After reading the articles assigned this week, I remembered a relavent article I came across for my research about peer revisions in ESL writing. Cassia and Johnson (1994) looked at peer revisions, a method argued by many of their sources to be beneficial for L1 students, and investigated it’s usefulness in L2 writing classes. Within a class of 12 non-native English speakers, students were broken into pairs and asked to give feedback and their peer’s paper, from comprehension to grammar. The researchers then looked at the final drafts of the students to see how often the feedback was used. Finally, the researchers conducted post-interviews to ask the students not only how beneficial the peer reviews were to them personally.
The results of the study showed that 53% of the time students incorporated their peer’s comments. Ten percent of the time, students did not revise a given part of their texts even though it had been discussed in the peer review. Interestingly, 37% of the time, students revised parts of their essays that had not been discussed in the peer reviews, indicating the students picked up other techniques for writing that they saw in other students’ papers. =All but two of the students reported that peer reviews were helpful, and those two students said that it was a “boring” assignment.
Cassia and Johnson conclude that peer feedback is effective because it allows for students to actively analyze and learn their mistakes and other students’ mistakes, as opposed to being passively told by their teachers which revisions to make.
I thought it was interesting that none of the authors from this week’s readings cited this study. The research contributes valuable data to the field of research on grammatical corrective feedback in that it is one of the few that indicate success, and it approaches corrective feedback with a new method - - peer review. This unique approach responds to Ferris’ call for researchers to take grammatical corrective feedback research a step further (2004).
While I believe this research is valuable, Truscott would likely argue that even though the students found the corrective feedback helpful from their peers, students may not be the best judges of what learning style is best for them, thus the study does not sufficiently promote the use corrective feedback. I however, would disagree. While post-interviews may seem skewed because of the self-reporting of students, the success of the peer review was also indicated by the amount of students who chose, with their own free will, to incorporate their peer’s suggestions and many times take a step further to correct other things they have learned from talking with their peers about corrections. This shows that the students not only learned but also applied the corrections.
Cassia, O. M. and Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Quarterly, 28(4), 745-769.
Ferris, D. (2004). The ‘‘grammar correction’’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime . . .?) . Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, p. 49-62.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Genre Approach Applied to Oral L2 Learning
This week I was thinking about genres as a teaching method, and I came across an article that might apply the genre method to oral communication.
Friedenberg and Bradley (1981) suggest a method for teaching English quickly, focusing on communication skills for basic survival. To teach them focused topics effectively, the researchers explore the adaptation of the of micro-counseling approach. This is a method that has been used to teach counselors specific techniques through the use of role playing in the classroom. Friedenberg and Bradley suggest using the micro-counseling approach to include attention to vocabulary, sentence structure, and culture to allow ESL students to practice basic survival and vocational skills.
This approach doesn’t require the students to be literate, which makes this slightly different than the genre approach discussed in this week's readings. However it is similar in that the teacher encourages the student to consider their audience, message, and delivery before crafting their discourse. Instead of writing genres, the class is practicing speaking genres. The results of this study demonstrate that students learn by doing, therefore if they never practice a particular type of conversation (e.g. words to use when in a restaurant, or words to use in a job interview) they may never master them.
This is similar to genre approach that in that students are encouraged to consider their ends and create the means. Hyland defines the genre approach as “purposeful, socially situated responses to particular contexts and communities” (2003, p. 17). Using role-playing, the dialogue allows the students to continuously craft responses and the conversation changes. This idea of using social realities is also encouraged in the written genre approach.
The one aspect that Friedenberg and Bradley cover that Hyland does not is a specific example of how this approach could be used effectively in the classroom. I would have liked to see a sample of how genre writing could be used in the classroom from Hyland (an example like So gave) however I understand that this article was meant to just introduce genre approach. Also, Hyland mentions, “genres are not overbearing structures which impose uniformity on users” (2003, p. 23). This might be a little more difficult to translate to the role-playing strategy that Friedenberg and Bradley suggest using because the teacher is required to create a scenario for the students to work within. Their language choice may change depending on how the conversation goes, but it is still within a construct that might not be compatible with Hyland’s idea of genre.
Personally, I agree with Friedenberg and Bradley’s approach. When I was taking a foreign language student in high school, I remember using the role-playing strategy to try to sharpen skills and language. I personally feel like it was an effective way to get students to think critically about what they are saying and why they are saying it. However, to enhance their argument, I wish the authors would have conducted original research instead of using the research of others (such as Savignon 1972).
Friedenberg, J. and Bradley, C. H. (1981). Communication skills for the adult ESL student: A microcounsling approach. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Quarterly, 15(4), 403-411.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17-29.
Friedenberg and Bradley (1981) suggest a method for teaching English quickly, focusing on communication skills for basic survival. To teach them focused topics effectively, the researchers explore the adaptation of the of micro-counseling approach. This is a method that has been used to teach counselors specific techniques through the use of role playing in the classroom. Friedenberg and Bradley suggest using the micro-counseling approach to include attention to vocabulary, sentence structure, and culture to allow ESL students to practice basic survival and vocational skills.
This approach doesn’t require the students to be literate, which makes this slightly different than the genre approach discussed in this week's readings. However it is similar in that the teacher encourages the student to consider their audience, message, and delivery before crafting their discourse. Instead of writing genres, the class is practicing speaking genres. The results of this study demonstrate that students learn by doing, therefore if they never practice a particular type of conversation (e.g. words to use when in a restaurant, or words to use in a job interview) they may never master them.
This is similar to genre approach that in that students are encouraged to consider their ends and create the means. Hyland defines the genre approach as “purposeful, socially situated responses to particular contexts and communities” (2003, p. 17). Using role-playing, the dialogue allows the students to continuously craft responses and the conversation changes. This idea of using social realities is also encouraged in the written genre approach.
The one aspect that Friedenberg and Bradley cover that Hyland does not is a specific example of how this approach could be used effectively in the classroom. I would have liked to see a sample of how genre writing could be used in the classroom from Hyland (an example like So gave) however I understand that this article was meant to just introduce genre approach. Also, Hyland mentions, “genres are not overbearing structures which impose uniformity on users” (2003, p. 23). This might be a little more difficult to translate to the role-playing strategy that Friedenberg and Bradley suggest using because the teacher is required to create a scenario for the students to work within. Their language choice may change depending on how the conversation goes, but it is still within a construct that might not be compatible with Hyland’s idea of genre.
Personally, I agree with Friedenberg and Bradley’s approach. When I was taking a foreign language student in high school, I remember using the role-playing strategy to try to sharpen skills and language. I personally feel like it was an effective way to get students to think critically about what they are saying and why they are saying it. However, to enhance their argument, I wish the authors would have conducted original research instead of using the research of others (such as Savignon 1972).
Friedenberg, J. and Bradley, C. H. (1981). Communication skills for the adult ESL student: A microcounsling approach. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Quarterly, 15(4), 403-411.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17-29.
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Web as a Culture with Rhetoric
This text, which was written in 1993, is a call to writing teachers that the presence of a new, electronic environment that students are writing in is is changing the way people think about rhetoric and writing. The authors, Hawisher and Moran, argue that this means a new electronic pedagogy must created that accounts for the changes in style, grammar, and language.
Based on the time period that this was written, when emailing was starting to become more popular, I think that the authors had the right idea. Online communication was proving to be a revolutionary channel for language, and thus a revolutionary change for rhetoric. Seventeen years later we see the effects of this shift to the online community, however this article can serve as a reminder as to why these changes have occurred.
Those reasons, Hawisher and Moran argue, are rooted in a variety of differences between paper-mail and electronic mail. Now people have to pay attention to issues of length, structure, and most importantly “subject” of the electronic communication. They argue that online communication is rapid, thoughtless, and colloquial, whereas the paper writer is analytical, reflective, and slow to use language. Hawisher and Moran explain that this new technology that inherently affects language should be incorporated by writing teachers, especially because” E-mail, in dissolving boundaries of time and space, breaks down some of the barriers that have long been established between students and professors” (1993, p. 635). They further argue “we believe that on-line communication has the potential to bring in voices from the margin and might, therefore, be more egalitarian than face-to-face class discussion” (1993, p. 635).
While the article doesn’t specifically mention L2 communication, it does mention how students will be empowered and how language usage will change. I believe this premise is along the same lines as Kaplan’s argument that different cultures cultivate different types of rhetoric, and rhetorical patterns are seen within a given cultures. The online community is a new culture that will repeatedly create and reinvent new rhetoric as it grows and expands. I think that this is an excellent, rhetorically neutral environment for students of all languages to come together and negotiate what culture, language, and rhetoric mean to them.
LuMing Mao might call this marriage of online communication and second language learning “togetherness in difference” (2005). A somewhat common culture lies in the electronic environment, which serves as a point for L2 students to start learning language, culture, and rhetoric from each other.
---
Hawisher, G. E. and Moran, C. (October 1993). “Electronic mail and the writing instructor. College English, 55(6), 627-643.
Kaplan, R. “Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education.” Language Learning, 16(1), 1-20.
Mao, L. (February 2005). “Rhetorical borderlands: Chinese American rhetoric in the making.” College Composition and Communication, 56(3), 426-469.
Based on the time period that this was written, when emailing was starting to become more popular, I think that the authors had the right idea. Online communication was proving to be a revolutionary channel for language, and thus a revolutionary change for rhetoric. Seventeen years later we see the effects of this shift to the online community, however this article can serve as a reminder as to why these changes have occurred.
Those reasons, Hawisher and Moran argue, are rooted in a variety of differences between paper-mail and electronic mail. Now people have to pay attention to issues of length, structure, and most importantly “subject” of the electronic communication. They argue that online communication is rapid, thoughtless, and colloquial, whereas the paper writer is analytical, reflective, and slow to use language. Hawisher and Moran explain that this new technology that inherently affects language should be incorporated by writing teachers, especially because” E-mail, in dissolving boundaries of time and space, breaks down some of the barriers that have long been established between students and professors” (1993, p. 635). They further argue “we believe that on-line communication has the potential to bring in voices from the margin and might, therefore, be more egalitarian than face-to-face class discussion” (1993, p. 635).
While the article doesn’t specifically mention L2 communication, it does mention how students will be empowered and how language usage will change. I believe this premise is along the same lines as Kaplan’s argument that different cultures cultivate different types of rhetoric, and rhetorical patterns are seen within a given cultures. The online community is a new culture that will repeatedly create and reinvent new rhetoric as it grows and expands. I think that this is an excellent, rhetorically neutral environment for students of all languages to come together and negotiate what culture, language, and rhetoric mean to them.
LuMing Mao might call this marriage of online communication and second language learning “togetherness in difference” (2005). A somewhat common culture lies in the electronic environment, which serves as a point for L2 students to start learning language, culture, and rhetoric from each other.
---
Hawisher, G. E. and Moran, C. (October 1993). “Electronic mail and the writing instructor. College English, 55(6), 627-643.
Kaplan, R. “Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education.” Language Learning, 16(1), 1-20.
Mao, L. (February 2005). “Rhetorical borderlands: Chinese American rhetoric in the making.” College Composition and Communication, 56(3), 426-469.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Globalization and the Online Community
This week I found an article that builds on my post from last week about the benefits of online communities, while also tying in the assumptions and context created by globalization - - a topic of discussion for the week’s readings.
In the article, the author, Anne Hewling, argues that the online context for learning is a result of globalization and the movement of people and around the world resulting in crossing cultures. In her literature review, she mentions research that addresses the problem that arose from last week’s post about some cultures not feeling comfortable in online classes:
“Morse concludes that the cultural background of students influences both how they prioritize the benefits they have gained from their online study, and how they view the challenges it posed.” (2006, p. 338)
I like how Hewling responds to this idea in her article by labeling these generalized statements as an “essentialist” approach, and it equates nationality with an exact culture. I feel like Pennycook, in this week’s article “Other Engishes,” might agree with Hewling. Pennycook argues in his paper that assuming that globalization is only driven by American culture and economics is a nationalist response. Both Pennycook and Hewling argue for a new approach to viewing the fusion of cultures that doesn’t result in something destructive.
Hewling further argues that nationality-centered assumptions restrict the view of culture in the online classroom because it assumes that each student brings their own culture as an obstacle to others, not as something that is already there to stimulate cultural education among the students. In response to this view, Helwling proposes the idea of a new “third culture” that is able to emerge from the students as a collective whole…a culture that is unique to just their class. Culture becomes something you create, not some that is inherent.
Similarly, Pennycook argues in his article that global influences throughout history have not necessarily replaced eachother; they have coexisted. While Pennycook doesn’t directly say it, I believe he is speaking the same words as Hewling – just as in an online community culture can be created, so has the culture in the global community.
I think that the processes that Penncook focuses on in his paper to argue his position- - “transgression and resistance, translation and rearticulation, transformation and reconstitution, translocalization and appropriation, transculturation and hybridization” (2007, p.30) can be applied to the online classroom to create the third culture that Hewling argues for in internet distance learning discussions.
Hewling, A. (2006). Culture in the online class: Using message analysis to look beyond nationality-based frames of reference. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 337-356.
Pennycook, A. (2007). Chapter 2: Other Englishes. Global Englishes and transcultural flows (pp. 17-35). London: Routledge.
In the article, the author, Anne Hewling, argues that the online context for learning is a result of globalization and the movement of people and around the world resulting in crossing cultures. In her literature review, she mentions research that addresses the problem that arose from last week’s post about some cultures not feeling comfortable in online classes:
“Morse concludes that the cultural background of students influences both how they prioritize the benefits they have gained from their online study, and how they view the challenges it posed.” (2006, p. 338)
I like how Hewling responds to this idea in her article by labeling these generalized statements as an “essentialist” approach, and it equates nationality with an exact culture. I feel like Pennycook, in this week’s article “Other Engishes,” might agree with Hewling. Pennycook argues in his paper that assuming that globalization is only driven by American culture and economics is a nationalist response. Both Pennycook and Hewling argue for a new approach to viewing the fusion of cultures that doesn’t result in something destructive.
Hewling further argues that nationality-centered assumptions restrict the view of culture in the online classroom because it assumes that each student brings their own culture as an obstacle to others, not as something that is already there to stimulate cultural education among the students. In response to this view, Helwling proposes the idea of a new “third culture” that is able to emerge from the students as a collective whole…a culture that is unique to just their class. Culture becomes something you create, not some that is inherent.
Similarly, Pennycook argues in his article that global influences throughout history have not necessarily replaced eachother; they have coexisted. While Pennycook doesn’t directly say it, I believe he is speaking the same words as Hewling – just as in an online community culture can be created, so has the culture in the global community.
I think that the processes that Penncook focuses on in his paper to argue his position- - “transgression and resistance, translation and rearticulation, transformation and reconstitution, translocalization and appropriation, transculturation and hybridization” (2007, p.30) can be applied to the online classroom to create the third culture that Hewling argues for in internet distance learning discussions.
Hewling, A. (2006). Culture in the online class: Using message analysis to look beyond nationality-based frames of reference. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 337-356.
Pennycook, A. (2007). Chapter 2: Other Englishes. Global Englishes and transcultural flows (pp. 17-35). London: Routledge.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Integrating Online and Classroom ESL Learning
While looking up journal articles that might support my research proposal, I came across a paper that looked at evaluated the use of the World Wide Web in assisting second language teachers.
In the article, Carpenter-Binkley and Hall (2003) construct a model for integrating a physical and Internet classroom to prove, despite the concerns among educators that the use of the Web would distract second language learners, it is possible to capitalize on the resources provided by the Web and create authentic situations in which that second language is used. In addition, they argue that the Internet provides students with the ability to create community and thus collaborate outside of the classroom (2003), creating a positive learning environment.
Carpenter-Binkley and Hall’s model includes a few key requirements for success. First, the teacher must make sure the student understands their role in using the internet, as well as create a context for why the internet is being used (for example, students may be told that they are travel agents that must put together an itinerary for a vacation in America) (2003). Their model also emphasizes the need for a sequential process for developing skills and tasks online, so that the student doesn’t feel overwhelmed and lost in all of the information offered on the Internet. Finally, it is important to provide a place online for students to reflect and communicate with each other about the language assignment (2003).
While Carpenter-Binkley and Hall are looking at French-as-a-second-language students, I feel like this can also be applied to the English-as-a-second-language students. Allowing students to explore the applications of English online and communicate with each other in English through online forums could allow further educational growth. As Hyland explains in his article, many of the learning problems L2 learners experience stem from cultural differences (2003). The Internet is multicultural mode of research and communication, and if harnessed correctly by the educator, it could be a tool that helps teachers reconcile the differences in culture and learning preferences.
An online discussion board that allows L2 students to communicate with each other may provide a safer place to ask peers questions and practice written English, without the obstacle of accents or judgment. A conflict arises between Carpenter-Binkley and Hall and Hyland where peer criticism is concerned. Hyland acknowledges “peer response has been criticized as culturally inappropriate for learners from collectivist cultures” (2003, p. 42). If this is the case, in order for the online community to be successful when applied to ESL students the forum would need to be free of personal criticism, and focused on group discussion and problem solving. The use of the Internet by L2 students might also help provide resources for finding writing topics that are cross cultural - - bridging the gap between satisfying course writing requirements and writing about a topic the L2 student understands.
Carpenter-Binkley, S., and Hall, J. E. (2003). Sound pedagogical practice on the Web. The French Review, 76(3), 564-579.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writers. In Second Language Writing
(31-53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
In the article, Carpenter-Binkley and Hall (2003) construct a model for integrating a physical and Internet classroom to prove, despite the concerns among educators that the use of the Web would distract second language learners, it is possible to capitalize on the resources provided by the Web and create authentic situations in which that second language is used. In addition, they argue that the Internet provides students with the ability to create community and thus collaborate outside of the classroom (2003), creating a positive learning environment.
Carpenter-Binkley and Hall’s model includes a few key requirements for success. First, the teacher must make sure the student understands their role in using the internet, as well as create a context for why the internet is being used (for example, students may be told that they are travel agents that must put together an itinerary for a vacation in America) (2003). Their model also emphasizes the need for a sequential process for developing skills and tasks online, so that the student doesn’t feel overwhelmed and lost in all of the information offered on the Internet. Finally, it is important to provide a place online for students to reflect and communicate with each other about the language assignment (2003).
While Carpenter-Binkley and Hall are looking at French-as-a-second-language students, I feel like this can also be applied to the English-as-a-second-language students. Allowing students to explore the applications of English online and communicate with each other in English through online forums could allow further educational growth. As Hyland explains in his article, many of the learning problems L2 learners experience stem from cultural differences (2003). The Internet is multicultural mode of research and communication, and if harnessed correctly by the educator, it could be a tool that helps teachers reconcile the differences in culture and learning preferences.
An online discussion board that allows L2 students to communicate with each other may provide a safer place to ask peers questions and practice written English, without the obstacle of accents or judgment. A conflict arises between Carpenter-Binkley and Hall and Hyland where peer criticism is concerned. Hyland acknowledges “peer response has been criticized as culturally inappropriate for learners from collectivist cultures” (2003, p. 42). If this is the case, in order for the online community to be successful when applied to ESL students the forum would need to be free of personal criticism, and focused on group discussion and problem solving. The use of the Internet by L2 students might also help provide resources for finding writing topics that are cross cultural - - bridging the gap between satisfying course writing requirements and writing about a topic the L2 student understands.
Carpenter-Binkley, S., and Hall, J. E. (2003). Sound pedagogical practice on the Web. The French Review, 76(3), 564-579.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writers. In Second Language Writing
(31-53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
ESL Cartoons
I found cartoons about teaching language to adult ESL students and I thought they would be an interesting way to kick off conversation about L2 learning and teachings. I’m particularly interested in looking at the third cartoon from langwichscool.com:
The aim of these cartoons is to bring humor to the common situations in ESL learning and possibly bring attention to some of the problems within the field.
Within this cartoon, one of the dominant themes is the idea that Lippi-Green brings up in her article (1997) about the effectiveness of communication being a completely different issue that the rules of communication. The language translator software allows the character to communicate effectively, but not correctly. This article also shows us that various languages structures and meanings do not translate word for word. Further, it represents that language is so full of rules and exceptions that not even a computer can accommodate the “ifs, ands, or buts” of language learning.
I agree with the issues being represented because I’ve had personal experience with online language translators. They might be a good learning tool for individual words, but sentence structure, grammar, and sometimes meaning can get lost in the translation because translating software can’t necessarily teach rules as well as a teacher could. Lo Bianco may say that these software programs are a result of globalization, and the need to be able to quickly communicate with others of different cultures for economic purposes. Gonzalez might also add that this is an example of how immigrants have better oral than literacy proficiency - - it appears this character in the cartoon is able to pronounce the words, but has no idea the sentence structure and word usage is completely wrong.
Another way of representing the message would be a different cartoon in which a businessman is using a portable English translator while he is talking to a client. This might help show the influence of globalization on the reliance of these technologies.
-------------
Gonzalez, Arturo. "Chapter 9." Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement, Volume I Education and the Social Implications of Official Language. Vol. 1. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000.
Lippi-Green , Rosina. English with an Accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States . London: Routledge, 1997.
Marks, Jon. "Adult Cartoons". Langwich Scool. January 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)