本研究旨在探討教室外的英文合作學習。建立於維果斯基之社會文化基礎上，研究焦點在於了解同儕合作的英文學習活動以及學習者在合作當中面臨之挑戰。本研究採用個案研究法。參與者是同所大學並且參加同個英文自學社群的十一位非外文系學生。資料收集的期間始於民國98年的三月中至十月初，在此期間本研究者進行觀察、訪談和文件收集。資料分析先是採用持續比較法。後續的分析則是參考文獻中關於挑戰的定義以及解決問題的合作策略。
本研究主要發現如下。學習者藉由制定合作準則，以及在活動中共建英文知識，來支持彼此的英文學習。其次，在合作學習的過程中，學習者主要面臨兩種挑戰。一種是同儕間共通的難題，包含無法發展更多的英文知識和保持英文活動。根據學習者的反應，當他們無法克服這些難題時，他們會終止英文活動，這將不利於合作學習。另一種挑戰則是同儕間對立的意見，這源自於他們對英文學習不同的看法。根據學習者的反應，當他們對同儕的意見保持同理心，他們較能處理同儕對立以維持合作學習。儘管本研究著重於學習者如何幫助彼此的英文學習，卻發現本研究中大部分的學習者都強調輔導助教對於同儕合作的協助。
關於本研究的發現，討論如下。第ㄧ，這些英文學習者對於合作學習之達成，呼應實踐社群的概念。第二，學習者面臨的挑戰顯示出穩定的學習模式和平衡的學習導向之重要性。第三，這些學習者對於同儕英文程度之考量，反映他們在合作學習上的投資(分配團隊資源及培養英文知識)。
本研究建議三項關於英文教學的應用。第一，建議參加英文自學社群的學習者須尊重他人對於英文學習不同之觀點，以促進同儕合作學英文。第二，建議英文學習者須從發展和參與英文自學社群的過程中，培養自主積極的學習方式以維繫合作學習。第三，建議英文教師或輔導助教須了解如何適當協助同儕互動以支持合作學習。
對於後續研究的建議： 一) 可比較不同類型的英文自學社群以提供關於教室外英語合作學習的多元觀點；二) 可深入分析輔導助教之協助以探討專家引導在同儕學習活動中的重要性；三) 可探討英文自學社群之領導者在不同合作情境中如何扮演其角色，以了解領導者如何影響和強化同儕合作；四)可探索不同的性別、科系及媒介對合作學習的影響。

The purpose of this study was to explore collaborative English language learning beyond formal classrooms. On the basis of Vygotsky’s socio-cultural perspective, specific focus was placed on English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ collective scaffolding and tension they experienced during the collaboration. The researcher utilized case study to design this research. Participants were eleven EFL learners who were non-English majors in a university and who joined the same English self-access community together. The period of data collection was from middle-March to early-October, 2009, during which the researcher conducted observation, interview, and document collection. Constant comparison method was used at the early stage of data analysis. Further analysis was influenced by the concepts of tension (Kramer, 2004; Montgomery, 1993; Spielmann & Radnofsky, 2001) and collaborative strategies, such as problematizing move (Ming & Law, 2006; Reiser, 2004).
Three findings of this study were reported. First, these learners practiced collective scaffolding by co-shaping norms and co-constructing English knowledge. Second, during collective scaffolding, these learners experienced two kinds of tension. One of the tensions was their shared difficulties in developing English knowledge and maintaining English activities. When these learners could not overcome these difficulties, they terminated their English activities, which was negative for their collective scaffolding. The other tension was their conflictive voices deriving from different perceptions of English learning. When these learners were able to show their empathy toward conflictive voices among peers, they were more likely to handle these conflicts to practice collective scaffolding. Although this study centered on how these EFL learners assisted one another’s learning, it also discovered that most EFL learners in this study highlighted the tutor’s role in helping peer collaboration.
Discussions of this study are as follows: 1) these learners’ practice of collective scaffolding echoes Wenger’s (1998) community of practice; 2) tension these learners experienced shows the importance of developing regular and predictable learning
routines and maintaining the balance between product-orientation and process-orientation for learning; 3) these learners’ concern about peers’ English proficiency reflects their investment in distributing group resources and cultivating English knowledge.
This study provides three implications for English learning and teaching. First, it is suggested that English language learners who participate in English self-access communities respect others’ perceptions of English learning, so that peer collaboration for English learning can be enhanced. Second, English language learners are encouraged to cultivate their autonomous and active learning through developing and joining an English self-access community. Third, English teachers or tutors are encouraged to gain understanding about how to assist peer interaction appropriately in order to support collaborative learning.
Finally, four directions for further studies are offered: 1) further studies can compare different English self-access communities to offer multiple perspectives on collaborative learning beyond classrooms; 2) further studies can investigate the assistance of tutors to understand the importance of expert scaffolding in peer collaboration; 3) further studies can analyze the role of a leader in different contexts of an English self-access community to examine how the leader can influence and enhance the practice of collective scaffolding; 4) further studies can examine the influences of distinct genders, majors, and media on collective scaffolding.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1Research Motivation 1
1.2Terminologies 2
1.3Needs for the Study 5
1.4 Purpose of the Study 8
1.5 Significance of the Study 9
1.6 Overview of the Study 9
CHAPTER 2 LITERATU REREVIEW 11
2.1 Collective Scaffolding 11
2.2 Means for Collective Scaffolding 14
2.2.1Collaborative Dialogue 14
2.2.2 Activities and Participation 15
2.3 Learners’ Attitudes toward Collective Scaffolding 17
2.4 Tension in the Process of Collective Scaffolding 19
2.5 Summary 22
CHAPTER 3 Research Method 24
3.1 Methodological Background 24
3.2 Participants 25
3.3 Data Collection 28
3.4 Data Analysis 33
3.5 Researcher’s Role 37
3.6 Trustworthiness 39
3.7 Summary 41
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISSCUSIONS 42
4.1 The Practice of Collective Scaffolding 42
4.1.1 The Macro Level of Collective Scaffolding 42
4.1.2 The Micro Level of Collective Scaffolding 57
4.2 Tension during EFL Learners’ Practice of Collective Scaffolding 65
4.2.1 Tension as Shared Difficulties among Group Members 65
4.2.2 Tension as Conflictive Voices among Group Members 71
4.3 Discussions 87
4.3.1 Practicing Collective Scaffolding through Developing and Supporting COP 87
4.3.2 The Significance of Tension for Collective Scaffolding 89
4.3.3 Evaluating Newcomers is to Practice Collective Scaffolding 93
4.3.4 The Tutor’s Assistance for Collective Scaffolding 95
4.4 Summary 97
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 101
5.1 Summary of the Study 101
5.2 Limitations of the Study 103
5.3 Practical Implications 104
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research 106
5.5 Conclusion 107
REFERENCES 109
APPENDIX1: Consent Form 117
APPENDIX2: Timetable of Data Collection 118
APPENDIX3:Sample of Formal Interview Questions 121
APPENDIX4: Sample Transcript of Informal Interview 122
APPENDIX5: Sample Transcript of Formal Interview 124
APPENDIX6:Sample Transcript of Observation and Participation 126

Anfara, V., Brown, K., & Mangione, T. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28-38.
Angelova, M., Gunawardena, D., & Volk, D. (2006). Peer Teaching and Learning: Co-constructing Language in a dual language first grade. Language & Education, 20(3), 173-190.
Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Hakkinen, P., & Jarvela, S. (2007). Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning & Instruction, 17(4), 448-459.
Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), 21-40.
Blaise, M., & Elsden-Clifton, J. (2007). Intervening or Ignoring: Learning about teaching in new times. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 387-407.
Bloom, M. (2007). Tensions in a Non-Traditional Spanish Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 85-102.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 9-34.
Chen, Y.-M. (2004). Innovative assessment and instruction: Portfolio use in the EFL junior high classroom. Educational Researcher and Information, 12(5), 109-140.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Donato, R. (1998). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Apple (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, N.J.: Albex.
Elbers, E., & De Haan, M. (2005). The construction of word meaning in a multicultural classroom: Mediational tools in peer collaboration during mathematics lessons. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20, 45-59.
Firth, A., & Wanger, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285-300.
Graham, J. (2006). What does it mean when students don't participate ? Essential Teacher, 3, 26-29.
Guerrero, M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68.
Guiller, J., Durndell, A., & Ross, A. (2008). Peer interaction and critical thinking: Face-to-face or online discussion? Learning & Instruction, 18(2), 187-200.
Gutiérrez, A. G. (2008). Microgenesis, method and object: A study of collaborative activity in a Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 120-148.
Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2002). Analyzing interaction: Video, ethnography, and situated-conduct. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action (pp. 99-121). London: Sage.
Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding scientific competencies within classroom communities of inquiry. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning (pp. 74-107). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Hyland, F. (2004). Learning autonomously: Contextualising out-of-class English language learning. Language Awareness, 13(3), 180-202.
Jing, H. (2006). Learner resistance in metacognition training? An exploration of mismatches between learner and teacher agendas. Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 95-117.
Johnson, M. (2004). Vygotsky's social cultural theory and second language learning. In M. Johnson (Ed.), A Philosophy of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 129-169). London: Yale University.
Kao, H.-C. (2005). The English study circle for adult EFL learners at homemaker's union and foundation in central Taiwan. Unpublished Master Thesis. Kaohsiung: National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology.
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in Wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning and Technology, 13(1), 79-95.
Kim, Y. J. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114-130.
Kim, Y. J., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211-234.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2003). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to enpowerment. 2nd. ed. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kitade, K. (2008). The role of offline metalanguage talk in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning and Technology, 12(1), 64-84.
Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N., Robbs, J., & Barnhart, A. (2005). How do people learn? Members’ methods and communicative mediation. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication—and how they may be overcome (pp. 265-294). New York: Springer.
Kramer, M. W. (2004). Toward a theory of dialectics in group communication: An ethnographic study of a community theater group. Communication Monographs, 71, 311-332.
Lamb, M. (2004). It depends on the students themselves: Independent language learning at an Indonesian state school. Language, Culture & Curriculum, 17(3), 229-245.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Socio-cultural theory and second-language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 201-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated-learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 53-72.
Lewis, J., & Ritchie, J. (2003). Generalising from qualitative research. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 263-286). London: Sage.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maybin, J., Mercer, M., & Stierer, B. (1992). Scaffolding learning in the classroom. In K. Norman, (Eds.), Thinking Voice: The work of the national project (pp. 186-195). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research education: A qualitative approach. Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ming, L., & Law, N. (2006). Peer scaffolding of knowledge building through collaborative groups with differential learning experiences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 123-144.
Montgomery, B. M. (1993). Relationship maintenance vs. relationship change: A dialectical dilemma. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 205-223.
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 573-603.
Norton, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative Learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 443-456.
Prentice, C. M., & Kramer, M. W. (2006). Dialectical Tensions in the Classroom: Managing Tensions through Communication. Southern Communication Journal, 71(4), 339-361.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
Richard, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). New York: Cambridge University Press
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge telling in peer tutors' explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 534-574.
Rose, J. (2007). Understanding Relevance in the Language Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 483-502.
Spielmann, G., & Radnofsky, M. L. (2001). Learning language under tension: New directions from a qualitative Study. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 259-278.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119-158.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Social cultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In P. S. M. Bygate & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99-118). London: Longman.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Taking it through: Two French immersion learners' response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285-304.
Torpey, M. J. (2006 ). A case study of conflict in an educational workplace: Managing personal and cultural differences. Teachers College Record, 108(12), 2523-2549.
Toussaint-Clark, C. A. (2007). Patterns of Interaction between Low-Level
Non-Academic ESL Learners, Unpublished Master's thesis. Portland State
University, Oregon.
Trent, J. (2008). Promoting investment by Chinese learners in classroom discourses: Integrating content and language in the undergraduate classroom. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 18(1), 30-48.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Dordrecht: Kulwer Academic.
Vickers, C. H. (2007). Second language socialization through team interaction among electrical and computer engineering students. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 621-640.
Vicker, C. H. (2008). Expertise, language competencies and the L2 user. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(3), 237-255.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ware, P. (2005). "Missed " communication in online communication: Tension in a German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64-89.
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-peer Interaction between L2 Learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605-635.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, P., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse role in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519-535.
Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspective: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 35-58.
蔡姿娟 (民 93)。合作學習教學法對高三學生英語閱讀理解及態度之效益研究。 國民教育研究學報，13，261-283。