• Save
Hensley - Speaking feedback | 20 Jan 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Hensley - Speaking feedback | 20 Jan 2012

on

  • 269 views

Hensley reported on his development of a combined conversational storytelling and learner noticing through self-transcription course in which student pairs were trained and instructed to ...

Hensley reported on his development of a combined conversational storytelling and learner noticing through self-transcription course in which student pairs were trained and instructed to self-transcribe their own recorded conversations.
Though only reporting on his initial implementation of such a course, Hensley indicated that, while the effects of self-transcription may be hard to measure in learners’ performance, the conversational storytelling appeared to be having a positive effect
on learners’ fluency.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
269
Views on SlideShare
269
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Hensley - Speaking feedback | 20 Jan 2012 Hensley - Speaking feedback | 20 Jan 2012 Presentation Transcript

    • Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Speaking: What, How, and When? Joel Hensley | University of Nagasaki, Siebold Nagasaki JALT | January 21, 2012
    • Listening sample
    • Overview1. Lynch‟s transcription &Stenson‟s conversational stories2. CAS theory3. Transcription Method4. Results  Students‟ reaction  The “messy details”5. Discussion6. Future directions
    • The noticing hypothesis“[T]he subjective experience of „noticing‟ is the necessary and sufficient condition for the conversion of [language] input to intake.” (p. 209) (Schmidt 1993)
    • Noticing through Transcription ESL setting 8 adults Class in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Recorded in-class speaking task Results:  72% of student changes correct  6:7 ratio of speaker vs. listener corrections  Students made 30% more changes than teacher (Lynch 2001)
    • Fluency through Conversational Stories Escape textbook-style Q&A “conversation” Attempt to foster more natural style Utilize conversational “rules” for practice (Stenson 2003)
    • The “messy details” System variation signals change Observing development by locating variation Looking at individual learners, not averagesLarsen-Freeman (2006) Experimental look at 5 Chinese ESL learners Observed over several months Task iteration
    • Putting it all togetherResearch goals: Use transcription and conversational storytelling “rules” to elicit students‟ noticing and self-correction of problem areas Analyze results according to CAS theoryClass goals: Progress toward fluency Foster better language learners (LLs) through noticing and self-analysis  Self, peer, and teacher feedback
    • SettingStudents 22 (20 female, 2 male) Public university Department of international communication TOEIC range: 430-495Course First year/semester required oral communication Twice a week, 15 weeks Text: English Firsthand 2: 4th Edition
    • Conversational storytelling“Rules” practiced in class1. No (or very few) questions  Not always, just during targeted practice  Anticipate what listener wants to know2. No silence  Working target was silence < one second3. Somewhat related (no 関係ない話し)4. “I” and “you” sentences5. Add evaluation (comment, opinion, shadowing, etc.)6. Endless (bus stop scenario) (Stenson 2003)
    • Transcription methodPlan 4 times About once a month Full transcription process each time Training and practice before first transcription
    • Transcription training 2 Sample conversations: understood, corrected, analyzed
    • Transcription training1. Grammar  Verb tense: I goes.  I went.  Article: a men  the men  Plural/Singular: many woman  many women  Part of Speech: excite  exciting2. Vocabulary  He talked his name.  He said his name.
    • Transcription training3. Editing  Repeating: I, I, I think so too.  I think so too.  Bad starts: Wh- … What is that?  What is that?  Pauses & fillers: Uhh … I, um … think so.  I think so.  Japanese: ___ってなに? What‟s ___?4. Reforming  Changing to a better expression: high school first grade  first year in high school  Adding to make it clearer: Oh, same!  Oh, we‟re the same!5. Mixed  Any combination of 1-4
    • Transcription trainingPractice transcript:Tina: Hello. What‟s is your name?Paul: My name is Paul. And you?Tina: Um … My name is Tina. How are you?Paul: I‟m five … twenty-five year old. And you?Tina: I‟m twenty-four year old. Where are you from?Paul: I come from Toronto. And you?Tina: New York. What do you do?Paul: Um. I am working, eh … to engineering.
    • Transcription trainingError Type Tina Paul TotalGrammar 2 1 3Vocabulary -- 1 1Editing 1 3 4Reforming -- -- --Mixed -- -- --
    • Transcription methodRecording 2 students  Pairs self-selected 6~7 minutes recorded Free conversation  Topics available: best day of your life, memory from high school, country you would like to visit, etc. MP3 audio file of conversation emailed to pair
    • Transcription methodTranscription = transcript 1 90~120 second selection  Students chose themselves Transcription done by pairs outside of classRevision A = transcript 2 Pairs revise their own transcript togetherSubmission (both transcripts 1 + 2)
    • Transcription methodRevision B = transcript 3 I made further revisions to transcript 2 (revised A)Comparison Student pairs compared transcripts 2 + 3 in classAnalysis Using Lynch‟s (2001) categories, pairs counted total corrections made (student and teacher) Students instructed to focus on personal area with most corrections in class conversation
    • Student response1. Transcription helpful:2. Discovered specific weakness:3. Transcription a new experience:4. Found new areas to focus on:5. Transcription a useful experience:6. Want to do transcription again: 0% 50% 100%
    • Student response “Recording conversations has helped because I could find mistakes which I hadn‟t noticed.” “It‟s good for grammar.” “I could notice my weaknesses/bad points/mistakes.” “I learned a new method of conversational self- analysis.” “ためになった” “I understand how to progress in my English life.” “会話においての自己分析を通して新たな課題も見つ かった” “Transcription has many parts, so I was confused.”
    • Narrowing the scopeOnly 7 students from here on Trial sample – 1/3 of class Students with full effort and participation points TOEIC range  2 high, 3 mean, 2 low
    • Transcription corrections Grammar 86 Vocabulary Editing 101 Reforming Mix
    • Transcription corrections Grammar Vocabulary Editing Reforming Mix
    • T-unit analysis Accuracy Fluency2 21 10 1 2 3 4 0-1 1 2 3 4-2 -1 Gramm. Complex. Vocab. Complex.2 21 10 0-1 1 2 3 4 -1 1 2 3 4-2 -2
    • Grammatical complexity by student1.35 1.31.25 YO N 1.2 S KA1.15 C YU KO 1.11.05 1 recording 1 recording 2 recording 3 recording 4
    • Intra-individual variation - YO1.5 10.5 Fluency Gramm. Compl. 0 Accuracy 1 2 3 4 Vocab. Compl.-0.5 -1-1.5
    • T-unit fluency by student987 YO N6 S KA C5 YU KO43 recording 1 recording 2 recording 3 recording 4
    • Further explorationDid the transcription and “rules” have any effect?García-Amaya(2009) as inspiration 12 measures of fluency  Including: syllables per turn, seconds per turn, rate of speechI chose 3 measures of fluency: Number of questions asked Number of pauses between speaking turns (> one sec.) Number of intra-sentential hesitations
    • Ratio of words to questions asked90807060 YO N50 S KA40 C YU30 KO AVERAGE2010 0 recording 1 recording 2 recording 3 recording 4
    • Collective variables in CAS theory“[A] collective variable is what emerges through interactions of system dynamics … and can therefore be used to describe complex systems” (Hensley, 2011)Fluency as a collective variable As defined by and focused on per the goals of the class:  t-unit fluency + number of hesitations + number of pauses collective variable of fluency
    • Collective variable of fluency 1 YO0.5 N S KA C 0 YU recording 1 recording 2 recording 3 recording 4 KO AVERAGE-0.5 -1
    • Outliers Student C1.5 1 Fluency0.5 Gramm. Compl. 0 Accuracy 1 2 3 4 Vocab. Compl.-0.5 CV of fluency -1 Student S-1.5 1.5 1 0.5 Fluency Gramm. Compl. 0 Accuracy 1 2 3 4 Vocab. Compl. -0.5 CV of fluency -1 -1.5
    • Issues need addressing Lynch‟s (2001) transcript corrections too general  Clustering around grammar and editing (false starts, pauses, etc.)For a start:Grammatical Lexical Mistakes Japanese verb tense part of speech false starts number word choice repetitions article/prep. message abandon missing S/V possessive pronoun word order
    • Issues need addressing Are students using what they‟ve discovered in transcribing?  No way to know if they did this time Insufficient data in general  Richer set and/or longer collection (limited by length of course) Recording  Done in my office – may have put pressure on students  Final recording was also assessment – additional pressure
    • Future directions All recordings in-class and separate from assessment Develop more targeted correction rubric  Grammar and editing areas Try to increase sample size Word cloud instead of textbook questions  More choice in topic, and less questions Different student pairing?  Random vs. self-selected vs. by TOEIC score Supplemental individual self-analysis/review?  Students keep some kind of (audio/video?) progress journal
    • References The Five Graces Group. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system. García-Amaya, L. (2009). New findings on fluency measures across three different learning contexts. Hensley, J. (2011). Collective variables in applied linguistics research. Jones, R. E. (2001). A consciousness-raising approach to the teaching of conversational storytelling skills. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Lynch, T. (2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Stenson, G. (2003). Listening fluency with conversational
    • Thank you!jhensley@sun.ac.jp