Predicting social presence in videoconference-supported LMS courses: Mediation through L2 writing and speaking strategies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i2.2691Keywords:
Community of Inquiry, L2 writing strategies, L2 speaking strategies, online learning, social presence, higher education, Covid-19.Abstract
The issue addressed here concerns how second language (L2) speaking strategies mediate the relationship between L2 writing strategies and the social presence component of the community of inquiry (CoI) framework within the context of fully online courses that combined learning management system (LMS) for writing tasks and videoconferencing for live classroom discussion. L2 writing strategies related to planning and reviewing contribute to composing tests that students want to upload, present, and discuss, and this sharing is expected to foster classroom social behaviors and consequent language gains. For the current study, a cross-sectional survey of 256 university students was initiated to investigate the mediating effect L2 speaking strategies have on the relationship between L2 writing strategies and social presence. The results indicated positive path coefficients between review strategies and speaking strategies, review strategies and social presence, planning strategies and speaking strategies, and speaking strategies and social presence. Further, speaking strategies explain the relationship between planning strategies and social presence, indicating full mediation. Partial mediation was found for the path between review strategies and social presence. Recognizing how L2 writing and speaking strategies relate to one another and how that relationship influences a CoI illustrates the interconnectivity between language skills. Evidently, increased attention to planning and reviewing strategies results in a final composition worth sharing and discussing, and such sharing and discussion are building blocks to a vibrant social presence.
References
Abrams, Z. I., & Byrd, D. R. (2016). The effects of pre‐task planning on L2 writing: Mind‐mapping and chronological sequencing in a 1st‐year German class. System, 63, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.08.011
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J. R., & Reeve, J. (2019). Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293
Almusharraf, N., & Bailey, D. R. (2021). Online engagement during COVID-19: Role of agency on collaborative learning orientation and learning expectations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1285–1295. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12569
Anderson, T. (2016, 4 January). A fourth presence for the Community of Inquiry model. Virtual Canuck. https://virtualcanuck.ca/2016/01/04/a-fourth-presence-for-the-community-of-inquiry-model/
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
Bailey (2019). Conceptualization of second language writing strategies and their relation to student characteristics. Journal of TEFL Asia, 16(1), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.11.1.9.135
Bailey, D. R., Almusharraf, N. & Hatcher, R. (2021). Finding satisfaction: Intrinsic motivation for synchronous and asynchronous communication in the online language learning context. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 2563–2583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10369-z
Beauvais, C., Olive, T., & Passerault, J. M. (2011). Why are some texts good and others not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022545
Berninger, V., & Winn, W. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96 –114). Guilford.
Blake, R. (2016). Technology and the four skills. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 129–142. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2016/blake.pdf
Blake, R., Wilson, N. L., Cetto, M., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 114. http://llt.msu.edu/ Blake ol12num3/blakeetal/
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). Pearson.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Chatterjee, R., & Correia, A. P. (2020). Online students’ attitudes toward collaborative learning and sense of community. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2020.1703479
Ching, Y. H. & Hsu, Y. C. (2013). Collaborative learning using VoiceThread in an online graduate course. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 5(3), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2013.05.021
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104026130
Fathi, J., Ahmadnejad, M., & Yousofi, N. (2019). Effects of blog-mediated instruction on L2 writing motivation, self-efficacy, and self-regulation: A mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 159–181. https//:doi. 10.22055/RALS.2019.14722
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice. Taylor & Francis.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.). Pearson.
Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory and practice (pp. 6–44). International Reading Association.
Huang, S. (2016). Language learning strategies in context. The Language Learning Journal: Language Learning Strategies, 46(5), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1186723
Kao, C.-W., & Reynolds, B. L. (2017). A study on the relationship among Taiwanese college students’ EFL writing strategy use, writing ability and writing difficulty. English Teaching & Learning, 41(4), 31–67. https://doi.org/10.6330/ETL.2017.41.4.02
Kaul, M., Aksela, M., & Wu, X. (2018). Dynamics of the community of inquiry (CoI) within a massive open online course (MOOC) for in-service teachers in environmental education. Education Sciences, 8(2), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020040
Kim, M. K., & Ketenci, T. (2019). Learner participation profiles in an asynchronous online collaboration context. The Internet and Higher Education, 41, 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.02.002
Kucuk, S., & Richardson, J. C. (2019). A structural equation model of predictors of online learners’ engagement and satisfaction. Online Learning, 23(2), 196–216. https:// doi.org//10.24059/olj.v23i2.1455
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00157
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2013). Teaching planning or sentence-combining strategies: Effective SRSD interventions at different levels of written composition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 328–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.004
Lopez, M. M. (2011). Speaking strategies used by BA ELT students in public universities in Mexico. MEXTESO Journal, 35(1), 203–216.
Maarof, N., & Murat, M. (2013). Writing strategies used by ESL upper secondary school students. International Education Studies, 6(4), 47–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n4p47
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner–learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.003
McDonough, K., De Vleeschauwer, J., & Crawford, W. J. (2019). Exploring the benefits of collaborative prewriting in a Thai EFL context. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 685–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818773525
Mehr, H. S., Zoghi, M., & Assadi, N. (2013). Effects of synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face interaction on speaking skill development of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(5), 36–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.5p.36
Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. Routledge.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle and Heinle.
Oxford, R. (2011). Teaching & researching language learning strategies. Routledge.
Payne, J. S. (2020). Developing L2 productive language skills online and the strategic use of instructional tools. Foreign Language Annals. 53, 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12457
Rashid, A. A., Yunus, M. M., & Wahi, W. (2019). Using Padlet for collaborative writing among ESL learners. Creative Education, 10(3), 610–620. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.103044
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00102-1
Rubin, B., Fernandes, R., & Avgerinou, M. (2013). The effect of technology on community of inquiry and satisfaction with online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.006
Sewart, M. K. (2019). The community of inquiry survey: An assessment instrument for online writing courses. Computers and Composition, 52, 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.01.001
Seyyedi, K., Ismail, S. A. M. M., Orang, M., & Nejad, M. S. (2013). The effect of pre‐task planning time on L2 learners' narrative writing performance. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 1–10.http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n12p1
Stewart, M. K., Hilliard, L., Stillman-Webb, N., & Cunningham, J. M. (2021). The Community of Inquiry in writing studies survey: Interpreting social presence in disciplinary contexts. Online Learning, 25(2), 73–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i2.2275
Storch, N. (1998). A classroom‐based study: Insights from a collaborative text reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 52(4), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.4.291
Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(4), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.60.4.457
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x
Traver A. E., Volchok, E., Bidjerano, T. & Shea, P. (2014). Correlating community college students’ perceptions of community of inquiry presences with their completion of blended courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.001
Veracruzana, M. G. (2011). Speaking strategies used BA ELT students in public universities in Mexico. MEXTESOL Journal, 35(1), 1–22.
Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. Prentice Hall International.
Yang, L., & Mohd, R. B. S. (2020). The relationship between critical thinking and the community of inquiry model: a quantitative study among EFL university students in China. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 965–973.
Yeh, S. W., & Chen, C. T. (2019). EFL learners' peer negotiations and attitudes in mobile-assisted collaborative writing. Language Education & Assessment, 2(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v2n1.100
Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Web-based collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Methodological insights from text mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146–165. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44599
Zenouzagh, Z. M. (2020). Syntactic complexity in individual, collaborative and E-collaborative EFL writing: mediating role of writing modality, L1 and sustained development in focus. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 2939–2970. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-020-09818-w
Zhang, L. J., & Qin, T. L. (2018). Validating a questionnaire on EFL writers’ metacognitive awareness of writing strategies in multimedia environment. In A. Haukas & M. Dypedahl (Eds.), Metacognition in language learning and teaching (pp. 157–177). Routledge.
Zhu, X.-h. (2007). What do we know about the relationship between speaking and writing in college-level ESL students? US-China Foreign Language, 5(3), 31–40.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
