You are on page 1of 27

Education Tech Research Dev (2015) 63:645–670

DOI 10.1007/s11423-015-9379-4

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The effects of collaborative models in second life


on French learning

Indy Y. T. Hsiao1 • Stephen J. H. Yang1 • Chu Chia-Jui2

Published online: 20 June 2015


 Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015

Abstract French is the ninth most widely used language globally, but French-learning
environments in Taiwan have been insufficient. Language acquisition is easier in a natural
setting, and so such a setting should be available to language learners wherever possible.
This study aimed to (1) create an authentic environment for learning French in Second Life
(SL), and then (2) determine the effects of different collaborative models on learners’
French performance and their perceptions about learning French. Twenty-three college
students participated in the study. They were asked to collaboratively execute tasks
involving the creation of French-language movies in SL. Both the movies produced by the
participants and the collaborative processes were collected and analyzed, with the results
indicating that the students adopted different collaborative models that led to different
learning outcomes. Three types of collaborative models were identified: context-inclusive
collaboration, context-exclusive collaboration, and context-exclusive centralization. The
results also indicated that the context-inclusive collaboration model had positive impacts
on students’ speaking capability and other aspects of their learning performance, and at the
same time facilitated the effects of collaboration on how the students performed.

Keywords Second life  Context-based learning  Collaborative learning  Learning


French

& Stephen J. H. Yang


jhyang@csie.ncu.edu.tw
Chu Chia-Jui
rosechu@mail.tku.edu.tw
1
Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Central University,
No. 300, Jhongda Rd., Jhongli City, Taoyuan County 32001, Taiwan
2
Department of French, Tamkang University, No.151, Yingzhuan Rd., Tamsui Dist.,
New Taipei City 25137, Taiwan

123
646 I. Y. T. Hsiao et al.

Introduction

French is considered to be one of the most beautiful languages in the world, and UNESCO
statistics indicate that the French-speaking population constitutes the ninth largest among all
languages. The number of French speakers exceeds 0.2 billion (statistics from http://www.
quid.fr/francophonie) worldwide, representing more than 2.5 % of the total population and
with these speakers residing across five continents. In Taiwan more than 15,000 students learn
French in high schools, universities, and language centers, with French being the second most
popular foreign language chosen as an elective course by high-school students.
Even though French is a world language, Taiwan’s foreign-language education has been
mainly focused on the teaching of English, and the environment provided for learning
French is insufficient domestically (Kuo 2010). According to the theory of second-lan-
guage acquisition, Krashen (1981) stated that language learning occurs best in a natural
setting. Hence, it is important that an appropriate setting is provided for language learning,
such as can be found in IVWs (Immersive Virtual Worlds) that offer virtual simulation
environments in which learners can become immersed and left with an impression of
actively experiencing the setting; this enhances learning performance, efficacy, and sat-
isfaction (Bulu 2012; Witmer and Singer 1998).
Lave and Wenger (1991) used the term ‘‘situated learning’’ to describe how knowledge
learning is constructed by the learning process interacting with the environment in which it
occurs. This model is beneficial for enhancing the learning process and experience (Efe
et al. 2011), while a realistic 3D setting is beneficial for situated learning, since learners
can truly feel the sense of place, which enhances the learning efficacy (Bellotti et al. 2010;
Slater et al. 2009). Many researches have focused on situated English learning whereas few
have focused on situated French learning, which makes it worthwhile to investigate if
situated French learning has the same effect as situated English learning. Second Life (SL)
is a multiuser virtual environment that is the most widely used by educational institutions
and educators (Warburton 2009) due to its high flexibility and expandability features,
which allow educators to design situated learning environments that provide learners with
realistic learning settings (Chow et al. 2012).
Reading French is easier to learn in the classroom than are listening comprehension and
speaking skills (https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/SFLPT/report/%E5%9C%8B%E5%85%A7%
E6%B3%95%E8%AA%9E%E5%88%9D%E5%AD%B8%E9%9A%8E%E6%AE%B5%
E6%95%99%E5%AD%B8%E7%8F%BE%E6%B3%81%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%A5%
E8%88%87%E5%AD%B8%E7%BF%92%E6%88%90%E6%9E%9C%E5%88%86%E6%
9E%90.pdf). Foreign languages are conventionally taught in Taiwanese classrooms with a
focus on listening, reading, and writing, with there being insufficient opportunities for for-
eign-language learners to enhance their speaking capabilities, or to use foreign language as a
communication tool. This has resulted in the speaking skills of learners of a foreign language
generally being worse than theirs skills in reading and writing (Yang et al. 2012, 2013).
Previous studies have focused on English teaching, and teaching English is more common
than teaching French in Taiwan. It is therefore worth investigating if learning French has the
same problems and outcomes as teaching English. Vygotsky (1978) stressed that interper-
sonal interactions are necessary to strengthen the effects of learning, and opportunities for this
can be facilitated by collaborative learning for foreign-language learning. Collaborative
learning involves dividing students into pairs or small groups to complete certain learning
tasks through interacting with others (Andreas et al. 2010; Barkley et al. 2004).

123
The effects of collaborative models in second life… 647

Based on second-language acquisition theory, Long and Crookes (1992) suggested that
giving ‘‘learning tasks’’ to students helped them to learn and use the language naturally as they
completed the assigned tasks. One such approach, called task-based learning (TBL), was
proposed by Willis (1996) with the aim of enabling learners to complete certain meaningful
tasks using the target language, and hence construct knowledge and develop language skills.
This has led to some educators applying TBL in SL (Bellotti et al. 2010; Lan et al. 2013).
Considering the above-described factors, the present study chose SL as a platform for
French teaching, and it was hypothesized that combining TBL and CL would strengthen
the speaking capability of the learners. The perceptions of these students about their
learning experience were also investigated. This study recorded a series of French-learning
processes with the aim of determining the collaborative models that the students adopted
when conducting TBL learning in SL, and their impacts on the learning of French.
Rose (2012) defined context-based learning (CBL) as a pedagogical methodology that
focuses on the belief that a specific context is the key to obtaining and processing
knowledge of the learning environment and the real situation. Rose pointed out that this
method has the advantage that the learning environment is conducive to internalizing
knowledge because it is connected to real-life experiences of the learner. In addition, CBL
improves the confidence and independence of learners through their active participation
and social collaboration (Rose 2012). Since the present research aimed to determine how
collaborated learning influences the attitudes of learners, and the instrument used in this
study (SL) provides a real environment, it is considered to be context-based research. Thus,
we analyzed three types of collaborative models based on the theories of CBL and col-
laboration. Based on whether the learning activities are relevant to the contexts in SL, they
were divided into context-inclusion and context-exclusion: the former occurs when the
students’ discussion and videos are linked with the SL contexts, while the latter occurs
when there are no discussions in SL or no contexts relevant to those in SL.
The following research questions were addressed in this study based on three types of
collaborative models—context-inclusive collaboration (CICO), context-exclusive collab-
oration (CECO), and context-exclusive centralization (CECE):
(1) How these three types of collaborative models influence the learning performance of
students.
(2) How these three types of collaborative models influence how students perceive the
SL-based TBL activity.

Literature review

Language teaching in SL

In recent years the amount of research on language teaching using SL has been increasing
rapidly, mainly due to SL offering a learning environment that can simulate real settings
for foreign-language and second-language learners, resulting in them becoming more
actively involved in language learning activities (Lan et al. 2013). Learners receiving
language education in SL can undertake various learning tasks to engage in meaningful
interactions, enhance their language capabilities, and express themselves properly. It has
been suggested that using SL in combination with assistive tools will increase commu-
nication opportunities among learners (Jauregi and Canto 2012; Wang et al. 2009). Jauregi
and Canto (2012) also stated that SL offers an interesting and useful learning environment

123
648 I. Y. T. Hsiao et al.

for foreign-language teaching, since this particular combination of learning environment


and designed tasks not only enhances the learning motivation for foreign-language learners
and their willingness to communicate, but it also reduces their anxiety about speaking
foreign languages (Jauregi and Canto 2012). Language learning strategies are helpful for
language learning (Liu and Chu 2010); these include situated language teaching, the total
physical response method, cooperative language learning, and TBL. Bellotti et al. (2010)
applied these methods to teaching in the SL environment with the aim of improving the
learning experience of learners.

Task-based learning

TBL was developed in the 1980s, and was further promoted by Prabhu, an Indian educator
of languages, who claimed that TBL emphasized the acquisition and application of lan-
guage skills when undertaking learning tasks (Prabhu 1987). In 1999, Foster summarized
various perspectives of linguists on TBL, and concluded that ‘‘…giving learners tasks to
transact, rather than items to learn, provides an environment which best promotes the
natural language learning process’’ (Foster 1999). TBL is defined as a teaching method in
which teachers give learners one or more learning tasks that facilitate learning while the
tasks are performed. The TBL method enables learners to use the target language, develop
language skills, and stay motivated in the learning process (Bellotti et al. 2010), and a
sense of achievement can also be attained when the task is completed.
Willis (1996) considered that the following three-stage framework should be followed
when employing TBL:
1. The pretask stage: In this stage, teachers assign a task to learners and give detailed
explanations. Students need to familiarize themselves with vocabularies, phrases,
grammar, and sentence patterns concerning this task. Some linguists have also stressed
the importance of teachers fully explaining the task in the pretask stage, and
recommend giving directions using task samples (Dörnyei 2001; Lee 2000).
2. The task-cycle stage: In this stage, teachers divide the learners into multiple groups
according to the course materials designed, and the learners undertake the task
assigned to the group they are in. They are expected to apply the vocabularies, phrases,
grammar, and sentence patterns learned in the pretask stage to complete the task, and
finally deliver the results to the other groups involved in a certain format. In this stage
teachers only play a supervisory role by passively assisting learners in undertaking
tasks without active interference; however, they can offer appropriate guidance about
the learners’ performance once they have delivered their results.
3. The language-focus stage: In this stage, teachers and learners should discuss language-
related problems that they experienced while undertaking the task, such as grammar
mistakes, errors in sentence structure, and mispronunciations. Teachers will correct these
problems and ask learners to keep the applicable rules in mind so as to enhance their overall
language proficiency. There are three teaching objectives in this stage: (1) providing
learners with the opportunities to present their performance of the task completed, (2)
encouraging learners to reflect on their performance, and (3) encouraging learners to take
note of and correct the problems they encountered during the task (Ellis, 2006).
There have been numerous researches on TBL in SL (Deutschmann et al. 2009; Jauregi
and Canto 2012; Lan et al. 2013), but few have focused on role-play-based video pro-
duction. Jauregi and Canto (2012) also used TBL in SL and utilized a role-playing task.
The preliminary results showed that SL can indeed contribute to meaningful language

123
The effects of collaborative models in second life… 649

conversation, resulting in students being more willing to communicate in a foreign lan-


guage. The results of that research indicated that SL was a suitable platform to use in the
present study. However, Jauregi and Canto (2012) focused on exploring the added value of
implementing virtual interaction through SL in language teaching curricula, and did not
investigate the reasons behind the added value. Therefore, one aim of the present study was
to identify the factors that contribute to meaningful language conversation and the desire to
communicate in a foreign language.
A few researches have also explored the relationships between collaborative tasks and
oral performance. Lan et al. (2013) discovered that using TBL to learn Chinese in SL
improved the students’ oral performance and interactions. Their results showed that using
TBL in SL may help to improve speaking skills, but the impact of student collaboration
was not explored. However, Deutschmann et al. (2009) designed activities for English oral
participation in SL, and their results seem to indicate that using a meaning-focused task,
which involves authenticity and collaborative elements, has a direct impact on learner
participation and engagement. This is why the present study aimed to understand the
impact of collaborative learning on oral performance utilizing a task-based approach in SL.
Thus, the results of this study can make up for this deficiency of previous work.

Collaborative learning

From the perspective of teaching, collaborative learning encourages learners to engage in


the learning process and construct knowledge using their own individual strengths,
enabling them to gain a deep understanding and develop language skills (Jara et al. 2009).
The techniques of collaborative learning can be broadly grouped into the following five
types (Barkley et al. 2004), while these techniques can be independently employed or used
as a combination based on expected goals:
1. Discussion: Learners engage in interpersonal interactions and interchanges through
oral communications. Chou (2011) found that students needed to discuss with their
partners while preparing for group oral presentations, and that the resulting
collaboration improved their English speaking ability.
2. Reciprocal teaching: Olteanu et al. (2014) found that learners assisted each other in
learning the course material and developing skills.
3. Problem-solving: Lan et al. (2013) applied cooperative problem-solving techniques to
learners in a cognition, usage, and expansion model.
4. Graphic information organizing: Groups used visualizable tools and messages in the
study of Cheng (2014).
5. Writing: Learning vital course materials and skills through writing. The studies by
Guasch et al. (2010) and Olteanu et al. (2014) used writing in collaborative activities.
Collaborative learning in virtual worlds such as SL can reduce inhibition among
learners and increase their social interactions (Meadows 2007). SL is currently one of the
most widely used 3D virtual platforms by education practitioners globally. De Lucia et al.
(2009) suggested that SL can provide a real-time, low-cost cooperative learning setting for
learners. In addition to offering a virtual environment to its users, SL is also known for its
high degrees of flexibility and scalability (Kaplan and Haenlein 2009). Each SL user can
own his/her space independently in SL (known as an ‘‘island’’), and practitioners in the
education field can tailor education programs to fit their needs. Many studies have focused
on collaborative learning using SL; for example, a group at Università degli Studi di
Salerno (University of Salerno) in Italy used SL to create an environment that enables

123
650 I. Y. T. Hsiao et al.

cooperative learning (De Lucia et al. 2009). A group at Aristotle University of Thessa-
loniki in Greece studied the effects of SL on cooperative learning, and found that SL can be
an effective tool for socializing (Andreas et al. 2010). A group at Linnaeus University in
Sweden built a learning environment for students to fully interact with each other through
SL to explore whether communication using online avatars is beneficial to cooperative
learning (Petrakou 2010). Peterson (2010a) confirmed that SL provides an environment for
students to learn target language collaboratively. His study showed that scenarios and
assignments performed within the SL environment motivated learner-centered and active
participation. Because of the student-centered activity used in the present study, SL was
considered an appropriate platform for the research.
Collaborative learning is greatly dependent on interactions among learners and their
interactions with the environment (Andreas et al. 2010), and so using an environment such
as SL as a platform for communication should facilitate collaborative learning. Therefore,
the present study wanted to enhance the French proficiency of students using collaborative
learning and use a different way to improve students’ oral abilities by collaborative
learning French through the production of videos in SL.
Based on the results of Arvaja (2011) and Linell (1998), the notion of contextual
resources can be used as a type of tool to observe collaborative activities and thus understand
how students make use of them and how these contextual resources help the students to carry
out collaborative activities. Thus, the present study observed how the students collaborated,
in terms of whether they were context-inclusive or context-exclusive.

Methodology

Participants

The subjects of this study comprised 23 students (21 females and 2 males) attending a
private university in northern Taiwan. These students took a French conversation course in
the second semester of the 2012 academic year, and they were divided into six groups (five
groups of four people each and one group of three people) by their teacher to conduct the
learning program. Each group contained at least one high-achieving student and one low-
achieving student, with the former able to guide the low-achieving ones so as to elevate the
performance of the low achievers. All of the groups were expected to achieve similar
average performance levels. The academic achievement was evaluated based on end-of-
term grades in the last semester.

Research method

This study adopted a qualitative approach to analyze how using different collaborative
models influenced the students’ learning performance when they were producing videos.
Video production was selected as the learning task because it required the writing of a
script and a rehearsal: the script writing gave the students the opportunity to practice using
vocabulary and phrases, while the rehearsals performed before shooting the video required
the students to repeatedly practice using the dialogue learnt in SL. Videos of SL usage and
chat history (including that of local chat, instant messages, and Facebook chat) recorded
the discussions and conditions as the task was performed. The interview record was used to
obtain feedback from the students about this learning program.

123
The effects of collaborative models in second life… 651

Instruments

Learning platform

The study used the SL 3D virtual world as the main learning platform. A virtual French
landscape (shown in Fig. 1) was designed based on the objectives of the French teacher
and the course materials. The Linden Scripting Language was used to write programs, and
learning aids were provided to assist in learning French and the production of a video.
Students then logged into SL to find suitable scenes for their French conversations (Fig. 2),
and recorded the screen and sounds during the practice. The students first logged into SL
while running the Fraps software (http://www.fraps.com/) so that what was seen and heard
in SL could be recorded. They then used PowerDirector (http://tw.cyberlink.com/products/
powerdirector-ultra/) to edit the videos. Also, technical assistants recorded the entire
activities of students in SL to facilitate further observations, with the chat history of each
group being analyzed.

Learning content

Based on the teaching material of a French conversation course offered by the teacher, we
constructed a 3D virtual setting featuring French landscaping in SL, combined with TBL
theory, to design a 6-week-long French-learning task. The French teachers first provided
related knowledge instruction in a traditional classroom setting in three lessons: an inquiry
about a travel agency, a time inquiry, and purchasing tickets at a train station.

TBL activity design

The procedure of the video-based experiment in this study was based on the framework of
the three-stage TBL theory developed by Willis (1996). The course content was designed
according to teaching material provided by the French teachers. Figure 3 shows a flow
chart of the learning activity.
In the pretask stage, the teacher spent 3 days instructing students in a traditional
classroom about the vocabulary, phrases, grammar, and sentence patterns related to the
task, the aim of the task, the methods of performing, and the expected results. The teacher

Fig. 1 A virtual French landscape in SL

123
652 I. Y. T. Hsiao et al.

Fig. 2 Screen capture of the SL learning program

Fig. 3 Flow chart of the learning


activity

then divided the students into six groups, each containing a mixture of high- and low-
achieving students based on their end-of-term grades in the last semester. Next, technical
assistants taught the students how to use SL and to shoot videos. The students were given
7 days to master the skills required to finish the task before the second stage. This stage
took 10 days in total.
In the task-cycle stage, the teacher assigned tasks to students and asked them to search
for information, discuss the video script, and make the video themselves within 15 days
after the classwork had ended. Students had to use SL in order to find suitable scenes for
their French conversations and then record their role-playing. The teacher was not involved
in the student-centered discussions.
The teacher, a teaching assistant, and students spent 2 h watching and discussing the
task videos together in the language-focus stage. The teacher and the teaching assistant
made comments to the students about the videos and corrected vocabulary, phrasing, and
grammar errors in the videos in order to improve their French proficiency.

123
The effects of collaborative models in second life… 653

The students were then interviewed about their experiences of and impressions about
the teaching curriculum 1 week after the language-focus stage.

Interview

After the course had been completed, we interviewed the 23 subjects who participated in
the study as well as the teacher to explore their learning experiences and their perceptions
about the course. They are interviewed to obtain their feedback about SL and the overall
French course, their satisfaction with their interactions with other group members, and the
presentation manner of the video-production task. The whole interview was documented
and audio-recorded. We first transcribed all of the interview data. Next, based on the
following three features, we divided the students’ responses into positive and negative
categories in order to determine if the students found it user-friendly to carry out tasks in
SL: (1) the benefits of this program, in terms of whether it helped in carrying out group
work, and whether it enhanced their grammar and oral communication abilities; (2) the
affective perceptions, in terms of how the students felt about the program; and (3) the user
experience, in terms of whether the students found it user-friendly to carry out tasks in SL.
All of the data were coded and analyzed.

Rubrics

The rubrics used for evaluating the videos consisted of five dimensions: conformity to the
work requirement, plot-setting fit, video content, sentence structure, and pronunciation.
These rubrics were adopted since the video-production task required the students to write a
script and practice oral communication. Additionally, since rubrics have been practiced for
years and have been well-received, they serve as the standard for the evaluation of
learners’ assignments, projects, and research papers, and they are generally recognized as
being suitable for evaluations in the education field (Andrade, 2000). Some dimensions
were adapted from the approaches of Andrade et al. (2009), Saddler and Andrade (2004),
and East (2009), and the oral evaluation standards adopted in the present study were
developed by The International English Language Testing System (http://www.chinaielts.
org/downloads/UOBDs_SpeakingFinal.pdf) with some additional items, such as the sen-
tence patterns, pronunciations, appropriateness, and contents outline in the video. We also
sought advice from an experienced French teacher, and had the evaluation chart reviewed
many times by an expert in the field of language education to ensure that all of the items
listed were correctly and completely presented. The advice provided by these teachers
resulted in the addition of the following three items: (1) appropriateness, to evaluate
whether the setting selected by the students matched the plots, and thus examining how
much they were immersed into SL; (2) consistency, to evaluate whether the students could
produce uniform writings; and (3) creativity and video effects, to evaluate how much effort
the students put into the work.
The study adopted these rubrics to evaluate the students’ performance when producing
videos, with the evaluation being carried out by two French teachers who were not
involved in the teaching of any of the participants. Both of these teachers repeatedly
watched the videos produced by the students and marked them based on the rubrics, with
their assessments being completed within 1 month of the experiments ending. Each
dimension was evaluated on a scale from 1 to 4 points, with a score of 4 indicating the
highest performance. The scores for all items were summed to provide the final score for

123
654 I. Y. T. Hsiao et al.

each group, with a higher score indicating that that group had performed better. A detailed
description of the standard used in the video evaluations is provided in ‘‘Appendix’’.

Results

Collaborative models adopted by students in the 3D situated TBL learning


program

The learning task performed by each group was evaluated by French teachers who had not
participated in the program using the rubrics provided in ‘‘Appendix’’. To explore how
different collaborative models influence the effects of learning, we analyzed the recordings
of the SL interactions and the interviews to understand the way that students performed
tasks after the learning program. We then divided them into various types that were
subsequently compared.
Based on the video-context consistency, video presentation methods, and the dis-
cussion types, we separated the students into the three types of the collaborative models:
CICO contained two groups with a total of eight people, CECO contained two groups
with a total of seven people, and CECE contained two groups with a total of eight
people. Figure 4 shows a diagram with the video context consistency defined as the
vertical axis and the presentation methods and discussion types defined as the horizontal
axis. The figure reflects that we did not find a context-inclusive centralization model in
the results, which is probably because the students found it challenging to complete a
task that matched the context within the given time when they worked alone. In addition,
the difference between being context-inclusive and context-exclusive—according to the
present study—is whether the contents in the videos and the discussions are highly
relevant to the context. Although some students are considered to have performed
context-inclusive collaboration, most of them are considered to have performed context-
exclusive collaboration. This means that it was unlikely that the context-inclusive cen-
tralization model was used.

Fig. 4 Three types of collaborative models based on video-context consistency and collaboration

123
The effects of collaborative models in second life… 655

In the video-production process, CICO emphasized teamwork with all members gath-
ered together to discuss and work on the script and video-creation process in SL; the end
product was thus highly consistent with its context. Teamwork was also a vital feature for
CECO; however, it was used only in script discussions and when members attended the
video shooting. In CECO, video shooting started after the script had been finalized in the
group discussions. The video was shot based on a previously developed script that had not
subsequently been adjusted to the different environment of SL, and this resulted in the
video having lower video-context consistency. Lastly, teamwork was absent from CECE
since the process was directed by one member who wrote the script and who later con-
vened other members for video shooting in SL. Everyone followed his/her directions for
video shooting and production. Since the script had been written before the actual shooting
began, the video produced using this model did not exhibit a high context consistency. The
features of the three types of collaborative models are presented in Table 1.

Impacts of different collaborative models adopted by students to learn French


in the 3D situated TBL learning process

Basing on the qualitative data obtained during interviews conducted by the French teacher,
it was found that the students’ oral communication, listening, and writing skills had
improved. A part of the interview transcript is provided below.
Interviewer V2: Was the students’ French oral communication skill enhanced after the
learning program?
French teacher: Judging from my and the teaching assistant’s observations for a month
after the activity, we found that the students’ performance had been enhanced. They tended
to review the conversations by using Second Life. Also, they tended to express themselves
more through various word choices and sentence patterns. They have been more willing to
try using different patterns not taught in the class but learnt from the Internet.
Interviewer V2: Was there any positive influence on students’ French listening, reading,
and writing skills?

Table 1 Features of the three types of collaborative models


CICO CECO CECE

Video-context High Moderate Low


consistency
Video All members gathered together Video shooting started Directed by one member who
presentation to discuss and work on the after the script had wrote the script, who later
methods script and the video- been finalized in the convened other members
production procedure in SL group discussions for role assignment,
rehearsal, and video
shooting in SL
Discussion Face-to-face discussions, Face-to-face Directed by one member, with
types online discussions using discussions, and no discussions
Facebook and Skype, and online discussions
discussions in the SL virtual using Facebook and
setting Skype

123
656 I. Y. T. Hsiao et al.

French teacher: Obviously yes. Some low-achieving students have started to understand
what is going on in the class. In terms of their writing skills, I found that they have been
more willing to use various words and sentence patterns, although they make some errors.
However, since the usage of Second Life focuses on enhancing oral skills, it may take a
while to expand oral skills to writing skills.
To explore how different learning models impacted on learning French, the study
evaluated the video-production performance of each group based on collaborative models
as demonstrated in Table 2. Each score in the table is the mean value for the groups with
the same collaborative model. The scores in the evaluations ranged from 1 to 4 points, with
a score of 4 indicating the highest performance.
Table 2 indicates that the performances for CICO were evidently better in every aspect
than those for CECO and CECE. Except for the ‘‘plot-setting fit,’’ which fell between
CICO and CECE, other performances for CECO were similar to that for CECE, while the
‘‘sentence structure’’ item received the lowest scores, especially because grammar cor-
rectness was scored lower than the other two learning models and thus reduced the overall
score for sentence structure. The subcategory of video ‘‘sound effects’’ received a score of
only 1.3 points. The scores for CECE were lowest for plot-setting fit and video content; the
‘‘relevance of plot and setting’’ subcategory of the former item was especially lower than
for the other two models, and thus reduced the overall score, while the ‘‘conformity to
work requirement’’ subcategory of the latter item was clearly lower than for the other two

Table 2 Video evaluation scores


Item/scoring CICO CECO CECE

Plot-setting fit
Relevance of plot and setting 3.5 3.5 2.5
Logical transitions of scenes 3.3 2.5 2.5
Sub-average 3.4 3.0 2.5
Content
Conformity to work requirement 3.6 3.8 3.3
Structure 3.0 3.0 2.8
Creativity 2.8 2.5 2.5
Consistency of dialogues 3.0 2.8 2.8
Sound effects 3.0 1.3 1.5
Sub-average 2.6 2.2 2.1
Sentence structure
Difficulty of vocabularies used 2.6 2.0 2.1
Complexity of sentence patterns 2.3 2.0 1.9
Correctness of grammar mode, tone/female or male, singular or plural, 2.6 2.0 2.1
propositions, pronouns, relative pronouns
Sub-average 2.5 2.0 2.1
Pronunciation
Enunciation 2.9 2.3 2.5
Fluency 2.9 2.5 2.4
Sub-average 2.9 2.4 2.4

123
The effects of collaborative models in second life… 657

models, and thus reduced the overall score. In addition, ‘‘complexity of sentence patterns’’
in the sentence-structure category scored only 1.9 points, while sound effects scored only
1.5 points.
SPSS software (version 20) was used to analyze the collected data. The results obtained
in one-way ANOVA for the video scoring are presented in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The
total score differed significantly between the three types of collaborative models
(F = 82.808, p \ .05), being higher for CICO (mean = 2.84) than for CECO
(mean = 2.39), and higher for CECO than for CECE (mean = 2.33). The score for plot-
setting fit also differed significantly between the three types of collaborative models
(F = 3.635, p \ .05), being much higher for CICO (mean = 3.38) than for CECE
(mean = 2.50). The pronunciation score differed markedly between the three types of
collaborative models (F = 9.965, p \ .05), being higher for CICO (mean = 2.91) than for
CECE (mean = 2.44), and higher for CECE than for CECO (mean = 2.41). The score for
video content differed significantly between the three types of collaborative models
(F = 20.637, p \ .05), being higher for CICO (mean = 3.08) than for CECO
(mean = 2.64), and higher for CECO than for CECE (mean = 2.55). Finally, the score for
sentence structure also differed significantly between the three types of collaborative
models (F = 73.718, p \ .05), being higher for CICO (mean = 2.48) than for CECE
(mean = 2.07), and higher for CECE than for CECO (mean = 2.01).

Perceptions of different collaborative models adopted by students learning


French in the 3D situated TBL learning process

How students’ collaborative learning differences affected their perceptions about learning
French was determined; the present study numbers and the results of analyses of the
student interviews are presented in Table 8. Perceptions were classified into those related
to learning benefits, affective perceptions, and the user interface. Each of these subcate-
gories accounted for a percentage of all of the perceptions, as quantified below.
The negative feedback received from the students primarily related to time pressure,
anxiety, and feeling troubled (26.24 %); for example, ‘‘I had to discuss with classmates in
SL within a limited time. The time was kind of short, but there were many things to do.’’
Operating the user interface was another problem (21.98 %); for example, ‘‘…It was kind
of abrupt to use SL, and I was not accustomed to the operation. It took more time to learn.’’
The students also gave positive feedback about this curriculum, such as about it providing
more opportunities to speak French with peers. They were able to repeatedly practice and
correct each other, which was helpful for their speaking (26.95 %); for example, ‘‘We can

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the rubrics and pronunciation


Group Rubrics Pronunciation

Mean SD Mean SD

CICO (N = 8) 2.84 .09 2.91 .17


CECO (N = 7) 2.39 .00 2.41 .20
CECE (N = 8) 2.33 .12 2.44 .34
CICO context-inclusive collaboration, CECO context-exclusive collaboration, CECE context-exclusive
centralization

123
658 I. Y. T. Hsiao et al.

Table 4 Descriptive statistics of the plot-setting fit, content, and sentence structure
Group Plot-setting fit Content Sentence structure

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

CICO (N = 8) 3.38 .13 3.08 .24 2.48 .10


CECO (N = 7) 3.04 .27 2.64 .05 2.01 .07
CECE (N = 8) 2.50 1.07 2.55 .16 2.07 .07
CICO context-inclusive collaboration, CECO context-exclusive collaboration, CECE context-exclusive
centralization

Table 5 Test of homogeneity of


Levene Statistic df1 df2 Significance
variances
Rubrics 2
Pronunciation 243.202 2 20 .000
Plot-setting fit 4063.062 2 20 .000
Content 3313.859 2 20 .000
Sentence Structure 32.609 2 20 .000

Table 6 ANOVA of the rubrics, pronunciation, plot-setting fit, content, and sentence structure
SS df MS F Post hoc

Rubrics
Between groups 1.226 2 .613 82.808* CICO [ CECO,CICO [ CECE
Within groups .148 20 .007
Total 1.374 22
Pronunciation
Between groups 1.216 2 .608 9.965* CICO [ CECO,CICO [ CECE
Within groups 1.221 20 .061
Total 2.437 22
Plot-setting fit
Between groups 3.109 2 1.555 3.635* CICO [ CECE
Within groups 8.554 20 .428
Total 11.663 22
Content
Between groups 1.243 2 .621 20.637* CICO [ CECO,CICO [ CECE
Within groups .602 20 .030
Total 1.845 22
Sentence structure
Between groups 1.014 2 .507 73.718* CICO [ CECO,CICO [ CECE
Within groups .138 20 .007
Total 1.152 22
* p \ .05

123
The effects of collaborative models in second life… 659

Table 7 Post-hoc Tukey honestly significant difference


Dependent variable Mean difference (I - J) Std. error Sig. 95 % Confidence interval

Lower bound Upper bound

Rubrics
CICO
CECO .45000* .04452 .000 .3374 .5626
CECE .51000* .04301 .000 .4012 .6188
CECO
CICO -.45000* .04452 .000 -.5626 -.3374
CECE .06000 .04452 .386 -.0526 .1726
CECE
CICO -.51000* .04301 .000 -.6188 -.4012
CECO -.06000 .04452 .386 -.1726 .0526
Pronunciation
CICO
CECO .49643* .12786 .003 .1729 .8199
CECE .47000* .12353 .003 .1575 .7825
CECO
CICO -.49643* .12786 .003 -.8199 -.1729
CECE -.02643 .12786 .977 -.3499 .2971
CECE
CICO -.47000* .12353 .003 -.7825 -.1575
CECO .02643 .12786 .977 -.2971 .3499
Plot-setting fit
CICO
CECO .33929 .33846 .584 -.5170 1.1956
CECE .87500* .32699 .037 .0477 1.7023
CECO
CICO -.33929 .33846 .584 -1.1956 .5170
CECE .53571 .33846 .276 -.3206 1.3920
CECE
CICO -.87500* .32699 .037 -1.7023 -.0477
CECO -.53571 .33846 .276 -1.3920 .3206
Content
CICO
CECO .43214* .08980 .000 .2049 .6593
CECE .52500* .08676 .000 .3055 .7445
CECO
CICO -.43214* .08980 .000 -.6593 -.2049
CECE .09286 .08980 .565 -.1343 .3201
CECE
CICO -.52500* .08676 .000 -.7445 -.3055
CECO -.09286 .08980 .565 -.3201 .1343

123
660 I. Y. T. Hsiao et al.

Table 7 continued

Dependent variable Mean difference (I - J) Std. error Sig. 95 % Confidence interval

Lower bound Upper bound

Sentence structure
CICO
CECO .47000* .04293 .000 .3614 .5786
CECE .41000* .04147 .000 .3051 .5149
CECO
CICO -.47000* .04293 .000 -.5786 -.3614
CECE -.06000 .04293 .361 -.1686 .0486
CECE
CICO -.41000* .04147 .000 -.5149 -.3051
CECO .06000 .04293 .361 -.0486 .1686

* p \ .05

Table 8 Numbering students’ interviews


Categories CICO CECO CECE

Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative

Benefits
Collaboration 6.38 % (9) .00 % (0) .00 % (0) .00 % (0) 2.84 % (4) .00 % (0)
Mastering 5.67 % (8) .00 % (0) .71 % (1) .00 % .00 % (0) 2.13 % (3) .00 % (0)
(0)
Speaking/ 2.84 % (4) .00 % (0) .00 % (0) .00 % .00 % (0) 6.38 % (9) .00 % (0)
vocabulary (0)
Summary 14.89 % .00 % (0) .71 % (1) .00 % .00 % (0) 11.35 % .00 % (0)
(21) (0) (16)
Affective
Attitude .71 % (1) 1.42 % 3.55 % (5) 1.42 % (2) 2.84 % (4) .71 % (1)
(2)
Anxiety 1.42 % (2) 6.38 % 2.13 % (3) 9.93 % 5.67 % (8) 6.38 %
(9) (14) (9)
Summary 2.13 % (3) 7.80 % 5.67 % (8) 11.35 % 8.51 % 7.09 %
(11) (16) (12) (10)
User interface
Usefulness 2.13 % (3) .00 % (0) 1.42 % (2) .00 % (0) 3.55 % (5) .00 % (0)
Satisfication 1.42 % (2) .00 % (0) .00 % (0) .00 % (0) .00 % (0) .00 % (0)
Ease of use .00 % (0) 9.22 % .00 % (0) 5.67 % (8) .00 % (0) 7.09 %
(13) (10)
Summary 3.55 % (5) 9.22 % 1.42 % (2) 5.67 % (8) 3.55 % (5) 7.09 %
(13) (10)
Percentages of each category
54.72 % 45.28 % 31.43 % 68.57 % 62.26 % 37.74 %

123
The effects of collaborative models in second life… 661

correct each others’ intonation and pronunciation in conversation’’ and ‘‘Repeated prac-
tices can enhance speaking, and I looked up vocabulary in order to write scripts.’’
Moreover, the students found SL interesting, refreshing, and natural for them to use,
enabling them to speak out (16.31 %); for example, ‘‘Unlike other games or social net-
working websites, SL is refreshing.’’ Additionally, SL gave the students a sense of
authenticity and achievement (8.52 %); for example, ‘‘In the SL virtual situation, I felt as if
I was truly in France, having more senses when practicing speaking.’’
The students’ negative affective perceptions did not vary much between the three types
of collaborative models, being slightly higher for CECO (11.35 %) than for CICO
(7.80 %) and CECE (7.09 %). The students’ perceptions differed mainly in the positive
feedback they provided. The students exhibited extremely diverse perceptions about
positive benefits and about positive affective perceptions between the three types of col-
laborative models. The students’ perceptions about positive benefits were 14.89, .71, and
11.35 % for CICO, CECO, and CECE, respectively; the corresponding values for their
positive affective perceptions were 2.13, 5.67, and 8.51 %. CECO was the only learning
model for which the positive affective perceptions of its category (31.43 %) were lower
than the negative affective perceptions of its category (68.57 %).
v2 tests revealed significant differences in the students’ perceptions between the three
types of collaborative models (p = .001; Table 9). These differences stemmed from the
students’ perceptions about positive benefits of CECO (.71 %), which was vastly lower
than for CICO (14.89 %) and CECO (11.35 %).

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to identify the collaborative models used by students
and the impacts of these different models on their learning of French in a 3D situated TBL
learning setting. This section explores the features of the learning models used by the
students—as summarized in the ‘‘Results’’ section—and their effects on the students’
learning performances and perceptions.
The context consistency, video production, and discussion types of CICO, CECO, and
CECE learning models used by the students were analyzed. To analyze the three types of
collaborative models in terms of the context consistency, CICO was the only one based on
CBL. The main differences between the other two models were in the methods of video
production and discussion types. CICO was the only model used in discussions in SL,
adjusting the script and shooting in accordance with the SL setting, so it had a much higher
contextual consistency than the other two models.
To analyze three types of collaborative models in terms of video production and dis-
cussion types, both CICO and CECO require teamwork to complete discussion and video

Table 9 v2 tests
Value df Asymptotic significance (two-sided)

Pearson v2 32.726a 12 .001


Likelihood ratio 37.589 12 .000
N of valid cases 282
a
Results of Chi-square analyses of students’ perceptions

123
662 I. Y. T. Hsiao et al.

production. The difference between CICO and CECO is that the former spontaneously
cultivates positive interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face interactions,
interpersonal and small-group skills, and group processing, which are the five cooperative
learning elements reported by Johnson and Johnson (Roger and Johnson 1994). The
authentic environment provided by SL allowed the students to have more diverse and
abundant interactions; for example, the interactivity of massively multiplayer online role-
playing games (MMORPG) promotes situated learning, and contributes to cooperation and
conversation, negotiation, and self-restoration (Peterson, 2010b). In our study we found
that the tasks of role-playing and video production in SL also have these functions, giving
students a sense of participation. By working together, students build stronger interpersonal
and teamwork skills.
Even though CECO also involves teamwork, it only achieves individual accountability
and promotes face-to-face interactions. Like CICO, CECO also promotes face-to-face
interactions, but only face-to-face discussions are possible, as well as online discussions
using Facebook or Skype, while in CICO the students can also perform discussions in the
SL setting. The authenticity of the environment provided by SL enables students to be fully
engaged in the task, thereby promoting and making the best use of teamwork. As a result,
CICO results in more tacit acknowledgment and solidarity among the students in a group.
Due to CECO not being better than CICO in terms of group maturity and interpersonal and
small-group skills, the collaborative learning performance of CECO is not as effective as
that of CICO (Johnson and Johnson, Roger and Johnson 1994).
CECE primarily involves leading by a single member, which corresponds to the lowest
amount of teamwork of the three types of collaborative models considered in this study.
Similar to CECO, CECE lacks group maturity as well as interpersonal and small-group
skills. Moreover, CECE makes it possible for certain students to benefit from the results
without them making equitable contributions. These factors all reflect the disadvantage of
collaborative learning that not everyone contributes equally. For example, one member
could perform most of the tasks himself, from script-writing to acting-teaching, if other
members are too busy to share the work, which also reflects that a more conscientious
student can end up performing an unfair proportion of the duties (Çelik et al. 2013;
Thornton 1999).

Impacts of different collaborative models adopted by students on their


performance in learning French

In this study it was found that CBL is significantly correlated with the performance of
learning French in terms of the following four aspects: plot-setting fit, video content,
sentence structure, and pronunciation. The finding of this research that CBL is helpful for
students’ pronunciation is consistent with Lan et al. (2013) suggesting that CBL can
facilitate speaking ability, and Jauregi and Canto (2012) indicating that utilizing SL for
contextualized-speaking research contributed to excellent achievement. The present
research also indicated that CBL is beneficial to sentence-structure correctness, including
the difficulty of the vocabularies used, the complexity of sentence patterns, and the
grammar correctness. The students in this study used more difficult words and a wider
variety of vocabulary and sentence patterns for CICO. Rankin et al. (2006) found that
students also increased their English vocabulary in an MMORPG, and that they improved
by interacting with the nonplayer characters. However, in the present study, the students
learned from the interactions between their avatars in the game. It is possible that CICO
involves additional communication and interaction in a virtual environment, so students

123
The effects of collaborative models in second life… 663

use more difficult and complicated words and sentences when writing scripts. In spite of
this, both results illustrate that CBL plays a critical role in language learning. Furthermore,
CBL is also crucial to plot-setting fit and video content. Since CBL is associated with the
setting in which it occurs, students perform better in logical transitions of scenes and
consistency of dialogues, exhibit more creativity, and use more appropriate sound effects
to fit the setting. In fact, CECO simply requires the students to talk face-to-face or to use
instant messaging. In addition, the videos were shot in SL after the scripts had been
finalized, and so these scripts did not match the SL setting. The students also tended to
choose an easier storyline that did not take the setting into consideration. Therefore, the
mean score for the sentence structure when using CECO was only 2.0, lower than the score
achieved (2.5) when using CICO, and even lower than the score achieved (2.1) when using
CECE, which had the same problem as CECO. Consequently, the students’ performances
for CICO were much better than those for the other two models that did not include CBL.
The results have shown that the students performed better when they were embodied in
the contexts. This finding is consistent with the results of four previous studies: Lan et al.
(2013) found that CBL facilitates students’ speaking ability; Jauregi and Canto (2012)
obtained excellent results when using SL with contextualized speaking; Rankin et al.
(2006) found that students’ knowledge of English vocabulary and conversational abilities
improved in a massively multiplayer online (MMO) learning context, which is similar to
the results of the present study; and Peterson (2010b) found that learning in the MMO
context also enhances the usage of collaborative dialog, negotiation, and self-repair.
The results of the present study indicate that the overall performances for two collab-
orative models, CICO and CECO, are superior to those for centralization (CECE), which is
consistent with Chou (2011) and Zeng and Takatsuka (2009) reporting that the collabo-
rative model is helpful for language learning. The difference between them is that in the
present study the use of the collaborative model was only clearly correlated with plot-
setting fit, and partially correlated with video content (and not very obviously in most
items), which indicates that not all types of collaborative models are beneficial to speaking
and sentence structure. Chou (2011) and Zahedi (2012) found that the collaborative model
is helpful for speaking, where this was only the case for CICO in the present study, which
clearly highlights that situated cooperative learning has this effect. Besides, Jamshidnejad
(2011) pointed out that the use of specific communication strategies in second-language
exchanges broadened the language horizons of the participants. The communication
strategies used for CICO by the students in the present study were consistent with the
settings in which they were applied, which possibly encouraged them to use more language
knowledge and lexicons that were not included in their textbooks. The student interviews
indicated that most of them considered that repeated practices and mutual correction in this
situation contributed to the enhancement of their speaking ability, which correlates with
their video-production scores. However, since CECO does not involve mutual reliance and
interpersonal and small-group skills, students are not able to practice repeatedly, correct
each other, and improve speaking. In their interviews they reported that they did not
consider that this would have helped them in speaking and sentence structure.

Impacts of different collaborative models adopted by students on their


perceptions about the French-learning activity

The present study indicates that both CBL and collaborative learning positively affect stu-
dents’ perceptions about the benefits of repeated practices and mutual corrections on speaking
ability enhancement. In CBL, since the motivating context promotes beneficial interactions in

123
664 I. Y. T. Hsiao et al.

the target language (Peterson, 2010b), the repeated practices and mutual corrections in CICO
can greatly enhance students’ speaking abilities. Moreover, CICO applies a good collabo-
rative model. Students who adopted CICO indicated that cooperation with other members
was very helpful—it not only increased their opportunities to practice speaking, but also
reduced the task burden, and therefore yielded the best learning outcomes.
However, teamwork can also negatively influence students’ learning due to factors such as
individual differences, emotional factors, divergence, and deadlines (Chou, 2011). The student
interviews performed in this study revealed a large divergence in the students’ perceptions of
CECO. Moreover, they considered it difficult to find the collective time for everyone. Thus,
individual differences, divergence, and deadlines can influence CECO, and further affect the
achievements possible from collaborative learning. The suggestion of needing the teacher’s
guidance in CECO accounted for the largest proportion of opinions, which explains that the
students need a person to guide them and help them negotiate with each other.
For CECE, despite the students generally providing positive feedback about their perceptions
of the benefits brought by repeated practices and mutual correction on speaking ability
enhancement, this was not reflected in their learning performances. This is because the positive
feedback is given by the leaders, who were the only beneficiaries of the activities. Students’
perceptions about benefits were negatively correlated with the number of suggestions; that is,
students had fewer suggestions about activities that they considered to be more helpful.
Factors related to students’ affective perceptions of freshness, fun, anxiety, and pressure
are CBL and students’ perceptions about the benefits, and all of these factors were negatively
correlated. The negative correlation between perceptions about benefits and affective per-
ceptions can exemplify why CBL exerts a negative effect on affective perceptions. Chou
(2011) indicated that activities are instrumental in fostering students’ speaking ability, but
students might not consider the activities to be interesting, which is consistent with the
findings of the present research. Students in the CICO groups reported that they learned a lot
from the activity, but the time available was too short, and this time pressure may negatively
affect learners’ learning performance (Zeng and Takatsuka 2009). Even though the students
using the three types of collaborative models all worked under time pressure, CBL requires
extra language activities, which increased the amounts of time and energy required for
students in the CICO groups to complete the tasks. This can be seen from the interviews:
students provided more negative perceptions about ease of use, such as problems with
operating the user interface. Spending too much time on user-interface problems reduces the
amount of interperson communication (Deutschmann et al. 2009), and the resulting stress
reduces learners’ motivation and participation. This is related to the affective filter hypothesis
(Krashen 1987): as the affective filter increases, anxiety also increases, while learners’ atti-
tudes and motivation decline. Lan et al. (2013) found that CBL has a positive impact on
learners’ attitudes. The main difference between that study and the present study is that the
learners may have had a more flexible time schedule in the former, while in the latter the
learners felt a large time pressure. Zahedi (2012) found that group learning was correlated
with motivation; learners’ learning performances originate from group discussions, collec-
tive creativity, and thinking (and not at the individual level), and their stress also decreased as
a result. In the present research, group learning yielded good results, but the anxiety caused by
time pressure also affected the learners’ motivation. Accordingly, future research could
attempt to reduce anxiety by lowering the affective filter.
In addition, it was observed in this research that a model with a higher score for the
video content resulted in a higher satisfaction level among the students. However, since
this study included only a relatively small number of samples, and hence further experi-
ments are required.

123
The effects of collaborative models in second life… 665

Conclusion and future works

The purpose of this study was to identify the collaborative models used by students and the
impacts of using different collaborative models on students’ perceptions about learning
French in a 3D situated TBL learning setting. After observing students’ learning character-
istics, this study divided learning models into three types based on the extent of CBL and
collaboration: CICO, CECO, and CECE. Among the three types of collaborative models,
CBL positively affected the students’ speaking as well as every phase of learning perfor-
mance, thereby enhancing the effect of collaborative cooperation. CBL and collaborative
learning also positively impacted students’ perceptions about the benefits of repeated prac-
tices and mutual corrections on speaking ability enhancement. Nonetheless, students’ anxiety
caused by time pressure and user-interface problems negatively influenced their affective
perceptions, and further affected their motivation and attitudes. The reductions in students’
anxiety induced by lowering the affective filter should be investigated in future research.
This study was subject to some limitations. First, the smallness of the sample means that
the results are not generalizable. Whether the results reported herein apply to other cohorts
should be addressed by future studies involving larger numbers of participants. Second, the
present study examined the influence on French language learning, so whether the results
can be applied to other languages remains to be determined. Third, the participants of the
present study were university students in Taiwan, and so future studies should determine
whether similar results are obtained for learners of French as a second or foreign language
in other countries.
Most research on collaborative language learning focuses on students’ writing, while this
study used video production to facilitate the learning of French by students, in the hope of
exploring new possibilities in language learning research. Since the amount of research on
speaking is relatively small, this study may prompt an increased interest in this research field.

Appendix

See Table 10.

Table 10 Rubrics
Item\score 1 2 3 4

Conformity to Shows limited Shows Shows Demonstrates full


work understanding for understanding for understanding for understanding for
requirement the work the work the work the work
(click to activate requirement requirement (2/5 requirement (3/5 assignment (4/5
hyperlink) (under 2/5 to 3/5 to 4/5 completion and
completion) completion) completion) above)
Plot-setting fit The scenes are Under 1/3 of the Only 1/3 to 2/3 of Over 2/3 of the
irrelevant to the scenes are the scenes are scenes are
content of the relevant to the relevant to the properly made
video content of the content of the and correctly
video video chosen to enrich
the plot and
present the
subject

123
666 I. Y. T. Hsiao et al.

Table 10 continued

Item\score 1 2 3 4

Content
Structure Neither beginning The video has its The video has good The video has
nor ending can be beginning and transitions and complete
found in the ending, but they flows well. Most beginning and
video since the are not clearly of the video (3/5 ending that help
structure is presented. The to 4/5) is it flows well. It is
loosely structure is not reasonably mostly (4/5 and
constructed. Only properly structured above)
2/5 or less of the organized, only reasonably
whole video is 2/5 to 3/5 is well structured
properly structured
structured
Creativity The video nearly The story is Most of the story Nearly the whole
repeats the old ordinary, only (3/5 to 4/5) bring story (4/5 and
story, \2/5 have 2/5 to 3/5 have new unique more) is original
originality originality elements and interesting
Consistency of Only small parts Only parts of the Most (3/5 to 4/5) of More than 4/5 of
dialogues (2/5 and less) of dialogues (2/5 to the dialogues are the dialogues are
the dialogues are 3/5) are consistent consistent
consistent consistent
Logical Transitions of Only parts of the Most of the scenes The logic of the
transitions of scenes (2/5 and scenes transitions transitions (3/5 to scenes transitions
scenes less) are hardly (2/5 to 3/5) are 4/5) are logical (4/5 and more) is
logical logical clearly presented
Sound effects No background Only 1/3 or less of About 1/3 to 2/3 of Not only that over
sound effects are the scenes are the scenes are 2/3 of the scenes
provided equipped with equipped with are equipped
background background with background
sound effects sound effects sound effects, but
extra sound
effects are made
for various kinds
of settings
Sentence structure
Difficulty of vocabularies used
For vocabularies For vocabularies For vocabularies For vocabularies
and phrases and phrases and phrases and phrases
taught in class, taught in class, taught in class, taught in class,
only 2/5 are only 2/5 to 3/5 most (3/5 to 4/5) nearly all (4/5
correctly used are correctly used are correctly used and more) are
correctly used
No non-curricular \1/4 of the About 1/4 of the A wide and
vocabularies and vocabularies and vocabularies and extensive variety
phrases are used. phrasess used are phrases used are of non-curricular
non-curricular, non-curricular, vocabularies and
and for those in and mostly (1/2 phrases are used.
use, \1/2 is to 3/4) are Besides, nearly
correctly used correctly used all (3/4 and
more) are
correctly used

123
The effects of collaborative models in second life… 667

Table 10 continued

Item\score 1 2 3 4

Repetitive use of \1/2 of synonyms Up to 1/2 to 3/4 of Up to 3/4 of


vocabularies, no are used when synonyms are synonyms are
synonyms are required used when used when
selected required required
Complexity of sentence patterns
Only short Long sentence Long sentence Sentence length
sentence patterns patterns are patterns are often varies, with more
are used, e.g., SV mixed with short (1/2*3/4) mixed than 3/4 being
and SVO ones sentence patterns. with short long sentence
However, while sentence patterns patterns mixed
most short with short ones
sentences are SV
or SVO ones,\1/
2 are long
sentence patterns
Sentence patterns Except for basic Except for basic Basic sentence
lack variety sentence patterns, sentence patterns, patterns are
compound compound flexibly mixed
sentence patterns sentence patterns with compound
are used as well; are used as well; sentence patterns,
however, \1/2 and mostly(1/2 to and more than
are used correctly 3/4) are used 3/4 of the
correctly delivering are
properly used
No idiom or Idiom or Idiom or Idiom or
metaphorical metaphorical metaphorical metaphorical
language are language are language are language are
used used, but \1/2 used, and mostly used, and nearly
are properly used (1/2 to 3/4) are all (higher than
properly used 3/4) are properly
used
Correctness of \2/5 of the About 2/5 to 3/5 of About 3/5 to 4/5 of More than 4/5 of
grammar: mode, sentences are the sentences are the sentences are the sentences are
tone/female or correct in correct in correct in correct in
male, singular or grammar grammar grammar grammar
plural,
propositions,
pronouns,
relative
pronouns
Pronunciation
Enunciation Poor enunciation Enunciation needs About 3/5 to 4/5 of More than 4/5 of
(2/5 and less), to be improved the enunciations the delivering are
making it hard to with some are good. Though with excellent
comprehend mistakes made some words may enunciations that
(2/5 to 3/5) that not be correctly it can be easily
posed pronounced and understood f.
comprehension hence making it Accent caused by
difficulty to the harder to the first language
listeners comprehend, has little
basically influence to the
listeners can listening
understand the comprehension
delivering

123
668 I. Y. T. Hsiao et al.

Table 10 continued

Item\score 1 2 3 4

Fluency
There are long Pauses (1–3 s) can Clearly expressed Delivered rather
pauses (over 3 be easily noticed with no easily- fluently
seconds) during during the noticed pauses
the delivering. delivering (within 1
second). The
coherence of
delivering is
good
There are frequent There are many Most (3/5 to 4/5) Most (4/5 and
repetitions and repetitions and are fluently more) are
self-corrections. self-corrections, delivered. Only fluently
Only a few parts only some parts in some parts delivered. Only
(under 2/5) are (2/5 to 3/5) are there are small parts of
fluently delivered fluently delivered linguistic-related repetitions and
hesitations or self-corrections
repetitions, and can be detected
self-corrections
Limited ability to Displaying ability Using a series of Utilizing
connect simple to connect simple conjunctions conjunctions
sentences sentences. quite flexibly, masterly, all the
However, simple such as coherence
conjunctions are additionally (à devices are used
used repetitively, condition que), properly
such as et (and), being que
ou (or), mais (although)
(but), d’ ailleurs
(by the way), en
plus (additional),
parce que(
because), and
sometimes lacks
coherence

References
Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57(5),
13–18.
Andrade, H. L., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. L. (2009). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-
efficacy for writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 287–302.
Andreas, K., Tsiatsos, T., Terzidou, T., & Pomportsis, A. (2010). Fostering collaborative learning in Second
Life: Metaphors and affordances. Computers & Education, 55(2), 603–615.
Arvaja, M. (2011). Analyzing the contextual nature of collaborative activity. Analyzing Interactions in
CSCL (pp. 25–46).
Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2004). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for
college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bellotti, F., Berta, R., De Gloria, A., & Primavera, L. (2010). Supporting authors in the development of task-
based learning in serious virtual worlds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 86–107.
Bulu, S. T. (2012). Place presence, social presence, co-presence, and satisfaction in virtual worlds. Com-
puters & Education, 58(1), 154–161.
Çelik, S., Aytın, K., & Bayram, E. (2013). Implementing cooperative learning in the language classroom:
Opinions of Turkish teachers of english. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1852–1859.

123
The effects of collaborative models in second life… 669

Cheng, G. (2014). Exploring students’ learning styles in relation to their acceptance and attitudes towards
using Second Life in education: A case study in Hong Kong. Computers & Education, 70, 105–115.
Chou, M. (2011). The influence of learner strategies on oral presentations: A comparison between group and
individual performance. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 272–285.
Chow, M., Herold, D. K., Choo, T. M., & Chan, K. (2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to
explore the intention to use Second Life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers & Education,
59(4), 1136–1144.
De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I., & Tortora, G. (2009). Development and evaluation of a virtual
campus on Second Life: The case of SecondDMI. Computers & Education, 52(1), 220–233.
Deutschmann, M., Panichi, L., & Molka-Danielsen, J. (2009). Designing oral participation in Second Life—
a comparative study of two language proficiency courses. ReCALL, 21(2), 206–226.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
East, M. (2009). Evaluating the reliability of a detailed analytic scoring rubric for foreign language writing.
Assessing Writing, 14(2), 88–115.
Efe, H., Demiröz, H., & Akdemir, S. A. (2011). A situated learning practice for language teaching classes:
Teaching spoken English with authentic sketches. Sino-US English Teaching, 8(9), 549–555.
Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 19–45.
Foster, P. (1999). Task-based learning and pedagogy. ELT Journal, 53(1), 69–70.
Guasch, T., Espasa, A., & Alvarez, I. (2010). Formative e-feedback in collaborative writing assignments:
The effect of the process and time. eLearn Center Research Paper Series, 1, 49–59.
Jamshidnejad, A. (2011). Developing accuracy by using oral communication strategies in EFL interactions.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3), 530–536.
Jara, C. A., Candelas, F. A., Torres, F., Dormido, S., Esquembre, F., & Reinoso, O. (2009). Real-time
collaboration of virtual laboratories through the Internet. Computers & Education, 52(1), 126–140.
Jauregi, K., & Canto, S. (2012). Enhancing meaningful oral interaction in Second Life. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 111–115.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2009). The fairyland of Second Life: Virtual social worlds and how to use
them. Business Horizons, 52(6), 563–572.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Pergamon
Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Prentice-Hall
International.
Kuo, M. H. (2010), High school second language - French - A case study of the materials, methods of
‘‘elementary education’’, In The 7th Cross-Strait Conference on Foreign Language Teaching &
Learning.
Lan, Y. J., Kan, Y. H., Hsiao, I. Y. T., Yang, S. J. H., & Chang, K.-E. (2013). Designing interaction tasks in
Second Life for Chinese as a foreign language learners: A preliminary exploration. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 184–202.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge Press.
Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Ams-
terdam: John Benjamins.
Liu, T. Y., & Chu, Y. L. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: Impact
on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 630–643.
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. Tesol Quarterly, 26(1),
27–56.
Meadows, M. S. (2007). I, avatar: The culture and consequences of having a second life. Peachpit: New
Riders.
Olteanu, R. L., Bı̂zoi, M., Gorghiu, G., & Suduc, A. (2014). Working in the second life environment—a way
for enhancing students’ collaboration. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 1089–1094.
Peterson, M. (2010a). Learner participation patterns and strategy use in Second Life: an exploratory case
study. ReCALL, 22(03), 273–292.
Peterson, M. (2010b). Massively multiplayer online role-playing games as arenas for second language
learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(5), 429–439.
Petrakou, A. (2010). Interacting through avatars: Virtual worlds as a context for online education. Com-
puters & Education, 54(4), 1020–1027.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

123
670 I. Y. T. Hsiao et al.

Rankin, Y., Gold, R., & Gooch, B. (2006). 3D Role-Playing Games as Language Learning Tools. In
Proceedings of EuroGraphics.
Roger, T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. Creativity and collaborative
learning. Baltimore: Brookes Press.
Rose, D. E. (2012). Context-based learning. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 799–802).
Amsterdam: Springer.
Saddler, B., & Andrade, H. (2004). The writing Rubric. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 48–52.
Slater, M., Khanna, P., Mortensen, J., & Yu, I. (2009). Visual realism enhances realistic response in an
immersive virtual environment. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 29(3), 76–84.
Thornton, P. (1999). Reading together. In D. Kluge & S. McGuire (Eds.), JALT applied materials: coop-
erative learning (pp. 23–36). Tokyo: Japan Association for Language Teaching.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of
children (pp. 34–41).
Wang, C. X., Song, H., Stone, D. E., & Yan, Q. (2009). Integrating second life into an EFL program in
China: Research collaboration across the continents. TechTrends, 53(6), 14–19.
Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to
deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3),
414–426.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman Addison-Wesley.
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence ques-
tionnaire. Presence, 7(3), 225–240.
Yang, Y.-T. C., Chuang, Y.-C., Li, L.-Y., & Tseng, S.-S. (2013). A blended learning environment for
individualized English listening and speaking integrating critical thinking. Computers & Education,
63, 285–305.
Yang, Y. T. C., Gamble, J., & Tang, S. Y. S. (2012). Voice over instant messaging as a tool for enhancing
the oral proficiency and motivation of English-as-a-foreign-language learners. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43(3), 448–464.
Zahedi, M. (2012). The effect of collaborative learning on Iranian intermediate EFL Learners’ oral skills and
motivation. Advances in English Linguistics, 1(3), 56–60.
Zeng, G., & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer–peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated
learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37(3), 434–446.

Indy Y. T. Hsiao is a Ph.D. Student at the Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering
(National Central University, Taiwan). His research interests include virtual world learning, game-based
learning, task-based learning, authentic learning and e-learning.

Stephen J. H. Yang is the Distinguished Professor of Computer Science & Information Engineering,
National Central University, Taiwan. Dr. Yang received his PhD degree in Electrical Engineering &
Computer Science from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1995. Dr. Yang has published over 80
journal papers, and received the 2010 outstanding research award from National Science Council, Taiwan.
His research interests include creative learning, 3D virtual worlds, App software, and cloud services. Dr.
Yang is very active in academic services. He is currently the Editors-in-Chief of the International Journal of
Knowledge Management & E-Learning, and the Associate Editor of the International Journal of Systems
and Service-Oriented Engineering. Dr. Yang also served as the Program Co-Chair of APTEL 2011, ICCE
2010, TELearn 2009, ICCE 2009, IEEE SUTC2008, ICCE 2008, IEEE ISM2008, SDPS 2008, IEEE
W2ME2007, IEEE CAUL2006, and IEEE MSE2003.

Chu Chia-Jui is a professor in the Department of French of Tamkang University, Taiwan. Her research
expertise includes enunciative linguistique, phonetics and language teaching.

123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

You might also like