2005 年 8 月
第 28 卷　第 4 期
中国英语教学
（双月刊）
CELEA Journal（Bim onthly）
Aug．2005
Vol．
28 No．
4
FACE－
TO －
FACE AND SYNCHRONOUS ELECTRONIC
DISCUSSION AS PREWRITING ACTIVITY IN THE
FOREIGN LANGUAGE WRITING CLASS
Liu Ming ming
Beijing Language University
Abstract
One of the main findings of co m puter－mediated co m m unication study in recent years is that it has an
equalizing effect am ong student participation in class．Face－
to－
face discussionstend to be relatively unbalanced ，
with the teacher or a few participants do minating the floor ；ho wever ，co m puter－mediated co m m unication
features m ore balanced participation ，with participants sharing the floor m ore equally． According to so me
studies ，
second and foreign language teachers have also claimed that electronic co m m unication has been proved
to be an equalizer in their classroo ms． Besides ，so me researches find that the formality and co m plexity of
language in electronic discussion might be an excellent mediu m for prewriting w ork since it could serve as a
bridge fro m spoken interaction to written co m position．This study aims to prove these claims through
co m paring the performances of student participation in the traditional face－
to－
face prewriting small group
discussions and those in the synchronous co m puter－mediated co m m unication m ode．The findings sho w out a
tendency to ward m ore equal participation in co m puter－mediated co m m unication m ode． The study also
discovers thatthe language students used in the electronic prewriting discussion and in the first drafts co m posed
after the discussion is m ore formal and co m plex lexically and syntactically than the language they used in face－
to－
face m ode． The co m parison of the first drafts w hich were finished separately after the tw o m odes of
discussion by individual student de m onstrate ，ho wever ，there is not obvious differences am ong the tw o
categories of first drafts concerning the content of writing．
Key w ords
CMC ；
synchronous electronic discussion ；prewriting ；
face－
to－
face discussion
1．Introduction
In recenttwenty years ，
the m ain strea m of second language teaching has been following the cognitive
approaches．In the teaching of EFL writing ，
the process writing approach ，based on the cognitive view of
w hich thinking and process are of central im portance ，has been adopted in the m ain trend of English
co m position teaching since 1980s．The process approach co m m only divides the w hole writing process into
three stages ：prewriting ，drafting ，and rewriting ，though often nonlinear in practice． Am ong the m ，
prewriting is the beginning of the entire process．At this stage ，writers recall ideas ，relate old and new
inform ation ，assess w hat the reader expects of the m ，and generally explore the proble m fro m m any
angles．Alot of researches show that the sm all group prewriting discussions could help the writers find
ideas w hich are valuable for the content of their co m position．
46
CELEA Journal 62
However ，
in the traditional face－
to－
face discussions ，
a participant with an idea m ay not be prepared
to speak out for fear of talking in front of the public ，thus such discussions m ay stifle the shy learners
creativity．As a result ，
that will depart fro m the original aim of prewriting discussion．
In the 1980s ，co m puter conferencing began to be used in acade mia w orld． Since then ，social
scientists have exa mined the psychological and sociologicalim pacts of these new forms of co m m unication．
One of their m ain findings is an equalizing effect of co m puter－m ediated co m m unication．In other w ords ，
w hereas face－
to－
face discussions tend to be relatively unbalanced ， with a couple of participants
do minating the floor or determining the topics ，co m puter－m ediated co m m unication features m ore
balanced participation ，with speakers sharing the floor m ore equally（ Warschauer 1996a）
．
In addition ，co m position teachers also find that co m puter－m ediated co m m unications have the sa m e
equalizing effects in co m position classroo ms．In the late 1980s ，second and foreign language teachers
began to integrate electronic co m m unication into language teaching． They have also claim ed that
electronic co m m unication acted as an equalizer in their classroo ms．Thus evidence suggests that electronic
co m m unication can bring about m ore equal participation a m ong second and foreign language students．
Moreover ，
so m e researchers have proposed that electronic co m m unication differs linguistically fro m
both traditional written and spoken discourse ，
and that these differences can be exploited for pedagogical
advantage（Chun 1994 ）
． Chun （1993 ），for exa m ple ，contends that electronic discussion is similar to
written texts in terms of language co m plexity ，yet rese m bles face－
to－
face discussion in terms of functions
perform ed ，and thus can serve as an im portant bridge for transfer of co m m unication skills fro m the
written to spoken do m ain （ Cited in Warschauer 1996a ）
． Besides ， Warschauer （1996a ）suggests the
form ality and co m plexity of language in electronic discussion might be an excellent m ediu m for pre－
writing w ork since it could serve as a bridge fro m spoken interaction to written co m position．
Until now ，
there are a nu m ber of researches probing into the differences between face－
to－
face and
co m puter－
m ediated discussions．Beauvois（1998 ）co m pared so m e differences between the tw o m odes in
the w hole class oral discussion．Palm quist et al．
（1998）did the co m parative research in large group oral
discussions． Warschauer（1996）m ade the co m parison in sm all group oral discussions．In the co m position
class，Abra ms （2001 ）focused on co m puter－m ediated co m m unication and group journals． Honeycutt
（2001）co m pared E－m ail and synchronous conferencing in online peer response．Schultz（2000 ）studied
the differences between face－
to－
face and synchronous CMC discussion in peer revision． However ，
there
has rarely been any research focusing on the prewriting discussion differences between traditional face－
to－
face and electronic synchronous discussions．
Thus ，
this study aims to co m pare the prewriting discussions in traditional face－
to－
face m ode and that
of synchronous CMC m ode concerning the participation equality and the language co m plexity．
Furtherm ore ，after the tw o different m odes of discussion ，
this research intends to m ake contrast between
the tw o categories of first drafts focusing on the language and the content of the co m positions in order to
further co m pare the tw o m odes of discussion s effects on EFL writing．
2．Prewriting — the beginning of the w hole process
Prewriting ，
the first step of the w hole writing process ，and at the sa m e tim e ，
an im portant stage for
the successful writing ，can be effectively realized through sm all group prewriting discussions．
2．
1 Process writing
It is the cognitivist ，or“writing as proble m －
solving”
25），group that has m ore effects
（Johns 1990 ：
upon ESL research and teaching． There are tw o key w ords in cognitivists discussions ：thinking and
process．Thus the writer s m ental processes are of central im portance to cognitivists． Lannon （1989 ）
points out ，
“ Writing is a process of transforming the m aterial you discover — by inspiration ，research ，
accident ，
trial and error ，
or w hatever —into a m essage with a definite m eaning”
（p．9）．In short ，writing
is a process of deliberate decisions．The term co m posing see ms to better reflect the tasks of discovering ，
selecting ，arranging ，and refining the parts of a w hole．The writing process ，then really is a nonlinear
co m posing process of planning ，drafting ，and revising．
47
Face－
to－
face and Synchronous Electronic Discussion as Pre writing Activity in the．
．．　Liu Mingming
Research over the last few years has focused on observing both student and professional writers as
they co m pose． Emig （1971 ）describes the writing processes as prewriting and planning ，starting ，and
reform ulating — correcting ，revising ，rewriting ，stopping ，conte m plating the product． Britton et al．
（1975）e m phasize three ele m ents in the writing process ：conception ，w hich ends w hen the writer knows
he is going to write and has so m e idea of w hat is expected of him ；
incubation ，
the period that m eets the
writer s need “to get it right”and “to get it right with the self”，
in w hich the expressive and the
co m m unicative aspects of language feed each other ；and finally production． Britton and his colleagues
say ，
too ，that w hen a writer takes on a task as soon as it is set ，the three ele m ents are likely to be
concurrent．Other writers describe the process differently． Koch and Brazil ，for exa m ple ，report eight
divisions ：Prewriting includes experiencing ，discovering ，and m aking form al choices ；writing includes
forming ，m aking language choices ，
languaging ；postwriting includes criticizing and proofreading．Flower
and Hayes use the term “stage m odel”for the concept of a prewriting＿
writing＿
rewriting process in w hich
each stage is co m pleted in an invariable sequence（Cited in Graser 1983 ：
5）
．
According to Silva（1990 ），the introduction of the process approach to ESL co m position see ms to
have been m otivated by dissatisfaction with controlled co m position and the current－
traditional approach
linear ，exploratory ，and generative process w hereby
（p．15）．The co m posing process is seen as a“non－
writers discover and reform ulate their ideas as they atte m pt to approxim ate m eaning”
．Content ，ideas ，
and the need to co m m unicate w ould determine form ．In essence ，
“Co m posing m eans expressing ideas and
conveying m eaning．Co m posing m eans thinking”
15）
（Cited in Silva 1984 ：
．
Translated into the classroo m context ，
this approach calls for providing a positive ，
encouraging ，and
collaborative w orkshop environ m ent within w hich students ，with a m ple tim e and minim al interference ，
can w ork through their co m posing processes． The teacher s role is to help students develop variable
strategies for getting started （finding topics ，generating ideas and inform ation ，focusing ，and planning
structure and procedure），for drafting （encouraging m ultiple drafts），for revising （adding ，deleting ，
m odifying ，and rearranging ideas ）；and for editing （attending to vocabulary ，sentence structure ，
gra m m ar and m echanics）
15）
（Silva 1990 ：
．
Fro m a process perspective ，then ，writing is a co m plex ，recursive ，and creative process or set of
behaviors that is very similar in its broad outlines for first and second language writers．
Writing is a battle with im patience． Good writers know how to win this battle．They spend m ore
tim e thinking than writing．And m uch of a writer s m ost vital thinking occurs at the planning stage．The
m ore thinking students do at this stage ，the less w ork students will give later ，during drafting and
revising．
2．
2 The im portance of prewriting
Prewriting helps writers exa mine w hat they know ． They recall ideas ，relate old and new
inform ation ，assess w hat the reader expects of the m ，and generally explore the proble m fro m m any
angles．They are w orking out answers to questions like“ What is this for ？
”
（purpose），
“ Who is this for ？
”
（audience），
“ What do I want to say ？
”
（point of view on the subject），
“ How can Isay it effectively ？
”
24）
（code）（Linde m ann 1982 ：
．
Linde m ann（1982）states that the preparations serve at least tw o functions．First ，writers begin to
develop m essage so that it corresponds to facts．Second ，writers beco m e co mfortable with their feelings
about the m essage ，m aking a co m mitm ent to it（p．25）
．Planning activities see m especially crucial because
they determine the writer s w ork in subsequent stages．
Walshe ，publications editor for the Prim ary English Association of New South Wales ，says that
“w hat a teacher does at the pre－writing stage is likely to be even m ore im portantin fostering quality than
w hat is done by“m arking”at the end”
．He looks at prewriting as a way to encourage“free inquiry ，zest ，
spontaneity ，
initiative ，
intuition ，
self－
expression”
37）
（Cited in Graser 1983 ：
．
Prewriting ，so m e professional writers say ，is w hat they ve spent their lifetim e doing — it s the
getting ready for real writing．In schools ，
it s everything fro m the tim e that students m ake up their minds
that they will write until they begin the first big capitalletter on a first draft（Graser 1983 ：
37）
．It m ust
48
CELEA Journal 62
be long enough to let writers ，
especially student writers ，
feeltheir purpose ，
their subject ，
their audience ，
and so m e sense of how they ll fit all three together into a w hole．
Getting started is very hard for everyone． Prewriting serves as a warming up to get the writer
thinking m ore freely about things in general ，and it is also a way to help the writer gather thoughts for a
particular topic．
An instructional m ethod based on the traditional read－
analyze－
write m odel of teaching co m position
ignores this crucial aspect of the co m posing process．It fails to take into account that students need the
opportunity to“talk about ，to expand and even to relearn or reexa mine their experiences ．
．．prior to
writing”
203）
（Cited in Za m el 1982 ：
．
Han（2001）e m phasizes that the process approach focuses on the teaching of writing skills ，and it is
considered that prewriting stage helps students to im prove their writing ability（p．
37）
．
This is w hat experienced writers do ：They consider purpose and audience ；They consult their ow n
background knowledge ；They let ideas incubate ；They plan． What sets apart the unskilled writers ？They
take less tim e to plan（Raim es 1985 ：
230）
．
2．
3 Sm all group discussions — an effective way
The im portance of prewriting can be fully realized through sm all group discussions． Group w ork
increases language practice opportunities ；group w ork im proves the quality of student talk ；group w ork
helps individualize instruction ；group w ork pro m otes a positive affective clim ate ；group w ork m otivates
learners（Long ＆Porter 1985）
．
The affective im portance of the group see ms to increase in proportion to the nu m ber of groupsin the
classroo m ．There should be at least tw o discussion groups in a classroo m during group discussion．In fact
the background noise fro m tw o or m ore groups tends to intensify the m otivation to speak and reduces the
isolation of the individual．If only one group is form ed ，
the m e m bers see m to conceive of the mselves as an
entity in relationship to the teacher ，w hereas the m e m bers of at least tw o groups conceive of the mselves
m ainly in relationship to each other ，the teacher re m aining on the periphery of and secondary to their
te m porary group bonds．Groups of eight or m ore m e m bers tend to generate extraneous discussions ，or ，
w orse ，silence in the face of a single leader w ho e m erges because of age or social position． Groups of
fewer than four m e m bersincrease the dangers of over－
sensitivity to the teacher s presence and the need to
contribute an inordinate a m ount （fro m the student s point of view ）to the discussion （ Rivers 1968 ；
Mackey 1965）
286）
（Cited in Berwick 1975 ：
．
A case－
study approach was adopted．Eight ESLstudents（one Japanese ，one Hispanic ，
tw o Arabic ，
tw o Italian ，
and tw o Greek）were interviewed individually about their writing experiences and behaviors．
Different stages of their writing were also studied to determine w hether their actual writing reflected the
experiences that were reported．These ESL students are proficient to the extent that they are no longer
enrolled in ESL writing courses and are successfully co m pleting the writing assigned in university－
level
content area courses．An im portant dim ension of the writing processinvolves the period before the actual
writing begins ，
that is ，how writers get and form ideas before putting pen to paper．All of the students
talk about the im portance of classroo m discussion specifically related to a particular topic and how these
discussions help the m delineate their ideas（Za m el 1982 ：
199）
．
Teachers of writing have m any strategies for getting students to start．The first is talk．In“Talking
Your Way into Writing”，Sch wartz shows how talk ，stim ulated by teachers but do minated by students ，
getideas and im ages and w ords crystallized in each student s mind． The m agic in such group talk in
prewriting leads Carroll to call it alche mic ，because it happens in the creating stage in a talk－
write－
talk
sequence．It allows students a m eans of finding a topic w orth writing about．After they find a topic ，and
play around with writing about it ，
they talk to feel secure in it（Cited in Graser 1983 ：
40）
．
It is likely that any group of four or five people will have quite a range of knowledge ，
attitudes ，and
assu m ptions about any given subject．A short discussion can give the writer a sa m ple and help build and
intuitive sense of how readers m ay respond to a writing project．Most people think that writing has to be a
49
Face－
to－
face and Synchronous Electronic Discussion as Pre writing Activity in the．
．．　Liu Mingming
lonely activity in w hich a writer confronts blank sheets of paper and tries to fillthe m with w ords that will
convey his or her ideas to other people．Most people assu m e that writing should be an individual effort —
so m ething m ainly between students and teachers． However ，the support of other writers is im portant．
Students can help each other write better papers． According to Gebhardt and Rodrigues（1989 ），
“By
talking aboutideasin sm all groups ，
students have an opportunity to engage in extended conversations with
one another ，giving and receiving feedback on their ideas about a topic ，and helping one another learn
how to develop their ideas through lively conversation”
（P．4）．
2．
4 A defect of sm all group discussion
When the m ethod of sm all group discussion for prewriting is applied into classroo m ，
it is reported ，
however ，
that overall L2 writers do less planning atthe global and locallevels． Whereas they devote m ore
attention to generating m aterial ，
this generation is m ore difficult and less successful．Thus m ore tim e is
spent on figuring out the topic ，
less useful m aterial is generated ，and m ore of the generated ideas never
find their way into the written text．L2 writers do less goal setting ，global and local ，and have m ore
difficulty achieving these goals（Cited in Silva 1993 ：
661）
．
Silva（1993）then points outthough general co m posing process patterns are similarin L1 and L2 ，
itis
clear that L2 co m posing is m ore constrained ，m ore difficult ，and less effective． L2 writers did less
planning and had m ore difficulty with setting goals and generating and organizing m aterial（p．
668）
．
Besides ，
though varied collaborative activities in pairs ，
sm all groups ，and even so m e large groupings
help students draw on each others knowledge of language ，rhetoric ，style ，and content to generate and
arrange ideas ，the process of the generation of ideas for writing or for other collaborative w ork is a
co m plex issue．Creativity is not so m ething that can necessarily be ensured sim ply by arranging the right
environ m ental conditions．Conventional chaired m eetings can have the proble m that a participant with an
idea m ay not be prepared to speak out for fear of stepping out of line ，thus such m eetings m ay stifle
creativity（Palm quist et al．1998 ：
120）
．
3．Co m puter－mediated co m m unication and the teaching of writing
3．
1 Introduction
Co m puter use has produced so m any upheavals of established standards that we notice the first
tre m ors of a significant paradig m shift．As Jay David Bolter（1992 ）describes it ，
this is a“watershed as
im portant as the shift fro m m anuscript to print in the fifteenth century”
（Cited in HalesVass 2002）．
Not only are hard ware and software changing rapidly ，public acceptance — and use — of co m puter
technologiesis burgeoning ，and with this rapid acceptance of co m puter technologies into our daily lives
co m e new expectations about how co m puters fit into educationalinstitutions．There will be m ore ，
rather
than less ，public de m and for skillful and efficient uses of co m puters in education．There will be m ore ，
rather than less ，de m and for equitable access to co m puters ，not only for w ord processing but also for
Internet searching ，electronic co m m unications ，and collaborative w ork（Palm quist et al．1998 ：
2）
．
Using co m puters to help people learn to write is not a new practice a m ong teachers of college
co m position — students have used stand－
alone co m puters and w ord processors in writing classroo ms for
years（Dece m ber ，
1994）
teachers are now setting up local area netw orks and connecting these
．However ，
netw orks to the Internet．On these netw orks ，
teachers are beginning to use a variety of tools — not just
for w ord processing — but for real－
tim e and text－
based online discussion． These practices extend the
classroo m walls and give the students ways to write and think in situations never possible before．
Raim es（1992）states that reading ，thinking ，talking ，and writing about a subject are all essential
parts of the writing process ，
and“for second－
language students ，
these activities are especially valuable ，
as
they provide m any opportunities for co m m unication in the new language．
”These activities are possible ，
to varying degrees ，with co m puter netw orking and thus netw ork m ay be an effective tool for teaching
writing（Cited in Chun 1994 ：
19）
．
There are tw o m ain types of netw orks ：
（1 ）national and international netw orks such as Internet ，
w hich allow users to share inform ation via electronic m ail ，bulletin boards ，and discussion lists ；and
50
CELEA Journal 62
（2）local area netw orks（LANs），w hich link co m puters in an office ，a departm ent ，or a laboratory to
each other．
Co m puter－m ediated co m m unication（CMC ），w hich has existed in primitive form since the 1960s but
has only beco m e widespread in the last five years ，
is probably the single co m puter application to date with
the greatestim pact on language teaching．For the firsttim e ，
language learners can co m m unicate directly ，
inexpensively ，and conveniently with other learners or speakers of the target language 24 hours a day ，
fro m school ，w ork ，or ho m e．This co m m unication can be asynchronous（not sim ultaneous）through tools
such as electronic m ail（e－m ail），w hich allows each participant to co m pose m essages at their tim e and
pace ，or in can be synchronous（synchronous ，
user
“real tim e”），using progra ms such as MOOs（ Multi－
do m ain ，Object－
Oriented），w hich allow people all around the w orld to have a sim ultaneous conversation
by typing at their keyboards．It also allows not only one－
to－
one co m m unication ，but also one－
to－m any ，
allowing a teacher or student to share a m essage with a sm all group ，
the w hole class ，a partner class ，or
an international discussion list of hundreds or thousands of people（ Warschauer 1996b）
．
In 1978 ，Hiltz and Turoff asserted that co m puterized conferencing w ould eventually“have dra m atic
psychological and sociological im pacts on various group co m m unication objects and processes”
（Cited in
Warschauer 1996a）
．In the 1980s ，the use of electronic co m m unication started to beco m e popular in the
United States in the teaching of co m position．In the late 1980s ，second and foreign language teachers
began to integrate electronic co m m unication into language teaching． For teachers of second language
writing ，
the rationale and m otivation were largely the sa m e as for their first language counterparts．For
teachers of generalsecond language classes ，
there were a nu m ber of additional m otivations ，
including the
desire to provide authentic co m m unication partners （ Cohen ＆ Miyake 1986 ；Para mskas 1993 ），the
recognition of the im portance of cultural exchange （Soh ＆Soon 1991 ），and the desire to teach new
learning skills to language minority students（Cu m mins ＆Sayers 1990）
．
Co m puter－
m ediated co m m unication is the process of exchanging thoughts ，
ideas ，
and inform ation via
a co m puter keyboard and screen connected to other co m puters．The co m puter keyboard and screen enable
the co m m unicator to enter and receive inform ation．The inform ation is transmitted via netw ork cables
w hich carry electrical signals to interconnected co m puters． Much like a telephone enables voice
co m m unication ，
so too do co m puters act as instru m ents to enable text and ，
in so m e instances ，pictures
and sounds as well to be shared （ Berge ＆ Collins 1995 ：
16 ）
． The netw orked co m puter ，however ，
encourages a m uch m ore powerful social ele m ent in the assign m ent cycle．Prewriting beco m es co m m unal
invention ，and revision beco m es a function of peer review ． The change is significant ，for the
preponderance of activity in a netw orked classroo m shifts e m phasis fro m writing as an isolated act to
writing as a rhetorical and social act ，and the shift powerfully supports progress in writing ability（ Myers
1993 ：
30）
．
3．
2 Synchronous CMC and prewriting discussion
In the 1980s ，
the use of electronic co m m unication started to beco m e popular in the first and second
language co m position classroo ms． Co m puter－m ediated co m m unication strips away factors that tend to
control or delimit face－
to－
face conversation．CMC reduces social context clues related to race ，gender ，
handicap ，accent and status ，as well as non－
verbal cues ，such as frow ning and hesitating． CMC also
allows individuals to contribute at their ow n tim e and pace ，neutralizing the advantage of those w ho tend
to speak out loudest and interrupt the m ost（Sproull ＆Kiesler 1991）
．
Thus ，
synchronous co m puter－m ediated co m m unication provideslearners an open－
ended ，
equal ，m ore
student－
centered environ m ent in w hich learners join the discussion m ore equally and concentrate on the
discussion topic on their ow n initiative．In this way ，
the prewriting discussion can be developed all－
round
so as to revealits im portant role as the beginning of the w hole writing process．
Moreover ，so m e researches claim that synchronous CMC helps learners to develop their ability to
form clear ，coherent sentences during the interactions． Besides ，the electronic discussion is a good
environ m ent for fostering the use of m ore form al and co m plex language both lexically and syntactically．
Thus ，
it is an effective way for im proving the language co m plexity and builds up a bridge w hich
51
Face－
to－
face and Synchronous Electronic Discussion as Pre writing Activity in the．
．．　Liu Mingming
connects prewriting and first drafts writing naturally．
3．
2．
1 Environ m ent
3．
2．
1．
1 An open－
ended foru m
Several studies in second language acquisition have already exa mined the ability of co m puter－
m ediated－
co m m unication（CMC ）to provide learners a foru m in w hich they can produce m ore language
class
（Kern 1995 ；Beauvois 1998 ）and m ore diverse discourse functions （Chun 1994 ）than during in－
discussions ，and in w hich they can beco m e the initiators of discourse instead of m ere followers of teacher－
directed interaction（ Meskill ＆Ranglova 2000）
to－
．These researches find that during interactive learner－
learner writing ，
i）students expressed their ideas m ore freely and extensively using the second language ；
ii）negotiated m eaning m ore effectively ；
iii）produced m ore output and m ore discourse functions．
（O Sullivan 1987 ；Goldstein ＆ Conrad 1990 ；Strasm a ＆ Foster 1992 ；Reinertsen ＆ Wells 1993 ；
Arredondo ＆Rucinski 1994 ；Leppanen ＆Kalaja 1995）
490）
（Cited in Abra ms 2001 ：
．
Students who are norm ally silent or shy during discussion so metimes say they feel m ore confident to
express their ideas and opinions in writing during chat sessions than they feel speaking face to face with
groups of people（Jeney 2002）
．
In online synchronous group discussions ，
studentslearn fro m their peersin a low－
anxiety environ m ent
491 ）
（Kurtz Allaei ＆ Connor 1990 ；Strasm a ＆ Foster 1992 ）（Cited in Abra ms 2001 ：
． Cru m p （1992 ）
believes that in the future students will do m ost of their writing online．
Sullivan and Pratt（1996）point out that“netw orked co m puters m ay have m ore advantages for the
ESL writer than for the native speaker writer”for m any reasons ，
including that netw orked classroo ms
offer“the less proficient speaker m ore tim e to think about w hat to‘say’，
thus reducing anxiety and the
probability of error”
． Kivela （1996 ），in one of the few papers on netw orked writing in Asia ，find a
decrease in Hong Kong university learners anxiety through using netw orked co m puters． Of those 25
students w ho have a positive total affect change ，m any are positive m ostly due to decreases in confusion ，
disappointm ent ，unhappiness ，and／
or anxiety（Cited in Curtis ＆Roska ms 2000 ：
29）
．
The study of foreign languages is typically a high stress endeavor． Many students find learning a
second language difficult and anxiety producing．In studies of university French ，Germ an ，ESL ，and
Spanish course over the past four years ，
students positive response to the LAN setting has been virtually
unanim ous with m any stressing the low anxiety atm osphere of LAN discussion （Cited in Beauvois 1998 ：
199）
．
Studies have show n that the limited social context in w hich CMC occurs encourages student
interaction． Wo m en are m ore likely to participate in CMC discussions than in classroo m discussions．The
social context in w hich interaction occurs is m ore im portant in co m m unication than the m eans of
co m m unicating．By using CMCto discuss ideas ，
students can evaluate each other s ideas with im m ediate
feedback and construct new ideasin a collaborative setting．Allthe students think that CMCis beneficial．
All students feel that being able to read the point of view of others is helpful in developing their ow n
ideas ，and realizing that others see things differently（Ruberg ，Moore ＆Taylor 1996）
．
Students can finish a co m ment／post without being interrupted． There are benefits to em powering
students by giving them the certainty that their co m ments in a real－
time discussion cannot be cut off ，
interrupted ，or silenced in m anipulative or authoritarian ways（Jeney 2002）
．
In principle ，
students w ould be able to“talk”all at the sa m e tim e instead of waiting their turn as in
the face－
to－
face form at ，and therefore they w ould be able to produce m ore extensive feedback on peers
co m positions．
Participants in CMC can express ideas without waiting to take a turn or being interrupted ，and the
anony mity of CMC enables the m to contradict prior m essages in a non－
threatening way． CMC
52
CELEA Journal 62
co m m unication is thus m ore uninhibited than face－
to－
face co m m unication．In face－
to－
face interaction ，
group m e m bers m ay not express ideas because they do not get an opportunity to speak （others are
speaking），
they are un willing to share ideas that m ay be ridiculed ，or they do not feelthey have anything
to contribute．These factors are related to the social context of the group．Due to the lack of social cues
in CMC ，
there is a m ore equal status and thus freer expression of ideas（Olaniran 1994）
．
Online learning allows m any－
to－m any co m m unication ；
in other w ords ，any m e m ber of a group m ay
initiate interaction with any or all of the others．This can bring about the positive affects of reactions and
responses of a social audience discussed by Bakhtin（Volosinov 1973）
（Cited in Warschauer 1997）．
On the surface of things ，
this feature of m any－
to－m any co m m unication is similar to w hat occurs in a
group oral conversation．Yet there are tw o im portant differences．First of all ，as in this situation ，the
written and co m puter－m ediated m ode of the discourse facilitates a special relationship between interaction
and reflection． This creates an excellent environ m ent for a group of people to construct knowledge
together by expressing the mselves in print and then assessing ，evaluating ，co m paring ，and reflecting on
their ow n views and those of others． A second and related difference is that the social dyna mics of
co m puter－m ediated discussion have proven to be different than face－
to－
face discussion in relation to issues
such as turn－
taking ，
interruption ，balance ，equality ，consensus ，and decision－m aking．
Teachers report that control of discussion shifts decisively in the direction of the students ，
as students
can speak to each other without having to wait for the teachers permission．They claim that this fosters
student－
student discussion and pro m otes cooperative relationships a m ong students．Students reportedly
beco m e better writers by having an authentic audience and a purpose as well as m ore tim e on task．
Electronic discussion allegedly encourages“a sense of group knowledge”and “a co m m unal process of
knowledge m aking”and encourages“critical awareness about how co m m unication ，
or misco m m unication ，
occurs”
（DiMatteo 1991）（Cited in Warschauer 1997）．
Co m puter－
assisted class discussion （ CACD ） allows students to play a greater role in m anaging the
discourse ，e．g．they feel freer to suggest a new topic ，follow up on so meone else s idea ，or request
m ore inform ation（Hiltz 1986 ：
95）
．
Using anony m ous ，sim ultaneous ，netw orked w ord processing ，students vigorously expressed their
opinions ，disagree m ents ，and experiences ，asked each other questions ，and engaged in m eaningful
written co m m unication（Knox－
Quinn 2002）
．
Professor Flowers re m arks that the experience of the authors is a surprisingly social one． Writing
tends to be an isolated act ，
and audience is often re m ote．Yet ，
the anim ated atm osphere in the co m puter
lab ，the laughter and concentration ，shows that m any of these students have a live social and
co m m unicative experience w hile they are writing．Even though the professor envisions this as a short ，
prewriting exercise ，
the students ask to m eet again the next class period so they could continue w hat they
have started（Cited in Knox－Quinn 2002）
．
One of the m ain alleged benefits of CMC is that it enhances student m otivation ，supposedly by
providing students a less threatening m eans to co m m unicate ，providing stim ulating international contact ，
and facilitating w ork on m eaningful projects（Cited in Warschauer 1996b）
．
Warschauer（1996a）says ，
On the whole ，the students reported feeling that they could express themselves freely ，co mfortably ，
and creatively during electronic discussion ，that participating in electronic discussion assisted their
thinking ability ，and that they did not feel stress during electronic discussion．In fact ，in all of these
areas ，their attitude toward electronic discussion was slightly better on the average than that toward
face－
to－
face co m m unication．
3．
2．
1．
2 A group of equal opportunity
It is thus not quite like anything that takes place in the traditional classroo m where ，whenever one
person answers a question orally ，all hear it． Further ，in a traditional classroo m a few “ talkers”
53
Face－
to－
face and Synchronous Electronic Discussion as Pre writing Activity in the．
．．　Liu Mingming
co m m only answer m ost of the questions ，while other mem bers of the class are passive（ Hiltz 1986 ：
97）
．
The unique character of the learning environ m ent created by a co m bination of a LAN and this
particular facilitating software enables students and instructors to exchange ideas on a given text as equal
partners in the discussion （Beauvois 1998 ：
199 ）
． All participants in the netw orked classroo m have the
sa m e opportunity to post m essages w hich then appear on the screens of all m e m bers of the class．
Everyone can participate ；
everyone has the option to respond to or to ignore a m essage．No one can truly
do minate the synchronous conversation neither a particularly talkative student nor an equally talkative
teacher．The process gives students and teachers essentially the sa m e“voice”in a“discussion”
．
Recent studies in English literature and co m position classes using electronic discussion in class suggest
that typically reticent students — w o m en ，minority students ，and anxious or shy learners — tend to
participate in the discussion m ore readily and m ore abundantly in this non－
threatening environ m ent than
in their regular classroo m （Bu m p 1990）
tim e CMC m odel has proven
．In addition ，this synchronous ，real－
effective in encouraging students ，at different levels of language study and with varying abilities ，to
participate freely ，using the target language in m any different contexts（Kern 1995）
．
Specifically ，
total a m ount of student participation in electronic discourses ranges fro m 85 ％ to 92 ％
（85 ％in Sullivan ＆Pratt ，1996 ；86 ％ and 88 ％in tw o classes studies by Kern ，1995 ；and 92 ％in Kelm ，
1992）
to－
face discourse ，student participation ranges fro m 35 ％（Sullivan and Pratt ，1996 ）to
．In face－
37 ％（one class in Kern ，
1995）to 60 ％（the second class in Kern ，1995）
．Sullivan and Pratt（1996）find
that 100 ％ of the students participate in electronic discourse and only 50 ％in the face－
to－
face discussion．
Kern（1996 ）and Kelm （1992 ）similarly find that so m e students say nothing face－
to－
face ，w hile all
participate online（Cited in Warschauer 1997）
in an experim entalstudy co m paring
． Warschauer（1996a），
sm all group discussion online or face－
to－
face ，find that the online groups are twice as balanced ，
principally because the m ost silent students increase their participation m any－
fold online．
Warschauer（1996a）asserted ，
One of their m ain findingsis a strong equalizing effect of co m puter－mediated co m m unication．In other
words ，whereas face－
to－
face discussions tend to be relatively unbalanced ，with one or two participants
do minating the floor or determining the topics ，co m puter－mediated co m m unication features m ore
balanced participation ，with speakers sharing the floor m ore equally．
Sproull and Kiesler（1991）review six studies that co m pared the equality of participation in electronic
discussion to face－
to－
face discussion and all six studies show that electronic discussion is decidedly m ore
balanced．In addition ，
they find thatitis those w ho are traditionally at the botto m of the tote m pole w ho
benefit m ost fro m this increased equality． Flores （1990 ）reports that co m puter netw orking serves to
equalize w o m en s participation in courses they teach． Mabrito （1991 ）find that students w ho are m ore
apprehensive about writing tend to benefit m ost fro m peer critique conducted electronically． Harm an
et al．（1991 ） find that electronic discussion helps less able students increase their a m ount of
co m m unication both with the teacher and with other students．
Second and foreign language teachers have also claim ed that electronic co m m unication has proved an
equalizer in their classroo ms．Tella（1992）finds that Finnish girls ，w ho traditionally have less access to
and experience with co m puters than boys ，benefite greatly fro m their full and equal participation in an
international English－
language e－m ail project （ Cited in Warschauer 1996a ）
． Kelm ，citing anecdotal
evidence fro m his ow n teaching ，reports that in his Portuguese classes co m puter－
assisted classroo m
discussions are great equalizers of student participation（1992 ：
443）
（Cited in Warschauer 1996a）．Kern
to－
face discussions of the sa m e length in his university French class
（1995）co m pares electronic and face－
and finds that all students participated in tw o 50－minute w hole class electronic discussion but four do not
participate at all ，w hile five tend to do minate ，
in tw o 50－minute face－
to－
face discussions．Sullivan and
Pratt（1996）conduct a similar study and find that 50 ％ of the students participatin a w hole class face－
to－
face discussion co m pared to 100 ％in a w hole class electronic discussion．
Thus evidence suggests that electronic co m m unication can bring about m ore equal participation
54
CELEA Journal 62
a m ong second and foreign language students．
According to Deirdre（1995 ），so m e of the aspects of CMC w hich are believed to account for this
greater equality of participation include the following ：
（1）CMC reduces social context clues related to race ，gender ，handicap ，accent and status w hich
so m etim e reinforce unequal participation in other types of interaction．
verbal cues ，such as frow ning and hesitating ，w hich can intimidate people
（2 ） CMC reduces non－
（especially those with less power and authority ）by re minding the m that their co m m ents are
being evaluated．
（3）CMC allows individuals to contribute at their ow n tim e and pace ，neutralizing the advantage of
those w ho tend to speak out loudest and interrupt the m ost ，and allowing students to initiate
co m m unication without seeking permission．
3．
2．
1．
3 A m ore student－
centered co m m unication
Bu m p（ 1990 ） shows that the use of an LAN with discussion CACD software is effective in English
courses．So me of the advantages of CACDfound in his and other studiesinclude ：intense collaboration
a m ong students and between students and teacher ； decentralization of the instructor s role and
therefore m ore learner－
centered ， m ore “ honest ” co m m unication （e．g． m ore self－
disclosure ，
expression of em otion）
．
The students in m ost traditional classroo ms spend their tim e passively listening to lectures or to a few
of their fellow classm ates w ho usually support a classroo m discussion．Even w hen a classroo m discussion or
question and answer session reaches an unusual level of excite m ent ，the m ajority of students are m erely
listening ，and their“listening”is m ore de m onstrational than real．The students attend class as generally
pacific but uninvolved aliens．
Engage m ent requires a m easure of individual authority ，a perceived ability to m anage so m e ele m ents
of a situation．The co m puter can distribute that authority ，for w hile instructors often feel a diminishing
of the classroo m authority in the co m puter－
based classroo m ，
the students feeljust the opposite．
Teachers adopt different roles in the tw o classroo m settings．Teachers report that they feelthe need
to take charge in the traditional classroo ms ，leading the m to conduct m ore front－
of－
the－
classroo m
activities （large－
group discussions ，lectures ） in the traditional classroo ms than in the co m puter
classroo ms．In contrast ，they indicate that they expect students to take m ore responsibility for their
learning in the co m puter classroo ms．They describe their role in the co m puter classroo ms as facilitator
rather than leader and typically ask their students to w ork in sm all groups or to write during class rather
than to engage in large－
group discussions or listen to lectures（Palm quist et al．1998 ：
33）
．
Caitlin noted ，
Ithink that the way I structure the traditional classroo m ，I don t expect m y students to be as
responsible for m aybe picking the m ain points out of an article．Iguide them m ore directly to that．I
lead them m ore by the nose to co me to an understanding or to an agreement a m ong the class．In the
co m puter classroo m ，a lot of that s done individually on co m puter and they do their response there
rather than do their response verbally in class． And that Isay ，you know ，
“ Chat with your neighbor”，
or“Switch seats and take a look and see if you agree or disagree”
． And then the only leading Ido with
them is m aybe the questions Ibegin with． But I m not right there involved in their processes saying ，
“ Do you understand this point ？ What do you think about ，how does this point relate to the other
point ？
”I m not guiding them in the discussion in understanding the sa me way Ido in the traditional
classroo m ． That s where Ithink that they re m ore responsible for understanding things and if they
don t understand them ，they need to co me see me and ask or ask the student（Cited in Palm quist et al．
1998 ：
128）
．
The role of teachers then is thus not only to help contribute ideas and m ove the discussion along ，
itis
also a disciplinary role of keeping discussions under control．
55
Face－
to－
face and Synchronous Electronic Discussion as Pre writing Activity in the．
．．　Liu Mingming
When students are e m powered and the teacher s position is decentralized ，a shift in value of student
writing occurs．Cooper and Selfe （1990 ）believe that CMC can m ake class sessions“ m ore egalitarian ，
reducing the do minance of the teacher ．
．．and increasing the im portance of the students discourses”
（Cited in HalesVass 2002 ）
． When student discourse beco m es m ore im portant ，and students have m ore
control over w hat they express ，
the classroo m changes fro m teacher－to student－
centered．
The traditional classroo m m odel ，in w hich the teacher talks 75 percent of the tim e ，is altered in
CMC as students have m ore opportunity to contribute to the discussion． Typically the teacher s
contribution falls to 20 ％ of the conversation（Ruberg ，Moore ＆Taylor 1996）
．
3．
2．
1．
4 A concentrated topic
The advantages of CACD（ Co m puter Assisted Classroo m Discussion）：im prove thinking and creativity
20）
（Hiltz 1986 ：
．
Studentsin the co m puter classroo ms talk with their classm ates and with their teachers m uch m ore
frequently during class than students in the traditional classroo ms． Moreover ，conversations a m ong
students in the co m puter classroo ms tend to focus on writing ，w hile those in the traditional classroo ms
tend to focus on issues unrelated to the class．
As Palm quist et al．
（1998）point out ，
In our classroo m observations ， however ， we find that students are no m ore likely to exchange
co m ments about non－
class items in the co m puter classroo m ； on the contrary ，students in the
traditional classroo m are m ore likely to discuss off－
task topics． Students in the co m puter classroo m
typically talk to each other about their writing ，asking for im pro m ptu peer review or advice as
problems develop（p．
17）
．
Students in the co m puter classroo m are m uch m ore engaged in classroo m w ork —they perceive that
w hat go on in the classroo m is serious and w orth their co m mitm ent of energy and attention．
This technique is also very effective in giving the students the opportunity to dive m ore deeply into
the subject m atter and explore the text m ore thoroughly．
Their treatm ent of the topic also tends to be m ore thorough and m ore openly personal／honest than in
the traditional oral discussions of the sa m e topics（Beauvois 1998 ：
212）
．
Kroonenberg（1994／
1995）has her high school French students occasionally w ork in pairs to discuss
and debate positionsin co m puter－m ediated synchronous chat m ode．She finds that m any students are m ore
expressive in this m ode than in written co m position（w here every sentence weighs heavily on their minds）
or in oral conversation（w hich deters shy students）
（Cited in Warschauer 1997）．
When oral discussion follows these online chats ，the quality of the argu m ents is enhanced and
thinking is m ore creative than without this kind of preparation ，and interest in listening is aug m ented as
well．The online chats thus serve the role of thinking devices that are im portant for collaborative
construction of knowledge． The co m puter conference discussions show a significantly deeper overall
critical thinking ratio than the face－
to－
face discussions．
3．
2．
2 Language
3．
2．
2．
1 Form ality and co m plexity
Aco m parison of electronic discussions with oral classroo m discussions shows favorable results in the
areas of quantity ，
“ quality”，and greater student participation in LAN discourse． As docu mented in
these analyses ，students tend to write messages of m ore than one sentence and often with co m plex
co m pound sentence structure（Beauvois 1998 ：
212）
．
Real－
tim e CMC de m onstrates the im portance of audience and the need to develop the ability to form
clear ，coherent sentences in all verbal interactions．The challenge of translating conversational English
into a written form creates proble m －
solving situations．
56
CELEA Journal 62
A nu m ber of researchers have suggested that electronic co m m unication differs linguistically fro m
both traditional written and spoken discourse ，
and that these differences can be exploited for pedagogical
advantage．Chun（1994），for exa m ple ，contends that electronic discussion is similar to written texts in
terms of language co m plexity ，
yet rese m bles face－
to－
face discussion in terms of functions perform ed ，and
thus can serve as an im portant bridge for transfer of co m m unication skills fro m the written to spoken
do m ain．Kern（1995）finds that students electronic discussions in French are m ore m orphosyntactically
co m plex than their face－
to－
face language．
The electronic discussion tends to include m ore form al expressions ，
such as“in m y opinion”，
“over
all”，
to－
“based on m y experience”，
“such as”，and“therefore”w hich are virtually absent fro m the face－
face discussion．In contrast ，face－
to－
face co m m ents use m ore inform al expressions（ Warschauer 1996a）
．
Thus ，
the electronic discussion can be a good environ m ent for fostering use of m ore form al and
co m plex language ，both lexically and syntactically． The m ore co m plex and form al language in the
electronic discussions is potentially beneficial to all the students ，since it m ay assist the m in acquiring
m ore sophisticated co m m unicative skills．
There has been one study that claims that se m ester－
long participation in co m puter－
assisted discussion
is m ore beneficial to the develop m ent of student writing than the participation in oral discussion（Sullivan
＆Pratt 1996）．
3．
2．
2．
2 Use of target language
So me students ，however ，believe interacting in writing to be valuable ：
“Interchange．．．forces us to
think in English ，type in English．If only verbal discussion ，we will all speak Cantonese”；
“ Because
after the lessons ，Irecognize learning English could be funny and not boring”
（Curtis ＆Roska ms 2000 ：
36）
．
In a norm al classroo m ，
a co m m on vehicle to provide opportunities for learner－
centered oral discourse
to develop their co m m unication co m petence is sm all－
group activity or pair w ork． However ，
it is all too
co m m on that students revert to their native language once the teacher is no longer within earshot． An
advantage of synchronous co m puter conferencing is that the entire class ，as well as the teacher ，reads
everything everyone else writes ，and students might thus feel m ore co m pelled to use only the target
language．
The fact that the target language is used alm ost exclusively throughout the written discussion follows
theories of second language learning m aintaining that“language is a social syste m of co m m unication．
Individuals develop their language skills through use ，through involve m ent in co m m unicative events”
（Savignon 1991 ）．The polylogue generated by the LAN see ms to provide the necessary “dyna mic
exchange”described by Savignon and others（Beauvois 1997）
212）
（Cited in Beauvois 1998 ：
．
3．
2．
3 Prewriting and first drafts
3．
2．
3．
1 Language
Peer groups are useful for helping authors initially explore m ultiple dimensions of their topics through
interactions with others． Haynes（ 1998 ） mentions collaborative brainstorming as one of the m ain
benefits of using synchronous co m puter conferencing to facilitate interactions in co m position classes
52）
（Cited in Honeycutt 2001 ：
．
The form ality and co m plexity oflanguage in electronic discussion suggestthatit might be an excellent
m ediu m for pre－
writing w ork since it could serve as a bridge fro m spoken interaction to written
co m position．
Below are several good reasons to use synchronous CMC in writing classes ，particularly during
invention or brainstorming stages of idea generation and refining．
1）People thinking together will end up spurring each other to have new ideas ，or to keep building on
each others ideas ，
resulting in approaches that alone they might not have co m e up with． We see
57
Face－
to－
face and Synchronous Electronic Discussion as Pre writing Activity in the．
．．　Liu Mingming
this in class discussion so m etim es ，but seeing itin writing can be a heuristic aid toward pulling out
m ore thought and exploration． Walter Ong says that writing objectifies thought and allows us to
m anipulate it m ore than the spoken w ord does（Cited in Day 2002）
．Gaining distance（not m uch ，
since this is synchronous）allows internal reflection on the w ords and w hat they might m ean ，
before one responds．Chat is a collaborative idea generator．
2）The chat can help the students stop fro m saying so m ething that is only half－
baked．However ，
for
so m e students ，even a half－
form ed idea is better than no idea at all ，and other students can help
the m tease out m ore of a thought by questioning and co m m ents． We m ay be m ore likely to see
“thought co ming into being”in written language in chat sessions．
3）For the argu m entative writing ，in w hich acknowledging contending views is im portant ，a good
chat can help students test out their claims and know about the challenges and m odifications that
others might m ake to their ideas．
4）It is an easy way for the teacher to take a chat transcript to an overhead or printout to circle or
copy／
paste for the class to show the good ideas or poor ones during the w hole class discussion ，
and
this will help students to develop or polish their ow n papers．
3．
2．
3．
2 Form
In the invention stage ，synchronous conferencing not only allows students to quickly exchange ideas
and feed on one another s thinking ，but also provides a written record of the discussion that students
can later use as a pro m pt in writing their first drafts（Honeycutt 2001 ，
）．
Everything w orth noting gets docu m ented． The resultant ideas are available on－
line in a reusable
form for anyone to use as the basis for further w ork．
Students w ould receive a written transcript of their response－
group session ，helping the m to
re m e m ber the points of discussion and consequently to act on peers suggestions．And no co m m entislost．
All posts are present in their entirety ，so that even w hen the text scrolls quickly ，all co m m ents are
co m plete and accessible to all readers． Another decided advantage of CACD is that learners are under
neither tim e pressure to respond nor the psychological pressure of m aking a mistake or looking foolish．In
addition ，
the length and breadth of their entries are not restricted ，and their individual style are allowed
to flourish．
When asked to co m pare ，a w o m an fro m the sa m e class writes ，
“Nothing like a spirited debate and
personal context w hen giving co m m ents．InterChange （a synchronous co m puter conferencing software）
takes fro m that — but does have its good points ，that is — practice in spelling ，gra m m ar with exactly
w hat co m es to mind ，and ability to talk extensively about one or tw o points without interruption．Ifind
the InterChange conferencing highly effective because there is adequate tim e to think out a response and
to respond articulately and yet it is still a dialogue”
137）
（Cited in Schultz 2000 ：
．
Far fewer misunderstanding is carried around ，due to the co m bination of the greater expressive
richness of verbal co m m unication （ Chalfonte et al． 1991 ），and the interactive minuting of the
interchange（Cited in Sharples 1993 ：
121）
．
Co m puter－
assisted discussion allows students to better notice the input fro m others m essages and
incorporate that input into their ow n m essages ；besides ，co m puter－
assisted discussion ，w hich takes place
in writing and allows m ore planning tim e than does face－
to－
face talk ，
features language w hich is lexically
and syntactically m ore co m plex than oral talk（ Warschauer ＆ Meskill 2000）
．
4．Research questions
Evidence suggests that co m pared with the traditional face－
to－
face discussions ，
synchronous electronic
co m m unication can create an active ，equal ，student－
centered ，and effective environ m ent for second
language students during the classroo m and sm all or large group discussions．However ，
there is rarely any
study atte m pting to m ake research on how those previous positive results affect foreign language learners
sm all group prewriting discussion w hich isim portant for successful writing．This study aims to address the
following questions regarding Chinese students sm all group prewriting discussion perform ance in face－
to－
face and synchronous co m puter－m ediated discussions ：
58
CELEA Journal 62
1）Do Chinese students participate m ore in the prewriting discussion held electronically than in that
held in a traditional face－
to－
face m anner ？
2） What are students attitudes toward participating in electronic and face－
to－
face discussion ？
3）Does synchronous electronic discussion help students im prove their language ？
4） What are the differences or im prove m ents co m paring the co m position content of the first drafts
after the face－
to－
face discussion and those after the synchronous electronic discussion ？
5． Method
5．
1 Subjects
The subjects in the study are 30 students in an advanced EFL co m position class at Capital Norm al
University in Beijing．They were enrolled in this university according to their scores of the College Entré
e
Exa mination．The students in this advanced class are all junior English m ajors．Tw o of the students are
m ale and 28 fe m ale． They have finished tw o years basic writing classes． All have participated in a
co m puter－
lab writing class during the past tw o years ，so they have experience using the Netm eeting
co m puter progra m w hich is used as the synchronous electronic discussion software in this study．In
addition ，all of the participants have joined the typing skill course for one se m ester w hen they were
fresh m en in the departm ent．
5．
2 Materials
Six audio tape－
recorders are used to record face－
to－
face discussions．Electronic discussions are carried
out on thirty personal co m puters w hich are placed in the co m puter lab．
Software used for the electronic discussions is Netm eeting ，a real－
tim e co m m unication co m ponent of
the Microsoft progra ms． Using Netm eeting ，students type their m essages on the botto m half of a split
screen． When they hit“send”，m essages are instantaneously posted（with the na m e of the writer）on the
top half of their ow n screen and that of everyone else．Messages on the top half are continually posted in
chronological order．Users can scroll back and forth to reread previous m essages if they wish．
Inform ation about each student s prewriting experience ，co m puter skill ，personality and attitude
towards the tw o m odes of discussion is gathered by tw o non－
anony m ous survey on a five－
point Likert scale
with the state m ents presented．Although the lack of anony mity might have decreased students willingness
to answer honestly ，this is a necessary decision in order to allow correlations to be calculated between
their answers on the survey and their perform ance．
5．
3 Procedures
The study is conducted during tw o norm al 40－minute class－
period writing classes．The 30 students are
rando mly assigned into six groups of five students each．Each group is designed to discuss tw o topics ，one
face－
to－
face and one electronically． These tw o topics are related to one argu m entative state m ent ：full
tim e housewife．One is for it — it is good to be a full tim e housewife ，w hich is discussed in traditional
face－
to－
face m ode ，and another is against it —it is not good to be a full tim e housewife ，w hich is done
electronically．The topic is chosen in consultation with the professor to correspond with the students
current argu m entative writing course and the ongoing“one child fa mily”the m e．
In the first experim ent class period ，the prewriting discussion is held face－
to－
face for 20 minutes．
Each group is assigned a teacher to control the tape recorders and m ade notes in order to know w ho said
w hat．At the sa m e tim e ，instead of controlling the group ，these teachers w ould facilitate the process
w hen it is necessary．For exa m ple ，w hen the discussion cannot go on sm oothly ，
i．
e．everyone beco m es
silent．
In the second experim ent class period ，w hich is done a week later after the first face－
to－
face
discussion ，
the w hole class are seated in front of the personal co m puters in the co m puter lab for another
20－
minute synchronous electronic prewriting discussion． The six groups with the sa m e m e m bers
co m m unicate in their ow n groups through Netm eeting．The classroo m teacher sit at her ow n co m puter
and m onitor the electronic discussions ，as she usually does．
59
Face－
to－
face and Synchronous Electronic Discussion as Pre writing Activity in the．
．．　Liu Mingming
After a week ，the classroo m teacher ad minister the surveys to the students during a norm al class
period．
5．
4 Analyses
Both the quantity and the quality of the tw o discussion m odes（both face－
to－
face and synchronous
electronic）of each participant are analyzed．
As for the quantity ，an im portant index to show the equality ，is exa mined in tw o ways． One is
through the co m parison of the total w ord nu m bers ；
the other is through the contrast of the tim es of turn
taking．
The face－
to－
face discussions are transcribed and allthe transcripts ，both face－
to－
face and electronic ，
are typed into Word ，a w ord processing software of Microsoft ，in order to count the total nu m ber of
w ords per speaker．The nu m ber of w ords per speaker is used to calculate the participation percentage per
speaker．
The participation percentage per speaker is then used to co m pute the Group Deviation Percentage of
participation inequality for each group． The Group Deviation Percentage su ms ，over all the group
m e m bers ，
the deviations of each m e m ber fro m equal participation．The deviation percentage takes values
between 0 and 1 ，w here 0 m eans perfect equality． At the sa m e tim e ，all students are assigned an IPC
to－
face participation
（Increased Participation in Co m puter m ode ） score by subtracting their face－
percentages fro m their electronic discussion participation percentages（ Warschauer 1996a）
．Students w ho
decrease their participation in co m puter m ode are assigned negative IPCscores．
Besides，the average nu m ber of turns m ade by individual students is calculated． The higher the
nu m ber is ，
the m ore turns the students m ake in the discussions．
For the quality of discussion ，it is referred to the language co m plexity． Tw o analyses are m ade to
co m pare the co m plexity of the students output in the tw o m odes ：
1． Type－
Token Ratio（TTR ），as defined by the total nu m ber of different w ords divided by the total
nu m ber of w ords（ Warshauer 1996a）
．A higher TTRis generally considered to indicate greater language
co m plexity．Since TTR varies according to length of passage ，
excerpts totalling the sa m e a m ount of total
w ords are taken fro m the face－
to－
face and electronic transcripts for this m easure．
2． Coordination Index（CI），as defined by the nu m ber of independent clause coordinations divided
by the total nu m ber of co m bined clauses （independent coordination plus dependent subordination ）
（ Warshauer 1996a ）． The transcripts are then analyzed to calculate the total nu m ber of clause
coordinations and clause subordinations they contain． CIis considered to be inversely proportional to
co m plexity ，since m ore advanced writers or speakers of a language generally use proportionally m ore
subordination than do beginners．For exa m ple ，
in the sentence“Iwent to the store and Ienjoyed it”，CI
＝ 2 independent clauses／2 total clauses ＝ 1．0．Butin the sentence“Iwent to the store after he did”，CI
＝1 independent clause／2 total clauses ＝0．5． The analysis is done on the entire text ，not just one
sentence（ Mark Warschauer ，e m ail to author ，
Jan 29 ，2003）
．
Furtherm ore ，
the transcripts are exa mined to look for qualitative differencesin the language use and
interaction style in the tw o m odes．
Students surveys are reviewed to present different attitudes toward the tw o m odes of prewriting
discussions — w hich one is m ore beneficial ？Thus different experience during the tw o kinds of discussions
w ould be m entioned so as to explain the differences between the students perform ance in a face－
to－
face
m ode and that in an electronic m ode．
Moreover ，
the tw o first drafts of each student after the tw o m odes of prewriting discussions are
co m pared in regard of the content and language．The content scores are given by tw o English teachers of
the English Departm ent in Capital Norm al University ；
then ，
the result could represent the tw o different
prewriting discussions effects on students writing． The language co m plexity of the tw o drafts w ould
again apply the TTR and CIinto the calculation．Moreover the spelling and gra m m ar mistakesin the tw o
60
CELEA Journal 62
drafts are co m pared．
6．Results
6．
1 Language quantity research
6．
1．
1 Group Deviation Percentage
Table 1 shows the individual participation percentages of the six groups in face－
to－
face discussion ，as
well as the Group Deviation Percentage of participation inequality．
Table 1．Percentage of Participation for Each Student and the Group Deviation Percentagein
Face－
to－
Face Discussion
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
Group Deviation
Percentage
Group 1
25 ％
0％
2％
42 ％
31 ％
0．76 1
Group 2
18 ％
21 ％
29 ％
25 ％
7％
0．30
Group 3
10 ％
45 ％
13 ％
26 ％
5％
0．63
Group 4
40 ％
13 ％
absent
28 ％
19 ％
0．36
Group 5
13 ％
9％
27 ％
45 ％
6％
0．64
Group 6
8％
20 ％
19 ％
31 ％
21 ％
0．25
Mean deviation percentage for face－
to－
face discussion
0．49
Table 2 shows the individual participation percentages of the six groups in synchronous electronic
discussion ，as well as the Group Deviation Percentage of participation inequality．
Table 2．Percentage of Participation for Each Student and the Group Deviation Percentage in
Synchronous Electronic Discussion
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
Group Deviation
Percentage
Group 1
22 ％
9％
16 ％
23 ％
30 ％
0．30
Group 2
19 ％
11 ％
18 ％
25 ％
26 ％
0．23
Group 3
12 ％
22 ％
34 ％
16 ％
15 ％
0．33
Group 4
23 ％
23 ％
26 ％
16 ％
13 ％
0．23
Group 5
28 ％
34 ％
26 ％
absent
12 ％
0．26
Group 6
absent
18 ％
21 ％
28 ％
32 ％
0．21
Mean deviation percentage for synchronous electronic discussion
0．26
All of the six groups show out greater equality of participation in the electronic discussion ，especially
for Group 1 ，Group 3 ，and Group 5．The deviation percentages indicate that the electronic discussion is
nearly twice as equal as the face－
to－
face discussions（0．26 vs．0．49）
．
6．
1．
2 IPC
Am ong the 30 participants ，3 students have been absent either for the face－
to－
face discussion or the
electronic discussion ；
therefore ，
27 students IPCis calculated．14 of the 27 participants got positive IPC ．
The conclusion can be draw n that m ore than half of the students increased their prewriting discussion
participation in the synchronous CMC discussion m ode．
61
Face－
to－
face and Synchronous Electronic Discussion as Pre writing Activity in the．
．．　Liu Mingming
6．
1．
3 Turn－
taking
23 of the 27 participants m ake m ore turn－
takings in the synchronous CMC discussion m ode than in
the face－
to－
face m ode．The average nu m ber of turn－
taking in face－
to－
face discussion m ode is 5 ，w hile the
average nu m ber of turn－
taking in synchronous CMC discussion m ode is 9．
6．
2 Language co m plexity research
The electronic discussions are co m pared to the face－
to－
face discussions on tw o m easures of
co m plexity ，one lexical（Type－
Token Ratio）and one syntactic（Coordination Index）
．On both m easures ，
the electronic discussions involve significantly m ore co m plex language than the face－
to－
face discussions．
This is showed in Table 3．Both the lexical and the syntactic co m plexity of language are increased in the
synchronous CMC m ode．
Table 3．Co m plexity of Language in Face－
to－
Face and Electronic Discussions
Mode
Face－
to－
face
Synchronous electronic
Type－
Token－
Ratio
0．74
0．85
Coordination Index
0．75
0．69
6．
3 Language use and interaction style
There are m ore tim es of turn－
takings in the synchronous electronic discussion than in face－
to－
face
discussion．In the form er one ，
the conversation is m ore interactive ，and the participants ask and answer
questions besides expressing their ow n ideas．Thus ，
the co m m unication is m ore effective and natural．The
following is an exa m ple extracted fro m Group 1．
S1 ：A full tim e wife usually have lower position than her husband in her fa mily．
S2 ：Yes ，
Iagree．
S4 ：A w orking w o m an can enjoy her life in her daily job and realize her aim of life through the job．
S3 ：Having a career m other ，a child can quickly learn how to live indepently．
S2 ：How can a w o m an enjoy her life ？In w hich way ？
S1 ：What do you m ean ？
In the past ，w o m en don t have the right to w ork．Now ，
they ow n the right
through m any pioneer s efforts ，w hy they exploit the chance ？
S4 ：
If a w o m an staying at ho m e all day ，
she will have nothing to talk about with her husband and her
child．
S3 ：Every w o m en m ay be abandoned by their husbands ，but their results can be different ，
full－
tim e
wives m aybe have no m oney ，even be ho m eless．
S5 ：Yes ，
Itotally agree with you．So m etim es ，
life is hard．Through w orking ，
a w o m an m ay beco m e
strong－minded．
However ，
in the face－
to－
face discussion ，
students only spoke out their ow n ideas one by one without
m uch interaction．In addition ，a m ong the w hole conversation ，
there were long periods of silence．The
teacher had to stim ulate the discussion fro m tim e to tim e．This could be seen fro m the following exa m ple
chose fro m the face－
to－
face discussion of Group 1 again．
S1 ：
It s better to take care of their husband and children．
14
S2 ：A full tim e wife can pay m ore attention to their children s education．
12
Teacher ：Good point．
15
Teacher ：Taking care of husband and children．It s better．Taking care of children s education．
S3 ：Reduce the w o m an s pressure．
Teacher ：Huh．
20
Teacher ：What else ？We have to think as m any as we can ，
so and then we can select the best one
found for the idea．
62
CELEA Journal 62
22
Teacher ：Think of the reasons prove． What proves is a good idea．
S3 ：
Ithink so m e w o m en think．
．．they prefer bringing in her ho m e．If so．．．the w o m an can．．．
achieve．
to do m ore achieve m ent．
．．
12
S3 ：
If you like．
．．if you like doing w ork at ho m e． You can．．．do m ore achieve m ent than w ork
outside．
17
S1 ：
Ithink a full tim e wife．
．
．will have m ore tim e to enjoy herself．They needn t to w ork hard．
23
S4 ：
Ithink a full tim e wife have enough tim e to fa mily．
．．with her fa mily m e m bers and fulfilling．
In the above face－
to－
face interaction ，the teacher is constantly contributing the students into
participating．However ，
the students do not feel released to co m m ent on w hat another student has said．
Instead ，
they look towards the teacher for guidance．There is long silence after the end of a student s
talk ．On the contrary ，
in the synchronous CMC discussion ，
though ，
the participants directthe dialogue at
one another and not through the teacher．They m ake co m m ent on w hat the other participants said —
disagree m ent or agree m ent． Moreover ，
they ask questions to further explanation．
6．
4 Student attitudes
According to the questionnaire ，in all of the research areas ，students attitude toward electronic
discussion is slightly better on the average than that toward face－
to－
face co m m unication．Table 4 is the
questionnaire done by all of the 30 participants．
Table 4．Student Attitudes Toward Face－
to－
Face and Electronic Discussion
In face－
to－
face
discussion
In co m puter－m ediated
discussion
1． Ihave a lot of ideas to share with the group．
3．2 2
3．5
2． I feel stressed w hen I m expressing m y ow n
views．
2．5
1．9
3．Ia m busy thinking and talking／writing during the
discussion．
3．4
3．7
4． I feel inspired w hen hearing／
reading different
views．
3．8
3．9
5． Group discussion helps m e to find ideas for
writing assign m ents．
4．1
4．3
6． Our discussion is always heated．
3．0
3．3
7． If the teacher does not interfere ，our group will
talk in Chinese．
2．8
1．9
8． If the teacher does not interfere ，we will chat
about so m ething else．
2．4
2．1
State m ent
6．
5 Co m parison of the first drafts
The students first drafts co m posed after the tw o m odes of discussion are collected to co m pare the
language and the content of the co m positions．
For the language co m parison ，
the tw o statistics — TTR and CIare used in the sa m e way as in the
discussion language analysis．In addition ，
the total nu m ber of gra m m ar mistake m ade by each student in
the tw o drafts is recorded．Table 5 below shows the co m parison outco m e of the language in the students
tw o first drafts．
63
Face－
to－
face and Synchronous Electronic Discussion as Pre writing Activity in the．
．．　Liu Mingming
Table 5．Language in Tw o First Drafts
Mode
Face－
to－
face
Synchronous electronic
Type－
Token－
Ratio
0．77
0．83
Coordination Index
0．7
0．74
Average gra m m ar mistakes
4．2
2．6
Average spelling mistakes
2．0
1．5
As for the content of each first draft ，tw o teachers of the English departm ent in Capital Norm al
University give out the content scores according to the sa m e argu m entative writing rubric．The holistic
evaluation of content followed the standard that is listed in Appendix 1．
Each paper receives tw o content scores and the average score is used as the result．Table 6 presents
the scores of the 29 participants（one of the 30 student didn t finish her ho m ew ork ）for the tw o first
drafts．
Table 6．Content Score of Tw o First Drafts
Na m e
For（Face－
to－
face Against（CMC
discussion）
discussion）
Na m e
For（Face－
to－
face Against（CMC
discussion）
discussion）
Student 1
2．5
3．25
Student 16
3
3
Student 2
3．75
3
Student 17
2．25
2．25
Student 3
3．5
3
Student 18
3．5
3．5
Student 4
3．25
4
Student 19
3
3
Student 5
2．5
3．25
Student 20
2．75
3．5
Student 6
3
3
Student 21
2．75
3
Student 7
2．25
3
Student 22
2．25
2．5
Student 8
3
2．5
Student 23
3．5
3．5
Student 9
2．75
3
Student 24
3．25
3．5
Student 10
3．75
3．5
Student 25
2
2．25
Student 11
3．25
2．75
Student 26
2．5
2．5
Student 12
3．25
3．5
Student 27
3．25
3
Student 13
2．5
2．75
Student 28
2．75
3．25
Student 14
3．5
3．5
Student 29
3．25
3．5
Student 15
2．75
3
平均分
2．95
3．08
7．Findings
7．
1 Students participation
Chinese students participate m ore in the prewriting discussion than in the traditional face－
to－
face
one．This is proved by the following three statistics．First ，
the lower the Group Deviation Percentage is ，
the m ore equal the discussion is．According to the research results ，all the six groups have lower Group
Deviation Percentage in the synchronous CMC prewriting discussions．The outco m e ，
thus ，
shows that all
64
CELEA Journal 62
of the six groups have greater equality of participation in the electronic discussion．
Second ，14 of the 27 present participants get positive IPC ． That is to say ，m ore than half of the
students participate m ore in the synchronous CMC prewriting discussion m ode．The rest 13 though receive
negative IPC ，9 of the m have lower Individual Deviation Percentage（the Group Deviation Percentage
divided by the participant nu m ber in each group ）in electronic synchronous discussions than in that of
face－
to－
face m ode．In another w ords ，
these 9 students are the persons w ho usually do m ain the discussion
in face－
to－
face m ode．However ，w hen the discussion is changed into synchronous CMC style ，
they have
to lower their participation so as to m ake the discussion m ore equal to everyone．
（See Figure 1）
Figure 1．Six Groups Individual participation percentage in
face－
to－
face and synchronous CMC discussion
图 62T9.jpg
Group 1
图 62T10.jpg
Group 2
图 62T11.jpg
Group 3
图 62T12.jpg
Group 4
to－
face discussion）
（Student 3 is absent in face－
65
Face－
to－
face and Synchronous Electronic Discussion as Pre writing Activity in the．
．．　Liu Mingming
图 t62T13.jpg
Group 5
（Student 4 is absent in synchronous CMC discussion）
图 62T14.jpg
Group 6
（Student 1 is absent in synchronous CMC discussion）
takings of the synchronous CMC prewriting discussion again
Third ，the greater nu m ber of turn－
de m onstrates the high participant rate in the electronic discussion m ode．The data shows that during the
20 minutes discussion ，
the average nu m ber of turn－
takings m ade in synchronous CMC m ode is nearly twice
as m any as that in face－
to－
face m ode．It is necessary to note here that the length of the output is ranged
fro m sim ple one－
sentence to short paragraph with several co m plex sentences．For purposes of this paper ，
these differences are not to be m entioned．
These three evidences prove that students express their ideas m ore freely and extensively in the
synchronous CMC discussion with m ore output and participation in that m ode of discussion．The reason is
that synchronous co m puter discussion is different fro m that of traditional face－
to－
face one ，
in w hich m ost
participants feel stressed to speak in front of the others．The social distance provided in the electronic
discussion permits the students to discussin free and active environ m ent．
“So m e people don tlike to share
their ideas with others ，so they keep silent during the talk．Then everyone doesn t talk ，the discussion
can t continue．But in co m puter ，we like to share our ideas．So w hen we do so m e brainstorming ，we can
hear different point of views．It will be a real brainstorming．Fro m it ，we can broaden our mind and have
m ore ideas on the topic”，a participation（Student 14） m entioned in the questionnaire．
7．
2 Students attitudes
22 of the 29 participants w ho co m plete the questionnaire prefer discussing in synchronous CMC
m ode．The percentage is 76 ％． When asked w hat the m ain reasons are ，
the students generally m entioned
the following ones fro m the m ost popular ones to the least．
First ，
synchronous CMC discussion m akes the m feel relaxed and free．
“Ia m a shy girl ，especially
w hen Ispeak in English ，Ia m always afraid that I will m ake mistakes． Using Netm eeting can help m e
solve this proble m ”
（Student 19）．
“Idon t feel stressed w hen I m expressing m y ow n views and can talk
m ore freely”
to－
face chatting ，
because I m ay feel nervous and don t know
（Student 13）．
“Idon tlike face－
w hat to say w hen Ilook at other people s eyes．Student 59”
“You will not need to think about others ，you
can express your idea bravely ，and will not care about the laughing fro m others ！
”（Student 10）
．
66
CELEA Journal 62
Second ，based on the first reason ，the electronic discussion provides the students an easy
environ m ent to think deeply and creatively．“ What I have thought could be well organized in the
co m puter．Face－
to－
face discussion m akes m e nervous and I ve no idea about the topics in discussion．
However ，co m puter discussion softens m y stress and I can speak out m y ideas as m uch as possible ”
（Student 5）．
“Talking freely will encourage our thinking．Ideas will be m ore than discussing face to face”
（Student 7 ）．“I have m ore ideas w hen I sit in front of the co m puter”（Student 28 ）．
“I feel very
co mfortable and relaxed and it s easier for m e to think of m y ow n ideas and to organize the m ．It provides
m e m ore tim e to think of others opinions ，w hile at the face－
to－
face talk ，
Ihardly can think about other s
opinion carefully”
（Student 29）．
Third ，discussing through the co m puter allows students think about the gra m m ar and spelling．
“ We
have to think of using the right w ords and gra m m atical sentences”
（Student 18）．
“ We can practice our
writing through the co m puters． We should pay attention to the gra m m ar and w ords”
（Student 3）．
Fourth ，students said they are likely to chat about so m ething unrelated to the topic in face－
to－
face
discussion．And they will tend to speak in Chinese w hen they have difficulty to express the mselves．
However ，
these can be avoided in the synchronous CMC discussion．“ We can avoid the possibility of
chatting．So m etim es w hen we discuss face to face ，we willturn out to chat”
（Student 1）．
“If we talk face
to face ，we are m ore likely to talk in Chinese．
．．and it is easier for us to change our topic w hen we talk
face to face”
（Student 14）．
“ We don t want to speak in Chinese on co m puters”
（Student 26）．
“If we have
a discussion through co m puter ，
Ithink we will try our best to express m y idea in English rather than in
Chinese．At least it is true of m e”
（Student 1）．
Fifth ，electronic discussion is easy to be saved in co m puter．This is convenient for reviewing before
writing．“ After co m puter discussion ，I can look at the discussion board carefully and try to find out
so m ething useful ，but after face－
to－
face discussion ，m aybe Ican t re m e m ber everything well and willlose
so m e im portant ideas．
40”
“If I wish ，Ican save the discussion m ore easier”（Student 26）．
Sixth ，
so m e of the students think the electronic discussion can im prove their co m puter skill．
“．
．．and
also can im prove m y co m puter skills．Everyone is talking about so m ething just like on the Internet in a
chat roo m ．Ioften talk with others on line at ho m e”
（Student 6）．
Seventh ，
several participants m entioned the electronic discussion is efficient．
“Everybody writes at
the sa m e tim e．That can save m ore tim e than discussing face to face”
（Student 19）．
For the rest 7 students w ho prefer discussing face to face ，
the m ain reason is thatthey think the face－
to－
face discussion is m ore direct．
“The group m e m bers could declare all the views they have．They don t
mind the gra m m ar mistakes and the structure of the sentences． The form is m ore oral and the
co m m unication is m ore free and vivid”
（Student 4）．The second reason is that they are not used to the
electronic discussion．On one hand ，
they feeltheirideas are easily disturbed because everyone discussed at
the sa m e tim e． On the other hand ，one participant m entioned she had to pay m ore attention to typing
that is a headache to her．One point should be referred to here is that a m ong the 7 students ，except one
is absent for the face－
to－
face discussion ，5 students participated in the discussion higher than the average
participation in their group． That is to say ，they were usually the do m ain speakers in the face－
to－
face
group discussions．
7．
3 Language im prove ment
The higher Type－
Token－Ratio ，both in synchronous CMC discussion and in the first draft after the
electronic discussion ，indicated that on lexical level ，the electronic discussion involved m ore co m plex
language． At the sa m e tim e ，on the syntactic level ，the lower Coordination Index ，again both in
synchronous CMC discussion and in the first draft after the electronic discussion ，revealed the higher
language co m plexity in the electronic discussion since m ore advanced writers or speakers of a language
generally use m ore co m plex sentences than do beginners．Besides these tw o statistics ，
the fewer spelling
and gra m m ar mistakes in the first drafts co m posed after synchronous CMC discussion are an direct
evidence proving that students language is im proved through synchronous co m puter－m ediated
co m m unication．
67
Face－
to－
face and Synchronous Electronic Discussion as Pre writing Activity in the．
．．　Liu Mingming
An im portant reason is that in synchronous CMC discussion students have m ore tim e to think about
their language and pay m ore attention to the gra m m ar and the sentence structure． In face－
to－
face
discussion ，as m entioned above ，
students tend to feel nervous to speak out their ideas in front of others．
However ，
in the electronic discussion ，
the psychological hinder is replaced by the psychological or social
distance．Students are at ease to think about the language．
“ We have tim e to think of the right w ords and
gra m m atically correct sentences．However ，
Ifeelit gives m e too short tim e to think of the m in face－
to－
face brainstorming”
（Student 18）．
The difference between speaking and talking is another direct factor．Speech is fast ，but writing is
slow ．However ，
synchronous electronic discussion is different fro m the daily face－
to－
face chat and also
unlike the usual writing． Chun （1994 ）contends that electronic discussion is similar to written texts in
terms of language co m plexity ，
yet rese m bles face－
to－
face discussion in terms of functions perform ed ，and
thus can serve as an im portant bridge for transfer of co m m unication skills fro m the written to spoken
do m ain．Thus the synchronous electronic discussion provides the students an opportunity to speak out
their ideas after careful consideration of the language．Thatis a way to killtw o birds with one stone．One
of the participant said ，
“Chatting on co m puter will help us find out so m e gra m m atical mistakes ，w hich
cannot be realized w hen talking”
（Student 7）．
It is w orth m entioning that students ad mit they avoid talking in Chinese in the electronic discussion．
This is an honest reason for the im prove m ent of their language．“But m ost of the tim e Iuse Chinese ，
during the co m puter discussion Ican learn English fro m others”
In the interview ，
so m e said ，
（Student 6）．
to－
face ，we are m ore likely to talk in Chinese ，especially w hen we don t know how to
“If we talk face－
express our view in English ”（Student 14 ）
．
“ But we don t want to speak in Chinese on co m puters”
Itis like w hat Beauvois（1998 ：
212）had pointed the polylogue generated by the LANsee ms
（Student 26）．
to provide the necessary“dyna mic exchange”
．
7．
4 Content of first draft
There are not obvious differences between the tw o first drafts concerning the content of the
co m position． The average content score of the first drafts co m posed after face－
to－
face prewriting
discussion is 2．95 ，w hile the other average content score of those first drafts done after CMCsynchronous
prewriting discussion is 3．08． There is a little im prove m ent in CMC environ m ent． However ，it is not
evident．As for the reasons for this result ，the first and also the m ost im portant one is that after
prewriting there is a long process for each student to co m pose their draft． During this process ，
students
individual w ork willinfluence the prewriting discussion s result ；
thus ，
there will be so m e changes or new
ideas co ming into the writers brains．The second reason is that these participants are junior students ，
and
they have studied English co m position for nearly 3 years． Thus ，they have form ed their ow n writing
habits． A state m ent in a questionnaire ，a 5－
point Likert－
Scale Responses （ Maxim u m ＝5．1 stands for
strongly agree ，w hile 5 stands for strongly disagree）questionnaire （See Appendix 2 ） w hich was done
before the experim ent．—“Iprefer writing and thinking alone”gets the average 2．0．That m eans m ost
of the students get used to finishing writing by the mselves． Therefore ，for the m ，w hether to have a
prewriting discussion or not is not very im portant because they can write without it． Third ，the
experim ent is the first tim e for the participants to discuss through co m puter．Though they participated
m ore actively in the CMC discussion m ode ，
it is hard to change their writing habit．
8．Conclusion
The synchronous CMC discussion is an excellent m ediu m for prewriting because it serves as a
successful bridge fro m spoken interaction to written co m position．
First ，
the research indicated the m ore equal participation in synchronous CMC prewriting discussion ，
with all of the six groups m uch m ore equality in electronic discussion w hich was showed by the deviation
percentages de m onstrating that the electronic discussion was nearly twice as equal as the face－
to－
face
discussions ，
14 out of 27 participants positive IPC ，and the increasing nu m ber of turn－
takings alm ost
twice as m uch as the face－
to－
face discussions．Both the do minated and the silent m e m bers in the face－
to－
face discussion have even benefited fro m the m ore balanced electronic discussion ，for they had m ore
opportunities to listen to others．
68
CELEA Journal 62
Second ，76 ％ of the research participants prefer synchronous CMC prewriting discussion than face－
to－
face discussion with the reason that electronic discussion is free ，creative ，gra m m atical ，convenient ，
useful and efficient．
Third ，
the language in the electronic discussion is both m ore co m plex and m ore form al than the
language in the face－
to－
face discussion．Thus ，
the language in the students first drafts after the electronic
discussion is consequently m ore co m plex and m ore form al than the language after the face－
to－
face
discussion．The results suggest that electronic discussion is a good environ m ent for fostering use of m ore
form al and co m plex language on both lexical and syntactical levels． At the sa m e tim e ，the electronic
discussion has m ore interactive features —such as questioning and co m m entating w hich are im portant for
language learning and co m m unicating．
Finally ，however ，there are no evident differences between the tw o first drafts concerning the
content score．The reasons have been analyzed above．Since prewriting discussion is an activity used to
generate ideas in sm all groups and the purpose is to generate as m any ideas as possible within a specified
tim e－
period ，
it should be efficiently and widely applied in writing classroo m ．Thus ，
students can have lots
of ideas to get good ideas．
The electronic discussion has several unique features — the longer turns involved ，the m ore equal
opportunity for all students to express their ideas ，and the fact that electronically－
produced texts can be
saved for post－
hoc review and analysis （ Warschauer 1996a ）
． These features bring on the different
participants perform ance between the electronic and face－
to－
face discussion． It is the different
presentation that suggests that electronic discussion could be used effectively as a prelude to face－
to－
face
discussion．Since the CMC discussion can im prove students participation in the classroo m discussion ，
the
goal of the activity can be used to m aximize student speaking tim e．Atthe prewriting stage ，
students could
first generate m any ideas through the synchronous CMC discussion in sm all groups and then look the m
over and discuss or debate the m face to face in front of the w hole class．
Synchronous CMC varies fro m face－
to－
face co m m unication in a nu m ber of distinctive ways ，
including
the m ode e m ployed （face－
to－
face ，co m puter conferencing），the language form （spoken ，written ），the
m eans（textual ，aural ，visual）
．The products and the processes m ust be described．This study focused on
how the electronic discussion m ode differs fro m the traditional face－
to－
face interaction and how it
facilitates Chinese students prewriting discussion．Further studies about how synchronous CMC discussion
differs fro m face－
to－
face discussion in other teaching areas such as reading ，
speaking ，and listening need
be done in order to help foreign language teachers m ake decisions about how ，w hen ，and to w hat
purposes to use these tw o m odes of co m m unication in the classroo m ．
The use of co m puters has evolved tre m endously in the past thirty years fro m having students w ork on
co m puter－
fed drills to students long－
distance co m m unication and collaboration in authentic research and
m ultim edia publication． How do we see the use of co m puters in the language classroo m in the next 30
years ？
It see ms to us that there are tw o m ain directions w orth exploring ：
（1 ）an increased e m phasis on
electronic literacy ，and （2 ） the increased incorporation of Intelligent CALL into the classroo m
（ Warschaue ＆ Healey 1998 ）
． While the foreign language instructors focus on the co m m unication
co m petence in the second language acquisition ，
another co m m unication co m petence in CMCshould not be
neglected．
Notes
1． 0．76 ＝
（0．25 －0．20）＋
（0．20 －0．00 ）＋（0．20 －0．02）＋（0．42 －0．20）＋（0．31 －0．20 ）（0．20 is the
equal participation percentage since there are five students in each group）
．
2． Average of Likert－
Scale Responses ，Maxim u m ＝5．1 stands for strongly disagree ，w hile 5 stands for
strongly agree．
References
Abrams ，Z ．I．2001． Co m puter－mediated co m m unication and group journals ：Expanding the repertoire of
participant roles． System 29 ：
489－
503．
Beauvois ，M ． H ．1998． Conversations in slo w m otion ：Co m puter－mediated co m m unication in the foreign
69
Face－
to－
face and Synchronous Electronic Discussion as Pre writing Activity in the．
．．　Liu Mingming
language classroo m ． The Canadian Modern Language Journal 54／
2：
198－
217．
Berge ，Z ．L．＆M ．P．Collins（ed．
）．1995． Computer－mediated Com munication and the Online Classroom ．New
Jersey ：Ham pton．
Berwick ，R ．1975．Staging classroo m discussion． TESOL Quarterly 9／
3：
283－
289．
Britton ，
J．et al．1975． The Development of Writing Ability．London ：Macmillan Education．
Bu m p ，
J．1990．Radical changes in class discussion using netw orked co m puters． Computers and the Humanities
24 ：
49－
65．
Chun ，D ． M ．1994． Using co m puter netw orking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive co m petence．
System 22 ：
17－
31．
Cohen ，M ．＆ N ． Miyake．1986． A w orld wide intercultural netw ork ：Exploring electronic messaging for
instruction．Instruction Science 15 ：
257－
273．
Cru m p ，E ．1992．Online co m m unity ：Writing centers join the netw ork w orld． The Writing Lab Newsletter
17／
2：
1－
5．
Cu m mins ，S．＆D ．Sayers．1990．Education 2001 ：Learning netw orks and educational reform ． Computersin
the Schools 7（1／
2）：
1－
29．
Curtis ，A ．＆T ．Roskams．2000．Language learning in netw orked writing labs ：a view fro m Asia．In J．A ．
In man ＆D ．N ．Sewell（Eds．
）． Taking flight with OWLs ：Examining electronic writing center work（pp．
29－
45）
．New Jersey ：Lawrence Erlbau m Associates．
Day ，M ．2002． An informal rationale for using chats in the co m position classroo m ．［online］． Available ：
http ：
edu／m day／web／
chatrational．
／／w w w ．engl．niu．
（Nove m ber 4 ，2002）
Dece m ber ，
J．1994．Exploring co m puters and co m position ：
new processes ，new identities． Computer－Mediated
Com munication Magazine ［online serial］， 1． Available ： http ：
cmc／mag／
／／w w w ．dece m ber．co m ／
current／
toc．
htm ．
（2002．10．15）
Deirdre D ． C ． 1995． Co m puter－mediated co m m unication and the basic speech course． Interpersonal
Computing and Technology ：An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century［online serial］，3（3 ）
． Available ：
LISTSERV ＠LISTSERV ．GEORGETOW N ．EDU ．
（Dece m ber 2 ，2002）
Emig ，
J．1971． The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders． Urbana ，IL ：National Council of Teachers of
English．
Flores ，M ．1990． Co m puter conferencing ：Co m posing a fe minist co m m unity of writers．In C ． Handa．
first Century （pp．107－
139 ）
（Ed．）． Computers and Com munity ： Teaching Composition in the Twenty－
．
Portsm outh ，NH ：Heine mann．
Gebhardt ，R ．C ．＆D ．Rodrigues．1989． Writing ：Process and Intentions． MA ：D ．C ．Heath．
Graser ，E ．R ．1983． Teaching Writing ：A Process Approach．Io wa ：Kendall／Hunt．
HalesVass ，T ．2002．The effects of co m puter－mediated co m m unication in the college fresh man co m position
classroo m ．
co m ／
tracihv／writing．
［online］．Available ：http ：
／／w w w ．webpan．
（October 15 ，2002）
Han ，
Jinlong．2001．Teaching English co m position ：process genre approach． Foreign Language World 84 ：
35－
40．
Hartman ，K ．et al．1991．Patterns of social interaction and learning to write ：So me effects of netw orked
techologies． Written Com munication 8／
1：
79－
113．
Hiltz ，S． R ． 1986． The “virtual classroo m ”：using co m puter－mediated co m m unication for university
teaching．Journal of Com munication ，Spring ，95－
104．
Honeycutt，L．2001． Co m paring E－mail and synchronous conferencing in online peer response． Written
Com munication 18 ：
26－
60．
Jeney． C ． J． 2002． Why real time ？［online］． Available ：http ：
ttu．
edu／
kairos／
3．
1／
news／
／／english．
conversations／
rtimes3．
（Octobor 5 ，2002）
Johns ，A ． M ．1990．L1 co m position theories ：
Im plications for developing theories of L2 co m position．In K ．
Barbara．
36）
（Ed．）． Second Language Writing ：Research Insights for the Classroom （pp．24－
． New York ：
Cam bridge U P．
Kern ，R ．1995． Restructuring classroo m interaction with netw orked co m puters ：Effects on quantity and
characteristics of language production． Modern Language Journal 79 ：
457－
476．
Knox－Quinn ，C ． 2002． Authentic classroo m experiences ：anony mity ， m ystery ，and im provisation in
synchronous writing environ ments．［online］． Available ：http ：
／／w w w ．cwrl．utexas．edu／～ cwrl．
（Nove m ber 4 ，2002）
Lannon ，
J． M ．1989． The Writing Process ：A Concise Rhetoric．Glenview ：Scott ，Foresman and Co．
70
CELEA Journal 62
Linde mann ，E．1982． A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers．New York ：Oxford U P．
Long ，M ． H ．＆P． A ．Porter．1985． Group w ork ，interlanguage talk ，and second language acquisition．
TESOL Quarterly 19／
2：
205－
228．
Mabrito ， M ． 1991． Electronic mail as a vehicle for peer response ：Conversations of high－and lo w－
apprehensive writers． Written Com munication 8／
4：
509－
532．
Myers ，L．
（ed．）
．1993． Approachesto Computer Writing Classrooms．Albany ：State University of New York．
Olaniran ，B ．A ．1994．Group Performance in Co m puter－Mediated and Face－
to－
Face Co m m unication Media．
Management Com munication Quarterly 7／
3：
256－
281．
Palm quist ，M ．et al．1998． Transitions ：Teaching Writing in Computer－
supported and Traditional Classrooms．
London ：Ablex．
Paramskas ，D ．1993．Co m puter－
assisted language learning（CALL）：
Increasingly into an ever m ore electronic
w orld． The Canadian Modern Language Review 50／
1：
124－
143．
Raimes ，A ．1985．Do as they write ：A classroo m study of co m posing． TESOL Quarterly 19 ：
229－
258．
Ruberg ，L．F．，D ． M ． Moore ＆C ．D ．Taylor．1996．Student Participation ，
Interaction ，
and Regulation in
a Co m puter－Mediated Co m m unication Environ ment ：A qualitative study．Journal of Computing Research
14／
3：
243－
268．
Savignon ，S． J． 1991． Research on the role of co m m unication in classroo m －
based foreign language
acquisition．In B． Freed （Ed．
52 ）
）． Second Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom （pp．31－
．
Lexingtion ，MA ：D ．C ．Heath．
Schultz ，J． M ．2000． Co m puters and collaborative writing in the foreign language curriculu m ．In M ．
Warschauer ＆R ． Kern （Eds．
based Language Teaching ：Concepts and Practice（pp．
121－
150 ）
）． Network－
．
New York ：Cam bridge U P．
Sharples ，M ．
（ed．）．1993． Computer Supported Collaborative Writing．London ：Springer－Verlag．
Silva ，T ．1990．Second language co m position instruction ：Develop ments ，issues ，and directions in ESL．In
K ．Barbara（Ed．
23）
）． Second Language Writing ：Research Insights forthe Classroom （pp．11－
．New York ：
Cam bridge U P．
Silva ，T ．1993． To ward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing ：The ESL research and its
im plications． TESOL Quarterly 27 ：
657－
677．
Soh ，B ．L．＆Y ．P．Soon．1991．English by e－mail ：Creating a global classroo m via the mediu m of co m puter
technology． ELTJournal 45／
4：
287－
292．
Sproull，L． ＆ S． Kiesler． 1991． Connections ： New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization．
Cam bridge ，MA ：MIT Press．
Sulivan ，N ．＆E．Pratt．1996．A co m parative study of tw o ESL writing environ ments ：A co m puter－
assisted
classroo m and a traditional oral classroo m ． System 24／
4：
491－
501．
Warschauer ，M ．1996a． Co m paring face－
to－
face and electronic discussion in the second language classroo m ．
CALICO Journal 13／
2：
7－
26．
Warschauer ，M ．1996b． Motivational aspects of using co m puters for writing and co m m unication．In S．Fotos
20）
（Ed．）． Multimedia Language Teaching（pp．3－
．Tokyo ：Logos International．
Warschauer ，M ．1997． Co m puter－mediated collaborative learning ：Theory and practice． Modern Language
Journal 81／
3：
470－
481．
Warschauer ，M ．＆ D ． Healey．1998． Co m puters and language learning ：An overview ． Language Teaching
31 ：
57－
71．
Warschauer ，M ．＆ C ． Meskill．2000． Technology and second language learning．In J． Rosenthal（Ed．
）．
Handbook of undergraduate second language education （pp．303－
318 ）
． Mah wah ，New Jersey ：Lawrence
Erlbau m ．
Zamel ，V ．1982． Writing ：The process of discovering meaning． TESOL Quarterly 16 ：
195－
209．
Appendix 1
The content of the essays willbe be evaluated according to the following rubric on a scale of 1－
4．
4 — The position is stated strongly ，clearly ，and consistently m aintained．Evidence clearly supports
the position ，and evidence is sufficient ，having 3 or m ore supporting details with elaborations．
The sentences are forceful ，clear and logical．
71
Face－
to－
face and Synchronous Electronic Discussion as Pre writing Activity in the．
．．　Liu Mingming
3 — The position is stated clearly and consistently m aintained．Evidence clearly supports the position ，
but there is not enough evidence having less than 3 supporting details．The sentences are clear
and logical．
2 — The position is not clearly stated and is not m aintained consistently．Argu m ent is supported by
limited evidence having less than 2 supporting details．Essay relies on unrelated generalizations ，
vague argu m ent ，uncertain inform ation．
1 — State m ent of position cannot be determined．Evidence is unrelated to argu m ent．Essay is not in
keeping with the topic．
Note ：Those essays that are better than 1 point but is not so good as 2 points will receive 1．5 ；those
essays that are better than 2 points but is not so good as 3 points will receive 2．5 ；and those essays that are
better than 3 points but is not so good as 4 points will receive 3．5．
Appendix 2
The following is a survey concerning your attitudes about prewriting ，co m puter ，and your
personality．Please take a few minutes to co m plete according to your ow n experience．
Attitudes about prewriting ：
strongly strongly
disagree
agree
1． Ioften spend a lot of tim e planning w hat I m going to write．
1
2
3
4
5
2． Iprefer writing and thinking alone．
1
2
3
4
5
3． Ilike to speak to the w hole class about w hat Iplan to write．
1
2
3
4
5
5． Ia m active during sm all group discussion．
1
2
3
4
5
6． We focus on the discussion topic fro m the beginning to the end during the
sm all group discussion ，and never chat about other things．
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
4． My teacher often lets us discuss in sm all groups to gather ideas before
writing．
7． In sm all group classroo m discussion ，
talking with m y classm ates about w hat
we are going to write helps m e to find ideas．
8． When I don t know w hat to write ，Ilike to listen to others talking about
w hat they want to write．
9． Ifeel that the content of m y writing is always rich．
72