Search

Bertha Webheads Convergence May24_2009

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.

4 comments

Comments 1 - 4 of 4 previous next Post a comment

Post a comment
Embed Video
Edit your comment Cancel

Notes on slide 1

Truscott, 2004: St. limit language use to avoid errors when they know they will be corrected. St will be limited in experimenting with language if they do not take risks and simply write simple, correct short texts. Teachers dedicate too much time to corrections wasting valuable instruction time.Grammar correction is ineffective because students acquire different linguistic aspects at different moments (teacher correcting present perfect when student is trying to master the past). If st. is not ready, teacher is wasting time.Noticing the differences on how they write and how they should write is a period of linguistic consciousness (Schmidt, 2001). When students have this awareness, they will benefit from corrections but teachers don´t always know when they have reach this stage. Thus, grammar correction will work when the error is checked at the adequate moment and in the convenient way.Truscott y Hsu (2008) in a recent study found again that the decrease in the number of errors during revision is not a predictor of learning, at least for corrective feedback. The improvements made during revisions are not evidence of the effectiveness of correction to improve learner´s writing.Ferris, on the other hand, supports grammar correction and says that it can help students if it is selective, clear, with some sort of priority and not overwhelming. In a study with Roberts in 2001, they found out that under three conditions: coded feedback, underlined error and no feedback, students with feedback did better than those with no feedback at all, but coded and uncoded feedback had no significant differences.Bitcherner, Young y Cameron (2005) tried to observe the effects of different types of feedback (discussion of errors, illustrated examples, and written corrections) and they found out that the integration of several evaluation methods had better results than the simple correction of students´ texts.It seems, then, that teachers should vary the type of feedback they give to their students. Traditionally teachers have: 1) corrected all errors; corrected errors selectively; 3) mark errors so students would correct them (coded or not); or 4) let students identify and correct their own errors.

Though controversy continues as to whether error feedback helps L2 student writers to improve the accuracy and overall quality of their writing (Ferris, 1999a; Truscott, 1996, 1999), most studies on error correction in L2 writing classes have provided evidence that students who receive error feedback from teachers improve in accuracy over time. One issue which has not been adequately examined is how explicit error feedback should be in order to help students to self-edit their texts. In this experimental classroom study, 72 university ESL students' were investigated differing abilities to self-edit their texts across three feedback conditions: (1) errors marked with codes from five different error categories; (2) errors in the same five categories underlined but not otherwise marked or labeled; (3) no feedback at all. We found that both groups who received feedback significantly outperformed the no-feedback group on the self-editing task but that there were no significant differences between the “codes” and “no-codes” groups. We conclude that less explicit feedback seemed to help these students to self-edit just as well as corrections coded by error type.

Help students self-diagnose and recognize their most common content, fluency and grammar errors. Apply grammar rules to their texts learned from online exercises.Develop strategies to summarize, paraphrase and constructively criticize the texts of others and even raise the level of formality of their texts.

Extensive personal comments in response to contentEmphasis on content over form (Readers get involved with content and notice form less frequently, unless they are teachers)Teacher's revisions in Googledocs (modeling for future peer and self revisions following a rubric) http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddf65987_4dfgdpvgr

Flesch-Kincaid Readability Score: Flesch Reading Ease (0-100%), and the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (For most documents, aim for a score of approximately 7.0 to 8.0. )

Transfer … movedBeginning stage where it was important to know participants and show them I was interested in what they wrote. Lots of personal comments.I am a mechanical engineering student since 2004Choose, choseHobbie -hobbiesResidency – dormLigue - league

Constructive feedback. Mention something the writer did well.

Student at keyboard, teacher sitting beside student close to mouse. Several windows open: Wikispaces, Wordreference, Google search, others as needed.COHORT; scenic fear/ stage fright; enter (into) or nothing, especially a country.

Eliminating the grading factor may allow students to concentrate more in composing, revision and discussion of texts with peers, teacher and self-revisions.Essays did receive an estimate grade according to standards required in exams such as Toefl or Ielts. ---Instead of practicing writing in solitary situations in a closed classroom, students could learn about learning by interacting with thers by means of dialogues, vocalizing the process about their writing practices, etc. The way students are supported in this interactive environment affects their level of appropriation, aplication, internalization and transformation of knowledge and discourse in a second or foreign language.

This approach emphasizes writing as a socialization process where the learner communicates with an authentic much wider audience than just the course instructor and in an environment where he can interact with others, write as much as he wants, reflect on his learning and the strategies that he uses to revise and improve his texts, and share and discuss his ideas in a community of learning where any participant has access to his texts.

1 Favorite

Bertha Webheads Convergence May24_2009 - Presentation Transcript

  1. Digital natives perceptions of EFL online and f2f writing revisions Bertha Leiva Universidad SimĂłn Bolivar, Caracas
  2. New digital reality • Less writing on paper. • Extensive use of electronic devices to write. • Countless number of hours spent online. • Widespread use of Internet and Social Networks. • Frequent and sometimes obsessive use of video games. • Ability to multitask. slideshare.net/bleiva2003
  3. What should we do as teachers? • Have students write on paper during class? • Use the same traditional revision methods? • Correct every mistake or error we find? • Use or not use codes? • Just correct key errors that affect message? • Worry fossilization will take place if we don't correct slideshare.net/bleiva2003 everything?
  4. Error feedback controversy Truscott: “The state of the evidence, especially regarding grammar errors, points to a clear conclusion: Correction is a bad idea.” Ferris: “Students who receive error feedback from teachers improve in accuracy over time … Less explicit feedback seems to help students to self-edit just as well as corrections coded by error type.” slideshare.net/bleiva2003
  5. Objective of the study Implement a variety of EFL writing feedback methods to determine students´ perceptions and preferences. slideshare.net/bleiva2003
  6. Context • EFL blended writing course at a Venezuelan University (12 weeks) • 7 intermediate students • Elective/extraplan • Engineering majors • Ages: 19-22 slideshare.net/bleiva2003
  7. Course activities/evaluation •No cumulative grading but percentage of completed tasks. •Qualitative feedback aimed at helping students become aware of their errors. slideshare.net/bleiva2003
  8. Feedback Methods Teacher's f2f student-teacher comments conferences Self-revisions Peer revisions slideshare.net/bleiva2003
  9. Tools Google docs Wikispaces http://writingatusb.wikispaces.com Others: Google search Wordreference LexTutor Word
  10. http://writingatusb.wikispaces.com/ Sample student page slideshare.net/bleiva2003
  11. Teacher's content comments Content comments but paraphrasing corrected mistakes. In later corrections I placed quotation marks for noticing. Find two sentences where you missed the verb to be Challenge
  12. Follow-up of teacher's content comments slideshare.net/bleiva2003
  13. Modeling by teacher in Googledocs before peer revisions Comments: Your message is quite understandable and the highlighted words are elements to be improved, especially when they are related to grammar and word usage. All sentences in English must have a subject. Do all of your sentences have one? A reader may get the point you are trying to get through but a professor at a graduate program or an employer will not regard those typos or mistakes favorably. They can be fixed rather easily and I hope you are able to figure out their correct forms. You are also missing some commas here and there. Try to find out where they would go. Keep up the good work! Revised by Teacher
  14. Peer revisions in Googledocs • Comments: You express your idea well and I understand pretty much everything that you put in your text about plagiarism. I really liked when you searched another website to complement the concept of plagiarism because it wasn't completely clear for you. The things that could be improved in your text, I think it could be the vocabulary part and the spelling, for example you need to correct some words like \"becouse, allways, becarfull\". You may find the link about \"sentences\" on the week 2 assigments very helpful. Try to find something about auxiliaries in English. Revised by E. 2) Comments: added (green), removed (blue) could be changed (yellow), comments (in red). Congratulations! You've done a great job! Your text is pretty good. I think you only have to check for some run-on sentences, that way it would be easier to read. Revised by: J. 3) Comments: I find the text understandable and enjoyable because is very funny. Is a bit informal and I might have passed some mistakes (let's wait for the teacher to re-revise it). You could improve your vocabulary and spelling a little bit and the order in your sentences another little bit. What I think are mistakes are the words and phrases in lilac, and my corrections are in pink. Based on the rubric that the teacher gave us for the peer revision I'll give you the following: 1) Content: 4; 2) Organization: 3; 3) Form: 2; 4) Main Idea: 3 Revised by: M
  15. Student-teacher conferences • 3-4 individual sessions. • 45-90 minutes each. • Teacher's office computer. • No previously set procedure. • Student at keyboard. • Several windows open. slideshare.net/bleiva2003
  16. Survey results Which feedback method was most effective for you ? (mark 5 as the most effective and 1 as the least) 5 4 3 2 1 Response General content comments by 42.9% 0.0% 57.1% (4) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 7 teacher in discussion tab (DT) (3) (0) Paraphrasing of your corrected 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 42.9% (3) 0.0% (0) 7 mistakes by teacher in DT (2) (1) (1) Specific indications for 66.7% 0.0% 16.7% 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 6 corrections by teacher in DT (4) (0) (1) Student-teacher conference at 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 6 teacher's office (4) (0) 0.0% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% Peer revisions and comments 57.1% (4) 7 (0) (1) (1) (1) When you revised the texts of your 0.0% 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% (2) 7 peers (0) (1) (2) (2) slideshare.net/bleiva2003
  17. Survey results Were the following types of feedback helpful? Respon very somehow little Not at all se self-correcting texts 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 50.0% (3) 16.7% (1) 6 correcting the texts of classmates 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 50.0% (3) 16.7% (1) 6 getting corrections of texts by 0.0% (0) 71.4% (5) 14.3% (1) 14.3% (1) 7 classmates getting comments from teacher 83.3% (5) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 6 about your texts revising texts at student-teacher 100% (6) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 6 conferences
  18. Results and implications 1) Teacher-student conferences as most helpful form of revision. 2) Specific indications for corrections by teacher in the wiki discussion tab. 3) General comments from teacher, paraphrasing of corrected errors and peer revisions. Giving feedback to their peers was considered the least useful. Multiple revision methods more opportunities to notice language, clear up doubts, get a variety of explanations and examples, and maybe increase the chances of identifying those mistakes in the future. slideshare.net/bleiva2003
  19. Final thoughts … Findings do not necessarily reflect the characteristics of all EFL/ESL writing programs at university level and cannot be generalized to other contexts. The support of electronic/online tools, however, could help students and teachers make revisions in a faster, more practical, less tedious and efficient way. St-teacher conferences can help us study more closely how our students write, why they make certain errors and help them raise their linguistic awareness.
  20. Questions & comments bleiva@usb.veslideshare.net/bleiva2003
  21. References •Abdullah, M. (2003). The Impact of Electronic Communication on Writing. ERIC Digest, ED477614.ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading English and Communication Bloomington IN. Available at http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-1/impact.htm •Bitcherner. J., Young. S., and Cameron. D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205. •Cumming, A. (2007). Assessment. In I.Leki, A.Cumming, and T. Silva, A synthesis of research on second language writing: 1980 to 2005. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. •Ferris, D. (1999a). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11. •Ferris, D. and Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 3, 161-184 •Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46 (2), 327-369. •Truscott, J. (1999). The case for \"The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes\": A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122. •Truscott, J. and Hsu, A. (2008). Error correction, revision and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing. In press. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5F-4T2S010-2&_user=10&_rd userid=10&md5=6c0d7d2366f04c5195e9c26427eeb09c

+ Bertha LeivaBertha Leiva, 6 months ago

custom

436 views, 1 favs, 0 embeds more stats

In an action research study several methods were us more

More info about this document

© All Rights Reserved

Go to text version

  • Total Views 436
    • 436 on SlideShare
    • 0 from embeds
  • Comments 4
  • Favorites 1
  • 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

Tags

-->
Search
RSS Feed
What's new?

© 2009 SlideShare Inc. All Rights Reserved