| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立高雄師範大學 === 英語學系 === 100 === The surge of technological advancements in computers has changed the face of second language teaching and learning. Language classrooms, which once emphasized grammar drills and rote memorization, have undergone extreme transformations, which now focus on interactional and social aspects. As a result, the growing popularity of implementing computer-mediated communication (CMC) has transpired in language classrooms. This wave of CMC has also brought about a great deal of research relating to its effectiveness. To date, there does not appear to be a comprehensive synthesis about the effects of CMC on second language writing. The purpose of this paper was to report the findings during the period 1990 through 2011 on the effects of CMC on second language writing. Consequently, the overall efficacy of CMC on second language writing can addressed by calculating and aggregating effect size d values.
This research employed quantitative meta-analysis approaches to investigate the overall efficacy of CMC on L2 writing. A total of 30 studies, which included journal articles, doctoral dissertations, master’s theses, and conference papers, were retrieved through extensive literature searches and the inclusion and exclusion processes. Furthermore, an effect size coding process was used to extract essential statistical data to estimate the effect sizes from the included studies. These effect sizes were analyzed with the fixed effects model, and then they were analyzed with the random effects model to reconfirm the findings of the previous model. The fixed effects model produced an overall medium–sized effect (Cohen’s d = 0.59), while the random effects model resulted in a fairly large medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.77). Hence, it indicates that CMC is a potential pedagogical tool to employ in L2 writing classes. Nonetheless, it was noted that the estimated effect sizes of the 30 included studies were not homogeneous. That is to say, sampling error could not be an explanation for the variance among these effect sizes. In order to identify these sources of variance, the analog of analysis of variance was conducted on 10 study-level variables. From this analysis, the six potential moderators indentified as sources of variance were activity, student grouping arrangement, treatment duration, publication type, CMC mode, and publication year. Lastly, the SCMC mode appeared to be more beneficial for instructors to employ in the L2 writing classroom than the ACMC mode. However, it should also be employed with other curriculum designs for optimal effects for L2 learners, such as using a type of instant messenger, arranging students in small groups of two to five people, doing the activities during class time, and creating a CMC L2 writing course for at least 11 weeks and more.
In the end, some contributions of employing CMC in L2 writing class rooms and quantitative met-analysis were gathered from this study. First, this study’s findings were somewhat paralleled to and supported the findings of a previous quantitative meta-analysis conducted on the overall effects of SCMC in SLA (Lin, 2011). Second, some pedagogical implications were highlighted to assist instructors who are interested in using CMC in their writing class. For example, CMC may be a supporting pedagogical tool in the L2 writing classrooms, the ACMC mode is just as effective in enhancing L2 learners’ writing performance, and it would be best to design a CMC writing course that is longer than ten weeks. Third, some limitations of this study included publication bias, lack of available studies, and some approximate effect size values as they had to be hand calculated. Last, some suggestions were noted to direct future research in CMC on L2 writing and meta-analysis, such as doing teamwork in meta-analysis studies and searching for more studies to be included.
|
|---|
