Equipping ESL students with the skills to survive university study: Sociocultural theory and CALL

Equipping ESL students with the skills to survive university

study: Sociocultural theory and CALL

Hazel Owen

Published – please reference as: Owen, H. (2004). Using CALL with students studying English for tertiary studies.

In P. Davidson, M. Al Hamly, M. A. Khan, J. Aydelott, K. Bird & C. Coombe (Eds.), English language teaching in

the IT Age: Proceedings of the 9th TESOL Arabia Conference (Vol. 8, pp. 49-61). Dubai: TESOL Arabia.

Equipping ESL students with the skills to survive university study: Sociocultural theory and CALLHazel Owen

1.0 Introduction

International ESL students and immigrants enrolling in university courses where English is the

medium of tuition, usually have to demonstrate minimum requirements of language competency.

This is frequently measured through IELTS or TOEFL scores, or by completing an entrance

competency assessment. Although these are a relatively efficient methods of testing English

language competency, there are a variety of other competencies that students require to survive

in a tertiary environment that they do not measure. These include cultural awareness, as well as

a range of academic, study, and critical thinking skills (Almabekova, 2002) that are necessary for

a student to successfully complete and graduate from university level courses. Educational

background has also often shaped the extent to which these skills are developed, and ESL

students may find that, even when they have an advanced level of English, they still struggle

(Byleen, 1986).

This paper examines ways to equip ESL students with a range of strategies and skills to

survive a Western university environment. Sociocultural theory provided the theoretical

underpinning because it has the flexibility to enhance second language acquisition (SLA) while

also fostering academic and study skills, and, perhaps critical thinking skills. In addition, the

paper describes the pilot of a collaborative writing and speaking project that was designed using

sociocultural principles, and implemented at the University of Wollongong in Dubai (UOWD).

The findings of the research study are reported, and some possible educational implications are

explored.

Sociocultural Interpretative Framework

Sociocultural theory has its origins in the work of Vygotsky (1978, 1986), and more recently

with Leont’ev (1981), and Wertsch (1991, 1998). A central hypothesis underpins the theory

whereby, in the process of human development, context and cognition are inseparable. Thus, the

social interaction of an individual with the external social world (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988),

which comprises communities, rules, tools, and activities, leads to the development of higher

mental functions including logical memory, verbal and conceptual thought, and complex

emotions (Kublin, Wetherby, Crais, & Prizant, 1989). In other words, human development is

essentially cultural, and without participating in constructive social interaction, the development

of higher mental functions will not occur. In turn, through the process of interaction, learners

Page 2 of 17


have their own influence on the learning community of which they are members “creating, their

surroundings as well as themselves through the actions in which they engage” (Wertsch, 1991, p.

8). Sociocultural theory thereby places importance on the learning experience itself, as well as

how the way in which what is learned is then applied (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992).

Current research into education and computer mediated communication (CMC) indicates

that, when used collaboratively, they can be a valuable enhancement to the learning process

(Semones, 2001). For example, Vygotsky developed the notion of the zone of proximal

development, which suggests that opportunities can be provided where the gap between a

learner’s already assimilated knowledge or skills, and knowledge or skills yet to be assimilated,

can be bridged when assisted by a more advanced peer or teacher - a concept known as

‘scaffolding’. Thus, when computers are not viewed as tutors, but rather as tools which provide

further ways of communicating with other learners, the resulting dynamic interaction can provide

scaffolding from peers.

Tertiary students learning in a second language

There are growing demands that graduates from tertiary institutes not only have knowledge of

their major, but that they can also demonstrate high levels of literacy and critical thinking skills

(Murchú & Muirhead, 2005). It has been suggested that how learners construct knowledge

should inform how a curriculum is designed, in particular the necessity of students ‘making’

meaning for themselves from input, data, and ideas (Hughes, Kooy, & Kanevsky, 1997). In

response, many universities are developing courses that are more student-centered and that

encourage learners to monitor their own learning (Waldrip, Fisher, & Dorman, 2005). A report

on several studies of student-centered learning in tertiary environments (Lea, Stephenson, &

Troy, 2003) indicated that students improved their study skills and their ability to manage

complex situations, although they were slower, initially, to demonstrate advances in learning

compared with ‘traditional’ classroom approaches. However, for ESL students to meet the

challenges of courses that utilise the learner-centered approach, they need to not only have an

advanced level of English, but also a range of literacy, study and critical thinking skills that will

enable them to survive university and to graduate successfully.

Page 3 of 17


Becoming literate is more than being able to read and write, but rather includes

“mastering processes that are deemed valuable in particular societies, cultures, and contexts”

(Shetzer & Warschauer, 2000, p. 172). Significantly, Ong (1983) advises that teachers need to

be aware of the way writing has restructured consciousness, cultures, and personal relationships,

to help them assist students who are struggling with academic writing and all that it represents.

Appreciation of the difficult transition from orality to literacy can thus raise awareness of some

of the challenges students face when having to master academic writing.

Technology has resulted in the development of ‘new’ literacies, which demand ‘new’

skills and strategies (Melles, 2003). ‘Hypertext’, a term coined in the 1960s, consists of layers of

information where the reader can choose to access text, audio, and video, in a non-linear fashion.

In other words, hypertext invites reader/writer dynamism in the utilization of text that is no

longer fixed but is ‘fluid’ (and much closer to an oral structure), perhaps indicating its

appropriacy as a learning system as opposed to a teaching system (Snyder, 1996). In response, a

corresponding shift in literacy skills, teaching practices (Charney, 1994), and forms of

assessment (Snyder, 1996) is required. Leu (1997) believes students need help with developing

“the new composing, comprehension, and response abilities….” (p. 3), and Charney (1994)

suggests that assistance is essential to help students acquire new ways of knowing what to

‘notice’.

2.1 Students, and educational context at UOWD

Dubai, in the last fifteen years, has become a centre for employment and education in the Middle

East, and this has led to an eclectic mixture of nationalities enrolling at tertiary education

institutions (apart from government run ones which cater exclusively for Emirati nationals). As

a result, at the time of the project pilot at UOWD, the student population was largely

international, and included learners from the Middle East, Russia, Europe, Africa, and China.

Most students were aged between eighteen to thirty years, and had to attain a level of academic

skills and English language to continue in tertiary education, either at under- or post-graduate

level. As such, they were enrolled on the advanced English for University Studies 4 (EUS4)

course, which was a 260-hour course that was designed for students who wanted to enter directly

into undergraduate and / or postgraduate study.

Page 4 of 17


3.0 Designing the Speaking and Writing Project at UOWD

One of the objectives for the Spring Semester, 2002, was to enhance the advanced level EUS4

course with increased use of education technology. The foci of the course were research skills,

academic reading and writing, presenting information orally, advanced aural and note taking

skills, as well as the development of cognitive and reasoning skills, along with technological

skills (represented graphically below in Figure 1 to indicate that they were interdependent and

dynamic). Assessment was formative, and a grade was given for participation. These factors

helped shape what was included in the six-day academic writing and speaking project, while the

underlying theoretical framework for the design was sociocultural theory.

Figure 1 – A graphical representation of the learning objectives of EUS4

Critical thinking skills and strategies, it is argued, are fostered when learners interact with

peers to brainstorm, negotiate, explain, question, disagree, persuade, and solve problems (Sharan,

1980). The project therefore aimed to assist learner development by encouraging peer

interaction, feedback and tutoring, modelling affective behaviours, communicating

asynchronously, and adopting a variety of roles (Braine, 1998). There was also an attempt to

maximize the benefits of collaborative writing tasks (McLoughlin & Oliver, 1998) and

productive activities which encouraged purposeful use of the target language (Williams, 1998).

In addition, the project had to have a readily identifiable relevance to the wider ESL curriculum,

as well as to the students’ future studies at the university (Warschauer, 2000). As a balancing

factor, time and the amount of effort students were willing to invest had to be considered

(Semones, 2001). The writing and speaking project was time and effort intensive; however,

research has indicated that extended participation in complex tasks promotes the deepest learning

Page 5 of 17


(Marzano, 1992). Therefore, as encouragement and recognition of the workload involved, the

project was assessed and represented five percent of the overall grade for the EUS4 programme.

Opportunities for feedback (Sengupta, 2001) and reflection were identified as valuable,

although it was recognised that some L2 students find giving thoughtful feedback stressful

(Kivela, 1996), especially when non-verbal clues are not available (Gee, 1999). Therefore, a

blended learning approach was utilised, with face-to-face classroom sessions forming an

essential part of the project. Email was used for inter- and intra-group communication, and the

discussion board on the online course management system (Blackboard), was used to post peer

feedback and homework, as well as presenting opportunities for more equal participation

(Warschauer, 1998).

Arsham (1995) asserts it is essential for courses with a Web-based element to provide

learning support for students. Relevant support, therefore, was incorporated into the design of

the project in the form of self-access tools (Plass, 1998) where learners were able to identify and

choose the support they required (Schwienhorst, 1998). These tools were located in Blackboard

for easy access, and included:

clear instructions, aims and objectives;

suggestions for group and peer cooperation; and

annotated links to carefully pre-selected Internet sites that gave students access to

interactive tasks which would develop target academic skills.

Further to the design decisions discussed above, two other key issues needed to be

addressed. The first issue was the selection of topic. It has been noted that choice is important

for learners, and they should be given the opportunity to choose what to study as well as reflect

on why and how that topic is of interest (Burnard, 1999); therefore, a method was piloted prior to

the study where students selected their own topic and wrote an essay question. By taking

ownership of the topic students appeared to remain more enthusiastic and motivated (Shetzer &

Warschauer 2000). The second consideration was that UOWD is multi-cultural, and cultural

aspects were, therefore, key in the design of the project (Pargman, 1998). Factors to be

considered were teaching and learning styles, appropriacy (McLoughlin, 1999), roles and

expectations, and different cultures’ views of the value of peer feedback and self-directed

learning.

Page 6 of 17


The research study

The research study was designed to explore learners’ attitudes and motivation during and after

taking part in the six-day collaborative academic writing and speaking project. It also aimed to

record perceived improvement of language and academic skills. The study did NOT however

attempt to empirically measure improvement in L2 language competency or academic skills and

strategies.

Procedure

Twelve EUS4 students participated in the study, and data was collected in the Fall semester

2002, through:

questionnaires;

passive participant observations (unstructured);

daily attendance figures;

automatically generated statistics from Blackboard; and

teacher feedback (written and verbal).

Overview of the Collaborative Speaking and Writing Project

The pilot of the project was carried out in week ten and eleven of a thirteen-week course. The

timing was important, as it was necessary for the students to be familiar with the skills and

strategies for academic essay writing and research. Thus, by week ten students were already

proficient in using MSWord, Web browsers, and Blackboard. The learning environment

included a classroom, plus a computer lab with twenty computers, a printer and a whiteboard.

The project is detailed below in a day-by-day format.

Day One

After an introduction to the six-day project and a discussion about expectations and how students

felt they might benefit from participating, groups were then assigned by the teacher. The

combination of students in each group was carefully considered to try to encourage scaffolding

by more able students, an assortment of cultures and L1s, and complementary characters. In

Page 7 of 17


class, the groups decided which roles they were going to take within that group (i.e. leader,

‘writer’, scheduler/organizer, spokesperson, technical ‘adviser’). Next, students:

brainstormed possible essay topics;

examined model academic essay questions;

negotiated their timetable for the week;

allocated tasks for each other;

typed an introduction of their group;

typed suggestions for topics(s) and essay question(s); and

posted the introduction and suggestions on the discussion board.

Day Two

Before class, the teacher read the postings on the discussion board and noted the essay topics and

questions. Once the class session had started, students voted for the topic they preferred. After a

topic had been selected, students:

brainstormed ideas about the topic onto the whiteboard;

copied the notes from the board;

searched for, evaluated, printed-off and referenced five articles relevant to the topic; and

for homework, completed the following tasks (adapted from the dialogic journal concept

developed by Hughes, Kooy, and Kanevsky, 1997) and posted them to the discussion

board -

1. Summarised one of the group’s articles in not more that two hundred words.

2. Included a reference in APA style.

3. Wrote a brief description about why the group thought the article was appropriate for

an academic essay, and for the topic.

4. Wrote two questions for other groups about the content, style or appropriacy of the

article.

Day Three

Each group read the articles they had located and printed off, highlighting useful points and

examples, and making notes. Then, together, they had to prepare an argumentative essay outline

Page 8 of 17


and write an introduction and conclusion for the chosen topic. A consensus had to be reached in

the groups in order for them to write a coherent thesis statement, counterargument, and

refutation. As a result, opportunities for the production of a wide range of functional language

were provided, as well as a focus upon the necessity of a logical flow in an essay.

The second part of the session was spent in the computer lab. Two students from each

group answered the questions about another group’s chosen article, that had been posed and

posted on the discussion board the night before. The other two members of each group typed up

in MSWord the outline that had been worked on in the first part of the session, and then

uploaded it to Blackboard.

For the final part of the session, using the EUS4 marking criteria for outlines, groups

started to provide peer feedback on another group’s outline. For homework, they continued with

this task, and gave an overall mark. They had to be able to justify the mark with reasons, and

mention one thing that was good about the outline, and one thing that could be improved.

Day Four

Day four’s session began in the computer lab, where the groups accessed the feedback on

outlines. Two groups worked together, and discussed for five minutes

why they agreed or disagreed with the comments and grades;

what they had learnt from the other group’s comments; and

what they had learnt from writing an outline as a group.

After the initial tasks the students split out of their groups, working one to a computer.

An academic essay checklist was given out to refresh students’ memories about the important

things to consider while writing an academic essay. First, after opening MSWord, each student

copied and pasted the introduction (only) from their group’s outline from the day before into

another Word document. At the end of the introduction they inserted a page break, and on the

new page typed the title ‘References’. Next, they converted the introduction into full sentences.

As soon as a student finished they swapped computers with someone else who had finished, and

then typed the first paragraph of the essay body. Once they completed that, they again swapped,

and so on until a whole essay had been written by a number of authors. This essay was printed-

off and handed in (with no names on the document).

Page 9 of 17


Students then discussed difficulties they had encountered while writing the essay, which

highlighted the necessity for a good thesis statement, a strong topic sentence for each paragraph,

and a well-written introduction. For homework, students were encouraged to work with peers

and/or use the annotated links to remedy any problems they were having with essay writing

(revealed through the writing of the ‘class’ essay).

Day Five

In class, to start day five, the teacher gave out a copy of four of the essays from the day before

(one to each group), along with the UOWD EUS4 marking criteria for argumentative essays.

Each group was then asked to:

grade the essays with comments; and

correct errors in sentence structure, punctuation, spelling, formality, or referencing.

Once the group had agreed on a grade, they were then split and mixed with another group. The

new group then discussed the grades that had been given and why they had been given.

Finally, to encourage reflection, each student was asked to write the two main things they

had learnt about writing academic essays from this writing task. The slips were collected in and

briefly discussed as a class.

In the second part of the session, preparation for a formal debate began. Groups were

split into larger groups with six students in each. Each extended group then had to draw a slip to

see if they were ‘for’ or ‘against’ the topic. The new group selected a ‘speaker’ who would have

two minutes at the beginning to state the main point of view of the group, and then two minutes

to close at the end and refute any arguments that were raised in the course of the debate. The

two large groups then returned to their articles to find statistics, examples, quotations, and

support for their argument. Homework consisted of groups meeting to ensure that everyone

was fully briefed, and that the speaker had their parts ready and rehearsed.

Day Six

Each extended group had their own long table, arranged so that there were two long lines facing

each other. The teams drew slips to decide who went first, and then the speakers gave their two-

minute formal presentation (timed, and strictly adhered to). After the initial ‘presentations’ the

Page 10 of 17


discussion was opened to the two teams, who had ten minutes to discuss the main issues.

Following the discussion, the speaker from each team had the opportunity to ‘sum up’.

The winning team was selected by class vote based on:

teamwork;

discussion;

use of supporting evidence and citation; and

relevancy.

Feedback was then solicited through the use of a questionnaire and whole class discussion.

Data analysis and results

Bearing in mind that recent educational studies suggest that learning can only take place in the

context of a meaningful activity (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999), the data from the

participant observations performed during the project were categorised and analysed, and key

factors have been represented diagrammatically in Figure 2. The diagram (adapted from

Engeström, 1987) helps to illustrate that there were mutual interacting relationships between the

actors, tools, and the community. For example, through the use of a blended-learning approach,

opportunities were provided for actors to communicate, negotiate, comment and question, in a

way that was motivated by shared outcomes, and mediated by rules.

The results suggest that group dynamics and the selection of differing ability students

Page 11 of 17


resulted in students being exposed to alternative learning strategies and skills, as well as

fostering positive interdependence. It might be argued, however, that by providing a scaffolded

approach, more advanced students were disadvantaged. However, such participants actually felt

that it helped their own understanding when they had to ‘externalize’ something by explaining it

to a peer. In addition, those students whose cultural background made it more difficult to work

within the parameters of the genre of the argumentative essay seemed to respond well to peer

support. During the writing of the whole-class essay in the computer lab, students who fell into

the latter category also showed marked improvement in their awareness of the conventions of

this type of academic essay. There was no immediate evidence, though, of improved language

competency, and no real way of measuring an increase in critical thinking skills.

Observations were supported by the class discussion and the teacher’s feedback. Overall,

students were enthusiastic about the project, enjoying the continuity and the chance to practise a

range of skills and strategies, while also assisting their classmates in a ‘safe’ environment.

Participants enjoyed using problem-solving strategies, as well as interacting in groups. One

student’s comment was that this was “the most useful…exercise we have done all semester”; it

seemed to encapsulate the general attitude of the class. Feedback also indicated that motivation

was high, although some students found the topic was not interesting or relevant to them. Even

with this factor, students remained largely on task and managed to complete activities within set

timeframes.

Feedback from the questionnaires fell into five main categories:

1. Students believed that their language and academic skills and strategies had improved.

2. Students appreciated the chance to choose their own topic.

3. The opportunity to participate collaboratively in learning activities directly and

transparently relevant to the course syllabus was valued.

4. The occasional technical limitations were frustrating.

5. The workload was high, and the deadlines tight.

Specific comments included:

“One of the most valuable things I improved was speaking skills through the debate and

argument.”

Page 12 of 17


“In my point of view it’s a good project. It helped us trying [sic] to take out points from

the material for essay and presentation, and the other it helps us more to get and search

some relevant and academic articles because in the future we have lots of stuff to

search.”

Overall, students perceived the six-day collaborative speaking and writing project as

having real purpose (i.e. adding to skills that they would use in further study), while also

enhancing their language learning experience and proficiency, especially in the area of speaking

and academic writing. Interestingly, the perceived improvement of ICT skills, when compared

with those for improved language and study skills, is relatively low. A possible explanation for

this is that the students already believed themselves proficient in their use of technology.

Limitations of the informal study include issues of generalisability, reliability, and

validity, including the effect of social desirability on student answers, or misinterpretation of

questionnaire items (Benson, 2000). Further studies would be required before the effectiveness

of the collaborative writing and speaking project could be substantiated, especially when

measuring whether writing and speaking skills were actually enhanced. The informal data,

nevertheless, appear promising and are informative.

Conclusion

Recognition that learners now demand language instruction with authentic, real-world

significance is now widespread (LeLoup & Ponterio, 1995). As such, the need for the

enhancement of tertiary courses through education technology is argued, to enable students to

participate in a range of activity systems where information technology and English are used as

key tools (Kern & Warschauer, 2000). It is not enough, however, to provide a computer

laboratory equipped with state of the art machines and software. Rather, curriculum design and

assessment should be such that learners are part of an interactive environment where they are

able to construct personal meaning from a learning situation, reflect on it (Murchú & Muirhead,

2005), and then integrate that with what they already know (Marzano, 1992). Such an approach

to curriculum design is likely to make SLA more effective, as well as encouraging the

development of the associated skills and strategies for thinking, learning and communication that

are required in a tertiary educational environment.

Page 13 of 17


Teachers can promote social co-operation, a sense of community and cross-cultural

sensitivity by encouraging collaboration, both virtual and real. However, when this approach

undermines key roles and expectations for students, it is likely that negativity and demotivation

will occur (Glassman, 2001). This factor is compounded when students are from a range of

cultures and educational backgrounds, thereby making it difficult to ensure cultural appropriacy

for all, and undermining the possibility of an equally positive and productive learning experience

(Lantolf, 1999). Possibly, one solution would be to consider the group of learners that make up a

class as a distinct and dynamic learning community that has specific needs, requirements, and

rules, as opposed to a group of disparate individuals from a range of cultures.

CMC is arguably becoming as central to world communication as print has been.

However, the utilisation of CMC in a pedagogically sound way is not simple, cheap, or a

panacea for all ESL learning challenges (Allan & Gilbert, 1993). Furthermore, theorists are

unified in their belief that the teacher is a critical variable in the success of technology enhanced

learning (Hara & Kling, 1999). Of its own accord, CMC does little to assist learning, and does

not necessarily inspire teachers to rethink their approach, or students to adopt different methods

of learning or thinking. On the other hand, if educators are convinced of the value of CMC as a

tool, and take ownership of the chance to rethink language and literacy studies, “the central

activity of education - the development of independent critical thinking” (Snyder, 1995, p. 34) is

likely to be enhanced. To achieve this goal however, theoretical and practical training, release

time and support are essential, because of the direct impact they have on personal attitudes and

motivation.

The implications are diverse for L2 learners and teachers in a tertiary environment, and

there is no ‘quick-fix’ that can be employed. What a blended learning environment that utilises

CMC and is underpinned by a sociocultural interpretative framework may do though, is to equip

ESL students with the flexible skills and strategies with which they can survive and graduate

from university.

Page 14 of 17


9.0 References

Allan, L., & Gilbert, P. (1993). Literacy in Contexts: Australian Perspectives and Issues. Australia: Allen and Unwin.

Almabekova, O. (2002). Teaching Thinking Through ESP. ESP World, 1(1), 1-6.Arsham, H. (1995). Interactive education: Impact of the internet on learning & teaching.

Retrieved February 6, 2002, from http://UBMAIL.ubalt.edu/¡«harsham/interactive.htmBenson, P. (2000). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London:

Longman.Braine, G. (1998). Teaching writing on Local Area Networks. In C. S. Ward & W. A. Renandya

(Eds.), Computers and language learning (pp. 63-76). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Burnard, P. (1999). Carl Rogers and postmodernism: Challenged in nursing and health sciences. Nursing and Health Sciences(1), 241–247.

Byleen, E. (1986). Advanced writing for Vietnamese ESL students. Journal of English Grammar on the Web(1), 1-26.

Charney, D. (1994). The effects of hypertext on processes of reading and writing. In C. L. Selfe & S. Hilligoss (Eds.), Literacy and computers: The complications of teaching and learning with technology (pp. 238-263). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. London: Routledge.Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, Experience, and Inquiry in Educational

Practice. Educational Researcher, 30(4), 3-14.Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999). Students' frustrations with a web-based distance education course:

A taboo topic in the discourse. Retrieved May 28, 2003, from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_12/hara/

Hughes, H. W., Kooy, M., & Kanevsky, L. (1997). Dialogic reflection and journaling. Clearing House, 70(4), 187-190.

Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity Theory as a Framework for Designing Constructivist Learning Environments. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79.

Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In R. Kern & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kivela, R. J. (1996). The effects of using networked computers for ESL writing. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 6, 85-92.

Kublin, K. S., Wetherby, A. M., Crais, E. R., & Prizant, B. M. (1989). Prelinguistic dynamic assessment: A transactional perspective. In A. M. Wetherby, S. F. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Transitions in prelinguistic communication (pp. 285-312). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Lantolf, J. (1999). Second culture acquisition: Cognitive considerations. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 28-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 15 of 17


LeLoup, J. W., & Ponterio, R. (1995). Addressing the need for electronic communication in foreign language teaching. In R. Steinfeldt (Ed.), Educational technologies: Monograph of the New York State Council of Educational Associations (pp. 39-54).

Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Theconcept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). New York: M. E. Sharpe.Leu, D. J. (1997). Caity's question: Literacy as deixis on the Internet. Retrieved July 13, 2002,

from http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/RT/caity.htmlMarzano, R. J. (1992). A Different Kind of Classroom: Teaching with Dimensions of Learning.

In Learning-Centered Instruction: An Idea Whose Time Has Come (pp. 1-17). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McLoughlin, C. (1999). Culturally responsive technology use: Developing an on-line community of learners. British Journal of Technology, 30(3), 231-243.

McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (1998). Maximising the language and learning link in computer learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 125-136.

Melles, G. (2003). Critical thinking in ESL for postgraduate engineers: Negotiating a discipline. ESP World, 2(2), 3-14.

Murchú, D. Ó., & Muirhead, B. (2005). Insights into promoting critical thinking in online classes. Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(6), 33-48.

Ong, W. J. (1983). Writing is a humanizing activity. ADE Bulletin, 074(Spring), 13-16.Pargman, D. (1998). Reflections on cultural adaptation and bias. Paper presented at the Cultural

Attitudes Towards Communication and Technology '98, Sydney, Australia.Plass, J. L. (1998). Design and Evaluation of the User Interface of Foreign Language Multimedia

Software: A Cognitive Approach. Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 35-45.Schwienhorst, K. (1998). Co-constructing learning environments and learner identities:

Language learning in virtual reality. Paper presented at the The ED-Media/ ED-Telecom, Freiburg.

Semones, L. (2001). Collaboration, Computer Mediation, and the Foreign Language. Clearing House, 74(6), 308-317.

Sengupta, S. (2001). Exchanging ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a pain? Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 103-134.

Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-271.

Shetzer, H., & Warschauer, M. (2000). An electronic literacy approach to network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 171-185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Snyder, I. (1996). Hypertext: The electronic labyrinth. New York: New York University Press.Snyder, I. (1996). Reconceptualising literacy and hypertext. In M. Wild & D. Kirkpatrick (Eds.),

Computer education: New perspectives (pp. 165-180). Perth, WA: Edith Cowan University Press.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Page 16 of 17


Waldrip, B. G., Fisher, D. L., & Dorman, J. (2005). Student perceptions of assessment: Questionnaire development and validation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas.

Warschauer, M. (1998). Online learning in sociocultural context. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(1), 68-88.

Warschauer, M. (2000). On-line learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic study. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 41-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Williams, M. (1998). Teaching thinking through a foreign language. In R. Burden & M. Willams

(Eds.), Thinking through the curriculum (pp. 84-95). London: Routledge.

Page 17 of 17

Documents

Equipping ESL students with the skills to survive university study: Sociocultural theory and CALL