ON-LINE COLLABORATIVE FEEDBACK ON
SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING OF
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
Masaya Fujino
Melbourne High School
These corrections are not part of this research.
Introduction• On-line poll
• Previous research
• Overview
• Research Questions
• Participants
• Theoretical Framework
• Data Collection
• Data Analysis
• Findings
• Conclusion
On-line Poll“What forms of feedback on student’s writing do you
use?”
CodesWCOM – Written comments
CD – Codes
WCOM&CD – Written comments with codes
WCON – Writing conference in class
TSFS – Teacher-student feedback session
PFS – Peer feedback session
TFS – Tutor feedback session
OTH – Other forms of feedback session
Use of text-messages by a mobile phoneType 36263 in your text message.Also type any code(s) listed below.Send your message to 0429 883 481.
Previous Research• Teachers’ written feedback
Use of direct correction and underlines: Chandler (2003),
Appropriation: Tardy (2006)
Ambiguity: Leki (1990)
• Face-to-face teacher-student feedback sessionsNegotiation: Goldstein & Conrad (1990)
Stress situations: Ferris (2003)
• Face-to-face peer feedback sessions
53% of uptake: Mendonca & Johnson (1994)
5% of uptake: Connor & Asenavage (1994)
Possible decrease in quality: Nelson & Murphy (1993)
• Face-to-face tutor feedback sessionsNegotiation: Kobayashi (2007) Williams (2004)
Overview
• Action Research
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
• Context
• Methodology
4 Stage Data Collection4 written tasks
Research questions
1. What contributes to improved revisions in subsequent texts of VCE students of Japanese?
2. What hinders revisions in subsequent texts?
3. What differences in interactions are displayed by student at different developmental levels?
ParticipantsWriters
High School Students in Australia (A)
Tutors
Japanese University Students in Japan (J)
Name(pseudonym)
Year
Level
Japanese
Study
Background Name(pseudonym)
University
Level
English
Level
Overseas
Experience
Shane Year 11 5 years
+
2 week stay
in J
Born in
A
Cantonese
Yoshiko 3rd Year Intermediate Nil
Victor Year 12 4 years Born in A
Chinese Sat
Primary
School
Keiko 4th Year Intermediate Nil
Ken Year 12 5 years Born in J
3 years in J
Hanae 4th Year
Mature-age
Student
Advanced 3 yrs in US
Data Collection
• Student’s writings• Draft, revised draft during the interaction & post test
• Audio recordings• Feedback sessions & follow-up interviews
• Screen capture & video recording • Records of what each dyad involved
• Back up data
Audio line splitter
Desk-top web camera
Digital video camera
Digital voice recorderHeadphone with a microphone
Line-out jack
Line-in jack
Monitor
Devices for Data Collection
Software for Data Collection
Data Collection
Captured Screen
Activities
Theoretical FrameworkThe zone of proximal development (ZPD)
(Vygotsky 1985)
Current student independent level
Possible development level with assistance
ZPD
Data Analysis
• 5 levels of internalisation from interpsychological to intrapsychological functioning
(Aljaafreh & Lantolf 1994)
• Regulatory Scale (RS) (Aljaafreh & Lantolf 1994)
• Product oriented criteria for writing tasks
Modified from the 5 levels of internalisation from interpsychological to intrapsychological functioning
(Aljaafreh & Lantolf 1994, p.470)
Learner can notice the error correct the error
Learner’s Level
Withhelp
Withouthelp
Withhelp
Withouthelp
Level 1 X X X X
Level 2 √ ? Only with explicit help
Level 3 √ √ Understands assistance & incorporates feedback offered.
Level 4 √ ? Correct form is not yet fully internalised.
Level 5 √ √
Regulatory Scale (Aljaafreh & Lantolf 1994, p.471)
Tutor’s assistance - implicit to explicit
0 Tutor asks the learner to read prior to the tutorial
1 Construction of a collaborative frame prompted by the presence of the tutor.
2 Prompted or focussed reading of the sentence that contains the error by the learner or the tutor.
3 Tutor indicates that something may be wrong in a segment – ‘Is there anything wrong in …?’
4 Tutor rejects unsuccessful attempts at recognising the error.
5 Tutor narrows down the location of the error.
6 Tutor indicates the nature of the error, but does not identify the error.
7 Tutor identifies the error – ‘ You can not use Te-form here’.
8 Tutor rejects learner’s unsuccessful attempts at correcting error.
9 Tutor provides clues to help the learner arrive at the correct form.
10 Tutor provides the correct form.
11 Tutor provides some explanation for use of the correct form.
12 Tutor provides examples of the correct pattern when other forms of help fail to produce an appropriate responsive action.
Findings
1. What contributes to improved revisions in subsequent texts of senior high students of Japanese?
• Long, collaborative interaction
– beginning level or high syntax/ lexicon complexity
• Short, less collaborative interaction
– accomplished items or lower syntax/ lexicon complexity
Findings
Excerpt 1 (Shane’s 2nd Draft: successful revision in the post test)
1 Yoshiko: はい。さようならの前に‘早いへんじをかくて下さい’は、書くのテ・フォームは、どうぞ。(RS 7)Yes. As for ‘Please write a reply soon’ before ‘goodbye’, what is the Te Form of ‘write’? Go ahead.
2 Shane: かき、書きます…かきて、ふふふ。‘Write, write...to writing, hehehe.
3 Yoshiko: ふふふ。書くのテ・フォーム。 (RS 8)Hehehe. Te Form of ‘write’.
4 Shane: かってですか。Is that ‘Katte’?
5 Yoshiko: あっ、ちょっと、違います。 (RS 8)Ah, not quite.
6 Shane: ううむ。早いへんじを…かきます。すみません。分からない。Um. A reply soon … write. I am sorry, I cannot do it.
7 Yoshiko: はい、いいですよ。書いてです。 (RS 10: Tutor provides the correct form.)That’s fine. It’s ‘Kaite’. (Level 2)
8 Shane: 書いて。ああ。そうですね。‘Kaite’. Ah. That’s right, isn’t it?
9 Yoshiko: そう。Yes.
10 Shane: 書きますだす、ですから。Because of ‘Kakimasu’.
11 Yoshiko:はい。Yes.
Long, collaborative interaction on complex itemEvidence of other-regulation
Findings
Excerpt 2 (Shane’s 3rd Draft: successful revision in the post test)
1 Shane: 山田さん、うまれったの文はだいじょうぶですか。
Ms Yamada, is the sentence of ‘umaretta’ OK.
2 Yoshiko: そうでうね。生まれるのパストフォームは何ですか。
Well. What is the past form of ‘Umareru’?
3 Shane: 生まれた。 (Level ¾)
‘Umareta’.
4 Yoshiko: うん。生まれた。そうですね。なので、これも。
Yes. ‘Umareta’. That’s right. So, this one also…
Evidence of more self-regulation
Findings
Excerpt 3 (Shane’s 2nd Draft: successful revision in the post test)
ヲンバット
O n ba t
1 Yoshiko:ええと、ウォンバットとか。そうですね。ええと、カタカナのウに小さいオをつけて、
ウォンバットといいます。
Um, wombat. Let me see. Well, we say ‘Wombatto’, adding a small ‘o’ to ‘u’ in Katakana.
2 Shane: はい。
Yes.
3 Yoshiko:大きいウに小さいオで‘ウォ’。
‘Wo’ adding a small ‘o’ to big ‘u’.
4 Shane: 小さいオ。OK.はい。じゃ、ウォンバットです?
A small ‘o’. OK. Yes. Then, here is ‘Wonbatto’?
Shorter interaction on a lexical item
Findings
2. What hinders revisions in subsequent texts?
- Lack of collaboration (Storch, 2002; Watanabe & Swain 2007)
- Avoidance of mistakes in the post tests
Findings
3. What differences in interactions are displayed by students at different development levels?
Weak student – dependant, short utterances
- Short utterances:
Approximately 77% of Ken’s turns were 1 or 2 word utterances.
Less collaborative dialogues
Limitations
• Small-scale research
o Number of participants
o Size of data
Conclusion
• Improvement (Watanabe & Swain, 2007)
Shift from other-regulation to self-regulation
(Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994)
• Possible pedagogical practice at secondary level
Use of L1 to consider for weak students
• Possibly beneficial to teacher candidates in Australia & Japan
Top Related