All Issue

2019 Vol.35, Issue 2 Preview Page

Research Article

August 2019. pp. 221-236
This study aims to examine interaction types and cognitive processes involved in Web-based discussions among first-year university students in Korea. 38 students performed 20 minute synchronous written communication by using their Smartphone Kakao Talk application. Their 4 week discussion transcripts were collected and analyzed. The results reveal that two-way messages were more prevalent (75.5%) than one-way interactions and that the cognitive process of Exploration was much more frequently employed (96%). The Web-based discussion is assumed to have contributed to sharing opinions or experiences rather than integrating their ideas as well as promoting confidence in English writing and communication.
  1. 김성연. 2011. 영어 쓰기 수업에서의 의미협상: 실시간 CMC 활용 쓰기 과업을 중심으로. 『영어교육연구』 16, 135-66.
  2. 김재경 ‧ 송기상. 2012. 웹기반 쓰기와 스마트 미디어를 활용한 모바일 기반 영어쓰기의 비교. 『한국정보기술학회논문지』 10, 197-204.
  3. 김희배 ‧ 연고운. 2015. 스마트미디어를 활용한 토론수업의 효과분석: 웹기반 수업과의 비교를 중심으로. 『교육정보미디어연구』 21, 645-65.
  4. 박인우 ‧ 박은실. 2000. 영어회화수업에서 의사소통 방식과 학습자 특성 간의 상호작용 효과. 『교육공학연구』 16, 114-36.
  5. 윤경옥 ‧ 나양온. 2015. 대학 영어 수업에서 스마트 폰 앱의 활용과 그에 대한 인식 조사. 『인문학연구』 101, 513-33.
  6. 서정목. 2015. 플립러닝을 활용한 교양교과목의 융복합적인 운영에 관한 연구-스크린 영어, SNS 영어 및 TED 영어를 중심으로. 『교양교육연구』 9, 193-214.
  7. 이상수. 2004. 면대면 학습 환경과 온라인 실시간/비실시간 학습 환경에서의 상호작용 패턴 분석. 『교육공학연구』 20, 63-88.
  8. 정양수. 2009. CMC 기반의 영어 학습에서 과제형태에 따른 상호작용의 유형에 관한 연구. 『영어학 연구』 27, 69-91.
  9. 한종임. 2009. 동시성 컴퓨터 매개 문자기반 표현 활동의 영어말하기 능력에의 전이가능성 연구: 코퍼스와 엔비보 분석을 중심으로. 『영어교육』 64, 439-67.
  10. Ahmed, M. K. 2018. Multimedia Aided Language Teaching: An Ideal Pedagogy in the English Language Teaching of Bangladesh. American Interactional Journal of Social Science Research 3. 39-47.
  11. Archer, W., D. Garrison, R. Anderson, and L. Bourke. 2001. A Framework for Analyzing Critical Thinking in Computer Conference. Paper presented at EURO-CSCL 2001, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  12. Chang, J. 2003. Quasi‐Spoken Interactions in CMC: E-mail and Chatting Content Analysis. English Teaching 58, 95-122.
  13. Cho, Y. and S. Shin. 2004. The Effects of Asynchronous On-line Discussion Boards on International Students’ Participation and Academic Confidence. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 20, 17-35.
  14. Cummins, J. 1984. Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
  15. Garrison, D., R. Anderson, and W. Archer. 2001. Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computer Conference in Distance Education. American Journal of Distance Education 15, 7-23. 10.1080/08923640109527071
  16. Gilbert, L. and D. Moore. 1998. Building Interactivity into Web Courses: Tools for Social and Instructional Interaction. Educational Technology 38, 29-35.
  17. Gunuc, S. and Babacan, N. 2017. Technology Integration in English Language Teaching and Learning. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes 5, 349-358.
  18. Han, M. 2006. Interaction through Web-based Discussions in Teacher Education. English Language Teaching 18, 25-48.
  19. Hara, N., C. Bonk, and C. Angeli. 2000. Content Analysis of Online Discussion in an Applied Educational Psychology Course. Instructional Science 23, 115-52. 10.1023/A:1003764722829
  20. Jung, H. J. 2015. Fostering an English teaching environment: Factors influencing English as a Foreign Language Teacher’s Adoption of Mobile Learning. Informatics in Education 14, 219-241. 10.15388/infedu.2015.13
  21. Kamhi-Stein, D. 2000. Looking to the Future of TESOL Teacher Education: Web Based Bulletin Board Discussions in a Methods Course. TESOL Quarterly 34, 423-56. 10.2307/3587738
  22. Kanuka, H. and T. Anderson. 1998. Online Social Interchange, Discord, and Knowledge Construction. Journal of Distance Education 13, 57-74.
  23. Kim, S. H. 2008. Moderating Effect of Job Relevance and Experience on Mobile Wireless Technology Acceptance: Adoption of a Smartphone by Individual. Information & Management 45, 387-393. 10.1016/
  24. Lee, S. 2003. Korean ESL Learners’ Experiences in Computer Assisted Classroom Discussion. English Education 58, 371-95.
  25. Li, Y. 2000. Linguistic Characteristics of ESL Writing in Task-based E-mail Activities. System 28, 229-245. 10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00009-9
  26. Pawan, F., T. Paulus, S. Yalcin, and C. Chang. 2003. Online Learning: Patterns of Engagement and Interaction among In‐service Teachers. Language Learning & Technology 7, 119-40.
  27. Shih, J. L., H. Chu, G. Hwang, and Kinshuk. 2010. An Investigation of Attitudes of Students and Teachers about Participating in a Context-aware Ubiquitous Learning Activity. British Journal of Educational Technology 42, 373-394. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01020.x
  28. Shim, Y. 2007. Negotiation of Meaning between an L2 Teacher and Students in Face-to-face Interactions and CMC. English Teaching 62, 265-88. 10.15858/engtea.62.3.200709.265
  29. Smith, B 2003. Computer-mediated Negotiation Interaction: An Expanded Model. Modern Language Journal 87, 38-57. 10.1111/1540-4781.00177
  30. Sullivan, N. and E. Pratt. 1996. A Comparative Study of Two ESL Writing Environments: A Computer Assisted Classroom and a Traditional Oral Classroom. System 29, 491-501. 10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00044-9
  31. Tiene, D. 2000. Online Discussions: A Survey of Advantages and Disadvantages Compared to Computer-assisted Classroom and a Traditional Oral Classroom. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 99, 371-84.
  32. Warschauer, M. and D. Healey. 1998. Computer and Language Learning: An Overview. Language Teaching 31, 57-71. 10.1017/S0261444800012970
  • Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
  • Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
  • Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
  • Volume : 35
  • No :2
  • Pages :221-236