16 TESOL JOURNAL VOL. 11 NO. 3

Constructivist and CollaborativeLearning in a Wireless EnvironmentSusana M. Sotillo

R ecent studies on wireless learning environmentsindicate that teachers and students can workcollaboratively in a variety of settings on specific

educational projects or tasks that require problem-solvingskills, reasoning, and reflection (Norman, 1998). Thesewireless learning environments represent a shift fromtraditional approaches to learning and teaching (Conway,1997) to one that combines objectivist and constructivistphilosophical components that allow students to constructknowledge and collaborate with classmates outside theclassroom from anywhere on campus while working as partof a team. Thus, a student using a laptop computer orpersonal digital assistant (PDA) (e.g., a Palm Pilot) in thelibrary or student center can be actively engaged in com-pleting a group project through wireless connectivity.

Brown (1996) discusses the importance of collabora-tion in electronic performance support systems (EPSSs),which allow learners to go beyond mastering basic skills.The knowledge learners actively construct with others isbased on personal experiences, mental structures, and beliefsystems that enable them to interpret external reality andevents. Both objectivist and constructivist approaches tolearning seem to be enhanced by the use of wirelesscampus networks that enable students working fromvarious campus locations to quickly download informationfrom the Internet, hold brainstorming sessions online, andwork collaboratively on group assignments. They do notneed to be confined to a specific classroom or computerlab, or meet face-to-face with other students. With wirelessconnectivity, students can create their own learning envi-ronments and increase their learning potential and produc-tivity (Holen, 2002; Lorion, 2002; Olsen, 2000).

This article discusses the results of a wireless learninginitiative that I designed and implemented in the Spring of2001 at Montclair State University, in the United States.The main objective of this project was to explore theadvantages of using wireless technology to actively assistmaster’s students in the applied linguistics program inwriting and revising their research proposals and theses.

Students could meet at different locations acrosscampus and interact using NetMeeting® (1996–2000) freeconferencing software,1 which features real time audio andvideo, text-based chat, document sharing, and whiteboardgraphics exchange options. To create a wireless learningenvironment, base stations, or access points, were installedat three campus locations: the linguistics seminar room, thelibrary, and a student lounge. From these access points, the

students could use their laptops, fitted with wireless cards,to access the university’s network using UHF radio fre-quencies. A key and very attractive component of thiswireless infrastructure is the use of laptops or hand-heldPDAs, which essentially create flexible and mobile class-rooms where students can work remotely yetcollaboratively. Some colleges refer to these wireless net-works as nomadic learning environments (University ofCalifornia, San Diego, 2000).

The following section presents a brief overview ofcomputer applications and pedagogical approaches as theyrelate to the goals of the wireless learning initiative.

Pedagogical Approaches andAppropriate TechnologiesWired and wireless technologies offer different learning andinstructional advantages (National Education Association,2001; Olsen, 2000). Although students and teachers oftenhave access to the Internet from wired computer facilitieson campus (e.g., computer labs, libraries, faculty offices), awireless networked campus offers users greater flexibility intimes and locations of use. For example, with wirelesslaptops and PDAs, classrooms can double as computer labs,allowing teachers to arrange the room into differentconfigurations to accommodate group work on collabora-tive assignments. Cognitivist and sociocultural pedagogicalprinciples inform the use of wireless technologies ineducational environments. The use of real timeconferencing software (e.g., NetMeeting, Lotus®Sametime™, and Akiva’s ChatSpace Community Server®)facilitates shared practices that enhance communal under-standings (Conway, 1997; Jonassen, 1991a, 1991b;Norman, 1998; Wooley, 2002).

Wireless networks have been established at dozens ofcolleges and universities throughout the United Statesbecause they have been shown to promote collaborativework between students and instructors and among students(Lorion, 2002; Mark, 2000; Olsen, 2000). For example,Cornell University’s School of Hotel Administration founda solution to the problem of overcrowding in the tradi-tional computer labs by setting up a wireless network.Initially, students at Cornell worked collaboratively withclassmates through wireless networks from various campuslocations. Eventually they were able to cooperate withstudents from other institutions on a variety of projectswhose solutions called for group decision making.

17VOL. 11 NO. 3 TESOL JOURNAL

Participants and Procedures in theWireless Learning InitiativeFive master’s candidates in applied linguistics at MontclairState University participated in the wireless learninginitiative. Each was loaned a Pentium III, Latitude CPXDell laptop computer with 120MB (megabytes) of RAM(memory) and 20GB (gigabytes) of hard drive disk space.The students signed an agreement to maintain the equip-ment and assume responsibility for any damages. Theirlaptops were equipped with standard Microsoft software, aswell as NetMeeting conferencing software and wirelesscards, which enabled the students to connect to theuniversity’s network through the three designated accesspoints or base stations.

The students and I agreed to meet for approximately21/2 hours every Wednesday at 4:30 p.m. for a period of 16weeks, and each participant, including me, was responsiblefor hosting one of the sessions through NetMeeting. For10 of these sessions, we agreed to meet face-to-face in thelinguistics seminar room, where we worked in the samephysical space but interacted electronically in our wirelessvirtual classroom using NetMeeting. For the other sixsessions, we agreed to meet entirely online from any of thethree designated access points on campus.

An undergraduate student with considerable technicalexpertise was assigned to assist us. He spent the first threesessions teaching us how to host sessions and communicatesynchronously via NetMeeting, share documents, and savedocuments and audio files. In addition, he taught us howto use the portable data projector and Microsoft Wordediting tools to mark and track changes made to eachdocument. Tracking changes was important because itallowed the students to observe the development of theiracademic writing and revising skills, and to monitorcontent and stylistic changes made collaboratively orindividually to each draft of the document. Unlike hardcopy drafts, which may get lost or misplaced, electronicdrafts can be conveniently stored, easily retrieved, andquickly shared among group members.

The learning curve was initially steep for most of theparticipants because all lacked experience withNetMeeting. In addition, network access was occasionallydisrupted by unexpected power outages. However, infor-mation technology staff were available to solve these minortechnical problems.

Because I was a coparticipant as well as the instructor, Iagreed to host the first NetMeeting session. During thissession, the students and I collaboratively established guide-lines for preparing and exchanging documents. The firstdocument we agreed to revise collaboratively was the firstchapter of one student’s master’s thesis. The group used thetracking feature in Microsoft Word, which allows the readerto see text that is inserted or marked for deletion, andprojected these revisions onto a screen in the linguisticsseminar room so that everyone could see how text wasconstructed and deconstructed. When discussing the liter-

ature review section of their theses, students informed eachother about useful online databases, exchanged charts andtables, and shared documents wirelessly using NetMeeting.

Two of the face-to-face wireless sessions were video-and audiotaped for subsequent analysis. The exchanges thattook place while students were actively revising a shareddocument via NetMeeting were transcribed and analyzed.Excerpts of the collaborative exchanges are presented in thedata analysis section. One of the videotaped segmentsshows the collaborative nature of these exchanges as stu-dents provide critical input and corrective feedback to astudent writer who is revising the literature review sectionof his proposal. A streaming video clip (available at http://chss.montclair.edu/~sotillos/videos/collaborativevideo.ram)was created to demonstrate the constructivist and collabora-tive nature of this wireless initiative.

Learning in a Community of Practice:Processes at WorkHaving each student responsible for hosting a session viaNetMeeting offered flexibility to those who did not want tomeet face-to-face but preferred to communicate fromanother location. One student acquired considerableexpertise hosting the meetings and was able to assist otherswith real-time chats and document sharing.

As the participants became more comfortable workingwith NetMeeting in a wireless environment, they began towork collaboratively, creating what can best be described asa community of practice. Lave and Wenger (1991) define acommunity of practice as “a set of relations among persons,activity, and world, over time and in relation with othertangential and overlapping communities of practice” (p.98). The five graduate students had different interests andviewpoints but participated at multiple levels in thiswireless community of practice that centered on the activityof writing academic prose.

These graduate students were acquiring the skills andjargon of academic writing by practicing the format andstyle of the more experienced writers in the group. Oftenthinking out loud or focusing on their screen, they werecomposing their own identities as academic writers andtaking in feedback from a critical audience of their peersand instructor. In fact, this type of collaborative writingimplies a reorientation of conventional definitions of writerand audience, or a shift from the individual mastering hisor her craft in isolation, to learning as participation orengagement in a collective activity with participants atvarious stages of expertise (DiMatteo, 1990).

Peer Corrective Feedback in WritingIn the field of second language acquisition, researchers haveshown that negotiations of meaning that occur during peerreviews of writing assignments or research papers shapesecond language learners’ revising strategies, increase theirresponsibility for the learning process, and allow them

18 TESOL JOURNAL VOL. 11 NO. 3

opportunities to develop audience awareness (seeDeGuerrero & Villamil, 1994; Forman, 1990; Forman &Cazden, 1985; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Mendonça & Johnson,1994; and Mittan, 1989). As DeGuerrero and Villamil(1994) point out, peer corrective feedback is congruentwith Vygotskian approaches to learning that emphasizecollaboration, which eventually leads to independentproblem solving. In this wireless learning initiative, exten-sive peer corrective feedback was given to each of thestudent writers as they collaborated in the revision andreconstruction of each shared document. Over time, theless experienced writers began to incorporate the writingconventions and styles of the more successful writers in thegroup. Thus, students were able to achieve learner au-tonomy and control of the academic writing process.

Data Analysis: Writing and Talking ina Wireless Learning EnvironmentIn this learning environment, an audience of critical peersprovided scaffolding that stretched each writer’s creativelimits by confirming with the interlocutor when meaningwas understood and negotiating for meaning during thewriting process. Excerpts from a 21/2-hour video- andaudiotaped session were analyzed to illustrate the process ofscaffolding and the creation of a cognitive apprenticeship.

The collaborative nature of these exchanges and thementoring provided by the more experienced writershelped form a cognitive apprenticeship for the less experi-enced student writers. This is a method of instructionaimed primarily at teaching the processes that experts useto handle a complex task. It is learning through guidedexperience, focusing on cognitive and metacognitive skillsrather than on the physical skills of traditional apprentice-ships in guilds or trades.

In the transcripted excerpt below, participants2 workingin the same room request clarification of fuzzy terms in onestudent’s research proposal (e.g., line 4, “established”),negotiate for meaning in trying to reach agreement regard-ing key terms (e.g., line 9, “Is she—is she going to establishit?”), and suggest online revising to the student writer (e.g.,line 16, “Just get rid of the second exam—establish.”).

1 Norma: Can we check the first paragraph? 2 Dana: Sure! 3 Norma: I just have—feel weird about one word. 4 There—that is, “established.” 5 Is that what you want to do? 6 To establish? or is it something else? 7 Jackie: Yeah! But it says … 8 It’s important to establish the

pedagogical effects. 9 Norma: Is she—is she going to establish it?10 Or has it been established already?11 Dana: No. They are …12 Robert: It’s not that she’s going to establish,

you know, …

13 It’s in the process of establishing, right?14 Jutta: How about it’s in the process

of establishing?15 (too many people talking at the

same time)16 Jackie: Just get rid of the second exam—

establish.17 Dana: How do you get rid of it?18 Jackie: Just go down.19 Norma: Doesn’t she want to get rid of the first

“establish”?20 Could we, could we?21 Instructor: Go this way—backspace.22 Norma: Just delete.23 Dana: OK.

The collaborative process worked well in this situationbecause all the students could see the same document ontheir computers at the same time. The more experiencedwriters in the group continued to request further clarifica-tion of Dana’s terminology, helping her revise her writingand restructure her prose. By coaching her, they werehelping her apply new knowledge about writing conventionsto the process of revising, thus creating a cognitive appren-ticeship. The wireless nature of the linguistics seminar roomallowed the students to rapidly share revised documents andprocess more material because the necessary conferencingsoftware had been installed on their wireless computers. Thiswould not have been possible in a traditional computer lab,where a technician would have had to downloadconferencing software and install it only in some computersset aside for specific courses or writing classes. Furthermore,in a traditional computer lab, the seating arrangementwould not have been conducive to the type of intensivecollaboration found in supportive learning environments.

ResultsCritical thinking processes were extensively used as mem-bers of this wireless initiative worked on each other’sdocuments using real-time conferencing software, often inthe same seminar room but at other times from differentlocations. They shared documents electronically, requestingclarification of unclear statements and terms, suggestingways of restructuring paragraphs, and negotiating andconstructing meaning in general. At the conclusion of 16weeks of intensive collaboration in the coconstruction oftexts, two of the graduate students finished their finalrevisions to their masters’ theses, one completed herresearch proposal and project, and two finished the firstdrafts of their research projects.

The provision of a flexible and portable learningenvironment through a wireless network yielded thefollowing results.

• A decrease in teacher domination of classroom talkand processes: An analysis of audio- and videotaped

19VOL. 11 NO. 3 TESOL JOURNAL

data gathered at two different sessions supportsprevious findings of laptop use in wireless learningenvironments by Rockman, Walker, and Chessler(2000). There is considerably less teacher domina-tion of classroom discourse and more student-ledinquiry, critical input, and collaborative work in theconstruction of texts.

• The creation of a wireless community of practice:The five graduate students and I formed a set ofsupportive relationships that centered on theactivity of writing and revising academic prose overa period of 16 weeks. This supportive atmospherefacilitated the provision of corrective peer andinstructor feedback, and its incorporation into therevised texts. For example, one student had beenworking on her master’s thesis for a year and a halfbut was experiencing writer’s block. After workingcollaboratively in the construction and reconstruc-tion of her academic prose, she was able to incor-porate critical peer input into her final draft andsuccessfully complete her thesis in August 2001.

• A move toward constructivist ideals and pedagogy:The qualitative and quantitative analysis of partici-pant exchanges and collaboration in the revision oftexts has shown that elements of constructivistpedagogy are present. For instance, by coachingnovice student writers, the more experienced writersamong this group of graduate students are helpingthem apply new knowledge about writing conven-tions to the process of writing and revising.

• Development of learner autonomy and control:Though the process of revision was heavily sup-ported by peer and instructor corrective feedback,following a period of intense collaboration, thegraduate students who participated in this wirelessinitiative gradually took control of their ownwriting and revising processes. These studentseventually learned how to selectively incorporatecritical input and revise their documents based ontheir own interpretation of facts and theory.

Conclusion and PedagogicalImplicationsAlthough the results of this writing initiative were positive,two limitations were noted. First, it took us more than 7hours to learn how to use the wireless laptops andconferencing software (NetMeeting).

Second, because this wireless initiative focused on thecomplex process of writing and revising academic textwithin a specified time limit (e.g., 16 weeks), it could onlyaccommodate up to 10 students. It would be considerablymore difficult to work with a group of 15 or 20 studentsbecause of scheduling conflicts and the limitations of theconferencing software. Up to four students at a time couldrequest control of the board during the 21/2-hour sessionand contribute effectively to the collaborative construction

of knowledge. Working with a large group would havealtered the collaborative writing process and changed groupdynamics because it is difficult to negotiate meaning andkeep track of multiple suggestions while workingcollaboratively on a single document. However, it would bepossible to use NetMeeting with two small groups, butonly if the groups are set up before the NetMeeting sessionbegins. The leader of the second group would have to hosthis or her session preferably in another wireless-enabledroom and share a copy of the document being revised withthe participants.

Overall, however, the participants in the wirelessinitiative found many benefits with this collaborativewriting approach. First, they formed a community ofpractice centered on an activity that engaged them inauthentic communication in which they wrote for a realaudience. Next, all the essential elements of a constructivistlearning environment were in place; that is, the participantswere able to talk to each other online and face-to-face,questioning, confirming, elaborating, and revising theiracademic prose collectively. Finally, the participants discov-ered through responses from their peers where in their textstheir arguments or statements were unclear or unconvinc-ing. For example, in course feedback that I requested fromthe participants, one of the students reflected on the natureof this collaborative work in the following excerpt:

We discovered issues not considered in our initial drafts andtook these and other suggestions into account as we revisedour papers, thus strengthening the persuasiveness of ourarguments. In our initial draft, we expressed an interpreta-tion of our research topic; then, by responding to the ideasof others and later, by incorporating the feedback ofclassmates in our writing, we as participants came to modifyand revise and elaborate on our own meaning.

The nature of this wireless learning environmentoffered several advantages not found in traditional face-to-face collaborative meetings with paper manuscripts. Forexample, peer or instructor corrective feedback is oftenwritten on paper drafts and the student has to producemultiple copies of the same document for all participantsmeeting in the same room. Everyone has to be on the samepage while one participant discusses changes to a specificparagraph or section. Time is spent trying to find the rightpage, and if there are not enough copies, participants haveto share manuscripts. Corrective feedback or critical inputcan be misinterpreted by the student writer once thecollaborative process is over because of the multiple copiesof each draft that the student has to keep track of. Withwireless connectivity, all participants, whether they are inthe same room or collaborating from different locations oncampus, can work simultaneously on the same documentand take turns controlling the whiteboard to make correc-tions or insert useful comments. Furthermore, the trackedchanges to each draft of a document are salient becausetheir color can be selected (e.g., red or blue). Each reviseddraft is carefully numbered and saved as a Word document

20 TESOL JOURNAL VOL. 11 NO. 3

for subsequent retrieval. Thus, critical input and correctivefeedback can be easily retrieved and reread by the studentwriter.

Hosting face-to-face and electronic sessions viaNetMeeting gave the students the opportunity to incorpo-rate feedback from a critical audience of their peers. Theywere thus able to feel ownership of the learning process.Not only did less skilled writers benefit from the experi-ence, as shown in the analysis of session transcripts, butexperienced writers benefited as well by externalizing theirknowledge of writing processes and focusing on cognitiveand metacognitive skills as they worked on the shareddocument.

Ubiquitous access to the Internet in this wirelessinitiative increased the students’ productivity. They couldobtain scholarly articles and demographic data instanta-neously. The incorporation of elements of process writinginto their proposal preparation and thesis revision (e.g.,multiple drafts, critical peer reviews, editing, restructuring)enhanced the quality and quantity of their academicwriting. Finally, the main objective of the wireless initiativewas attained, which was to actively assist students engagedin the process of completing their theses and researchproposals.

Notes1 I downloaded NetMeeting from the Microsoft Web site. For

information on how to download this software, go to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/netmeeting/.

2 All students’ names are real and used with permission.All excerpts from the videotaped sessions are usedwith permission.

References

Brown, H. (1996). The AKC approach to ISD. EducationalTechnology, 39(4), 55–57.

Conway, J. (1997). Educational technology’s effect on models ofinstruction. Retrieved May 31, 2001, from http://copland.udel.edu/~jconway/EDST666.htm

DeGuerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. TheModern Language Journal, 78, 484–496.

DiMatteo, A. (1990). Under erasure: A theory for interactivewriting in real time. Computers and Composition, 7(SpecialIssue), 71–84.

Forman, J. (1990). Computing and collaborative writing. In G.E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Evolving perspectives oncomputers and composition studies: Questions for the 1990s(pp. 65–85). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers ofEnglish.

Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskianperspectives in education: The cognitive value of peerinteraction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communicationand cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 332–347). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Holen, M. C. (2002, February 20). College of Education optsfor handhelds [The Mobile Campus special advertisingsupplement]. The Star Ledger, p. 9.

Jonassen, D. (1991a). Evaluating constructivist learning. Educa-tional Technology Research and Development, 31(4), 28–32.

Jonassen, D. (1991b). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do weneed a new philosophical paradigm? Educational TechnologyResearch and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (Eds.). (1991). Situated learning: Legiti-mate peripheral participation. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lorion, J. (2002, February 20). Universities are early adoptersand innovators in handheld computing on campuses [TheMobile Campus special advertising supplement]. The StarLedger, pp. 2–3.

Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL compositionclassroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3),274–284.

Mark, C. (2000, October). Media-rich learning through universalcomputing and wireless thin client. Paper presented atEDUCAUSE 2000, Nashville, TN.

Mendonça, C. A., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotia-tions: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOLQuarterly, 28, 745–769.

Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen(Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp.207–219). White Plains, NY: Longman.

National Education Association. (2001). The wireless revolution.NEA Today, 19(6), 8–9.

NetMeeting (Version 3.01 for Windows 95/98/NT4). [Com-puter software]. (1996–2000). Redmond, WA: Microsoft.

Norman, S. (1998). EPSS: A constructivist learning environment?[Slideshow]. Retrieved March 12, 2001, from The Universityof West Florida, College of Education Web site: http://scholar.coe.uwf.edu/students/snorman/webpages/paperpresentation/sld001.htm

Olsen, F. (2000, October 13). The wireless revolution [Informa-tion Technology section]. The Chronicle of Higher Education,pp. A59–A66.

Rockman, S., Walker, L., & Chessler, M. (2000). A more complexpicture: Laptop use and impact in the context of changing homeand school access. Retrieved June 12, 2002, from http://www.Microsoft.com/education/download/aal/research3report.doc

University of California, San Diego. (2000). High performancewireless research and education network. Retrieved June 12,2002, from http://hpwren.ucsd.edu/education.html

Wooley, D. (2002). Real-time web conferencing. Retrieved June12, 2002, from http://thinkofit.com/webconf/realtime.htm

Author

Susana M. Sotillo is associate professor of linguistics at MontclairState University, in the United States. Her most recent researchfocuses on the critical analysis of political discourse in small towns,computer-mediated communication and second language acquisition,the discourse of cyberchats, and bilingualism. She has contributed tobooks on bilingual and multicultural education.