Edited by: María Sánchez Zafra, University of Jaén, Spain
Reviewed by: Denok Sunarsi, Pamulang University, Indonesia
This article was submitted to Educational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
†ORCID: Xiuping Lian
Xinmin Zheng
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
With English language becoming the norm for academic communication and knowledge exchange for scholars and students around the world, the focus of English as a foreign language (EFL) or English as a second language (ESL) has gradually shifted from English for general purposes (EGP) to English for academic purposes (EAP) (Li,
Besides, it appears that few studies have examined learner identity from the perspective of dynamic process in collaborative writing. To be more specific, collaborative writing is frequently employed as a learner-centered approach to engage students in English learning because of the limited class hours set for the course (Chen et al.,
As teachers and researchers, we show our concern about the learner identity in blended EAP education, and we read with great interest the newly-published article entitled “
How did the article select participants in order to dig out more relevant data to address its research questions?
How did the article analyze the data to facilitate the in-depth exploration and understanding of the intricate phenomenon such as learner identity construction in relation to learners' engagement and interaction?
In our discussion process, we adopt content analysis method (Bell et al.,
Before we analyze the article in detail, we think it is necessary to review and explicate a key term in the article, namely, learner identity in order to help better understand and interpret the article. Some researchers (see Sampson,
In following sections, we will first provide a summary of the article, then discuss its advantages and limitations by addressing our two guiding questions, and finally summarize the implications of the article.
Qualitative in nature, the article employed a case study approach to examine learner identity construction and its influencing factors in a blended learning context. Six non-English major male participants were selected from a comprehensive university based on an initial four-week observation due to their diverse engagement in learning activities.
In regard to the data collection, the article collected multiple sources of data derived from four collaborative writing sessions, including class observations, field notes, semi-structured interviews, history logs on the writing platform and the transcriptions of participants' offline group discussions for the purpose of triangulation.
With reference to the data analysis, the article examined the data that revealed the learner identity and their influencing factors inductively and deductively by classifying the data into online and offline categories. First, the data that expressed learner identity in offline collaborative learning sessions were analyzed by taking a discourse analysis method. Specifically, the article identified, coded and categorized participants' verbal characteristics in offline classroom discussions by drawing on Poupore (
The article revealed three major findings based on the data analysis. First, the article demonstrated that the construction of learner identity in blended learning depended largely on specific learning activities and learning contexts, with more positive identities in offline sessions and negative ones in online sessions. Such divergence may be caused by teacher's different involvement or pedagogical guidance in two learning sessions. In addition, the article also disclosed that both individual and contextual factors had an impact on learner identity, in which individual factors intersected to affect learner identity construction in both learning sessions, while the impact of contextual factors changed according to different learning sessions. Finally, the article illustrated that the learner identity construction displayed different patterns in online and offline sessions, with some participants demonstrating consistency and others revealing changes. This finding further proved that individual's learner identity was constantly confirmed and reconstructed through LIPs.
In the end, the article provided implications for course design, pedagogical practice, and materials development in blended learning context, appealing that a careful course design and teacher's active involvement or guidance are essential for maintaining learners' positive learner identities and improving learning outcomes.
In this part, we would like to make comments on the selection of participants, data analysis and research findings, aiming to examine the validity and reliability of the article for the sake of facilitating further research in this field. In particular, by discussing the group size in the article, we attempt to arouse researchers' attention to the intention, representativeness as well as transparency of the selection of participants. In addition, comments on the data analysis intend to raise researchers' concern about the importance of analysis unit, data analysis triangulation as well as transparency of analysis process. Finally, by comparing the findings in the article with those in previous researches, we appeal that the first priority should be given to the selection of theoretical framework.
The article picked a focal group with six participants demonstrating diverse engagement in learning activities based on an initial four-week observation. Obviously, the article selected the focal group intentionally, attempting to explore the relationship between learners' interaction and learner identity construction. Nonetheless, one thing that puzzles us is the size of group, since the article did not explicate the reason why the group consisted of six participants. In our opinion, it would be better to make an explanation about it, as many studies have revealed that the size of group has a tremendous impact on participants' involvement in group discussion (Mishra,
As far as we are concerned, the data in the article seemed to be clearly classified into online and offline categories and analyzed inductively and deductively with peer debriefing adopted to ensure the trustworthiness of the data analysis. However, after taking a close look at the analysis process of learner identity in online collaborative writing, we perceive some problems regarding the selection of analysis unit, reliability of analysis framework and transparency of the analysis process. First, drawing on the work load roles put forward by Arnold et al. (
In addition, we are skeptical about the reliability of the analysis framework adopted in the article as we discover that the criterion used to examine work load roles in the article is inconsistent with that in Arnold et al. (
Finally, we find no clue as to how the learner identities are verified from the two rounds of semi-structured interviews for there is no description about the process of data analysis in this regard. In fact, the elaboration of analysis process is indispensable because data do not speak for themselves, it is the analyses and interpretations on the part of researchers that yield descriptive and causal inferences in qualitative study (Moravcsik,
Given the major influence of data analysis on research findings (Flick,
With regard to the research findings of the article, on the one hand, the factors that influenced learners' engagement and interaction in the online collaborative writing sessions are distinct from those in previous researches. When we examine the findings carefully, we find that only the individual (learners' English ability, character and perception) and contextual factors (assigned roles and teacher's involvement) are disclosed. However, previous studies have found that various factors may affect learners' engagement and interaction, such as the genre of writing (Reed et al.,
On the other hand, no macro-level factors related to learner identity construction were discovered. In fact, many macro-level factors, such as race and culture (Kubota and Lin,
In summary, the article is a thought-provoking, well-explored, and illuminative piece. Firstly, it expounds the interplay of learner identity construction and learners' social interaction. In addition, the process of collaborative learning activities rather than the static writing product is examined. Finally, the patterns of learner identity construction across different learning sessions are revealed. All in all, the article provides readers with new insights into the complexity of learner identify and variety of influencing factors. We believe that, after reading the article, course administrators, teachers and students can have a better understanding of learner identity and factors that hinder or facilitate positive learner identity construction in blended learning context, which prompts them to make corresponding adjustments in their course design, teaching or learning respectively. Hence, we would like to recommend the article without any hesitation to more readers, particularly those who are keen on learner identity in blended learning.
XL and XZ selected the commented article together. XL drafted the opinion. XZ provided insights and valuable suggestions during her writing and helped revise the text. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
This study was funded by College English Teaching and Research Projects of Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, China (Grant No. KH200249A).
We gratefully acknowledge the research article of Jing Chen, Jie Tan, and Jun Lei, which provides us with a valuable source to write this commented article.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.