Online Collaborative Feedback


Published on

Online Collaborative Feedback on second language writing of high school students, Presentation by Masaya Fujino at AFMLTA conference Sydney 2009

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Online Collaborative Feedback

  2. 2. These corrections are not part of this research.
  3. 3. Introduction • On-line poll • Previous research • Overview • Research Questions • Participants • Theoretical Framework • Data Collection • Data Analysis • Findings • Conclusion
  4. 4. On-line Poll “What forms of feedback on student’s writing do you use?” Use of text-messages by a mobile phone Type 36263 in your text message. Also type any code(s) listed below. Send your message to 0429 883 481. Codes WCOM – 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
  5. 5. 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 sessions Negotiation: 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 sessions Negotiation: Kobayashi (2007) Williams (2004)
  6. 6. Overview • Action Research • Information and Communication Technology (ICT) • Context • Methodology
  7. 7. 4 Stage Data Collection 4 written tasks
  8. 8. 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?
  9. 9. Participants Writers Tutors High School Students in Australia (A) Japanese University Students in Japan (J) Name Year Japanese Background Name University English Overseas (pseudonym) Level Study (pseudonym) Level Level Experience Shane Year 11 5 years Born in Yoshiko 3rd Year Intermediate Nil + A 2 week stay Cantonese in J Victor Year 12 4 years Born in A Keiko 4th Year Intermediate Nil Chinese Sat Primary School Ken Year 12 5 years Born in J Hanae 4th Year Advanced 3 yrs in US 3 years in J Mature-age Student
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. Devices for Data Collection Desk-top web camera Audio line splitter Digital video camera Monitor Line-out jack Line-in jack Headphone with a microphone Digital voice recorder
  12. 12. Software for Data Collection
  13. 13. Data Collection Captured Screen Activities
  14. 14. Theoretical Framework The zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky 1985) Possible development level with assistance ZPD Current student independent level
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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 With Without With Without Level help help help help 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 √ √
  17. 17. 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.
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. Findings Long, collaborative interaction on complex item Evidence of other-regulation 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, 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.
  20. 20. Findings Evidence of more self-regulation 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…
  21. 21. Findings Shorter interaction on a lexical item 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’?
  22. 22. Findings 2. What hinders revisions in subsequent texts? - Lack of collaboration (Storch, 2002; Watanabe & Swain 2007) - Avoidance of mistakes in the post tests
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. Limitations • Small-scale research o Number of participants o Size of data
  25. 25. 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
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.