nguyen.pdf


Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology

2011, 27(Special issue, 8), 1413-1436

Learners’ reflections on and perceptions of computer-
mediated communication in a language classroom: A

Vietnamese perspective
Long V. Nguyen

University of Danang

The paper examines Vietnamese learners’ reflections on and perceptions of the
application of computer-mediated communication (CMC) into collaborative learning.
Data for analysis included an evaluation questionnaire, consisting of 24 4-point Likert
scale items, appended with six open-ended questions, and transcripts of 15, out of 30,
teacher trainees from a TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) class who
volunteered to participate in informal interviews. Several inferences were drawn from
the results. The majority of participants enjoyed the technology-enhanced class in
general. There were approximately equal numbers of students who preferred
synchronous CMC, asynchronous CMC, or a combination of both. The students
reported that the course helped improve their computer skills and collaborative
experience, while they remained sceptical about improvements to their English
language skills. More involvement in learning was observed during and after the
course. In addition, the participants expressed confidence that they would attend
similar courses in future and were willing to recommend this technology-embedded
course to the next generations of students.

Introduction

There have been two widely known trends in classroom research and practice in terms
of pedagogical reformation. First, a social turn in language education (Block, 2003;
Lantolf & Thorne, 2007) has urged educators and teachers to seek more comprehensive
methods and approaches to classroom practices. Attention has transferred from
psycholinguistic approaches to sociocultural perspectives, emphasising language
development through meaningful social interactions (Norton, 2009). As a result, a
pedagogical shift has naturally moved from a narrow focus on individual learning to
more contextual and sociocultural approaches to language development (Stahl,
Koschmann & Suthers, 2006). Collaborative learning (McLoughlin, 2002), therefore,
seems to have got on the stage and has been gaining popularity in the field of language
education.

Together with the social turn, the application of computer-mediated communication
(CMC) to teaching and learning (Nguyen, 2008; Thorne, 2008), as the second trend, has
experienced a remarkable increase over the past two decades, partly due to the rapid
evolution of information and communication technology (ICT) and mainly because
“more and more language instructors are integrating the use of technology into their
classroom” (Chun, 2008, p. 16). CMC has introduced us, language teachers and
researchers, to the idea of new literacies; and at the same time has blurred the line



1414 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(Special issue, 8)

between written and oral communication (Kern, 2006) by “combining the interactivity
of speech with the permanence of writing” (Fang & Warschauer, 2004, p. 304).
Researchers are constantly exploring how CMC, both synchronous and asynchronous,
may help or hinder the learning process in particular sociocultural settings. These two
trends have married collaborative learning and CMC so as to set up a fashionable style
of learning, namely computer-mediated collaborative learning, or CMCL. In other
words, collaborative learning and CMC have developed in parallel in a mutually
supportive way. To date, collaborative learning through technology mediation and
developing computer literacy through social/academic interaction is the trend in
higher education programs (Warschauer, 2010).

Unlike intercultural CMCL (Nguyen, 2010; O'Dowd, 2007), which describes learning
situations in which participants are from different linguistic and/or cultural
communities, intracultural CMCL engages learners sharing the same language and/or
culture and is popularly referred to as classroom-based CMC. A short period of twenty
years has experienced an exponentially increased number of studies in this subfield of
language education (see Abrams, 2006 for an extensive review). A study by Liu and
Sadler (2003), for instance, examined the effect and affect of in-class peer exchanges in
electronic versus traditional modes defined as face to face. Though data analysis
revealed that face to face interaction was more effective than MOO communication
(MOO stands for MUD, Object-Oriented, and MUD stands for Multi-User Domain),
the participants tended to find the online discussion more appealing and pleasant.

Conversely, these learners expressed their negative attitudes towards ‘time-
consuming’ word editing and in favour of paper-based peer review. Another study by
Lee (2010), related to examining learners’ perceptions of online collaboration, showed
that technology-enhanced learning had a constructive impact on the development of
students’ writing skills through collaborative engagement. Learners in the study
expressed their satisfaction with the open-ended task types on wikis that empowered
them to be creative and at the same time focus on form. In general, it is suggested from
these studies that technology fosters learners’ attitudes to learning and creates a
positive collaborative learning environment; and, more importantly, that CMCL does
not automatically ensure the successfulness of the integration of CMC into language
education. Rather, an extensive investigation of learners’ reflections on and awareness
of the application of various CMC tools in collaborative learning is needed.

ICT application at the College of Foreign Languages

Though there are not as yet any specific indications of applying ICT in language
education in the research literature, Vietnam has recently conducted several national
and international conferences related to strengthening the application of ICT in
education and administration management as part of Decree 64 (Vietnamese
Government, 2008). Productively, the academic year 2008-2009 was themed by the
Ministry of Education and Training as "The Year of ICT Application", connecting
schools to the Internet and integrating new technologies into the curriculum. This
promotion, which aims to improve teaching quality and renovate educational
management, is considered as one of the initial steps in introducing and naturalising
technology into the Vietnamese educational system.

As in many other universities and colleges, the use of computer technology is still
quite limited at the College of Foreign Languages (CFL), University of Danang, both at



Nguyen 1415

the managerial level and in teaching and learning, in spite of having been promulgated
and encouraged from the governmental level (Vietnamese Government, 2008). While
there is a website for the college, it is in Vietnamese, in spite of the value of English as
part of the internationally cooperative inclination and the college’s function as an
educator in foreign languages. The website is used mainly for administrative
announcements, news, and introductions about the college, rather than for
communication. College announcements are still made primarily via notice boards
scattered around the campus. Intended viewers of the website are simply visitors who
are attracted by the two missions of the college given in the introduction page: (1)
training foreign language teachers and specialists for Highland and Central Vietnam;
and (2) conducting research and providing services related to languages and cultures.

Also on the website, viewers receive an overview of the college’s management
organisation, training programs, scope and capacity, and infrastructure in a brand new
campus with 60 classrooms, lecture halls, and administration section. In addition, the
campus has a library with 10,000 titles serving its staff and students in their study and
research. Finally, presented on the website is the college’s goal of endeavouring to
become a leading research centre for foreign language teacher trainers and specialists
of high quality for the socio-economic development of Highland and Central Vietnam.

The constraints of technology-supported communications are also reflected in the fact
that staff members use different email systems based on their preferences. Looking
through the email addresses of the college staff even from the top levels, there are a
number of Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, and several other free email service providers. Of
course, this will not matter if formality and consistency are not taken into account. The
explanation for this inconsistency could be that the issue has yet to become a priority
for the college and that the principal means of communication has yet to be
technology-mediated.

In terms of teaching and learning, communications between teachers and students, and
among students themselves, are principally face to face in the classroom. The use of e-
learning software platforms like WebCT and Blackboard is just a somewhat distant
prospect. Even though a project to use Moodle, an open-source course management
system, was mentioned in meetings some years ago, this has so far remained an idea
on paper.

Nevertheless, there are a few teachers who are keen on the application of computer
technology to teaching and learning, asking their students to send written work to
them via email so that they can give feedback and correct them before going to class. In
addition, the use of office applications like PowerPoint for presentations in class is
always encouraged by these teachers. There are also some who make use of the
computer lab, which was set up in 2005, for their students to practise word processing
and surfing the Internet to look for learning materials. It is noted that during the
current study this was the only lab (Figure 1), consisting of 36 computers, available for
about 4,000 foreign language majors at the college.

Finally, experience with computers among students is also varied. According to a
survey as part of the current study, only 35% of the students had their own computers
at home. The remaining 65% had to go to the Internet shops outside the campus to use
a computer and get access to the Internet, which in 2010 cost about half of their lunch
money for one hour of use. On the other hand, quite a few other students (30% of



1416 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(Special issue, 8)

‘fairly good’ and ‘very good’ combined, according to the survey) were very fluent with
computer use. It is reported that these students very often used computers for chatting,
and sending and receiving emails with friends; some others even wrote blogs and
wikis; still others had their diaries on Twitter or, more popularly, Facebook. However,
the use of these Internet facilities was just for personal pleasure and entertainment.
Bringing them to class for educational purposes was still somewhere in its prenatal
stage.

Figure 1: The computer lab at CFL

Purposes of the study

Grounded on the context of the use of ICT in education in general and language
learning, in particular in the Vietnamese sociocultural background, this study aims to
investigate the potential for introducing computer-mediated communication in
language learning, from a learners’ point of view. In other words, acknowledging that
learners’ perceptions play an essential role in the effectiveness of technology in an
educational setting, the paper aims to seek answers for the following research
questions in the Vietnamese sociocultural EFL (English as a foreign language) context:

1. What were the students’ general attitudes toward the technology-enhanced class?
a. What were students’ perceptions of synchronous chat?
b. What were students’ perceptions of asynchronous wiki?
c. Which mode of CMC did they prefer?

2. How did the students evaluate the application of CMC into collaborative learning?

3. What were the benefits students perceived from the course?



Nguyen 1417

Research methodology

Research design

The study was mainly qualitative with the support of some findings from statistical
analysis. The design and intended objectives of the study were in line with the
sociocultural theory, ICT, and second language acquisition. The combination of both
quantitative and qualitative data analysis has recently been considered as mixed
methods research (Dörnyei, 2007), or mixed research (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, &
Turner, 2007), defined as an approach to knowledge that endeavours to take into
account “multiple viewpoints, perspectives, positions, and standpoints” (Johnson, et
al., 2007, p. 113) and was applied to investigate the learners’ reflections on and
perceptions of both synchronous and asynchronous CMC in the development of EFL
learners’ collaborative learning. This innovative research paradigm, according to
Luppicini (2007), is the preeminent way to accomplish a thorough understanding of
CMC as a complex system. It is an amalgamation that incorporates ideas from
qualitative and quantitative research. By congregating numeric details from
quantitative data and specific information from qualitative data, a more
comprehensive understanding of a target phenomenon can be achieved through
differently complementary angles; and the two sets of findings, i.e. quantitative and
qualitative, can be cross-verified against each other. Johnson et al (2007) have also
named it between-methods triangulation. Above all, the complex nature of classroom
environments, as in the current study, “lends itself to mixed methods research”
(Dörnyei, 2007, p. 186).

Participants

This classroom-based research was conducted in the College of Foreign Languages
(CFL) in Danag University, a large university in Central Vietnam. The participants
included a whole class of 30 students (28 female and 2 male) who were enrolled in a
four-year TEFL program to become teachers of English in secondary schools. Ethical
procedures were followed to ensure that the informed consent of the students was
given throughout the study. These young adults (Table 1), ranging from 21 to 24 years
of age, were taking the compulsory American Culture course, taught by the researcher
himself, in semester six of the eight-semester Bachelor of Arts program.

Information from a background questionnaire survey showed that there were 18
students from the city, while the remaining 12 were from the provincial regions, which
are believed to have certain disadvantages in education in general and computer
access in particular (see Table 1). The range of accumulated GPA for the past five
semesters was 6.70 for the lowest achiever and 8.75 for the highest. An initial concern
was that there would be a difference in language proficiency between these two
groups. However, the independent-samples t-test for the place of learning English
revealed no statistically significant difference (t(58) = 1.69, p = .096) in the GPA mean
of the city students (Mean: 7.50, SD: .57) and the province students (Mean: 7.27, SD:
.38). The questionnaire also demonstrated their desire to have more in-class
interaction, both with the teacher and classmates. When asked how much in-class
interaction they had with the teacher and other classmates at present and how much
interaction they really wanted, the tendency ranged from below 40% to around 60%
with the teacher, and from 25% to as high as 70% with classmates, three times more.
This desire for increased contact reflected the class situation where lecturing was the



1418 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(Special issue, 8)

principal method of transferring knowledge from the teacher to the learners, which
most students felt uncomfortable with.

Table 1: Selected background information about participants
Note: All names are pseudonyms.

Group Name GraduatedGPA
High

school
PC

skills
Typing
ability

PC use
(months)

PC time use
(hr per week)

T. Huong 7.58 province fairly good fairly good > 12 6-10
Suong 7.00 province very good fairly good > 12 > 21

01

Hang 7.64 city poor poor > 12 6-10
Tuan 7.28 province good poor 6-12 6-10
H. Phuong 6.96 city fairly good fairly good < 3 11-15

02

Tam 7.17 city good poor < 3 > 21
Binh 7.65 city fairly good good > 12 > 21
Ngan 7.64 city fairly good fairly good > 12 > 21

03

Yen 7.38 province good poor > 12 6-10
Loc 6.98 city good good > 12 > 21
Nga 7.65 province poor poor > 12 6-10

04

Thi 7.45 city poor good 3-6 1-5
Hoa 7.84 city poor poor < 3 1-5
Viet 6.93 city poor poor < 3 6-10

05

Hanh 7.90 city good good > 12 6-10
Thoa 7.09 province poor poor < 3 11-15
Anh 6.93 city fairly good fairly good > 12 > 21

06

Nguyen 7.22 province fairly good poor > 12 > 21
Thuy 6.70 province poor poor > 12 6-10
Dao 7.51 city good poor > 12 11-15

07

Nghia 7.88 city poor poor 3-6 > 21
Nhung 7.16 province poor poor < 3 6-10
Thang 7.08 province good good < 3 6-10

08

V. Hang 7.48 province good poor > 12 6-10
Huong 7.53 province poor poor > 12 11-15
Dzung 7.36 city poor poor < 3 16-20

09

Thao 7.42 city poor poor < 3 11-15
Chuyen 7.43 city good good > 12 6-10
M. Hang 8.53 city fairly good fairly good > 12 > 21

10

Phuong 8.75 city good very good > 12 > 21

In spite of not having studied with technology before, the students indicated their
optimistic evaluation of the benefits of networked computers in their learning, with 28
students agreeing (14) or strongly agreeing (14) that the use of computers is beneficial
for learning in general. It is noted that half of the participants expressed their doubts
about the usefulness of networked computers in improving speaking skill and
pair/group work. This can be explained by the fact that they had never done
collaborative learning through computers before and that to them pair/group work
definitely involved interaction in person.

Also reported from the questionnaire was that only 60% owned computers at home.
Though half of the students had used computers for more than a year, the self-
evaluation of computer and typing skills showed a need for further training. The
students spent an average of 12 hours per week working with computers. Most of the
online time was used for surfing the Internet and word processing (averagely 6-10
hours/week). The amount of time spent on email, chat and blogs or wikis, on the other
hand, was rather low, with the mean at less than five hours/week. Also, seven



Nguyen 1419

students had never chatted online before, and this number for blogs or wikis was 16. It
is therefore suggested that for computer-based research like the current study to be
legitimate, the students need to be computer-literate with information technology in
general and with specific programs, such as Yahoo! chat and wikis, in particular. In
fact, to ensure all students felt comfortable using the computers, practice sessions were
conducted periodically before new tools were introduced.

The CMCL course

The 12-week American Culture course centred around a large theme that covered
various topics relating to life and culture of American people and language. It should
also be noted that there was no fixed order for the topics. Rather, the sequence in
which the topics were covered in each lesson was a process of negotiation between the
teacher and the students. The course had a strong emphasis on achieving cultural and
language competence through collaborative learning among students. The course
contents and requirements, along with other related issues were put on a website
(http://americancultures.pbworks.com/) created by the teacher/researcher with the
purpose of helping the students getting used to the application of the Internet into
learning. The class learnt in a technology-rich classroom, equipped with 36 computers,
on every Friday afternoon for two hours.

During the first week of the class, the teacher introduced the course content and the
course requirements, by which in order to pass successfully, the students needed to
complete two assignments: an on-going assignment (30%) and a final test (70%). The
final test, usually consisting of a series of multiple-choice questions for easy marking
due to the large number of students (370 in all), was administrated by the Department
of English at the end of the semester. Meanwhile, class teachers monitored the on-
going assignment during class hours. This on-going task required the students to work
in groups of three. They could form the group themselves and worked together
throughout the semester. The task was a report about at least three similarities and/or
differences between American and Vietnamese culture on a topic of their choice. The
students completed the background questionnaire by the end of this week.

The class began their group chat discussion in week four to select a broad topic for
their group report after having gone through the course contents and practised
chatting on Yahoo! Messenger during the past three weeks with the teacher. Prior to the
discussion, each group received a guidelines sheet, giving some suggestions about
what should be included in the discussion, such as group leader election, task division,
and a proposed discussion time of 30 minutes. Though most of the students conducted
their chat task in the classroom where they could easily seek technical help from the
teacher, some students asked for permission to work from home, others from the
library computers, and still others from Internet shops. During the following week, the
students collected sources to prepare for their first draft on their own wiki page that
could be accessed later by the teacher and other members.

Week six started with the introduction of the peer review process when the teacher
presented the step-by-step training procedure. Students practised the peer review
elements with the teacher, based on a sample peer review sheet provided. During the
next three weeks in their own time, they took turns exchanging comments on their
group members’ drafts on the wiki pages. Finally, all groups revised their drafts on
week eight and were ready to complete the final group written report by the end of
week nine (e.g., http://06spa0210.pbworks.com/). The whole class completed an



1420 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(Special issue, 8)

evaluation questionnaire in week ten, when half of them were invited for interviews
during the last two weeks of the semester.

Research instruments and data analysis

The evaluation questionnaire used a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree). The use of Likert scale questions allows for different possible
responses and gives some indication of strength of feeling. The middle point of
“neutral” or “don’t know” as used in many popular 5-point Likert scale models was
purposefully removed, to encourage students to think deeply before deciding to
agree/disagree with 24 items in the questionnaire. The questions were categorised into
five groups. Besides item 1 asking about a general evaluation regarding learning with
computers, items 2-5 related to synchronous chat; and items 6-10 addressed the use of
wikis. Items 11-15 evaluated the students’ perceptions of online collaborative learning,
while items 16-20 concerned the course benefits. The last items, 21-24, were concerned
with affective learning. In addition, six open-ended questions were offered at the end
of the questionnaire for students who wished to express personal opinions and
suggestions. The questionnaire was tested out on a colleague and a student for any
ambiguous questions, and to ensure user friendliness of the included items.

Reponses were tallied and analysed with use of SPSS 17. In order to determine
whether the students’ answers to an item were at a greater than chance level, the mean
Likert score on each item was calculated by running a one-sample two-tailed t-test
with the hypothesised mean of 2.5, as a neutral score of the 4-point scale, and the
confidence interval of 95%. Topics emerging from the students’ responses to the open-
ended questions were also categorised and analysed.

While the questionnaire was useful for collecting factual, quantitative information, e.g.
whether students liked or disliked a particular point or task, it was not so effective for
collecting more detailed, qualitative information, such as why they liked or disliked
those points or tasks, so an individual interview agenda was prepared for volunteers.
The design of this interview is semi-structured to invite more profound thoughts (see
Appendix). Transcripts of the interviews were put into Word documents and emailed
to individual students to seek any corrections, additions, or further comments arising
from their schemata, before being imported into NVivo 8 for analysis.

In addition, various observation techniques, including keeping a diary, taking notes,
taking photos, and especially keeping an online blog, were used during the research
period. Physical backdrops and individual students were observed for any emerging
themes or interesting details and behaviours. The purpose of this observation
approach was to enable the teacher/researcher to experience the setting as a whole
while immersing himself into the classroom environment. This was valuable data for
triangulation with the other sources.

Results and discussion

The technology-enhanced class

Regarding the first item of the questionnaire, asking the students to give a brief
description of the technology-enhanced class, 23 (76.7%) students agreed that they
liked learning with computers, not to mention the other seven (23.3%) who strongly
agreed with this point. In general, no negative attitude relating to the use of networked



Nguyen 1421

computers in learning was found. In addition, half of the students who attended the
interviews described this class as new, strange, modern, motivating, and interesting
among many other positive adjectives, as compared with what they felt were boring
and insipid traditional, teacher-fronted classes. General evaluations like “it's lucky for
me to be in this class. Other classes must be jealous of us .” (M. Hang, group 10; all
quotes are entered verbatim) were quite common in interview scripts and comments
on the researcher’s blog.

Specifically, Yen (03), whose self-evaluated computer skills were poor, shared her
feelings when comparing this CMC class with previous traditional ones, “Here in this
class … I think it is more effective because many students could participate at the same
time, not like in the previous classes where teachers could not ask all students to speak
simultaneously”. Another provincial student, Nga (04), though being rather weak in
working with computers as reported in the background questionnaire, added that as
being the first time of learning in this technology-rich class, she could gather many
new things; and it was more enjoyable than previous courses. In addition, Ngan, the
most participating member in the same group with Yen, profoundly contributed her
ideas, including an equalised participation level with other classmates and
highlighting the necessity and significance of developing interactive competence
through writing: “in this CMC class, I feel that classmates could share their ideas more
equal due to its minimising the language barrier … because many did not feel
confident when discussing face to face”.

Phuong was among a few students from Danang city who used computers everyday
for learning and mainly entertainment. Her self-evaluated computer and typing skills
were highly competent. This most active member of group 10, who moved to the
United States to further her study at the end of this course, asserted in her email
interview with the researcher that the study environment was open, pressure-free, and
independent:

It is an open study environment. It encourages students to freely and equally
contribute their ideas when they work in a group. … Students don’t feel pressure of
being observed by their teacher. Moreover, students are more interested in their study
because they can use the social network, which used to be considered as a pastime, in
their study. It somehow helps to decrease the pressure from common classes.
Additionally, this kind of class requires students to work independently, and they also
have to keep themselves updated with group work, which makes them more
responsible. (Phuong, 10)

Furthermore, many students also expressed that what they liked most about the class
was being free to share ideas, which they found it difficult to do during traditional
class time. Others simply replied that they liked it because they could use computers in
class, such as M. Hang (10), “what I like most about CMC class is the fact that I have
chance to use computer in my study. Comparing with common classes, CMC class
gives more chances for all students to give their opinions to group work rather than
only a few individuals”. In particular, Chuyen (10), among others, candidly answered
that she at first did not understand or figure out what she would do in this course with
a bundle of computer and Internet bits and pieces, including Yahoo! chat, LCD
projector, PBWiki, YouTube, Google, and so on. However, things became brighter and
brighter day by day when she was working with and learning from group members.
This illustrates Vygotsky’s (1981) zone of proximal development (ZPD), expressing the
potential of what a learner can achieve with support from the more experienced.



1422 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(Special issue, 8)

There were however several cautions and disadvantages about technology use raised
by the students. At the first item in the survey, two students expressed their
uncertainty about the effectiveness of the CMC application before calling for more
control from the teacher, as they noticed that some students made use of the computers
to do ‘something else’ instead of focusing on the required task. More information
about these challenges was found in the fourth interview question, asking them to
broach anything they did not like about the course. Most of the students interviewed,
12 out of 15 in fact, touched upon technical issues, which matched the researcher’s
observation that the exchange process was sometimes delayed because of problems
from either the Internet or the computers in the classroom. In addition, there were five
students who blamed their limited computer knowledge, which inevitably affected the
interaction process. The comments below are representative of the complaints:

Sometimes … for example, you [the teacher] first instructed us to get into wiki, which I
found really complicated, difficult to remember. I had to, many times, ask other
classmates for help. (Yen, 03)

What I don’t like …. is my computer skills. When learning with technology like this,
these skills were very important. It was not easy to follow the teacher’s instruction. I
wish I had learned these skills before taking this course. (Nguyen, 06)

In general, all of the students responded positively (M = 3.23, SD = .43, t(df) = 9.34,
p<.01) to the first evaluation item, asking if they liked learning in the technology-
enhanced environment. This indicates that while there were some technical obstacles
that needed to be considered, the advantages that technology brought about
outweighed those shortcomings.

Synchronous chat

Table 2 presents the students’ responses to items related to their perceptions of the
synchronous chat. The most outstanding aspect observed from the figures was the
number of 13 (43%) students who strongly agreed (along with another 14 agreeing)
with item 4 that they felt more confident in sharing their ideas in the chat groups.
Overall, 27, out of 30, students perceived that the synchronous CMC (SCMC)
environment created more self-assurance among the participants. Explanations for this
confidence were that many students in the interviews portrayed the chat discussion as
creating a more pleasant and convenient environment than the face to face exchanges,
thereby motivating them to participate more. As for Tam (02), a student from a
provincial region of Nghe An, not being good at either computer or language skills, the
absence of facial expressions and other general social, non-verbal cues in the online
synchronous exchange motivated and increased her involvement, thereby liberating
(Honeycutt, 2001) this more marginal member. Below is what she shared:

Tam: … yeah. I could share my ideas in the group in a pleasure way, feeling
very comfortably natural, without being shy at all.

Researcher: Don’t you feel natural in face to face discussions?
Tam: Uhm, I feel afraid of contributing what I’m not 100% sure in face to face.

Likewise, Hang (01) explained she could participate more in the chat because she
found it difficult to defend her views against opposite opinions raised by other
members in face to face modes, even though she tried desperately sometimes. She
usually had ‘to make concessions’ in such discussions. By contrast, she was just able to



Nguyen 1423

type her opinions at the same time with others on the chat window, thereby creating
opportunities for her to share her ideas among the group regardless of her friends
“accepting them or not”, said Hang. Moreover, Dzung (09) agreed with Thang (08),
one of the only two male students in the class, that the chat discussion created more
intimacy because it is “the form of learning and playing at the same time” (Thang, 08).
In other words, SCMC affords a ludic approach to learning.

Table 2: Students’ perceptions of SCMC (N=30)
Item Mean S.D. t p*

2. I enjoyed the chat discussion with my group members. 3.03 .49 5.96 .000
3. The chat discussion generated plenty of ideas. 2.90 .61 3.61 .001
4. I felt more confident in sharing my ideas in the chat group. 3.33 .66 6.91 .000
5. Members’ contributions during the chat discussion are equal. 2.90 .66 3.31 .002
* Significant at p < .01

There was a possible relationship between item 5 and item 3 in Table 2. An equal
number of students (23, 77%) agreed and strongly agreed that the chat discussion
equalised members’ contributions and thus generated plenty of ideas during the
discussion. Reiterating Ngan’s (03) reply that she could ‘talk’ much more in the chat,
Yen (03) explained that “… everyone had opportunities to talk; everyone shared equal
amount of talk; everyone feels that they must talk”. What is more, there were at least
three students who claimed their most preferred attribute in the chat was that they
could roll back and review what was just discussed, thereby helping increase their
monitoring of language usage (Sykes, 2005) and “make language manipulable”
(O'Rourke, 2008, p. 232). Other students commented on the feature of place
independence of the SCMC (Luppicini, 2007). Phuong (10), being sick on the day of her
group’s discussion, had to stay home and discussed the task with friends from a
distance. Her comment highlights the students’ perceptions of SCMC, “what I like
most in chat discussion section is that I can still contact with my partners without
being with them. It also saves time spending on travelling to the meeting place. All I
have to do is to be online on time to chat with my partners”.

Nevertheless, there were up to eight students who did not agree that the contribution
among members was equal. Four of them explained in the interviews that it was
because some members did not study the learning material beforehand, so they did not
have much to share. Some others had very limited typing skills, which delayed the
discussion flow and was therefore interrupted by other members who typed faster. An
interesting finding was that those students who were proficient in both computer and
language skills disagreed with the equality in group contribution because of the
restricted involvement from less proficient students. The latter, on the other hand,
supported item 5 above, claiming that the contribution was roughly equal. For
example, contrary to Yen’s comment above “…everyone shared equal amount of talk”,
expressing that the participation was roughly equal among the three members, Ngan
(03), from the same group, complained in the interview:

Researcher: Can you clarify this point that you did not agree with the equal
contribution?

Ngan: As you required that everyone should argue for the selection of the
essay topic, I felt that only me and Binh discussed, not Yen.

Researcher: Why do you think this happened?



1424 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(Special issue, 8)

Ngan: Uhm, maybe she was easy-going, just let it go; or maybe she was not
confident enough to share hers.

A review of this group’s discussion transcript shows that Yen was second after Ngan
in terms of the level of participation, while Binh was the least contributing member. An
explanation for this might be due to individual expectations: the more active members
expected more participation from the less contributing members, who in turn felt that
their contribution was satisfactory enough. However, perhaps what is more important
than quantity is the quality of participation. What Binh contributed was more viable
than the other two. A more detailed analysis on the content of the talk is needed to
justify this evaluation.

Finally, as far as the quality of the conversation was concerned, a few students
mentioned SCMC as a barrier to idea generation. These students complained that their
ideas were usually cut into pieces by interrupting turns. Sometimes these ideas could
never be completed as the discussion had been distracted to another route. Sometimes
ideas typed in the composing window had to be replaced with a new one in order to
follow the discussion flow. V. Hang (08) shared her concern:

V. Hang: Sometimes I had a certain idea. I was typing … not finished yet. I hadn’t
completed my idea. The other member typed in a message, then adding
more turns. I couldn’t keep my idea on. It means the discussion being
diverted to another direction, while my original idea was suspended.

Researcher: How about face to face?
V. Hang: I think I would shout to drown others’ voices to continue my ideas in a

face to face meeting.
…

V. Hang: In other time, I just waited until the other’s ideas finished so that I could
continue mine … but when it was my turn, I forgot what I was going to
say.

In general, the students had positive perceptions of the use of chat as a means of
discussion. Most felt that the participation level was approximately equal across the
groups. One of the reasons for this was that whereas other members must spend most
of the time listening while one was talking in face to face discussion, three members in
the SCMC discussion could express their ideas at the same time. Another reason was
the lack of facial expressions motivated and increased participation from those
students with lesser language proficiency, who often felt shy and reluctant to share
ideas in face to face exchanges. This therefore promoted a higher level of interaction
among group members, which in turn increased motivation for learning and
negotiation of meaning (Yamada & Akahori, 2007).

In addition, the technical features, such as scrolling back and place/time
independence, of the online synchronous discussion also drew the students’ attention
with encouraging reflections. SCMC has potential to be a major mediator in social
systems of constructing knowledge and sharing experiences through interaction.

Asynchronous wiki

All students concurred with the questionnaire item 9 (Table 3), asking them if they
learned much from their classmates’ comments, reflecting the fact that the wiki did
assist in the collaborative learning through the process of peer review. This high level



Nguyen 1425

of response as regards the general evaluation of other members’ contribution was not
so surprising regarding the Vietnamese style of collaboration, in which harmony and
unity are the priorities. As far as the learning benefits were concerned, 28 students
expressed their enjoyment of the wiki peer exchanges (item 6) and the effectiveness of
this online environment (item 8). Most of these learning benefits resulted from the
technological advantages that the wiki platform brought about when up to 26 (87%)
students assented to the assessment of the wiki environment as not so challenging
(item 7). Additionally, the learning benefits were evidently perceived since 22 (73%)
students agreed that the wiki helped them write more than in traditional classes (item
10).

Table 3: Students’ perceptions of wiki (n=30)
Item Mean S.D. t p*

6. I enjoyed the wiki peer exchanges. 3.33 .61 7.53 .000
7. It is easy to work on the wiki. 3.17 .65 5.64 .000
8. The wiki peer comments helped me revise my draft. 3.23 .57 7.07 .000
9. I learned much from my classmates’ comments. 3.20 .41 9.42 .000
10. Wiki helped me write more than traditional class. 2.93 .70 3.43 .002
* Significant at p < .01

These perceptions were positively triangulated with information from the interviews,
in which many students expressed their satisfaction by pointing out the user friendly
functionalities of PBWiki, such as the ease of editing and commenting, the archive and
history review facilities, and the capabilities of multiple review procedure. These
technically easy to use functions in turn had helped generate a large number of
comments. Tam (02) expressed a view shared by several other students when being
asked what she liked most about the wiki below:

Tam: On wiki … we could exchange and help each other through comments.
Researcher: But, you can still comment on paper. What do you think of the differences?
Tam: Working on the wiki was more motivating. We could have many more

comments on wiki. I gave comments to others’, then the others gave feedback on
mine; then I commented again … continuously. It was hard to do this on paper.

Similar to Tam, Yen (03) highlighted the convenience of using the wiki for peer
feedback, that it was more convenient working on the wiki. She only needed to click
on the edit button. In addition, she could see more comments from friends. For her, it
was a waste of time doing something like these on paper. On top of the learning and
technological benefits, like many other students, Phuong (10) added some affective
outcomes that could be gained from the online peer feedback process. She explained
that she could sometimes delete a comment that she felt to be incorrect or that might
hurt others’ emotions; and replace it with a more suitable one:

In wiki peer exchange section, I like being able to share ideas with my partners every
time I want and feel free to give them my comments without worrying that I am
hurting their feelings. It is because I can think carefully and choose appropriate words
before I type them down. More than that, I can delete previous comments and replace
them with more suitable ones. (Phuong, 10)

In addition, for Thang (08), the most useful part of the wiki was simply that the writing
was read, commented on and corrected by more people, as opposed to his previous



1426 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(Special issue, 8)

writings being corrected only by the teacher. Writing on the wiki was different, which
he felt was just as if “I’ve published something”. In other words, he wrote not only for
the sake of learning; he wrote to communicate. Also from this point of writing with the
sense of audience, Tam (02) felt that she must be more responsible for her writing,
trying to make it as “smooth as I could since other people would be reading it. It is
different when I write for myself”.

However, looking from the other side of the issue, some indications of problems were
found when two students expressed their indifference to the wiki application, chiefly
because of technical issues. Anh (06), for example, felt that “it was fatiguing and
inconvenient to edit on the wiki because I had to go to the Internet shop each time. It
was more difficult to correct [the drafts] online than on paper because it was harder to
read. It was clearer on paper. I could use a pen to read line by line, which I felt really
difficult to follow on the computer screen with very small font.” Responding to these
constructive and critical opinions, the researcher highlighted several reported
advantages, including the fact that she could only comment one time on paper, i.e. she
had to physically return a draft back to its author, while she could do this as many
times as she wanted on the wiki. Moreover, she could delete old comments and replace
with those that were more appropriate. Anh responded, “these are some good points.
But, these benefits cannot still overshadow the disadvantages” that she encountered.
Furthermore, Anh was among eight students who disagreed with questionnaire item
10 asking if the wiki helped them write more than the traditional paper format. It is
noted that Anh was from the agricultural province of Quang Binh. She had no access
to computers nor the Internet in the flat she rented.

In general, the perceived reflections on the use of the wiki were the benefits concerning
the construction of a community of practice (Wheeler, Yeomans & Wheeler, 2008)
including collaboration, learning, and even emotional effects, mainly thanks to the
technological advantages this online environment brought about. These benefits,
similar to those of the SCMC, appear to outweigh few problems, which could possibly
be solved with more comprehensive training in technology use.

Synchronous versus asynchronous

Of interest were responses to one of the interview questions, encouraging the students
to decide which modes of CMC they preferred, based on the affordances provided by
each. To those who favoured the use of SCMC (6 out of 15 interviewees), the
synchronous discussion provided them with a friendly, non-institutional and pressure-
free atmosphere. This mode of online synchronous exchanges was also considered as
an interesting and motivating lifebuoy emerging from the condensed curriculum. On
the other hand, for other students who preferred the asynchronous CMC (ACMC)
mode, the wiki offered a wider variety of affordances than the SCMC. From careful
explanation to critical justification, two of the five students who favoured the wiki
environment, expressed their partiality toward this type of ACMC collaborative
learning style:

… the chat was in fact not completely perfect; it did have some shortcomings as
compared to face to face discussions. I haven’t however found any shortcomings from
the wiki. (M. Hang, 10)

Generally, I don’t hate either of them; but if I have to choose, I would say I prefer the
wiki exchange because it has more functions than the chat…. In addition, the wiki



Nguyen 1427

itself also included the chat discussion. We could give comments in a more convenient
way. Moreover, we could view and review the work as many times as we wanted to,
different from the chat discussion which could not save scripts online. Everything on
the chat disappeared when we logged out … (Hanh, 05)

As far as sociotechnical affordances (Lund, 2008) are concerned, the archive function of
Yahoo! Messenger, like many other chat tools available could only save chat scripts
locally, i.e. on the computer. The students could not refer back to the scripts on another
computer. Hanh (05), like many other students in this class, was in this situation. As
she had used a classroom computer to discuss within her group previously, she could
not review the discussion history by using computers in the library or, more often, in
Internet shops. Conversely, the wiki saved all entries online and they could be
accessed anywhere, and of course, anytime.

If one of the crucial questions raised by White (2003) is “how to arouse and maintain in
learners a desire to interact” (p. 55), then the online learning context in the current
study somewhat solved the problem by helping the students to perceive the
significance of the CMC-based learning environment and facilitating their willingness
to interact meaningfully within the affordances this environment provided. In other
words, it is the affordances of the asynchronous mode of CMC that helped involve
more sustained commitment to the collaborative work among group members than the
SCMC, as suggested by Phuong (10), “I prefer wiki exchange because it does help us
improve our skills more than chat discussion. Moreover, we work harder in wiki
exchange than in chat discussion. Chat discussion is just a small part while wiki
exchange is with us for almost the whole course”.

Finally, four students reported that they could not decide which one they preferred.
Rather, they liked both, elucidating that each mode of CMC had its particular features
and characteristics, complementing each other. For Nga (04), ‘each had its own merits’.

Collaborative opportunities

The descriptive statistics in Table 4 show that all 30 students indicated in item 11 their
agreement or strong agreement with the collaborative learning opportunities the
course offered. Likewise, most of them (28 out of 30) affirmed that they gained new
ways of learning from the collaborative process (item 13), which partly resulted from
the larger number of comments they entered on the ten wiki sites. Additionally, the
time involvement in the SCMC discussion and especially the large number of
comments in the wiki peer review process, along with the researcher/teacher’s
sustained observation confirmed the high number of students (item 15) responding
positively regarding the amount of interaction via computers throughout the course.

Table 4: Students’ perceptions of collaborative learning (N=30)
Item Mean S.D. t p*

11. I enjoyed the collaborative learning opportunities. 3.20 .41 9.42 .000
12. I am satisfied with the final collaborative product. 2.83 .65 2.82 .009
13. I gained new ways of learning from the collaborative work. 3.10 .48 6.84 .000
14. Everyone in the group contributed equally to the final work. 2.83 .70 2.61 .014
15. I had a lot of interaction with my classmates via the computers. 2.93 .69 3.43 .002
* Significant at p < .01



1428 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(Special issue, 8)

However, as indicated in item 14, not many students were satisfied with the level of
equal contribution to the final report. Answers to this item also correlate to responses
to item 12, evaluating the final collaborative report, in which six students denied that
they were satisfied and one student, Nghia (07), strongly disagreed. Nghia was from a
provincial region with a self-evaluation of limited computer skills but high language
proficiency evident in the accumulated GPA of 7.88 (ranking 4th in the class). As a
group leader, she was the most participating member in both the chat discussion and
the wiki peer review processes. In terms of the latter process, she logged in 76 times,
compared to 37 and 6 times for the other members. Nghia produced 73% (74 out of
102) of the group comments. On being asked why she was not satisfied with the final
group work, she explained that at the time the evaluation questionnaire was delivered
her group work had not finished due to the limited engagement of the other two
members and she was very worried about the result. It can be inferred that Nghia, like
Ngan (03) as discussed above, felt highly responsible and expected much from other
members and of the quality of the final collaborative report, which made her feel upset
regarding the group result. Another important conclusion drawn from what Nghia
said is that CMC fosters process-driven learning: collaboration on the wiki could be
prolonged over a sustained period of time.

Of interest was part of the second interview question asking what the students liked
most about their final collaborative product. This should have been changed to ‘do you
like your final group report? Why/not?’ because 11 out of 15 interviewees expressed a
lack of satisfaction with the final report. Part of the explanation for this response may
be the Vietnamese style of self-assessment, especially in face to face encounters like an
interview. In other words, the Vietnamese can feel uneasy or shy when they say
something good about themselves. They therefore tend to reduce the level of self-
assessment, from good to average, from average to bad, for example. Another reason
lies in the students’ expectations of computers. There may have been a belief in the
‘fire’ metaphor, i.e. the closer to the fire one is, the warmer one automatically feels. The
students might have an analogical thought that just because they learned with
computers, their results must certainly be better.

Other explanations can be found from the interview data, including disagreements
among group members and dissatisfaction with the report itself, such as paragraph
organisation and grammatical errors. These issues were however similar in the
traditional method of collaborative learning and had no relation to the technological
application. In fact, when asked how it would have compared with the same task done
by the previous methods, most of them responded that the new style of learning with
CMC was much better although some issues occurred as above. Ngan (03), for
example, in spite of assessing her group report at an average level, compared:

… I felt that the other members were more willing to listen to me when correcting on
this. It seemed difficult for me to persuade them in the direct way like face-to-face. I
just made use of the comment functions on the wiki to add mine. They looked more
diagrammatic and logical.

Similarly, all three members of group 10 were satisfied with their final report as a
collaborative product, as summarised by Phuong, “what I like most in the final
collaborative product is that everyone contributed their own work to make a complete
final product. Also, we spent time together to revise and improve our writing.”



Nguyen 1429

To sum up, the students responded highly positively to the technology-supported
collaborative learning process leading to completion of the final reports. Although the
satisfaction level with the end product was not so high, as reflected during the
interviews, the perceptions of the usefulness of CMC in collaborative practices were
constructive and optimistic, compared with the traditional methods of collaboration.

The course benefits

The students’ reflections on and perceptions of the various benefits from the CMC-
integrated course are of two types, according to the questionnaire items: those relating
to specific skills and areas and those concerning future impacts (Table 5). First, it is no
surprise to learn from item 16 that most of the students (28 out of 30) agreed with the
idea that this course helped them improve their computer skills. For most of these
Vietnamese learners, the first time to experience the use of CMC, both synchronous
and asynchronous, in an academic setting did transform their view of the application
of computers in language learning. This experience also helped upgrade their
computer aptitude from feeling anxiously unfamiliar to a confident level, for example,
“now I feel acquainted to it and I think I will be able to learn better with this method”
(Tam, 02). Only two students (Phuong and M. Hang, 10) did not concur with item 16.
They explained that the computer applications used in the course were so familiar to
them since they used them every day. Hence, they found no improvement via this
course, as compared to their existing knowledge of computers.

Table 5: Students’ perceptions of the course benefits (n=30)
Item Mean S.D. t p*

16. This course helped improve my computer skills. 3.40 .62 7.93 .000
17. My English improves as a result of CMC collaboration. 2.93 .45 5.28 .000
18. My grammar improves as a result of CMC collaboration. 2.77 .50 2.90 .007
19. My writing improves as a result of CMC collaboration. 2.97 .41 6.18 .000
20. My vocabulary improves as a result of CMC collaboration. 2.97 .49 5.22 .000
21. I felt more involved in learning during this course. 3.00 .53 5.21 .000
22. I enjoy learning English more after this class. 3.17 .46 7.92 .000
23. I enjoy collaborative learning more after this class. 3.03 .49 5.96 .000
24. I will recommend this way of learning to my friends. 3.43 .50 10.14 .000

* Significant at p < .01

Due perhaps to the ‘fire’ metaphor discussed above, perceived impressions of the
improvement in English were however not so high, with the mean of 2.93 (item 17),
slightly above the hypothesised mean of 2.50. Various responses mentioned in the
questionnaire as well as in the interviews showed that writing skills along with
vocabulary and sentence structures was essentially developed through the course
while other skills and areas, such as reading, grammar, and speaking were
occasionally referred to. It is not difficult to find explanations for these perceptions
since the whole collaborative process focused mostly on writing along with the final
product as a written report. An exception might be about the chat discussion, in which
the language used was half written and half spoken, as realised by many interviewees.
This shows that the learners in this course could discriminate linguistic differences
between the two modes of exchanges, i.e. SCMC and ACMC.



1430 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(Special issue, 8)

Remarkably, some students mentioned a few metalinguistic aspects that were
considered useful for future language development, like “… it improves my ability to
think more quickly in English, and respond more quickly to requests or questions …”
(Ngan, 03). Similarly, Phuong (10) expressed her view in the email interview that it did
in some ways, such as helping towards using English more appropriately or giving
more chances for everyone to contribute their opinions, which was hardly seen in
common classes. It is of course admitted that a short course of only 12 weeks applying,
not to mention introducing, technology into an academic environment cannot be
expected to result in an obvious improvement in the learners’ language proficiency. M.
Hang (10) helped to conclude this part, regarding the perceived benefits of the CMC-
integrated course on language development:

Uhm, I think that if this way of learning was applied much longer, much would be
improved. We in fact used just a little bit of CMC to write a short essay, it was hard to
say my English was improved after this course. (M. Hang, 10)

Regarding the future impacts of the CMC-integrated course, responses to the last four
questionnaire items were greatly encouraging. The majority of students agreed with
item 21 that they felt more engaged in learning during and after the course. This
affective realisation is essentially significant in collaborative learning (McLoughlin,
2002), according to the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach to language
learning and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory that requires an individual to be actively
involved in activities within a social setting, through which knowledge will be
acquired naturally from other individuals. Similarly, they also enjoyed learning
English (item 22) and collaboration (item 23) more after this class, with the mean of
3.17 and 3.03 respectively, considerably higher than the hypothesised mean of 2.50.
Key factors for these positive attitudes include the new and motivating application of
CMC with the two modes and the encouraging collaborative task that involved more
interaction among learners.

Notably, as shown in item 24, all students expressed their willingness to recommend
this learning style to the next generations of language students. In addition, when
being asked what advice they would give to future students who may attend a similar
CMC-enhanced course, it is not surprising to learn that most students (22 out of 30)
prioritised some preparation regarding computer knowledge and typing skills to be
capable of learning more effectively. This again emphasises the importance of technical
instruction as a key factor for a successful CMC-integrated course as far as these
particular Vietnamese students are concerned. Furthermore, several pieces of advice
were orientated to the language and task preparation to minimise disagreements and
to ensure the successfulness of group work. Other advice was interestingly focused on
the roles of the teacher as a course facilitator, a group work regulator, and also a
technical problem coordinator, adding that students “should pay attention to what the
teacher instructs them” (Chuyen, 10) and that “don’t be shy to talk to your teacher
about your problems” (Nghia, 07). Lastly, some called for more cooperation within
group members because “team work is very important. Each member of the group has
to know how to get others involved so that the final result is satisfactory” (Nghia, 07).

Finally, last minute remarks on the last, open ended item in the questionnaire left quite
a few critical and thoughtful comments, along with certainly a large number of general
appreciative comments. Ngan (03), for example, favourably confirmed that this way of
learning brought her a lot of interest and that her group members had chances to
express more ideas that they might not be able to do in direct speech. Similarly, M.



Nguyen 1431

Hang (10) auspiciously expressed her preference for this way of learning as being very
interesting and that learning is not limited to the classroom anymore. On the other
hand, in line with within-class suggestions from some students, such as requiring more
control from the teacher and more skills included into the project, Nga (04) and Binh
(03) called for more investment from the college administrative level for the
improvement of the computer and network systems on campus before any application
of CMCL into a language class. Anh (06), in spite of holding negative impressions
about CMC throughout the collaborative process, modified her evaluation by the end
of the course, suggesting a combination with the traditional method: “the application
of CMCL is still interesting and useful. As for me, it's very good to combine this way
with traditional modes” (Anh, 06).

Conclusions

On looking at the data overall, technological expertise turned out to be the biggest
perceived barrier toward the success of a technology-enhanced course. For these
Vietnamese students whose computer knowledge was limited, well-designed and
comprehensive training programs are recommended before any application of CMC
into a language class. Other, less prominent, issues, according to the students, were
those relating to language and task preparation and those concerning the college’s
infrastructure. Other than those, positive attitudes toward to the use of CMC in
collaboration were evidently experienced both from answers to the evaluation
questionnaire and in the interviews. All the participants expressed their preference for
learning with the support of computers and indicated that they wished for and were
willing to have more CMC-enhanced courses like the current one in future.

Moreover, an equal number of students preferred either chat or wiki while quite a few
liked both as they could not decide which one they favoured. They also perceived that
each mode of CMC supported their learning and collaboration in different ways,
complementing each other. While the chat discussion increased and equalised group
members’ participation and contribution, the wiki peer review supported them by
creating an environment in which they not only learnt English but also exchanged
social and emotional matters. Both of these generated more confidence and motivation
toward the collaborative learning process among the students. The participants
reflecting on their experience noted that their computer abilities improved
considerably, although the perceived improvements in language skills were not
significant due to the short time of using CMC in the language class. Furthermore, as a
result of these motivational aspects of CMCL, the students felt they were more
involved in learning and especially learning English with collaboration during and
after the CMCL course. All of them were willing to recommend this learning type to
the next generations of students.

Obviously, the CMC technologies create an affective ecology for the students. Flow
theory, as discussed by Egbert (2005) in relation to foreign language learning, provides
a useful lens for reflection in the current study, bringing mixed attitudes toward
affordances provided by the CMCL environment. Egbert highlighted the importance of
the relationship between skills and challenges to the flow experience. For those
students who were ‘in the flow’, i.e. their existing language and computer skills and
challenges generated by the new learning environment were balanced, learning in this
technology-enhanced setting can be considered a lifebuoy, providing a relaxation from
the concentrated schedule of so many in-class hours. This is evident in one of the



1432 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(Special issue, 8)

comments, “I like the chat discussion last week because it helps me relax after a
weeklong hard work” (Tuan, 02). For this student, the chat discussion is not counted as
part of his learning load. It is instead an entertaining and relaxing mediator. This may
be because many of these students’ previous experience of computers was more social
than academic. Introducing CMC into the classroom therefore means bringing playing
into learning. Popular evaluations from ‘in the flow’ students towards the CMC
environments included freedom to share ideas, more pleasure, and low pressure. The
fact that CMC affords a ludic approach to learning creates much motivation and
therefore involvement.

Additionally, when it comes to comparison, the wiki-based asynchronous peer
exchanges prove to be more user-friendly than the Yahoo! synchronous discussion.
This made the students more committed to and prepared to invest more effort in the
collaborative process as well as the final product. Below is what Phuong (10)
personally shared on the researcher’s blog. Phuong expressed her thanks to the
researcher for providing her and her classmates with a new way of learning. For her,
the wiki was certainly not only a cognitive environment for learning and collaboration
but also the social platform for sharing emotions.

Wiki does encourage us to leave comments on our partners' writings. Just visit group
10 to see that . Furthermore, this is also a good place for us to share things
happening in our daily lives, which are now gradually reduced to meet the study
requirements. I myself feel so close to my crew thanks to wiki. Thanks so much for this
helpful website, teacher. (Phuong, 10)

Conversely, the integration of CMC into conventional classroom practices may also
bring added burdens into learning for most other students, who were not ‘in the flow’,
i.e. their existing language and computer skills did not catch up with the challenges.
Responses to the challenges were mixed. Some students raised the issues of
technology-related knowledge as the major barrier for them to overcome and took a
setback stance. In contrast, the majority of ‘not in the flow’ participants took a more
adaptive attitude toward the CMC-based learning model. They took opportunities to
request technological as well as cognitive support from the teacher and other class
members, by which they created and put themselves in the ZPD, as indicated
previously.

The students experienced the online environment as one to which they could and
should contribute, as expressed by Yen (03) that “… everyone feels that they must
talk.” It is this distribution of expertise that corroborates the fact that the students
themselves are considered as a significant source of knowledge. More than just
mediation for interaction, CMC has turned communication into substance
(Dillenbourg, 2005), transforming the learners from pure information receivers to
active knowledge contributors.

Implications
The research supports the view that the integration of CMC technologies into
collaborative learning, from the learners’ perspective, is feasible and applicable.
However, in order to transform this potential into practical application, much
preparation is needed. The current study reveals that learners’ technology-related
expertise is a crucial element, deciding the success (or failure) of the CMC application
into learning. Levels of computer familiarity as well as typing skills should be carefully



Nguyen 1433

gauged before an actual classroom practice is introduced. Based on this type of survey,
the teacher may decide how much and in which area of technology knowledge
learners need to be trained and equipped. Most importantly, the survey should also
include an examination of learners’ subject-related proficiency levels, derived from
which the teacher designs suitable tasks and assignments that should be within the
learners’ ZPD. Complementary to this, the purpose of collaborative learning and CMC
integration should be clearly explained to learners. Several classroom hours should be
spent on discussing with students benefits and challenges that collaborative learning in
general and CMCL in particular may bring about. Part of the survey should also
include an option, in which students may choose not to participate in a technology-
enhanced classroom. Clearly, learning with technology should not be made
compulsory at an introductory stage. As informed by the current study, CMCL does
not automatically bring about better learning than the traditional method of
collaborative learning. Learners’ motivation and willingness to participate appear to be
a key to success.

Furthermore, ICT infrastructure is another crucial issue. An examination of the
technology capacity of the institution is needed, including the capabilities of the
computers installed in labs, how fast and consistent the network is, and what types of
software are required for student use, among many other aspects, based on which the
teacher may need to adjust his/her plan of action. It is important to stress that
education is a system; when a new element, CMC in this case, enters the system, it
triggers some turbulence and disorganises the system (Menezes, 2008). The rising issue
of how an application of CMC in the classroom fits with the current curriculum, as a
system, needs to be investigated.

Finally, another pedagogical significance of the current study is that the participants
were teacher trainees. Pedagogically, people tend to teach in the way that they have
been taught. This is one of the ideas that inspired the researcher to select this TEFL
class as the subject of study. By introducing some of the current approaches to
language teaching and learning, it is hoped that the students will be able to apply what
they learned from this course in a technology-enhanced environment, with a range of
CMC tools, in their future teaching careers in secondary schools of various levels.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Dr Gillian Skyrme for her proofreading and critical
comments on the paper.

References
Abrams, Z. I. (2006). From theory to practice: Intracultural CMC in the L2 classroom. In L.

Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in
foreign language teaching (pp. 181-210). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.

Chun, D. (2008). Computer-mediated discourse in instructed environments. In S. S. Magnan
(Ed.), Mediating discourse online (pp. 15-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dillenbourg, P. (2005). Designing biases that augment socio-cognitive interactions. In R.
Bromme, W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge
communication - and how they may be overcome (pp. 243-264). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.



1434 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(Special issue, 8)

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Egbert, J. (2005). Flow as a model for CALL research. In J. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL
research perspectives (pp. 129-139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fang, X. & Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and curriculum reform in China: A case study.
TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 301-323.

Honeycutt, L. (2001). Comparing e-mail and synchronous conferencing in online peer response.
Written Communication, 18(1), 26-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018001002

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods
research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224

Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210.

Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B.
VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 197-
221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary
Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260-276.
https://calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=792

Liu, J. & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional
modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0

Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: A collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(01), 35-54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000414

Luppicini, R. (2007). Review of computer mediated communication research for education.
Instructional Science, 35(2), 141-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006-9001-6

McLoughlin, C. (2002). Computer supported teamwork: An integrative approach to evaluating
cooperative learning in an online environment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology,
18(2), 227-254. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet18/mcloughlin.html

Menezes, V. (2008). CALL: A strange attractor in language education in South America. Paper
presented at the WorldCALL 2008: CALL Bridges the World (Fukuoka, Japan, 5-8 August, 2008).
[verified 18 Dec 2011] http://www.j-let.org/~wcf/proceedings/a-002.pdf

Nguyen, L. V. (2008). Computer mediated communication and foreign language education:
Pedagogical features. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning,
5(12), 23-44. http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_08/article02.htm

Nguyen, L. V. (2010). Computer mediated collaborative learning within a communicative
language teaching approach: A sociocultural perspective. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly,
12(1), 202-233. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_2010_lvn.php

Norton, B. (2009). Identity, literacy, and English language teaching across time and space. Paper
presented at the IATEFL Conference (Cardiff, UK, 1-4 April, 2009).

O'Dowd, R. (Ed.). (2007). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

O'Rourke, B. (2008). The other C in CMC: What alternative data sources can tell us about text-
based synchronous computer-mediated communication and language learning. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 227-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220802090253



Nguyen 1435

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An
historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.
409-426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sykes, J. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat.
The CALICO Journal, 22(3), 399-431.
https://calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=142

Thorne, S. L. (2008). Computer-mediated communication. In N. Hornberger & N. V. Duesen-
Scholl (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 4: Second and foreign language
education (2nd ed., pp. 325-336). Kluwer: Springer Verlag.

Vietnamese Government (2008). Government's decree on information technology application in
government agencies. (Decree 64/2007/N_-CP). Hanoi: Vietnamese Government.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The instrumental method in psychology. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of
activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 143-184). NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Warschauer, M. (2010). Digital literacy studies: Progress and propects. In M. Byanham & M.
Prinsloo (Eds.), The future of literacy studies (pp. 123-140). Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.

Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P. & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating
student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 39(6), 987-995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00799.x

White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yamada, M. & Akahori, K. (2007). Social presence in synchronous CMC-based language
learning: How does it affect the productive performance and consciousness of learning
objectives? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 37-65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220601118503

Appendix: Interview questions

1. What do you think of this CMC-enhanced class? How would you describe it?
2. What do you like most about this CMC class? In the chat discussion section? In the

wiki peer exchange section? In the final collaborative product?
3. Which one do you prefer: chat discussions or wiki exchange or both? Why?
4. Is there anything you don’t like about this course?
5. Do you think CMC helps you improve your English? How?
6. Which language skills do you think you develop most?
7. Which activities of this course were the most helpful for learning English?
8. What are skills gained from this class that you will need in the future?
9. How did you feel about learning English with computers at the beginning of the

course (in February) and then at the end of the course (in May)?
10. Can you identify experiences that were critical incidents or turning points for you

during the course?
11. Would you like to attend another similar CMC collaborative class in the future?
12. How will the theme “The Year of ICT” affect you as a language student and as a

future teacher?



1436 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(Special issue, 8)

Author: Dr Long V Nguyen
College of Foreign Languages, University of Danang, Danang City, Vietnam
Email: nvlong@cfl.udn.vn Web: http://www.cfl.udn.vn/

Long V Nguyen PhD is lecturer in applied linguistics at the University of Danang. He
has published widely in the fields of educational technology and communication in
foreign language learning and teaching, collaborative learning, and language teacher
education.

Please cite as: Nguyen, L. V. (2011). Learners' reflections on and perceptions of
computer-mediated communication in a language classroom: A Vietnamese
perspective. In Hong, K. S. & Lai, K. W. (Eds), ICT for accessible, effective and efficient
higher education: Experiences of Southeast Asia. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 27(Special issue, 8), 1413-1436.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/nguyen.html