Blog Post #2 – Student Motivation in an Online ESL Writing Classroom

Zhang, Jie. “Learner Agency, Motive, and Self-Regulated Learning in an Online ESL Writing

          Class.” IALLT Journal 43.2 (2013): 57-81.

Framing a case study through Vygotsky and Leont-ev’s activity theory, Zhang examines computer-mediated communication (CMC) in ESL online writing classrooms.  He provides a literature review comparing face-to-face and CMC, ESL classrooms, determining that student-focused responses to online classes are lacking.  He interviews two students from his online ESL writing class, asking how much of a student’s experience in an online class is dependent on individual behavior as viewed through activity theory. Using activity, action and operation as ways to examine students' class performance, he defines these by looking at activity as the motive, action as the process, and operation as the “doing” or moving toward the goal (63). He sees a student’s motivation as being connected to how he/she makes decisions as to investment in a class – in this case, the online environment.

In Zhang’s approach, by using self-regulated learning (SRL), students make decisions in a learning environment based on choices and/or goals they set during the class term. This is a “dialectical relationship” as learning contexts change, students lack full control, and thus outcomes are not stable.  In classrooms using CMC, “online learning requires more learner control and self-discipline than traditional classroom-based instruction” and while more opportunities are available online, these may also result in students who are less disciplined, lose interest, or do not participate as they might in a face-to-face classroom (63).

From Zhang’s results looking at learner agency, motivation affecting performance and achievement, he finds that these factors are very different for the two students and impact their success in the class. Zheng concludes that “computer technology contextualize[s] learning for different people in different ways by empowering some and handicapping others” (73). He stresses that not all students are ready for the “autonomy and flexibility of computer-mediated learning,” especially ESL and first-year students who benefit from increased support and closer direction from classmates and faculty during their initial enrollment term. The article concludes with a list of suggestions to minimize student anxiety in an online course.

This article was useful in introducing activity theory to me; however I did expect it to be more focused on the specific writing challenges of ESL students in an online classroom. It was not evident from Zhang’s argument how ESL students were differentiated by activity theory from any other students. However, gaining insight into the different and sometimes unfathomable reasons why students sign up for classes and how motivation and learner agency can affect student performance in a class was worthwhile.  Remembering that student success or failure in a class may have nothing to do with the class itself, online or face-to-face is somewhat comforting to keep in mind for future classes, rather than internalizing the reasons why some students disappear from a class, or choose not to succeed.

Blog Post #1: ENG 824. Embedded Librarians in Online Classrooms

Kadavy, Casey, and Kim Chuppa-Cornell. "A Personal Touch: Embedding Library Faculty  
        into Online English 102." TETYC  39.1 (2011): 63-77. 

In an online English 102 classroom, Kadavy and Chuppa-Cornell point to the benefits of teaching online, but also view the challenges and increased feelings of isolation, both for students and faculty. Pointing specifically to the teaching of research, while also acclimating students to an online classroom, The authors note that students often resort to open web sources, unaware that library resources are readily available, as students are distanced from both physical and personal library presence.  To remedy this, they collaborated on embedding a librarian in their course through a “Personal Librarian” model. Studies examining students’ online search behavior explain that there is a “need for greater, not less, library instruction in the online environment” (64). Beginning researchers are “easily overwhelmed and confused” by the amount of information available to them as Alison Head, Director of Project Literacy stresses that while students may use and be familiar with the online environment, this “does not mean college-aged students are natural-born researchers” (quoted in Kadavy, 64).

An embedded librarian can provide research support to students, while offering point of need instruction through tutorials, discussion forums, and assignment feedback.  Kadavy and Chuppa-Cornell posit that students’ research needs are best served through personal contact within an online course.  By stressing that the Personal Librarian was “an ally in the researching process,” they were able to build personal librarian attention and library support into the online class that they felt was lacking from what students experienced in face-to-face classes (65). Modules of information literacy directly tied to the class content and assignments were created, while a Personal Librarian provided a consistent presence, offering feedback and support to the students. Short videos provided navigation and research help, depending on class needs. Student feedback was positive for this model as students learned about resources and gained skills that would help them in other classes. The students also showed a dramatic rise in their research abilities after implementing the Personal Embedded Librarian model, with a 24% increase in their knowledge of source quality and use of resources in their writing.

A personal or embedded librarian within a class is a familiar, but underutilized model. As the authors note, it relies on cooperation and collaboration between teaching faculty and librarians. This model can benefit students and faculty, as beginning courses often require research, but students do not always have these skills in their first year of college. My concern is that only brief mention is given in the article to the difficulty in making these connections with faculty and convincing them that embedding a librarian in a classroom is of direct benefit to the students. Problems in planning time, concerns about loss of authority, content coverage or even library staff available can be possible concerns.  However, none of these outweigh the potential benefits for students. Personal approaches using embedded librarians, with tiered information literacy skill-building and direct ties to the curriculum offer students the most opportunities for success, especially important in an online classroom where distance can often be isolating.