Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 2 (2011) Issue 1
pp. 51 - 84
Successful Task Negotiation via Moodle –
A Cross-Institutional Case Study in Teacher Education
Carolin Fuchs (New York, USA)
Abstract
This paper provides an in-depth analysis of one group of ESL student teachers in the U.S. and EFL student teachers in Germany who successfully negotiated their task of creating joint task-based language teaching (TBLT) units via computer-mediated communication (CMC). Groups were asked to redesign a textbook unit based on TBLT principles and to expand the unit to include a cultural component. Data triangulation involved CMC transcripts, wikis, pre-course questionnaires, and post-course questionnaires. Based on Breen & Littlejohn’s framework (2000), the CMC-based negotiation among groups of student teachers in light of the groups’ task outcome was analyzed. The data suggest that one group proved particularly successful in their task negotiation. By the same token, the wiki tool turned out difficult to use for students and the cultural component of the task remained underexplored.
Abstract
In dieser Fallstudie wird eine Gruppe von angehenden ESL Lehrern in den USA und EFL Lehramtsstudierenden in Deutschland untersucht, die gemeinsam erfolgreich eine Textbucheinheit entwickelten, welche auf den Prinzipien des aufgabenorientierten Lernens (Task-Based Language Teaching oder TBLT) beruhte. Die Aushandlung der Textbucheinheit erfolgte durch computervermittelte Kommunikation. Die Gruppen hatten, den TBLT-Prinzipien folgend, jeweils eine Textbucheinheit zu überarbeiten und eine interkulturelle Komponente einzubauen. Die Datenerhebungsinstrumente beinhalteten Transkripte, Wikis und Fragebögen. Basierend auf Breen & Littlejohns Aushandlungsprinzipien (2000), wurde die computervermitelte kommunikative Aushandlung innerhalb der Gruppe untersucht und in Hinblick auf das Endprodukt analysiert. Die Ergebnisse lassen darauf schliessen, dass eine Gruppe besonders erfolgreich abschloss, wobei der Umgang mit dem Wiki sich als schwierig herausstellte. Die interkulturelle Komponente der Aufgabe wurde dabei nur am Rande behandelt.
1 Backround
More and more institutions have formed partnerships in order to systematically integrate technology into their teacher education programs (for an overview, see Dawson, Swain, Johnson & Ring 2004). This is due to the on-going call to advance pre-service language teachers’ professional literacy by modeling “innovative uses of technology” (Willis 2001: 309; see also Hubbard & Levy 2006; Kassen, Lavine, Murphy-Judy, & Peters 2007). Or, in Pasternak’s terms, “[i]f technology is to be used as practice, the data show that experimentation needs to start in the methods classes for it to move into the field experiences and beyond” (2007: 154). In line with these calls, this case study builds on earlier studies which have investigated computer-mediated or CMC-based negotiation in language teacher education (e.g., Fuchs 2003, 2006; Müller-Hartmann 2000, 2005; see also Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-v. Ditfurth 2008).
1.1 Project Goal and Objectives
This exploratory study was carried out at two sites, namely at the Teachers College of Columbia University in New York City (TC) and at Pädagogische Hochschule Heidelberg (PHH) in the southwest of Germany. The overall goal of the project was for student teachers to learn more about language teaching contexts and practices in other countries – especially as pertaining to task-based language teaching (TBLT) – while, at the same time, becoming more proficient in using technology through cooperative, experiential, and model learning. Project objectives were as follows:
- To share TBLT perspectives through the use of technology outside of class with pre-service or student teachers in different socio-cultural and institutional settings (e.g. in the U.S. and in Germany);
- To analyze and adapt excerpts from American and German ESL/EFL textbooks leading to the joint creation of a TBLT lesson plan.
Ultimately, it was hoped that student teachers would feel encouraged to implement technology and TBLT in their own language teaching. The main purpose of the data collection was to improve the course and future cross-institutional project work. Consequently, the researcher focused primarily on how one cross-institutional group negotiated their task-based language teaching (TBLT) unit through CMC, i.e. through the discussion forum and wiki tools in Moodle. The underlying theoretical framework of this study is based on Breen & Littlejohn’s negotiation principles (2000) and will be described in greater detail below.
1.2 Potential of Computer-Mediated Instruction in Language Instruction
The potential of implementing Web 2.0 tools in language teaching and learning has been established for a while now. For example, asynchronous computer-mediated communication (ACMC) tools, such as emails, discussion forums, wikis, or blogs, have been used for both reflective writing and writing for an authentic audience (e.g., Egbert & Hanson-Smith 2007; Reinhardt & Thorne 2007; Richardson 2006; Warschauer 1996, 1997; see also Herring 1996). These tools have also been used for cross-institutional collaborations (e.g. Belz 2002; Furstenberg, Levet, English & Maillet 2001; O’Dowd 2003) with a focus on intercultural learning. Moreover, Web 2.0 tools can increase motivation (e.g. Lee 2004; LeLoup & Ponterio 2003; Warschauer 1996), promote language fluency (e.g. Kern 1995), pragmatic competency (e.g. Belz 2007), and language play (e.g. Belz & Reinhardt 2004; Vandergriff & Fuchs 2009; Warner 2004; see
also Broner & Tarone 2001; Cook 2000).
In addition, messages or posts can easily be filed and archived and allow participants to collaboratively analyze discourse (Magnan 2008; see also Chapelle 2003; Belz 2003). Recent studies have focused increasingly on form (e.g., Blake, Wilson, Cetto, & Pardo-Ballester 2008; Lee 2008; Meskill & Anthony 2007; Ware & O’Dowd 2008), especially in synchronous CMC (e.g., Kötter 2003; Lee 2008; Pelletieri 2000; Sauro 2009).
In order to train student teachers in technology usage and raise their awareness to the complex nature of doing cross-institutional projects, there have been a number of online and blended or hybrid learning instruction formats involving institutions in different countries (e.g. Arnold & Ducate 2006; Arnold, Ducate, & Lomicka 2007; Arnold, Ducate, Lomicka, & Lord 2005; Fuchs 2003, 2006; Lord & Lomicka 2007, 2008; Müller-Hartmann 2005; Scherff & Paulus 2006; Shaughnessy, Purves, & Jackson 2008). The present study aims to contribute to this body of research.
Due to the exploratory nature of the study, trends and tendencies emerged from data and theory, and hypotheses were not formulated at the outset except for a number of guiding research questions:
1. How does one cross-institutional group of ESL/EFL student teachers in the U.S. and in Germany negotiate the joint design of a TBLT task via CMC?
2. Which one(s) of Breen & Littlejohn’s Negotiation Principles can be found in the CMC-based negotiation data? What other categories evolve?
1.3 Negotiation Principles and CMC-Based Group Work
The importance of the negotiation of meaning to develop communicative competence has been undisputed (e.g. Long & Porter 1985). Negotiation processes in the language classroom regarding the syllabus and established conventions help develop “learner’s communicative knowledge in the context of personal and social development” (Breen & Candlin 1980: 91). Following Breen & Candlin, Breen & Littlejohn (2000) have generated principles of negotiation for second language (L2) classrooms.
One essential component is procedural negotiation. Here, groups uncover and share meaning with the goal of reaching agreement on decisions. Hence, procedural negotiation increases opportunities for language learners to engage in personal and interactive negotiation. The primary function is to manage teaching and learning as a group experience and key decisions to be made are: “who will work with whom, in what ways, with what resources and for how long, upon what subject matter or problems, and for what purposes” (Breen & Littlejohn 2000: 8). Based on the concept of procedural negotiation, Breen & Littlejohn have developed six key principles of negotiation (2000: 19-29; for a more elaborate discussion see Fuchs 2006):
1. Negotiation is a means for responsible membership in the classroom community.
2. Negotiation can construct and reflect learning as an emancipatory process.
3. Negotiation can activate the social and cultural resources of the classroom group.
4. Negotiation enables learners to exercise their active agency in learning.
5. Negotiation can enrich classroom discourse as a resource for language learning.
6. Negotiation can inform and extend a teacher’s pedagogic strategies.
Conducting negotiation processes in hybrid or blended learning contexts – and in cross-institutional collaborations in particular – adds on another layer of complexity due to institutional constraints such as the lack of overlap of academic calendars (e.g., Belz 2002; Fuchs 2006). Moreover, as Palloff and Pratt (1999) note, in face-to-face (FTF) groups, it is noticed whether a participant is physically present or absent regardless of whether the person participates verbally or not. In electronic settings, however, people can disappear more easily, and silent members are simply not there. Hence, online communication can result in “disembodiment” (1999: 37).
Other important factors in group negotiation processes are individual accountability and positive interdependence. Prior research claims that a lack of individual accountability can be a more serious problem in online environments because students are not always exposed to the pressures and responsibilities of group-based work found in face-to-face environments (An, Kim, & Kim 2008: n. p.). In this study, the small group size per cross-institutional team, set at a four-/five-person maximum, as well as the quality and quantity of individual contributions and the peer critiques served as indicators of the level of individual accountability in the groups’ negotiation processes. Finally, positive interdependence is crucial in collaborative work (Dörnyei 1997; Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec 1998; see also Harasim 1990). In other words, group members need to know that they can only succeed as a group if everyone succeeds. Moreover, according to Ikpeze (2007), small-group success in peer-led electronic discourse is due to group cohesion, positive interdependence, high interactive discussions, group autonomy, and effective group processing behavior. In this context, positive interdependence was accounted for by one final grade per cross-institutional group, established through a grading rubric which closely reflected the design of Task 4.
2 Research Design
2.1 Participants and Context
Participants consisted of a total of 25 student teachers at the Teachers College of Columbia University in New York City (TC), and 27 at Pädagogische Hochschule Heidelberg (PHH) in the southwest of Germany. All PHH participants were state examination candidates in teaching English in the various state schools in Germany (Staatsexamen). The TC student teachers were all first-semester master’s degree candidates in either TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) or AL (Applied Linguistics). The majority of the students at TC planned to teach adult EFL or ESL upon graduation. Participants included both male and female student teachers from various ethnic and linguistic backgrounds (e.g. American, Bosnian-Herzegovinian, Chinese, German, Kazakh, Korean, Pakistani, Polish, Russian, Taiwanese). Thirty-two of a total number of 52 students (61.54 %) were non-native English speakers and thus, learners of English, the working language. At TC, the 25 student teachers formed 12 local groups of two to three members each, and at PHH, the 27 student teachers formed 13 local groups consisting of two to three members each. The local groups then formed 12 cross-institutional groups consisting of four to five student teachers each. In addition, there was one local PHH group of two members after their TC members opted out of the study.
We chose Group F is the main focus for this paper because this group displayed characteristics of a highly functional group as will be shown below. This group consisted of four members, the two TC members Soo Min (South Korea) and Ting (Taiwan), and the two PHH members Heidi (Germany) and Detlef (Germany). The rationale for focusing on Group F in this paper was their “high group functionality” (Belz 2001: 216). While Belz has primarily looked at group functionality in terms of differences in the value of foreign language learning in cultures, differences in prior experiences with CMC, and differences in the teaching of foreign languages at institutions in different countries, for this study high group functionality was based on the quality of the final product. In the case of Group F, high group functionality was reflected in the group’s superior final product, which consisted of an extremely detailed and well-elaborated project of 3,669 words (or roughly twenty pages). Both instructors independently gave the group an ‘A+’ since they received the highest evaluations (“Area of Strength”) for each of the assessment components laid out in the grading rubric. It should also be noted that, although the pre-tasks were practice tasks and non-graded, Group F received high evaluations mid-term, i.e. all components were rated “Areas of Strength” with only two components rated as “Expectations Met.” The latter included the following two areas, which were subsequently improved:
- Evaluation of the tasks in terms of reading and speaking activities;
- Evidence of participation in task negotiation.
In contrast, three other groups (K, B, and J) could be described as low-functionality groups: Group K first started out as a cross-institutional group with two members on both sides but then became a local PHH group after the TC students had dropped out. Participants in that group did not manage to complete the final task together.
Group B did come up with a final product together. However, the result indicated that each group worked on their own tasks individually and then added both parts. The result was one final document consisting of two separate parts.
2.2 Technology Tools and Course Content
The eight-week international collaboration between the two institutions was based on synchronous CMC (chat) and asynchronous CMC (group discussion forum postings, wiki postings, chat) through a customized version of the free course management system Moodle. In order to communicate with PHH as well as to share and store data, TC participants used Moodle@Heidelberg, a customized and self-contained version of Moodle located on the PHH server. This communication platform only granted access to the group members. The working language was English.
With regard to content, the course at TC was a methodology course which first covered the history and evolvement of various language teaching methods (Grammar Translation Method, Audio-Lingual Method, etc.) and then moved on to Communicative Language Teaching, Content-Based Instruction, and Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) in particular. The course content at PHH focused first and foremost on TBLT, which then represented the natural overlap for the collaborative project. More specifically, student teachers generated discussions and collaboratively designed TBLT tasks with their cross-institutional partner groups over a period of eight weeks, from mid-October to mid-December 2007. After having completed a number of practice tasks, the joint product of each group involved the redesign of textbook activities based on TBLT principles which participants had chosen to focus on. The final task (Task 4) included a peer critique and was the only graded task. All tasks were part of the regular course workload.
2.3 The Project - Phases and Tasks
Collaboration was divided into three phases: Introductory Phase, Project Phase, and Presentation and Evaluation Phase.
2.3.1 Introductory Phase
The TC groups started by forming groups and posting bios in early September. Once the PHH seminar started in mid-October (the beginning of the winter semester in Germany), the PHH members also formed local groups and then chose one of the TC groups to work with. As part of the introductory task, student teachers had to inquire about each other’s institutional contexts and identify similarities and differences.
2.3.2 Project Phase
The twelve cross-institutional groups completed a number of practice tasks culminating in a final project task (Task 4), which was graded. The content for each of the tasks was based on TBLT readings such as Littlewood (2000) and Willis (1996), and each group received individual instructor feedback.
For their final and graded task, the cross-institutional collaborative groups negotiated a number of general principles which they considered paramount for task-based language learning. These principles then formed the basis for an analysis of a textbook unit and the possible redesign or expansion of the existing exercises or activities in the textbook. Next, one of the local groups chose a skill focus (e.g. reading, listening), while the other local group chose one out of two textbooks: Textbook A (an integrated skills textbook used in adult ESL education programs) or Textbook B (an eighth-grade EFL textbook used in the public schools in Germany). Additionally, groups included a focus on one cultural aspect (e.g. a photograph in the textbook) in their unit.
2.3.3 Presentation and Evaluation Phase
During the final week of the semester in the U.S. around mid-December, each local group did an in-class presentation of their joint project task. Each project presentation was then followed by peer critiques and instructor feedback.
3 Data Collection and Analysis
3.1 Data Collection
This exploratory study draws on three qualitative research traditions: Ethnography, case study, and action research (e.g. Richards 2003). According to Nunan, ethnographic researchers can guard themselves against threats to external validity by “describing phenomena so explicitly that they can be compared with other studies, or by carrying out multiple-site investigations” (Nunan 1992: 62).
In this study, the author’s status was that of researcher, teacher of the course at TC, and project co-designer in collaboration with the Heidelberg teacher educator whose role was that of participant observer (e.g. Denzin 1989). Participant observation has been defined as “a field strategy that simultaneously combines document analysis, interviewing of respondents and informants, direct participation and observation, and introspection” (Denzin 1989: 157).
Data triangulation (e.g. Strauss & Corbin 1998: 44) involved gathering information through a combination of different instruments, i.e. through data from pre-course and post-course questionnaires, journal entries, and (a)synchronous CMC data from group discussion forums and chats.
The pre-course questionnaire consisted of four sections with questions aimed at eliciting information regarding participants’ technology skills, language learning preferences, prior group work and cross-cultural experiences, and their course expectations. The content of the questions was inspired by Levy’s CALL survey, i.e. by questions about teachers’ “personal language teaching/learning experience,” their “theoretical basis,” (i.e. teaching philosophies, methods, and approaches), and their “CALL experience” (Levy 1997: 233). Part A was sub-divided into 6 Likert-scale items asking participants to self-rate their computer skills, and Part B was sub-divided into 7 Likert-scale items asking participants to self-rate their Internet skills (1 = insufficient; 4 = very good). Part C was sub-divided into 6 Likert-scale items and asked participants to rank their language learning preferences (1 = not important at all; 4 = very important). The final two sections were open-ended and asked participants to describe their prior group work and cross-cultural experiences as well as their project expectations.
The post-course questionnaire consisted of four open-ended questions and one additional comment section. The purpose was to help student teachers reflect on the collaboration with their cross-institutional partner group and to get them to think about how they could apply what they had learned (through positive as well as negative experiences) to their own classroom teaching. The main focus for this paper was placed on Group F’s CMC data from Moodle because this is where group members negotiated the task. These data are supported by questionnaire and journal excerpts. With regard to the return rate for the questionnaires, three members of Group F responded to the pre-course questions (Soo Min, Ting, and Detlef), two members returned the post-course questionnaire (Heidi and Detlef), and one member wrote about the project collaboration in one of her journals (Ting). All names are pseudonyms. Data were kept in their original form and can be obtained from the author upon request.
3.2 Data Analysis
Two coders, the researcher and an assistant, did open coding (i.e. line-by-line or applied to sentences, paragraphs, or the entire answers) and then categorized the codes by grouping them around phenomena in the data that were related to the
research questions.
With regard to the CMC data, the codes emerged out of in vivo codes (taken from the subjects as they were negotiating the project) and out of abstract codes taken from the literature (“borrowed concepts,” Strauss & Corbin 1998: 115), i.e. the negotiation principles based on Breen & Littlejohn (2000). More specifically, when analyzing Group F, the researcher was looking for specific in vivo codes which then resulted in categories such as “negotiation” or “communication” (see Appendix). The following are examples for “negotiation” and “communication” taken from Group F (italics not in original): “It is not so easy to negotiate with a partner only via email or in general in a written form.” “Find time to communicate with my Heidelberg group members on a regular basis […];” “When collaborating with international partners there can be communicationproblems […];” “express yourself very clearly to avoid such communicationproblems […]”
4 Findings and Discussion
In this section, Group F’s use of technology tools and their negotiation of the final task, Task 4, will be discussed. While Breen & Littlejohn’s six principles of negotiation serve as the overarching framework, there are overlaps among the principles. For instance, while Negotiation Principle 3 (“negotiation can activate the social and cultural resources of the classroom group”) contains “the use of multicultural resources” (Breen & Littlejohn 2000: pp. 22), “optimising the collective resources of a gathering of people” is considered part of the Negotiation Principle 4 (“negotiation enables learners to exercise their active agency in learning,” (Breen & Littlejohn 2000: 24). Additionally, the data should not be limited to pre-existing categories (see Strauss & Corbin 1998). Thus, the author generated new categories when deemed appropriate (see Appendix).
4.1 Group F’s Negotiation of Task 4 A (Evaluation & Redesign of Textbook Activity – “Integrated Skills”)
For Task 4, Part A, each cross-institutional group negotiated five to six general TBLT principles and used them as a basis for the analysis, evaluation, and redesign of a textbook unit they chose.
The following three excerpts show the one time when the cross-institutional group chose to negotiate and work in the Moodle wiki, i.e. after Pre-Task 3 and before starting Task 4.
Version: 1 (Browse Fetch-back Diff)
Author: Heidi
Created: Tuesday, 27 November 2007, 05:37 PM
Last modification: Tuesday, 27 November 2007, 05:37 PM
Hi Soo Min and Ting,
we've decided on the skill "reading".
Hoping that's fine with you,
Detlef & Heidi
As can be seen above, the PHH group first chose “reading” as the skill focus for Task 4. According to the task instructions, their TC partners then got to choose which of the two textbooks to use. The TC group chose Textbook A, a textbook for intermediate- to advanced-level adult ESL students in the U.S.
Version: 2 (Browse Fetch-back Diff)
Author: Ting
Created: Tuesday, 27 November 2007, 05:37 PM
Last modification: Monday, 3 December 2007, 05:23 AM
Hi Detlef & Heidi,
Thanks for your comments.
We are now working on comparing the two textbooks.
The following is our conclusion.
Soo Min and Ting
@ Target Ss: Adult, Advanced Intermediate (I-3)
@ The skill area: 'reading'
@ Six Parmount Principles of TBLT
1. Sequence (Pre/ While/ post activities)
2. Explicit instruction and scaffolding
3. Meaningful outcome
4. Integrating 5 skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking, listening, grammar)
5. Student-centered
6. Authenticity
@ two textbooks to analyze and compare
Textbook A: Unit 1 p.3-5
Textbook B: Unit 2 p.20-21
@ Chosen textbook:[Textbook A], Unit 1 p.3-5 “ Why we eat what we eat ”
In their last wiki post (see excerpt below), the PHH group thanked the TC group for “putting [their] suggestions together and making a final product out of them.” The PHH group also seemed to approve of the rationale for the TC group’s textbook choice:
You’ve added very important points like that [Textbook A] gives more specific and reader-friendly instructions and that it encourages students to get involved in critical thinking.
In a discussion forum post, they also expressed agreement (“We saw your textbook decision in the Wiki and think that it is a good choice.”), which was one of eight instances found in the overall data (see Appendix). Finally, the PHH group mentioned that they were already working on Part B, i.e., the cross-cultural part.
Version: 3 (Browse Fetch-back Diff)
Author: Heidi
Created: Tuesday, 27 November 2007, 05:37 PM
Last modification: Saturday, 8 December 2007, 04:32 PM
References: MsoNormal?
Hi Ting and Soo Min,
thank you very much for putting our suggestions together and making a final product out of them, which I think is great!
You’ve added very important points like that [Textbook A] gives more specific and reader-friendly instructions and that it encourages students to get involved in critical thinking.
We’re already working on Part B and we’ll send it to you very soon.
Have a nice weekend,
Heidi
Surprisingly, the wiki posts happened at the beginning of Task 4. One might have expected the group to try out the wiki earlier, i.e. at the beginning of the first pre-task, and then either follow through with it or discard it. One reason the group decided to use the wiki for the final task might have been the fact that groups had been encouraged to use the wiki for their project work and that Task 4 was
With regard to functionality, the group did not utilize the wiki according to its intended purpose. A wiki is a collaborative writing tool which allows anyone who is signed up as a collaborator to modify entries (Richardson 2006). Groups in this study though used the wiki to work on the actual project and to also post meta-level comments on things they changed for the new version of the project. However, a wiki typically only consists of the actual project or document, while comments regarding changes and attachments are added in a separate space (e.g. the “comment” or “attachment” function at the bottom of a page) so as to avoid confusion. Nonetheless, Group F seemed to mix the actual project work (e.g. coming up with the six TBLT principles they considered important (“1. Sequence […] 6. Authenticity”) with meta-level comments on the textbook choice by the PHH group (“You’ve added very important points like that [Textbook A] gives more specific and reader-friendly instructions and that it encourages students to get involved in critical thinking”).
With regard to the task negotiation on December 4, Soo Min clearly reminded the PHH group of the impending deadline, laid out the timeframe, and suggested very concrete steps for how to divide up the work for Task 4.
As we know, the due for the task 4 (This final project) is Dec 14th.
Since we also have to do Part B (Cultural awareness raising) before Dec 14th, there is not so much time left.
It would be better if we could finish the part A ( Integrated Skills) by this weekend, Dec. 9th. Here's the suggestion.
Ting and I talked this over last night and we decided to evaluate one textbook respectively according to the 6 principles we chose.
Ting will evaluate the [Textbook A] and I'll do the [Textbook B] and we'll compare our works.
And I hope you guys do the same thing so that four of us can create the final, polished work. (Heidi would evaluate one textbook and Detlef would do the other book and compare those books according to the 6 principles.)
[Soo Min’s discussion forum post, Tuesday, 4 December 2007, 05:54 AM]
Soo Min suggested Sunday, December 9, as the date for finalizing and posting the textbook evaluation and comparison because the final draft of Task 4 was due no later than Friday, December 14. Moreover, Soo Min included the table for the textbook evaluation and comparison provided by the instructors. Her post served several purposes and thus met various negotiation principles. First, this post was a reminder for the mutual responsibility of meeting the deadline and of the importance of each local groups’ contributions and individual accountability:
And I hope you guys do the same thing so that four of us can creat [sic] the final, polished work
.
The post also seemed crucial for clarifying what the group needed to do to satisfactorily fulfill the requirements for Task 4. Finally, the fact that Soo Min asked for feedback on all her suggestions (“Does the suggestion sound clear and reasonable?”) seemed to encourage active participation and collaborative decision-making, which constitutes one of the six incidents found in the overall CMC data (see Appendix). Her approach was also in line with the following collaborative skills to ensure that joint planning of a project would be carried out in relation to the predetermined expectations of both parties: a joint project plan (what and how it might be achieved), expectations for each partner, realistic timeframe for communication and feedback, and regular reporting on progress (Shaughnessy, Purves, & Jackson 2008).
Next, the PHH group rephrased what they thought they understood from TC’s last post and thus checked for comprehension:
We understood you the way that you chose [Textbook A] for point 5 Part A, right? We will work on this part today in the seminar.
The PHH members also provided their TC partners with explicit information on what their next step was going to be:
Heidi and I will also post our results of Point 4 Part A (Analyse at the most 3 activities of each text book according to the principles) in form of a table today. You don´t have to analyse the whole textbook only at the most 3 activities in point 4!
There seemed to be a constant back and forth between the two groups telling each other when to expect which parts of the task. For instance, on December 4, the PHH group provided feedback on one item and also let the TC group know when to expect the next parts, i.e., the PHH group told the TC group that they would send them “point 5 as soon as possible.” They did this the next day, i.e., on December 5.
The TC group replied on December 6, the day after they received point 5 from the PHH group. In her post, Soo Min told the PHH group explicitly what they were going to work on next (“I and Ting will revise your draft (Part A. Integrating skills)):
1. Evaluating and comparing three activities of two textbooks
2. Re-design the activities of one textbook ([Textbook A]) as soon as
Soo Min further suggested that the PHH group get started on Task 4 Part B. She also specifically mentioned when the TC members were going to post their draft, i.e., “by Saturday.” Moreover, she tried to make sure that the PHH group agreed with the division of labor: “I hope it all sounds reasonable to you.”
Here, the members seemed to activate their group’s resources which was in line with either Breen and Littlejohn’s Negotiation Principle 4 (Making optimal use of the collective resources) or with Negotiation Principle 3 (Activating the social and cultural resources of the classroom group), i.e. to emphasize the use of multicultural resources, different experiences, knowledge, and capabilities with the goal of achieving cross-cultural membership, a sense of ownership, exploration, alternative interpretations, the usage of the new language and alternative ways of working. Additionally, the TC group decided on the next steps to take and how to divide up the tasks by pointing out what they were going to do (“I and Ting will revise…; I and Ting will post…”) and what they suggested the PHH group should do next (“If you have time, please think about Part B.”).
In their next post on December 7, 2007, Soo Min sent her and Ting’s final draft of Task 4 Part A to their PHH counterparts, asking for feedback: “Here's the final version. Let me hear your comments.” Upon receiving feedback from Heidi and Detlef, the TC group integrated their suggestions into the final document “Evaluating_and_Comparing_two_textbooks.doc.”
A couple of days later, on Sunday, December 9, 2007, the TC group sent an updated final version to their PHH partners. Just as had been the case before, the TC group asked for feedback:
We add some tasks and make some changes in your first version. Please see if there are any suggestions.
This continued the trend that none of the drafts was sent without the other group explicitly being asked for feedback. Ting’s message at 6:34am on Sunday, December 9, 2007, was the first of a total of ten messages going back and forth between TC and PHH. Thus, December 9, the day Soo Min originally designated as the group’s deadline for the final task in her December 4 message, was the day when crucial exchanges for clarifying information took place.
This process continued over the subsequent days until the due date of the project arrived. The quick turn-around time of the posts seemed to help move the project ahead. The negotiation on Sunday, December 9, appeared to be the key for getting things done. These posts demonstrate how both groups constantly went back and forth evaluating and reflecting on their progress as well as updating their cross-institutional partners. In addition, both groups obviously felt comfortable providing feedback and telling the other group in rather overt terms when they disagreed. Both groups appeared appreciative of each other’s comments by praising each other’s contributions. As can be seen from the Appendix, “expressing appreciation and praise” showed the highest incidents in the Group F CMC data, i.e., a total of 11 tokens overall. Along similar lines, Heidi pointed out the importance of praise in her post-course questionnaire response on a couple of occasions: “In a collaborative project it is very important to establish a nice atmosphere and be friendly and that means among other things that you comment the ideas/suggestions of your partner and praise them for their good work.” She also believed that the fact that she felt “very satisfied with the project in the end” was due to the fact that “real collaboration in [their] group took place and nobody was offended when something was corrected or when some suggestions were not integrated in the final product.”
Upon thanking the TC members for having worked on their first final version, the PHH group made specific comments regarding the changes they would like to see being made:
