.67 0.85
18. Contact with the students via Internet worked well from a technical point of view.
2 3 4 3 12 1 1.33 1.03
19. Uploading images and whiteboards worked well.
12 0 0 0 12 3 3.00 0.00
III. The tutoring tasks
20. I found it easy to carry out the tutoring tasks.
5 6 1 0 12 2 2.33 0.62
21. I enjoyed working with the tasks during the tutoring sessions.
6 6 0 0 12 2.5 2.50 0.50
22. The students liked working with the tasks.
3 7 2 0 12 2 2.08 0.64
23. There was sufficient time to carry out the tasks
3 7 2 0 12 2 2.00 0.71
57
24. How much did you like the following tasks?
a. Task in the first session (get to know each other)
4 6 1 0 111 2 2.27 0.62
a. Task in the second session (time zones)
1 3 6 2 12 1 1.25 0.83
a. Task in the third session (winter in Quebec)
2 7 3 0 12 2 1.92 0.64
a. Task in the fourth session (Antarctica) 6 2 3 1 12 2.5 2.08 1.04
a. Task in the fifth session (Friendship) 7 3 2 0 12 3 2.42 0.76
25. Were the tasks useful for learning English?
a. Task in the first session (get to know each other)
3 5 2 1 112 2 1.91 0.90
a. Task in the second session (time zones)
0 6 6 0 12 1.5 1.50 0.50
a. Task in the third session (winter in Quebec)
4 5 3 0 12 2 2.08 0.76
a. Task in the fourth session (Antarctica) 4 5 3 0 12 2 2.08 0.76
a. Task in the fifth session (Friendship) 5 3 4 0 12 2 2.08 0.86
Table 5.4. - Tutor survey - compiled answers to open questions
Total responses
9. a. Teaching in Elluminate is the same as teaching in a face-to-face classroom context. Open question:
Please explain why you think the way you do.
No answer 2
No physical and visual contact 10
I enjoyed teaching on Elluminate 4
Comments on learners' participation (lacked confidence in the beginning; requested project to
include more sessions) 3
Giving feedback was perceived as different / more complicated 3
Technical issues resulted in lack of time to carry out tasks 1
Elluminate perceived as good as, if not better than, teaching in a face-to-face context 1
1 One tutor did not participate in the first tutoring session and did not reply to this question.
2 One tutor did not participate in the first tutoring session and did not reply to this question.
58
11. a. Teaching in Elluminate is more stressful than teaching in a face-to-face classroom context. Please
explain why you think the way you do.
No answer 3
Technical problems that occurred in Elluminate caused stress 6
I enjoyed teaching on Elluminate 6
No visual contact 3
Would have liked more time
2
13. If you think the training could be improved, please explain how.
No answer 4
No improvement needed. 3
Additional training on how to use the Elluminate tools suggested 2
Lack of ICT expertise 1
Training on classroom management suggested 1
Additional training session suggested 1
26. Do you have other comments?
No answer 3
Tasks 3
Time lost due to technical issues 3
Tutors enjoyed experience. 2
Would have liked more time 1
Suggestion that learners keep in touch on Facebook 1
5.2.2. Tutor interviews
The semi-structured interviews, conducted with the tutors after the last tutoring session, were intended to
give the tutors the opportunity to clarify and expand on answers from the tutor surveys and to reflect on their
teaching experience. The summarized results from these interviews are presented in this section as eight bar
figures. Five figures are related to section I of the tutor survey (Teaching with Elluminate), one figure is related to
section II (Technical aspects related to using Elluminate), and two figures are related to section III (The tutoring
tasks). The results will be presented in Figures 5.1 to 5.12.
The interview questions related to section I of the tutor survey were: (1) What did you like and what did
you like less about teaching on Elluminate?, (2) How can you compare teaching on Elluminate to teaching in a
normal classroom?, (3) How did you help the students and how did you give them feedback?, (4) What teaching
techniques did you use?, and (5) How do you think the students benefited from this project?
59
Regarding the first question (see Figure 5.1), eleven of twelve tutors commented that they liked the
experience of working with a new ICT tool (Elluminate). Six tutors mentioned they liked the experience of
teaching people from another culture with a native language different from their own. Five of these tutors also
mentioned that they liked working with a new ICT tool. In terms of what they liked less, the topics most often
mentioned were the lack of visual contact (six tutors) and the technical issues they experienced (five tutors).
Figure 5.1. Teaching with Elluminate: positive and negative experiences
When asked to compare the experience of teaching on Elluminate to teaching in a face-to-face classroom,
more differences than similarities were mentioned (ten versus two, respectively, see Figure 5.2). Some tutors
mentioned more than one point. Four tutors mentioned the lack of visual contact and the way they evaluated how
students were participating. Three tutors mentioned both points. Two tutors observed the following differences
between the two teaching situations: (a) students can participate more in Elluminate, (b) tutors have a closer
contact with students in Elluminate because they listen more closely, and (c) students cannot see when the tutor
makes a mistake in Elluminate. With respect to this latter comment, the tutors felt they could take short breaks by
muting their audio and confer with their tutor partner when unexpected situations or problems arose.).
60
Figure 5.2. Comparing teaching on Elluminate with a face-to-face classroom
When asked about the type of feedback (see Figure 5.3) the tutors gave to the learners, positive feedback
was most frequently mentioned (eight tutors), followed by indirect feedback (four tutors). Four tutors mentioned
that they gave none or hardly any negative feedback and justified this choice due to the lack of visual contact,
their being unsure about how to correct, and not being able to type fast enough in the chat window. Of these four
tutors, three had mentioned that they gave positive feedback. When asked how the tutors helped the learners, the
point most frequently mentioned was that they invited the learners to ask questions (four tutors). The strategies
“repeat explanations”, “giving clues or examples”, and “giving an overview of the class” were mentioned by two
tutors each. One tutor mentioned two of these strategies.
Figure 5.3. Giving feedback
61
When asked which teaching techniques the tutors used on Elluminate (see Figure 5.4), the most frequently
mentioned technique was the use of emoticons. The tutors frequently asked the learners to click on the emoticons
in the participants’ window (smiley, confused face, green check mark, and red X) for quick feedback or polling.
Four tutors mentioned the pointer tool they used to draw the learners’ attention to specific areas of the
whiteboard. Two tutors from two different teams mentioned team teaching, with one tutor using audio and the
other using the chat box at the same time. However, the recordings of the tutoring sessions revealed that all four
tutor teams that were observed used this technique. Another technique mentioned by tutors of two different teams
was tool control, the possibility for the tutors to assign or take away tools from the learners such as access to the
whiteboard, audio, or chat.
Figure 5.4. Teaching techniques
When asked how they thought the learners benefited from participating in the project (see Figure 5.5),
eight tutors mentioned the use of ESL in an authentic context, which they thought motivated and empowered the
students in their learning. Five of these tutors also mentioned that they felt the learners were motivated by the
project, since it presented a challenge to communicate in English and make communication work (in total, seven
tutors mentioned this point). Six tutors felt that the learners made progress in English and / or they developed
ESL skills. Listening, reading, speaking and vocabulary skills were mentioned in this context.
62
Figure 5.5. Tutors’ perception of students’ benefits
The question regarding section II (Technical aspects related to using Elluminate) concerned problems that
occurred during the tutoring sessions (see Figure 5.6). Ten tutors mentioned technical issues with audio and
microphones, and six tutors mentioned issues with classroom management, in particular, keeping learners on task
who used chat for communication unrelated to the activities. At the same time, the chat tool was mentioned by
three tutors from two teams as a way to work around the problems with audio and microphones.
Figure 5.6. Perceived problems and solutions
The tutors were also asked two questions related to section III (The tutoring tasks). When asked in general
about the activities (see Figure 5.7), the activity most frequently mentioned (by seven tutors) was the activity
about time zones (activity 2). It was evaluated as not relevant to the learners, and tutors said they did not find it
interesting, found it hard to teach, or considered it confusing. The activity about friendship (activity 5) was
63
mentioned by six tutors and received only positive comments. The tutors felt that the learners liked it and felt
confident during this activity. It was also mentioned that sharing personal information on the tutors’ and the
learners’ part worked well in this activity. Activity 1 (Getting to know each other) also received only positive
comments. The comments made by the tutors included “useful as an icebreaker”, “I liked it”, “went smoothly”.
Figure 5.7. Tutors’ perception of online activities
When asked about the elements they felt important for the welcome screen (the first whiteboard the tutors
created for each session, see Figure 5.8), ten tutors mentioned they thought it important to include a visual
element such as a picture and/ or colors related to the activity. Five tutors mentioned information such as key
words or quotes related to the activity as important, and three tutors thought it important to include a picture of
themselves on the welcome screen.
Figure 5.8. Adapting online activities
64
5.2.3. Discussion forum
All twelve tutors posted comments on the course’s discussion forum. The quantitative analysis of the
posts provides data related to the word count per posted message per tutor and to the moment the message was
posted (see Table 5.5). The qualitative analysis reports on the themes mentioned in the posts (see Figures 5.9,
5.10, and 5.11).
Table 5.5 provides an overview of the quantitative data obtained from the discussion forum. In total, 31
messages and 4943 words were posted on the forum between February 3, just before the first tutoring session,
and March 8, five days after the last tutoring session. The posts were on average 159 words long, and the highest
number of posts was published after the second session (Time Zones).
Table 5.5. Tutor participation in discussion forum - quantitative analysis
Tutor Number of posts
Average number of words
words /before session
1
words /before session
2
words /before session
3
words /before session
4
words /before session
5
words / after session
5
Total words
T1-R 3 161 0 0 168 187 0 127 482
T2-R 2 147 0 0 0 171 122 0 293
T3-I 2 73 0 0 34 0 0 111 145
T4-I 3 150 0 87 168 0 196 0 451
T5-W 1 384 384 0 0 0 0 0 384
T6-W 3 258 0 0 232 269 273 0 774
T7-H 5 78 0 135 53 83 83 36 390
T8-H 4 96 0 0 78 128 112 65 383
T9-E 2 61 0 0 78 0 43 0 121
T10-E 2 109 82 0 136 0 0 0 218
T11-G 3 363 0 136 549 0 0 404 1089
T12-G 1 213 0 0 0 0 213 0 213
Total posts 31
Average words/post 159
Total words 466 358 1496 838 1042 743 4943
number of posts 2 3 9 5 7 5
65
The qualitative analysis of the tutor discussion forum was focused on the same three topic areas as the
tutor survey and the tutor interviews: teaching with Elluminate (Figure 5.9); technical aspects related to using
Elluminate (Figure 5.10), and the tutoring tasks (Figure 5.11). The count shown in the figures was based on how
often these topics were mentioned in the messages.
Regarding the topic area “Teaching with Elluminate” (see Figure 5.9), the nine tutors made remarks that
evaluated their learners (26 occurrences). Most frequent were comments that described the learners’ positive
attitude during class (eager, enthusiastic, actively participating), with 16 occurrences. In five instances, tutors of
the groups B, C, D, and E evaluated the learners’ ESL skills as good (good readers, good description, good level
of English), opposed to one comment (group Edmonton) about the learners’ lack of understanding of the tutor’s
questions. Nine tutors commented on their teaching experience in 23 instances. Most frequent were comments
about the affective aspect (enjoyed it, awesome, lovely, fun, great, fine) in 10 instances across 5 groups,
comments that reflected the tutors’ positive perception. Comments about how they felt immediately before and
during the class were posted by 9 tutors from all six tutor teams (17 occurrences). These feelings were frequently
related to the technical issues encountered during the classes (hope that things would be better next class,
frustration and disappointment caused by technical issues, 7 instances). Ten tutors from five teams posted
comments about teaching strategies (17 occurrences). The strategy most frequently mentioned (5 instances) was
the use of chat to work around technical issues with audio and microphones.
Figure 5.9. Teaching with Elluminate
Regarding the technical aspects related to using Elluminate, tutors from all groups commented on issues
related to sound and microphones on the learners’ side (16 instances, see Figure 5.10). They reported that learners
66
were not able to hear them, or that the learners’ microphones did not work properly. In some instances, both
issues occurred at the same time, although not for all learners in a group at the same time. The tutors commented
that these issues affected the class since they were not able to hear one or several of the learners well.
Figure 5.10. Technical aspects related to using Elluminate
In total, 16 comments about the five activities were posted on the discussion forum (see Figure 5.11).
Four tutors from four different teams made comments on the activity of the second session (Time Zones), all of
them positive (activity worked well, was fun and interesting).
Figure 5.11. The tutoring tasks
67
5.3. Research Question 3: How do ESL learners perceive learning English in an
SLMS platform?
In this section I will present the data related to the third research question: How do ESL learners perceive
learning English in an SLMS platform? Data were collected from two sources: 1. the student surveys and 2. the
student interviews. In each section, I will first present the quantitative and then the qualitative data.
5.3.1. Student surveys
The student survey consisted of 12 closed questions. These questions focused on the following themes: A.
enjoyment (questions 1 and 2), B. activities (question 3), C. learning experience (question 4), D. perception of
tutors (question 5), E. relationships with peers and tutors (question 6 and 7), F. the virtual classroom (question 8
to 12), and G. training (question 13). The two open questions (10 and 13a) concerned the virtual classroom and
the training. An overview of the learners’ responses to the closed and open questions is given in Tables 5.6 and
5.7.
As shown in Table 5.6, learners’ attitude toward learning in Elluminate was generally positive. All 14
learners enjoyed learning English with Elluminate. Thirteen learners totally agreed and one learner agreed with
this statement. Eleven learners who totally agreed with this statement also totally agreed with the statement “It
was easy for me to use Elluminate”.
Asked about the activities, seven learners liked all five activities very much. The first and the fifth activity
(Getting to know each other and Friends are forever) received a rating of “liked it very much” by 13 learners, and
the other three activities received this rating from eight learners. Regarding the third activity (Winter in Quebec),
the responses were mixed.
The question regarding what the learners perceived as having learned during the tutoring sessions focused
on six areas of ESL learning: pronunciation, speaking, listening, writing, spelling, and vocabulary. The seven
learners who totally agreed that they improved their ESL skills in all six areas had also given the highest rating to
all five activities in the previous question. Thirteen out of the 14 learners totally agreed with the statement that
they improved their listening skills.
The question regarding the perception of the tutors (question 5) was divided into five items. The learners
were asked to rate the tutors’ help in the learning of pronunciation, spelling, grammar, vocabulary practice and
learning of new vocabulary. Six learners totally agreed that the tutor helped them in all five areas. Five of these
68
learners had also given the highest rating for all five activities and had totally agreed that they improved their
ESL skills in all six areas (pronunciation, speaking, listening, writing, spelling, and vocabulary, see question 4).
Eleven learners totally agreed that the tutors helped them with grammar and with learning new words.
Questions 6 and 7 concerned the relationships with peers and tutors during the tutoring sessions. Thirteen
learners reported that they received help from other learners during the tutoring sessions. Nine of them strongly
agreed and four of them agreed somewhat with this statement.
The learners were asked two questions (8 and 9) about the virtual learning environment. Twelve learners
totally agreed and the remaining two agreed somewhat that they would have liked to see their tutor`s face during
the sessions. Five learners who strongly agreed with this statement also strongly agreed that learning in
Elluminate is the same as learning in a normal classroom. The open question where the learners were asked to
explain why they thought that learning in Elluminate is the same or not the same as a traditional classroom was
answered by eight learners, some of whom mentioned more than one argument. Five learners mentioned they
thought learning with Elluminate was more entertaining (“funnier”) than a traditional classroom, and three
perceived Elluminate as more interactive (see Table 5.7). All learners strongly agreed that they would like to take
other classes with Elluminate in the future (see Table 5.6).
The last area of inquiry concerned the training session the learners had received before the first tutoring
session. Eleven learners strongly agreed and the three others agreed somewhat with the statement that the training
they had received was sufficient (see Table 5.6). The open question on how the training could be improved was
answered by 10 learners. Four of them stated that no improvement was necessary. The suggestions made by the
learners regarding how the training could be improved concerned its content and logistics. Asked about changes
the learners would suggest for the training, they mentioned more information and explanations as well as
different activity types such as games and viewing of videos (see Table 5.7).
69
Table 5.6. Student survey: responses to closed questions
The answers to the 14 surveys were compiled by answer per question (a choice between A, B, C, and D). The median, mean, and standard deviation were calculated on the values assigned to each question (A = 3, B=2, C=1, and D=0).
A: to-tally
agree [3]
B: agree some-what [2]
C: dis-agree some-
what [1]
D: totally
dis- agree
[0]
Total re-
spon-ses
Me-dian
Mean / averag
e SD
A. Enjoyment
1. I enjoyed learning English with Elluminate.
13 1 0 0 14 3 2.93 0.26
2. It was easy for me to use Elluminate. 11 3 0 0 14 3 2.79 0.41
B. Activities
3. How did you like the activities in the tutoring sessions?
very much
quite a lot
a little not at
all
a. Activity in the first session (Getting to know each other)
13 1 0 0 14 3 2.93 0.26
b. Activity in the second session (Time zones)
8 2 4 0 14 3 2.29 0.88
c. Activity in the third session (Winter in Quebec)
8 2 3 1 14 3 2.21 1.01
d. Activity in the fourth session (Antarctica)
8 4 1 1 14 3 2.36 0.89
e. Activity in the fifth session (Friends are forever)
13 1 0 0 14 3 2.93 0.26
C. Learning experience
4. During the tutoring sessions, I …
a. improved my English pronunciation. 10 3 0 1 14 3 2.57 0.82
b. improved my speaking in English. 9 4 0 1 14 3 2.50 0.82
c. improved my listening in English. 13 0 1 0 14 3 2.86 0.52
d. improved my writing in English. 10 4 0 0 14 3 2.71 0.45
e. improved my spelling in English. 11 3 0 0 14 3 2.79 0.41
f. learned new words. 12 0 1 1 14 3 2.64 0.89
70
D. Perception of tutors
5. The tutor … to-tally
agree
agree some- what
disagree some- what
totally disagre
e
a. helped me with my pronunciation. 8 6 0 0 14 3 2.57 0.49
b. helped me with my spelling. 8 6 0 0 14 3 2.57 0.49
c. helped me with my grammar. 11 2 1 0 14 3 2.71 0.59
d. helped me to practice my vocabulary. 9 5 0 0 14 3 2.64 0.48
e. helped me to learn new words. 11 2 1 0 14 3 2.71 0.59
E. Relationships with peers and tutors
6. I received help from the other students
9 4 1 0 14 3 2.57 0.62
7. I got to know my tutor during the five tutoring sessions.
11 3 0 0 14 3 2.79 0.41
F. The virtual classroom
8. I would have liked to see my tutor’s face during the tutoring sessions.
12 2 0 0 14 3 2.86 0.35
9. Learning in Elluminate is the same as learning in a normal classroom.
5 4 2 3 14 2 1.79 1.15
11. I would like to take other classes with Elluminate in the future.
14 0 0 0 14 3 3.00 0
12. I like to use the following Elluminate tools
a. Chat 13 1 0 0 14 3 2.93 0.26
b. speaking with the microphone 13 1 0 0 14 3 2.86 0.35
c. raising my hand 9 4 1 0 14 3 2.57 0.62
d. emoticons (smiley, applaud, etc.) 10 3 1 0 14 3 2.64 0.61
e. writing tools on the whiteboard 13 1 0 0 14 3 2.93 0.26
f. drawing tools on the whiteboard 13 1 0 0 14 3 2.93 0.26
G. Training
13. Before beginning the tutoring sessions, I received training on how to use Elluminate. This training was sufficient.
11 3 0 0 14 3 2.79 0.41
71
Table 5.7. Student survey: compiled responses to open questions
9. / 10. Learning in Elluminate is the same as learning in a
normal classroom. Please explain why - or why not.
count of
replies
no answer 6
It's funnier 5
It's more interactive 3
Learning is the same 1
I improved my listening 1
It's different because we use headphones and microphones 1
Learning in Elluminate is the same as learning in our normal classroom.
1
Total count 17 13.a How could the training be improved? Please give
suggestions.
no answer 4
no changes required 4
change to content suggested 5
change to logistics suggested 1
Total count 14
5.3.2. Student interviews
The student interviews were intended to give the learners the opportunity to expand on the answers in the
surveys and to make any additional comments they wished to communicate about the project. The summarized
results from these interviews are presented in eighteen figures (5.12 to 5.29), grouped into four sections: I.
Learning with Elluminate; II. Problems encountered during the tutoring sessions; III. The tutoring tasks; and IV.
Peer-to-peer interaction.
The interview questions the learners were asked in section I (Learning with Elluminate) were (1) How can
you compare the sessions on Elluminate to the English classes you take at school? (2) What happened in
Elluminate that does not happen in your ESL class? (3) What did not happen in Elluminate that usually happens
in your ESL class? (4) How were errors corrected? (5) How did the tutors help you during the activities? (6)
What makes a good tutor? These questions are related to questions 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the student survey. They
concerned the following areas of inquiry: (a) the learning experience; (b) tutors’ perceived assistance; (c) self-
perceived learning progress. The responses are presented in Figures 5.12 to 5.20.
72
Regarding the first area of inquiry (a. the learning experience) in section I (Learning with Elluminate), the
learners were invited to compare the Elluminate platform to their face-to-face ESL classroom. They were then
asked to mention one or two activities from the Elluminate classroom that they didn’t engage in in their ESL class
at school, and vice versa, that is which activity common in their face-to-face classroom they did not carry out in
the Elluminate classroom. The answers to these three questions are summarized in Figures 5.12 to 5.14.
Regarding the first question, the learners mentioned more perceived differences than similarities between the
virtual and the traditional classroom. Six learners mentioned that they found the activities in the Elluminate
classroom different from those they participated in in their normal ESL classroom. Five learners mentioned that,
from their point of view, both learning contexts were similar because they learned English from a teacher.
However, four learners each mentioned the perceived difference that in Elluminate they learned in small groups
and that they interacted with people from another country (see Figure 5.12). When asked which activities they
carried out in Elluminate but not in their face-to-face ESL class, the picture description activity was most often
mentioned, followed by speaking, reading in teams and talking about interesting topics not contained in the
textbook, with two counts each (see Figure 5.13). As for the question about activities they carried out in the face-
to-face and not in the Elluminate classroom, spelling bee and hangman were mentioned most frequently (by three
and two learners, respectively, see Figure 5.14).
Figure 5.12. Comparing Elluminate to face-to-face classrooms - general remarks
73
Figure 5.13. Comparing Elluminate to face-to-face classrooms - online activities
Figure 5.14. Comparing Elluminate to face-to-face classrooms - classroom activities
The second area of inquiry (b. perceived tutors’ assistance) in section I (Learning with Elluminate), the
learners reported on error correction and how they perceived the tutors’ help. They were also asked to describe
the behaviour of a good tutor. Regarding the help they thought the tutors provided during the activities, the most
frequent form of help, mentioned by six learners, was corrections in the chat window, followed by specific
explanations, mentioned by four learners. Regarding the ESL skills where they received help, five learners
mentioned that the tutors helped them with pronunciation (see Figure 5.15). The learners were also invited to
describe the characteristics of a good tutor. The most frequent behaviour, mentioned by five learners, was that a
tutor corrects and gives feedback to the learner. Three learners each mentioned that a good tutor gives clear
instructions and behaves patiently and friendly towards the learners (see Figure 5.16).
74
Figure 5.15. How did the tutors help you during the activities?
Figure 5.16. What makes a good tutor?
The third area of inquiry (c. self-perceived learning progress) in section I (Learning with Elluminate)
concerned ESL learning (Figure 5.17) and learning about the virtual classroom (Figures 5.18 and 5.19).
Regarding the first question about what they learned from the tutoring sessions, all learners mentioned that they
thought they had learned new words. In addition, self-perceived improvement was mentioned most frequently for
listening skills (eight learners), grammar skills, in particular verb tenses, (six learners) and writing skills due to
the chat messages (five learners) (see Figure 5.17). Regarding their learning about the virtual classroom, ten
learners said they found it easier to participate in the fifth session compared to the first session (see Figure 5.18).
75
When asked what they knew how to do in the fifth session that they hadn’t known in the first one, six learners
mentioned the use of the microphone, and four mentioned they knew “how to speak”, which could be interpreted
as including the use of the microphone as a speaking tool on Elluminate (see Figure 5.19).
Figure 5.17. Self-perceived ESL learning
Figure 5.18. Comparing sessions 5 and 1
In section II (Problems encountered during the tutoring sessions), the learners were asked about which
problems they had experienced during the tutoring sessions, how they had solved them, and how they were
affected by them (see Figures 5.20 to 5.22). With respect to problems experienced during the Elluminate sessions,
almost all learners mentioned problems with the audio and microphones (see Figure 5.20). The most frequent
76
Figure 5.19. Learning about Elluminate
strategy to solve these problems that the learners mentioned was to ask one of the people present in their
computer lab for help (five learners). Four learners mentioned that they resorted to chat as a backup mode of
communication. Two learners reported that they used both strategies (see Figure 5.21). When asked how these
problems affected their participation, the consequences (I couldn’t participate) and the resulting emotions
(sadness, frustration) were mentioned with four counts each. Three learners gave answers that fit both categories
(see Figure 5.22).
Figure 5.20. Problems on Elluminate
Section III (the tutoring tasks) included the question about what the learners liked during the tutoring
sessions, their favourite activity, and the reason for choosing this activity. The main aspects the learners liked
about the activities were that they interacted with the tutors (mentioned by four learners) and that they felt the
tutors were interested in what they liked (two counts). Similar reasons for liking the activities that the learners
mentioned were that they discovered the characteristics of things and people and the fact that they got to know
people. The reasons mentioned for not liking the activities concerned the task types (see Figure 5.23). Nine
learners mentioned they liked the activity of the fifth session (Friends are forever) best (see Figure 5.24). When
asked for the reason why they chose a particular activity as their favourite, reasons related to the task design were
77
mentioned most frequently (getting to know the classmates and tutors, the topic, the dynamics of the activity; see
Figure 5.25).
Figure 5.21. Solutions to problems on Elluminate
Figure 5.22. Impact of problems on Elluminate
Figure 5.23. What students liked - didn't like
78
Figure 5.24. Favourite activities
Figure 5.25. Reasons for choosing the favourite activity
In the fourth and last section of the interview, the learners were asked to elaborate on how they interacted
with their peers during the Elluminate sessions. Ten learners reported that their peers helped them, and eight of
them said they helped their classmates. Seven learners said they both received help and provided assistance as
well (see Figure 5.26). When asked in which situation the assistance was received or provided, the context most
frequently mentioned was technical issues, mentioned by five learners. Four learners reported that they supported
each other with vocabulary issues, and three mentioned that they received help to complete the picture description
task (see Figure 5.27). When asked how the learners communicated with their peers, the mode most frequently
mentioned was chat (seven instances), followed by face-to-face communication in the computer lab, mentioned
by five learners. Regarding the mode of communication, chat was most often mentioned, followed by face-to-
face communication (see Figure 5.28).
79
Figure 5.26. Peer-to-peer help – frequency
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
I helped other students.
I received help from otherstudents.
Counts
Figure 5.27. Peer-to-peer help – context
0 2 4 6 8
We used chat to communicate.
We spoke face-to-face.
We used the microphone tocommunicate.
My classmates helped me with thecloze activity.
Counts
Figure 5.28. Peer-to-peer communication modes
0 2 4 6 8
We used chat tocommunicate.
We spoke face-to-face.
We used the microphone tocommunicate.
My classmates helped me withthe cloze activity.
Counts
80
5.4. Conclusion
In this chapter, the findings identified during data analysis were reported separately for each research
question and data collection instrument. In the next chapter, I will discuss the results in relation to a certain
number of issues in relation to the previously published research.
81
CHAPTER 6: Discussion
6.0. Introduction This study explored interaction by tutors and ESL secondary 1 (Grade 7) students located in Mexico City
within the context of the Elluminate platform. The study targeted three research questions: (1) “What types of
scaffolding are provided by ESL tutors during interaction with students in an SLMS platform?” (2) “How do ESL
tutors perceive their experience teaching a second language in an SLMS platform?”, and (3)”How do ESL
learners perceive learning English in an SLMS platform?”
In the previous chapter, the results of the study were presented. In this chapter, the results will be
discussed in terms of findings from previously published studies. For this discussion, the following areas were
identified: 1. scaffolding in an SLMS, 2. the tutors’ perception of teaching in an SLMS, 3. corrective feedback,
4.the students` perception of the tutor role, 5. the training sessions, and 6. technical problems. In each section,
implications for pedagogy will be included if applicable.
6.1. Areas of discussion
6.1.1. Scaffolding in a SLMS
As discussed in the Results chapter, a taxonomy proposed by Pawan (2008) was used to analyse the
scaffolding provided by tutors in the context of the present study. The analysis showed that in addition to the four
types of scaffolding defined by Pawan (linguistic, conceptual, social, and cultural), a fifth type, technical
scaffolding was used by the tutors in an online synchronous class. Technical scaffolding was defined as the
tutor’s suggestion of a particular tool to facilitate the ESL learners' successful participation in an activity. With
respect to Pawan’s study, it should be noted that the data drew on a discussion forum of in-service teachers who
discussed the scaffolding types they used in face-to-face teaching. By contrast, the students and their tutors in the
present study collaborated on a synchronous learning management platform and relied entirely on their
headphones and microphones for oral communication, which at times malfunctioned. The analysis further
revealed that in order to resolve these technical issues, the strategy most often used by the tutors was to resort to
the chat and whiteboard tools. Although studies of synchronous online interaction involving teachers are rare, in
the two which focus on scaffolding (Lee 2004, 2008), the analysis was limited to linguistic scaffolding. While
linguistic scaffolding did emerge in the present study, the focus of analysis was also broadened to include other
scaffolding types.
82
In addition to identifying instances of technical scaffolding, the analysis also showed differences in terms
of the frequency of scaffolding provided in different tutorial groups and in function of the different types of task.
Linguistic scaffolding, for example, was provided most often in Group B, whose tutors used it three times more
often than the tutors of Group A. The two activities during session 2 (the presentation of maps with time zones
and the reading activity) gave rise to more scaffolding episodes than the other tasks. Future studies need to
investigate the relationship between scaffolding type and frequency and task type. Also, greater attention needs to
be paid to how tutors, with varying degrees of teaching experience, use scaffolding in order to facilitate learning.
As noted by Lee (2006), training is needed in order to help instructors develop effective scaffolding strategies.
6.1.2. Tutor perception of teaching in a SLMS
The present study provides evidence that working in a SLMS can be perceived as rewarding. The tutors of
this study, pre-service ESL teachers, reported that they generally enjoyed the experience of teaching on
Elluminate, as it offered a new experience working with ICTs. Some of them especially liked the interaction with
students from another culture. Data from the tutor survey and the tutor interviews clearly provide evidence of this
opinion. In general, tutors also commented that they developed their teaching skills during this project. All of
them had a positive attitude towards the software and would like to teach online in the future. However, they
commented that technical issues during the tutoring sessions caused them stress and cost time (see section 6.1.7
for more detailed information on these issues).
It must also be noted that six of the twelve tutors who participated in this study found the fact that they
could not see their students as an aspect they liked less in their teaching experience. Although the Elluminate
software has a video tool, the computers at the learners’ school were not equipped with cameras. Although the
tutors’ computers did have cameras, they were advised not to use them to avoid a disproportional increase in file
size. To establish visual contact, some tutors posted pictures of themselves on the welcome screen in the first
session. These findings confirm the results of Lee (2009) to a certain extent. Lee reports that all tutors who
participated in her study (i.e., in-service ESL teachers), generally perceived the use of synchronous technologies
for teaching as positive and were generally satisfied with online teaching. However, the teachers in Lee’s study
tried to create a teaching environment similar to traditional classrooms and relied on the video camera for
teaching strategies such as gesturing.
It is interesting to note that, despite the lack of visual contact, the majority of the tutors of the present
study nevertheless felt that they got to know their students during the five sessions. These findings could be
83
interpreted as contradictory at first sight and seem to contribute new evidence to the issue about creating
relationships between participants and teachers in distance learning contexts. Further investigation on how tutors
and learners construct a relationship in synchronous learning environments is needed to understand this issue.
Although the majority of the participants of Lee’s (2009) study reported that they would not like to teach
in a SLMS in the future, the pre-service tutors of the present study generally commented that they would be
willing to work online. However, as a recommendation for teaching in synchronous teaching environments, it is
suggested that both tutors and L2 learners be advised to make at least some minimal use of their webcams during
class. In addition to the webcams, other functionalities such as the user profile could be resorted to, to facilitate
the tutors’ and learners’ sharing of personal information. The profile features include a picture, job title, place of
work, and phone number. Moreover, activities that allow tutors and learners to get to know each other should be
included in online courses. The results of this study showed that both tutors and learners greatly appreciated this
type of activity.
6.1.3. Corrective feedback
Regarding corrective feedback, two areas of discussion were identified in the data: 1. tutors’ perception of
what they thought about giving feedback and 2. students’ perception of the corrective feedback they received
from tutors.
When asked how the tutors provided feedback to students, three factors seem to have influenced the type
and amount of feedback given. The first factor is the lack of visual contact on the LMS platform. Some tutors
mentioned in their interviews (Figure 5.3) that lack of visual contact caused them to give more positive than
negative feedback. Some of them mentioned that not seeing how the students reacted to their feedback influenced
their choice. A second factor mentioned by some tutors was their insecurity and lack of confidence about how to
correct mistakes. In this regard, one tutor mentioned that she thought her co-tutor had far better ESL skills than
her and didn’t want to expose herself by giving erroneous feedback to the learners. A third factor pertained to the
fact that some tutors also commented that they did not think they were supposed to give corrective feedback to
the students. They thought the students were supposed to “practice English”. Such a comment suggests that
certain tutors’ concept of “practice” did not seem to include direct negative feedback. An examination of the
comments categorized as linguistic scaffolding further revealed that students indeed rarely gave negative
corrective feedback (and if given, appeared to be done so in the form of recasts).
84
To date, the only study which has attempted to shed light on how student teachers provide feedback in an
online synchronous environment where voice communication is possible is the one conducted by Sotillo (2005)
where participants worked with MSN Live Messenger. Whereas in Sotillo’s study, the student teachers did
provide a certain amount of corrective feedback, as noted above, in the present study such feedback was rare.
Although the tutors in the present study had been introduced to the notion of corrective feedback in the previous
semester, their opportunity to teach in practicums up to the time of the study was very limited. The present study
raises intriguing questions as to why the tutors did not give more feedback and points to an issue which needs to
be investigated in future online studies. Another issue which needs to be explored is why tutors who are pre-
service teachers might have a preference for direct or indirect corrective feedback. In Sotillo’s study, the tutors
who were non-native speakers had a preference for direct negative feedback whereas the native speakers
preferred more indirect approaches such as recasting. Although in the present study little corrective feedback was
given, the preference by all tutors appeared to be for more indirect forms such as recasts.
These findings further show the importance of training pre-service ESL teachers in synchronous online
environments. They should be given the opportunity to transfer conceptual knowledge acquired in university
courses not only in internships in traditional schools, but also in online teaching contexts.
6.1.4. Students’ perception of the tutor role
The student participants of this study were asked how the tutors helped them and what they thought a
“good tutor” was. They mentioned that a good tutor corrects them and gives feedback and clear instructions.
Regarding the clear instructions, it is interesting to note that a number of linguistic scaffolding episodes were
identified in the session transcripts where the tutors clarified their instructions for the students. These answers
support the findings of Shield, Hauck, and Hewer (2001), who report that learners expected the tutors to give
them information and feedback. However, in contrast to this previous study, some students of the study reported
herein also mentioned affective components of tutor behaviour as desirable, such as being “friendly, doesn’t get
angry, helps you to learn, listens to the students”, and “is interested in our point of view”. In this regard, it should
be noted that the study of Shield at al. investigated a learning context of university students, whereas the
participants of this study were 13- to 14-year-old Secondary 1 (Grade 7) students. Further research would help to
clarify to what extent the tutors’ cognitive and affective behaviour is perceived as helpful by learners. As
suggested by previous studies (Hauck & Haezewindt, 1999; Egbert, Huff, McNeill, Preuss, & Sellen, 2009;
Loewen & Reissner, 2009), more research is required to further investigate the tutor/teacher role and how it may
affect online learning.
85
Regarding the learners’ perception of the tutors’ support, half of them said the tutors helped them in all
areas of ESL learning, especially with grammar and new vocabulary. The students also commented that they
liked the positive attitude they perceived during their synchronous interaction on the tutors’ part. These findings
seem to confirm the results of another study carried out by Jeannot and Chanier (2008) in an SLMS. The sole
participant of this study, a university student, also had a positive perception of his tutors’ scaffolding. However,
future research is needed to investigate more thoroughly which tutor practices have a positive impact on learners’
participation and perception.
6.1.5. Training
Both learners and tutors found in general that the training they had received before the tutoring sessions
was sufficient. When asked how the training could be improved, however, one student suggested using tutorial
videos on how to use Elluminate, and one tutor pointed out that she had practiced using the software between the
training and the tutoring sessions. Regarding the recordings of the tutor training sessions that were produced
automatically with a screen capture tool integrated in the learning platform, several tutors commented that they
viewed the recording of the training sessions. The findings of this study that training sessions for tutors and
learners are important support the results of Hampel and Hauck (2004) insofar as the tutors of their study also
remarked that they found their training sessions helpful. As a recommendation for the implementation of
Elluminate in ESL contexts, the option of viewing session recordings could be made available to tutors and
learners as a means to reflect on the training and to better retain the functionality of the tools available on the
platform.
6.1.6. Technical problems
Numerous studies about ESL teaching in synchronous settings (Hampel, 2003; Hampel, Felix, &
Coleman, 2005; Hampel & Hauck, 2004; Sotillo, 2005; Strambi & Bouvet, 2003) have identified technical
problems. For example, the tutors in the study of Hampel and Hauck (2004) mentioned problems with audio. The
same issue was identified in the data of the present study on the students’ side, as pertained to the students’
microphones and on some occasions with internet connectivity in Mexico. The tutors reported that, during their
online sessions, they had to wait for the problems to be solved on the students’ side and remarked that a lot of
time was lost this way. For their part, the students mentioned that they had to rely on the teacher and the
technician present in their computer lab for a solution of their problems.
86
As previously noted in Hauck and Youngs (2008), technical problems in online learning contexts have a
negative impact on interaction between tutors and students. These findings were supported by those of this study.
In addition to causing problems with interaction, six tutors also mentioned that technical issues caused them
stress in some way. In addition, some students reported that they felt sad and frustrated because they couldn’t
fully participate in the activities.
It seems important to note that in settings where numerous participants connect to an SLMS platform
through a shared modem or internet connection, the amount of data transmitted can cause a slowdown or
breakdown of the connection. This was the case in the Mexican school. However in addition, in this study a
further problem pertained to the headsets’ functionality and participants’ knowledge as to how to correctly
connect them to the computer. In this study, tutors found their headsets connected and ready to use in the
computer lab. In the learners’ computer laboratory, however, the headsets had to be connected to the computer
before each tutoring session, and an eight-step procedure had to be completed to ensure they worked correctly.
Although the learners were trained to do this in a computer class during the project, many of them relied on
expert assistance provided by the teacher and technician when problems occurred during the session. If the
current project is to be continued, students would have to be more thoroughly trained in how to attend to their
microphones or the microphones replaced by ones which are more user-friendly.
6.2. Conclusion In this chapter, I situated the findings of the present study in the context of previously published research.
In the next chapter, I will summarize the findings, present the limitation of the study and suggest areas of further
inquiry.
87
CHAPTER 7: Conclusion
7.0. Introduction
In this chapter I will first present a summary of the results of the research. Following this I will present the
limitations of this study and possible areas of further inquiry.
7.1. Summary of results
To date, very few studies have been published that investigate the interaction between tutors/teachers and
second language students in an SLMS platform. To my knowledge, the present study is the first to investigate
such interaction between tutors who were university pre-service teachers and ESL secondary students. Three
research questions were investigated. Regarding the first research question (What types of scaffolding are
provided by ESL tutors during interaction with students in an SLMS platform?), analysis revealed five types of
scaffolding: linguistic, conceptual, social, cultural and technical. Although the first four had been previously
identified in Pawan’s (2008) study, technical scaffolding emerged as a new type. Unlike Pawan’s study, which
involved teaching in face-to-face contexts, technical scaffolding was particular to the SLMS platform and arose
when breakdowns in communication via audio occurred. The data further showed that linguistic scaffolding was
the type most frequently provided by the tutors. Although studies of scaffolding in synchronous online interaction
involving teachers are rare (Lee 2004, 2008), the analysis to date has been limited to linguistic scaffolding. It is
therefore noteworthy that the present study broadens this focus to include other types of scaffolding .Differences
regarding the use of all scaffolding types were observed across tutoring groups and tasks.
With respect to the second research question (How do ESL tutors perceive their experience teaching a
second language in an SLMS platform?), three themes were explored: the tutors’ teaching experience, technical
aspects and tutoring tasks. Regarding the first theme, tutors almost in unison, in questionnaires, interviews, and in
the discussion forum expressed how satisfied they were with the opportunity of teaching with Elluminate, mostly
because it gave them an opportunity to learn about a software skill, but also because they could interact with
students from another cultural background. On the other hand, they repeatedly commented in the questionnaire
and in the interviews that not seeing their students was a circumstance that impacted their experience. In addition
to identifying the lack of visual contact with their students as an aspect they liked less, certain tutors maintained
that it affected the way they evaluated their students in terms of having a preference for positive rather than
negative feedback. These comments suggest that designers of online classes provide some kind of visual tool
(e.g., webcam, photos) as a link between teachers and learners. With respect to the technical aspects related to
88
using Elluminate, tutors identified problems with the students’ audio and microphones as an aspect which they
liked less about their teaching experience. In the discussion forum, they expressed their frustration about these
issues immediately after class. In the interviews, they reported that the chat tool served as a plan B when the
students couldn’t hear or speak. Regarding the tutoring tasks, the interactive tasks of the fifth and first tutoring
sessions (Friendship and Getting to know each other) were identified as the ones the tutors enjoyed most. They
also perceived that the students enjoyed these tasks more than the other ones. The task of the second session
(Time Zones) was the least popular and evaluated as “hard to teach”, “not interesting”, and “not relevant to the
students”.
The third research question focused on how the ESL learners perceived learning English in an SLMS
platform. To determine this, both surveys and interviews were used. Like the tutors, the ESL learners reported
that they liked participating in the tutoring sessions and enjoyed using the Elluminate tools. They considered that
the training sessions had adequately prepared them for this experience. With respect to learning English, the
students generally agreed that the Elluminate platform could be useful, especially with regard to the development
of skills in listening and new vocabulary. Students generally liked the activities proposed to them by the tutors, in
particular the ones in the fifth and first tutoring session (Friendship and Getting to know each other). With
reference to technical issues, the learners reported they had frequently experienced problems with the audio and
microphones. When problems arose, they needed to rely on help from the school’s personnel. The tutors also
signalled that they would have liked to see their tutors’ faces.
7.2. Limitations of the study
Two issues related to methodology were identified during this study. First, the number of participants in
this study is very limited. However, it must be noted that this study was designed as a natural inquiry that
intended to understand what the participants were doing and to attempt to explain their behaviour in the context
of this study alone. While it can be reproduced, the findings of a replicated study may be different from the
findings reported here.
Second, technical issues impacted the study in two ways. First, the students were participating in the
tutoring sessions while seated in the same computer lab. This could have caused problems with connectivity on
their side, due to the equipment installed to transmit data traffic. In addition, the headsets the students used were
disconnected from the computers after each class, and connecting them properly involved two separate checks,
for audio and for the microphone. Secondly, the functionality of the Elluminate software put several constraints
on data collection. The first issue occurred with data from the chat tool. Private chat messages had to be saved by
89
the tutors at the end of the tutoring session and emailed to the researcher. Not all tutors remembered to do this for
all tutoring sessions. However, it is likely that such messages had very limited or no impact on the analysis of
scaffolding, as private chat was always initiated and only used by the learners. Also, activities that took place in
breakout rooms could not be observed, since the screen capture tool could only record the interaction in the main
room.
7.3. Possible areas of further inquiry
During data analysis, four possible areas of further study were identified.
First, regarding scaffolding in an SLMS, future research could investigate how tutors with varying
degrees of teaching experience provide scaffolding in an SLMS. The studies could also include a comparison of
native speakers and non-native speakers. Another area related to this which could be investigated pertains to how
task type impacts on the type and amount of scaffolding.
Second, the nature of the interaction between tutors and L2 learners with respect to the type and amount
of negative feedback needs to be further explored. In this regard, greater attention needs to be given to
understanding how pre-service teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about feedback relate to the nature of the feedback
provided. In this regard, attention should be given to checking participants' knowledge of feedback strategies and
attitudes toward giving feedback prior to the start of the study; specific training should be provided as relevant.
Further attention should also be given as to whether native speaker and non-native speaker tutors differ in terms
of their preferences for feedback type as suggested by Sotillo (2005).
A third possible area of further investigation is the tutor role. This study is the first one to investigate the
ESL tutor role in an SLMS context with adolescent learners. Further studies will be needed to confirm or
invalidate the findings regarding the learners’ views of the tutors’ cognitive and affective behavior during the
tutoring sessions.
A final point which could be investigated pertains to the effectiveness of having pre-service teachers
engage in tutoring in pairs. More attention needs to be given as to how tutors may help each other and collaborate
during a tutorial session as well as how the presence of a partner might negatively affect interaction. As
previously noted, the design of this present study did not allow for such data collection.
90
REFERENCES
Aljafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of
proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 465-483.
Ahmad, K., Corbett, G., Rogers, M., & Sussex, R. (1985). Computers, language learning, and language
teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Antón, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner
interaction in the second-language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 303-318.
Bartning, I. (1992). L’activité interactionnelle dans une étude longitudinale de l’acquisition du français langue
étrangère. In R. Bouchard., J. Billiez, J.-M. Coletta, V. de Nuchèze., & A. Millet. Acquisition et
enseignement/apprentissage des langues. Grenoble: LIDILEM.
Belz, J.A. & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse Options and the Development of Pragmatic Competence by
Classroom Learners of German: The Case of Address Forms. Language Learning, 53, 591-647.
Betbeder, M.-L., Reffay, C., & Chanier, T. (2006). Environnement audio graphique synchrone: Recueil et
transcription pour l’analyse des interactions multimodales. Paper presented at Premières journées
communication et apprentissage instrumentés en réseau JOCAIR 2006.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language
Learning & Technology, 4, 120-136. Retrieved January 10, 2010, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html
Brammerts, H., & Little, D. (1999). Leitfaden für das Sprachenlernen im Tandem über das Internet. Manuskripte
zur Sprachlehrforschung, Band 52. Bochum, Germany: Seminar für Sprachlehrforschung, Ruhr-
Universität Bochum. Retrieved October 9, 2009 from
http://www.tcd.ie/slscs/clcs/research/projects/tandem/email/brochure.html.
Brown, J.D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newinan, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading,
writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of
Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corbel, C., & Taylor, T. (2003). Online for all? Evaluating current and potential use of Internet-based activities
for AMEP students. Sydney, Australia: NCELTR.
DiNucci, D. (1999). Fragmented future. Print, 53, 32-34.
91
Dippold, D. (2009). Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced German class.
ReCALL, 21, 18-36.
Donato, R. (1988). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language
learning. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Delaware.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P Lantolf & G. Appel. (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dowley McNamee, E. G. (1987). The social origins of narrative skills. In M. Hickmann (Ed.), Social and
functional approaches to language and thought. London: Academic Press.
Duff, P.A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. (pp. 153-181). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Dunn, W. E. & Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and Krashen’s i+1:
Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48, 411-442.
Egbert, J., Huff, L., McNeil, L., Preuss, C., & Sellen, J. (2009). Pedagogy, process, and classroom context:
Integrating teacher voice and experience into research on technology-enhanced language learning. The
Modern Language Journal, 93, 754–768.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2
grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339 – 368.
Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L, & Allen, S.A. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publication.
Fiori, M.L. (2005). The development of grammatical competence through synchronous computer-mediated
communication. CALICO Journal, 22, 567–602.
Hampel, R. (2003). Theoretical perspectives and new practices in audio-graphic conferencing for language
learning. ReCALL, 15, 21-36.
Hampel, R., Felix, U., Hauck, M., & Coleman, J. A. (2005). Complexities of learning and teaching languages in a
real-time audiographic environment. German as a Foreign Language, 1-30. Retrieved July 14, 2011, from
http://www.gfljournal.de
Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language courses.
Language Learning & Technology, 8, 66-82. Retrieved Apr 10, 2009
http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/hampel/default.html
Hashemi, L. (2006). Pet practice tests with key. New York: Longman.
92
Hauck, M., & Haezewindt, B. (1999). Adding a new perspective to distance (language) learning and teaching -
the tutor's perspective. ReCALL, 11, 46-54.
Hauck, M. & Youngs, B.L. (2008). Telecollaboration in multimodal environments: The impact on task design
and learner interaction, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 87-124.
Heins, B., Duensing, A., Stickler, U., & Batstone, C. (2007). Spoken interaction in online and face-to-face
language tutorials. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 279–295.
Hiltz, S.R. (1984). Online communities: A case study of the office of the future. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corp.
Jeannot, L., & Chanier, T. (2008). Stratégies d'un apprenant de langue dans une formation en ligne sur une plate-
forme audio-synchrone. Apprentissage des Langues et Systèmes d'Information et de Communication
(ALSIC), 11, 39-78.
Johnston W. (1999).Teaching styles and on-line courses - Can we teach old dogs new tricks? Proceedings of 1998
Humanities and Arts higher education Network's Conference, Information technology in the arts and
humanities: Present applications and future perspectives 99, 85-91. Retrieved Jan 10, 2010
Kenning, M.J., & Kenning, M.M. (1983). Introduction to computer assisted language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kinginger, C. (2002). Defining the zone of proximal development in US foreign language education. Applied
Linguistics, 23, 240-261.
Ko-Li Compton, L. (2009). Preparing pre-service teachers for online teaching. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Kötter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning and
Technology, 7, 145-172. Retrieved Jul 9, 2009 http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/kotter/default.html
Kress, G., & van Leuwen, T. (2001) Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary
communication. London: Arnold.
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102-120.
Retrieved Mar 10, 2009 http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num3/laizhao/default.html
Lantolf, J. P. & Aljafreh, A., (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A
revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 619-632.
Lantolf, J.P. & Thorne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 197 – 220). In B. van
Patten & J. Williams. Theory in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Lee, C.-Y. (2009). A case study of using synchronous computer-mediated communication System for spoken
English teaching and learning based on sociocultural theory and communicative language teaching
approach curriculum. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Athens, OH: College of Education of Ohio
University.
93
Lee, L. (2004). Learners' perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in
the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 83-100. Retrieved Apr 9, 2009
http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/lee/default.html
Lee, L. (2006). A study of native and nonnative speakers’ feedback and responses in Spanish-American
networked collaborative interaction. In J. Belz & S. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural
foreign language education (pp. 147-176). Boston: Thomsen & Heinle.
Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language
Learning & Technology, 12, 53-72.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Liang, M.-Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse.
Language Learning & Technology, 14, 45–64. Retrieved Feb 2, 2011
http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num1/liang.pdf
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee, S. (2003). A look at the research on computer-based technology use in
second language learning: A review of the literature from 1990 – 2000. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 34, 250-273.
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 19, 1–14.
Loewen, S. & Reissner, S. (2009). A comparison of incidental focus on form in the second language classroom
and chatroom, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 101-114.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative
classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, pp. 37-66.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S.M. (2005). Second language research - methodology & design. Mahwah, NJ, USA:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Matthey, M. (2003). Apprentissage d'une langue et interaction verbale. Berne: Lang - International Academic
Publishers. (2e édition revue et complétée).
Murray, D. E. (2003). Materials for new technologies: Learning from research and practice. In W. A. Renandya
(Ed.), Methodology and materials design in language teaching: Current perspectives and practices and
their implications (pp. 30–43). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Murray, D.E. (2005). Technologies for second language literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 188–
201.
Murray, D. E., & McPherson, P. (2004). Using the Web to support language learning. Sydney, Australia:
NCELTR.
Nelson, T. (1965). A File Structure for the Complex, the Changing, and the Indeterminate. In Proceedings of
ACM National Conference, pp. 84–100.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
O’Dowd, R. & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative
exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23, 623-642.
94
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ohta, A. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development, System, 33, 503–517.
Parks, S., Huot, D., Hamers, J., & Lemonier, F. H. (2003). Crossing boundaries: Multimedia technology and
pedagogical innovation in a high school class. Language Learning & Technology. 7, 28-45.
Pawan, F. (2008). Content-area teachers and scaffolded instruction for English language learners. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 24, 1450–1462.
Pea, R.D. (2004). The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related Theoretical Concepts for
Learning, Education, and Human Activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423-451
Peirce, B.N. (1995). The theory of methodology in qualitative research. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 569-576.
Priego, S. (2007). An email learning perspective involving ESL and FSL secondary school students: A
sociocultural perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis, Quebec, CA: Université Laval.
Py, B. (1990). Les stratégies d’acquisition en situation exologique. Le français dans le monde. Recherches et
applications. 36, 81-88.
Rossell-Aguilar, F. (2005). Task design for audiographic conferencing: Promoting beginner oral interaction in
distance language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 417 – 442
Samuda, V., (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the
teacher. In: Bygate, M., Skehan, P., Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language
learning, teaching and testing (pp. 119-140). New York: Longman.
Sancerni Beitia, M.D., & Villar Hernández, P. (2008). Evaluación de la plataforma Elluminate Live!: Un estudio
piloto en la Universitat de València. @tic – revista d’innotació educativa, Universitat de Valencia.
Retrieved Jun 10, 2010 http://ojs.uv.es/index.php/attic.
Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Learner autonomy and tandem learning: Putting principles into practice in synchronous
and asynchronous telecommunications environments. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 15, 427-
444.
Shield, L., Hauck, M., & Hewer, S. (2001). Talking to strangers - the role of the tutor in developing target
language speaking skills at a distance. In Proceedings of UNTELE 2000, Volume II, Retrieved June 27,
2010, from http://fels-staff.open.ac.uk/lesley-
shield/webbed/untele/shieldhauckhewer/talkingtostrangers.html.
Siegrist, L. (1988). More vocabulary programs? In Jung, U.O.H (Ed). Computers in applied linguistics and
language teaching. CALL Handbook. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang.
Sotillo, S. (2005). Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS
dyads. CALICO Journal, 22, 467-496.
Stevens, V. A. (1989). Direction for CALL: From behavioristic to humanistic courseware. In M.C. Pennington,
(Ed.). Teaching languages with computers: The state of the art (pp. 29-43). La Jolla, CA, U.S.A.:
Athelstan.
95
Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone
(Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development, (pp. 169-183). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Strambi, A., & Bouvet, E. (2003). Flexibility and interaction at a distance: A mixed-mode environment for
language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 81-102.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In: Rose, K.R., &
Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171–199), Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Thorne, S.L. (2000). Second language acquisition theory and the truth(s) about relativity. In Lantolf, J.P. (Ed.)
Sociocultural theory and second language learning. (pp. 219 – 243). Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Uhl Camot, A., John De Mado, J., & Hollie, S. (2008) Longman Keystone B. London: Longman.
Uhl Camot, A. (2010). Longman Keystone C. London: Longman.
Underwood, J.H. (1984). Linguistics, computers, and the language teacher: A communicative approach. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Ushioda, E. (2000). Tandem language learning via e-mail: From motivation to autonomy. ReCALL, 12, 121-128.
Villamil, O. M. & De Guerrero, M. C.M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities,
mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviour. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51-75.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1934). Thinking and speech: Psychological investigations. Moscow and Leningrad:
Gosudarstvennoe Sotsial'no-Ekonomicheskoe Izdatel'svo.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. E. M. Cole, V.
John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in
Soviet Psychology. (pp. 144 – 188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Wang, Y. (2006). Negotiation of meaning in desktop videoconferencing-supported distance language learning.
ReCALL, 18,122–146.
Warschauer, M., & Healy, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching. 31,
57-71.
Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
White, C. (2006). Distance learning of foreign languages. Language Teaching, 39, 247–264.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Yoshimi, D.R., 2001. Explicit instruction and JFL learner`s use of interactional discourse markers. In: K.R
Rose,., G. Kasper, (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. (pp. 223–244). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
96
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Background information sheet (tutors)
Thank you for having accepted to participate in the research project.
I would like to ask you to answer the following questions about yourself and your knowledge about and
experience with ICTs. There are no right or wrong answers to the following questions. Please put an “X” in the
space that best represents your answer.
Your answers will be treated confidentially. Your name will be replaced by a code before data analysis. Only the
researcher has access to the code. Thank you very much for your time! If you have any questions about this
questionnaire, please contact the researcher, Diethild Starkmeth, at [email protected]
Tutor`s name _______________________________
I. Please give me some information about yourself:
1. What is your age?
2. My native language is (check one) French English Spanish Other
2.a. If you checked "Other", please specify:
3. What language(s) have you studied?
4. What previous courses have you taken?
a. Pedagogy I yes no
b. Pedagogy II yes no
c. Pedagogy III yes no
d. COMPUTER APPLICATIONS IN ESL TEACHING I yes no
e. COMPUTER APPLICATIONS IN ESL TEACHING II yes no
f. Practicum 1 yes no
g. Practicum 2 yes no
h. Practicum 3 yes no
i. Practicum 4 yes no
II. ICT experience
5.For the following computer applications, I rate my skills as follows:
a. using Word processing excellent good fair poor never tried
b. using Power Point excellent good fair poor never tried
c. using EXCEL excellent good fair poor never tried
d. using Photoshop excellent good fair poor never tried
e. using Flash excellent good fair poor never tried
f. creating and editing video/audio (Premiere, Windows Movie Makers etc.) excellent good fair poor never tried
g. Creating Web pages (html) excellent good fair poor never tried
97
h. Creating and maintaining a blog excellent good fair poor never tried
i. Twitter excellent good fair poor never tried
k. participating in discussion forums excellent good fair poor never tried
l. using chat programs (e.g. msn messenger) excellent good fair poor never tried
m. using Skype excellent good fair poor never tried
n. participating in a Wiki excellent good fair poor never tried
o. having my own space on Facebook excellent good fair poor never tried
p. using WebCT excellent good fair poor never tried
q. using WiZiQ excellent good fair poor never tried
r. using Moodle excellent good fair poor never tried
s. Online library resources excellent good fair poor never tried
6. I have used the following computer applications in the context of my teaching (in practicums or elsewhere):
a. Word processing excellent good fair poor never tried
b. Power Point excellent good fair poor never tried
c. EXCEL excellent good fair poor never tried
d. Photoshop excellent good fair poor never tried
e. creating and editing video (Premiere, Windows Movie Makers etc.) excellent good fair poor never tried
f. Creating Web pages excellent good fair poor never tried
g. Creating and maintaining a blog excellent good fair poor never tried
h. discussion forums excellent good fair poor never tried
k. chat excellent good fair poor never tried
l. using WebCT (or a similar platform) excellent good fair poor never tried
m. Other - please specify:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
98
Appendix B: Teaching with Elluminate
I would like to ask you to help me by answering the following questions concerning tutoring on the Elluminate
platform. There are no right or wrong answers to the following questions.
For most of the questions, you are asked to choose one of the predefined options. Please put an “X” in the space
that best represents your answer. Some questions are followed by a blank space. Please write your answer in this
space. You are welcome to write as much as you like.
You can write your answer in English or French. Your answers will be treated confidentially. Your name will be
replaced by a code before data analysis. Only the researcher has access to the code. Thank you very much for
your time! If you have any questions about this questionnaire, please contact the researcher, Diethild Starkmeth,
Tutor`s name _______________________________
I. Teaching with Elluminate
1. I enjoyed teaching the students on the Elluminate platform.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
2. I gave feedback to my students. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
3. I felt at ease giving feedback to my students. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
4. I had the impression that my feedback helped the students.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
5. Teaching with Elluminate helped me develop confidence in my ability to teach.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
6. Teaching with Elluminate helped me develop skill in my ability to give feedback.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
7. I got to know my students well during the five tutoring sessions.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
8. Not seeing my students' faces affected our teacher-student relationship.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
9. There was sufficient time to carry out the tasks. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
10. Teaching in Elluminate is the same as teaching in a face-to-face classroom context.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
10. a. Open question: Please explain why you think the way you do.
11. I would like to have the opportunity to do more teaching with Elluminate.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
12. Teaching in Elluminate is more stressful than teaching in a face-to-face classroom context.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
12. a. Open question: Please explain why you think the way you do.
13. The training I received prior to the sessions with Elluminate was sufficient.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
99
14. Open question: If you think the training could be improved, please explain how.
15. During the tutoring sessions, I liked to use the following Elluminate tools
a. Chat I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
b. audio I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
c. polling options in the participants' window I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
d. upload images onto whiteboard I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
e. writing tools on whiteboard I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
f. drawing tools on whiteboard I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
g. tool to identify who inserted objects on the whiteboard
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
16. I found the following Elluminate tools helpful for facilitating students' learning:
a. Chat I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
b. audio I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
c. polling options in the participants' window I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
d. uploaded images on the whiteboard I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
e. writing tools on whiteboard I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
f. drawing tools on whiteboard I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
g. tool to identify who inserted objects on the whiteboard
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
II. Technical aspects related to using Elluminate
17. I could hear the students well. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
18. Connecting to the Elluminate platform was easy and sufficiently quick.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
19. Contact with the students via Internet worked well from a technical point of view.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
20. Uploading images and whiteboards worked well. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
100
III. The tutoring tasks
21. I found it easy to carry out the tutoring tasks. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
22. I enjoyed working with the tasks during the tutoring sessions.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
23. The students liked working with the tasks. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
24.How much did you like the following tasks?
a. Task in the first session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot
very much
a. Task in the second session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot
very much
a. Task in the third session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot
very much
a. Task in the fourth session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot
very much
a. Task in the fifth session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot
very much
25. Were the tasks useful for learning English?
a. Task in the first session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot
very much
a. Task in the second session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot
very much
a. Task in the third session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot
very much
a. Task in the fourth session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot
very much
a. Task in the fifth session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot
very much
26. Do you have other comments? Please write them here:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
101
Appendix C: Learning ESL with Elluminate
I would like to ask you to help us by answering the following questions about your experience learning English
with the Elluminate platform. There are no right or wrong answers.
For most of the questions, there is a choice between several options. Please circle the option that best represents
your answer. Some questions are followed by a blank space, indicated by a line. Please write your answer in this
space. If you want to write more, you are welcome to use the reverse side of the form.
Your answers will be treated confidentially. They will not be used by your teacher to evaluate your performance
in this course. Your name will be replaced by a code before data analysis. Only the researcher has access to the
code. Thank you very much for your time! If you have any questions about this questionnaire, please ask the
researcher, Diethild Starkmeth who is in the room with you,.
Student’s name _____________________________ Age: _________
1. I enjoyed learning English with Elluminate. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
2. It was easy for me to use Elluminate. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
3. How did you like the activities in the tutoring sessions? Please rate them from 1 (I did not like it at all) to 10 (I liked it very much).
a. Activity in the first session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot very
much
b. Activity in the second session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot very
much
c. Activity in the third session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot very
much
d. Activity in the fourth session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot very
much
e. Activity in the fifth session (insert title) not at all a little quite a lot very
much
4. During the tutoring sessions, I …
a. improved my English pronunciation. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
b. improved my speaking in English. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
c. improved my listening in English. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
d. improved my writing in English. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
e. improved my spelling in English. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
f. learned new words. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
102
5. The tutor ...
a. helped me with my pronunciation.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
b. helped me with my spelling. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
c. helped me with my grammar. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
d. helped me to practice my vocabulary. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
e. helped me to learn new words. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
6. I received help from the other students I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
7. I got to know my tutor during the five tutoring sessions. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
8. Not seeing my tutor's face was not a problem for me. I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
9. Learning in Elluminate is the same as learning in a normal classroom.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
10. Please explain why - or why not:
11. I would like to take other classes with Elluminate in the future.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
12. I like to use the following Elluminate tools
a. Chat I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
b. speaking with the microphone I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
c. raising my hand I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
d. emoticons (smiley, applaud, etc.) I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
e. writing tools on the whiteboard I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
f. drawing tools on the whiteboard I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
13. Before beginning the tutoring sessions, I received training on how to use Elluminate. This training was sufficient.
I totally agree
I agree somewhat
I disagree somewhat
I totally disagree
13.a How could the training be improved? Please give suggestions.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!
103
Titre de la recherche : Enseigner au moyen d’un système de gestion de l'apprentissage synchrone : étude de cas de tuteurs d’anglais, langue seconde et leurs élèves
Appendix D : Formulaire de consentement à l’intention des tuteurs …
Présentation
Cette recherche est réalisée dans le cadre du projet de maîtrise de Diethild Starkmeth, dirigée par Susan Parks, du département de
langues, linguistique et traduction à l’Université Laval.
Nature de l’étude
La recherche a pour but d'étudier les interactions des tuteurs et des apprenants d’anglais langue seconde lors des séances de tutorat
d’anglais, langue seconde, offertes en ligne en temps réel au moyen de la plateforme Elluminate.
Déroulement de la participation
Dans la cadre de votre cours DID-2926 Culture and ESL Pedagogy vous aurez l’occasion de participer comme tuteur auprès
d’apprenants d’anglais, langue seconde. Les séances de tutorat seront dispensées en ligne en temps réel au moyen de la plateforme
Elluminate. Ces séances seront enregistrées afin de permettre aux participants, le cas échéant, de les visionner.
Votre participation au volet recherche de ce projet consiste à participer aux activités suivantes :
Compléter un questionnaire d’environ 15 à 20 minutes qui portera sur votre expérience comme tuteur dans le cadre des séances de tutorat
Participer à une entrevue d’environ 20-30 minutes qui vous permettra d’apporter des précisions à votre expérience comme tuteur dans le cadre des séances de tutorat ce cours (l’entrevue sera enregistrée).
Permettre à la chercheure d’avoir accès aux enregistrements afin d’examiner la nature de l’interaction entre les participants
Votre participation ou non au volet recherche n’aura aucune incidence quant à la note que vous recevrez pour ce projet dans le cadre de
votre cours.
Avantages, risques ou inconvénients possibles liés à la participation
Vote participation à cette recherche vous offre l’occasion de réfléchir aux enjeux relatifs à l’enseignement d’une langue seconde au
moyen d’un outil tel que la plateforme Elluminate.
Entre tous les participants qui complètent toutes les activités liées à ce projet (deux sessions d’entrainement, cinq séances de tutorat, le
questionnaire et l’entrevue), un tirage au sort d’un bon cadeau de COOP Zone d’une valeur de 50 $ sera organisé. De plus, dans le
cadre du programme BEALS, vous pouvez recevoir des points pour votre participation à ce projet de recherche conformément au projet
portfolio.
104
Il n'y a aucun risque connu lié à la participation à cette recherche.
Participation volontaire et droit de retrait
Vous êtes libre de participer à ce projet de recherche. Vous pouvez aussi mettre fin à votre participation et ce sans conséquences
négatives ou préjudice et sans avoir à justifier votre décision. Si vous décidez de mettre fin à votre participation, il est important d’en
prévenir la chercheure dont les coordonnées sont incluses dans ce document. Tous les renseignements personnels vous concernant
seront alors détruits.
Confidentialité et gestion des données
Les mesures suivantes seront appliquées pour assurer la confidentialité des renseignements fournis par les participants:
les noms des participants ne paraîtront dans aucun rapport;
les divers documents de la recherche seront codifiés et seul le chercheur aura accès à la liste des noms et des codes;
Les documents papier seront conservés au domicile dans un classeur verrouillé et les données électroniques sur un ordinateur protégé par un mot de passe. Ils seront détruits 1 an après la fin de la recherche, soit en juin 2012.
Pour des renseignements supplémentaires
Si vous avez des questions sur la recherche ou sur les implications de votre participation, veuillez communiquer avec Diethild Starkmeth,
étudiante à la maîtrise en linguistique au numéro de téléphone suivant: (418) 929 7506, ou à l’adresse courriel suivante: diethild-
Remerciements
Votre collaboration est précieuse pour nous permettre de réaliser cette étude et nous vous remercions d’y participer
Signatures
Je soussigné(e) ___________________________________________consens librement à participer à la recherche intitulée : «Teaching in a Synchronous Learning Management System: A Case Study of ESL Tutors and their Students». J’ai pris connaissance du formulaire et j’ai compris le but, la nature, les avantages, les risques et les inconvénients du projet de recherche. Je suis satisfait(e) des explications, précisions et réponses que la chercheure m’a fournies, le cas échéant, quant à ma participation à ce projet.
__________________________________________ ________________________
Signature du participant, de la participante Date
Un court résumé des résultats de la recherche sera expédié aux participants qui en feront la demande en indiquant ci-dessous l’adresse où ils aimeraient recevoir le dit document. Les résultats ne seront pas disponibles avant le 31 décembre 2011. Si cette adresse changerait d’ici cette date, vous êtes invité(e) à informer la chercheure de la nouvelle adresse où vous souhaitez recevoir ce document.
L’adresse à laquelle je souhaite recevoir un court résumé des résultats de la recherche est la suivante :
____________________________________________
105
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
J’ai expliqué le but, la nature, les avantages, les risques et les inconvénients du projet de recherche au participant. J’ai répondu au meilleur de ma connaissance aux questions posées et j’ai vérifié la compréhension du participant.
__________________________________________ _______________________
Signature de la chercheure Date
Plaintes ou critiques
Toute plainte ou critique sur ce projet de recherche pourra être adressée au Bureau de l'Ombudsman de l'Université Laval :
Pavillon Alphonse-Desjardins, bureau 3320
2325, rue de l’Université
Université Laval
Québec (Québec) G1V 0A6
Renseignements - Secrétariat : (418) 656-3081
Ligne sans frais : 1-866-323-2271
Télécopieur : (418) 656-3846
Courriel : [email protected]
Copie du participant
106
Appendix E: Consent form Mexican learners (translated into Spanish)
(Ce formulaire sera traduit vers l’espagnol.)
Enseigner au moyen d’un système de gestion d'apprentissage synchrone : étude de cas de tuteurs d’anglais, langue
seconde et de leurs élèves
Quel est le but de ce projet de recherche? La recherche a pour but d'étudier les interactions des tuteurs et des apprenants d’anglais langue seconde lors de
quelques séances de tutorat d’anglais langue seconde offertes en ligne en temps réel.
Qui peut répondre? Pour participer, tu dois être un garçon ou une fille inscrit en première année à l’École Secondaire Aljibes Newland.
Est-ce que c’est long? Tous les enfants de ta classe vont prendre quelques cours d’anglais au laboratoire d’informatique de ton école. Ces
cours se dérouleront sur Internet en interaction avec des tuteurs qui communiqueront avec vous tous de vive voix et ce
au moyen du logiciel Elluminate, une plateforme d’apprentissage en ligne. Cette activité aura lieu pendant ton horaire
d’école régulier et contribuera à ton apprentissage de l’anglais, langue seconde. Pour te préparer aux activités en ligne,
deux séances de 50 minutes seront prévues pour t’apprendre comment utiliser la plateforme Elluminate. Ensuite, cinq
séances de tutorat en petits groupes d’élèves avec tuteur seront organisées. Les séances seront enregistrées afin de
permettre aux participants de les visionner.
Ta participation dans le volet recherche de ce projet comprend les activités suivantes :
compléter un questionnaire d’environ 15-20 minutes qui portera sur ton expérience comme apprenant
d’anglais dans le cadre du cours en ligne
participer à une entrevue d’environ 20 minutes qui te permettra de parler un peu plus de ton expérience (cette
entrevue sera enregistrée)
permettre à la chercheure d’avoir accès aux séances enregistrées afin d’examiner la nature de l’interaction
entre les participants.
Est-ce qu’on pourra m’identifier ou me retrouver à partir de mes réponses? Ton vrai nom ne sera jamais révélé. Ni ton nom ni celui de ton école ne seront mentionnés dans le rapport de
recherche.
Qu’est-ce que ça va me donner? Remplir le questionnaire et participer à l’entrevue te donneront l’occasion d’expérimenter et de réfléchir sur ta
nouvelle expérience d’apprenant d’anglais dans un cours en ligne.
Est-ce que je suis obligé(e) de participer à l’étude? Non, tu es complètement libre de participer ou non dans le projet. À tout moment, tu pourras cesser d’y participer, peu
importe la raison. Tu n’auras alors qu’à en informer ton enseignant ou bien la chercheure.
Est-ce qu’il y a des conséquences négatives possibles? Tu ne cours aucun risque à participer à ce projet de recherche.
Titre de la recherche : Enseigner au moyen d’un Système de Gestion de l'Apprentissage Synchrone : Étude de cas de tuteurs d’anglais, langue
seconde et leurs élèves
Est-ce que je pourrai savoir ce que l’ensemble des jeunes pense?
107
Un résumé des résultats du projet sera remis à ton école au mois de décembre 2011. Tu pourras aller le consulter si tu
le désires.
Des questions? Si tu as des questions au sujet de ce projet, contacte la chercheure à l’adresse suivante, diethild-
[email protected], ou au numéro de téléphone suivant, (55) 5658 2432. Pour toute plainte ou critique
concernant le projet, contacte l’Ombudsman de l’Université Laval à l’adresse suivante, [email protected],
ou au numéro de téléphone suivant, (418) 656-3081 ou sur la ligne sans frais au 1-866-323-2271.
Ce projet, réalisé dans le cadre d’un projet de maîtrise, est sous la responsabilité de Diethild Starkmeth, étudiante à la
maîtrise en linguistique au Département des langues, linguistique et traduction de l’Université Laval, Québec, Québec.
Il a reçu l’approbation du comité d’éthique de la recherche de l’Université Laval le (10 décembre 2010) (numéro
d’approbation CÉRUL 2010-261 / 10-12-2010).
En signant sur la ligne en bas, tu indiques que :
tu as lu ce formulaire,
tu es d’accord pour participer au projet de recherche
Oui, je veux participer
__________________________________________ ________________________
Signature du participant, de la participante Date
Copie du participant
Titre de la recherche : Enseigner au moyen d’un Système de Gestion de l'Apprentissage Synchrone : Étude de cas de tuteurs d’anglais, langue
seconde et leurs élèves
108
Appendix F: Consent form for parents (translated into Spanish)
Présentation
Cette recherche est réalisée dans le cadre du projet de maîtrise de Diethild Starkmeth, dirigé par Susan Parks, du département de
langues, linguistique et traduction à l’Université Laval.
Nature de l’étude
La recherche a pour but d'étudier les interactions des tuteurs et des apprenants d’anglais langue seconde lors de séances de tutorat
d’anglais, langue seconde, offert en ligne au moyen de la plateforme Elluminate. L’accès à cette plateforme permettra aux élèves
d’entendre les tuteurs et d’interagir avec eux en temps réel. Les participants pourront également voir, en simultané, le matériel didactique
présenté.
Déroulement de la participation
Pendant les prochaines semaines à l’École Secondaire Aljibes Newland, tous les enfants de la classe de votre enfant vont prendre
quelques séances de tutorat d’anglais au laboratoire d’informatique. Ces séances se dérouleront sur Internet, en interaction avec des
tuteurs qui communiqueront avec eux au moyen de la plateforme Elluminate. Les tuteurs sont des étudiants inscrits à un programme de
formation des enseignants d’anglais, langue seconde à l’Université Laval à Québec (Canada). Les échanges avec les tuteurs auront lieu
pendant l’horaire d’école et contribueront à l’apprentissage de l’anglais langue seconde de votre enfant. Pour préparer les enfants aux
activités en ligne, deux séances de 50 minutes seront prévues pour leur apprendre comment utiliser la plateforme Elluminate. Cinq
séances de 50 minutes chacune avec un tuteur et un petit groupe d’élèves sont prévus.
La participation de votre enfant au volet recherche de ce projet est requise pour les activités suivantes :
compléter un questionnaire d’environ 15-20 minutes qui portera sur son expérience comme apprenant d’anglais dans le cadre des séances de tutorat en ligne
participer à une entrevue d’environ 20 minutes qui lui permettra de parler un peu plus de ses expériences (l’entrevue sera enregistrée)
Permettre à la chercheure d’avoir accès aux séances enregistrées afin d’examiner la nature de l’interaction entre les participants.
Avantages, risques ou inconvénients possibles liés à la participation
Remplir le questionnaire et participer à l’entrevue permettront à votre enfant de réfléchir sur ses expériences comme apprenant
d’anglais langue seconde dans des séances de tutorat en ligne. Cette réflexion pourrait s’avérer utile pour permettre à l’école
d’évaluer la pertinence d’offrir ce type d’apprentissage à l’avenir.
Il n'y a aucun risque connu lié à la participation à cette recherche.
109
Participation volontaire et droit de retrait
Votre enfant est libre de participer ou non à ce projet de recherche. Il - elle peut aussi mettre fin à sa participation sans conséquence
négative ou préjudice et sans avoir à justifier sa décision.
Vous êtes également libre de donner le consentement ou non à la participation de votre enfant dans cette recherche. Si vous décidez de
mettre fin à la participation de votre enfant, il est important d’en prévenir la chercheure dont les coordonnées sont incluses dans ce
document. Tous les renseignements personnels concernant votre enfant seront alors détruits.
Confidentialité et gestion des données
Les mesures suivantes seront appliquées pour assurer la confidentialité des renseignements fournis par les participants:
les noms des participants ne paraîtront dans aucun rapport;
les divers documents de la recherche seront codifiés et seul le chercheur aura accès à la liste des noms et des codes;
Les documents papier seront conservés au domicile dans un classeur verrouillé et les données électroniques sur un ordinateur protégé par un mot de passe. Ils seront détruits 1 an après la fin de la recherche, soit en juin 2012.
Pour des renseignements supplémentaires
Si vous avez des questions sur la recherche ou sur les implications de votre participation, veuillez communiquer avec Diethild Starkmeth,
étudiante à la maîtrise en linguistique au numéro de téléphone suivant: (0052) 55 5658 24 32, ou à l’adresse courriel suivante: diethild-
Remerciements
Votre collaboration est précieuse pour nous permettre de réaliser cette étude et nous vous remercions d’avoir donné l’autorisation à votre
enfant de participer.
Signatures
Je soussigné(e) ___________________________________________consens librement à la participation de mon enfant _______________________ à la recherche intitulée : «Teaching in a Synchronous Learning Management System: A Case Study of ESL Tutors and their Students». J’ai pris connaissance du formulaire et j’ai compris le but, la nature, les avantages, les risques et les inconvénients du projet de recherche. Je suis satisfait(e) des explications, précisions et réponses que le chercheur m’a fournies, le cas échéant, quant à ma participation à ce projet.
__________________________________________ ________________________
Signature du participant, de la participante Date
Un court résumé des résultats de la recherche sera expédié aux participants qui en feront la demande en indiquant l’adresse où ils aimeraient recevoir le document. Les résultats ne seront pas disponibles avant le 31 décembre 2011. Si cette adresse changeait d’ici cette date, vous êtes invité(e) à informer la chercheure de la nouvelle adresse où vous souhaitez recevoir ce document.
110
L’adresse à laquelle je souhaite recevoir un court résumé des résultats de la recherche est la suivante :
________________________________________________________________________________________
J’ai expliqué le but, la nature, les avantages, les risques et les inconvénients du projet de recherche au participant. J’ai répondu au meilleur de ma connaissance aux questions posées et j’ai vérifié la compréhension du participant.
__________________________________________ _______________________
Signature du chercheur Date
Plaintes ou critiques
Toute plainte ou critique sur ce projet de recherche pourra être adressée au Bureau de l'Ombudsman de l'Université Laval :
Pavillon Alphonse-Desjardins, bureau 3320
2325, rue de l’Université
Université Laval
Québec (Québec) G1V 0A6
Renseignements - Secrétariat : (418) 656-3081
Ligne sans frais : 1-866-323-2271
Télécopieur : (418) 656-3846
Courriel : [email protected]
Copie du parent
111
Appendix G Information letter to parents (translated into Spanish)
Papier à lettre de l’Université Laval
Faculté des lettres
Département des langues, linguistique et traduction
Lettre d’information
(À l’attention des parents)
(Ce document sera traduit vers l’espagnol)
Québec, (date)
Chère madame, cher monsieur,
Mon nom est Diethild Starkmeth, et je suis étudiante à la maîtrise en linguistique à l’Université Laval, Québec
(Canada). Je travaille sous la supervision de Madame Susan Parks. Je poursuis présentement une recherche sur
l’apprentissage d’anglais langue seconde en ligne au moyen de la plateforme Elluminate. Le titre de ce projet est
« Teaching in a Synchronous Learning Management System: A Case Study of ESL Tutors and their Students ». L’accès à cette
plateforme permettra aux élèves d’entendre les tuteurs et d’interagir avec eux en temps réel. Les participants
pourront également voir, en simultané, le matériel didactique présenté.
Pendant les prochaines semaines à l’École Secondaire Aljibes Newland, tous les enfants de la classe de votre
enfant vont prendre quelques cours d’anglais au laboratoire d’informatique. Ces séances se dérouleront sur
Internet, en interaction avec des tuteurs qui communiqueront avec eux au moyen de la plateforme Elluminate. Les
tuteurs sont des étudiants inscrits à un programme de formation des enseignants d’anglais, langue seconde à
l’Université Laval à Québec (Canada). Les échanges avec les tuteurs auront lieu pendant l’horaire d’école et
contribueront à l’apprentissage de l’anglais langue seconde de votre enfant, puisque ces activités orales
permettront à votre enfant de pratiquer la langue et de recevoir des rétroactions correctives des tuteurs.
En ce qui concerne le volet de recherche de mon projet, l’aide de votre enfant est requise pour les activités
suivantes :
compléter un questionnaire d’environ 15-20 minutes qui portera sur son expérience comme apprenant
d’anglais dans le cadre des séances de tutorat en ligne
participer à une entrevue d’environ 20 minutes qui lui permettra de parler un peu plus de ses expériences
(l’entrevue sera enregistrée)
Permettre à la chercheure d’avoir accès aux séances enregistrées afin d’examiner la nature de
l’interaction entre les participants.
Pour plus d’information, voir le document d’information en annexe.
112
Si vous désirez plus amples informations au sujet de cette étude, n’hésitez pas à communiquer avec moi. Il me
fera plaisir de répondre à toutes vos questions. Vous pouvez m’écrire un courriel (diethild-
[email protected]), ou bien vous pouvez m’appeler au (0052-55-5658 2432).
Je vous remercie à l’avance de l’attention que vous portez à ma demande et vous prie d’agréer, madame,
monsieur, l’expression de mes sentiments les plus dévouées.
Diethild Starkmeth
113
Appendix H - Information letter to the school (translated into Spanish)
Papier de l’Université Laval
Faculté des lettres
Département des langues, linguistique et traduction
Lettre d’information
(À l’attention de l’école)
(Ce document sera traduit vers l’espagnol)
Québec, (date)
Chère Madame,
mon nom est Diethild Starkmeth, et je suis étudiante à la maîtrise en linguistique à l’Université Laval, Québec (Canada). Je
travaille sous la supervision de Madame Susan Parks. Comme je vous ai déjà fait part lors de notre rencontre au début de
cette année, je poursuis présentement une recherche sur l’apprentissage d’anglais langue seconde en ligne au moyen de la
plateforme Elluminate, entitré «Teaching in a Synchronous Learning Management System: A Case Study of ESL Tutors
and their Students ». Au cours de l’hiver 2011, les élèves du premier secondaire de votre école peuvent participer à des
séances de tutorat au moyen de la plateforme Elluminate. Tel que préalablement discuté, j’aimerais faire mon projet de
recherche en lien avec les séances de tutorat, et je vous demande votre appui à ce sujet.
En ce qui concerne le volet recherche de ce projet relatif à votre école, les activités suivantes sont prévues :
Les enfants seront invités à compléter un questionnaire d’environ 15-20 minutes qui portera sur leur expérience
comme apprenant d’anglais dans le cadre des séances en ligne.
Les enfants seront également invités à participer à une entrevue d’environ 20 minutes qui leur permettra de parler
un peu plus de leurs expériences (l’entrevue sera enregistrée)
Pour pouvoir réaliser les activités de recherche, j’aimerais vous demander la permission d’utiliser un local dans votre école
pour pouvoir réaliser les entrevues. Il sera aussi convenable que les élèves puissent remplir le questionnaire suite à la
dernière séance de tutorat, dans la même journée.
En ce qui concerne la participation des élèves au volet de recherche de mon projet, je dois également obtenir le
consentement des parents et l’assentiment des élèves conformément aux exigences du Comité d’éthique de l’Université
Laval. Ci-joint vous trouverez des copies des documents préparés à l’intention de ces derniers. Je pourrais être disponible à
l’école pour distribuer les documents aux élèves et de leur expliquer le projet. Cependant, j’aurais besoin de votre aide pour
prévoir une rencontre d’environ 30 minutes avec les élèves et l’identification d’une démarche pour la collecte des
formulaires signés.
Si vous désirez plus amples informations au sujet de cette étude, n’hésitez pas à communiquer avec moi. Il me fera plaisir
de répondre à toutes vos questions. Vous pouvez m’écrire un courriel ([email protected]), ou bien
vous pouvez m’appeler au (0052-55-5658 2432).
Je vous remercie à l’avance de l’attention que vous portez à ma demande et vous prie d’agréer, madame, l’expression de
mes sentiments les plus dévouées.
Diethild Starkmeth
114
Appendix I – Lesson plan tutoring session 1 – Getting to know each other
TITLE: GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER I
Description: ORAL round-robin activity with follow-up questions
NOTE: It is a good idea to print this form before the tutoring session.
Tutoring
session: 1 Duration: 45 minutes
Cross-curricular competencies MELS Secondary 1 p.4 ESL competencies
Evaluation
Criteria
Communicates appropriately
Cooperates with others
Speaks correctly
Uses strategies to
NOTE: your task is not to evaluate the students (your task is
not to give them any points or marks.)
However, the criteria mentioned here will help you
understand the pedagogical purpose of the activity.
Writes and produces text (note-taking;
key words)
Interacts orally (asking questions)
Materials
Needed
Elluminate
tools to be
used
WBD file “101-getting-to-know-each-other” – there are two slides: Slide 1 (key words) & slide 2
(question words)
Raise hands, smiley face, chat window, microphone, move objects on the whiteboard
115
CLASSROOM ACTIVITY STEP 1: PREPARING THE TASK
Role of the students Role of the teacher
Listen & say hello.
Click on smiley face or raise their hands.
5 min Welcome WBD – to be created
Greet the students.
“Hello, my name is….
(if there is a second tutor, introduce her/him).
“We are going to work together for five sessions of 50 minutes in
this online classroom. We have some fun activities prepared for
you, and we hope that you are going to enjoy them. All these
activities are designed to help you practice your English. You can
ask me questions at any time by typing it in the chat window, or
you can raise your hand. OK? Do you have any questions? If you
do, please raise your hand, if you don’t please give me a smiley
face.”
116
Step 2: Carrying out the task
Role of the students Role of the teacher
Students listen and may ask questions.
Raise hand or click on smiley
Students listen and ask the tutor questions.
A minimum of one question per student.
All students raise their hands. This way, the order of
presentations is established.
Students present themselves / take notes in chat
window/ ask questions.
20-25 min WBD 101 – slide 1
Intercultural note: Mexico-City is divided into neighbourhoods that are
called “colonias” in Spanish. This information is exchanged when people
want to know where someone lives. Diethild, for example, lives in
Oxtopulco (colonia), which is in Coyoacan (delegación=borough).
Model the activity:
“I suggest that we start off by getting to know each other, ok? So, we are
going to take turns to say who we are by using the key words on the board.
While one person speaks, another person is going to write the most
important information (key words only) in the chat window. I will first do this
activity, and I will give you examples of what you can write in the chat
window. Do you have any questions about how this activity works? Please
raise your hand if you do. If not, please give me a smiley face!”
Model what you expect the students to say by introducing yourself.
Write key words in chat window (example: 25, St. Foy…)
NOTE: You can prepare this before the session.
“Now, I would like you to introduce yourselves. Who would like to
start? Please raise your hand, everybody!”
Call on the students in the order they raised their hand and assign the
note-taking task to another student.
Continue until all students have presented themselves and have taken
notes. Approximate time per student: 3 minutes
Give feedback as you think is appropriate.
117
STEP 3: POST-ACTIVITY
Role of the students Role of the teacher
Students raise hands, choose a person to whom they would
like to ask a question, choose a question word, and move a
green check mark next to the question word.
The person who answers asks the next question.
1 min per question = 12 minutes +++
WBD 101 – slide 2
“Now, let’s ask each other questions about things we would
like to know about each other. Here you see some question
words on the board. Choose one question word, and then
ask a question to another person. Move one of the green
check marks next to the question word you used. Then
another person gets to ask a question.”
Each student should ask at least two questions. Each
student should answer at least one question. Students can
ask you questions as well.
At the end, say:
“Would you like to ask any other questions?”
Give feedback as you think is appropriate.
118
Appendix J – Lesson plan tutoring session 2 – Time zones
TITLE: GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER I
Description: ORAL INTERACTION – READING TASK – WEB TOUR
NOTE: It is a good idea to print this form before the tutoring session.
Tutoring
session: 2 Duration: 50 minutes
Cross-curricular competencies
MELS Secondary 1 p.4
ESL competencies
Evaluation
Criteria
Communicates appropriately
Cooperates with others
Speaks correctly
Uses strategies to
NOTE: your task is not to evaluate the students (your task is
not to give them any points or marks.)
However, the criteria mentioned here will help you
understand the pedagogical purpose of the activity.
Writes and produces text (note-taking
;key words)
Interacts orally (asking questions)
119
Materials
Needed
Elluminate
tools to be
used
WBD file “102-where-and-when” – there are six slides:
Slide 1 time zones Mexico;
Slide 2 time zones Canada;
slide 3 the globe with time zones
slide 4 & 5 the reading text
slide 6 the poster of the world map with time zones
Raise hands, smiley face, chat window, microphone, move objects on the whiteboard, timer, highlight,
initiate web tour, highlighting tool, students switch between two screens (5 & 6)
CLASSROOM ACTIVITY
STEP 1: PREPARING THE TASK
Role of the students Role of the teacher
Listen & say hello.
Click on smiley face or raise their hands.
5 min
Welcome WBD w/activity announcement – to be created
Greet the students.
“Today we are going to talk about time. We will look at
some maps, and then we will read a text. If you have any
questions, at any time, please raise your hand, OK? Please
give me a smiley face if you are ready to begin”
120
STEP 2: CARRYING OUT THE TASK – PHASE 1
Role of the students Role of the teacher
Students look at the map and explain what they see. One of
them moves the orange star to the location of Mexico City.
Students listen and could ask the tutor questions.
Raise hand – answer the question. (All answers are valid.)
Raise hand – share their ideas.
One or two students explain what they see on the
whiteboard.
Students move the arrows to the locations of Quebec and
Mexico City
Students explain – describe – 1. How many time zones 2.
What they are called 3. What cities they know (or have
visited) in the different time zones.
Students share their ideas and speculate.
15 min
WBD 102 – slide 1
“OK, let’s have a look at this map. Can someone please tell me what
you see here?”
Call on one or two students and have them mark the spot on the
map where they are by placing an orange star on it.
Then, have them type the time (in Mexico) on the whiteboard.
WBD 102 – slide 2
Move the orange star to the location of Quebec City, then type the
time on the whiteboard.
Ask “What do you notice? Please raise your hand if you have an idea”
(There is one hour time difference.)
Ask: “So why is the time different in Mexico compared to Quebec?”
WBD 102 – slide 3
“Let’s look at the big picture. What do you see?”
Ask questions: where, who ….
Have students move the arrows to the locations of Quebec and
Mexico City.
Introduce – explain – the concept of time zones (illustrated by
different colors on the globe).
Go back to slides 1 and 2 to observe how many time zones there are
in each country.
Students should be able to name the time zone of Mexico City and
Quebec City.
“Do you know when and why time zones were invented?”
“Let’s find out!”
121
STEP 3: CARRYING OUT THE TASK – PHASE 2
Role of the students Role of the teacher
Students look at the text.
Students listen and could raise hand to ask the tutor
questions.
Students take turns reading.
Students ask vocabulary questions.
Students explain – describe – 1. How many time zones
2. What they are called 3. What cities they know (or
have visited) in the different time zones.
15 min
WBD 102 – slide 4 & 5
“This is a text about the history of time zones. As you can see,
there are different colors.”
Assign one (or two) colors to everyone – Option 1
Tell them that you will call on another student as soon as one
student has read the sentence marked in one color – Option 2
tell students that you will call on someone else for every color.
“Do you have any questions?”
Then, have them type the time (in Mexico) on the whiteboard.
After the reading, ask them whether they have questions
about the vocabulary.
Ask the group if someone knows the word in question.
Praise students for offering explanations, help them if
necessary.
Explain: “solar time”
NOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time
122
STEP 3: POST-ACTIVITY
Role of the students Role of the teacher
Students raise hands, answer questions.
Students find the name of the city assigned to them on the
whiteboard.
On the website, students find the name of their city.
They note the present date and time of the city assigned to
them in the chat window.
Students ask questions and try to answer them.
1 min per question = 12 minutes
WBD 102 – slide 4 & 5
Ask the following comprehension questions:
1st text slide:
What is the “standard time?
Why did people decide to use this system?
What complications can you imagine they had?
2nd text slide
When was this system (time zones) implemented?
Do all time zones have equal shapes? Why (not)? (NOTE:
there is also information on the 1st text slide)
WBD 102 – slide 6
Look at the world map – point to the cities noted below.
NOTE: in order to write on this whiteboard, select letter
size 58 or bigger.
Assign one city to every student. Then, do a web tour
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ - Set a time
limit of 3 minutes. Set the timer (countdown)
Wrap-up
Invite students to ask questions about the topic.
The answers may come from the group, or the questions
may be noted as “interesting”. In case no one knows the
answer, the tutor could answer the question, or the
students could investigate the answer at home (with the
possibility to report in the next session).
Provide feedback as you see appropriate.
123
Appendix K – Lesson plan tutoring session 3 – Winter in Quebec
TITLE: GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER I
Description: ORAL INTERACTION – STUDENT PRESENTATIONS AND ORAL INTERACTION WITH TUTOR ON AN INTERCULTURAL TOPIC
NOTE: It is a good idea to print this form before the tutoring session.
Tutoring
session: 2 Duration: 50 minutes
Cross-curricular competencies
MELS Secondary 1 p.4
ESL competencies
Evaluation
Criteria
Communicates appropriately
Cooperates with others
Speaks correctly
Uses strategies to learn and practice new vocabulary
NOTE: your task is not to evaluate the students (your task is
not to give them any points or marks.)
However, the criteria mentioned here will help you
understand the pedagogical purpose of the activity.
Please read the cultural note on last page.
Interacts orally (describing pictures and
activities - asking questions)
124
Materials
Needed
Elluminate
tools to be
used
WBD file for the main room: “103-Winter – slides 1 to 3”
4 WBD files for the breakout rooms: “103-Winter-breakout-1” “103-Winter-breakout-2”, “103-Winter-
breakout-3”, “103-Winter-breakout-4”
NOTE: there are some photographs of Quebec winter scenes included in the material (103-winter – slides
2 & 3). If you like, you can delete them and replace them with photos & material of your own.
Raise hands, smiley face, chat window, microphone, move objects on the whiteboard, timer, highlight,
move yourself and your students to breakout rooms, pointer tool
CLASSROOM ACTIVITY STEP 1: PREPARING THE TASK
Role of the students Role of the teacher
Listen & say hello.
Click on smiley face or raise their hands and ask questions.
Before this task, create four breakout rooms and load one
WBD file in each one (“103-Winter-breakout-1 through 4”
5 min Welcome WBD w/activity announcement – to be
created
Greet the students.
“Today we are going to talk about winter. …”
Give a short overview of today’s session. Tell the students
that they will first go to breakout rooms (1 or 2 students
per breakout room. You have 4 individual pictures w/
vocabulary cards prepared. You may choose to send
students in pairs to each room).
“OK? Please give me a smiley face if you are ready to
begin”
125
STEP 2: CARRYING OUT THE TASK – PHASE 1
Role of the students Role of the teacher
Students look at the picture and prepare a short presentation
about the picture.
Students are back in the main room.
They take turns presenting their picture. Other students ask
(them) questions about it.
At the end of their presentation, they remove the blue labels
with the white key words from the picture they presented
Raise hand – answer the question. (All answers are valid.)
Raise hand – share their ideas.
5 min
Breakout rooms 1 – 2 – 3 - 4
Tell students that you are now sending them to the breakout rooms.
Tell them to look at the picture they find there, and to prepare a
short presentation. They have five minutes to do this (set the timer).
Tell them to use question words next to the pictures for their
preparation.
12 min WBD 103 – slide 1
Call on students on by one to present the picture. They should
mention the word that is hidden in their presentation. If they don’t,
please ask a question to cue them. Encourage other students to ask
questions.
Give corrective feedback as you see appropriate.
STEP 3: CARRYING OUT THE TASK – PHASE 2
Role of the students Role of the teacher
126
Students look at the pictures, describe them and ask the
tutor questions.
They may use the pointer tool during this activity (for
example, to identify objects they cannot name in
English).
15 min WBD 103 – slide 2 WBD 103 – slide 3
Show the pictures and explain that they were taken where you live.
Have them describe what they see and ask (you) questions.
Encourage different types of questions (yes/no, different question
words)
Cultural note (see below) – option: you can use two pictures of your
choice if you like, as long as they are related to the topic (winter in
Quebec).
You can also ask the students questions about their experiences with
winter, or about what they imagine winter is like.
Give corrective feedback as you see appropriate.
STEP 3: POST-ACTIVITY
Role of the students Role of the teacher
Students express their opinion, discuss (dis)advantages.
Cultural note – The students live in Mexico City, where the last
snow was seen before their lifetime. There are very high
mountains around the city, and every few years some snow falls
there. When that happens, some families like to go to one of
the mountains (the Ajusco) to play in the snow. It could also be
that the students have traveled to other countries in the winter.
10 minutes
WBD : white screen
Ask the students whether they would like to visit Quebec in
the winter / whether they would like to live there / why –
why not.
Whenever possible, encourage them to use the words they
learned in this lesson. Praise them when they do.
Provide feedback as you see appropriate.
127
Appendix L – Lesson plan tutoring session 4 – Antarctica
TITLE: ANTARCTICA
Description: ORAL INTERACTION – READING – WEB TOUR
NOTE: It is a good idea to print this form before the tutoring session.
Tutoring
session: 2 Duration: 50 minutes
Cross-curricular competencies
MELS Secondary 1 p.4
ESL competencies
Evaluation
Criteria
Communicates appropriately
Cooperates with others
Speaks correctly
Looks up information on the internet to verify hypotheses
NOTE: your task is not to evaluate the students (your task is
not to give them any points or marks.)
However, the criteria mentioned here will help you
understand the pedagogical purpose of the activity.
Interacts orally (describing pictures and
activities - asking questions)
Reading – establishing and verifying
hypotheses
128
Materials
Needed
Elluminate
tools to be
used
WBD 104 Antarctica - 4 slides
Raise hands, smiley face, chat window, microphone, move objects on the whiteboard, timer, highlight,
web tour, write on WBD with different colors, write in a text box
CLASSROOM ACTIVITY STEP 1: PREPARING THE TASK
Role of the students Role of the teacher
Listen & say hello.
Click on smiley face or raise their hands and ask questions.
5 min
WBD 104 - slide 1
Greet the students.
“Today we are going to talk about Antarctica. …”
Give a short overview of today’s session.
Invite them to describe the picture on this slide.
Invite students to take / share notes (key words) in the
chat window.
“OK? Please give me a smiley face if you are ready to
begin”
129
STEP 2: CARRYING OUT THE TASK – PHASE 1, 2, & 3
Role of the students Role of the teacher
Students look at the picture and prepare a short presentation
about the picture.
Students raise their hands, read one sentence w/gaps, and
say which information they would like to fill in.
Students may ask more vocabulary questions.
Students look up the information on the website and take
notes.
Students share the information they found. They read the
complete sentences with the correct information.
8 min WBD 104 - slides 2 & 3-
Invite the students to look at the pictures and to describe what they
see. Invite them to speculate about this environment. Pre-teach
vocabulary (from slide 4). NOTE: students may know these words:
humidity, accumulation,
12 min WBD 104 – slide 4
There are 10 sentences w/blanks on this whiteboard.
Call on students on by one. Have them complete the sentences. At
this point, accept any ideas as long as the linguistic form (noun,
adjective, or verb) is correct. Encourage students to take a risk. Tell
them that guessing is a good way to start for us to explore.
Write the information they offer in the gaps. Use a color. TIPP: to
write in this text, click on the tool “text box”, and then click on the
right margin of the board. Then double-click a place in the text box
and select a color.
Give corrective feedback as you see appropriate. 7 min
AFTER ALL GAPS are filled, assign 2 to 3 sentences to each student.
Tell them to look for the information on the website you are going to
show them. Schedule 5 to 7 minutes for the web tour. Send the
students on a web tour (TIPP: have this link ready for copying and
pasting:
http://southpoleforkids.ca/kids-teachers/south-pole-facts/
SET TIMER 10 min
Have students report the information they found.
Fill out this information in a different color. Do not erase notes from
brainstorming.
130
Appendix M – Lesson plan tutoring session 5 – Friendship
TITLE: FRIENDS ARE FOREVER
Description: ORAL INTERACTION – READING
NOTE: It is a good idea to print this form before the tutoring session.
Tutoring
session: 2 Duration: 40 minutes
Cross-curricular competencies
MELS Secondary 1 p.4
ESL competencies
Evaluation
Criteria
Communicates appropriately
Cooperates with others
Speaks correctly
Looks up information on the internet to verify hypotheses
NOTE: your task is not to evaluate the students (your task is
not to give them any points or marks.)
However, the criteria mentioned here will help you
understand the pedagogical purpose of the activity.
Interacts orally (collaborating with peers
asking questions)
Reading – reconstructs a text in
collaboration with peers
Materials
Needed
Elluminate
tools to be
used
WBD 105 Friends are forever
Raise hands, smiley face, chat window, microphone, move objects on the whiteboard, writing text on the
whiteboard (tool: create a text label)
131
CLASSROOM ACTIVITY
STEP 1: PREPARING THE TASK
Role of the students Role of the teacher
Listen & say hello.
Students write on the whiteboard using the tool “create a
text label”. Everyone writes at the same time.
Students discuss what they wrote, find common and
divergent interests.
10 min
WBD 104 - slide 1
Greet the students.
“Today we are going to talk about friendship …”
Give a short overview of today’s session.
Invite them to share their ideas on the whiteboard by using
the writing tool. (NOTE: ideal letter size is 14 points).
Discuss the result: During the discussion, the students
should become aware of the idea that people can have
different interests and can still be friends.
STEP 2: CARRYING OUT THE TASK – PHASE 1,
Role of the students Role of the teacher
One student moves the sentences on the whiteboard.
The other students suggest which sentences should be
moved to which position.
Each student takes a turn in moving the sentences.
20 min
WBD 105 - slides 2
Explain the intended outcome of the activity, which is to reconstruct
the text about friendship. (You have a WORD file with the solution.)
Give one student access to the whiteboard and tell everyone that
only this student can move the sentences around. The others should
tell him where to move the sentences.
After a few minutes, give another student to the whiteboard. Ideally,
every student should take a turn.
You might give the students the advice to first look for sentences
that go together, and to establish the final sequence later. This may
be easier than looking for the 2nd
, then for the 3rd
sentence.
132
Appendix N – Transcription conventions (Duff, 2008) –from Chapter
Methodology
Symbol description Meaning
T1-A participant tutor 1 who participated in group A
S6-W participant Learner 6 who participated in group W
LA-2 participant second student in group B
[ left bracket
the beginning of overlapping speech, shown for both speakers; second speaker's bracket occurs at the beginning of the line of the next turn, rather than in alignment with previous speaker's bracket.
= equal sign for "latched" utterances; indicates speech across turns without any pause or break; shown for both speakers.
# pound sign marks a pause, timed or untimed (I could try to indicate the length in seconds, e.g. 2.0 is 2 seconds)
(words) parentheses The words in parentheses were not clearly heard (x) = unclear word; (xx) = two unclear words; (xxx) =three or more unclear words.
italics italicized words spoken with emphasis
CAPTITAL LETTERS
words in capital letters loud speech
(( comment
)) double parentheses
Researcher's comments, like "laughs," "coughs," "T writes on board," etc. relevant details pertaining to interaction, or gloss for Spanish when there is code-switching.
: colon sound or syllable is unusually lengthened, e.g. rea::lly lo:ng.
. period terminal falling intonation
, comma rising, continuing intonation
? question mark High rising intonation, not necessarily at the end of a sentence.
- unattached dash a short, untimed pause
- one-sided attached dash a cut-off, often accompanied by a glottal stop (e.g. self-correction);
> arrow pointing right flags something in the interaction to which the author is drawing attention.
voice30 audio mode/ turn number audio modality and turn number of that modality
chat29 chat mode / turn number chat modality and turn number of that modality
wbd4 whiteboard / turn number chat modality and turn number of that modality. NOTE: I should indicate the whiteboard tool used.
participants
window participant window
activity visible in the participant window (time of entry into the classroom, emoticons, etc.)
