Below is our usual potpourri of articles. As usual, an asterisk indicates that the abstract was specially created, rather than appearing with the article in its original form. The articles are in alphabetical order, according to first author.

Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning and Technology, 6(1), 60-81. [http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/BELZ/default.html]

Previous research on network-based foreign language study primarily has focused on: a) the pedagogy of technology in the language curriculum, or b) the linguistic characterization of networked discourse. In this paper, I explore socio-institutional dimensions of German-American telecollaboration and the ways in which they may shape foreign language learning and use. Telecollaborative partnerships represent particularly productive sites for the examination of social aspects of foreign language study since, by definition, they entail tight sociocultural and institutional interface. Within the theoretical framework of social realism (e.g., Carter & Sealey, 2000; Layder, 1993), any human activity is thought to be shaped by both macro- and micro-level sociological features. These include social context and institutional setting, situated activity and individual agency, respectively. In this analysis, I intertwine the socially and institutionally contingent features of language valuation, computer know-how, Internet access, and learning accreditation and the micro-level features of situated classroom interaction and individual psycho-biography in order to provide a rich and multi-faceted characterization of foreign language learning and use on both ends of a German-American telecollaborative partnership.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1997). Safe houses in the contact zone: Coping strategies of African-American students in the academy. College Composition and Communication, 48, 173-196.

Republished as Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Safe houses in the contact zone: Coping strategies of African-American students in the academy. In Austin, K. (Ed.), Trends & issues in postsecondary English studies (pp. 23-49). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
[Email: ARABB@cunyvm.cuny.edu]

* This article is older that the others mentioned here, but one that is worthy of belated attention because of its ideas about how groups can alter the power relations of the classroom and of education generally. By “safe houses”, the author refers to places – brick and mortar places (in and out of classrooms) or virtual ones, such as a course electronic bulletin board or chatroom – where students can meet “to collaboratively work through the conflicts and challenges they face” (pp. 46-47). Writing from the perspective of critical pedagogy, Canagarajah (p. 46) urges teachers to “become sensitive to what is typically regarded as disruptive behavior during class time—such as the ubiquitous whispers, secret notes, and digressive comments Brooke [Brooke, R. (1987). Underlife and writing instruction. College Composition and Communication, 38, 141-153.] reports in his analysis of class underlife—for what they show about incipient oppositional discourses and critical learning strategies.”

We teachers have to find ways to gain insight into what is going on in the safe houses so that we can learn from them. Also, what we learn may lead us to change our views about what contributes to learning and what kind of learning is valuable. We should “provide institutional support for nurturing safe houses (without appropriating their subversive edge). But it is important to remember that such sheltering is for the eventual purpose of negotiating with mainstream discourses and institutions for the empowerment of minority students and pluralization of dominant discourses, rather than being an end in itself” (p. 47).

Finkbeiner, C. (2001). One and all in CALL? Learner-moderator-researcher. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(3-4), 339-361. [Email: cfink@hrz.uni-kassel.de]

In this article I will present the results of a research project on CALL (computer assisted language learning) and on cooperative learning in CALL, conducted as a democratic joint venture between teachers and students in the university setting over the last couple of years. The project consists of several sub-studies, all of which deal with the three-fold perspective I consider as most crucial for 21^st century students: learning, moderating, doing research.

Hart, N. (2002). Intra-group autonomy and authentic materials: A different approach to ELT in Japanese colleges and universities. System, 30, 33-46. [Email: hartnicolaas@netscape.net]

Globalization and the information-technology revolution demand that Japanese citizens develop a working knowledge of English to participate in the global communication process. This requires a radical departure from traditional language teaching practices. Japanese students need to develop learner autonomy and the skills to use authentic language texts in a cooperative learning context so that they can develop the intellectual and social skills to use English as an authentic global language among Japanese language speakers.

Students at a women’s college in western Japan used an Australian junior high school social science text and personal and internet resources to put these principles into practice. Small permanent groups of students chose their own areas of study in designated topic areas, engaged in collaborative research, and presented their group findings in posters supported by oral and written reports. Diaries provided students with an effective means of reporting their understanding of the learning strategies employed to the teacher. The group discussions of the collected strategies helped students expand their working knowledge of English.

LeLoup, J. W., & Ponterio, R. (2000). Cooperative learning activities for the foreign language classroom. Language Learning & Technology [http://llt.msu.edu/default.html], 3(2), 3-5. [Email: leloupj@cortland.edu]

* The World Wide Web (WWW) is a source for language learning activities that are ready-made created by language teachers. This article offers an example of one such site that was created by a foreign language (FL) educator in Canada, Pete Jones is the Head of Modern Languages at Pine Ridge Secondary School in Pickering, Ontario, who developed activities for his secondary school students based on cooperative learning principles.

Maier, M. (2000). Reporting out: Closure without the tedium. Journal of Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, 10, 117-121. [Email: mmaier@glendale.edu]

* In-class small group work often falters when students report out their work. This paper describes eleven techniques for ending group work and evaluates their relative merits based on efficiency, accountability for individual students, complete sharing of information, and student practice in articulating what they learned.

Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 94-112. [Email: bmaloch.mail.utexas.edu]

This 5-month qualitative study explored the relationship between the teacher’s role and the students’ participation within literature discussion groups in a third-grade classroom. Using the constant-comparative method and microanalysis of teacher/student participation patterns, two salient themes emerged, including (a) the problematic nature of students’ transition from a teacher-led to a student-led discussion format, and (b) the responsive nature of the teacher’s interventions relative to students’ difficulties within the discussions. Of particular note were the ways in which the teacher’s interventions were metalinguistic and served to highlight the discussion process for students. Factors contributing to the dynamic nature of the teacher’s involvement within the discussions included the degree to which the discussions approximated the teacher’s discussion protocol and students’ developing understanding of conversational strategies and exploratory talk. A clear progression was seen in students’ use of exploratory (productive) talk, indicating the influence of teacher’s interventions. This study offers theoretical and practical insights regarding how teachers scaffold students in the appropriation of new forms of discourse.

Mathews, S. (2002). Cooperative learning: A real life application. Journal of Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, 10, 105-108. [Email: smathews@mdcc.edu]

* While serving as a criminal trial juror, a college prep mathematics professor uses cooperative learning techniques to facilitate a fair verdict. By trusting in the process, the jury moved from conflict to consensus under the most difficult circumstances.

Morgan, B. (2001). Cooperative learning: Teacher use and social integration. International Journal of Scholarly Academic Diversity, 5(1), online journal,  (http://www.nationalforum.com/ijsaidcurrent.htm) [Email: bmorgan@utb1.utb.edu]

One hundred and thirty-eight teachers and 1,138 students from grades 2 through 11 were studied using instruments based on the work of David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson, co-directors of the Cooperative Learning Center at the University of Minnesota. The questions addressed were: (a) To what extent did the amount of training in cooperative learning a teacher received affect the amount of time the teacher structured cooperative learning in the classroom? and (b) What is the relationship between teacher use of cooperative learning strategies and student social integration? Using a two-tailed t-test, the majority of items related to teacher use were statistically significant at the .04 level. Using an analysis of variance, 8 of 10 correlations were insufficient related to social integration.

Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. [http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/]

The present study investigates discourse functions and syntactic complexity in English-as-a-second-language (ESL) learner output obtained via two different modes of computer-mediated communication (CMC): asynchronous and synchronous discussions. Two instructors and twenty-five students from two advanced ESL writing classes participated in this study. Answers were sought to the following questions: (a) Are the discourse functions present in ESL learners' synchronous discussions of reading assignments quantitatively and qualitatively different from those found in asynchronous discussions? And, (b) which mode of CMC shows more syntactically complex learner output? The results showed that the quantity and types of discourse functions present in synchronous discussions were similar to the types of interactional modifications found in face-to-face conversations that are deemed necessary for second language acquisition. Discourse functions in asynchronous discussions were more constrained than those found in synchronous discussions and similar to the question-response-evaluation sequence of the traditional language classroom. Concerning syntactic complexity, the delayed nature of asynchronous discussions gives learners more opportunities to produce syntactically complex language. Asynchronous and synchronous CMC have different discourse features which may be exploited for different pedagogical purposes. In the hands of experienced teachers, both modes of CMC can be used as novel tools to enhance the language acquisition process by encouraging interaction among participants, collaborative text construction, and the formation of electronic communities of learners.