E-text in EFL - Four flavours

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

0 comments

Post a comment

    Post a comment
    Embed Video
    Edit your comment Cancel

    Favorites, Groups & Events

    E-text in EFL - Four flavours - Presentation Transcript

    1. E-TEXT in E-FL: Four flavours
      • Przemek Kaszubski
      • Joanna Jendryczka-Wierszycka
      • Michał Remiszewski
      • Włodzimierz Sobkowiak
      • flexibility: fonts, formats, attributes
      • correctibility, accuracy, up-to-dateness
      • searchability: local and global
      • portability: PDA, Kindle, smartphone, etc.
      • manipulability: types, media, channels
      • annotability: tagging, parsing, semantic web
      • immediacy: speed of transmission and processing
      • (hyper-)linkability, nonlinearity
      • sharability, openness, low cost
      • popularity among 'digital natives'
      • (See The Machine is Using Us by Michael Wesch for a good video treatment of these issues)
      The advantages of e-text:
      • PK : IFAConc - web-concordancing with EAP writing students
      • JJW : e-text annotation - why bother?
      • MR : Towards competence mapping in language teaching / learning
      • WS : e-text in Second Life: reification of text?
      Presentation plan:
    2. Przemysław Kaszubski IFAConc – web-concordancing with EAP writing students
      • Developers:
        • Paweł Nowak
        • Dominique Stranz
      • Over 200 Student Participants :
        • 12 : MA and BA seminars 2005-6
        • 16 : 1MA and 2MA seminars 2007-8
        • 18 : 1BA Writing 2007-8
        • 32 : 1MA Academic Writing 2008-9
        • 140 : 3MA Acad. Discourse Part-Time Lecture 2008-9
      Acknowledgements
      • a form of e-text processing for a linguistic purpose: descriptive or pedagogical
        • paper concordance < computer ised concordanc ing
        • data-driven learning (DDL): operationalisation of gap-noticing (also: form-focused instruction ; awareness-raising)
      • ‘ shunting’ (Halliday):
        • vertical / paradigmatic reading – KWiC
        • horizontal / syntagmatic reading – KWiC + context
      • pedagogic concordancing for EAP/ESP learning:
        • repetitions / patterns (light theory: ‘extended units of meaning’ – Sinclair; ‘lexical primings’ – Hoey)
        • dispersion within corpus
        • variation across corpora
      Concordancing
    3. Corpora Search (click on picture to go to IFAConc; log in for best effect)
      • DDL under-practised and under-researched – few dedicated, student-friendly tools. Some needs:
        • facilitate training and current practice (time factors: what to search for and how ; inductive analysis)
        • facilitate (but not replace) noticing and deeper-processing
        • manage results
        • facilitate teacher control and teacher-student interaction
        • integrate with syllabus etc. (also ‘non-e-text’)
      • IFAConc and EAP writing – some assumptions:
        • trace relevant academic primings (interesting patterns are many)
        • students (meta)linguistically conscious = co-research possible
        • enable more complex search patterns and subtle observations
        • encourage autonomy and individualisation (personal ‘primings’)
      DDL issues and IFAConc
      • e-text sample
      • collection of e-text samples (= corpus; cline of spec. corpora)
      • selective structural markup (XML)
      • linguistic annotation (POS tagging)
      • conc. searchability (syntax language + options)
      • conc. manipulability: sampling, re-sorting, corpus switching
      • automatic conc. summary: stats table, collocate counting
      • unique URL search address – hyperlinking
      • note-taking ( annotation ) – personal and/or T-S collaborative
      • search logging (personal and global History database – browsable / searchable / hyper-linkable
      • towards dynamic conc-illustrated EAP textbook ( Resources )
      E-text integration in IFAConc
    4. History (click on picture to go to IFAConc History , log in when prompted)
    5. Resources (click on picture to go to IFAConc Resources – reg’d IFA users only)
      • hyperlink-assisted concordancing
        • Corpora Search hyperlinks
        • History search hyperlinks
          • also Corpora Search ID and History Search ID options
        • integrated with other materials
          • e.g. feedback links; resources for self-exploration
      • T-S interactive annotation
      • = less time-costly, more meaningful concordancing:
        • more students conduct more searches that are more in-depth ...
        • teacher learns about students ’ linguistic and cognitive abilities ...
        • ... while the database of relevant lg observations continues to grow (and to gradually feed ‘Shared’ History and Resources)
      Beyond bottom-up concordancing
      • IFAConc (09.2006 – 02.2009 ) :
        • 206 participants
        • All searches > 37,000
        • Students' A ll searches: > 17,000
        • All a nnotated: > 2 ,200
        • Students’ a nnotated – c. 1,000
      • PICLE Conc (04.2004 – 08.2005)
        • 125 ... IP numbers (15-20 active users...)
        • All (?)students’ searches < 3,700
        • Students’ annotated (non-interactive) – about 40
      Concordancing with EAP students – basic stats
        • “ I found this research valuable as I used a few examples from Concordance database in my MA dissertation. I value the research as it provides me with proper examples of native uses. Whenever I look for a word usage I Google it, yet it never gives me 100% certainty that the internet source is a reliable one. Conc on the other hand is a reliable tool which a student can trust. ” ( agooska , H - 37145)
        • “ I regret I didn’t search these Conc pages before I wrote the majority of my dissertation…It is really a vital source - very helpful!” ( Aleksandra, Resources Textbook comment )
      • Some more practical applications will be shown at ELT training on 27th March
      Testimonials
    6. Joanna Jendryczka-Wierszycka e-text annotation - why bother?
    7. annotation (tagging)
      • Facebook, Picasa, Gmail, Etc.
      • Linguistic (e-text) annotation
      annotation (tagging)
      • definition
      • different levels of annotation: explanations, examples and utility
      • limitations of annotation
      • answer to “Why bother?”
      e-Text annotation - contents
      • corpus annotation is „the practice of adding interpretative, linguistic information to an electronic corpus of spoken and/or written language data” (Leech, 1997: 2)
      • It „is widely accepted as a crucial contribution to the benefit a corpus brings, since it enriches the corpus as a source of linguistic information for future research and development” (ibid.)
      e-Text annotation defined
      • Part-of-Speech
      • Parsing
      • S emantic
      • Discourse/ pragmatic
      • Stylistic
      • Prosodic
      • Lemmatization
      • M arkup
      e-Text annotation exemplified
      • adding information about word classes
      • er 93 FU she 93 PPHS1 was 93 VBDZ terrific 93 JJ in 97 [II/1] CS21%/ that 97 [DD1/1] CS22@/ film 93 [NN1/1] VV%/
      • er_FU she_PPHS1 was_VBDZ terrific_JJ in_II that_DD1 film_NN1
      e-Text annotation - POS
      • by far most frequent annotation
      • useful in: frequency lists or frequency dictionaries with grammatical classification, MT, Translation studies, contrastive linguistics, lg teaching, TTS synthesis
      POS-tagging ctd
      • syntactic analysis into such units as phrases and clauses (sentence structure)
      • [S[N Nemo_NP1 ,_, [N the_AT killer_NN1 whale_NN1 N] ,_, [Fr[N who_PNQS N][V 'd_VHD grown_VVN [J too_RG big_JJ [P for_IF [N his_APP$ pool_NN1 [P on_II [N Clacton_NP1 Pier_NNL1 N]P]N]P]J]V]Fr]N] ,_, [V has_VHZ arrived_VVN safely_RR [P at_II [N his_APP$ new_JJ home_NN1 [P in_II [N Windsor_NP1 [ safari_NN1 park_NNL1 ]N]P]N]P]V] ._. S]
      e-Text annotation - parsing
      • adding information about the semantic category of words, e.g. “bark”
      • for translation and lexicography
      • PPIS1 I Z8 VV0 like E2+ AT1 a Z5 JJ particular A4.2+ NN1 shade O4.3 IO of Z5 NN1 lipstick B4
      e-Text annotation - semantics
      • adding information about anaphoric links, e.g. for MT
      • S.1 (0) The state Supreme Court has refused to release{1 [2 Rahway State Prison 2] inmate 1}} (1 James Scott 1) onbail . S.2 (1 The fighter 1) is serving 30-40 years for a 1975 armed robbery conviction . S.3 (1 Scott 1) had asked for freedom while <1 he waits for an appeal decision .
      e-Text annotation - discourse anaphora
      • adding information about the modalization, phraseological units, metaphor, kinds of speech act , etc. that occur in a spoken dialog
      • <IP MOD=interactive>ok?<IP>
      • <IP PU=proverb MET=true Source=nature Target=prudence>a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush</IP>
      • <IP SA=request> May I open the window, please?</IP>
      e-Text annotation - pragmatics
      • it's about “stylistic features in literary texts” usually S&TP (McEnery et al. 2006:41)
      • S&TP = direct speech, indirect speech, free indirect thought, etc (Leech 2004)
      • <sptag cat=FDS who=K next=FDS whonext=J s=1 w=6> 'Where've you got in mind, sir?'
      e-Text annotation - stylistics
      • segmental pronunciation
      • prosodic boundaries, prominent syllables and abnormal sound lengthening
      • Both highly valuable in accent studies
      • ik heb he%m% | n^e^gen maal ontvangen denk ik
      • speaker A : jan | en ook piet waren hier al eerder twee jaar geleden
      • speaker B : ja| dat weet ik || maar wanneer
      e-Text annotation - prosody
      • lem m atization = adding the identity of the lemma (base form) of each word form in a text
      • markup = originally text division into paragraphs, font characteristics (all noninterpretative, text -inherent qualities)
      • also: markup for speaker/writer identification, useful in sociolinguistics
      e-Text annotation - lemmatization & markup
      • accuracy
      • annotation= always interpretation. It's never theory free (MWUs, -ing)
      • ambiguity tags nothing bad! (better than wrong tags) – e.g. CLAWS ditto tags, portmonteau tags – if consistent!
      • the importance to keep “pure” text separately (Sinclair)
      • which one, how, where, when applied and by whom ?
      Limitations of annotation
      • “ it enriches the corpus a source of linguistic information for future research and development” (Leech 1997)
      • fields possibly profiting from it: lexicography, MT, translation studies, discourse studies, pragmatics, literary studies, contrastive linguistics, lg teaching, grammatical lg analysis, TTS synthesis, accent studies, sociolinguistics
      • “ no one in their right mind would offer to predict the future uses of a corpus ” Leech, 2004
      • References
      Why bother?
    8. Michał Remiszewski Towards competence mapping in language teaching/learning
      • Technology-driven
      • Practice-driven
      Reasons for e-learning
      • Structured syllabus
      • No access to the structure of competence
      Problem
      • Synchronic view
      • Dynamic view
      Solution: competence mapping
    9. CLIP ; AMBER ONE
      • It will allow the creation and administration of interactive language tasks for learners.
      • It will automatically check the accuracy of learners’ answers, and not just the obvious multiple choice, but also gap input going way beyond one or two words.
      • It will provide exhaustive student performance reports both as stats for large groups as well as individuals. Reports will be delivered to the learner and to the teacher.
      • It will help identify problem areas and dynamics in learners’ linguistic competence.
      AMBER ONE
    10. Włodzimierz Sobkowiak e-text in Second Life: reification of text?
      • public text-chat ,
      • Instant Messaging (IM),
      • notecards ,
      • whiteboards ,
      • object info fields ,
      • avatar profile info fields ,
      • inventory contents ,
      • menu system
      Types of &quot;ordinary&quot; e-text in SL:
      • Linguistic symbols, from phonemes/letters to whole texts can be reified into 'rezzed' (created) three-dimensional objects, thus creating innovative manipulative affordances, impossible in First Life and appealing especially to kinaesthetic learners. For example, phonetic dominoes : words reified as moveable and audio-enhanced blocks which attract or repel each other, according to e-FL-relevant phonetic criteria, such as segmental makeup, syllable number, stress pattern, etc.
      Unique e-text affordances in SL:
    11. Phonetic dominoes ( view from above ) Arrange the nine coloured cubes domino-style to match sounds at the edges of words. Cubes say their name when left-clicked. Here's the list (in alphabet order): apricot, cereal, cream, ketchup, lettuce, milk, pork chops , spoon, T-bone steak .
    12. Phonetic dominoes : close-up view of pork chops ; click to hear You'll find my dominoes in my Virtlantis class room in Second Life.
    13. Other examples of e-text reification: David Merrill's (MIT) 'siftables' (click to watch on YouTube)
    SlideShare Zeitgeist 2009

    + Przemek_KaszubskiPrzemek_Kaszubski Nominate

    custom

    845 views, 0 favs, 0 embeds more stats

    E-TEXT in E-FL : FOUR FLAVOURS
    Dr. Przemysław Kas more

    More info about this document

    © All Rights Reserved

    Go to text version

    • Total Views 845
      • 845 on SlideShare
      • 0 from embeds
    • Comments 0
    • Favorites 0
    • Downloads 0
    Most viewed embeds

    more

    All embeds

    less

    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Cancel
    File a copyright complaint
    Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

    Categories