ON-LINE COLLABORATIVE FEEDBACK ON

SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING OF

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Masaya Fujino

Melbourne High School

These corrections are not part of this research.

Introduction• On-line poll

• Previous research

• Overview

• Research Questions

• Participants

• Theoretical Framework

• Data Collection

• Data Analysis

• Findings

• Conclusion

On-line Poll“What forms of feedback on student’s writing do you

use?”

CodesWCOM – 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

Use of text-messages by a mobile phoneType 36263 in your text message.Also type any code(s) listed below.Send your message to 0429 883 481.

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 sessionsNegotiation: 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 sessionsNegotiation: Kobayashi (2007) Williams (2004)

Overview

• Action Research

• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

• Context

• Methodology

4 Stage Data Collection4 written tasks

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?

ParticipantsWriters

High School Students in Australia (A)

Tutors

Japanese University Students in Japan (J)

Name(pseudonym)

Year

Level

Japanese

Study

Background Name(pseudonym)

University

Level

English

Level

Overseas

Experience

Shane Year 11 5 years

+

2 week stay

in J

Born in

A

Cantonese

Yoshiko 3rd Year Intermediate Nil

Victor Year 12 4 years Born in A

Chinese Sat

Primary

School

Keiko 4th Year Intermediate Nil

Ken Year 12 5 years Born in J

3 years in J

Hanae 4th Year

Mature-age

Student

Advanced 3 yrs in US

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

Audio line splitter

Desk-top web camera

Digital video camera

Digital voice recorderHeadphone with a microphone

Line-out jack

Line-in jack

Monitor

Devices for Data Collection

Software for Data Collection

Data Collection

Captured Screen

Activities

Theoretical FrameworkThe zone of proximal development (ZPD)

(Vygotsky 1985)

Current student independent level

Possible development level with assistance

ZPD

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

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 Level

Withhelp

Withouthelp

Withhelp

Withouthelp

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 √ √

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.

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

Findings

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, write...to 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.

Long, collaborative interaction on complex itemEvidence of other-regulation

Findings

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…

Evidence of more self-regulation

Findings

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’?

Shorter interaction on a lexical item

Findings

2. What hinders revisions in subsequent texts?

- Lack of collaboration (Storch, 2002; Watanabe & Swain 2007)

- Avoidance of mistakes in the post tests

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

Limitations

• Small-scale research

o Number of participants

o Size of data

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