ASSIGNMENT 1

"If you poison the environment, the environment will poison you. "-- Tony Follari

"One touch of nature makes the whole world kin. "-- William Shakespeare

ASSIGNMENT 1

CAI : Computer-Assisted Instruction
CAL : Computer Assisted Learning
CALI : Computer-Assisted Language Instruction
CALT: Computer-assisted Language Teaching
CALT : Computer-Assisted Language Testing
CAT : Computer-Activated Task
CBT : Computer Based Learning
CMC : Computer-Mediated Communication
CMCD : Computer Mediated Classroom Discussion
NBC : Network-Based Communication
NBL : Network-Based Learning
CMI : Computer-Managed Instruction
TELL : Technology Enhanced Language Learning
WELL : Web Enhance Language Learning

Authentic Use of Language

Communicative CALL emerged in the 1970’s and 1980’s as a reaction to the behaviorist approach to language learning. However, communicative CALL led the teacher to be distant and students left to work independently and this undermined collaborative demand of language learning. According to Warshaeur (1996), the dissatisfaction with the communicative approach led many of the language practitioners to another approach which is known as the integrative or socio-cognitive approach.
Socio-cognitive approach aims to integrate the various skills of language learning such as listening, speaking, writing and reading and also to integrate technology into the language learning process. Also in this approach, real language which is used in a meaningful and authentic context is being emphasized whereby students are given authentic reading materials like from the World Wide Web (WWW). The World Wide Web becomes the source of learning authentic language as it provides authentic text and multimedia materials such as online newspapers, magazines, advertisements, brochures, radio broadcast, e-books and so on. The expansion of technological advancements such as the internet and multimedia technology which includes sound, graphics, image, animation, and video, helps learners understand authentic use of language better. For example, talking e-dictionary, song clips and video clips of native speakers’ conversation can improve learners’ pronunciation. In the integrative approach also, the authentic use of the language can be divided into task-based, content-based and project-based methods.
First and foremost, the use of task-based activities in the classroom is an excellent way to encourage students to use a language. Tasks may involve solving a word problem, creating a crossword puzzle, making a video, preparing a presentation, or drawing up a plan. In these classroom activities, students use the language to fill an information gap by getting answers or expanding a partial understanding. For example, students work in pairs, and each is given half of a map, grid, or list needed to complete a task. According to The National Capital Language Resource Centre, Washington DC (2004), by working in groups, students can collaborate to develop a work plan, which will enhance their proficiency in the language in a variety of ways because they learn from each other.
Secondly, content-based method suggests that the optimal language learning occurs when language is used as a medium for studying subject matter. For example, the use of English as the medium of instruction in non-English community can make learners learn English at the same time in their attempts to understand what is being taught and studied. Karet and Ward (1996) state that the strength of the content-based method is that language learning is contextualized and purposeful. For example, it provides the learner with purposeful tasks and opportunities for meaningful communication. This approach is to increase students’ procedural knowledge by providing them the right tools (linguistic or internet) that they need to master their academic tasks. It focuses on learning the content subject and thus, the World Wide Web (WWW) provides comprehensible input such as graphics, audio and video to aid students’ understanding of the content. Besides, other features in the internet which facilitate learning are the applications of CU-SeeMe and Internet Relay Chat (IRC) which provides an authentic environment and real audiences for students. CU-SeeMe is an audio and video conferencing program that engages foreign language students in voice conversation. Students can talk directly to as well as see or be seen by the person, who can be the native speaker that they are addressing. While IRC enables synchronous conversation among users around the world via “channels” (such as “music”, “love”, “university” etc) by exchanging typed messages. Each channel is dedicated to a specific topic of discussion that learners maybe able to discuss it with the native speakers, thus making language learning occurs simultaneously with content understanding. Therefore, this method makes language learning more exciting as well as learning a subject more enjoyable.
Lastly, the project-based method is an approach that contextualizes learning by presenting learners with problems to solve or products to develop. This can give students the opportunity to create, discover, research, and learn. According to Moss and Van Duzer (1998), project-based method functions as a bridge between using English in class and using it in real life situation outside the class. This is because when learners work in pairs or in teams, they find they need skills to plan, organize and present their research or project. This also requires the students to think for themselves and involves student decision making. In doing all those things, students of different backgrounds and mother tongues need to talk to each other in order to get the project done. So, they of course have to use their second language, English to communicate even though they are not in class and this shows how they apply their language learning in real life situation. Thus, the collaborative nature of project work enhances the application of learners’ language skills which include reading, writing, listening and speaking skills.

References:
Karet, J., & Ward, D. (1996). Content-Based Approach to Internet Literacy. Retrieved December 17th, 2006 from http://www.content-based/ Approach to Internet Literacy.htm

Moss, D., & Van Duzer, C. (1998). Project-Based for Adult English Language Learners. Retrieved December 17th, 2006 from National ClearingHouse for ESL Literacy Education Washington DC. Website: http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cmlr/553/content3.html

The National Capital Language Resource Centre, Washington DC. (2004). Teaching Goals and Methods Guidelines for Communicative. Retrieved December 17th, 2006 from http://www.nclr.org/essentials/goalsmethods/guidlines.htm

REFLECTIONS ON ASSIGNMENT 1

Reflections on Assignment 1.

• When we were given a list of abbreviations that we needed to define or find their acronyms, this task really made us realize how the simple abbreviation, CALL can include many other complicated terms, meaning the scope of CALL is so wide. It is like the words, CAI, CAL, CALI, CAT etc are under the same, huge umbrella of CALL.
• It is quite fun but confusing at the same time when we searched for the acronyms of those abbreviations as we came across with other acronyms which have the same abbreviation with those we were working on but have nothing to do with CALL. In order not to be on the wrong track, we narrowed down our finding in the search engine by specifically typing the abbreviations along with the words, Computer-assisted in Language Learning (CALL).
• The second task was to discuss or explain about one concept out of six given and relate it to CALL/ CALS. We chose to do on authentic learning of language. To be frank, we were not really sure of the definition of the word, “authentic” even though we as BENL students are always thought by people as walking dictionaries. So, we first looked at the meaning of the word before we went through the next stage of doing the assignment which was material reading process. We read a lot for this assignment and gratefully, all our hard works were paid off.
• This topic was the most challenging according to out beloved lecturer, Dr. Rozina. However, we managed to dig up information about it and come up with a good paper (this is also according to her).
• This first assignment made us a little lost and confused at first as we are not specializing in computer like those ICT students and never cared to know what CALL was and its related terms. The computer jargons were enough to give us headache, not to mention their functions in CALL. Nevertheless, it was fun actually to pretend like ICT students and discuss about those terms loudly in front of other people.
• Overall, we liked and enjoyed so much doing the assignment as it represented the learner-centered approach that developed our independent learning.

ASSIGNMENT 2

ASSIGNMENT 2

Lesson Plan

To Teach Argumentative Essay

Lesson : Argumentative Essay
Level : 3 (Intermediate) in secondary school
Number of student : 25
Time : 2 periods (1 hour 20 minutes)
Objectives :
1) To expose students with the use of word processing software.
2) To make the students familiar with the use of Spelling Checker, Thesaurus and Word Counter in writing.
3) To give students practice with making skeletal outline of an argumentative essay.
4) To make the students brainstorm for ideas.
5) To make students produce one argument from the topic given.
Skills : Writing argumentative essay, using Microsoft Word processor
Techniques : Brainstorming and clustering
Materials : Computer for each student, Microsoft Word, Internet
Expectations :
1) Students at this level are already quite familiar with using Microsoft Word.
2) Students already know what constituteS argumentative essay as they have been taught about it in the previous lesson.
Procedures:
1) Warm-up (15 minutes):
- Ask students to open Microsoft Word.
- Give some general information about Microsoft Word and how it can help students in writing.
2) Using Microsoft Word (25 minutes):

- TASK 1: “Check my spelling, please.” (8 minutes)
• Type wrongly spelled words (“writting”, “agumentative”, “jugement”) and see red underlines squiggles represent spelling errors.

- TASK 2: “Enhance vocabulary with thesaurus.” (8 minutes)
• Type “destroy”, “disaster”, “similar” and see thesaurus.

- TASK 3: “Count my words, please.” (9 minutes)
• Type any sentence, for example, “They are many writing tools available within Microsoft Word that can enhance a student’s ability to write” and see word counter.

3) In-class assignment: Argumentative essay (35 minutes):
- Ask them to be in groups of five members each.
- Give topic for group discussion: “Media violence can result in children’s aggressiveness.”
- Ask students to brainstorm and discuss with their group members about the topic given. (15 minutes) • The students can choose whether to oppose or agree with the topic.
- Ask students to form a skeletal outline of argumentative essay for the topic and come up with one argument typed in one paragraph of about 100 words. (15 minutes)
- Ask students to print what they have typed and submit it to the teacher.

4) Self-searching for further information (5 minutes)
- Give the students websites to log on for their further information about argumentative essay.
http://www2.blogger.com/The%20Argumentative%20Essay.htm
http://www.essaytoday.com/argumentative_essay.shtml
http://www.eslplanet.com/
teachertools/argueweb/Frntpage.htm

Beside websites, give students teacher’s email address for students to send their argumentative essays (self- practice) or to ask questions.- norsyadila@yahoo.com

Reflection :
1) Students at this level find it easy to use word processor.
2) Students already know what argumentative essay is as they have learnt it in the previous lesson.
3) However, students find it quite difficult to zoom in into one argument of the topic given even though there are five students in a group.
4) Students are given enough time to complete all the tasks.

REFLECTIONS ON ASSIGNMENT 2

Love nature and everything in it.... Nature is the source of serenity and knowledge... Love nature as you love yourself

Reflections on Assignment 2.

• For the second assignment, we were required to select one skill in CALL. Then, needed to include the skill we had chosen in our lesson plan and make it the skill we want out students to acquire or improve.
• Our group was interested in writing skill and so we chose it. Doing this assignment was like putting us in the shoes of teachers as we needed to come up with a lesson plan for a specific class, level of student, school/university, time etc. It was great to plan for our “students” what we want them to learn and in doing this, many aspects had to be considered. It was also interesting to see our classmates came up with brilliant ideas for their classes and how they involved the use of computer and technology in helping their “students” develop the skills they chose.
• To make our lesson plan, we first looked at the samples of lesson plans from the internet. In making a lesson plan, we realized that time was the most important thing to consider. We have to make sure that everything we want to do in the class can fit the time. This is why we chose to concentrate our lesson plan on making a skeletal outline and producing only one argument of an argumentative essay.
• We think it is not easy actually to plan a lesson for a class even though it is just a class of a couple of minutes. It takes longer time to prepare materials for a class than utilizing the things in the class.
• After we were given the task, we started to observe the way our lecturers run their classes as well as recall how our school teachers used to teach us. We went through course outlines as they are more or less like lesson plans but with less details and not precise.
• We thought it would be easier for us to plan our lesson for intermediate school students rather than students of higher levels or of university. The higher the level of students, the more complicated the lesson would be, and the more difficult it would be for us to make a lesson plan.
• Through this assignment, we know that a good lesson plan must be well-prepared and well-planed for a successful outcome. This assignment has developed our planning and organizing skills.

ASSIGNMENT 3 (Nurul Adilah)

1) Individual Assignment- Nurul Adilah Bt Hamdan- 0327692 (Student Perceptions of Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication in Face-to-Face Courses)

Abstract
While there are many distance education studies of student satisfaction or perceptions of CMC, studies on residential student perceptions of CMC are rare. A paper survey was administered to 105 residential graduate and undergraduate students at a midwestern U.S. university. Results indicated that the majority of students preferred face-to-face discussion over CMC for most tasks; however, CMC was preferred overall for simple learning tasks. Content analyses of student responses to open-ended questions revealed that some students perceived face-to-face discussion to be faster, easier, and more convenient, while others perceived that CMC saves time and is more convenient. A discriminant analysis revealed several important factors that predicted those who preferred CMC for discussion. Students further commented that they would learn better from CMC if their instructors were more involved with and enthusiastic about CMC. Speed and convenience appear to be more important to students than whether discussion is face-to-face or CMC.

REFERENCE

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/cassidy.html

REFLECTIONS ON ASSIGNMENT 3 (Nurul Adilah)

The more we exploit nature, The more our options are reduced, until we have only one: to fight for survival. -Morris K. Udall


Reflections on Assignment 3 (Nurul Adilah)

• For the individual assignment, each of us was required to find a research-based article related to CMC and write a 3-5 page essay containing the summary of the research plus our own reflection.
• There are tones of online journal related to CMC. I chose the website www.jcmc.indiana.edu because it provides a lot of information about CMC including its scope, historical background and future prospects which are very helpful in understanding this topic. This site also contains the latest researches in CMC.
• I chose a journal entitled “Online News Credibility: An Examination of the Perceptions of Newspaper Journalists” and it was approved by Dr. Rozina. However, after marking my paper, she found out that my journal is not relevant for the assignment. I felt quiet upset but thanks to our beloved lecturer for her consideration in giving me another chance to redo the assignment in one week.
• I selected another journal from jcmc.indiana.edu entitled “Student Perceptions of Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication in Face-to-Face Courses”. I am still working on this assignment and for the reflection in our group website, I included the abstract of this research.

ASSIGNMENT 3 (Wan Syakira)

2) Individual Assignment- Wan Syakira Bt Meor Hissan- 0328422 (Supporting the Collaborative Learning of Practical Skills with Computer-Mediated Communication Technology)

The Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) offers various opportunities for learning. It provides enormous information and asynchronous modes including e-mail and bulletin board as a means of enhancing students’ collaborative efforts on a web authoring exercise. In support of its educational purpose, CMC also assists teaching and learning in a way that it focuses on active learning, responsibility and peer teamwork. Edwards and Clear (2001) states that CMC adopts a more flexible approach to teaching and learning in which students would work together on an assignment.. Thus, CMC provides a supportive and flexible learning environment with rich and positive feedback as a possible means of improving the quality of students’ work.
Although CMC helps providing flexible learning, CMC and its contribution to collaboration were restricted in an activity that was skill-oriented, requiring practical experience (Edwards & Clear, 2001). Thus, the research aims to find out more closely whether collaboration aided the learning of web authoring skills and also to determine whether CMC militated against the difficulty students were having in their collaborative efforts. By use of ethnographic techniques (questionnaires and interviews), evidence and reasons for this are discussed and identified. Also, text based asynchronous technology (e-mail and bulletin board) was chosen for students’ collaborative learning because of its potential to enable large groups of people to interact, to have permanent discussion and to require low Internet bandwidth.
As the impact of CMC on collaborative learning is complex, the methodology that is used to design the flexible learning environment is by action research. Action research is a qualitative approach that has been used to study educational practice and it is in a form of self-reflective enquiry where ideas and solutions evolve over time (Edward & Clear, 2001). With regard to action research, the problems were speculated within the existing learning environment and action was determined to generate improvements. Finally, data was collected to evaluate the effects of actions while initial understanding of the problem was revised as a result. Two iterations of the study were conducted whereby the first iteration is based on collaborative learning only while the Internet and Web were explored as a means of mediating collaborative learning in the second iteration.
In the findings, the first iteration group felt that collaboration had helped improved the quality of their work (Edwards & Clear, 2001). In the exit questionnaires, 73% respondents claimed that they will approach their fellow group member when encountering problems because collaborative learning helped them sharing ideas and solving problems. Besides, the groups who attested to successful collaboration reported that they had met or communicated regularly (Edwards & Clear, 2001). However, the groups that had failed to work together on the other hand, claimed that problems arise due to communication breakdown. Students might have missed meetings and some part-time students might not be able to attend lectures and consequently ended up studying alone at home.
In the second iteration, a computer-supported collaborative learning scheme using Internet and Web technologies was introduced to assist group coursework and classroom teaching. Thus, students were expected to use email, and a Web-based bulletin board that allow fellow students and lecturers to post advice and solutions as answers to the questions. In the findings, students intended to use CMC as a means of helping them collaborate outside scheduled sessions (Edward & Clear, 2001). Besides, the focus groups were quite favourable towards e-mail and bulletin board because CMC helped them develop communication and feedback especially if students were to miss a scheduled session.
Nevertheless, in the findings, Edward and Clear (2001) stated that 62% respondents who had indeed used e-mail especially for organizing their collaboration indicated a less favourable view of its utility. Despite the fact that e-mail was quite easy to use, two major obstacles such as the possible delay in getting a response and also the fact that some people do not read their e-mail regularly give less interest to students in using CMC. Besides, some students were generally less keen on the use of CMC due to lack of internet access and lack of experience. Thus, e-mail and bulletin board were not seen as having great utility as meetings among the students can be set up in advance when groups were face-to-face. Other than that, students felt that knowledge they need was most easily learnt by observing others and through spontaneous discussion.
In conclusion, it is obvious that collaborative learning was a successful means of assuring the quality of assignment work and developing the learning of web authoring skills. As can be seen in the first finding, majority of students found that collaborative environment provides a better-off educative experience than doing so on individual basis. In contrast to the second finding, the value of the contribution of CMC to the success of collaborative learning remained unproven (Edwards & Clear, 2001) as many students had no access to a computer at home and many prefer face-to-face communication as e-mail and bulletin delay the response. Thus, CMC did not militate against the problems students had in collaborating because its contribution was limited in an activity that was skill-oriented.

Reflection
After reading the journal, I discovered that collaborative learning is an effective approach to enhance the quality of students’ work as well as to expand the learning of web authoring skills. By working as a team, students are able to maintain group dialogue, organize ideas together and also promote problem solving. Besides, collaborative learning can free up lecturer’s time because students tend to turn first to their group mates for assistance before approaching a lecturer.
Furthermore, I noticed that although Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) offers various opportunities in learning, its contribution to collaborative learning is ineffective as not many students have access to a computer at home and some even lacked confidence and skills in using the technology. Besides, the use of text based asynchronous technology (e-mail and bulletin board) is unsuccessful due to the possible delay and the fact that people do not check their e-mail regularly. Other that that, e-mail and bulletin board lack spontaneous discussion, listening skill and brainstorming among group members.
Nevertheless, I think the use of synchronous technology (on-line chat, audio and video conference) should be in the research as well because collaborative learning using on-line chat can give students the opportunity to respond to each other spontaneously. With that, students can do group work easily outside the classroom and those who are reluctant to speak in class may find it convenient to speak up in a written format.

Reference
Edwards, M.A., Clear, F. (2001). Supporting the Collaborative Learning of Practical Skills with Computer-Mediated Communication Technology. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 80-92.

REFLECTIONS ON ASSIGNMENT 3 (Wan Syakira)

Reflection on Assignment 3 (Wan Syakira):

• Our class was assigned to find an article related to CMC as an individual assignment and I discovered it was quite easy to access the article from the Internet because CMC is known as a very powerful tool in assisting students for language studies. Thus, it only took me two days to go through every article and finally choose the best one.
• At the first sight of the assignment, I thought it was quite difficult to summarize the article because the journal provided specific terms, analysis and research that I was not familiar with. Nevertheless, my beloved lecturer Dr. Rozina kindly helped me to enhance my understanding on CMC by giving the website address of her research with Dr. Nuraihan. Thus, I felt that I’ve understood CMC better and I later had courage to work on my assignment.
• As the assignment was given in the week of midterm examination, I felt it was quite convenient to work alone because each of the group members had less time to spend time together.

ASSIGNMENT 3 (Noraziah)

"The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing that stands in the way. Some see nature all ridicule and deformity ... and some scarce see nature at all. But to the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself."-- William Blake

"Nature is always lovely, invincible, glad, whatever is done and suffered by her creatures. All scars she heals, whether in rocks or water or sky or hearts."-- John Muir

1) Individual Assignment- Noraziah Bt Mohd Amin- 0325974 (Using Peer Feedback to Enhance the Quality of Student Online Postings: An Exploratory Study.)

Summary of the Research
One of the popular forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC) is online posting which is widely used in online learning setting. Online postings refer to messages sent to and displayed on an online facility such as internet newsgroup, bulletin board system, or some other public discussion group. An exploratory research was done by a group of professors and students from Purdue University in 2005 with the purpose to find out the significance of peer feedback in boosting the quality of students’ online postings as well as how far that feedback could assist students’ learning in the modern, computer-based, online environment.
In this study, the methods of research included 15 graduate students (10 females and five males) as the subjects with the use of a case study framework and the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives or often called Bloom's Taxonomy (a classification of the different objectives and skills that educators set for students) as a technique for the participants’ postings evaluation. The research questions in this study involved inquiries regarding the effects of peer feedback towards producing, preserving and enhancing the quality of messages posted by students as well as the students’ views on the importance of giving and accepting peer feedback compared to tutor feedback. The subjects who were students in an online technology integration course, were studied along the spring semester of 2005 by nine researchers who were familiar with the scoring rubric. The procedure needed one researcher to analyze and accumulate data from two participants. Data were gathered quantitavively and qualitatively from the students’ postings, surveys and interviews.
Regarding this research’s procedures, the students who interacted with each other and the instructor within a WebCT environment, were required to give two postings; one posting to weekly discussion questions like for example, “What do you think is the role of technology in learning?” and one to their peers’ reactions to the topics given. Students were first informed about how feedback evaluation should be done and were given models of giving and receiving feedback for several weekly questions by the instructors before the students actually applied this process themselves in week seven onwards (until week twelve). Feedback was scored numerically from 0-2 marks, where zero point for non-substantive comments, one point for postings that represented understanding and application of the topics, and two points if messages indicated analysis, synthesis and evalution. This style of scoring was used by researchers to relate to the quality of thinking in online discussion.
The processes of reviewing and scoring feedback were done by students by firstly going through their peers’ responses to discussion questions, evaluating the reactions using Bloom’s taxonomy, and giving some remarks to support the point or points they had given before they submitted their scorings to the instructor who would look at the feedback, omit reviewers’ names (students’), compiled the feedback and sent it to students’ emails. As for participation points, they were given to students who gave feedback to their peers’ postings. Peer and teacher feedback contributed to students’ grades in the end.
All of students’ postings for 17 discussion questions were rated by two researchers using the similar rubric used by the students before. At first, one discussion question was chosen randomly and its 59 postings were evluated separately by the two researchers with ten postings at one time of scoring until all the 59 postings were rated. There was 86% agreement between two raters regarding their findings as the final results. With respect to survey that included 13 Likert-scale items and five open-ended questions, students by the end of week five had come up with their views on the significance of some aspects of feedback like timeliness etc. While their ratings of the importance of peer and instructor feeback were completed in week 16. For detailed information about individual opinions on peer feedback process, interviews were held with students via telephone. All data were finally analyzed using T-test and NUD*IST qualitative analysis software.
In terms of how students viewed the value and impact of peer feedback, results showed that the participants thought that the feedback was a little more essential in online environment compared to traditional learning. The subjects also thought that peer feedback should be timely and of high quality. Also, results indicated that students viewed both instructor and peer feedback more or less of similar importance and value in maintaining the quality of students’ postings. The students’ perceptions towards these things had increased by the end of the course. However, results proved that students still thought that instructor feedback was more favorable and this perception did not changed until the semester ended. While with respect to the importance of giving and receiving peer feedback, the survey showed that the students perceived both of them significant. As overall results, only 53% (8 students) believed that peer feedback could give many advantages and there was no proof of significant improvement in students’ posting from the beginning until the end of the course.

Reflection to the Research
There are a number of issues appropriate to be mentioned here; first, the quality of the students’ postings quite improved in their view, but there is no evidence that the quality of their assignments also improved. For example, there is no discussion or evidence that students incorporated the feedback from peers in their assignments. Another things to be said about this research is that we are provided with quite enough information and evidence of how peer feedback could more or less result in the enhancement of the quality of students’ postings (since that was the purpose of the research). However, very little is mentioned whether high-quality postings could improve the students’ learning. Apparently, quality of the feedback was the researchers’ concern rather than the outcome of the feedback to students’ learning. The students valued feedback from both peers and instructor, but they valued feedback from the instructor more highly. This is not surprising since the instructor feedback indicated what the instructor felt was more important.
We need to remember that the subjects were postgraduate students who presumably had quite high critical skills. The question here is whether we can expect the same from students of other levels, particularly lower ones. Apparently there was no quantitative improvement in the postings, and so we can also question about qualitative improvement. Surely the point of doing this research was to improve the overall quality of the students’ work, but there is no evidence presented here that this was the case. One problem is whether the outcome of using CMC is equal to or better than doing feedback in the normal classroom. Of course, to a certain extent students feel a sense maybe of anonymity in using CMC that the interaction and feedback is not so ‘in your face’, so to speak.
According to the research, one advantage of using CMC-peer feedback is that it can reduce the instructor’s workload. That perhaps misses the point, meaning instructors may benefit from the fact that much of the feedback is peer-generated, but if that feeedback is wide of the mark, or irrelevant, then the instructor does not benefit. As noted in the article, students often have reservations about the ability or competence of peers to give meaningful and appropriate feedback. If CMC is used, then it should lead to a demonstrably better outcome than utilizing traditional methods, since technology is meant for an improved condition of a certain thing. It appears that the main benefit from the students’ point of view was that they found it useful, but the connection between the ‘process’ of ‘useful’ and the ‘outcome’ of the activity is not clear.
It appears that students could increase their score by making additional postings. The paper suggests that students had little motivation to follow up with additional ‘high quality postings’. It is not quite clear what is meant by ‘high quality’ here. It may refer to the use of Bloom’s higher order skills in the postings. It can be said that that misses the point. The purpose of having peer feedback is to improve the product that is being commented on, not to improve the quality of the feedback itself. The issue of what the purpose of the feedback is, seems to be barely addressed. We perhaps have some reservations about the use of statistically demonstating that that there were ‘significant’ differences or improvements in the students evaluations. What is statistically ‘significant’ may translate into very little difference in the real world.
Another things to be mentioned about this research is its results. They had not successfully and convincingly supported the researchers’ initial theories of using peer feedback to increase students’ quality in their online postings. Even though students were rated for their feedback to their peers’ postings, yet this did not motivate them to score the highest marks (two points), thus resulting in high quality postings. We are not sure if students would have produced what was considered high quality feedback, meaning one that would reach the standard of two-point feedback if they were not scored for doing this. It is obvious here that what is understood as high quality postings probably refer to postings that scored high marks. Perhaps, Bloom’s taxonomy was not suitable to be used for students’ postings assessment and maybe the research should have included more participants rather than just 15 students as well as they should have not be limited to submitting only two postings, in order to come up with more relevant results .
In an online learning environment where students and instructor do not communicate to each other face to face, it is important for them to have an integrative interaction. Online postings which are parts of CMC will be more practicle for distant learning as they can save the travelling costs. However, since this kind of communication is computer- or machine-based, it is lack of sense of humanity, just like what mentioned by the students in the paper. For example, in marking their peers responses to discussion questions, they tended to feel like rating some strangers since the postings were electronical and made annonymous.
As online learning needs students to be of computer and technology literate, it can only be implemented to students of higher level of education, meaning this research had chosen the right subjects. Even though peer feedback was thought essential in increasing the quality of students’ online postings, still the majority of them perceived tutor feedback as far more effective in this case. This is logical considering the fact that instructors are generally more knowlegable than students, thus the reliability of instructor feedback is not questionable. Thus, the quality of students’ postings should not be determined solely by peer feedback. The use of peer feedback as part of learning can lead students to apply the learner-centered approach since they have to actively participate in the learning process rather than taking the periphereal role. Also, they are given the opportunity to express their views and this is good. As proven by this research, peer feedback does have a potential to contribute the quality of students’ postings and therefore, it should not be taken for granted.
In conclusion, this research was a good attempt to discover the impact of peer feedback on the quality improvement of students’ postings. This paper can be used as a good reference for other researchers who want to find out more information about the relationship between peer feedback and high quality postings.

References.Ertmer, P.A., Richardson, J.C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulhard, G., Lei, J., & Mong, C. (2005). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: an exploratory study. Retrieved January 21 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html

REFLECTIONS ON ASSIGNMENT 3 (Noraziah)

Reflections on Assignment 3. (Noraziah)

• For me, this assignment was quite difficult to do, perhaps due to my choice of research article. I had to read the article more than four times because it was not easy to understand. Making a summary is not as easy as its name suggests. especially if we have to summarize a research paper. First, I had to understand some technical terms or jargon in order to know what the paper was all about. Important information like the methods, procedure, subjects as well as the results of the research had to be jotted down.
• To make a 5-page summary (including reflections on the research) was not easy. I found that too many things that I thought important to be included in my 5-page assignment.
• Doing this assignment made me confused a little bit. This is because, it was difficult and complicated to understand how abstract thing (the quality of student online postings) was measured, meaning it was turn to be concrete.
• Besides, as I’m not good at Mathematics, the results of the research which was mathematical gave me headache.
  

Group Reflections on Assignment 3:

• Overall, we found that doing this assignment as individual assignment was to give us opportunity to experience independent learning as well as to express our ideas personally and individually. Through this assignment, we could be free to give our opinions (especially for the reflection part) without any clashes of ideas or arguments. But, this is not to say we do not fancy group assignment (we do of course as we had been working well as a team).
• Besides, we think this assignment has given us a general view of becoming researchers, particularly in studying CMC or CALL. Perhaps, Madam Rozina intended to give us an insight of how a research on CMC is conducted, (who knows if we want to further our studies in CALL).
• Finally, we think this assignment is more or less to another course, Research Methodology as we found that some terms in our articles (such as Likert scale, variable etc) are things that we learn in the course.