A study of non-native discourse in an online

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8 (2016) 48–60

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi

Full length article

A study of non-native discourse in an online community of practice (CoP) for teacher education Eunice Tang a,⁎, Edsoulla Chung b a b

The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 20 September 2015 Received in revised form 24 December 2015 Accepted 24 December 2015 Available online 12 January 2016 Keywords: Community of practice (CoP) Online communication Non-native discourse Interlocutory moves Discourse functions

a b s t r a c t This empirical study attempted to investigate the online discourse functions of non-native speakers of English in a community of practice (CoP) which comprises student-teachers, frontline practitioners, and faculty staff members. Discourse functions were identified through an analysis of the naturally occurring interlocutory moves among the participant groups in discussing the postings on teaching during a period of 5-week teaching practicum. Six posts with the highest number of interlocutory moves were selected for in-depth analysis. They included 107 comments and 57 responses. A total of 15 discourse functions were identified from the interlocutory moves. A frequency count of the discourse functions has revealed significant discourse features of online communication in a CoP context among non-native speakers of English. Discourse features which involve memberships, roles, cultural phenomenon and use of a second language were exemplified and discussed. The study may provide direct evidence of communication characteristics in an online CoP and indirect evidence of discourse management of non-native speakers in an online CoP for knowledge construction and professional development. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction How teachers' professional development can be fostered has always been a major concern within educational research. As Schlager and Fusco (2004) explained, teacher professional development is not merely a series of training workshops, meetings, and in-service days. Rather, it is a learning process concerning how to develop, implement, and share knowledge that improves teaching through “engagement in practice within a community of practitioners” (p. 124). In the last two decades, more and more researchers have seen the value of community of practice (henceforth CoP) in facilitating teacher professional development, arguing that it can help cultivate reflective practitioners (e.g. Murphy & Laferrière, 2003; Hough, Smithey, & Evertson, 2004), and shape the professional identity of teachers (e.g. Irwin & Hramiak, 2010), in particular. Study of communities of practice has showed no sign of abating, but research efforts have gradually shifted from examining the nature of traditional CoPs to online CoPs, and from scrutinizing the benefits of such communities to exploring the factors leading to their success, with the technical support and the dynamics of interaction between different members being two major aspects of concern. However, in-depth analysis of the language which facilitates and promotes interaction to realize the value of online communication in a CoP context is lacking, particularly when members in the CoP are using their second language in the interaction process. The present study focuses on analysing discourse management of non-native speakers in conversing, exchanging, and discussing with one another in a contextualized online community for knowledge construction and professional development. This paper is structured as follows: in Section 2, a concise review of the most relevant literature on online CoPs, pertinent to teacher education, will be ⁎ Corresponding author.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.12.002 2210-6561/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

E. Tang, E. Chung / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8 (2016) 48–60

49

provided. Then, the analytical framework will be presented in Section 3, and the methodology on which the present study is based will be described in Section 4. The results of the analysis are discussed in Section 5, followed by Section 6, which summarizes the main findings and comments on the limitations and possible contributions of the present study. 2. Literature review 2.1. The notion of CoP Coined by Lave and Wenger (1991), the term CoP is used to refer to “a group of people who interact, learn together, build relationships, and in the process develop a sense of belonging and mutual commitment” (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 34). CoPs can be distinguished from other groups (e.g. a community of interest) in three major ways. First, a CoP is characterized by a shared domain of interest. Members of a CoP are bound by what they mutually engage in. It is their membership that implies commitment and competence and differentiates them from other people (Wenger, 2006). Second, CoPs are distinguished from other groupings in the heterogeneity and diversity of their membership (Schlager & Fusco, 2004). Members of a CoP range from mentors to novices. While individuals should possess a certain level of expertise in the knowledge domain, there will be a range of levels and types of expertise to support discussion and information exchange (Lai, Pratt, Anderson, & Stigter, 2006). It is through sustained interaction and negotiation that the different members become connected to each another, thereby establishing a community. Third, the concept of practice connotes doing. A CoP comprises practitioners who develop a shared repertoire of resources such as experiences, tools, and ways of addressing recurring problems (Wenger, 2006). CoPs do not simply serve as interest groups but are learning communities. Based on a shared practice, members in a CoP co-construct knowledge and learn in the process of social participation (Lai et al., 2006). As a result of globalization and the Internet's rapid development (Kirschner & Lai, 2007), CoPs are often deemed to be something virtual despite its original concept put forward by Lave and Wenger (1991) being premised on situated learning in a co-located setting (Kirschner & Lai, 2007). However, noticeable differences can be identified between face-to-face communication and online interaction. First, online conversations do not contain non-verbal cues and sound inflexions used in face-to-face interactions, which are key components of communication for many people (Preece, Maloney-Krichmar, & Abras, 2003). Second, texts on a page or a screen are less ephemeral than spoken words (Carr & Chambers, 2006). Third, members of online communities might find it difficult to retract or refine a position since threads of discussion can be revisited over a longer period of time than in verbal exchanges (Hammond, 1998). In spite of the differences, the trend of eLearning, the contemporary theory of learning, and the advantages of overcoming time and geographical constraints in communication affirm the virtual environment in CoPs. Online CoPs become a potential for more sustainable and long-term interaction among members for knowledge growth. 2.2. Online CoPs in teacher professional development Given that the conventional event-based of professional training does not seem to have received positive feedback as it fails to improve learning substantially (Hawley & Valli, 1999), the building of CoPs is of considerable importance. As Murphy and Laferrière (2003) put it, professional development experiences for teachers should be based on teachers' own artistry and competence, which they can share with other teachers and create opportunities to view multiple perspectives. The emergence of CoPs shifts the focus of teachers' professional growth from formal training such as teacher seminars and workshops to learning in practice. Through active participation in CoPs, teacher professional development no longer only involves the passive acceptance of knowledge but becomes something in which the teachers participate as part of their daily activities (Moore & Barab, 2002). A range of studies have pointed out that online communities provided teachers with opportunities to become reflective practitioners (see Hough et al., 2004; Murphy & Laferrière, 2003; Tang, 2009a) and shape their professional identity (Hung, 2008), for they served as a site of engagement for learning to teach which allowed individual members to view problems in multiple contexts and alternate perspectives, thereby confirming or reframing their teacher beliefs. It is generally acknowledged that online CoPs function as a catalyst to improving teachers' professional practice. However, promoting teacher professional development through online CoPs is not straightforward, as it has been shown that the success and sustainability of a community depends on many different factors. Riding (2001), by investigating how the use of email discussion groups created online communities as a way to support teachers of Media Studies and Psychology by facilitating effective and informal professional training, found that the emergence of clear discussion focuses, the presence of a facilitator responsible for monitoring the messages and sustaining the conversations, and wide-ranging membership are significant factors contributing to the success of a CoP. Carr and Chambers (2006) further explored the relationship between the use of online communities and teacher development. In their study, 13 teachers and school leaders from primary and secondary schools in Australia took part in a series of semistructured telephone interviews which focused on the factors and attitudes affecting the participants' use of online community environments. In common with Hough et al. (2004), it was reported that the sense of community and the purpose of discussions are two determining elements which affect online participation. Other factors identified include the role of participants, level of facilitation and time, to name but a few. In another study, Starkey and Savvides (2009) found that social presence in terms of the affective, interactive, and cohesive dimensions plays a prominent role in affecting participation in online discussions. Tang and Lam (2014) also interviewed a representative sample of members of an online learning community for pre-service teachers

50

E. Tang, E. Chung / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8 (2016) 48–60

and concluded that active participation, high quality interaction, collaborative and interactive course elements, commitment and support from members affected the meaningfulness and sustainability of an online community. 3. Discourse analysis in online CoPs Considering the characteristics of online communication, researchers have developed heightened awareness that analysis based on the message types and language use of online communities contributes to enhancing the effectiveness of existing CoPs. As Wells (2001) explained, “knowing is largely carried out through discourse” (p. 184). That is to say, the social and intellectual lives of individuals, to a large extent, depend on the use of words. Irwin and Hramiak (2010), in particular, espoused the importance of language use in online communication, as their work showed that experienced teachers should strive not just to convey how to teach but also to be aware of their influence of language use in affecting how trainee teachers shape their identity. Analysts of language have defined “discourse” in a broad number of ways. Gee's (2010) conception of Discourse (with a capital D) as a “socially accepted association among ways of using language of thinking, valuing, acting and interacting,” commonly used to “identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or social network” (p. 34), serves as the starting point of the study. To be more specific, Discourse is more than “discourse” with a small letter “d” as it not only involves language-inuse but also take into consideration of context. Cameron (2001) argued that discourse analysis should not merely focus on the linguistic forms of Discourse but also on their communicative functions. It is important for a discourse analyst to take linguistic form, context, and communicative function into consideration when analyzing Discourse (Schallert et al., 2009). Based on the aforementioned, the term “discourse function” used in the article would refer to the purpose of an interlocutory move taking place in an interactional event, whose concept is similar to the terms “discourse strategies” (Wade & Fauske, 2004), “speech genre” (Kress, 1989; Na, 2004), and “social and cognitive presence” (Rourke and Anderson, 2004) proposed by different scholars. The study could be considered as the first of its kind since it looks at the association between topics of discussion and discourse functions based on the notion that the use of discourse functions might depend on the way interlocutors fulfil different goals when participating in a dialogue (Wade & Fauske, 2004). So far, the analysis of language use or discourse patterns of online discussions or computer-mediated communication (CMC) in educational contexts is limited. One of them was by Lee (2002), who reported that the participated 34 Spanish students relied heavily on “request for help,” “clarification check,” and “self-correction,” which are similar to those used in face-to-face interaction to facilitate comprehension during online exchanges. As in Schallert et al. (2009)'s study which analyzed the postings of one teacher and 24 native and non-native graduate students having engaged in online discussions related to psycholinguistics, nine discourse functions were identified in the interaction among members, and it was found that participants used more “positive evaluation,” “social,” “managing the group's conversation,” and “asking for opinion.” Also concerned with the use of discourse functions in online communities, AbuSeileek and Rababah (2013) examined the discourse generated by 32 learners of English as a foreign language who took part in an online platform supporting educational activities and developing communication skills. They concluded that both male and female learners produced certain discourse functions (e.g. making compliment, requesting personal information and questions, etc.) more than others (e.g. challenging, warning, protesting, etc.) using computermedicated communication and suggested instructors to facilitate the interaction among learners by encouraging them to produce certain discourse functions. The results of the studies above can only demonstrate that some discourse functions were favoured by individual members in a homogenous grouping of “students” in an online community. In a typical CoP characterized by role differentiation, exchanges in the discussions among members, and how they interact with the variety of contents to create impact on discourse functions remain obscure. The present study was thus designed to address three major questions: (1) What are the discourse functions of the interlocutory moves in a CoP for teacher education? (2) How do the discourse functions of the interlocutory moves differ among participant groups, namely, peer commentators, mentors and originators? (3) How would the post contents affect the discourse functions of the interlocutory moves among the three participant groups? 4. Methodology To answer the research questions, a descriptive study using a mixed-design method was adopted. It combined qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the communication characteristics of non-native speakers through analyzing the written interlocutory data in an online CoP for teacher education. The communication characteristics were derived from the interlocutory moves among originators of the posts, peer commentators, and frontline teachers who also had a mentor–mentee relationship in this online CoP. The interlocutory moves were defined as the comments and responses made by the three participant groups in a single posting on the blog. The purpose of an interlocutory move taking place in an interactional event was, therefore, defined as “discourse functions” (Schallert et al., 2009). The association between topics of discussion and discourse functions was investigated as the use of discourse functions might reflect the ways interlocutors fulfilled different goals when participating in a dialogue (Wade & Fauske, 2004). The discourse functions identified and their frequencies of use would provide evidence of how non-native speakers used the language to interact with members with different role and identity, and how they discussed or conversed with one another on different topics posted on the blog. The data analysis was further supported by semistructured interviews, which complemented and personalized the findings.

E. Tang, E. Chung / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8 (2016) 48–60

51

4.1. The context An online CoP has been set up at the Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, for undergraduates undertaking a co-terminal double degree programme in English Studies and English Language Education since 2007. It is a blog which functions as a bank of personalized teaching portfolios that record the student-teachers' works and learning experiences and provides a dialogic environment to facilitate interactive exchanges among members. In the last six years, this CoP for English language teacher education has accumulated approximately 250 members of current students of the programme, graduates, invited frontline practitioners, and faculty staff members. During the period of teaching practicum, student-teachers are required to upload their lesson plans, teaching materials, reflections, and recorded lessons to the blog. Participation in the blog is deemed to be mandatory as the blog-based teaching portfolios accounts for 20% of the overall grade of the practicum. During the course of online interaction, student-teachers were divided into groups of four or five, with each group attached to two frontline teachers who served as mentors for closer monitoring. 4.2. Participants Thirty-three registered members took part in the study. Twenty-four of them were student-teachers enrolling in the coterminal double degree programme, who had their 5-week teaching practicum in secondary schools as English teachers in their final year of study. Other participants included the course instructor who was responsible for grading the students' work and eight experienced teachers whose major role was to provide support for the pre-service teachers by commenting on their lesson plans and reflections. Table 1 displays the background of the participants. 4.3. Data collection As suggested earlier, student-teachers were required to upload lesson plans and teaching materials, as well as their reflections on teaching onto the blog during their teaching practicum. In most of the posts on lessons and materials design, minimal writing was observed. However, student-teachers wrote a lot when they did their reflection on teaching. They might describe a lesson, narrate an event, or evaluate the teaching process. These posts were read and commented by peers, frontline practitioners, and course instructor and responded by the originator of the post. Fig. 1 below shows the examples of the posts. The interaction among the participant groups constituted interlocutory moves which contained naturally occurring data. The interlocutory moves could be divided into three categories: comments by mentors, comments by peer commentators, and responses from originator (see Fig. 2). The posts selected for analysis were those which showed a higher number of interlocutory moves in a single posting. These posts provided richer data for observing discourse functions in the process of peer-to-peer and mentee-to-mentor interaction. 4.4. Data analysis To determine the discourse functions of each posting, all comments and responses from the selected posts were exported for coding. The coding of categories was an iterative process that entailed critical examination of the data. A semi-open axial approach was adopted to identify discourse functions in the interlocutory moves of the selected posts. Among the limited studies of online discussions or CMC, Schallert et al. (2009) was chosen to form the basis of the analytical framework because their study, which consisted of a less homogenous group of native and non-native students and a teacher, was pertinent to the context of the present study. Any emerged discourse functions from the interlocutory moves were then added as new discourse category. The coding was done by two trained researchers and then cross-checked by the principal researcher. A calculation of the differences in coding among researchers revealed an inter-rater reliability of 95%. After all the comments and responses had been coded, a quantitative analysis was carried out to identify the frequencies of use of the discourse functions used by the three participant groups, namely, peer commentators, mentors, and originators, and specifically when they interacted with one another on the two different types of posts. This was done by counting separately how often these discourse functions recurred in the interlocutory moves generated by the participant groups and how often those discourse functions appeared in the interlocutory moves discussing teaching design or reflections.

Table 1 Background of the participants. Participants

Gender

Number

Student-teachers/mentees

Male Female Male Female Female

5 19 1 7 1 33

Frontline practitioners/mentors Course instructor/mentor Total

52

E. Tang, E. Chung / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8 (2016) 48–60

Fig. 1. Examples of the posts in the online CoP.

4.5. Ethical considerations Prior to the commencement of the study, a signed consent form was obtained from the course instructor, mentors, and student-teachers whose data were used in the study. The participants were kept anonymous in reporting. 5. Results 5.1. Discourse functions in the interlocutory moves During the 5-week teaching practicum, the cohort which comprised 24 student-teachers uploaded 422 posts onto the blog. Among all the posts, six posts with the highest number of feedbacks were selected for in-depth analysis. The six selected posts contained 107 comments and 57 responses. Table 2 below shows the distribution of the comments made by the peer commentators and mentors, and the responses from the originators to the peers and mentors. It is observed that mentors were more proactive than the peers in leaving comments in terms of the frequency and the length of the comment. In responding to the comments, originators were equally responsive to both mentors and peers. However, they tended to write a bit longer to their mentors than to the peers. In the coding process, the nine discourse functions identified in Schallert et al. (2009) were found in the interlocutory moves of the selected posts. The “self-evaluation” (no. 7) denoted in Schallert et al. (ibid) was split into “positive self-evaluation” and “negative self-evaluation” as shown in the written interlocutory data of the present study. An addition of six new categories (no. 10 to no. 15) emerged during the coding process. Table 3 below summarizes the non-native discourse functions found in the interlocutory moves in the CoP for teacher education. The six new categories added were “making suggestions,” “expressing hope,” “expressing thanks,” “expressing views,” “claiming for actions,” and “showing support.” As the intense communication among members was taking place during teaching practicum, the CoP had provided a timely and convenient channel for them to share experience, offer support, and seek advice. That possibly explains why these new discourse functions emerged in the interlocutory moves in this present study, but are

E. Tang, E. Chung / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8 (2016) 48–60

53

Fig. 2. An example of interlocutory moves in the online CoP.

not found in the online discussions reported in Schallert et al. (2009). Noticeably, the nature of the communication purpose and the function of CoP have direct impact on the discourse functions used by the participants.

5.2. 5.2. Discourse functions in commenting posts Evidently, the memberships of this CoP for teacher education had shaped a symmetric relationship among peers and an asymmetric relationship between mentors and mentees. A different pattern of discourse functions could then be expected to reflect their relationship. As shown in Fig. 3, both peer commentators and mentors seem to have very similar communication characteristics when interacting with the originator of the post. The three most commonly used discourse functions in commenting posts were social (no. 9), making suggestions (no. 10), and showing support (no. 15). The communication characteristics remained consistent with low frequent discourse functions as well. When contrasting the frequency of discourse functions used by the two participant groups, mentors seemed to be more ready to express views (no. 13) and make suggestions (no. 10), whereas peer commentators were more inclined to be social (no. 9) and show support (no. 15). The differences suggested the possible awareness of the perceived role differentiation in the CoP. Having invited to the CoP by the course instructor, the mentors believed that their major role was to offer practical advice to the student-teachers by making suggestions to improve their lesson plans and teaching materials and provoke thinking and reflectivity. On the one hand, the mentors believed that they were obliged to give the student-teachers practical feedback because they were more experienced; on the other hand, they also wanted to offer pastoral care to the student-teachers through Table 2 Distribution of comments and responses from the selected posts. Comments made by...

Peers Mentors Total

Responses written to…

Number

Number of words

Average number of words

Number

Number of words

Average number of words

40 67 107

6235 14,074 20,309

156 210 190

29 28 57

2943 3310 6253

102 118 110

54

E. Tang, E. Chung / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8 (2016) 48–60

Table 3 List of discourse functions identified from the interlocutory moves. Discourse functions

Definitions

Examples

1

Information seeking

2

Asking for opinion

Do the students have to ask questions using past continuous tense? (M-f-2) A question about the WS, why do you introduce the -ing form of the verbs instead of infinitive? (M-f-1)

3

Information providing

4

Experience sharing

5

Elaboration/clarification/explanation

The writer seeks a particular answer that the interlocutor seems to know. The writer seems to ask for the interlocutor's view or judgment about something which is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. This function refers to when a writer is providing a fact or his/her knowledge about something or someone. The writer gives a personal example of a construct from the readings or of what someone else has said in a previous post. The general function is discussing an idea. The author is elaborating his/her thoughts about something, explaining a concept, analyzing others' saying, etc.

6a

Positive evaluation

6b Negative evaluation 7a

Positive self-evaluation

7b Negative self-evaluation 8a

Managing the group's conversation

8b Previewing organization of sender's message 9 Social 10 Making suggestions 11 Expressing hope 12 Expressing thanks 13 Expressing views 14 Claiming for action 15 Showing support

Jay's surname is actually Chou but not Chow, for your information. (S-f-5) Every time before we stepped into the classroom…No matter how much we talked to them, encouraged them, scolded them, they don't seem to bother. (S-f-5) The reason for this idea is that I think…they are the one who commit these mistakes in their writing or work. (M-f-2) I think you can elicit them step by step. For instance, you may ask them “why do the students keep shaking their heads…?” (S-m-2) The writer is agreeing with or appreciating a previous I do think your plan & PPT are nicely designed and message. well-linked (M-f-3). The writer is disagreeing with a previous post. I am not sure if they could produce a poem individually at the end. (S-m-1) The writer says something positive about what he or In the first year, I was quite friendly. Even when a few she feels about his or her own learning or teaching. students were making noise… I would “invite” them to share with the whole class what they had been saying or doing. (M-m-1) The writer says something negative about what he or In the second year, I got to be more impatient. At times, she feels about his or her own learning or teaching. I lost my temper and scolded my students. (M-m-1) The writer suggests what others should do in the Perhaps if you…, just leave a line to tell me you have conversation or asks what others want to do. read my comment then. (M-m-1) The writer describes what he or she has done or will do Allow me to respond to some of the questions in with his or her posting. concerning the crossword puzzles. (S-f-6) The message that serves as a greeting or an informal Hi Serena. (M-m-2) Happy teaching! (S-m-2) conversation. The writer makes suggestions on how to improve I′d suggest you lead the whole class to read 1 to 2 teaching and learning. paragraphs together to demonstrate the skills. (M-f-4) The writer expresses his/her feeling of expectation and I hope I can try all these out after I conduct my very desire for a particular thing to happen. first lesson. (S-f-1) The writer thanks the interlocutor for what he/she has Thank you for your advice! (S-f-4) done. The writer suggests his/her attitude towards issues When you're teaching wholeheartedly, students could related to teaching. feel it and they will then respect you. (M-f-2) The writer suggests that he or she will do something in Your “hotdog” idea is so interesting, I will tell my response to others' comments/situations. students tomorrow. (S-f-2) I totally understand your situation (S-m-2). Support The writer shows support to the interlocutor by you! (S-f-4) demonstrating understanding, offering Add oil! (S-f-5) I know you could make it! (S-f-6) encouragement, giving assurance, and/or expressing You are not alone. I also get into a similar situation sympathy. sometimes. (S-f-7).

S = student-teacher; M = mentor; f = female; m = male.

Fig. 3. Frequency of discourse functions in commenting posts.

E. Tang, E. Chung / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8 (2016) 48–60

55

socializing with the student-teachers and being supportive to the student-teachers as they knew that these student-teachers had relatively little teaching experience and were likely to encounter lots of difficulties in their teaching. It is not surprising to find student-teachers socializing a lot on the blog as this communication channel is a popular social media among young people. It was a convenient meeting place to talk and meet one another during TP when they were all at different schools. It is also believed that the high frequency of making suggestions (no. 10) to peers was also a gesture of showing support to one another. Of course, it is also likely that they would like to show their ability to apply the teaching pedagogies and subject knowledge they had learnt in their undergraduate courses through making suggestions on the blog as their participation in professional dialogues was one of the assessment criteria in their teaching practicum.

5.3. Discourse functions in responding comments Generally, the originators of the posts used social (no. 9) and expressing thanks (no. 12) frequently while interacting with both peer commentators and mentors (Fig. 4). They seemed to correspond to the frequent occurrences of making suggestions (no. 10), social (no. 9), and showing support (no. 15) found in the comments made by the mentors and peer commentators. In responding to the two different participant groups, originators used different communicative strategies. They were more inclined to share experience (no. 4) and show support (no. 15) while responding to the peers but tended to use positive evaluation (no. 6a), social (no. 9), expressing thanks, (no. 12), and claiming for actions (no. 14) more often with the mentors. Behavioural differences towards their peers and mentors were projected in certain discourse functions, including sharing experience (no. 4) and showing support (no. 15). This suggested that roles and relationship were observed by the participants in this social and academic context when hierarchy became visible in the community.

5.4. Discourse functions in relation to the post contents There were two main types of posts—lessons and materials design and reflection on teaching. In general, both peer commentators and mentors used social (no. 9) and making suggestions (no. 10) most frequently when the posts were about lessons and materials design. Specially, peers were keener on sharing experience (no. 4) when commenting on lesson and materials design. When discussing the reflections on teaching, peers showed higher frequency in social (no. 9) and showing support (no. 15) while mentors were more active in making suggestion (no. 10) and expressing views (no. 13). Both mentors and peer commentators were more active in showing support and expressing views to reflections rather than posts related to lesson planning. Originators also used social (no. 9) most frequently in interacting with peers and mentors. In responding to comments on lessons and materials design, a high frequency of expressing thanks (no. 12) was observed. Originators liked sharing experience (no. 4) in their exchanges with peers on lesson and materials design and were more ready to show support (no. 15) in their exchanges on reflections. Certain functions, like asking for opinion (no. 2) and claiming for action (no. 14), were only directed to mentors when responding to the comments on lesson and materials design. Negative evaluation played a relatively less important role in the interactions among the participants in general. They occurred more frequently with the discussion on the design of lesson plans and materials than with reflections on teaching. This might be due to the fact that reflections on teaching are rather personal and there is no absolute right or wrong opinion. Also, there might be more comments on expressing views and showing support with the discussions on reflections since the comments made on the blog were largely determined by the content of the entries posted by the originators, and the student-teachers tended to talk about their concerns and discuss their teaching philosophies while writing their reflections. However, when it comes to the originators' responses, elaboration, explanation, or clarification were used more frequently in discussions related to the design of lesson plans and materials, be they responses to mentors or peer commentators. It was surmised that the discussion of lesson plans and materials involved complicated pedagogical knowledge, which has to be supported with examples or additional details related to the teaching contexts for elaboration, explanation, or clarification. In short, the nature of the posts had shown impact on the discourse functions.

Fig. 4. Frequency of discourse functions derived from the originators'.

56

E. Tang, E. Chung / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8 (2016) 48–60

5.5. Rarity of some discourse functions Although a total of 18 different discourse functions and sub-functions were found in the online communication in the CoP, some discourse functions did not appear in any interlocutory moves. There were more “rare” discourse functions found in peer-to-peer exchanges than in student-teachers-to-mentors/mentors-to-student-teachers interaction (Table 4). It is apparent that mentors used more varieties of discourse functions to communicate with the student-teachers, whilst student-teachers tended to use a limited range of discourse functions when exchanging with peers, particularly when discussing over lessons and materials design. A closer examination of “rare” discourse functions in peer-to-peer discussion over lessons and materials design revealed some actualities. Discourse functions such as managing the group's conversation (no. 8a), previewing organization of sender's message (no. 8b), expressing views (no. 13), and claiming for action (no. 14) never appeared in the interlocutory moves among the student-teachers. Certain discourse functions, like positive self-evaluation (no. 7a), negative self-evaluation (no. 7b), expressing thanks (no. 12). and claiming for action (no. 14), were not used by peer commentators. Information seeking (no. 1), asking for opinion (no. 2), information providing (no. 3), positive evaluation (no. 6a), and making suggestion (no. 10) were not noted in originators' responses to peer commentators. A strong sense of role differentiation because of perceived membership in the CoP was observed in the rarity of some discourse functions. Position themselves in the peripheral rink of the CoP for English language teacher education, student-teachers did not yet see themselves as the core or legitimized members of the profession. They also saw an asymmetrical relationship with the mentors. They were there to learn from the experts. 5.6. Non-native discourse in an online CoP In this study, social function occurred with a high frequency in the interlocutory moves among the three participant groups in the CoP and in the discussion of different topics. In making social responses, student-teachers tended to use more informal expressions to address their peers but deliberately avoided using them to address their mentors. To illustrate, a student-teacher commented that she adopted informal expressions such as “hey” and “yo” to address their peers but sometimes used the word “regards” deliberately to increase her social distance with the mentors. I won't use “yo” or “hey” while interacting with my mentors because it's not very respectful to use such expressions to address the seniors. I′d thus only use these words to interact with someone whose age is more or less the same with mine... When it comes to the word “regards”, I used it when I didn't share a similar viewpoint with my mentors… The word increases social distance between interlocutors. When I disagree with my mentors, I won't tell them about how I feel directly but will show them our distances in an implicit way. (S-f-1)

Table 4 Some rarely appeared discourse functions. Peers

Mentors

Comments from…

Originators' responses to...

Comments from...

Originators' responses to...

(no. 3) (no. 8a) (no. 12) (no. 14) (no. 3) (no. 6b) (no. 8a)

(no. 3) (no. 8a) (no. 8b) (no. 14) (no. 1) (no. 2) (no. 3) (no. 8a) (no. 8b) Lessons and materials design

Reflections

Lessons and materials design

Reflections

(no. 7a) (no. 7b) (no. 8a) (no. 8b) (no. 12) (no. 13) (no. 14) (no. 1) (no. 2) (no. 3) (no. 6a) (no. 8a) (no. 8b) (no. 10) (no. 13) (no. 14)

(no. 7a) (no. 7b) (no. 8a) (no. 12)

(no. 3) (#8a) (no. 14)

(no. 3) (no. 8a) (no. 14)

(no. 1) (no. 3) (no. 8a) (no. 10) (no. 13)

(no. 3) (no. 8a)

(no. 3) (no. 8a)

E. Tang, E. Chung / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8 (2016) 48–60

57

Likewise, another student-teacher used “dear” to address her mentors but “hey” to greet some of her peers. As suggested, she did so due to her worry that the mentors would “misunderstand” her and consider her greetings “impolite.” Yet, she showed no such concern while interacting with her peers. Of course, it can be assured that student-teachers were aware of the social status of the participants. The student-teachers shared similar status in the online community and were more familiar with one another when compared to the mentors, so that they did not find it inappropriate to address one another casually. Mentors, on the other hand, were experienced teachers who were perceived as authoritative figures in the profession. As such, the sensitivity to roles was demonstrated by the language use. The act is emphasized in Confucius-heritage culture in which relationship in terms of hierarchy, social status, and power is always treated with cautious and high respect. The hierarchical relationship inherited from the composition of membership in CoP had alerted some mentors. Instead of adhering to the social norm, they chose to use more casual tone or informal language to play down their authoritative role. A mentor, for instance, reported that she chose to use expressions such as “Hi there” and “Hey” to interact with her mentees so that she could appear less authoritative and establish a better relationship with them: I helped my school to conduct some bridging courses and my panel head was the coordinator. We contacted one another via emails and she wrote to me using “Hi there” and “hey.” I learned from her that I should interact with my mentees in a more casual way so that I can appear less authoritative and thus develop a better relationship with them. (M-f-4) Evidently, the mentors perceived the hierarchical relationship as a barrier hindering honest communication and developing support which are crucial to achieving the communication purpose of the CoP during teaching practicum. The use of English, the participants' second language, as the medium of communication, was also a concern among participants. To be more specific, a mentor claimed that he would avoid using “must” as the modal verb conveys a strong message. Yet, he found it acceptable to use “need” and “should” as the two expressions are “mild”: I′d use “need” when talking about something that a teacher has to follow due to school policies. To be honest, I don't think “need” and “should” are very strong expressions. As “must” is stronger, I would avoid using it. (M-m-1) The claim made by the mentor showed the importance of language awareness while conversing with others as different interpretations of messages might lead to misunderstanding and miscommunication. Although Walther and D'Addario (2001) indicated that emoticons are commonly used in online communication as they can make people feel more expressive, the student-teachers and mentors tended to avoid using them as they perceived the blog as a platform for academic and intellectual exchanges, which is different from other instant messaging environments promoting casual conversations. However, it was found that some translated Chinese expressions were found in the data analyzed, particularly when the participants were showing support to their interlocutors. One illustration of this is the frequent occurrence of “Add oil.” This is a direct translation from the Chinese expression jia you (加油), which connotes the meaning of “step on the gasoline” (i.e. “go for it” or “keep it up”). For one thing, the participants might not have knowledge on some figurative expressions (e.g. “time to pull up your socks” or “keep the ball rolling”) which can be used to show others' support. Another reason might be that the participants attempted to use such expressions to show psychological support to the interlocutors as the use of second language learners might be seen as the projection of social distance. Since the participants were restricted to use English while interacting with others on the blog due to its academic nature, they might like to use their own lexis to express cohesion and graciousness to compensate the use of a second language, which might create social distances in the interlocutors' interactions. 6. Discussion In this study, the nine discourse functions identified in Schallert et al. (2009) were observed in this CoP for teacher education. It could probably be that some common or “generic” discourse functions are customary in online interaction across communities. However, this study also illustrated that “specific” discourse functions would arise when there are differences in memberships and purpose of communication between communities. In this CoP for teacher education, role differentiation and the variety of posts elicited six more discourse functions. These emerged discourse functions were role- or content-specific in nature. Moreover, the frequency of use of each discourse function may indicate the robust nature of the members on how they would project themselves to peers and mentors in a shared professional context. The most frequent discourse functions found in this online CoP can be broadly categorized into i) affirmative in nature, i.e. positive evaluation, social, expressing thanks, showing support, and ii) problem-led, i.e. making suggestion, expressing views, claiming for action, experience sharing, elaboration/ clarification/explanation. The additional six role- and content-specific discourse functions and their sensitivity to language discourse among non-native speakers suggest some cultural and language issues that warrant further discussion. 6.1. Cultural influence on discourse functions The explanations to the discourse functions and its frequency of use by its members cannot be completed without an understanding of the culture which influences their acts. The participants in this CoP were all ethnic Chinese. In many scholarly works, the enduring impact of Confucianism on Chinese learners has been widely discussed (e.g. Scollon & Scollon, 1994; Wong & Wong,

58

E. Tang, E. Chung / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8 (2016) 48–60

2002; Tang, 2009b). In Scollon and Scollon (1994), they describe Confucianism as moral code based on ethics, humanity, and love, as well as order and harmony. They observed that “there is a generalized awareness of some sort of authoritarianism, a sense of fixed social roles, and perhaps something about benevolence involved” (ibid, p.9). 6.1.1. Authority in a learning context Concepts of authority are set within a context of the part-whole relations of Confucian thought. Respect the authority forms the standard of conduct in the Chinese society, family, and school. The notion of teachers as authority in the learning context has pre-dominated the student–teacher or mentee–mentor relationship. The influences of the Chinese culture with a long tradition of obedience to authority, in that a teacher is not seen as a facilitator but as a “fount of knowledge” who delivers without any concession to students and that students “must struggle to attain” (Holliday, 1994, p. 59), which is known to many scholars (e.g. Liu, 1998; Littlewood, 2000). As noted, the mentors served the function of a teacher to a large extent since they were assigned to offer support and comments on the work posted by the novice teachers. Although the view that Chinese learners are obedient to authority has lately been challenged by researchers (e.g. Littlewood, 2000; Shi, 2006), the low frequency of negative evaluation identified in the student-teachers' responses to the mentors appears to be in alignment with the proposition that the experienced teachers should be respected as they are authoritative. To acknowledge the pervasive hierarchical interpersonal relations is central in the Chinese education. However, Chinese learners are not as submissive as they sometimes unquestionably assumed to be (Fung, 2014). As a student-teacher explained, she shared different views with her mentor and would implicitly “show” her disagreement by ending her comment with the word “regards,” a rather formal closing to end a message, to increase her social distance with the mentor. This suggests that Chinese learners do think critically sometimes instead of merely having unquestionable obedience to authority. 6.1.2. The maintenance of harmony Most critical discourse analysis studies (e.g. Liu, 2005; Weir, 2005) reported that those in the position of authority used language as a manipulative tool to control debate and suppress others' thoughts. It is noteworthy, however, that the present study reported markedly different findings as the mentors, who were in the position of authority, thought highly of the Chinese culture, and considered relationship building in the online community essential. As Tseng (2004) commented, much emphasis is placed on social harmony in Chinese culture. This might be one of the reasons why most participants perceived the platform as a CoP, whose members interact, build relationship, and learn together (Lave & Wenger, 1991) instead of a place where members with higher status demonstrate and strengthen their authority by showing disapproval or exerting control over other members. As ethnic Chinese, student-teachers and mentors who took part in the study were aware of the hierarchical nature of the relationships and attempted to maintain the harmony of the online community. This was done by not preventing others from losing “face” (mianzi), an important concept in the Chinese society commonly used to refer to how a person's self-image is perceived by others (Katyal & King, 2014). As noted by Katyal and King (ibid), “face” can be saved or lost as a result of individuals' engagement in harmonious interactions or confrontations. Strongly influenced by the Chinese culture, participants in the online community avoided upsetting the relationship with the language. They were worried that they may destroy others' “face”, which may lead to disharmony (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). As such, some mentors deliberately gave positive comments to the mentees in order to play down their authoritative role and enhance the “face” of the mentees/student-teachers, and in so doing building a harmonious relationship favourable for interaction. 6.2. Language awareness in online CoPs Despite having received training or being trained as teachers of English, the members of the CoP, who are non-native speakers of English, have varied language proficiency levels and knowledge of the language system (e.g. lexis, semantics, pragmatics, etc.). Study of English as a second language among these Chinese participants is for communication. Unfortunately, students seldom have chances to take part in authentic communication using the target language, not to mention learning about how they can interact with others online with proper etiquette. As it is relatively challenging to convey a message accurately and effectively in a virtual-text only environment when compared to having face-to-face interactions with non-verbal cues and sound inflexions (Preece et al., 2003), the participants had to be especially careful with the tone, choice of words and emoticons while engaging in online conversations. They were worried that their interlocutors would be intimidated by their comments even though politeness markers could be used to redress the face-threat necessitated by the disagreements or negative comments and strengthen the degree of appreciation or agreement while making positive evaluation. It was possible to speculate that the participants had such concern as they were second language learners who might not be very confident in their mastery of English. Clearly, it is deemed necessary to help the participants develop their linguistic competence so that they can be equipped with the ability to partake in genuine communication. 7. Conclusion The research study reported here has attempted to examine the online discourse functions of non-native speakers of English in a community of practice (CoP) for teacher education. The results indicated that discourse functions most frequently appeared in the postings of mentors and student-teachers were affirmative in nature and problem-led. Moreover, rarity of some discourse functions and noticeable features of non-native discourse were identified in the online communication, highlighting a number

E. Tang, E. Chung / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8 (2016) 48–60

59

of cultural and language issues that merit further attention. These findings could have considerable implications for the professional development of pre-service and in-service teachers in the context of online communities. One important implication with regard to teacher professional development with the use of online CoPs concerns the importance of relationship building and technical support. As mentioned previously, non-native speakers of English, despite having received years of English learning and related training in English language education, may still lack confidence in their ability to use appropriate lexis and communication skills to express negative evaluation or show disagreements, worrying that such face-threatening acts may humiliate other members of the online community. However, it cannot be denied that both negative evaluation and negotiation of ideas play an important role in teacher professional development as they enable teachers to discern the problems of work and clarify their ideas, respectively. As such, it is recommended that the situation be improved by helping the non-native speakers to raise their language awareness on the use of language to convey politeness. Genuine communication can also be facilitated by building the relationship among participants by arranging a few face-to-face meetings before the commencement or in the beginning of teaching practice and enabling the function of sending private messages on the blog. To conclude, the study provides insights into the use of online CoPs for teacher professional development as well as language and cultural awareness. Nonetheless, it is recommended that readers be wary of over-generalizing the findings and further investigate empirically into the use of online communities due to the limitations to the study. First, the association between the use of discourse functions, role differentiation, and cultural influence are correlational rather than causal. While the figures were supported by the evidence found, they only provided a general picture on the use of discourse functions and should not be over-interpreted as they might be constrained by the length of comments and responses and variations among individual participants. More statistical measures would have strengthened the claims made. Second, the results might not be generalizable due to the small sample size and convenience sampling, but rather should be treated as working hypotheses for similar situations in other contexts. Third, it is understandable that different results might be produced if different focuses of the analysis or frameworks have been selected. Despite the limitations, it does not necessarily mean that we should dismiss the claims suggested. Rather, it only suggests that they should be treated with more caution. One final remark is that the study did not attempt to explore the extent to which social relationship contributes to the change of the participants' teaching beliefs and practice, or how gender influences the discussions, though it has been claimed that females are expected to play a more supportive role in any social situation stereotypically (Hanrahan, 2005). Further research which takes into consideration of the issues aforementioned would offer an interesting counterpoint to the findings of this research. References AbuSeileek, A.F., & Rababah, G. (2013). Discourse functions and vocabulary use in English language learners' synchronous computer-mediated communication. Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42–61. Carr, N., & Chambers, D.P. (2006). Cultural and organizational issues facing online learning communities of teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 11, 269–282. Cameron, D. (2001). Working on Spoken Discourse. London: SAGE Publications. Fung, D. (2014). The influence of ground rules on Chinese students' learning of critical thinking in group work: A cultural perspective. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 22(3), 337–368. Gee, J. P. (2010). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Oxon: Taylor and Francis Group. Hammond, M. (1998). Learning through online discussion: What are the opportunities for professional development and what are the characteristics of online writing? Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 7(3), 331–343. Hanrahan, M.U. (2005). Highlighting hybridity: A critical discourse analysis of teacher talk in science classrooms. Science Education, 90(1), 8–43. Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hofstede, G.H., & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hough, B., Smithey, M., & Evertson, C. (2004). Using computer-mediated communication to create virtual communities of practice for intern teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 361–386. Hung, H. (2008). Teacher learning: Reflective practice as a site of engagement for professional identity construction. US-China Education Review, 5(5), 39–49. Irwin, B., & Hramiak, A. (2010). A discourse analysis of trainee teacher identity in online discussion forums. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(3), 361–377. Katyal, K.R., & King, M.E. (2014). Non-Chinese researchers conducting research in Chinese cultures: critical reflections. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 37(1), 44–62. Kirschner, P.A., & Lai, K.W. (2007). Online communities of practice in education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(2), 127–131. Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lai, K.W., Pratt, K., Anderson, M., & Stigter, J. (2006). Literature review and synthesis: Online communities of practice [online]. New Zealand: Ministry of Education. (Retrieved from) www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/curriculum/5795. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, L. (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: a study of modification devices on non-native discourse. System, 30(3), 275–288. Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal, 54(1), 31–36. Liu, D. (1998). Teacher education and the neglected needs of international TESOL students. ELT Journal, 52(1), 3–10. Liu, Y. (2005). The construction of cultural values and beliefs in Chinese language textbooks: A critical discourse analysis. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 26(1), 15–30. Moore, J., & Barab, S. (2002). The inquiry learning forum: A community of practice approach to online professional development. Tech Trends, 46(3), 44–49. Murphy, E., & Laferrière, T. (2003). Virtual communities for professional development: Helping teachers map the territory in landscapes without bearings. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 49(1), 71–83. Na, Y. (2004). A Bakhtinian analysis of computer-mediated communication: How students create animated utterances in graduate seminar discussions. Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 53, 67–89. Preece, J., Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Abras, C. (2003). History and emergence of online communities. In K. Christensen, & D. Levinson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of community (pp. 1023–1027). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Riding, P. (2001). On-line teacher communities and continuing professional development. Teacher Development, 5(3), 283–296. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Exploring social presence in computer conferencing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13, 259–275.

60

E. Tang, E. Chung / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8 (2016) 48–60

Schallert, D.L., Chiang, Y.H., Park, Y., Jordan, M.E., Lee, H., Cheng, A., ... Song, K. (2009). Being polite while fulfilling different discourse functions in online classroom discussions. Communication Education, 53, 713–725. Schlager, M.S., & Fusco, J. (2004). Teacher professional development, technology and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? In S.A. Barab, R. Kling, & J.H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 120–153). New York: Cambridge University Press. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1994). ). The Post-Confucian Confusion. Research Report, No. 37. Hong Kong: Department of English, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Shi, L. (2006). The successors to Confucianism or a new generation? A questionnaire study on Chinese students' culture of learning. English, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 122–147. Starkey, H., & Savvides, N. (2009). Learning for citizenship online: How can students develop intercultural awareness and construct knowledge together? Learning and Teaching: The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences, 2(3), 31–49. Tang, E. (2009a). Introduction and development of a blog-based teaching portfolio: A case study in a pre-service teacher education programme. The International Journal of Learning, 16(8), 89–100. Tang, E. (2009b). A cultural framework of “Chinese learn English”: a critical review of and reflections on research. English as an International Language Journal, 4, 7–43. Tang, E., & Lam, C. (2014). Building an effective online learning community (OLC) in blog-based teaching portfolios. The Internet and Higher Education, 20(1), 79–85. Tseng, V. (2004). Family interdependence and academic adjustment in college: Youth from immigrant and U.S.-born families. Child Development, 75, 966–983. Wade, S.E., & Fauske, J.R. (2004). Dialogue online: Prospective teachers' discourse strategies in computer-mediated discussions. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 134–160. Walther, J. B., & D’Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19(3), 324–347. Weir, K. (2005). Critical Discourse Analysis and Internet Research. Melbourne Studies in Education, 46(2), 67–86. Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: A brief introduction [online]. (Retrieved from) www.ewenger.com/theory/ Wenger, E., McDermott, R.A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wong, N.Y., & Wong, W.Y. (2002). The “Confucian Heritage Culture” learner's phenomenon. Asian Psychologist, 3(1), 78–82.

Further Reading Morgan, W., & Taylor, S. (2005). Interrogating critical discourse analysis for educational research in new spaces and places. Melbourne Studies in Education, 46(2), 1–8.