Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chung, T.-M., & Chai, C.-S. (2008). The challenges for Chinese as second language learners in using Chinese input systems for compositions. Recent Advance of Chinese Computing Technologies (pp. 459-464). Singapore: Chinese and Oriental Language Information Processing Society, Singapore.

The Challenges for Chinese as Second Language Learners in Using Chinese Input Systems for Compositions Lung-Hsiang Wong, Ping Gao, Tze-Min Chung National Institute of Education, 1, Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616. E-mail: {lunghsiang.wong, ping.gao, tzemin.chung}@nie.edu.sg Abstract This paper reports on our recently concluded exploratory study on Singapore secondary school students‘ perceptions and difficulties faced in ICTmediated Chinese compositions. Qualitative analysis of the collected data reveals that while the affordances of the technology may be logically conducive for pedagogical purposes, a careful match between the students' language entry level skills and thoughtfully designed pedagogical support are necessary for these tools to be exploited. We will also compare the findings with the findings of another similar ongoing study at a primary school in Singapore to explore how various variables like ages may affect students‘ perceptions on ICT-mediated Chinese compositions. Keywords: Computer-aided learning, Chinese compositions, Chinese computer input, qualitative methods, student perceptions

1. Introduction Although over 75% of Singaporeans are ethnic Chinese, Chinese Language (CL) education faces more challenges than ever before. The CL has been reduced to an isolated subject in Singapore schools since 1984. Singaporean students who have intensive training in English since young find it a challenge to learn Chinese (Liang, 2000). The nature of CL is the predominant factor that influences CL learning. For the learners of Chinese as a second language, learning the script is the most difficult task, including the recognition, reading, and writing of characters (Zhu & Hong, 2005). The logographic nature of the Chinese script constitutes the hurdle to memorization (Fan, Tong & Song, 1987). In this paper, we report on an exploratory study of 12 secondary and 6 primary school students‘ perceptions on using ICT tools in their Chinese compositions versus traditional approach of using paper and pen. The study aimed to achieve an in-depth understanding of how meanings,

satisfaction and frustration contributed to the dynamic learning process in which a range of technology tools have been provided and adopted to write Chinese compositions from the viewpoints and voices of the ―insiders‖, that is, the students. Therefore, the empirical study had focused on the writing process, not the products. We apply qualitative methods in our study, which involves observation and in-depth analysis of individual cases. In our study, we aim to find out the students‘ perception towards computerassisted writing through their writing behaviors (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). This paper emphasizes on reporting our findings in studying how secondary school students employ Chinese software in writing compositions. It also contrasts the Chinese input characteristics with those of the primary school pupils (see Wong, et al., 2006 for a more detailed analysis). We look into how age, maturity, language and computer skills influence how they employ Chinese software in writing.

2. Literature Review The advancement of ICT-based language and communication tools has been opening up new promises in teaching and learning CL. These tools are getting more user-friendly. Selfe (1999) argues that electronic writing is the key for future writing – very shortly, writing would mean ―e-writing‖ – hence the need of training students in ICTmediated compositions. There is also a research shift for ICT-mediated writing for the focus and the design of the study. As observed by Reed (1996), pre-1987 studies were more tool- and experimental design-centered. The general findings were that students in computers group performed better than those in non-computer groups. Post-1987 research focused less on isolated skills and was better grounded in research designs; there is a greater focus on writing process, thus a reduced need for control groups.

Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chung, T.-M., & Chai, C.-S. (2008). The challenges for Chinese as second language learners in using Chinese input systems for compositions. Recent Advance of Chinese Computing Technologies (pp. 459-464). Singapore: Chinese and Oriental Language Information Processing Society, Singapore.

There has been some discussions relating to ICT-mediated compositions in Singapore. Integrating ICT into the CL curriculum had raised individual learners‘ confidence and aroused their interest in learning CL (Chua, 1997; Lin, 1999). Lua (1997) envisages the development of Chinese composition software to assist students who are weaker in Chinese to compose better essays. However, research has also begun to uncover areas that may not benefit from ICT-mediated writing. Erickson‘s (1992) study shows that the quality of compositions written on computers depends on variables like writers‘ experience, maturity, technical competency, and writing instructions. Wu (2002) found that many students are not inspired by innovative writing tools due to their inadequate ICT competency. Furthermore, Wolfe & Manalo (2004) argued that the imposition of keyboard composition requires students with less computer experience to perform the equivalent of translation in order to produce the text, which is not part of their natural writing process. All these findings are pointing to the need for the educators to help the learners to overcome the technical challenges that they might face before the advantages of ICT-mediated writing could prevail.

Secondary School A Pseudonyms Chinese (gender) Composition Standard Liewu(M) Low Luowen(M) Low Minyu(F) Medium Meiqing(F) Medium Hanjia(F) High Haiyin(F) High

Speaking Medium at Home English Chinese Chinese Chinese English Chinese

3. The Design of the Study Between September 2006 and April 2007, we conducted the study at a co-ed neighborhood secondary school (Sec A) and a ―traditional‖ English boys‘ school (Sec B) and involved 6 Secondary 3 (15 years old) students from each school. Prior to that, we ran a similar study at a primary school (Pri A) during March-May 2006, which involved 6 Primary 5 (11 years old) students. The 3 schools are typical Singapore schools with English as the medium of instruction. The majority of students are ethnic Chinese. We requested the teachers to classify the students into high, medium, and low in CL skills. Two students from each group were selected for our studies. To explore how language abilities influence the students‘ use of ICT for Chinese composition writing and their perception about it, we adopted maximum variation as our sampling strategy. Based on the students‘ CL performances obtain from school records, we requested the teachers to select two students each from the high, medium, and low abilities in CL. Table 1 presents the demographic information of our participants in assigned pseudonyms.

Secondary School B Pseudonyms Chinese (All Male) Composition Standard Longzhi Low Lingchuan Low Laide Low Lida Low Mengjie Medium Minzhong Medium

Speaking Medium at Home Chinese English English Chinese English English

Primary School A Pseudonyms Chinese (gender) Composition Standard Lisha(F) Low Lianqing(M) Low Minghui(F) Medium Mucheng(M) Medium Huiyi(F) High Hanyun(F) High

Speaking Medium at Home English Chinese Chinese English Chinese Chinese

Table 1: General Information of the Target Students As IT has not been extensively used in Chinese teaching and learning in Singapore schools, we conducted 2 hours of training sessions on using the relevant tools prior to the study. After the training, we conducted three composition activities per school. We provided a variety of tools for the students to mix and match to find out how they perceived various types of ICT-based writing and the challenges they faced (see Table 2 for tools provided). The code name for the composition activities are Sec A – activities AS1, AS2, AS3;

Sec B – BS1, BS2, and BS3; and Pri A – P1, P2, and P3). We attained triangulation by collecting different types of data, including interviews and focus group discussions. We conducted interviews at the beginning and the end of the study to investigate their perceptions in ICT-mediated Chinese writing. We also conducted focus groups after each writing session to explore their reactions on using the tools. In addition, we installed MORAE, a software application that uses a webcam and a microphone attached to the

Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chung, T.-M., & Chai, C.-S. (2008). The challenges for Chinese as second language learners in using Chinese input systems for compositions. Recent Advance of Chinese Computing Technologies (pp. 459-464). Singapore: Chinese and Oriental Language Information Processing Society, Singapore.

computer. It allows us to capture the students‘ onscreen activities, facial expressions and speeches, Category Word processor Chinese character input

Reference

Name Microsoft Word

in video format which could be used for coding and analysis.

Functionalities related to compositions General word processing

PenPlus Professional Edition “一笔通”专业版

 

Microsoft Global Input Method Editors (IME) PowerWord 金山词霸



Handwriting input along with the bundled tablet (writing pad) Pinyin-based (phoenetic) input with bundled Chinese Plus 一件通 (software) Microsoft Pinyin IME for Pinyin-based input

Chinese-English two-way e-dictionary

Table 2: Software tools used during the empirical activities We performed on-going data analysis during the study. We started with coding the activity data to identify emerging themes. While we continued to collect data, we allowed the dimensions within each theme to recast in order to reflect the

collected data (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). We used MORAE recordings to verify our data and added new themes when necessary. By the end of the empirical activities, we performed a summative analysis to compile our findings.

4. Major Findings

believed that it would show one‘s sincerity. Lingchuan, Mengjie and Liewu had similar opinion. Longzhi was the only student that had the same perception of ICT input as Pri A pupils. Before the writing sessions, his was favorable of ICT-based input, ‗It is faster to use computer input. It is inconvenient to use pen and paper.‖ However, at the post-interview, he said, ―It is easier to do editing with pen and paper. Pinyin input is troublesome and indirect; and the computer kept recognizing my handwriting incorrectly when I used the writing pad.‖ Word processors have always been touted as more efficient in editing as compared to paper. But Longzhi thought otherwise. The 6 Pri A pupils had similar perception and exhibited similar changes in opinions towards computer-based input. At the beginning, they unanimously indicated their preference for using the ICT tools due to the novelty effect. After PS1, only half of them remained excited about ITmediated writing. Others changed from excitement into frustration when they encountered a variety of linguistic and technical difficulties, including the software‘s wrong recognitions of their handwriting. On the other hand, one of the questions that we asked the secondary school students after the study was, ―How would you improve the Chinese input system so that it is easy to use?‖ Their answers were unexpected. Although most of the students faced difficulties in using the software to input Chinese text, none proposed a concrete solution. Their answers were mostly, ―It is already very

Guided by the qualitative research methodology, we organize our major findings into two broad categories, (1) students‘ perceptions of using ICT tools to write Chinese compositions; (2) students‘ ways of using the ICT tools. Perceptions of using ICT tools to write Chinese compositions We observed that the target students did not make the fullest use of the technologies. The data reveal that their perceptions of using ICT tools varied from session to session. The secondary school students had great expectations before they engaged in the study. Most of them have had experience with Chinese input. However, not all of them had the experience of writing a complete composition on computer. They assumed that inputting pinyin and letting the computer retrieve the Chinese characters would solve their problem of not knowing how to write them. Those who had such frame of reference are Hanjia, Minyu, Minzhong, Laide and Lida. These pro-computer input students voiced varied reasons for their preference. For example, while Haiyin said it was strenuous to write with pen and paper, Luowen hoped to have an advanced e-dictionary/e-thesaurus that could interpret the writer‘s writing and recommend related idioms. In contrast, Meiqing liked to write with pen and paper. Apart from practicing handwriting, she

Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chung, T.-M., & Chai, C.-S. (2008). The challenges for Chinese as second language learners in using Chinese input systems for compositions. Recent Advance of Chinese Computing Technologies (pp. 459-464). Singapore: Chinese and Oriental Language Information Processing Society, Singapore.

good. There is no need to improve.‖ Similarly, Luowen said, ―This is not the problem with the computer but my own problem.‖ What the participants said reflected their thoughts about Chinese input. They assumed that if they had more opportunities for practice, they would be as good in it as us the researchers. It could be because they were young so they have never thought they could, as consumers, give feedback to the software developers. Ways of using the IT tools

Liya

All the participants mentioned that writing Chinese characters is the most difficult part in writing on paper. They were frequently stuck in writing, as they did not know how to write certain characters. Inputting Chinese is not as straightforward as typing English as it may require one to choose from various input methods, i.e., it involves decision-making. Therefore, they found it difficult to learn all input skills simultaneously. Some participants selectively used those tools that they were comfortable with. Others challenged themselves to use a range of the tools to solve the difficulties they encountered (see Table 3).

Handwritten input Pinyin input e-dictionary Sec A‘s activities  AS1 AS2 AS3 AS1 AS2 AS3 AS1 AS2 AS3 x abs O abs O x abs Liewu O O O O O O x x Luowen Minyu O O O Meiqing x abs O O abs O abs Hanjia O O O Haiyin x X O O O Sec B‘s activities  BS1 BS2 BS3 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS1 BS2 BS3 O X x O O O O O O Longzhi O O O O O O Lingchuan x X abs O O abs x O abs Laide Lida abs O O abs x O abs Mengjie X abs O O abs x O abs Minzhong x O O O O O O O Pri A‘s activities  PS1 PS2 PS3 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS1 PS2 PS3 Lisha O O O O x x O O O O O x Lianqing Minghui O X O O x Mucheng O O x O x Huiyi O O O Hanyun O O O O = Mainly used Input Tool in the session / x = Used as Supporting Input Tool in the session / abs = absent

Table 3 Students‘ Choices of Using the IT Tools Pinyin versus handwriting input Table 3 indicates that secondary school participants overwhelmingly used pinyin input. It was because they all had some past experience in pinyin input. For inexperienced Pri A users, handwriting on the writing pad seemed most intuitive. Although Pri A pupils were taught pinyin in Primary 1, they rarely used it after Primary 3 and were therefore unable to recall much. Although secondary school students overwhelmingly employed the pinyin input method, some switched to handwriting input when they could not find the characters they needed. The pinyin mistakes they made were the mixing up of ―zh‖ and ―z‖, ―b‖ and ―p‖, ―s‖ and ―x‖, ―n‖ and

―ng‖, etc., and Singapore-accented pronunciations. Occasional users of handwriting input had to repeatedly write the same character before the software was able to recognize it, probably due to the incorrect stroke order. On the other hand, many participants employed ―pinyin character group‖, i.e., input by phrase. Few of them employed the IME ―full sentence input method‖ instead. However, the software would usually make a mistake in selecting the phrase (either due to homophones or the student entering the incorrect pinyin). They had to go back on their writing to make the changes, which disrupted their train of thoughts. As a result, those who used ―full sentence input‖ during their

Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chung, T.-M., & Chai, C.-S. (2008). The challenges for Chinese as second language learners in using Chinese input systems for compositions. Recent Advance of Chinese Computing Technologies (pp. 459-464). Singapore: Chinese and Oriental Language Information Processing Society, Singapore.

first writing session such as Haiyin, Laide, and Longzhi gradually reduced or stopped using it. In contrast, Hanjia, Minyu, Mengjie, and Lingchuan were more and more proficient in ―full sentence input‖ and almost stopped using the handwriting pad. However, they would occasionally overlook the incorrect selections by the computer. Luowen was the only secondary school participant who frequently switched between pinyin and handwriting input methods - he was weak in both aspects. He used mainly pinyin input in BS1 and BS2. However, because his peers sitting next to him became impatient at his frequent inquires, he switched to using handwriting input at B3. He faced great challenge as he could not write proper characters. On the other hand, after PS1, the higher ability Pri A pupils continued to make use of handwriting input, which was unfortunately not as intuitive as pen and paper handwriting. For example, although Huiyi was the only pupil who used handwriting input throughout, in one occasion, she had to write 友 9 times to get it correct – it was recognized as 支、歹、交 before that instead. The pinyin input could solve the handwriting recognition problems. However, the majority of Pri A participants were weak in pronunciation and pinyin. Although they could have stuck to pinyin input all the way, they would rather use it just as a quick fix and then switched back to handwriting. E-dictionary Table 3 indicated that while students from Sec B frequently looked up PowerWord, students from Sec A almost never used it. Sec A students would consult their peers about pinyin, translations, etc. Meiqing, Minyu and Hanjia all thought that the UI of PowerWord was complicated. They had to go through a few steps to find the characters. Only Liewu preferred PowerWord to printed dictionaries. As an English school, Sec B‘s students (besides Lida) depended much on PowerWord and they seldom inquired from their peers. They conceded that they had seldom consulted their peers even in the actual composition classes to avoid disrupting others. However, we suspected that they did not want to do so because they thought that their peers‘ standards of Chinese were not high, as Longzhi said, ―I only consult those whose Chinese are better than me.‖ As such, edictionary provided much help to them.

The Pri A students were pretty similar to Sec A ones—most of them were lazy to check dictionary and instead conveniently asked their teacher for help. In addition, they were not familiar with pinyin. Furthermore, some of them could not deal with multiple windows on the computer. In summary, the participants‘ choices of using the ICT tools had some connection with the challenges they encountered. Some participants reacted actively by choosing one or a combination of the tools to overcome their difficulties. Others reacted passively as they were overwhelmed by the problems.

5. Discussions and Future Directions The reported studies were started off with the major focus on how Singapore students, mostly being young learners of Chinese as L2, perceived ICT-mediated Chinese compositions and how they made use of the ICT tools in accomplishing the stated task. We discovered that the students‘ competency level in using the ICT tools, particularly in Chinese computer input, could pose a fundamental thread that significantly undermines the potential benefits of ICT-mediated writing. Reflecting on our findings, we argue that most of the popular software products in the market have been mainly designed for adult use (UI, software features, Chinese input methods, etc.). It is important to guide the students to choose the right applications, simplify the UI (for example, to remove the unneeded menu bars in the Word UI), and to provide them with sufficient training. Furthermore, we should not simply computerize what we practice in pen and paper. We ought to design new pedagogy so that the students can benefit from these technologies, not hampered by them. There should be ample opportunities for the students to practice using the software, the input methods, and training in pinyin. Their aim is not only to help the students to pick up, but internalize the skills. We would like to acknowledge two major limitations of this study. Firstly, we have only selected 18 students from 3 schools for the study as we have opted for a qualitative study approach. The small number of students meant that each of them could have easy access to the researchers. As a result, they might have response bias that might

Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chung, T.-M., & Chai, C.-S. (2008). The challenges for Chinese as second language learners in using Chinese input systems for compositions. Recent Advance of Chinese Computing Technologies (pp. 459-464). Singapore: Chinese and Oriental Language Information Processing Society, Singapore.

affect their thinking. Secondly, due to the time constraint, we had only conducted 3 ICT-mediated composition sessions. The participants were overwhelmed in learning many things in a short period. This might have undermined the potential benefit of ICT-mediated writing. Based on the findings, we have formulated a long term plan which: a) incorporates teacher professional development (TPD) and ICTmediated Chinese writing pedagogical design; b) develop Chinese input software platform. As we (researchers) are also teacher educators, we started a one-year TPD in early 2007. We adopted Collaborative Inquiry, a systematic approach that promotes the collaboration between researchers and practitioners (Darling-Hammond, 1996). We invited 14 CL teachers and 2 Ministry of Education officials to co-design an ICTmediated CL writing pedagogy. The pedagogy must not only ensure that the needs of the students are met, it should also be integrated to the existing curriculum. Therefore, it is crucial to involve teachers and MOE officials in its design. We will then trial our design in a school. After we have developed the pedagogy, we will be able to identify the parts of the training process that can be automated. We will then work with software developers to develop a Chinese writing platform. One of the aims of the software is to lighten the workload of the teacher during Chinese input training. It will enable the students to select the appropriate input method as and when needed. With such a platform, many more schools will likely to promote ICT-mediated Chinese writing.

Fan, L., Tong, L., & Song, J. (1987). The characteristics of Chinese language and children‘s learning to read and write. In: D..A. Wagner (Ed.), The Future of Literacy in a Changing World, 87-94, New York: Pergamon.

References

Wu, C.T. (2002). Taizhong Yizhong diannao fuzhu yingwen xiezuo lianxi zhi ge‘an yanjiu (Case study of computer-aided English writing practice in Taizhong 1st Secondary School). Master Thesis, Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University.

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods., Needham Heights, MA: Viacom. Chua, C.L. (Ed.) (1997). Chuangyi Yu Jixun Keji (Creativity and Information Technology), Singapore: SNP Edition. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development/ Educational Leadership, 53(6), 4-10. Erickson, B.J. (1992). A synthesis of studies on computer-supported composition, revision, and quality. Research on Computing in Education, 25(2), 172-188.

Liang, R. J. (2000). The relationship between Singapore students‘ Chinese vocabulary and reading ability with their attitudes and Chinese learning achievement. In H.G. Zhang (Ed.), New trends in Teaching Chinese, 38-52, Hong Kong, ILEC. Lin, S. (1999). Chuangyi jiqiao yu Huawen jiaoxue (Creative skills and Chinese teaching). In: C.L. Chua (Ed.), Chuangyi Jiaoxue Keji (Creative Teaching Technologies), 25-38, Singapore: SNP Edition. Lua, K.T. (1997). Diannao yu Huawen jiaoxue (Computers and Chinese teaching). In: C.L. Chua (Ed.), Chuangyi Yu Zixun Keji (Creativity and Information Technology), 70-76, Singapore: SNP Edition. Reed, W.M. (1990). The effect of computer-and-writing instruction on prospective English teachers‘ attitudes toward and perceived uses of computers in writing instruction. Research on Computing in Education, 23(1), 3-27. Selfe, C.L. (1999). Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century: The Importance of Paying Attention, Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. Wolfe, E.W., & Manalo, J.R. (2004), Composition medium comparability in a direct writing assessment of non-native English speakers, Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 53-65. Wong, L.H., Gao, P., Chua, C.L., Chai, C.S., & Chung, T.M. (2006). Primary school students‘ Chinese composition writing mediated by ICT tools: An exploratory study. Proceedings of APERA Conference’06, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Zhu, Y., & Hong, W. (2005). Effects of digital voiced pronunciation and stroke sequence animation on character memorization of EFL learners. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 40(3), 49-70.