Thursday, November 15, 2007
Continuing on the ELF/World Englishes debate
The two articles (Ellis, 2006, and Seildhofer, 2001) stimulated our discussion on the perspectives and issues on error correction in ELF and World Englishes framework. I think we each had a lot to say, and I would like to hear more from you! Let's continue the discussion in this forum :)
Friday, November 9, 2007
Weekly Reflection (W12) by Myong Hee
On Thursday (L2 writing & error correction)
Covered Bitchener, Young, & Cameron (2005) and Ferris (2004)
About Design
• Three groups were different; not equivalent (Yao)
• In reality, we are likely to take intact classes and this can create very different contexts; so problematic.
• Another methodological dilemma in error correction: Longitudinal studies (hard to control invariable) vs. One-shot experimental studies (not being longitudinal)
• Pre-test seems missing (Yun Deuk)
• 1st essay can be used as a pre-test or administering a relevant grammar test can be another option.
• Conference for each individual seems very short and not clearly described (Sang-ki)
Probably it is done for a fast check; however 20 min. conference may not be doable.
• Number of errors in Table 1 is just row numbers; so, it is not based on the length of individual essay (Kevin).
• Keeping (internal) ethical requirement for control groups should be considered.
Possible ways for a Better Design
• In Table 2, stating N size may be a good idea
• MANCOVA may be a better tool to analyze since students may have different starting points at the 1st essay, and we have to check individual’s progress in the four essays.
• The design seems complicated, so make the design simpler (one feedback group vs no feedback group)
About Conclusion
• Students showed ups and downs in improving their grammar. Do we need a longer longitudinal study in order to have better ideas?
• Try to look at different categories of errors (rather than all the categories) in order to check students’ improvement
• Conferencing is working, so it should be implemented.
• Treatable vs. not treatable definitions are problematic (e.g., articles in English grammar). These terms are based on intuition.
MyongHee’s thought: In most studies in this area, NS teachers provide error correction in NNS students’ L2 writing. However, in reality, most English teachers in EFL contexts (e.g., Korea, Japan, & China) are NNSs whose English language skills including grammar are not perfect. I wonder to what extent the findings/suggestions and studies of these NS teachers-NNS students studies in written error correction are applicable/relevant to NNS teachers-NNS students contexts.
On Thursday (L2 writing & error correction)
Covered Bitchener, Young, & Cameron (2005) and Ferris (2004)
About Design
• Three groups were different; not equivalent (Yao)
• In reality, we are likely to take intact classes and this can create very different contexts; so problematic.
• Another methodological dilemma in error correction: Longitudinal studies (hard to control invariable) vs. One-shot experimental studies (not being longitudinal)
• Pre-test seems missing (Yun Deuk)
• 1st essay can be used as a pre-test or administering a relevant grammar test can be another option.
• Conference for each individual seems very short and not clearly described (Sang-ki)
Probably it is done for a fast check; however 20 min. conference may not be doable.
• Number of errors in Table 1 is just row numbers; so, it is not based on the length of individual essay (Kevin).
• Keeping (internal) ethical requirement for control groups should be considered.
Possible ways for a Better Design
• In Table 2, stating N size may be a good idea
• MANCOVA may be a better tool to analyze since students may have different starting points at the 1st essay, and we have to check individual’s progress in the four essays.
• The design seems complicated, so make the design simpler (one feedback group vs no feedback group)
About Conclusion
• Students showed ups and downs in improving their grammar. Do we need a longer longitudinal study in order to have better ideas?
• Try to look at different categories of errors (rather than all the categories) in order to check students’ improvement
• Conferencing is working, so it should be implemented.
• Treatable vs. not treatable definitions are problematic (e.g., articles in English grammar). These terms are based on intuition.
MyongHee’s thought: In most studies in this area, NS teachers provide error correction in NNS students’ L2 writing. However, in reality, most English teachers in EFL contexts (e.g., Korea, Japan, & China) are NNSs whose English language skills including grammar are not perfect. I wonder to what extent the findings/suggestions and studies of these NS teachers-NNS students studies in written error correction are applicable/relevant to NNS teachers-NNS students contexts.
Weekly reflection (Nov 5th & 8th) by Yuki
Commentary for November 5th and 8th (by Yukiko)
The reading topics of the week were on socio-cultural perspectives to collaborative learning process. Socio-cultural theorists view that learning is socially constructed and is mediated by symbolic artifacts (e.g., language). The following articles were discussed in class:
- Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483
- Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2; The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34-51.
- Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 43-63.
- de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 484-496.
- de Guerrero, MCM and Villamil, OS (2000) Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68.
1. Summary and commentary on Tuesday discussion
Researcher’s background:
- M. Swain: She shifted her perspective towards L2 learning from cognitive-interactionist to Vygotskian socio-cultural perspective. Nabei and Nassaji were her PhD student.
- J. Lantolf: His recent research interest includes linguistic typology and gestures. Aljaafreh was his PhD student.
Based on Aljaafre and Lantolf’s (1994) ZPD scale, Nassaji and Swain (2000) examined the difference in learning articles between a student who received corrective feedback with graduated contingent help within ZPD (ZPD condition) and a student who received a randomly gauged help (non ZPD condition). In the random ZPD condition, Nassaji and Swain also explored the relationship between the quality of help provided on each article error and the performance of accuracy in the final test for each article error. They concluded that (a) graduated help was more effective than random help, and (b) that more explicit help produced more accurate results than the implicit help. We have to take these results with caution because of the following reasons:
- The two learners seemed to have different proficiency levels in terms of article use from the beginning. The ZPD student made 28 article errors across four tests, while the non-ZPD student made 20 errors (in one wring, the non-ZPD student had perfect article use).
- The final test involved an article cloze test of their original writing. The indicator of learning was the accuracy ratio of the article use in the final test for each passage (the number of items ranged from 1 to 12). Since the number of items was so small that concluding the results with proportion score may be misleading. While it seems like a good idea to construct exactly how students learn based on their own writing, from a psychometric viewpoint, the tailored test may not be sufficient to provide trustworthy quantitative evidence.
Some suggestions were made to improve the design of the study. It would be more convincing if there was another article cloze post-test with a passage other than their original writing. Using different passage will potentially show the transfer of learning.
Nabei and Swain (2002) does not mention social-cultural framework, but looks at the learner as an agent. The learner in the case study “chose when to make use of the learning opportunities presented to her” (p. 59), willingly tuned in and out of the learning context, and was more engaged and cared more during group environment. Nabei and Swain concluded that the reaction to recast a student received was affected by the discourse contexts (e.g., teachers’ intention, group vs. teacher fronted) and learners’ orientation. A close attention to learner agency and orientation, and contextual factors is called for.
2. Summary and commentary on Thursday discussion
We had extensive discussion on IRB issues. Here are some tips getting IRB approvals. Please check with IRB office directly for accurate procedures and information.
(a) Which category do we submit?
- If it's a regular educational intervention/instruction and it has no potential harm, usually, our research falls under "exemption" category. You need to go through IRB's criteria to see if your study meets their eligibility criteria for exemption.
- Get approval to use classroom data (e.g., writing, grades, homework, etc.) from your students after providing them course grades.
- Ask IRB officer to come to your class at the beginning of the semester to collect information on consent/non-consent to participate in research. IRB will keep the information until the grading is done. Later, you can use the permitted data for your research.
(c) Is it ethical to provide extra credit to those who participated in research?
- Minimal compensation is fine. You cannot withhold the compensation you promised to provide, even if your participant decided to withdraw in the end.
The rule of thumb is to ask for IRB approval before you start conducting your study!
B. Summary and commentary on the article discussions
Both 1994 study and 2000 study by de Guerrero and Villamil are part of a large scale project involving 40 dyadic (one reader and one writer) interactions during peer revision of their writing.
One of de Guerrero and Villamil’s contributions in 1994 study was their coding system specific to peer interaction for revising writing. They created an analytic framework for categorizing episode type (on-task, about-task, and off-task), interactional types within on-task interaction (e.g., reader writer interactive revision, writer teacher interaction), cognitive stages of regulation (object regulated, other-regulated, and subject-regulated), and social relationships (symmetrical vs. asymmetrical).
Peer review sessions of 27 pairs of ESL writers revealed that most students remained on-task, engaging in complex and productive interaction, and self-regulating themselves depending on tasks and roles (reader or writer). It was interesting to see the fluidity of regulation types, as well as the effect of social relationships on cognitive stages of regulation.
In 2000 study, one dyadic pair uncovered how the reader mediated the revision by flagging problematic phrases and linguistic errors, providing instructions and models, and giving supportive comments. The revision process revealed how social interactions shape the revision of the text and how personal and affective exchanges provide lubrication for equal self-regulations and commitment to task accomplishment.
In both studies, L1 use was considered as a mediating tool and resource for the learners to achieve higher level mental operation. The use of L1 will depend on the dynamic and the purpose of the class; however, it can be a facilitation tool for learners.
In collaborative work, regression is natural in dynamic learning process, as students may not come up with the right answer and/or solution. However, learning does not happen in a linear fashion, thus de Guerrero and Villamil conclude and I concur that peer collaborative work can provide learners with opportunities to appropriate learning strategies and tools which learners can eventually use on their own problem solving.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Weekly Reflection (W12) by Myong Hee
On Tuesday (L2 writing & Error correction)
Covered Hyland (1998), Hyland (2003), Hyland & Hyland (2006)
Use of feedback
Individual difference in the amount of feedback used and preferences
• Maho – Received more overall feedback but fewer usable ones
Did not incorporate teacher’s feedback much (22%)
Preferred feedback on her ideas (less priority for grammatical accuracy)
• Samorn – Used teacher’s feedback more (82%)
More concerned about grammar & interested in improving this aspect
However, lost her confidence in grammatical competence at the end of course
Dealing with plagiarism
• When citing in writing, students may have different assumptions and practices due to their cultural backgrounds
• Teachers may react differently due to individual and cultural differences.
• When providing feedback regarding plagiarism, which is better: direct vs. mitigated
• A teacher should have been more direct, explicit in dealing with Maho’s unacceptable behavior since she may not be aware of its consequences (Kevin)
Issue of mitigation
• When to be ‘mitigated’ and when to be ‘direct’?
• Teachers need to clarify confusion about feedback (Yukiko)
• Teachers’ indirect feedback seems confusing & not effective based on her own experience as a L2 writer (Yun Deok)
• Sangki – degree of mitigation may be varied depending on types of errors
Lourdes’comments: Terms ‘treatable’ & ‘nontreatable’ by Ferris (1999) are not grounded.
Issue of revision
As a teacher
• For providing good feedback, teachers may take time; the may have better ideas once they knows about their students. Likewise, training may help for effective peer feedback
• When providing feedback, it involves 2 things: (a) how do I do it (b) knowing what student’s intent was
As a student
• Form-focused feedback may not bring in global level revision (Luciana)
• Revision is high level skills: it may involves beyond feedback & not directly related to feedback
• A good writer takes feedback as prompts to generate better ideas to revise the whole text
Lourdes’ comments: We may need future studies on students’ revisions skills or training to revise
Questions to think about
1. Observations in which you recognize yourself as a writing teacher
2. Observations in which you recognize yourself as a writer
On Tuesday (L2 writing & Error correction)
Covered Hyland (1998), Hyland (2003), Hyland & Hyland (2006)
Use of feedback
Individual difference in the amount of feedback used and preferences
• Maho – Received more overall feedback but fewer usable ones
Did not incorporate teacher’s feedback much (22%)
Preferred feedback on her ideas (less priority for grammatical accuracy)
• Samorn – Used teacher’s feedback more (82%)
More concerned about grammar & interested in improving this aspect
However, lost her confidence in grammatical competence at the end of course
Dealing with plagiarism
• When citing in writing, students may have different assumptions and practices due to their cultural backgrounds
• Teachers may react differently due to individual and cultural differences.
• When providing feedback regarding plagiarism, which is better: direct vs. mitigated
• A teacher should have been more direct, explicit in dealing with Maho’s unacceptable behavior since she may not be aware of its consequences (Kevin)
Issue of mitigation
• When to be ‘mitigated’ and when to be ‘direct’?
• Teachers need to clarify confusion about feedback (Yukiko)
• Teachers’ indirect feedback seems confusing & not effective based on her own experience as a L2 writer (Yun Deok)
• Sangki – degree of mitigation may be varied depending on types of errors
Lourdes’comments: Terms ‘treatable’ & ‘nontreatable’ by Ferris (1999) are not grounded.
Issue of revision
As a teacher
• For providing good feedback, teachers may take time; the may have better ideas once they knows about their students. Likewise, training may help for effective peer feedback
• When providing feedback, it involves 2 things: (a) how do I do it (b) knowing what student’s intent was
As a student
• Form-focused feedback may not bring in global level revision (Luciana)
• Revision is high level skills: it may involves beyond feedback & not directly related to feedback
• A good writer takes feedback as prompts to generate better ideas to revise the whole text
Lourdes’ comments: We may need future studies on students’ revisions skills or training to revise
Questions to think about
1. Observations in which you recognize yourself as a writing teacher
2. Observations in which you recognize yourself as a writer
Sunday, October 28, 2007
weekly reflection (week 10) by Ping and Yao
I have to thank Yao for taking careful notes in class. I only tweaked it by adding my own notes. I hope the commentary below grasps most of the main ideas we discussed in class. Please feel free to comment on anything I missed. Thank you.
Q: How refined should the transcription be?
From a CA perspective, any pause can carry interactional meaning. It's impossible to determine what a pause means beforehand. The entire interactional context, including prosody, gestures, pauses, and gaze, should be taken into account. Therefore, a careful transcription is necessary. The decision on how refined the transcription should be is really based on the researcher's analytical purposes. Transcriptions are always selective. The bottom line is to be as much faithful as possible to your data. And the transcription system should be consistent in order to avoid confusion. The final transcription is always the result of a series of compromises between faithfulness to the data and the readability of the transcription.
CA's emic interests: studying behavior from inside a particular system, looking at the subsequent turns to interpret the intended actions to be achieved
Emic vs. Etic
This emic vs. etic distinction comes from the study of anthropology.
emic: looking at the data, let the category emerge from the data. The term 'emic' comes from phonemic: study of sound as they represent category that can form contrast (e.g., very vs bury) v and b doesn't make phonemically difference but probably make phonetic difference. Meaning comes from within the participants in the context. From the participants' own perspective, analysts examine what is achieved in the sequential development and how meaning is made relevant to participants. In other words, meaning is situated in the context and can't be described outside the context.
etic: researchers impose the categorization onto the data. It comes from phonetics, study of sound as pronounced physically. The etic viewpoint refers to meanings from the outside perspective but not from the participants.
Hauser (2005): there are possibilities of interpretation and the teacher impose his/her interpretation but we don't know whether it's the intended interpretation is not known. Whether the meaning maintained depends on how the meaning is negotiated.
Q: how can we interpret the action of the participations?
Lourdes: It's like postmodernism: There is no truth out there. There is not the meaning of utterance independent of the context. Without looking at the context, it's impossible to understand how meaning is constructed through the sequence of utterance. In Hauser (2005), he is saying “this is one possibility” “this is my interpretation of this” He's trying to make the best proximal interpretation, but in the end there is no truth. Conversation analyst walks a fine line, it causes the tension how to use the evidence to make the interpretation, which can not be validated.
Ping: It helps to have outsiders to review the data together. It helps me to refine the data and consider alternative interpretations.
Yuki: Two types of approaches are possible:
interpretive approach
emic approach
Lourdes: However, critical conversation analysis is not real conversation analysis.
Subject: intersubjectivity between participants
objectivity is ideal.
Lourdes: Though there is no single true interpretation, but we need to interpret by the best methodology possible. It's a tension between taking “analyzing turn” as the universal methodology to understand “interaction”,while at the same time “turn” can not be interpreted without tightly linked to the context.
In CA studies, there's a lot of hedging in the interpretation, which indicate the author is presenting one interpretation, not the other.
Sangki: the main idea of the article is that meaning is always co-constructed and can not viewed without looking at the context.
Ping: For CA studies, there's a lack of longitudinal works, looking at the same phenomena over time. Also, there is this concern of how to apply results to the pedagogical context..
Lordes: Koshik (2002) is very pedagogically oriented. There's a lot more to meaning. We shouldn't underestimate the actual richness the interactions of how corrections are given and taken. It's a healthy reminder that we shouldn't just do counting. So we have one extreme of analyzing every second of turn to analyze meaning and another extreme of completely deviating from meaning and just counting the number of corrective feedback.
Koshik (2002) talks about how the teacher upgrades and downgrades assistance including the prosody cues. The idea that assistance is incremental is interesting. The utterance was designed to be incomplete to prompt self-correction. CA is all about local sequential context of interaction: How things unfold and build-up to something. For this reason, CA could be used to look at when the assistance is needed, when it should be upgraded, and when it should be withdrawn in the learning process. This is relevant to our reading for next week.
Ending comments from Lourdes: It's interesting that we don't treat other approaches (statistics, cognitive) as marked, but treat CA as marked (too much jargon). The truth is all approaches have their own jargon and they are equally ratified. So when we choose our approach, we don't treat it as default. The approach has to be a good match with the researcher.
Q: How refined should the transcription be?
From a CA perspective, any pause can carry interactional meaning. It's impossible to determine what a pause means beforehand. The entire interactional context, including prosody, gestures, pauses, and gaze, should be taken into account. Therefore, a careful transcription is necessary. The decision on how refined the transcription should be is really based on the researcher's analytical purposes. Transcriptions are always selective. The bottom line is to be as much faithful as possible to your data. And the transcription system should be consistent in order to avoid confusion. The final transcription is always the result of a series of compromises between faithfulness to the data and the readability of the transcription.
CA's emic interests: studying behavior from inside a particular system, looking at the subsequent turns to interpret the intended actions to be achieved
Emic vs. Etic
This emic vs. etic distinction comes from the study of anthropology.
emic: looking at the data, let the category emerge from the data. The term 'emic' comes from phonemic: study of sound as they represent category that can form contrast (e.g., very vs bury) v and b doesn't make phonemically difference but probably make phonetic difference. Meaning comes from within the participants in the context. From the participants' own perspective, analysts examine what is achieved in the sequential development and how meaning is made relevant to participants. In other words, meaning is situated in the context and can't be described outside the context.
etic: researchers impose the categorization onto the data. It comes from phonetics, study of sound as pronounced physically. The etic viewpoint refers to meanings from the outside perspective but not from the participants.
Hauser (2005): there are possibilities of interpretation and the teacher impose his/her interpretation but we don't know whether it's the intended interpretation is not known. Whether the meaning maintained depends on how the meaning is negotiated.
Q: how can we interpret the action of the participations?
Lourdes: It's like postmodernism: There is no truth out there. There is not the meaning of utterance independent of the context. Without looking at the context, it's impossible to understand how meaning is constructed through the sequence of utterance. In Hauser (2005), he is saying “this is one possibility” “this is my interpretation of this” He's trying to make the best proximal interpretation, but in the end there is no truth. Conversation analyst walks a fine line, it causes the tension how to use the evidence to make the interpretation, which can not be validated.
Ping: It helps to have outsiders to review the data together. It helps me to refine the data and consider alternative interpretations.
Yuki: Two types of approaches are possible:
interpretive approach
emic approach
Lourdes: However, critical conversation analysis is not real conversation analysis.
Subject: intersubjectivity between participants
objectivity is ideal.
Lourdes: Though there is no single true interpretation, but we need to interpret by the best methodology possible. It's a tension between taking “analyzing turn” as the universal methodology to understand “interaction”,while at the same time “turn” can not be interpreted without tightly linked to the context.
In CA studies, there's a lot of hedging in the interpretation, which indicate the author is presenting one interpretation, not the other.
Sangki: the main idea of the article is that meaning is always co-constructed and can not viewed without looking at the context.
Ping: For CA studies, there's a lack of longitudinal works, looking at the same phenomena over time. Also, there is this concern of how to apply results to the pedagogical context..
Lordes: Koshik (2002) is very pedagogically oriented. There's a lot more to meaning. We shouldn't underestimate the actual richness the interactions of how corrections are given and taken. It's a healthy reminder that we shouldn't just do counting. So we have one extreme of analyzing every second of turn to analyze meaning and another extreme of completely deviating from meaning and just counting the number of corrective feedback.
Koshik (2002) talks about how the teacher upgrades and downgrades assistance including the prosody cues. The idea that assistance is incremental is interesting. The utterance was designed to be incomplete to prompt self-correction. CA is all about local sequential context of interaction: How things unfold and build-up to something. For this reason, CA could be used to look at when the assistance is needed, when it should be upgraded, and when it should be withdrawn in the learning process. This is relevant to our reading for next week.
Ending comments from Lourdes: It's interesting that we don't treat other approaches (statistics, cognitive) as marked, but treat CA as marked (too much jargon). The truth is all approaches have their own jargon and they are equally ratified. So when we choose our approach, we don't treat it as default. The approach has to be a good match with the researcher.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Weekly Reflection (W9) by Hung-Tzu
This week, we continued our oral update on the projects. Four presentations with diverse topics were presented.
Project by Sangki and Mune
Conceptualizing agents in discourse and frequency effects in English L2 learners’ overpassivization errors: A replication and extension of Ju (2000)
Based on cognitive explanation proposed by Ju (2000), overpassivization errors will be examined against three independent variables, causation types ( 2 levles: external vs. internal causers), word token frequency (2 levels, high frequency verbs vs. low frequency verbs), and types of unaccusatives (2 levels, alternating vs. nonalternating unaccusatives). A grammatical judgment test will be used to test intermediate learners (N=20), advanced learners (N=20), and native speakers (N=10).
The class had a brief discussion on the grammatical judgment test including what the participants were asked to judge the sentences, the specific items on the test, and also the distracters included. Since overpassivization is an error commonly found in advanced learners, learners will not have overpassvization errors untill they have passive knowledge. The distracters are designed to test learners’ past knowledge. No errors on overpassivization might either mean that learners are so advanced that they have no problem, or that learners may simply have not acquired passives yet.
Project by Luciana
Focus on form and self repair: Some insights into foreign language learning
Luciana gave us a brief report on the dissertation that she is currently working on. The study asked the following five research questions (1) How do task types influence focus on form and self-repair? (2) To what degree does learners’ proficiency level affect their focus on from and self-repair? (3) What is the nature of linguistic knowledge targeted in focus on form and self repair? (4) How does the interaction depth influence focus on from and interaction pattern? (5) Do learners perform similarly in focus on form and self repair?
This is a very rare study since Luciana looked at group interaction instead of dyads. From her preliminary data analysis, the class suggested using medium to look at group distribution and also individual learner participation within group activities. We also discussed the term ‘depth of LRE’ and it was mentioned that a lower inference label closer to how the study is operationalized such as length of LRE might be able to avoid mis-interpretation from readers.
Project by David
David presented an interesting CALL project in which an alien interacted with learners and give feedback on errors through negotiation of meanings. Suggestions on how the alien project could be expanded included tracking student responses after feedback is given, choosing more generative target structure for the study and providing theoretical ground for this alternative way of giving feedback (i.e. justifying the pedagogical reasons). Yao mentioned that this type of study might be related to human computer interaction or ethnographic research within computer environment. The followings are references that Yao sent to the class list.
Hampel, R. (2003). Theoretical perspectives and new practices in audio-graphic conferencing for language learning. ReCALL, 15(1), 21-36. CALICO (Vol. 20, No. 3); Pujolà (2001) and Bangs (2003); Toole and Heift (2002); Heift (2003).
Project by Dan
Promoting grammar awareness with color-coded feedback
Dan reported his pilot study of color-coding method to give feedback on student writing. The interview from this pilot study revealed that students perceived the system as beneficial in terms of raising meta-awareness. With the short treatment period, Dan suspected that there might not be significant improvement in accuracy of writing, yet, the followings are possible ways to demonstrate the benefit of the color-coding system. (1) Looking into students’ self revision ability at the beginning and at the end of the color-coding treatment might be a way to quantify student learning. (2) Survey designed with Likert scale asking students’ preference in receiving feedback both before and after the treatment. (3) Semi-structured interviews eliciting information on how learners engaged in the revision process using the color-coding system.
Followed by the discussion on the project, we did a hands-on activity applying Dan’s color-coding system to student writing. The activity led to discussion on realistic classroom problems such as how much feedback to give and the many decisions that teachers go through when giving feedbacks.
Project by Sangki and Mune
Conceptualizing agents in discourse and frequency effects in English L2 learners’ overpassivization errors: A replication and extension of Ju (2000)
Based on cognitive explanation proposed by Ju (2000), overpassivization errors will be examined against three independent variables, causation types ( 2 levles: external vs. internal causers), word token frequency (2 levels, high frequency verbs vs. low frequency verbs), and types of unaccusatives (2 levels, alternating vs. nonalternating unaccusatives). A grammatical judgment test will be used to test intermediate learners (N=20), advanced learners (N=20), and native speakers (N=10).
The class had a brief discussion on the grammatical judgment test including what the participants were asked to judge the sentences, the specific items on the test, and also the distracters included. Since overpassivization is an error commonly found in advanced learners, learners will not have overpassvization errors untill they have passive knowledge. The distracters are designed to test learners’ past knowledge. No errors on overpassivization might either mean that learners are so advanced that they have no problem, or that learners may simply have not acquired passives yet.
Project by Luciana
Focus on form and self repair: Some insights into foreign language learning
Luciana gave us a brief report on the dissertation that she is currently working on. The study asked the following five research questions (1) How do task types influence focus on form and self-repair? (2) To what degree does learners’ proficiency level affect their focus on from and self-repair? (3) What is the nature of linguistic knowledge targeted in focus on form and self repair? (4) How does the interaction depth influence focus on from and interaction pattern? (5) Do learners perform similarly in focus on form and self repair?
This is a very rare study since Luciana looked at group interaction instead of dyads. From her preliminary data analysis, the class suggested using medium to look at group distribution and also individual learner participation within group activities. We also discussed the term ‘depth of LRE’ and it was mentioned that a lower inference label closer to how the study is operationalized such as length of LRE might be able to avoid mis-interpretation from readers.
Project by David
David presented an interesting CALL project in which an alien interacted with learners and give feedback on errors through negotiation of meanings. Suggestions on how the alien project could be expanded included tracking student responses after feedback is given, choosing more generative target structure for the study and providing theoretical ground for this alternative way of giving feedback (i.e. justifying the pedagogical reasons). Yao mentioned that this type of study might be related to human computer interaction or ethnographic research within computer environment. The followings are references that Yao sent to the class list.
Hampel, R. (2003). Theoretical perspectives and new practices in audio-graphic conferencing for language learning. ReCALL, 15(1), 21-36. CALICO (Vol. 20, No. 3); Pujolà (2001) and Bangs (2003); Toole and Heift (2002); Heift (2003).
Project by Dan
Promoting grammar awareness with color-coded feedback
Dan reported his pilot study of color-coding method to give feedback on student writing. The interview from this pilot study revealed that students perceived the system as beneficial in terms of raising meta-awareness. With the short treatment period, Dan suspected that there might not be significant improvement in accuracy of writing, yet, the followings are possible ways to demonstrate the benefit of the color-coding system. (1) Looking into students’ self revision ability at the beginning and at the end of the color-coding treatment might be a way to quantify student learning. (2) Survey designed with Likert scale asking students’ preference in receiving feedback both before and after the treatment. (3) Semi-structured interviews eliciting information on how learners engaged in the revision process using the color-coding system.
Followed by the discussion on the project, we did a hands-on activity applying Dan’s color-coding system to student writing. The activity led to discussion on realistic classroom problems such as how much feedback to give and the many decisions that teachers go through when giving feedbacks.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Weekly Reflection (W8) by BoSun
This week we started with oral presentation for final project. On Tuesday, the presentation was ordered as follows: Hung-Tzu, Kevin, Yun-Deok and BoSun. On Thursday, Ping, Sorin, Yuki, Myong Hee presented their research proposals. The topics varied and here are the projects sorted by mode of feedback, i.e. oral feedback vs. written feedback.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research project addressing written feedback: Hung-Tzu, Kevin and Yuki
(1) Error correction in L2 writing: How successful are students in revising lexical errors? by Hung-Tzu
Her research will deals with written error correction and students revision of lexical errors with use of three different strategies (thesaurus, online dictionary and collocation dictionary). The rationale for her research is that it is necessary to examine lexical errors separately form grammar errors since written feedback literature revealed that the effectiveness of feedback types and learner’s ability to revise differ depending on the types of errors, i.e. lexical vs. grammar errors (Ferris &Robers, 2001; Gaskell &Cobb, 2004; Ferris, 2006).
The participants are 44 ESL students of UHM at two different levels (20 intermediate and 11 advanced learners) and they were taking academic reading courses with a focus on vocabulary learning. The procedure is as follows; 1) the participants completion of writing task followed by reading activities, 2) teacher’s provision of indirect feedbacks (underlining) for five lexical errors 3) student’s revision of their own writing using one of the three tools (thesaurus, online dictionary and collocation dictionary) 4) students’ reflection and evaluation of their writing and revision process. The data is 155 first drafts and 155 revised drafts including 775 lexical errors. The data will be analyzed by use of concordancer to examine distribution of the errors and learner’s repair depending on their strategy.
(2) Indirect error correction and improving grammar in L2 writing By Kevin
His research questions are 1) can indirect errors correction lead to improved performance on certain grammatical constructions on first drafts in an intermediate L2 writing class? 2) does indirect correction affect different grammatical constructions differently? His assumption is that indirect feedback involves depth of processing which encourages students correct their errors better.
The participants are 15 university-level ESL students aged 18-24 with various L1 background. At the time of data collection, they were enrolled intermediate writing class in the HPU focusing on grammatical accuracy. Three drafts were collected; teacher gave indirect feedback for first and second draft, students revised their first and second drafts and resubmit the drafts (1st draft-feedback-2nd draft-feedback-3rd draft). He reported that a rage of grammatical errors included verb form, verb test, incorrect articles, etc and the number of errors reduced by the third draft.
(3) Enculturation into academic discourse: focus on deficiency or agency by Yuki.
She is planning to conduct two studies focusing on the writers’ enculturation into academic English writing with two different data; one from university level- ESL writing classes in Hawaii and the other from her own writing. At the first project, she is addressing how contextual factors shape students into the academic discourse community. The participants are divided into two groups: 21 graduate students enrolled at advanced college academic ESL writing course and 22 undergrad freshmen taking freshmen composition course. The data will be analyzed for 1) types of feedback, 2) incorporation of feedback by types, 3) thematic analysis of students’ perception of their language, content, and rhetorical style development.
At the second project, she is carrying out longitudinal study of her own negotiation and enculturation process into disciplinary scholarly writing. For data analysis, she is employing autoethnography.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research projects about oral feedback: YunDoek, BoSun, Ping, Sorin and Myong Hee
(1) Which on can language learners rely on best, recasts or prompts, with relation to learner’s perception? By YunDoek
Her study addresses relative effectiveness of recasts vs. prompts on L2 learning in accordance with learner perception of the feedback in classroom settings on both short and long term basis. Her research questions is tackling following issues 1) the level of learner’s immediate uptake in response to recasts and prompts 2) the level of learner’s uptake for recasts and prompts on a long term basis 3) difference between immediate and delayed-post test performance for recast and prompts 4) similarities and differences between teachers’ and students’ preference for different feedback types across different linguistic items.
The participants will be students from HELP in UHM. The design will be both descriptive and experimental, adopting treatment and pre-post test. The participants are divided into control and treatment group, take the pre and post test, and go through treatment either recasts or prompts between pre- post tests.
(2) Reexamination of sub-categories of recasts and learner uptake by BoSun
She assumes that recasts constitute continuum with explicit and implicit end based on oral feedback literature (Sheen, 2007) and is tackling following issues 1) do 4 different types of recasts adopted from Lyster & Ranta (1998) enhance the acquisition of L2 grammatical structure 2) what characteristics of recasts lead to learner uptake and repair better? 3) Do 4 different types of recasts result in different effects depending on the learners’ proficiency?
The research will be descriptive study with two different levels (intermediate and advanced) of English classes (one from HELP and the other from ELI) in UHM. The data will be analyzed by use of coding scheme from Ryster and Ranta (1998) which sub-categorized recasts into 4 types: isolated declarative, isolated interrogative, incorporated declarative, and incorporated interrogative, depending on intonation (falling vs. rising) and existence of additional information (with or without additional information). The measure for acquisition is uptake, which is defined as learners’ immediate response followed by teachers’ recast (Lyster & Ranter, 1997). Uptake is again sub-divided into two categories: repair (correction) and needs repair (acknowledgement of errors).
(3) Implicit/ Explicit recasts, learner’s responses to recasts and linguistic development by Sorin.
She is examining 1) which types of recasts (implicit vs. explicit) leads to more learner uptake and subsequently more linguistic development of the target structure 2) whether primed production in response to recasts occur, if so, which types of priming leads to more frequent primed production.
The participants are KSL learners in Korea. Her research design is quasi-experimental wit pre-post-delayed posttest. The target structure hasn’t been finalized yet, and she is considering relative clause to be one of the good candidates. Coding scheme will follow the one from Lyster and Ranta (1998) and two out of the four types of recast will be chosen for implicit and explicit recast. The measurement will be uptake and primed production. Uptake will be operationalized as a student’s utterance immediately following the teacher’s feedback (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) and primed production is defined as learner’s new utterance using target structure form provided in the recast within six turns of recast, adopting McDonough & Mackey’s (2006) definition.
(4) Organization of error correction sequences in form-focused classroom by Ping
Her research questions are 1) what are the different types for corrective feedback in form-focused classroom? 2) does the classroom context influence students’ orientations to the corrective feedback? The participants are 14 students’ in Chinese 101 class (at beginner level) at UHM, The data were analyzed by use of CA. She has found that 1) teacher prompt and learner production was predominant sequence 2) other-initiated other repair showed high frequency whereas other-initiated self-repair and self-initiated other repair displayed low frequency. 3) self-initiated self-repair is rare.
(5) Investigation of small group interaction in a Korean university EFL classroom by Myong Hee
Her research is dealing with 1) types of collaborative learning and their distribution 2) the level of uptake for each category measured by repair and needs-repair. The participants are 24 students, enrolled at a college English reading course. The data is small group interactions (6 triads and 3 dyads) tape-recorded which lasted 12-18 minutes for each. Data analysis will adopt quantitative and qualitative analysis. Quantitative analysis focuses on distribution of various types of peer assistance and qualitative analysis will examine 1) co-construction 2) encouragement to topic continuation 3) self-correction with use CA analysis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research project addressing written feedback: Hung-Tzu, Kevin and Yuki
(1) Error correction in L2 writing: How successful are students in revising lexical errors? by Hung-Tzu
Her research will deals with written error correction and students revision of lexical errors with use of three different strategies (thesaurus, online dictionary and collocation dictionary). The rationale for her research is that it is necessary to examine lexical errors separately form grammar errors since written feedback literature revealed that the effectiveness of feedback types and learner’s ability to revise differ depending on the types of errors, i.e. lexical vs. grammar errors (Ferris &Robers, 2001; Gaskell &Cobb, 2004; Ferris, 2006).
The participants are 44 ESL students of UHM at two different levels (20 intermediate and 11 advanced learners) and they were taking academic reading courses with a focus on vocabulary learning. The procedure is as follows; 1) the participants completion of writing task followed by reading activities, 2) teacher’s provision of indirect feedbacks (underlining) for five lexical errors 3) student’s revision of their own writing using one of the three tools (thesaurus, online dictionary and collocation dictionary) 4) students’ reflection and evaluation of their writing and revision process. The data is 155 first drafts and 155 revised drafts including 775 lexical errors. The data will be analyzed by use of concordancer to examine distribution of the errors and learner’s repair depending on their strategy.
(2) Indirect error correction and improving grammar in L2 writing By Kevin
His research questions are 1) can indirect errors correction lead to improved performance on certain grammatical constructions on first drafts in an intermediate L2 writing class? 2) does indirect correction affect different grammatical constructions differently? His assumption is that indirect feedback involves depth of processing which encourages students correct their errors better.
The participants are 15 university-level ESL students aged 18-24 with various L1 background. At the time of data collection, they were enrolled intermediate writing class in the HPU focusing on grammatical accuracy. Three drafts were collected; teacher gave indirect feedback for first and second draft, students revised their first and second drafts and resubmit the drafts (1st draft-feedback-2nd draft-feedback-3rd draft). He reported that a rage of grammatical errors included verb form, verb test, incorrect articles, etc and the number of errors reduced by the third draft.
(3) Enculturation into academic discourse: focus on deficiency or agency by Yuki.
She is planning to conduct two studies focusing on the writers’ enculturation into academic English writing with two different data; one from university level- ESL writing classes in Hawaii and the other from her own writing. At the first project, she is addressing how contextual factors shape students into the academic discourse community. The participants are divided into two groups: 21 graduate students enrolled at advanced college academic ESL writing course and 22 undergrad freshmen taking freshmen composition course. The data will be analyzed for 1) types of feedback, 2) incorporation of feedback by types, 3) thematic analysis of students’ perception of their language, content, and rhetorical style development.
At the second project, she is carrying out longitudinal study of her own negotiation and enculturation process into disciplinary scholarly writing. For data analysis, she is employing autoethnography.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research projects about oral feedback: YunDoek, BoSun, Ping, Sorin and Myong Hee
(1) Which on can language learners rely on best, recasts or prompts, with relation to learner’s perception? By YunDoek
Her study addresses relative effectiveness of recasts vs. prompts on L2 learning in accordance with learner perception of the feedback in classroom settings on both short and long term basis. Her research questions is tackling following issues 1) the level of learner’s immediate uptake in response to recasts and prompts 2) the level of learner’s uptake for recasts and prompts on a long term basis 3) difference between immediate and delayed-post test performance for recast and prompts 4) similarities and differences between teachers’ and students’ preference for different feedback types across different linguistic items.
The participants will be students from HELP in UHM. The design will be both descriptive and experimental, adopting treatment and pre-post test. The participants are divided into control and treatment group, take the pre and post test, and go through treatment either recasts or prompts between pre- post tests.
(2) Reexamination of sub-categories of recasts and learner uptake by BoSun
She assumes that recasts constitute continuum with explicit and implicit end based on oral feedback literature (Sheen, 2007) and is tackling following issues 1) do 4 different types of recasts adopted from Lyster & Ranta (1998) enhance the acquisition of L2 grammatical structure 2) what characteristics of recasts lead to learner uptake and repair better? 3) Do 4 different types of recasts result in different effects depending on the learners’ proficiency?
The research will be descriptive study with two different levels (intermediate and advanced) of English classes (one from HELP and the other from ELI) in UHM. The data will be analyzed by use of coding scheme from Ryster and Ranta (1998) which sub-categorized recasts into 4 types: isolated declarative, isolated interrogative, incorporated declarative, and incorporated interrogative, depending on intonation (falling vs. rising) and existence of additional information (with or without additional information). The measure for acquisition is uptake, which is defined as learners’ immediate response followed by teachers’ recast (Lyster & Ranter, 1997). Uptake is again sub-divided into two categories: repair (correction) and needs repair (acknowledgement of errors).
(3) Implicit/ Explicit recasts, learner’s responses to recasts and linguistic development by Sorin.
She is examining 1) which types of recasts (implicit vs. explicit) leads to more learner uptake and subsequently more linguistic development of the target structure 2) whether primed production in response to recasts occur, if so, which types of priming leads to more frequent primed production.
The participants are KSL learners in Korea. Her research design is quasi-experimental wit pre-post-delayed posttest. The target structure hasn’t been finalized yet, and she is considering relative clause to be one of the good candidates. Coding scheme will follow the one from Lyster and Ranta (1998) and two out of the four types of recast will be chosen for implicit and explicit recast. The measurement will be uptake and primed production. Uptake will be operationalized as a student’s utterance immediately following the teacher’s feedback (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) and primed production is defined as learner’s new utterance using target structure form provided in the recast within six turns of recast, adopting McDonough & Mackey’s (2006) definition.
(4) Organization of error correction sequences in form-focused classroom by Ping
Her research questions are 1) what are the different types for corrective feedback in form-focused classroom? 2) does the classroom context influence students’ orientations to the corrective feedback? The participants are 14 students’ in Chinese 101 class (at beginner level) at UHM, The data were analyzed by use of CA. She has found that 1) teacher prompt and learner production was predominant sequence 2) other-initiated other repair showed high frequency whereas other-initiated self-repair and self-initiated other repair displayed low frequency. 3) self-initiated self-repair is rare.
(5) Investigation of small group interaction in a Korean university EFL classroom by Myong Hee
Her research is dealing with 1) types of collaborative learning and their distribution 2) the level of uptake for each category measured by repair and needs-repair. The participants are 24 students, enrolled at a college English reading course. The data is small group interactions (6 triads and 3 dyads) tape-recorded which lasted 12-18 minutes for each. Data analysis will adopt quantitative and qualitative analysis. Quantitative analysis focuses on distribution of various types of peer assistance and qualitative analysis will examine 1) co-construction 2) encouragement to topic continuation 3) self-correction with use CA analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)