Discourse Perspectives on Second And/Or Foreign Language Teaching and Learning 1628088672, 9781628088670

Table of contents :
DISCOURSE PERSPECTIVES ON SECOND AND/OR FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING
DISCOURSE PERSPECTIVES ON SECOND AND/OR FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
CONTENTS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK
REFERENCES
Chapter 1: A REVIEW OF MAJOR STRANDSIN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
INTERACTIONIST DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
SOCIOCULTURAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Chapter 2: ISSUES ABOUT CONDUCTING DISCOURSE ANALYSIS RESEARCH
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
BEFORE DATA COLLECTION
DURING DATA COLLECTION
AFTER DATA COLLECTION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
Chapter 3: CORPUS LINGUISTICS AND DISCOURSE STUDIES
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
DISCOURSE AND THE CONTEXT OF LANGUAGE TEACHING
CORPUS LINGUISTICS
LEARNER CORPORA: A NEWER PERSPECTIVE
REFERENCES
Chapter 4: ACTION RESEARCH:THE EFFECTS OF TEACHER ORAL DISCOURSE ON EFL WRITING
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW: THE ROLE OF FEEDBACK IN APPROACHES TO TEACHING WRITING
METHODOLOGY
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
Chapter 5: DISCOURSE OF READERS’ BLOGS IN COLLEGE-LEVEL ESL CLASSROOMS
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND: LITERATURE REVIEW
METHODOLOGY
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE BLOGS
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Chapter 6: A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ON THE MITIGATION LANGUAGE USED IN THE SUPERVISION OF COLLEAGUES
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
THE DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSCRIPT
CONCLUSION
APPENDICES
REFERENCES
Chapter 7A COMPARISON OF THE CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PATTERNS OF NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE SPEAKING TEACHERS OF ENGLISH: TURKISH AND AMERICAN ELT SETTINGS
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK TYPES
METHOD
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
Chapter 8: UPTAKE AND AUDIO RECORDINGS: EXPLORING LEARNERS’ RESPONSES TO CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
CURRENT STUDY: RESEARCH QUESTION
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Chapter 9: WRITING AND REVISION WITH CODED AND UNCODED FEEDBACK
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND LITERATURE
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
PEDOGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
INDEX

Citation preview

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD

DISCOURSE PERSPECTIVES ON SECOND AND/OR FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the Series tab. Additional e-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the e-book tab.

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the Series tab. Additional e-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the e-book tab.

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD

DISCOURSE PERSPECTIVES ON SECOND AND/OR FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING

DOGAN YUKSEL AND

BANU INAN EDITORS

New York

Copyright © 2013 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com

NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ISBN:  (eBook)

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

CONTENTS Preface

vii

Introduction

ix

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

A Review of Major Strands in Discourse Analysis in Language Teaching Dogan Yuksel and Banu Inan Issues about Conducting Discourse Analysis Research Dogan Yuksel and İhsan Unaldi

1

13

Chapter 3

Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Studies Ihsan Unaldi

Chapter 4

Action Research: The Effects of Teacher Oral Discourse on EFL Writing Wayne Trotman

43

Discourse of Readers’ Blogs in College-Level ESL Classrooms Justin E. Jernigan and Yingliang Liu

55

A Discourse Analysis on the Mitigation Language Used in the Supervision of Colleagues İrfan Kuran

79

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

23

vi Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Contents A Comparison of the Corrective Feedback Patterns of Native and Non-Native Speaking Teachers of English: Turkish and American ELT Settings Banu İnan

95

Uptake and Audio Recordings: Exploring Learners’ Responses to Corrective Feedback Megan Calvert

111

Writing and Revision with Coded and Uncoded Feedback Patricia Tehan

137

List of Contributors

151

Index

155

PREFACE Discourse Perspectives on Second and/or Foreign Language Teaching and Learning appeared as a product of the authors’ teaching experiences in different settings such as Turkey, China, and the USA. With the increasing importance of discourse studies in second/foreign language teaching contexts, the book aims to contribute to the existing literature with its different settings and the authors’ own teaching experiences in undergraduate and graduate levels. Discourse Perspectives on Second and/or Foreign Language Teaching and Learning includes both theory and research, which is thought to serve different groups of people such as undergraduate and graduate students, teachers, academics, teacher trainers and researchers. Our book aims to fulfill the following objectives: 

 

to familiarize its readers with different perspectives to discourse analysis such as sociocultural theory, critical discourse analysis, psychological and/or mainstream perspectives. to reveal the findings of different research from different levels and settings, to illustrate what is really happening in the language classrooms through the detailed analyses of teachers‘ and students’ classroom and/ or online conversations

The three theoretical chapters on current and historical understanding of discourse analysis from different perspective, issues about conducting discourse analysis research and the use of corpus linguistic approach both give a sound background on discourse and explain the term “discourse” and how it

viii

Dogan Yuksel and Banu Inan

is conceptualized by different people in different setting and how it is examined. The following six chapters discuss findings of empirical research on discourse and discourse related concepts such as examination of the discourse of the blogs, written discourse, classroom discourse and teacher interviews etc. This book is not only a compiled volume of research findings but also a comprehensive and informative source for all who are interested in this field.

INTRODUCTION Discourse analysis is an important field on which a lot of different academic disciplines carry out research. The term “discourse” is generally defined as “any unit of connected speech or writing longer than a sentence” by linguists. Grabe and Kaplan (2002, p.162) claim that “discourse analyses explore the actual structuring of the text via some consistent framework”. Schiffrin, Tannen & Hamilton (2001, p.1) state that it is possible to categorize different definitions of discourse analysis under three titles:   

Anything beyond the sentence Language use A broader range of social practice that includes nonlinguistic and nonspecific instances of language

When these different definitions are taken into consideration, one feature that they share is the significance of context. In the studies dwelling upon discourse, the relationship between discourse and context is an important one that makes the discourse-related concepts more understandable. One of the most common examples is the discourse in educational contexts. As Kumaravadivelu (1999) suggests that: …textbooks on discourse and discourse analysis, particularly those meant for language teachers use the term discourse to refer to connected text as opposed to isolated sentences. Discourse analysis thus becomes a study of larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts. (Kumaravadivelu, 1999, p.458)

x

Dogan Yuksel and Banu Inan

Discourse analysis in educational research is considered as “a way to make sense of the ways in which people make meaning in educational contexts” (Rogers, et al., 2005, p.366). As suggested by Gee & Green (1998) in order to understand the ways in which knowledge is socially constructed by teachers and students in classrooms and other educational context, different approaches to discourse analysis approaches have been developed. The basic reason why researchers studied discursive activities within classrooms and other education settings was to examine the complex and dynamic relationships in the classroom and learning. The most popular works include the works related to framework for discourse acts in classroom talk (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975), question types used by teachers in the classroom (Long & Sato, 1983), corrective feedback types used by teachers (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Taking all these examples of previous research into account, in this book, the variety of papers reveal different aspects of discourse analysis, different approaches adopted in various learning/teaching contexts.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK In Chapter I, Dogan Yuksel and Banu Inan define the terms “discourse” and “discourse analysis” in a more detailed way by paying attention to the confusion in some concepts related to discourse analysis. In addition to this, different approaches to discourse analysis were examined such as critical discourse analysis approach, interactionist approach and sociocultural approach. In Chapter II, Dogan Yuksel and Ihsan Unaldi focus on some methodological issues about conducting a classroom interactional analysis study for novice researchers. In their chapter, even though there is a reference to quantitative research designs and their applications in discourse analysis, a qualitative conceptualization of a discourse analysis approach is their basic concern. In Chapter III, Ihsan Unaldi defines some important concepts such as corpus linguistics and discourse studies and he tries to clarify the role of discourse in the context of language teaching paying attention to the significance of corpus linguistics in the same context. His basic concern associated with corpus linguistics is learner corpora.

Introduction

xi

In Chapter IV, Wayne Trotman’s main focus in his chapter is the significance of teacher-conferencing on academic essays and his research tries to reveal the relationship between discourse features of the conference and the changes made in follow-up drafts. While analyzing specific features of conferencing discourse, he mainly dealt with teacher-eliciting and the use of the L1. In Chapter V, Justin E. Jernigan and Yingliang Liu analyze the discourse of blog postings for evidence of critical reading and active engagement in college-level ESL reading classrooms. The basic purpose of the discourse analysis of the blog postings is to examine the blog entries of students about three novels on a weekly basis. In Chapter VI, Irfan Kuran examines the mitigation discourse in the supervisory interaction. His analysis of the discourse is based on three major types of mitigation, which are hypermitigation, hypomitigation, and abovethe-utterance-level mitigation. He suggests that mitigation should be used as a strong pedagogical tool for the professional development of practicing and student teachers. In Chapter VII, Banu Inan explains the findings of her research based on the analysis of classroom discourse in different English Language Teaching (EFL) settings; namely, an EFL setting in Turkey and an ESL setting in the USA. The basic comparison was about the error types occurring in readingbased classes and the corrective feedback types supplied by Native-Speaker (NS) and Non-Native Speaker (NNS) teachers of English. In Chapter VIII, Megan Calvert writes about the comparison of feedback types and error types with uptake rates. In addition to the research related to the correlations between these factors, students’ reasons for incorporating or rejecting feedback in their revised work were also investigated. In Chapter IX, Patricia Tehan examines the relative effectiveness of coded versus uncoded feedback by comparing two drafts of an assignment in an EFL environment in an English Language Teaching department. The results of her study indicate that the coded feedback is slightly more effective. She argues that this might be due to discrepancies in the frequency with which each type of feedback was given.

xii

Dogan Yuksel and Banu Inan

REFERENCES Gee, J. P. & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119-169. Kaplan, R. B., & Grabe, W. (2002). A modern history of written discourse analysis, Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 191-223 Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 453-484. Long, M. & Sato, C. (1983). Foreigner talk discourse: forms and functions of teachers‘ questions. In Classroom-oriented research on second language acquisition. H. Selinger & M. Long (Eds.). Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 268-285. Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquistion, 19, 37-66. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, D. & Hamilton, H. (2001). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. The USA: Blackwell Publishing. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Toward an analysis of discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

In: Discourse Perspectives … Editors: D. Yuksel and B. Inan

ISBN: 978-1-62808-867-0 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

A REVIEW OF MAJOR STRANDS IN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING Dogan Yuksel 1 and Banu Inan2 Kocaeli University, Faculty of Education, ELT Department, Turkey

ABSTRACT This chapter reviews major perspectives towards discourse analysis in foreign and/or second language learning and teaching settings. Three major strands that have been examined are Critical Discourse Analysis, Interactionist Discourse Analysis and Sociocultural Discourse Analysis. Each perspective is reviewed by providing the major characteristics of the perspectives and some sample studies. One or two most current studies that are published in major journals of our field have been added to the reviews as well.

1 2

[email protected]. [email protected].

Dogan Yuksel and Banu Inan

2

INTRODUCTION In its most general definition, “discourse analysis” is the study of language-in-use, which includes written texts and spoken data. The word “discourse” comes from Latin “discursus”, which means “conversation, speech”. Discourse analysis aims to study language beyond sentence level, it connects linguistic behaviour to social practices or it considers language as a system of thought. The idea behind discourse is unity and coherence. In other words, “within a discourse, multiple sentences or propositions logically follow each other (VanPatten & Benati, 2010, p. 81). In this sense, Stubbs (1983, p.1) defines discourse analysis as:   

concerned with language use beyond the boundaries of a sentence/utterance, concerned with the interrelationships between language and society concerned with the interactive or dialogic properties of everyday communication

In the explanation of this phenomenon related to language and society, what is taken into account are the interrelated issues associated with social and historical context and participants. There are different conceptualizations of discourse. Van Patten and Benita (2010) state that a discourse can be “a short interaction, an entire conversation, a written paragraph, a speech, and so on” (p. 81). McCarthy (1991) suggests that different disciplines and their changing popularity have contributed to the appearance of “discourse analysis” throughout the time such as semiotics, psychology, anthropology, and sociology. Perhaps one of the most important fields that formed the basis for discourse analysis was linguistics. As an important part of the study of language, separate sentences were analyzed for several different reasons such as to identify the relationships between the elements in a sentence and to describe the components of sentences in terms of phonology, morphology and syntax. However, the social aspect was not taken into consideration until Austin (1962), Hymes (1964), Searle (1969), Halliday (1973), and Grice (1975) started to highlight the social and pragmatic functions of sentences and their changing meanings in accordance with context. In this chapter, we will be examining how discourse has been used and studied in second and/or foreign language learning and/or teaching settings. In

A Review of Major Strands in Discourse Analysis …

3

other words, we will be dealing with the concept of ‘pedagogical discourse’, as it was conceptualized in previous studies. There are different perspectives toward the study of discourse and we will be focusing on the major trends in discourse analysis in the field of second language learning. Each sub-section of this chapter will be devoted to a perspective of discourse analysis. The three major perspectives towards discourse that have been investigated are a) Critical Discourse Analysis, b) Interactionist Discourse Analysis, c) Sociocultural Discourse Analysis. Here, we have to acknowledge that there are different understandings of discourse that might be beyond the scope of this chapter (e.g., analysis of written discourse, (for a detailed review of written discourse analysis, one can refer to Ferris (2011) or different classifications of the perspectives that we were unable to discuss here. There might be even subclassifications of these categories or different approaches within these traditions (e.g., see Wodak and Meyer (2009) for a detailed analysis of Critical Discourse Analysis and its subcategories). Because of the scope of this chapter, we are not going to examine these issues.

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS In the Handbook of Discourse Analysis edited by Schiffrin, Tannen and Hamilton (2003), Van Dijk (2003) defines Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as “a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context” (p. 352). Even though its traces can be found in the critical theory of the Frankfurt School before the Second World War, in the field of second and/or foreign language, the launch of Van Dijk’s journal “Discourse and Society” in 1990 and simultaneous publication of some other books in our field mark the beginning of CDA. Van Tijk positions CDA differently among other perspectives towards discourse by stating “CDA is not so much a direction, school, or specialization next to the many other approaches in discourse studies. Rather, it aims to offer a different mode or perspective of theorizing, analysis, and application throughout the whole field” (p. 352, original emphasis). Main tenets of CDA as summarized by Fairclough and Wodak (1997, pp. 271-80) as cited in Van Dijk (2003) are as follows:  

CDA addresses social problems Power relations are discursive

Dogan Yuksel and Banu Inan

4      

Discourse constitutes society and culture Discourse does ideological work Discourse is historical The link between text and society is mediated Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory Discourse is a form of social action.

Since CDA is regarded as a multi- directional mode or perspective, following these general tenets, there might be many different types of CDA, and they may be theoretically and analytically quite diverse. As a general understanding of discourse from a CDA perspective, language is regarded as a social practice and context is the heart of the analysis of language and discourse (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). The following popular quotation by Fairclough & Wodak summarizes the general conceptualization of discourse from a CDA perspective: Describing discourse as social practice implies a dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation(s), institution(s) and social structure(s), which frame it: The discursive event is shaped by them, but it also shapes them. That is, discourse is socially constitutive as well as socially conditioned – it constitutes situations, objects of knowledge, and the social identities of and relationships between people and groups of people. It is constitutive both in the sense that it helps to sustain and reproduce the social status quo, and in the sense that it contributes to transforming it. Since discourse is so socially consequential, it gives rise to important issues of power. Discursive practices may have major ideological effects – that is, they can help produce and reproduce unequal power relations between (for instance) social classes, women and men, and ethnic/cultural majorities and minorities through the ways in which they represent things and position people. (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997, p. 258)

To investigate how discourse has been studied from a CDA perspective, we provided one of the most recent works that has been published in a major journal of our field. In this study, Vasconcelos (2013) investigates a dialogic speech event that took place in an ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) class in the southeastern United States. To critically examine the discourse, she used Fairclough’s (1992) “moment of crisis” notion where pieces of evidence regarding the communication problems and necessity of repair portrayed. Specifically, her analysis demonstrated the problematization of the concept of what it means to “be American.” By providing a step-by-step

A Review of Major Strands in Discourse Analysis …

5

critical discourse analysis of the structure of a dialogic speech event, Vasconcelos offers a contribution that examines, and models dialogic practices associated with preparing ESOL pre-service teachers. In Vasconcelos’s (2013) study, a series of sequential components make up the moment of crisis. To identify this moment of crisis, she uses the linguistic (verbal and nonverbal) features of the utterances as well as their place and function in the speech event. Following definitions of the different components of a moment of crisis taken from Fairclough (1992) might help us how a discursive event is analyzed critically. Table 1. Structure of the moment of crisis Moment Of Crisis Trigger Onset

Development Pre-climax Climax

Resolution

Coda

Any linguistic action that precipitates a linguistic reaction The linguistic response to the trigger; the onset characterizes the moment of crisis because it suggests misunderstanding in the speech event The linguistic chain following the onset and building up to the pre-climax A linguistic unit that leads up to the climax A linguistic unit that indicates a decisive moment of maximum intensity because it exposes the reason for the misunderstanding A linguistic unit that indicates that the misunderstanding has been clarified and worked out (the resolution characterizes a moment of crisis as a dialogic speech event) A linguistic unit that serves to round out or conclude the speech event

INTERACTIONIST DISCOURSE ANALYSIS In the field of second and/or foreign language learning, interaction broadly refers to “conversations between learners and others, and the Interaction Hypothesis focuses on how such interactions might affect acquisition” (VanPatten & Benati, 2010, p. 99). One of the main grounds of Interaction Hypothesis is that interaction that entails negotiation of meaning and feedback

Dogan Yuksel and Banu Inan

6

facilitates second language acquisition (Gass et al., 2005). A group of scholars (Gass, 1997; Long, 1996; Pica, 1994) argue that implicit negative feedback, which can be obtained through negotiated interaction, facilitates second language acquisition. In parallel terms, Loewen & Erlam (2006) state that instances that promote and facilitate acquisition are created when learners are provided with opportunities to interact with each other to obtain comprehensible input and feedback, and to reformulate their own utterances. The earlier traces of Interactional Hypothesis can be found in the works of Hatch (1978). However, as an intact theory, Interactional Hypothesis was first formulated and later modified by Long (1980; 1983 & 1996, respectively). Emphasizing the inadequacy of Krashen’s Input hypothesis by saying that “comprehensible input”, by itself, is not enough unless learners produce language by means of interaction, Long (1996) argues that “negotiation for meaning, especially negotiation that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive way” (452). Thus far, many studies reported that interaction created instances that could facilitate second language development (Ellis & He, 1999; Mackey, 1999; Varonis & Gass, 1985). In her comprehensive review of the studies that follow an interactionist perspective, Pica (1998) claims that negotiation:     

assists comprehension brings salience to form-meaning relationships creates opportunities for learners to receive useful feedback from their interlocutors provides a context for the learners to use the kind of feedback that could produce modified output provides a context for the learners to think about syntax.

Most of the earlier studies on interaction focused on modified interaction with the ideas proposed by Long (1983) which suggest that modified interaction is the necessary mechanism for making language comprehensible. An example of how modified interaction can facilitate second language development is provided in Mackey (1999). In the excerpt X taken from Mackey (p. 558-559) the NNS does not understand the word glasses. The word is repeated by the native speaker (NS), the original phrase is extended and rephrased, and finally a synonym is given.

A Review of Major Strands in Discourse Analysis …

7

Table 2. NS NNS NS NNS NS NNS NS

There’s there’s a a pair of reading glasses above the plant A what? Glasses reading glasses to see the newspaper? Glassi? You wear them to see with, if you can’t see. Reading glasses. Ahh ahh glasses glasses to read you say reading glasses. Yeah.

To investigate how discourse has been studied from an interactionist perspective, we examined a recent study by Sato and Lyster (2012). In their quasi-experimental study, Sato and Lyster aim to investigate the effects of (a) teaching learners how to provide corrective feedback during peer interaction and (b) assessing the effects of peer interaction and corrective feedback on second language development. The findings of their study revealed that peer interaction offers opportunities for repeated production practice and might facilitate proceduralization, however corrective feedback sharpens the learners’ ability to monitor both their own language production and that of their interlocutors.

SOCIOCULTURAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS As an alternative to mainstream interactionist perspective of second language acquisition, Vygotskyan Sociocultural theory of mind has been presented in second and foreign language learning and teaching contexts. It claims to offer a promising perspective by widening the scope of language study. Lantolf (2000) argues that the implications inspired by Vygotsky “lead to a view of learning and teaching which in many respects is very different from theories currently in favor in the mainstream second language acquisition (SLA) literature” (p. 1). Most of the works on Vygotsky’s Sociocultural theory (1978; 1986) focus on discourse as well, and they claim that “more is happening in discussions than what can be surmised by the accumulated meanings of the spoken words” (Wortham 2000, p. 38). Studies that follow the Sociocultural perspective criticize those of the Interactionist perspectives by stating “interactive negotiation through individual input and output modifications does not provide sufficient conditions for acquisition and mastery of a second language” (Lee, 2004; p. 84). Quite contrary, they believe

8

Dogan Yuksel and Banu Inan

that “language learning goes beyond what the individual produces (e.g., input and output) and focuses on how the individual interacts with others through a joint activity (e.g., collaborative online exchange). (Lee, 2004; p. 84, original emphasis). Ohta (1995) argues that research that follows Sociocultural theory in second and/or foreign language settings “examines the dynamic relationship between interaction and acquisition, exploring how language, cognition, and culture are acquired through collaborative interaction” (p. 93). In her study, while analyzing the discourse, she portraits “the learner-learner collaborative activity between two students of differing levels of proficiency to result in creative interaction where scaffolding creates a positive environment for L2 acquisition” (p. 93).The collaborative interaction which includes the contributions of learner strengths and weaknesses results in refinement of both learners‘ second language use, which is explained by the concept of zone of proximal development (ZPD). In another recent work, van Compernolle and Kingenger (2013) examine how learners interact in so-called cooperative interaction environments while they are working on a questionnaire. Following dynamic assessment principles, cooperative interaction reveals both fully formed and emerging competencies (i.e. zone of proximal development) while at the same time furthering their continued growth. This study draws on data collected during a concept-based pedagogical enrichment program in which US university students of French were learning the concepts of social distance and power hierarchies as illustrated by the second-person pronouns tu and vous ‘you’. The case study of one learner, Nikki, to show how support provided by a tutor around one questionnaire item both assessed and promoted her developing conceptual knowledge about the dynamics of interpersonal relationships and how these are indexed through language are presented in this study. In another study, Moore (2013) examines the contextual features surrounding the use of a first language (L1) in a Japanese university during peer interaction in the extended preparation phase. Interaction data were analyzed in terms of the amount of L1 production, the distribution of L1 use within and across tasks and dyads, and the focus of learner talk. Contextual influences on L1 use were also investigated. Within dyads, learners generally used less L1 over time. This was attributed to the shifting focus of talk from procedural to content‐creation activity. Some learners were consistently high or low users of L1, while others varied. Variability was attributed to differences in second language (L2) proficiency, levels of engagement with the task and/or interlocutor, and the negotiation of task control and pedagogic

A Review of Major Strands in Discourse Analysis …

9

roles within a dyad. Finally, it was found that the language chosen for the initial utterance of an exchange may influence that of following utterances. The results support the contention that L1 use emerges naturally in classroom discourse and that attempts to influence it should involve raising awareness of contextual conditions surrounding its emergence.

CONCLUSION As reiterated in many other works, the importance of the examining the discourse was acknowledged by many researchers in different fields of education (Cazden, 2001; Gutierrez, 1994; Lemke, 1990; Nystrand, 1997; Walsh, 2006; Wells 1999). In this chapter, we have examined how discourse has been used and studied in second and/or foreign language learning and/or teaching settings by reviewing three current approaches towards discourse analysis: a) Critical Discourse Analysis, b) Interactionist Discourse Analysis, c) Sociocultural Discourse Analysis.

REFERENCES Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Ellis, R. and He, X. (1999) The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, Norman and Ruth Wodak. 1997. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” Teun A. van Dijk, ed. Discourse as Social Interaction, Vol 2. London: Sage. 258-84. Gass, S. M. (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gass, S., M., Mackey, A. and Ross-Feldman, L. (2005) Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55 (4).

10

Dogan Yuksel and Banu Inan

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. Gutierrez, K. D. (1994). How talk, context, and script shape contexts for learning: A cross-case comparison of journal sharing. Linguistics and Education, 5, 335-65. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold. Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E. (Ed.). Second language acquisition . Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Hymes, D. (1964). Towards ethnographies of communication. In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (Eds.), The Ethnography of Communication. American Antropologist, 66(6), 1-34. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 83-100. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006) Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning 19(1), 1-14. Long, M.H. (1980) Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Long, M.H. (1983) Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-193. Long, M. H. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T.K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press, 413-468. Mackey, A. (1999) Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Glasgow: Cambridge University Press.

A Review of Major Strands in Discourse Analysis …

11

Moore, P. (2013). An emergent perspective on the use of the first language in the EFL classroom. The Modern Language Journal 97(1): 239-253. Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press (with A. Gamoran, R Kachur, & C. Prendergast). Pica, T. (1994) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44 (3), 493-527. Pica, T. (1998) Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. In V. Regan (ed.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition in social context. Dublin: University of Dublin Press. Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner- learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6:2, 93-121. Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Corrective feedback and peer interaction for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34 (4), 591626. Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.). 2003. A handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Vasconcelos, E.F.S. (2013). “I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew I was American”: A critical discourse analysis of a dialogic speech event. Linguistics and Education, 24, 86– 100. Van Dijk, T.A. (2003). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. (pp. 352-371). Oxford: Blackwell. VanPatten, B. & Benati, A. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. London: Continuum. Van Compernolle, R. A. & Kingingeri C. (2013). Promoting metapragmatic development through assessment in the zone of proximal development, Language Teaching Research, Onlinefirst. Varonis, E. and Gass S. (1985) Non-native/non-native conversations: As model for negotiation. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71-90. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 262

12

Dogan Yuksel and Banu Inan

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. London and New York: Routledge. Wells, G. (1999). Language and education: Reconceptualizing education as dialogue. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 135-155. Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, eds. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. 1- 33. Wortham, S. F. (2000). Interactional positioning and narrative selfconstruction. Narrative Inquiry, 10, 1- 27.

In: Discourse Perspectives … Editors: D. Yuksel and B. Inan

ISBN: 978-1-62808-867-0 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

ISSUES ABOUT CONDUCTING DISCOURSE ANALYSIS RESEARCH Dogan Yuksel1, and İhsan Unaldi2,† 1

Kocaeli University, Faculty of Education, ELT Department, Turkey 2 University of Gaziantep, Faculty of Education, ELT Department, Turkey

ABSTRACT The main aim of this chapter is to help novice researchers gain some insights about conducting a discourse analysis research study. We mostly refer our previous experiences and discuss some issues that might facilitate the research process. We have divided this section into three sections. The first section, before data collection, discusses some issues to be done prior to the data collection process. During data collection mainly deals with how to record the data and obtain any other necessary information. The final section focuses on topics such as data transcription, data indexing, data reduction, coding and interrater reliability. Illustrations and samples are given whenever necessary. The chapter also includes a sample of Consent Form.

 †

E-mail: [email protected]. E-mail: [email protected].

14

Dogan Yuksel and İhsan Unaldi

INTRODUCTION In this chapter, we will discuss some methodological issues about conducting a classroom interactional analysis study for novice researchers by mostly referring to our previous research experiences. We will also be referring to quantitative research designs and their applications in discourse analysis but most of the ideas discussed here are about a qualitative conceptualization of a discourse analysis approach. Most of the studies that analyze the interaction in the classroom employ a discourse analysis approach. Discourse analysis can be briefly defined as “the study of spoken and written texts” (Walsh, 2006, p.81). It mainly deals with the functions of the words and phrases in their context. However, due to its common use with different conceptualizations, it is difficult to have a clear-cut definition of Discourse Analysis. Starting from the very early studies of discourse analysis by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), as Seedhouse (2004) asserts, majority of the studies that focused on classroom interaction “have implicitly or explicitly adopted … a discourse analysis approach” (p. 81). Different methodological and theoretical orientations of these studies are discussed in Chapter 2. In this chapter, we will mainly deal with some practical challenges that one might encounter while conducting a study on classroom interaction. We have divided this chapter into three sections. The first section, before data collection, will include some steps to be taken prior to data collection. These basic decisions will shape the research process therefore they have a pivotal role in the development of the research and in its later phases. In the second part, we will talk about some caveats that should be kept in mind during data collection. These important steps will facilitate the proper administration of the data analysis section. Finally, a big portion of this chapter will be devoted to after data collection phase where the mechanics of data transcription and coding will be thoroughly discussed.

BEFORE DATA COLLECTION The heart of the research will be the research question(s), and their choice will impact the research method, data collection, analysis and coding tools. As Mackey and Gass (2005) state, “the first and perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of any research undertaking is the identification of appropriate

Issues about Conducting Discourse Analysis Research

15

research questions” (p. 16). Due to its significance, one should be really careful while conceptualizing and wording the research question(s). The research question should also guide the steps of your research. For many novice researchers, generating research questions is a difficult task. These questions should be interesting, current, answerable, and they should aim to address gaps in the existing literature. Choosing the research methods (qualitative vs. quantitative) and tools (observation, videorecording, audiorecording) of data collection will be the second important step of the research process. The research questions will guide the choice of qualitative or quantitative research design which will eventually impact the choice of the participants. Most quantitative research would require random selection or distribution of the participants, on the other hand in most qualitative studies; the researchers tend to use purposeful sampling rather than random (Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005). For more information about research design, tools and sampling in discourse analysis, one can refer to Mackey and Gass (2005) and Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005).

Choosing the Research Site Most of the research settings would require some form of permission to get access to their sites. In some situations getting the approval of the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) or Human Subjects Committee would be necessary to conduct research, in some other cases, obtaining the approval of the Managers or Supervisors of the programs would be enough. In some other settings both of these might be needed before starting the data collection. After getting all these approvals, signed consent forms of the participants will be necessary as well. These forms are usually translated into the first languages of the participants. A sample Consent Form is provided in the Appendix.

DURING DATA COLLECTION Most of the discourse analysis research would entail some form of recording and/or observation. Walsh (2006) lists four basic choices of data recording: audiorecording, videorecording, observation and narrative. The choice of type of the recording would depend on the nature of the study and questions asked. As Walsh states, audiorecordings are the most convenient means of recording commonly used to capture interaction in classrooms. On

16

Dogan Yuksel and İhsan Unaldi

the other hand, videorecording would provide visual images of the participants, if that type of information is necessary. They would also help the researcher identify the turns and names of the speakers which might be quite problematic sometimes due to the quality of the audiorecording devices used. Most of the audio or videorecording sessions are complemented with field notes taken as a non-participant observer in the classroom settings. The main aim of using multiple data collection techniques is getting various perspectives of the same classroom phenomenon to increase the credibility of the study. Fieldnotes usually involve detailed impressions of the researcher’s intuitions, impression, and questions as they emerge. Audio and video recording help the researcher analyze language use in greater depth later and involve outside researchers in the consideration of the data (Mackey & Gass 2005). With the help of video and audio recordings, almost all of the interaction in the classroom can be available for analysis, and this enables the researcher to focus on other dynamics in the classroom during observation while taking fieldnotes. We should also keep in mind that, as Evertson and Green (1986) state, the purpose of the observation influences what is observed, and how observations are recorded and analyzed. The research questions and theoretical framework should shape the nature of the observations and how data are collected and analyzed. One caveat we should keep in mind is the first day of recording. On the first recording, some participants might not reflect their ordinary performance because of the presence of the camcorder and/or researcher. Yuksel (2007) reflected the fact that the participants were not comfortable and the uneasiness could also be observed in the transcripts of Week One in his research. However, in coming weeks, the uneasiness faded slowly.

Secondary Data Sources If necessary, secondary data can be collected as well. List of the secondary resources would include, but not limited to, background survey, exam questions, course syllabus, other course related documents, information about the setting obtained from online sources and interview data. These secondary sources can provide some additional information that would not be available through observation or interviewing. For example, the background questionnaire can include some extra information about the students, and their prior English learning experiences. Similarly, exam questions might reveal some

Issues about Conducting Discourse Analysis Research

17

insights regarding what is important to know, in other words, what is needed to be learned from that course. Even though most of the information obtained through secondary data sources may not be directly related to the questions in hand, they might still provide some insights to the researcher.

AFTER DATA COLLECTION The most obvious feeling in discourse analysis studies after data collection for the novice researcher is the feeling of being lost in a vast ocean of data. Once, s/he gets over that feeling, s/he starts the post data collection phase of the study which would include data transcription, data indexing, data reduction and data coding.

Data Transcription Data transcription is one of the most tedious stages of discourse analysis. The researcher can transcribe the data themself or get some help during this process. During the transcription process, one can also plan to use a professional voice recognition software to help them write the conversation down. In the market, different commercial software is available. For a review of some voice recognition tools, you can refer to Honeycutt (2003). For data transcription, there are also some facilitative tools. SoundScriber is one of these media players that aids in transcription of digitized sound files and is available for free under the GNU General Public License. SoundScriber includes special features for transcription besides normal playback features such as those offered by the accessory Media Player (Play, FF, Rew, Pause). More information about SoundScriber can be reached at the following URL http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ebreck/sscriber.html.

Data Indexing Data indexing involves describing the context in which the data occurred (Jacob, 1987 as cited in McCormick, 1997), in other words, where and when the activity took place in the study. As a researcher, one might need to identify the general themes of each recording session (e.g., task, activity or lesson) and give some sub-headings to the transcripts.

18

Dogan Yuksel and İhsan Unaldi The Case of Crushed Petunias

Major activity: Background information Tragedies and Comedies (12.55-14.05) (1.1.2) 01 T So the English actors performed Shakespearean plays. Why? Tragedies or comedies by the way? Shakespeare comedies and Shakespeare tragedies, which ones? 02 S1 Tragedies 03 T Tragedies, very good (++) why? Not comedies, but tragedies. Because, the aim is to---according to the new land--- the aim must be to show the universal truth. So which one lends itself to the universal truth, tragedies or comedies? Figure 1. An example of indexed transcript.

Data analysis is a recursive process, and the researcher needs to do data indexing and data reduction quite frequently on different occasions while dealing with the data.

Data Reduction As Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) recognize, data reduction is an essential and welcome process in qualitative research. Data reduction can take the form of coding, summarizing, paraphrasing, focusing, writing memos and indexing. Miles and Huberman (1984) state that data reduction can occur before, during, as well as, after data collection. Data reduction for the qualitative studies will be extremely important due to the vast amount of data. Based on our research focus and questions we can locate the sections of our data and analyse those according to our research agenda. Here, we can use the definitions and operationalization based on previous literature. After analyzing our own data, we can fine-tune or revise our classifications.

Data Coding Coding is one of the frequently employed techniques in qualitative research. It refers to “organizing data into themes and categories so that they can be used for the purposes of ongoing analysis, interpretation and conclusion drawing” (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 253).

Issues about Conducting Discourse Analysis Research

19

Table 1. A sample transcription key Symbol T Nu, Es, Fe, Er… S1, S2, S3, S4 [] (+) [ ] [Tr.] [Fr.] [Ch.]

Meaning Teacher Turns Identified Student Turns Unidentified Student Turns Extra Information Pause (number of ‘+’ indicates the seconds) Overlapping speech Utterances in Turkish, French, Chinese

In practice, coding involves attributing codes to units of data that represent the themes and categories either previously determined or that emerge from the data during analysis. While coding and analyzing the data, deductive or inductive approaches can be used (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). With top-down deductive coding, the analyst begins with a set of codes created before engagement with data begins. With bottom-up inductive coding, the codes emerge as the analyst examines the data. We can also use a combination of these techniques where we might have a tentative list of codes which take its final form after examining the data. Choice of the codes and constructs is usually motivated by the previous literature and the theoretical framework of the study. We should specifically prepare coding manuals that will guide us during coding as it will also help us during interrater reliability process. A sample coded episode is provided in Figure 2. We should also prepare a Transcription Key that will help our readers understand the main conventions we use in our transcription. This readerfriendly manual will also help our external rater while coding our data. A sample Transcription Key is provided in Table 1.

Interrater Reliability Interrater reliability is an important part of classroom discourse research. After the researcher(s) codes their data, usually external raters are asked to code some portions of the data. Researchers usually randomly select 10-20 % of their data. In his study, Yuksel (2007) used a website (e.g., www.random. org) that generated random numbers. Random.org provides true random

20

Dogan Yuksel and İhsan Unaldi

numbers through the Internet. The website claims that all numbers are tested statistically and the results are available in real-time.

Figure 2. An example of color-coded episode.

Issues about Conducting Discourse Analysis Research

21

After randomly selecting some portions of the data, a training manual that includes the definitions of each construct together with at least two examples can be used to help external raters. After the raters read the training manual, they can meet with the researcher and discuss some problematic issues. Usually correlation percentages are given in studies by using a score of Cronbach Alpha which is a coefficient of internal consistency.

CONCLUSION In this chapter, we have reviewed some practical challenges about conducting a classroom interactional analysis study for novice researchers by mostly referring to our previous research experiences with the inspiration that this rough guideline will help budding researchers be more familiar with the basics of a discourse study. One should also keep in mind that some of the suggestions put forward here might not be applicable to different conceptualizations of discourse analysis approach.

REFERENCES Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Evertson, C. M., & Green, J. L. (1986). Observation as inquiry and method. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 162-213). New York: Macmillan. Honeycutt, L. (2003). Researching the use of voice recognition writing software. Computers and Composition, 20, 77-95. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McCormick, D. E. (1997). Using teacher questions to scaffold language learning in an ESL classroom: A sociocultural case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. Miles, M. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

22

Dogan Yuksel and İhsan Unaldi

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. London and New York: Routledge. Yuksel, D. (2007). Nature of literary discussions in an advanced-level foreign language literature course in a Turkish EFL setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.

APPENDIX

In: Discourse Perspectives … Editors: D. Yuksel and B. Inan

ISBN: 978-1-62808-867-0 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

CORPUS LINGUISTICS AND DISCOURSE STUDIES Ihsan Unaldi University of Gaziantep, Faculty of Education, ELT Department, Turkey

ABSTRACT Discourse studies mainly try to go beyond sentence boundaries and analyze natural language in use. The context where written, spoken or any kind of semiotic event take place is a major concern in discourse analysis. Corpus linguistics is also related to the real language in use by making analyses of large collections of written or spoken language samples. Apart from corpus linguistics’ being more of a methodology rather than a discipline per se, the main difference between the two is that while structural and lexical patterns are in the foreground in corpus linguistics, discourse analysis embraces the idea that there is more than meets the eye in the real language in use. In this chapter, possibilities of integrating corpus methodology into discourse studies are sought.



[email protected].

24

Ihsan Unaldi

INTRODUCTION Looking for patterns is innate in human conscious. When we ponder what we really mean by referring to something as meaningful, we might realize that we are actually saying ‘There is a pattern there’. In terms of language in use, this is something we naturally do without noticing most of the time. When people are discoursing, they are actually creating or revealing patterns, or they are trying to catch patterns created by other interlocutors. Once we catch these patterns in a conversation, we enjoy a good chat with friends; otherwise, we seem to fall short of the meaning we always expect. The term discourse analysis has been in use since the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century and is directly related to the nature of written or spoken registers where contexts, purposes, interlocutors or outcomes are bound to emerge. Concepts which are beyond the language in use like conversational rules (spoken register) or the contextual functions and structures of a text (written register) are all in the domain of discourse analysis. On the other hand, corpus linguistics came into being through the need to understand the patterns in ecclesiastical texts that we might have been missing. These texts sure didn’t lack any context or purpose, but the scholars had to go the extra mile for a deeper understanding; they were searching for patterns in these texts. As one might guess, the discourse-corpus intersection should, to a considerable extent, relate to patterns in written or spoken registers. One of the ways which discourse analysis operates is by focusing on functions and structures of texts composed of sentences which are regarded as beyond or above what they appear. This is where text-linguistics comes into the scene. The focal point of this chapter will be the domain where discourse analysis and corpus linguistics intersect and its potentials to yield a better understanding of non-nativeness in second language texts.

DISCOURSE AND THE CONTEXT OF LANGUAGE TEACHING Decades ago, when the importance of real language directed linguists towards new perspectives in language teaching/learning, topics such as speech acts, functions and notions and communicative competence were being discussed (see Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969 and Halliday, 1978). The newly

Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Studies

25

embraced perspective was that people and societies used language to fulfill their needs to communicate and this language was quite different from the ones that were being taught in language classes. Ignoring the external communicative functions or purpose of the real language started to make less and less sense to theoreticians and practitioners. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) could be counted as one of the outcomes of these discussions. With authenticity and communication at the center of the new paradigm, authentic reading and listening materials were integrated into language classrooms, and meaningless drills and made-up texts were discredited. Since then, discourse studies have played an important role in shaping the language learning/teaching process. However, this seemingly simple cause-effect relationship is neither linear nor one-dimensional. The relationship between discourse analysis and language teaching is covered in other chapters of this volume. The topic itself is a broad one with many aspects, and one of them concerns contrastive rhetoric and how it contributes to discourse analysis in terms of EFL.

Contrastive and Intercultural Rhetoric In classical terms, rhetoric is concerned with the art of persuasion and oratorical authority. The first sense of rhetoric was related to the speeches made by dispossessed landowners arguing their claims in front of other citizens, which dates back to the 5th century BC. In time, it gained philosophical connotations. The trinity, ethos (the authority of the speaker), pathos (the emotional state of the speaker) and logos (the rationality of the language used), was defined by Aristotle and has been widely used. By 16th century, rhetoric had started to appear in letter writing as an ornament, and ironically, the paradigm that regards language as a reflection of reality has made a shift towards the understanding that language actually shapes or determines reality. On the other hand, the term Contrastive Rhetoric, which is a relatively a more recent topic of interest, simply discusses the possibility (or the impossibility) of inter-cultural transfer of all available linguistic and cultural means which is supposed to yield native-like second/foreign language writing. Basically, contrastive rhetoric refers to the effects of first language and culture over the second one. The idea to analyze and reveal these effects dates back to 1960’s when it was realized that the ability to write grammatically acceptable writing in a target language doesn’t necessarily mean producing acceptable

26

Ihsan Unaldi

texts in the target culture. After analyzing 600 texts written by EFL learners, Kaplan (2001) reached to the conclusion that these texts actually contained indirectness and inductive reasoning, which was actually one of the characteristics of oriental cultures and languages. In addition to this, English expository writing is thought to be linear in discourse organization whereas other languages are dubbed digressive. This promoted the idea that EFL learners were actually writing in their own language but just using the English lexicon. As Kaplan (2001) puts it, A fallacy of some repute and some duration is the one which assumes that because a student can write an adequate essay in his native language, he can necessarily write an adequate essay in a second language. That this assumption is fallacious has become more and more apparent as English-as-a-second-language courses have proliferated at American colleges and universities in recent years. Foreign students who have mastered syntactic structures have still demonstrated inability to compose adequate themes, term papers, theses, and dissertations. Instructors have written, on foreign-student papers, such comments as: "The material is all here, but it seems somehow out of focus," or "Lacks organization," or "Lacks cohesion." And these comments are essentially accurate. The foreign-student paper is out of focus because the foreign student is employing a rhetoric and a sequence of thought which violate the expectations of the native reader (Kaplan, 2001, p. 13).

Kaplan (2001) relates this issue to the idea that the thought sequence of English, being no better or worse than any other language, is a descendent of Platonic-Aristotelian thought system shaped by Romans, Medieval European and Western thinkers later to come. This point of view actually reflects the basic idea behind the linguistic relativity theory in which language is regarded as an integral system of the human mind. That is to say, individuals perceive and render the outside world mostly through their native language. With this supposition in mind, many urban legends about language were created. Some claimed that the Eskimo language has more expressions related to snow than any other language on earth, or it was seriously discussed that some Native American languages lack the concept of time making its user see a totally different world from the users of other languages. One famous story even tells us that once an Amazonian tribe, the Pirahã, gave a devout Christian missioner, Daniel Everett, hard times because each time he talked about the Christian god, the tribesmen repeatedly asked him when or how he met this god, or they wanted him to change the subject and talk about mundane

Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Studies

27

endeavors. It has been speculated that their native language lacks the concept of the past that the English language possesses, and this so-called deficiency hinders its speakers from talking about the things they heard happened long time ago because they are living in the present. It is no surprise that such discussions have given rise to a more empathetic standpoint in terms of language and culture. After taking into consideration this empathetic standpoint and the accumulated research outcomes, Connor (2002) suggested the term intercultural rhetoric instead of contrastive rhetoric. The rationale behind this reconceptualization was mostly related to the criticism of contrastive rhetoric because of its insensitivity to cultural differences. In this respect, labeling EFL learners depending on their L1 backgrounds didn’t seem right (Spack, 1997); the perception of culture as something discrete and discontinuous was criticized (Zamel, 1997); and focusing merely and too much on texts and disregarding other aspects of writing were opened to discussion (Scollon, 1997). In terms of contrastive rhetoric, learners were supposed to fulfill the expectations of the native speakers of the target language rather than freely expressing their own ideas through their own cultural backgrounds. These discussions have raised questions about the validity of such an approach and a common idea emerged concerning a need to become more aware and sensitive to the intercultural aspects of second language writing. There was a shift from analyzing what texts mean to understanding how they construct meaning. In order to guide the analysis of writing from this standpoint, Bazerman and Prior (2004) posed three questions:   

What does the text talk about? How do texts influence audiences? How do texts come into being?

Through these questions they wanted to put emphasis on the practices people are engaged while trying to create texts. It was actually an appreciation of the social contexts by which external communicative functions are realized. In the same way, the fallacy of thinking the author of a text sitting in front of a computer screen or a piece of paper on a desk is highlighted and it is claimed that some genres of writing, especially academic ones, are actually an accumulation formed by thousands of different writers in different times.

28

Ihsan Unaldi

CORPUS LINGUISTICS To begin with, corpus linguistics is mainly a method to carry out linguistic analyses but not an independent discipline per se. For instance, a language teacher realizes that EFL learners tend to use the phrase ‘I think’ too frequently. Hundreds of EFL essays at hand could be analyzed to see whether it is an idiosyncrasy or not. The question at this point is: What counts as too many? To answer such a question, every instance of the phrase ‘I think’ should be counted. However, since it would be very time consuming and meaningless without comparisons, the results would be questionable. Suppose that a processor does the counting by taking into account millions of words and makes comparisons, and then the hunch stemming from an idiosyncrasy could turn into a statistically-supported pattern. Basically, this ‘millions of words’ is called a corpus. Corpus could be defined as a collection of texts or speech samples stored on a computer or a digital device. These texts are collected systematically and in accordance with certain principles. The contexts provided by corpus are rich because they consist of millions of words, and they are natural because they are collected without any modifications, which means that the language samples collected include human errors like misspellings, mispronunciations, hesitations, false-starts etc. Corpus linguistics emerged when language was regarded as something observable. The first attempts to reveal what is more than meets the eye in texts came from the biblical scholars in the 13th century. They indexed the words in the Christian Bible manually, created lists to help other scholars understand it better. The technical term concordance also dates back to this era. The prefix con- means ‘together or with’, and the root word cor means ‘heart’ in Latin. It embraces the idea that words alone hardly mean anything, and a deeper insight of a text could be gained by evaluating the words that occur in the same context. This kind of insight becomes possible only through systematic observations of the language. The perspective regarding language as observable has been around for a relatively long period of time, with some paradigm shifts in time especially after the distinction between parole and langue was made by Ferdinand de Saussure (Finch, 2005). The term parole refers to the real language in use, and langue is regarded as a much more complex system in which parole is produced. Similarly, according to Noam Chomsky, human knowledge and especially language take their roots from an unconscious system (Saussure’s langue) which enables utterances in any language; a model which is actually

Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Studies

29

based on human competence. However, there are also supporters of a performance based model of language which takes into consideration the actual psychological and physical processes involved during language production (Saussure’s parole). In this discussion, it was once stated that “… information about the speaker-hearer’s competence … is neither presented for direct observation nor extractable from data by inductive procedures of any known sort.” (Chomsky, 1965: p. 18). From this perspective, it is quite understandable for Chomsky to see corpus data as junk (Aarts, 2001, p. 6). As a counter discussion, corpus linguists believe that a word in or on itself does not carry any meaning, but the meaning is often made through several words in a sequence (Sinclair, 1991); and “[t]he aim is not to study idiosyncratic details of performance which are, by chance, recorded in a corpus. On the contrary, a corpus reveals what frequently recurs, sometimes hundreds or thousands of times, and cannot possibly be due to chance” (Stubbs, 2004, p. 111). These discussions are still going on, and as digital data storage is becoming easier, digitalized and compiled language data is also becoming more and more accessible. The Brown Corpus, which was compiled in 1960’s and initially contained digitalized documents comprising of a million words, has reached a total of 100 million words and is widely in use today. With the emergence and development of optical character recognition systems (OCR), tremendous amount of language data started to accumulate. By using OCR scanners, any type of orthography can now be digitally stored and processed. The internet, which is theoretically a kind of corpora in linguistics term, also contributed to the accumulation of language data. After the introduction of the Internet, large language samples started flowing online through emails, websites and personal blogs. This immense growth also caused problems about interpretation. Less wasn’t more, but dealing with such colossal language data was, and still is, beyond human capacity. To solve this issue, numerous free or commercial software packages and online tools have been developed. Microconcord, WordSmith Tools, Coh-metrix, AntConc and Statistica are among these tools, and they are widely known and used.

How Do These Software Work? Generally, the software mentioned above are numerically oriented, which means that they actually depend on word counts. Digitalized language samples are used to create datasets and structured queries are carried out in these

30

Ihsan Unaldi

datasets. For example, we want to learn the frequencies of the words used in Romeo and Juliet i.e. which words are used more than the others. Digitalized text of Romeo and Juliet is the dataset here and the software WordSmith is making the query. After the process we get the screen in Figure 1. In Figure 1, the words used in Romeo and Juliet are ordered according to their frequencies. As usual, ‘the’ is at the top of the list and is followed by ‘and’ and ‘to’. This is actually a very typical process in terms of word counts. The aim is to see whether the word frequencies in any given text differ significantly or not. For example, several datasets could be compared to see if they contain significantly different word types. If we want to test the hypothesis that spoken register contains more verbs than written register, then we will have to make word counts to see the differences among the word types that our dataset includes. The critical point here is that these software will hardly recognize the word types unless the dataset is tagged accordingly.

Retrieved [[11.10.2012] English6/index.html.

from

http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/step_by_step_

Figure 1. Frequency wordlist for Romeo and Juliet.

Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Studies

Retrieved [11.10.2012] English6/index.html.

from

31

http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/step_by_step_

Figure 2. Collocations of the word ‘ago’ ordered by frequency.

These kinds of software are also used to look for collocations in a text. Collocation is a term used to refer to the lexical neighborhood of a given word. For example, we want to learn what other words occur together with the word ago. With the help of a processor we can get a statistical picture of the words that tend to co-occur with ago as in Figure 2. As is clear in Figure 2, years happens to be the most frequent word collocating with the target word ago. In the list, items such as long, months and weeks also stand out as the immediate neighbors of the target word. Such analysis is supposed to help EFL learners avoid the fallacy of considering lexical items as isolated units. Furthermore, this statistical standpoint is very likely to raise the perception that lexical units are not of equal importance.

Retrieved [5.15.2010] from www.cohmetrix.com. Figure 3. A Screenshot from Coh-metrix.

Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Studies

33

One example of online inquiry systems is Coh-metrix (McNamara et al., 2005). Developed by a team of researchers from the University of Memphis, Coh-metrix is an online database which is used in text analysis at multiple levels. During calculations, it makes use of five main indices: readability scores, general word and text information, syntax, referential and semantic aspects and situation model dimensions. Each of these indices has several subindices. Although the database does some kind of counting, Coh-metrix cannot be regarded as a word counter in classical terms. It is an analytical digital tool which can single out each aspect of a text from the others and produces numerical values. On the website (see the screenshot in Figure 3) an input field is used to make multi-dimensional inquiries for a text. In Figure 3, the text-input field is on the left with some other fields required to be filled. After submitting the text, an output field appears on the right where the numerical results concerning the indices mentioned before are displayed. The outcomes can be transformed into popular spreadsheet software, and a wide range of calculations become possible (see Graesser et al., 2004 for details).

Corpus Annotation Annotation is defined as the practice of adding interpretative linguistic information to a corpus (Leech, 2005). Digitalized text in a database can be regarded as raw data, and it could be discussed that what we can glean out of it is quite limited. However, if one wants deeper insights as to the patterns in a given collection of texts, annotation is needed. There are different types of annotation like part-of-speech (POS), lemmatization, syntactical parsing, semantic (domain classifications) and coreference (discourse). If a researcher wants to focus on parts-of-speech, s/he has to tag the lexical items in the corpus according to their lexical categories. Similarly, if our concern relates to types and tokens, we need a dataset tagged for lemmas. The advantages of such an endeavor could be questioned. The deeper understanding about a specific language that we could reach aside, suppose that we have a corpus made up of a language we don’t speak. If the corpus is annotated, to some extent, it will be easier to make deductions concerning the language at hand. Corpus annotation helps us make interpretation from what is readily available in the texts. At this point, it is clear that human mind and its way of understanding a text is the issue (Leech, 1997). This is why, some researchers, like Sinclair (1992), advocate a minimal annotation and suggest that we should let the texts speak for themselves because interpretations are likely to vary from person to person.

34

Ihsan Unaldi

The discussions as to whether these types of software and the outcomes they provide will help us gain new perspective on language are still going on. Some still claim that to better understand language in general, we should focus on the real outcomes and theorize accordingly; some others, with the Chomskyan perspective in mind, believe that the mentioned outcome is insignificant and to an extent messy; therefore studying the cognitive processes is the only way out to a valid ground about language in general. Apparently, taking such a dichotomous standpoint wouldn’t solve many problems. Instead, by making use of tangible data, it is much more reasonable to develop a but-ithelps attitude. It is obvious that just by analyzing spoken or written language samples we cannot say much about the core mechanisms of a supposed language organ, but this kind of analysis could help us see patterns in languages that we are dealing with. With the abovementioned attitude, applications from different areas of study derived from corpus linguistics; among them the most noteworthy ones are lexicography, translation, stylistics, grammar, gender studies, forensic linguistics, computational linguistics and language teaching (Tognini-Bonelli, 2001). The important point here is not what has been listed but what is actually missing: discourse analysis. Discourse analysts have been slower in making use of what corpus linguistics has to offer because of the seemingly decontextualized nature of text fragments that corpora provide (Thornbury, 2010). In this respect, language samples without clear contexts, simply lacking the answer to the question ‘Who is saying what to whom?’, hardly overlap with the theoretical framework on which discourse analysis is based.

LEARNER CORPORA: A NEWER PERSPECTIVE Learner corpus (LC) simply means the collection of written or spoken language samples produced by learners. These samples are compiled by using certain criteria. Parameters such as learners’ proficiency levels, genders, ages and nationalities are taken into account in the compiling process. The idea of systematically compiling learner corpus is often attributed to Sylviane Granger and her team’s studies dating back to early 1990’s. Since then, numerous studies have been carried out. Granger (2008) summarizes the results of these studies and establishes certain points that need clarification. To begin with, she separates learner corpora from native ones in terms of their sources. It means that the data is gathered from English language learners from different L1 backgrounds like Spanish, Swedish or Chinese. On the other hand, written or

Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Studies

35

spoken productions of EFL learners from countries where English language has an official status are not considered valid. The context which learner productions are taken from is another topic of concern. Collecting and compiling a native English data is mostly uncomplicated as there are no critical issues such as language proficiency level or the structural differences between the native and the target language; however, it is rare for EFL learners to naturally produce written or spoken language samples in English. This is why, tasks like reading aloud, picture descriptions or informal interviews are used to create contexts where language learners can produce such data. At this point, it is reasonable to suppose that there are more written data than spoken because, mostly for practical reasons, written data from EFL learners is comparatively easy to collect and digitalize. Another issue in LC collection is the size which roughly refers to the total number of words it includes. Generally speaking, there is a common agreement that “small is not beautiful, it is simply a limitation” (Sinclair, 2004: p. 189). However, sometimes even a collection of only one learner’s essays might be of great asset. In addition, Sinclair (2005) states that small scale corpora are particularly useful in Language for Specific Purposes (ESP) in vocabulary instruction. Many of the studies making use of learner corpora contain a kind of contrastive rhetoric whereby native essays are compared/contrasted with the learners‘. Interlanguage grammar, error analysis, textual coherence/cohesion and lexical variety are among the common topics of concern. One of the seminal studies trying to determine common deficiencies in EFL writings was Hinkel’s (2002). She analyzed 68 lexical, syntactic and rhetorical features of L2 text. The corpus that she studied on included texts written by advanced learners of English from six different languages: Arabic, Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese. By doing so, she wanted to obtain a broader comparison of EFL learners coming from different L1 backgrounds in terms of written register. According to Hinkel, even after years of study in English, the learners still lack some aspects that native speakers have. The results of her study indicated that L2 writers have limited lexical and syntactic repertoires, which led EFL learners to produce simplistic texts rooted in conversational discourse in English language. The results also showed that there is a big gap between L1 and L2 texts in terms of basic academic writing. EFL learners were apparently confused about or maybe unaware of the distinctions between spoken and written discourse. That’s why they transfer one register into the other, and this makes their written productions look non-native.

36

Ihsan Unaldi

The Case of Adverbial Conjunctions in Learner Corpora One aspect of the non-nativeness in L2 texts concerns adverbial conjunctions in English. According to Halliday & Hasan (1976) conjunctions is one of the four cohesive devices in a text which express certain meanings with a presupposition of the existence of other related components in the discourse. From this respect, using a conjunction is both related to mental process (coherence) and textual representations of it (cohesion). The importance doesn’t lie in the conjunctions themselves but in the contextual relationships they express. From a grammatical point of view, conjunctions are generally considered in three different categories. Coordinating conjunctions connect the ideas in two independent clauses as in (1), (1) We had a board meeting, but it was postponed.

Subordinating conjunctions, on the other hand, connect the ideas in a dependent clause with an independent one as in (2), (2) Although we were strictly told to cancel all our plans, one of the board members is abroad.

Sentence connectors express the relationship between/among two or more ideas present in more than two different independent clauses (3). (3) Now we have to rearrange the whole week. In addition, our schedule is already very tight next week.

For many EFL learners, studying English conjunctions isn’t an easy task, nor is trying to teach them always a fruitful one. For one thing, the learners have a tendency of regarding similar conjunctions as interchangeable units. After being instructed on adversatives like but, however or nevertheless, with the assumption that they all mean the same thing, they use one conjunction instead of another creating contexts that might look like breaches in discourse to the trained or native eye. Take the statements (4) and (5) for example; (4) My father thinks that I would make a good engineer, but I don’t. (5) My father thinks that I would make a good engineer, nevertheless I don’t.

Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Studies

37

The second statement above (5) seems to be lacking proper usage of the conjunction nevertheless. The conjunctions but and nevertheless are generally categorized under the same group as adversatives or contrastive conjunctions. EFL instructors do this in order to facilitate things for the learners during the recognition phase. However, when the need to produce in the target language arises, most EFL learners fail to deal with conjunctions. Together with their teachers, they might even get more confused with statements like the following (6). (6) The Sharks played with two men in the penalty box, but nevertheless managed to score.

Another important point about conjunctions is that the same conjunctive structure can be used to fulfill different purposes in different genres (Ford and Thompson, 1986). For example, the following statement includes the adverbial if clause as a polite directive (7); (7) I’ll be happy if you can just turn the music down a bit.

Teaching conditionals in a mechanical way by referring to types seems to be handy to EFL instructors, but isolating these structures from their contexts is very likely to have negative effects over the learning process in the long run. As one might guess, teaching conjunctions is not as straightforward as it might seem. Of course this will remain just an insight unless supported by tangible data. However, the traces of this problem can actually be found in learner corpora. In one corpus-based study, Schleppegrell (1996) analyzed texts written by EFL learners with an aim to reveal strategies for conjunctions that are typical of spoken English, and the focus of the study was the conjunction because. The participants were mainly Asian immigrants who had lived in the US for different lengths of time with advanced level of English proficiency. The results of the analyses revealed that the EFL learners in the study used the conjunction because more frequently than native speakers of English. An interesting parallelism between uses of because clauses in spoken English and ESL writing was also present. It was considered as an indication of how EFL learners transfer spoken register into their written productions. Similarly, Altenberg & Tapper (1998) wanted to determine how advanced Swedish EFL learners use connectives in their argumentative essays. The learner data was from the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) and

38

Ihsan Unaldi

the reference corpus was gathered from essays written by American university students whose native language is English. Their focus was on three types of connectives: adverbial conjuncts (e.g. therefore, in particular); certain style and content disjuncts (e.g. actually, indeed); and some lexical discourse markers (e.g. result, compare). The results revealed that there is a significant plethora of adverbial connectives in the essays written by the learner group. In addition, this group also used slightly more types of connectives than the native speakers of English. In another study, which also used corpus-informed methodology, Tankó (2004) analyzed learners‘ written productions consisting of 93 argumentative essays which were written in an examination by EFL learners. The learners were native speakers of Hungarian and their ages varied between 20 and 24. Their essays, which were composed of approximately 500 words, were compared with a reference native corpus, and the results of the analysis showed a comparative overuse of adverbial connectors. Supposedly, the rationale behind this overuse was that the Hungarian language does not require the overt marking of relations between linguistic units of the text. This structural difference is thought to be the reason why the EFL instructors in this specific context put more emphasis on the explicit teaching of adverbial connectors. The abovementioned corpus-based analyses represent just one facet of how corpus methodology could be integrated into discourse analysis and they might provide us with a better understanding of EFL learners‘ written productions by taking into account the quantity of English adverbial conjunctions. It’s reasonable to suppose that the overuse of these conjunctions create an unsteady discourse in EFL learners’ writings. Besides, this overuse doesn’t seem to be of any help in terms of cohesion which is actually the major concern with conjunctions. The way we teach adverbial conjunctions could be questioned here. As was mentioned before, context-free categorization of conjunctions might be creating false pictures in the learners‘ minds. It is interesting that in our native languages we don’t normally use conjunctions with similar meanings interchangeably. Depending on the discourse context, conjunctions seem to fall into their places naturally. On the other hand, EFL learners seem to be enjoying English conjunctions more than needed, which is supposedly not the case in their native languages. As has been discussed so far, corpus linguistics is a methodology that could prove useful for discourse analysts. Emerged from a need to better understand scholastic texts hundreds of years ago, corpus linguistics has

Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Studies

39

gained systematicity over the years with the advancement of digital technology and related domains such as the Internet. Data is still building up and one of the corpora, COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English), has recently reached up to 450 million words in total. Discussions as to the usefulness of collecting authentic language samples are also going on. The idea that human language cannot be evaluated solely depending on the oral or written outputs takes its roots from the Chomskyan perspective that regards human language as a complicated system and claims that it should be analyzed as such. Nevertheless, the domain of language learning/teaching seems to have benefited from what corpus linguistics has to offer as a methodology through the results of analyses gleaned from learner corpora. Many aspects of learner language have been revealed thanks to these corpora. One potential aspect, language learner discourse, still awaits to be discovered through qualitative and quantitative methodology and the latter is likely to be realized by corpus analysis. In terms of corpus linguistics, discourse analysis and English language teaching, the next thing to do is actually quite clear. What we need is more discourse-friendly collections of learner corpora with more discourse annotations to help us better understand the core aspects of both written and spoken EFL discourse.

REFERENCES Aarts, B. (2001). Corpus linguistics, Chomsky and fuzzy tree fragments. In C. Mair and M. Hundt (Eds.), Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory (5–13). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Altenberg, B. & Tapper, M. (1998). The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners‘ written English. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (80–93). London: Addison Wesley Longman. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bazerman, C. & Prior, P. (Eds.). (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly 36: 493-510.

40

Ihsan Unaldi

Finch, G. (2005). Key concepts in language and linguistics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ford, C. E. & Thompson, S. A. (1986). Conditionals in discourse A text-based study from English in Traugott, E. C., Meulen. A, T., Reilly, J. S., and Ferguson C. A. (Eds.), On conditionals (353-372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Granger, S. (2008). Learner corpora. In A. Lüdeling, M. Kytö, (Eds.) Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (259–275). Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh– Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. 36, 193–202. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Longman. Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hughes, R. and McCarthy, M. (1998). From sentence to discourse: discourse grammar and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 32(2): 263287. Kaplan, R. (2001). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Silva, T. & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.), Landmark Essays on ESL Writing (11-25). Mahwah: NJ, Lawrence. Leech, G. (1997). Introducing Corpus Annotation. In: Richard Garside, Geoffrey Leech and Tony McEnery, (Eds.): Corpus Annotation. London, New York: Longman. Leech, G. (2005). Adding Linguistic Annotation, in Wynne, M. (Eds.), Developing Linguistic Corpora: a Guide to Good Practice. Oxford: Oxbrow Books. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., Cai, Z., & Graesser, A. (2005). Coh-Metrix version 1.4. Retrieved [12.1.2012], from http//:cohmetrix. memphis.edu. Schleppegrell, M. (1996). Conjunction in spoken English and ESL writing. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 271–285. Scollon, R. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric, contrastive poetics, or perhaps something else? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 352-363. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Studies

41

Sinclair, J. (1992). The automatic analysis of corpora. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Directions in Corpus Linguistics (Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sinclair, J. M. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. London: Routledge. Sinclair, J. M. (2005). Corpus and text: Basic principles. In M. Wynne (Ed.), Developing linguistic corpora: A guide to good practice (1–16). Oxford: Oxbow Books. Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 765-774. Stubbs, M. (2004). Language corpora. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (106–132). London: Blackwell Publishing. Thornbury, S. (2010). What can a corpus tell us about discourse? In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge. Tankó, G. (2004). The Use of Adverbial Connectors in Hungarian University Students’ Argumentative Essays. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching (157–181). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 341-343.

In: Discourse Perspectives … Editors: D. Yuksel and B. Inan

ISBN: 978-1-62808-867-0 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 4

ACTION RESEARCH: THE EFFECTS OF TEACHER ORAL DISCOURSE ON EFL WRITING Wayne Trotman School of Foreign Languages, Katip Çelebi University, Izmir, Turkey

ABSTRACT Research on the effects of feedback on EFL writing is well documented (Ferris, 1997, Ferris 1999), although Hyland and Hyland (2006:186) state: ‘Given how few studies have been carried out, little is known about the relationship between teacher and student discourse and teacher feedback in conferences and student revision’. The qualitative action research study outlined in this chapter addresses this imbalance. It concerns teacher-conferencing on academic essays written in a higher education context in Turkey. Based on a model of interrelated practices for action research suggested by Burns (2005), it investigates the relationship between discourse features of the conference and alterations made in follow-up drafts. Working with a constructivist approach to data, the study outlines how three Turkish teachers analysed transcripts of themselves conferencing in order to identify desirable features. Using such features, a second AR team repeated this procedure to investigate 

E-mail: [email protected].

44

Wayne Trotman the relationship between the conference and amendments to follow-up drafts. The chapter outlines practical action research and conferencing. It looks in particular at the effect of two specific features of conferencing discourse: teacher-eliciting and the use of the L1.

INTRODUCTION Burns (2010) illustrates the popularity of action research (AR) projects worldwide, and the value to ELT practitioners of AR outcomes. Studies into the effects of feedback on EFL/ESL writing are well documented, in particular in articles by Ferris (1997 & 1998) and at book length by Hyland and Hyland (2006). In contrast, while few accounts of AR projects looking at the effects of feedback on writing seem to appear in the research literature, even fewer involving AR or any other research method appear to have looked at the effects on EFL/ESL writing of perhaps the most interactive method of feedback, that of teacher-student oral conferencing (from hereon, ‘conferencing’). This chapter analyses the impact on revision drafts of two specific features of conferencing discourse: teacher-eliciting and the use of the L1.

LITERATURE REVIEW: THE ROLE OF FEEDBACK IN APPROACHES TO TEACHING WRITING However time-consuming feedback provision may be for teachers, it is generally agreed to be helpful towards developing writing skills. Learners tend to view feedback as desirable, even crucial, and value it as a means of assistance. Investigations into its effectiveness have flourished in recent years, although conclusions surrounding feedback types and their degrees of effectiveness in terms of improvements in writing on the whole tend to vary or conflict. Although a variety of means are available for the provision of feedback, such as error-correction, and teacher-written commentary, commenting on conferencing, Hyland and Hyland (2006: 186) conclude that: ‘Given how few studies have been carried out, little is known about the relationship between teacher and student discourse and teacher feedback in conferences and student revision.’ Goldstein and Conrad (1990) noted how revisions appeared to occur when they had been negotiated, while not going into the specifics of which features

Action Research

45

assisted such revisions. Patthey Chavez and Ferris (1997) found that all student revisions were conference related, while two other findings were that the same treatment in the conference does not generate the same response from all students, and that what they term the ‘divergent backgrounds’ students bring to it may affect the conference. (1997: 51). More recently, working with advanced writers, in terms of specific features of conferencing that impact successfully on revised drafts, Weissberg (2006) found that the observable discourse mechanism of dialogic ‘scaffolding’ (verbal support for the learner), in particular through questioning and phrase repetition provided salient means of assistance, although he concludes (2006: 262) “the impact of scaffolding on students’ later written drafts remains to be determined”. This chapter addresses the point made by Hyland and Hyland above by examining and outlining the role of two specific discourse features: teachereliciting and the use of the mutual L1. For each of these features, three extracts from data generated during the research are analysed. In terms of its findings concerning the use of these features, I believe the points made will prove valuable to teachers of writing engaging in conferencing. The full-length version of this study from which this chapter draws its data is a doctoral thesis for The University of Warwick (UK), while an expanded version of this chapter also appears in ELTED 14.1 (2011).

An Action Research Framework While variations of Lewin’s original concept of AR (1946) have been proposed, the best known is the model by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) which consists of a cycle of plan - act - observe - reflect, although Burns (2005) points out how critics such as Elliott (1991) believe Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) over-represent action research ‘as a series of fixed and predictable steps.’ Believing it to offer more flexibility within an AR approach, this study implemented Burns’ (2005) contrasting and more detailed framework of what she terms ‘interrelated experiences.’ This appears below in Figure 1. 1 exploring → 2 identifying → 3 planning → 4 data collecting → 5 analysing / reflecting → 6 hypothesising / speculating → 7 intervening → 8 observing → 9 reporting → 10 writing → 11 presenting Figure 1. Burns’ (2005) suggested framework for AR.

46

Wayne Trotman

METHODOLOGY The qualitative study outlined in this chapter was carried out in Turkey in a university preparatory year writing context. Following an investigative phase, it involved two AR teams which, apart from myself, consisted of Turkish teachers of writing. The study investigated the benefits to student writers of oral feedback on their work. It encompassed one complete AR cycle with two main stages, in this chapter referred to as Stages One and Two, each involving differing groups of teacher and student participants. With regard to teachers, Stage One was carried out by two males (N and Ö) and one female teacher (S), all experienced in teaching writing. Stage Two consisted of myself, plus S, the female teacher from Stage One, with the addition of another female (E). As each teacher at each stage provided oral feedback on the essays of two students from their classes, the study thus involved twelve preparatory class students at lower- and intermediate-levels. Written permission was obtained from each student for their names to appear in the eventual public document. Although this chapter refers to a ‘framework’, it would perhaps be more accurate to view its phases as a series of overlapping interrelated experiences. Two points which this chapter identifies are that some phases of the framework tend to work in tandem, and that phase eight (below) appeared to be a dominant feature of the study. This chapter focuses on what happens in the writing conference and its relationship with the revision process. It identifies issues involved when two conferencing features – those of eliciting and the use of the mutual L1 - were used. Such issues concern alterations made by students on follow-up essay drafts. In doing so the chapter responds to Hyland and Hyland (2006: 96), writing on the effects of oral response, and reflects their conclusion that, concerning the features used and moves implemented, ‘..the type of verbal interaction taking place in the conference has an influence on the type of subsequent revision.’

Exploring and Identifying In order to locate patterns regarding feedback on writing at the institution concerned, I initially made audio-recordings of group and follow-up individual interviews with six teachers of writing. My analysis of the transcripts revealed how error-correction and teacher written comments predominated. Also

Action Research

47

revealed, however, was that, although used by only two of the six teachers, conferencing with students about their essays, either on an ad hoc basis during the lesson or in an office following it, appeared to be both mutually appreciated and highly valued. Feeling that the comment by Hyland and Hyland (2006) concerning the paucity of work carried out on conferencing and follow-up revisions to be a research space, I investigated the relationship between features of the discourse of conferencing and their effects on followup drafts. As Extracts 1 to 6 in this chapter indicate, such a relationship is often complex.

Planning and Data Collection The AR team for Stage One conferences consisted of three Turkish teachers of writing: S, Ö and N. I was at this point working from the outside, helping set up and make audio-recordings of each teacher conferencing with the two students they had each selected from their writing classes. I then wrote up and, following member checks for their accuracy, analyzed the resulting six transcripts.

Stage One Data: Analyzing and Reflecting Phases one and two of Burns (2005) framework formed the initial analysis, the first of what eventually became several mini-cycles of analysis (MCA). During this analysis teacher-eliciting was identified as a dominant discourse feature in terms of relationships between initial and follow-up drafts. The three examples below illustrate varying degrees of success using this feature. Evidence of the complexity involved in its use appears in Extract 1 where, after commenting as follows in her conference with student G on a sentence which in fact was entirely correct, Extract 1 S: G: S: G: S: G: S:

so instead of however you can say.. in.. in addition you can say in addition or.. or maybe while you are doing all these meanwhile there’s an alternative to meanwhile..in the... in the.. in the meantime.. both of them are possible..

48

Wayne Trotman

(Student) G altered ‘However, you should also subscribe to an internet server company..’ to ‘Subsequently, you ought to subscribe to an internet company’. It is interesting to note here how G, having himself suggested the alternative ‘meanwhile’, opts in his follow-up draft for something completely different. Also, instead of rewriting a later sentence containing the incorrectly used ‘meanwhile’, he completely omitted the sentence in the second draft. Such points reflect the difficulty in establishing relationships between conference discourse and follow-up revisions.

Hypothesising and Speculating Implementing phases three and four of Burns (2005) indicated the interrelated nature of phases of the framework adopted for this study, as further analysis took place when planning how to proceed based on the outcome of MCA One above, the initial analysis. This further analysis was analysis as reflection rather than as action. At the same time it formed part one of a second MCA.

Intervening The intervention at this point, phase seven in Burns (2005) framework, functioned as a continuation of MCA Two. Due to unforeseen circumstances a new AR team had to be formed. While adaptation of Burns (2005) involved further planning and data collection within the intervention phase, it was noticeable how MCA Two also built upon the previous MCA. The second MCA led to our adapting the framework of Burns (2005). To an extent, MCA Two and Three may belong to the same mini-cycle, and indicate how the borders of such MCAs may not be clearly defined. N and Ö withdrew from the study without notice, both intending to complete their own doctoral studies. Their leaving meant only S remained from the original AR team. At this juncture, and prior to Stage Two conferencing, I decided to alter my role from outside facilitator to that of inside joint data-generator, feeling this was more in the spirit of AR. Following my invitation, E agreed to participate in the study. The study thus proceeded once more with a team of three, this time with two female Turkish colleagues and myself.

Action Research

49

Stage Two Conferencing According to Burns (2005), following the hypothesising/speculating stage, there should then follow a stage involving intervening and, later, observing. In order to intervene and observe what happened when points arising from both analysis and hypothesising concerning future conferencing were implemented, however, it was firstly necessary to re-implement a previous stage, that of planning / data collection. In fact it would appear that in the case of this study the intervening and observing would then, prior to the reporting, writing and presenting stages, be followed by further analysing/reflecting. The remainder of the study involved observing and analysing. This adaptation of the order reflects Burns (2005: 59) who suggests that processes experienced by action researchers are ‘best viewed as necessarily adaptive to the educational situations and circumstances of the participants.’

Observing and Analysing: MCA Three Observing while analysing continued, with each member firstly carrying out an independent analysis of each set of conferencing data prior to collaborating to agree on matters. The outcome of this was MCA Three, which concerned the team working individually on the second set of conferencing data. This analysis reflects a complete contrast to MCA One, during which I assisted three teachers with analysing only the particular conference they were involved in. The outcome of MCA Three was a realisation that we needed further refinements to our analysis, i.e. action that involved adapting our tools for analysis. It also became clear during this MCA that identifying and tabulating points raised and relationships to follow-up drafts was not an easy process. In this regard it is important to point out how, in accordance with qualitative studies and working within the constructivist paradigm, the relationship may not be observed as merely cause-effect. At this point I believed it might assist with the study if, as a team, we firstly identified points indicated by the teacher for discussion in the conference, then located and agreed on sections of the transcript within which each point was covered. With the benefit of hindsight, doing so much earlier in the study would have been extremely helpful. This means of analysis is indicated in Table 1.

50

Wayne Trotman Table 1. Refinements in analytical tools

Draft One Point 6: ‘increase the quantity of penalties’

Turn(s) 50-68

Feature(s) L1

Draft two ‘introduce stricter penalties’

Category One

Observing and Analysing: MCA Four Moving onto the third set of Stage Two conference data resulted in MCA Four, where once again we noted a relationship between teacher-eliciting and alterations on follow-up drafts. A second example of the use of this feature appears in Extract 2: Extract 2 S: F: S: F: S:

what does this sign mean (indicating her symbol denoting a missing word) what is this to erm …..there needs to be a verb a verb there.that’s right..you need something there..what do you think to erm increase

Compared to the complex issues involved in identifying relationships between a conference and alterations in the previous example in Extract 1, data in Extract 2 show perhaps more clearly how F has altered successfully, although in this case S ultimately provided the correct verb. F altered ‘Another solution would be to advertise campaigns..’ to ‘Another solution would be to increase the number of advertising campaigns..’

Conferences Four to Six: MCA Five With the tools for our analysis complete by this point, we were able to analyse the remaining Stage Two conference in the same manner, resulting in a single and final MCA. Analysis of the fourth of our six sets of Stage Two conferencing data was the first part of an MCA that also covered conferences five and six. A more successful example of the use of eliciting and successful alterations in the follow-up draft appears in Extract 3.

Action Research

51

Extract 3 F: S: F:

it doesn’t er seem good how can you make it better I can add..I can add er this essay er discusses these precautions er

Based on the exchange above, in which F and S discuss how to make the essay more reader-friendly, F added to his introductory paragraph ‘In this essay I will try to discuss these precautions.’ Data in Extracts 1 to 3 therefore indicate varying levels of relationships between conference discourse and outcomes on follow-up drafts. The first extract indicates how problematic it may be to detect the relationship between teacher-eliciting and follow-up draft revisions, while the second indicates how eliciting alone may be insufficient. In the third extract however, teachereliciting proved entirely successful.

Stage Two Data Analysis: L1 Use during Eliciting The second discourse feature this chapter looks at is the use during conferencing of Turkish, the mutual L1. Extracts 4 - 6 below analyse the effect of using this feature during conferencing. Early on in the analysis of data generated in Stage Two the AR team noted how limitations concerning the language levels of students with whom to conduct conferences may be at least partially overcome by using the L1. Data from conferences four to six in Stage Two, however, indicate how eliciting in the L1 also appeared to be valuable, although still not without problems. Extract 4 indicates how S did this to correctly elicit ‘strict’. (The Turkish appears in bold, while the correct translation follows). Extract 4 S:

F: S:

more natural English?..instead of increase the quantity ….maybe you can say daha sıkı cezalar.. daha sert cezalar (stricter penalties.. harsher penalties) yes strict..strict yes..that’s right

52

Wayne Trotman

Based on this exchange, F altered ‘First of all government should increase the quantity of penalties‘ to a perhaps more stylistically superior ‘First of all, the government should introduce stricter penalties.’ In Extract 5 (a continuation of Extract 2 above) S uses Turkish to successfully elicit three possible options, of which, as his alterations in Extract 2 indicate, F used ‘number’ in: Another solution would be to increase the number of advertising campaigns..’ Extract 5 S: F: S: F: S:

what of advertising campaigns can you increase …nesini artırabiliriz (what can we increase) say amount mik... sayısı (amount) that’s correct ..sayısı artır (increase the amount) quantity..amount..number that’s right ok so if you say//

In Extract 6 below student F is once again able to build on S’s use of the L1. Extract 6 F: S: F: S: F: S: F: S:

mmm I know what you mean .zorlaştırmak (increase the difficulty) zorlaştırmak yes but how do we say it.. what is this structure yes..I learned it.. you said it in class oh..did I.. ok make it er to make ..to make more difficult but..not more difficult..make difficult is ok but you need another word here..you need a pronoun

Based on the exchange here, and reflecting how the use of the L1 was partially successful, student F altered ‘Another precaution which government can take is making difficult having driving licence’ to ‘Another precaution which the government can take is making more difficult for people to have a driving licence.’

Action Research

53

A close look at Extracts 4 to 6 and revisions made by the student on his follow-up draft indicate how the use of teacher-eliciting in each, when backed up with the use of the L1, led to successful outcomes on each occasion.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION This chapter, involving the location and analysis of desirable conferencing features in terms of beneficial effects on follow-up drafts, firstly reflects how AR cycles are not linear, but involve overlapping and interrelated phases. Analysis of the six extracts above reveal how, although problems may still occur in follow-up drafts, teacher-eliciting, especially with the aid of the L1 would appear to be of valuable use when conferencing. The findings support and extend the work of Goldstein and Conrad (1990) mentioned earlier in this chapter. Along with the degree of negotiation Goldstein and Conrad (1990) refer to in terms of the requirements to improve the follow-up draft, analysis of Extracts 1 to 6 in this chapter also identify two specific discourse features with which to do so. In relation to the point made by Patthey-Chavez and Ferris (1997), that the backgrounds of students may affect the degree to which successful revisions may be made, this may be true, but is beyond the scope of this chapter and would of course require further investigation. The findings outlined in this chapter certainly support and extend those of Weissberg (2006) on the use of scaffolding, especially with regard to two specific features of verbal support for the student writer involved in constructing essays. Struggling at times to do so, writing up the original study on which this chapter was based was aided by points provided in Burns (2010: 161-162) in the hope that, as she suggests there, ‘..your audience gets good insights into the AR process, your findings and the insights you gained for improving professional practices.’ I would recommend this list of points to others seeking to publish accounts of AR projects.

54

Wayne Trotman

REFERENCES Burns, A. (2005). Action research: An evolving paradigm? Language teaching, 38(1). Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching. (1st ed.) Routledge. Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL quarterly, 31(2). Ferris, D. (1998). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of second language writing, 8(1). Goldstein, L. and Conrad, S. M. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in esl writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3). Hyland, F., & Hyland. K. (2006). Feedback on second language writing. Cambridge University Press, UK. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds). (1998). The action research planner. (3rd ed.). Geelong: Deakon University Press. Lewin, J. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of social issues, 2(4), 34-36. Patthey-Chavez., G. G., & Ferris, D. (1997). Writing conferences and the weaving of multi-voiced texts in college composition. Research in the teaching of English, 31(1). Trotman, W. (2010). Teacher oral feedback on student writing: An action research approach towards teacher-student conferences on EFL academic essay writing in a higher education context in Turkey. Unpublished PhD thesis: The University of Warwick. Trotman, W. (2011). Action research on feedback on EAP writing: teacherstudent oral conferencing in a higher education context in Turkey. ELTED: English language teacher education and development, 14(1), The University of Warwick. Weissberg, R. (2006). Scaffolded feedback: Tutorial conversations with advanced L2 writers (in Hyland, F., & Hyland. K. (2006).

In: Discourse Perspectives … Editors: D. Yuksel and B. Inan

ISBN: 978-1-62808-867-0 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 5

DISCOURSE OF READERS’ BLOGS IN COLLEGE-LEVEL ESL CLASSROOMS Justin E. Jernigan1 and Yingliang Liu2 1 2

Georgia Gwinnett College, Georgia, US Wuhan University of Technology, China

ABSTRACT Blogs have become a useful component in many language classrooms, with the benefits of contributing to incidental learning among students and promoting collaboration among all members of the classroom community and across the increasingly globalizing world. The usefulness of blogs in writing courses has been explored, but their role in increasing reading proficiency and critical thinking in reading courses is less clearly understood. This chapter aims to analyze the discourse of blog postings for evidence of critical reading and active engagement in college-level ESL reading classrooms. Fifty-six students in five advanced-level Reading classes in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program at a mid-size, public undergraduate college in the United States are described in this chapter. Over the course of each semester, the students posted blog entries about three novels on a weekly basis. In addition, the students completed a pre- and post-course survey measuring their attitudes towards reading and blogging. Discourse analysis of the blog postings revealed that students’ critical thinking on the readings 

Email: [email protected]

56

Justin E. Jernigan and Yingliang Liu deepened over the course of each semester. The results suggest that blogging may be usefully implemented to improve students’ extensive reading outside of class and active engagement with the text and other readers. Further, the feedback provided by the students in both the survey and in the blog postings themselves points to ways in which blogs can create a strong sense of community in ESL reading courses and similar environments.

INTRODUCTION The recognition that online literacy is an increasingly important part of language learners‘ communicative competency is not new. Leu (2001) discussed the need to prepare students for global interaction by developing literacy on the internet. Leu also predicted that the pace of change in online communication would be rapid and challenging to manage, which has certainly come to pass in the past decade or more. In this chapter, we explore the implementation of blogs in college-level ESL reading classes. Based on our discourse analysis of students’ blogs, we investigate the impact of blogs on students’ motivation and perception of reading, on their interaction with their peers in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Reading course, and on their ability to read critically.

BACKGROUND: LITERATURE REVIEW To address the new forms of texts other than traditional print, the New London Group (1996) introduced the concept of multi-literacy. Multi-literacy is a term adopted "to focus on the realities of increasing local diversity and global connectedness" (New London Group, 1996, p. 64). If this need was present in 1996, today it is even more urgent for educators to be aware of the reality of multiple channels of communication over which learners must gain control. In addressing the increasing demand for multi-literacy, a number of studies over the past decade have supported the importance of extensive reading in positively affecting students’ reading approaches and perspectives or attitudes (e.g., Siah, 2008; Siah & Kwok, 2010; Pino-Silva, 2006). Building on Leu’s (2001, 2002) work on literacy as a process that converges with online technologies, Hsu and Wang (2011) define new literacies as "literacy-related skills needed in an interactive multimedia environment, such as retrieving and

Discourse of Readers’ Blogs in College-Level ESL Classrooms

57

evaluating information, comprehending information, and producing and publishing information through online technologies" (p. 69). In the current interconnected world, the reading curriculum needs to incorporate elements of authentic online communication. Online reading has been employed by many reading teachers and its benefit has been recognized. Pino-Silva (2006) found extensive internet reading can lead to incidental vocabulary acquisition and encourages teacher-student collaboration. In addition to acquiring information online, new literacy also entails the ability to produce information online. Blogs, a fast means of publishing information online, have been increasingly implemented in education, especially in language teaching. The comment function of blogs allows the blog writer and blog readers to interact and exchange opinions in a timely manner, which creates a sense of community. It is this special kind of bonding among a community of learners that Dickey (2004) has in mind when discussing the benefits of blogs in distance learning for preventing the sense of isolation that such learners often experience. The increased prominence of community that is facilitated by learners’ use of interactive blogs is further reinforced by Kelley and Clausen-Grace (2009). This phenomenon has a role to play not only in distance education contexts, we argue, but in any type of learning community in which deeper discussions of reading material are sought. As Sawmiller (2010) notes, blogs encourage writing, promote critical thinking skills, and offer differentiated instruction to fit students’ learning styles in the science classroom.

Blogs in the Second Language Classroom: Background, Benefits, and Motivation In the second language classroom, blogs are mostly used in the context of writing classes to promote peer collaboration. Abidin, et al. (2011) argue that blogging creates a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) where students feel comfortable to share not only ideas but also differences and help each other to achieve their learning goals. The EFL students in Malaysia in their study participated actively in the blog group discussion, which helped them complete the writing task and learn new vocabulary. Similarly, Wu and Wu (2011) employed a teacher’s blogs and students’ group blogs. Students wrote collaborative reflection on articles posted on their teacher’s blog. Survey results showed that learners perceived the use of blogs positively for their language learning in that it improved their reading and writing skills. The

58

Justin E. Jernigan and Yingliang Liu

students in the Taiwanese university they studied reported that they read faster and more fluently and could write more using different sentence structures and new vocabulary. As language learners post their thoughts and reactions to the materials they are reading with their peers in blogs and then respond to the blog postings of their classmates, it has been argued that the enhancement of learners’ ability to discuss, describe, and reflect upon what they have read is a key benefit of blogging that emerges. Renandya, et al. (1999) discuss retelling as a natural, enjoyable part of the reading process. In the process of retelling, learners frequently engage in elaboration and explanation, enhancing their own understanding of the material they have read in the process. Similarly, AlFadda and Al-Yahya (2010) found that blogging encouraged EFL students to complete pre-reading assignments, interact with peers, and engage in postreading reflections. A further benefit of blogs that has been proposed is that they facilitate sustained independent reading by learners. Increasing the amount and time of independent reading that language learners regularly engage in has been linked to benefits for younger students if implemented and supported appropriately, as pointed out in studies such as those examining the efficacy of sustained silent reading (SSR) and similar approaches (e.g., Reutzel, et al., 2008). Likewise, Izquierdo and Reyes (2009) note that blogs increased student autonomy in learning and reduced student dependence on teacher. The instructor used class blogs to post readings and students could comment on the readings. Students reported reading more outside the classrooms, using new vocabulary in the blogs and improving their writing skills. Building on the generally favorable findings just discussed, Hsu and Wang’s (2011) research established the positive impact of blogs in developmental reading classes, particularly with regard to student retention and persistence in studies. Blogging activities in the developmental reading classes they examined enhanced students’ interaction and fostered a strong sense of community and rapport, both of which contributed to a higher retention rate compared to the non-blogging group. In addition, less vocal students who may have been hesitant to share in face-to-face classroom discussions felt more freedom to express their ideas in blogs, giving the reading blogs an equalizing quality (p. 80). On the other hand, their findings also indicated that there may be limitations in the usefulness of blogs if faculty members view them as merely add-ons to traditional reading activities, rather than as powerful tools for generating competency in new literacy skills.

Discourse of Readers’ Blogs in College-Level ESL Classrooms

59

A final benefit of blogs in the context of reading classrooms, one that is supported by our findings, presented later, concerns the potential for interactive blogs, particularly when used purposefully in a learning environment, to promote and elicit critical reading among the bloggers and readers. So-called "fake readers" (Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2007, 2009) exist not only among child language learners, but more insidiously among adult second language readers. Medelman (2007) notes the importance of teaching students to read critically in an age in which young people, including young college-aged adults, are increasingly engaged in passive activities (most online gaming, television and movies available on demand most anywhere, and many aspects of social media). Newman, et al. (1995) investigated group discussions of lectures and readings in face-to-face and online (asynchronous) formats. They found that more novel ideas emerged in face-to-face communication, but that increased justification and linking among ideas occurred in the online communication mode. Whether these findings may extend to blogging in reading courses is an important question that we examine in this chapter. Besides understanding the possible benefits of blogs for reading, it is important to gain a better understanding of the factors that motivate students to use and benefit from blogs. Huang, et al. (2008) examined learners‘ motives for reading blogs, finding that these included affective exchange, information search, entertainment, and getting on the bandwagon. They also identified influences on reading blogs, including opinion acceptance, interaction intentions, and word-of-mouth (WOM) intentions. These motives and influences, if properly understood, can be applied in the context of reading classes to increase students’ motivation.

The Sociocultural Context of Online Classroom Discourse McCarthy (1991) provides educational and language researchers with a foundational understanding of discourse analysis (DA) as a means of understanding the functions—particularly the social functions—of talk in the language classroom. In many important ways, McCarthy and some other researchers working in the area of DA from the 1960s through the 1990s prefigure the present-day discourse analysis of blogs in their calls for understanding discourse as comprising not merely speech, but written interaction as well. Of critical importance in any effort at discourse analysis is the careful consideration of the context within which the interaction occurs. Therefore, the use of a DA approach to understanding blog-based

60

Justin E. Jernigan and Yingliang Liu

communication requires a clear understanding of the classrooms, technology, and participants involved. In a helpful example of such an approach, Lomicka and Lord (2012) analyzed the micro-blogging of language learners. Discourse analysis of the learners’ tweets revealed the existence of "social presence" in the tweets of French learners, which is signified by affective and interactive indicators. Learners were found to talk about their lives, reply to each other and ask questions, thus building a strong community among classmates, which creates an optimal sociocultural context for language learning. However, how language learning in blogs is evaluated remains unanswered. Critical thinking skill is one essential skill in reading. Newman, et al. (1995) developed a content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Their analysis module included ten paired indicators such as relevance, importance, novelty, ambiguity, bringing outside information, interpretation, and so forth. A number of these indicators proved to be useful analytical tools in the present research effort. Taking into account the generally positive results that have obtained in studies focusing on the use of blogs in the second language classroom, this chapter investigates the use of blogs in a college-level English for Academic Purposes (EAP) reading class. We adopt a discourse analytic (DA) approach in order to understand the experiences of students who are using blogs to communicate about and fully engage with a series of novels read outside of class. Information on the students’ perceptions of blogging and reading are given context as the voices of the students themselves emerge in their own words, in their own blogs.

METHODOLOGY Fifty-six students in five different reading classes in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program at a public, 4-year college participated in the research effort described in this chapter. The 56 participants represent 14 different first language backgrounds: Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia, Bengali, Chinese (Mandarin), Farsi, French, Igbo, Korean, Pashto, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Yoruba. The EAP Program is part of the student support course structure of the college and offers classes in Composition, Listening and Speaking, and Reading. The average class size in the Reading classes is 15, ensuring a relatively low teacher-student ratio in these courses, and the areas of focus include enhancing reading skills and fluency,

Discourse of Readers’ Blogs in College-Level ESL Classrooms

61

recognizing patterns of organization in academic texts, understanding and responding to college-level reading materials, and building academic vocabulary. In addition to readings in the course textbook, students are assigned to read three novels outside the class over the semester as part of the effort to build reading fluency. In the first semester, three books were chosen for outside reading: The Unwanted: A Memoir of Childhood, by Kien Nguyen; The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini; and The Help, by Kathryn Stockett. In the second semester, two additional outside reading books were selected: Tuesdays with Morrie, by Mitch Albom; and A Lesson Before Dying, by Ernest Gaines. The third semester of the course featured two additional outside reading novels: Things Fall Apart, by Chinua Achebe; and Water for Elephants, by Sara Gruen. At the beginning of the semester, students were assigned into blog groups of three or four (depending on the total number of the students in the class). Each group had a group leader who was regarded as relatively "tech savvy" and could help the group members with some technical issues in posting the blogs. In their groups, students determined the pace of reading by deciding the number of pages or chapters they would read each week, as long as the books were completed before the designated final blog for each book was due. Each week, the students completed an individual blog entry in which they reflected on the segment of the outside reading novel they had read since the previous week’s individual blog. In addition, on alternate days, students posted comments on their blog group members’ blogs. This interactivity was made possible by grouping students into small teams known in the class as Literature Circles. Each week during the semester, students composed and posted blog entries addressed primarily to their Literature Circle teammates, who were reading the same novel at the same time as the blogger. Students were given much freedom on the content of the blogs. They could write about their own reaction to the part of the book they had read, analyze one of more major characters, discuss one or more selected paragraphs, draw connections to their own experience, relate the book to current events, and so forth. Students were encouraged not to simply summarize the chapters read. Desire2Learn (D2L) is the learning management system (LMS) in which the students’ blogs were hosted. The D2L blog feature allows students to post individual blogs and to create a “Blog Watch”: a list of classmates’ (and the instructor’s) blog postings that they wish to read whenever those blogs are updated. Importantly, the blogs are semi-public within the college community, meaning that others who are enrolled at the college can view the blogs of any other student at the college, provided that they have valid credentials to log on

62

Justin E. Jernigan and Yingliang Liu

to the D2L platform and have been given access to the blog feature by their instructor(s). One advantage of this system is that students are able to see the broad range of blogs being produced by other students across the college, which may give them a more complete picture of what can be done with educational blogs. More importantly, for the immediate context, perhaps, the students are made aware that they are writing for a potentially broader audience than just their instructor or classmates.

Comment Feature of the Blogs and Literature Circles In addition to having the opportunity to express their views on the reading assignments, students were expected to reply to their Literature Circle teammates’ blog postings. This comment feature of the blogs provided for authentic interactivity among the students within their Literature Circles. The online blogging and commenting mirrored, expanded, and supported the inclass discussions of the Literature Circle groups. Interestingly, the level of sharing provided for in the blogs expanded on that available to the students when sharing only in class. The availability of the learners‘ blogs to everyone with access to the college’s D2L site meant that there was an element of audience and intrinsic motivation not present in traditional classroom-only communication. As Liao, et al. (2011) found, a blogger‘s motivation is strongly affected by her expectations of the outcomes of blogging. It is with that understanding that we next turn our attention to the blogs of our own EAP students.

Overview of Student Blogs Before undertaking an in-depth analysis of the discourse of the students’ blogs, we begin with an overview of the evidence for critical reading and critical thinking more generally in the blogs. In order to do this, we make use of Newman, et al.’s (1995) adaption of Henri’s (1991) indicators of critical thinking reflected in online communication (pp. 6-8). A sample of 10 EAP students was selected, and an initial blog posting, posted near the beginning of the semester and a final blog posting, posted near the end of the semester, by each student were examined by both researchers independently to identify evidence of each of Newman, et al.’s indicators. Each researcher’s findings were discussed so that consensus was reached on the final tabulation. Table 1

Discourse of Readers’ Blogs in College-Level ESL Classrooms

63

presents examples of the major categories of evidence and the numbers of tokens identified in the 10 initial and 10 final blog postings. Table 1. Evidence of critical reading in EAP student blogs Category [R] Relevance

Example

Total Tokens in Sample beginning end of of semester semester 9 7

In both books the principals characters (Morrie and Jefferson) are resigned to died, but they teach us that we can died with dignity.[R] (Maria, L1 Spanish, female) [O] Bringing outside In my last job I had witness some 4 4 knowledge/experience employees been exploited by bosses to bear on problem because they do not know how to express well in English.[O] (Carlos, L1 Spanish, male) [A] Ambiguities: It seems the circus was his gratest 1 1 clarified or confused [sic] passion. That was why when people were doubting him that he gave water for the Elephant, he was outraged. [A] (Matthew, L1 Yoruba, male) [I] Importance, The only reason for Aibeleen to work 2 5 Important ideas or under racism by Elizabeth and her interpretation colleagues was the enormous love for Mae Mobley [L] (Carlos, L1 Spanish, male) [C] Critical assessment He emphasized Amir’s guilty at the 3 7 beginning of the book to attract reader. Then he contrived Hassan’s death that was really touched reader’s feelings…Overall the author is effective with his unique style of writing. [C] (Min, L1 Mandarin, female) [P] Practical utility I think this book teaches something 2 4 (grounding) to everybody; that one should never give up in life because your efforts will pay off in the end.[P] (Vedika, L1 Punjabi, female) [W] Width of The two books has a same theme 0 2 understanding about Inequality. [W] (Min, L1 (complete picture) Mandarin, female) Note: Learners are identified by pseudonyms, with first language (L1) and gender indicated.

64

Justin E. Jernigan and Yingliang Liu Table 2. Frequency of indicators of critical reading in initial and final blogs

Blog set Initial Final

Relevance [R] 90% 70%

Outside [O] 40% 40%

Ambiguities [A] 10% 10%

Importance [I] 20% 50%

Critical [C] 30% 70%

Practical [P] 20% 40%

Width [W] 0 20%

The results of the analysis of the sample of ten initial and ten final student blogs across three semesters with respect to the frequency of occurrence of the indicators of critical reading are presented in Table 2. Although most of the categories outlined by Newman, et al. (1995) showed little change over time (from early in the semester to the end of the term) in the samples of students’ blogs, two of the categories do bear discussion. First, the Importance (I) category showed a change from two instances in the initial samples to 5 in the students’ final blogs. As this category indicates the introduction of important ideas or interpretation, and increase here may be evidence of students’ feeling increasingly aware of the connections between what they have been reading and specific significant concepts from their own lives or the wider world. An increase in the I category may additionally indicate that students are more confident in sharing their increasingly complex views with their classmates. The second category that showed a meaningful increase from the students’ initial to final blogs was the Critical assessment (C) category. For most students, blogs at the beginning of the semester are dominated by the summary of the story with one or two sentences showing personal feeling about the plot or character. As the semester moved on, students started to offer more comprehensive assessment of the characters, events in the novels, and even evaluation of author’s writing style. For example, in Rene’s (L1 French, male) initial blog on the Kite Runner, he expresses his interest in the story, but does not explain why he enjoyed the book: "First read the book and enjoy the movie ". In his final blog on The Help, he offers a more comprehensive assessment of the characters: "It is like reading a story in the story. Miss Aibeleen is very smart...Miss Skitter is a very kind character...Miss Celia also she is my favorite character not because she keeps secret from her husband but she appreciate [sic] what Miny is doing." The inclusion of more critical assessment, as exemplified in Rene’s final blog post, is evidence of students’ active engagement with the reading and critical thinking.

Discourse of Readers’ Blogs in College-Level ESL Classrooms

65

As mentioned, the students’ blogs did not show significant change over time for most of the categories suggested by Newman, et al. (1995). It may well be that the lack of complexity involved in some tasks resulted in a lack of significant differences in the blog samples identified. For example, 9 out of 10 initial student blogs sampled included an example of relevance (R). Provision of relevant comments was evident in 7 out of 10 final blogs in the sample as well. Where more complex critical reading was required, such as in the introduction of important ideas (I) and critical assessment (C), important differences were, in fact, observed.

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE BLOGS Characteristics of the Discourse of Learners’ Blogs Blog entries by nature are normally relatively brief statements of the views and ideas of the writer. In the case of the student blogs that we have analyzed for this chapter, most followed the pattern of introducing the reading or portion of reading discussed in the blog, followed by the student’s ideas and interpretation. As we analyzed the discourse of the learners‘ blogs collected over three semesters of the EAP Reading courses described earlier, a number of key concepts emerged in the discourse itself. Evidence of increasingly complex ideas, increased expression of subjective thought, and expanded intersubjectivity was identified over the course of the semester in the learners’ blogs. A number of salient examples of each type of evidence drawn from the student participants‘ blogs are presented below. EAP students here are identified by pseudonyms, with first language (L1) and gender noted.

Increased Complexity of Ideas Most of the EAP students described in this chapter demonstrated a gradual increase in complexity of ideas from their initial blog postings early in the semester to the final blogs posted near the end of each term. In the example below, Maria moves from superficial notes about a character’s actions to a deeper discussion of abstract concepts such as racism and death by the time of her final blog:

66

Justin E. Jernigan and Yingliang Liu This kind of books like Tuesday with Morrie, are very interesting because is came from the personal real life characters, and the author promise to keep in touch with him, but he never did it. (Maria, L1 Spanish, female, near the beginning of the semester).

The difference in not only development, but also depth of ideas can be seen clearly in Maria’s end-of-semester blog posting: The comprehension and loving are the keys. Tuesdays with Morrie is the teaching how this two concepts combined can change people personal life. In A Lesson Before Dying, also comprehension and loving is the key to eradicated racism. In addition, death came in different ways: Tuesdays with Morrie by fatal disease and A Lesson Before Dying by fatal injustice. In both books the principals characters (Morrie and Jefferson) are resigned to died, but they teach us that we can died with dignity. (Maria, near the end of the semester)

Although Maria’s focus in both blog postings is on characters, the move from characters’ outward actions to their inner lives and motives, as well as to the lessons we can draw from their experiences, is significant. An additional example of increasing complexity in reflection and critical thinking is observed when students begin to compare and contrast the novels. In the two blog posts below, one drawn from the first part of the semester and one from the end of the semester, Tam, a relatively recent immigrant from Vietnam, demonstrates growth as he progresses from a simple translation strategy for reading to an approach based on comparison of the motivation of the plots of all three novels read in the course of the semester: I found it is hard to read this book. I had to translate more than half of the words. That is why I just got to chapter two. However, this story is very interesting. Therefore, I will try my best to read it. I hope by the time I get to the end of this book, my reading skill and vocab will be improved. (Tam, L1 Vietnamese, male, beginning of semester)

Tam’s blog posting from later in the semester illustrates the increasing complexity of his analysis of the outside reading material: Although the book used many Ibo words, I found that this book is easier to understand than the first two books. The difference between this book and the other two is that this book does not have a central story. Unlike, the advanture [sic] of Jacob in "Water For Elephants" or the confict [sic] inside

Discourse of Readers’ Blogs in College-Level ESL Classrooms

67

Amir in "The Kite Runner", "Things Fall Apart" just tells the story of Okonkwo, who is a great man, but he got in trouble because of this temper. There is only two events that I think are two main problems of the story are the exlie of Okonkwo and the conflict between the slanmen [sic] and the people who build the church. (Tam, end of semester).

It is noteworthy that whereas Tam’s initial blog contains general observations about the interest level of the book and his difficulty in reading, his final blog delves deeper into the content of multiple stories, analyzing the common crises across different plots. Evidence of increasing critical reading from another student’s blogs includes the following posts from Min’s blog: Khaled Hosseini, the author of The Kite Runner, used a fascinating style to tell the story. He emphasized Amir’s guilty at the beginning of the book to attract reader. Then he contrived Hassan’s death that was really touched reader’s feelings. The authors composed many details about Amir’s interior monologue. By the end of the book, the author repeated the theme, there is a way to be good again, to enhance the redemption. Overall the author is effective with his unique style of writing. (Min, L1 Mandarin, female, blog near mid-semester)

Her increased use of a critical analytic approach can be seen in one of Min’s later blog postings, this one excerpted from a post near the end of the semester: Kien Nguyen, the author of The Unwanted, used a fascinating style of writing in this book. The book was easy to read because the author used simple words and succinct sentences. He narrated the book by first person speech, and described his feeling directly and frequently. (Min, near end of the semester).

Increased Expression of Subjectivity Following Roebuck (2000), Newell (1996), and others, we also identified evidence of students’ increased ability and comfort with expressing their subjective views. The presence of subjectivity in students’ writing about what they have read has been posited as evidence of the meaningful interaction of readers with text, and may indicate, “engagement with the story, with the personal statements offering emotional reactions to form and content and

68

Justin E. Jernigan and Yingliang Liu

associative statements offering links between the students’ understanding of the story and their experiential knowledge” (Newell, 1996, p. 165). Newell adds that subjective statements, such as those exemplified by the EAP readers below, are much more likely to occur in reader-based (as opposed to teachercentered) contexts where learners are free to offer interpretive statements. We explore increasing subjectivity in several excerpts from Min’s blog posts: This is an impressive story about a pair of best friends in Afghanistan. Two boys grew up together as close friends, but one was a master, another one was a servant. The little servant obeyed everything that the master asked him to do, and protected his master as well as he could. Notwithstanding they were playing in same yard, but they were treated in total different ways. (Min, initial blog post)

By the mid-semester point, Min has moved from commenting on simple observations about the actions of characters in the book to comments about her own experience with the reading: I am on Chapter 24 now. I would finish the book if I did not have a math exam. I am impressed by the ten chapters from 14-24. I never knew people could get punishment if they told truth in the U.S. Sounds the civilizations changed a lot. (Min, blog post near mid-semester)

In Min’s final blog, there is clear evidence that Min is confident enough to offer deeper interpretation of the themes present in two of the novels:

The Unwanted vs. The Kite Runner The two books has a same theme about Inequality. Hassan faced inequality during his whole life. Readers are easy to feel pitiful about the boy. Similarly, Kien in The Unwanted was treated as inequity because he was a half breeze [sic]. Another theme is redemption. In The Kite Runner, Amir made a mistake and tried to hide the secret. He hurt Hassan and had darkness in his heart, and he regretted his behavior for a long time. By the end of the book, Aim adopted his nephew as his son did remedy his fault. In The Kite Runner, Kien’s grandparent refused to leave Vietnam when the war started. They wasted too much time. Finally, they knew if they had considered more about young generations; if they agreed to leave, Kien and his siblings would have escaped the war. They were too selfish when they made the decision. (Min, final blog post).

Discourse of Readers’ Blogs in College-Level ESL Classrooms

69

The progression of ideas in Min’s blogs from the beginning to the end of the semester points to her increasing level of comfort with self-expression.

Increased Intersubjectivity The notion of intersubjectivity when applied to the language learning classroom context refers to students working together to establish norms of engagement and socially constructed, agreed upon meanings (see, e.g., Hellerman, 2008, among others). In the culturally and linguistically rich EAP classrooms discussed and analyzed in the present chapter, the need for students to co-construct a culture of learning in which individuals feel encouraged to share their subjective views is of vital importance. Because of the layer of cultural and linguistic background differences within which the students are negotiating meaning and establishing common ground with their peers, some of the assumptions that students in a more culturally and linguistically homogenous classroom environment might hold are simply invalid in the EAP Reading classroom. Evidence of intersubjectivity is found in students’ comments on one another’s blogs. Students have the opportunity in the blog responses to ask for clarification on their Literature Circle teammates’ ideas. As mentioned earlier, the students are instructed to target their blog responses to the ideas and assertions in their classmates’ blog postings, rather than simply giving their own opinions. This emphasis on others’ ideas promotes intersubjectivity and fosters the sense of community that is so important for allowing students to open themselves up to their Literature Circle teammates and others. A useful example of intersubjectivity is Rene’s commentary on Hua’s blog (L1 Chinese, female) about her reaction to how Aibileen felt when she lost her son in the book The Help. He not only offers supportive praise to his classmate regarding her earlier blog post, but also expands upon some of the specific ideas she expressed. I like the way you broke down the part that you red and find very touching. Indeed the part yoiu [sic] just explain at the bigining [sic] the way Abileen [sic] felt when she lost her child. It was very sad. As I am reading this different novel, I learn that many narrator wants to captivate the reader mind and heart through the character in the book and Kathryn Stockett did a fabulous job with the help. (Rene, end of the semester).

70

Justin E. Jernigan and Yingliang Liu

The intersubjectivity established among peers in each Literature Circle group provides a foundation for the collaborative construction of more advanced analysis of texts as students think critically together. For example, clarification of ambiguity [A] can be observed in some of the blog comments students provided to their peers. An example is Matthew’s commentary on Nina’s final blog: All his expectations just ruined. He ,actually, had not been woried [sic] about being forgotten by his kids. He was waiting for this day, thoughts that he going to see circus bring out all his memories. This is a sad final of this story. (Nina, L1 Russian, female, end of semester blog)

Matthew’s comment demonstrates clearly that he is responding to Nina’s post, rather than simply offering his own thoughts on the novel’s plot: Jacob was relly [sic] devastated when his children did not show up to take him to circus. It seems the circus was his gratest [sic] passion. That was why when people were doubting him that he gave water for the Elephant, he was outraged. (Matthew, L1 Yoruba, male, in reply to Nina, end of semester)

He offers here both confirmation of Nina’s claim about Jacob’s disappointment in Water for Elephants and an explanation for the sad ending mentioned in her final blog. An additional example indicates how students also use their blogs to communicate practical advice to their peers. In the following example, Vedika offers her classmates advice on applying the moral principles from one of the novels: “I think this book teaches something to everybody; that one should never give up in life because your efforts will pay off in the end.” This example of intersubjectivity is echoed in a number of the other students’ blogs and blog responses.

Students’ Perceptions: The Reading Blogs Survey As mentioned earlier in our description of our research as presented in this chapter, a survey was distributed to the students to determine the participants‘ characteristics and their views on reading blogs at the beginning and end of the semester. The initial items in the survey included basic demographic information: Gender, Age, First language, Years living in the U.S. Next, several questions targeting the students’ views on reading and blogs were asked:

Discourse of Readers’ Blogs in College-Level ESL Classrooms

71

How would you describe your confidence as a reader in English? When you read in English, which one of these describes your reading rate (reading speed)? How would you describe your experience this semester with blogging?

Several more open-ended completion statements were given next for the participants to complete: I think reading in English is ____________. Reading in English for me is ______________. Being able to read well in English is __________. When someone asks me a question about something I have read in English, __________. Please indicate your favorite book in English:

Places for open comments on reading and blogging were also provided: Please use this space to give other comments about your view of reading in English. Please give other comments about your view of Blogging in the Reading class.

The results of the learner survey confirmed that a majority of the EAP readers increased in confidence, felt better equipped to engage with and analyze reading materials, and recognized the benefits of reading and of blogging in support of reading. First, about 48% of survey respondents indicated they had increased in confidence as readers as a result of reading and blogging about reading throughout the semester. About 36% of the students also felt that reading in English had become easier for them by the end of the semester. The value of blogs in the context of a reading class was also supported in the survey results. Based on the responses, over half (about 52%) of the students had either rarely or never used blogs before the Reading course. This fact may not be surprising when one considers that many of the students in the EAP courses do not have a strong background in technology use, either because of lack of access to technology or because of inadequate familiarity with some academically-oriented technological applications. By the end of the course, about 56% of the students indicated they were either somewhat likely or actively planning to blog on their own. Fully 64% of students reported that blogging helped them understand their classmates’

72

Justin E. Jernigan and Yingliang Liu

viewpoints more fully. In a related finding, about 52% felt that blogging about what they were reading increased their sense of audience, a concept covered in the Reading courses. In addition to the definite survey responses, the more open-ended learner answers revealed the ways in which blogs created a strong sense of community and rapport among the students. The earlier discourse analysis results of the blogs were confirmed in the students’ self-reports. For example, Min comments in her survey at the end of the semester, “Blogging is a [sic] interesting part of reading class. I like to compose blog and read others’ feedbacks. Also, I enjoy my reading group sharing ideas about books on blogs." Min’s appreciation for the intersubjectivity promoted by reading blogs is evident in a number of other students’ open-ended survey responses as well. The potential for blogging to enhance students’ self-expression is likely due in part to the less intimidating nature of blogs in comparison with more formal book reports. This perspective is reflected in some of the students’ own survey responses. For example, Dona (L1 Spanish, female) indicated in response to the survey item: Please give other comments about your view of Blogging in the Reading class, “I felt that that informal blogs where more enjoyable then the formal blog. Because there was not stress about doing the bloging [sic] right or wrong.” There is also evidence in the survey responses in support of the idea that blogging can contribute to students’ attention to details in the material that they are reading. For example, Vedika (L1Punjabi, female) noted in her comments on the student survey about blogging that, “it is really helpful in making your writting [sic] better, paying more attention to every detal [sic] in the book.” If blogging is perceived by students as a tool for increasing one’s awareness of and attention to the details of reading, this reality would add to elements such as audience and intra-group communication to recommend blogging as a valuable tool to promote critical reading among second-language learners.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The discourse analysis of students’ blogs confirms our assumption that blogs on reading can enhance students’ critical reading. Newman, et al.’s (1995) adapted indicators were used to describe student’s critical thinking and reading skills. The comparison between the discourse of students’ initial blogs at the beginning of the semester and that of their final blogs near the end of the

Discourse of Readers’ Blogs in College-Level ESL Classrooms

73

semester shows that students offer more important ideas for interpretation and critical assessments in their final blogs. Their final blogs also demonstrate increased complexity and expression of subjectivity and intersubjectivity. These findings support Newman, et al.’s (1995) claim that online discussion elicits more important statements and linking ideas than face-to-face communication. The usefulness of Newman, et al.’s (1995) adapted indicators can be evaluated by examining the ability of the framework to facilitate the identification of important phenomena in the activity of students in the learning process. As Newman and colleagues point out, “In our transcripts, we found few obvious A+-, P+- or W+- statements” (p. 74). They go on to identify a possible cause for the finding and offer advice on the circumstances under which some indicators may be eliminated from the framework: “This may be an effect of the nature of the student task: general discussion rather than the more specific problem-solving activities. But if others find the same in other learning situations, these indicators should be dropped” (p. 74). Essentially, the authors offer future researchers guidance on using such an evaluative framework. Namely, the categories included and concepts outlined need to be applied on a case-specific basis so as to ensure the maximum utility of the system. This approach is consistent with the evaluation of Newman’s method offered by Landis, et al. (2007). Besides the positive effects of the use of blogs on students’ critical reading, we also observed a strong sense of learning community being built through blogging. This is consistent with Hsu and Wang’s (2011) finding that blogging activity enhances classroom rapport. From the comments students leave on each other’s blogs, we observe students giving praise, showing agreement/disagreement, or offering practical advice to their classmates. This sense of community is also confirmed by their survey responses at the end of the semester. In terms of the development of multi-literacy, as defined by the New London Group (1996), blogs promote overall literacy and reading confidence in the context of new media, including socially-oriented media modes such as blogs. It is important at this point in the discussion to recall that multi-literacy today refers not only to the ability of learners to negotiate texts presented in a variety of online and offline modes, but also to their capacity to adapt to the proliferation of cultural shifts and interactions that online discourse fosters. Reading in a multi-literacy sense, then, is a complex process through which students are equipped to read texts, either on paper or via a screen (e.g., tablet, e-reader, laptop, or others), and to discuss and share their views regarding

74

Justin E. Jernigan and Yingliang Liu

what they read using socially-oriented media. Blogging appears to support both major aspects of this process. The findings of our own research suggest that blogs can be effectively employed in the reading class to enhance students’ critical reading. In our application of blogging, we did not give students specific guidelines to avoid restrictions on students’ thoughts, but some students had a vague idea on what to write in their blogs. Many of them summarized more than analyzed the novels in their blogs, which could explain the relatively small number of critical thinking tokens in our analysis, although these tokens did increase over time. In future implementation, we could set more specific guidelines or ask comprehension questions at the beginning of the semester to encourage students to write more on their thoughts. Once they get used to sharing opinions on blogs, we can reduce the guidelines to allow students to express their views more freely. The level of sharing should also be considered when employing blogs in class. We used the blog function within the course management system (Desire to Learn, D2L). Although the blogs are visible to all registered students on campus, few readers outside the students’ Literature Circle groups would be likely to read the blogs, which may affect students’ motivation. To increase students’ motivation and to build a stronger sense of audience, some popular blog sites (e.g. Blogger, Blogspot, http://blogger.com, © 2012 Google; or Wordpress, http://wordpress.org, © 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.) could likewise be employed in the classes. A concluding word concerning the future of discourse analytic (DA) research in the context of research into multi-literacy and modern ESL reading instruction draws the strands of our chapter together. It is hoped that among the lessons that will be drawn from our discourse analysis of reading blogs is the potential of targeted blogging to expand and sustain independent reading and critical thinking through the promotion of online discourse about reading among peers and to the broader community. We recommend that future research and application in this area focus on the areas in which the social and pedagogical functions of blogs intersect, facilitating both meaningful interaction concerning reading and the development of critical reading capacity in language learners.

Discourse of Readers’ Blogs in College-Level ESL Classrooms

75

REFERENCES Abidin, M., Pour-Mohammadi, M., & Abdul Hamid, F.B. (2011). Blogging: Promoting peer collaboration in writing. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 1, 98-105. Achebe, C. (1959, 1994). Things fall apart. New York: Anchor Books, Random House, Inc. Al-Fadda, H., & Al-Yahya, M. (2010). Using web blogs as a tool to encourage pre-class reading, post-class reflections and collaboration in higher education. US-China Education Review, 7, 100-106. Albom, M. (1997). Tuesdays with Morrie. New York: Doubleday, Random House, Inc. Dickey, M. (2004). The impact of web-blogs (blogs) on student perceptions of isolation and alienation in a web-based distance-learning environment. Open Learning, 19, 279-291. Gaines, E. (1994). A lesson before dying. New York: Vintage Books, Random House, Inc. Gruen, S. (2006). Water for elephants. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books. Hellerman, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters, Ltd. Henri, F. (1991). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning. Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag. Hosseini, K. (2003). The kite runner. New York: Riverhead Books, Penguin Group. Hsu, H.Y., & Wang, S. (2011). The impact of using blogs on college students‘ reading comprehension and learning motivation. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 68-88. Huang, L.S., Chou, Y.J., & Lin, C.H. (2008). The influence of reading motives on the responses after reading blogs. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 351-355. Izquierdo, B.L., & Reyes, L.E. (2009). Effectiveness of blogging to practice reading at a freshman EFL program. The Reading Matrix, 9 (2), 100-117. Kelley, M.J., & Clausen-Grace, N. (2007). Comprehension shouldn’t be silent: From strategy instruction to student independence. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Kelley, M.J., & Clausen-Grace, N. (2009). Facilitating engagement by differentiating independent reading. The Reading Teacher, 63, 313-318.

76

Justin E. Jernigan and Yingliang Liu

Landis, M., Swain, K.D., Friehe, M.J., & Coufal, K.L. (2007). Evaluating critical thinking in class and online : Comparison of the Newman method and the Facione rubric. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 28, 135-143. Leu, D.J. (2001). Exploring literacy on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 54, 568-572. Leu, D.J. (2002). Internet workshop: Making time for literacy. Retrieved from: http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/RT/2-02_column/. Liao, H.L., Liu, S.H., & Pi, S.M. (2011). Modeling motivations for blogging: An expectancy theory analysis. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 251264. Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2012). A tale of tweets: Analyzing microblogging among language learners. System, 40, 48-63. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Medelman, L. (2007). Critical thinking and reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 300-302. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92. Newell, G.E. (1996). Reader-based and teacher-centered instructional tasks: Writing and learning about a short story in middle-track classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 147-172. Newman, D.R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 3, 56—77. Nguyen, K. (2001). The unwanted: A memoir of childhood. New York: Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Company. Pino-Silva, J. (2006). Extensive reading through the Internet: Is it worth the while? The Reading Matrix, 6, 85-96. Renandya, W.A., Sundara Rajan, B.R., & Jacobs, G.M. (1999). Extensive reading with adult learners of English as a second language. RELC Journal, 30, 39-61. Reutzel, D.R., Fawson, P.C., & Smith, J.A. (2008). Reconsidering silent sustained reading: An exploratory study of scaffolded silent reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 37-50. Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.

Discourse of Readers’ Blogs in College-Level ESL Classrooms

77

Sawmiller, A. (2010). Classroom blogging: What is the role in science learning? The Clearing House, 83, 44-48. Siah, P.C. (2008). The effects of the sustained silent reading program on cultivating students’ habits and attitudes in reading books for leisure. The Clearing House, 81, 180-184. Siah, P.C., & Kwok, W.L. (2010). The value of reading and the effectiveness of sustained silent reading. The Clearing House, 83, 168-174. Stockett, K. (2009). The help. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, Penguin Group. Wu, H., & Wu, P. (2011). Learners’ perceptions on the use of blogs for EFL learning. US-China Education Review, A3, 323-330.

(Note: This chapter describes research approved by the Institutional Review Board of Georgia Gwinnett College and utilizing GGC-supported resources, with the work of Dr. Yingliang Liu financially supported by selfdetermined and innovative research funds of WUT.)

In: Discourse Perspectives … Editors: D. Yuksel and B. Inan

ISBN: 978-1-62808-867-0 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 6

A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ON THE MITIGATION LANGUAGE USED IN THE SUPERVISION OF COLLEAGUES İrfan Kuran Kocaeli University, Faculty of Education, ELT Department, Turkey

ABSTRACT Research into the general nature of the supervisory process in language education has recently gained popularity. This chapter includes the examination of the analysis of the mitigation discourse found in the supervisory interaction between two graduate students. To illustrate the submerging patterns of mitigation I will examine the nature of the supervisory feedback sessions I provided for two classmates, one of whom teaching ESL and the other Chinese at undergraduate level, focusing on the effects of such devices observed in the transcripts of the two post-observation conferences held with the latter. Findings of this study discussed in this chapter recommend that mitigation be used as a strong pedagogical tool for the professional development of practicing and student teachers.



Email: [email protected]

80

İrfan Kuran

INTRODUCTION This chapter looks into the discourse patterns found in the process of supervising two colleagues/classmates in terms of the mitigation language used by the supervisor. It is based on the language used during the pre and post observation conferences held as part of a graduate course about teacher supervision with the two teachers whose classroom instruction was observed by the author. Brad Watson and Shuei Li are the two pseudonyms used in reference to the two classroom teachers and colleagues I met during a term I spent at a graduate program in The USA as an exchange student. I observed Brad once and Shuei Li twice. The whole process promised to be an interesting experience right from the start in that one of them was a NSET teaching an ESL class at the IEP program of a State University in The USA and the other one a native speaker of Chinese teaching her L1 to an undergraduate class at the same institution. I had concerns at the beginning about having to observe a class taught in a language I did not speak. But I thought it would also allow me to focus more on the other aspects of teaching and teacher behavior. With both teachers I held pre-observation and post-observation sessions. My American supervisee was quite comfortable with being recorded during all stages of the supervision process while the other one expressed concern about being audio-taped during the pre and post observation sessions saying that it was not compulsory for the former and not really necessary for the latter. I sympathized with her concern about the taping of the pre-observation session but I had to record at least one of the two post observation sessions as required for the study reviewed in this chapter. I believe this difference can be attributed to cultural and personal differences, but it did not prevent me from having a try. After all, as Bailey (2006) points out, these days language teacher supervisors are called on to work with teachers from a wide variety of linguistic and cultural backgrounds and it would likely have positive and negative consequences. I tried to execute my observation in such a way that it would prove to be what Gebhard (1999) defines a “nonjudgmental description of classroom events that can be analyzed and given interpretation.” I avoided judgmental behavior particularly during the feedback sessions, which had been one of my weaknesses during similar sessions with the pre-service teachers I supervised at my home teaching situation. Observing two different classmates enabled me to compare the differences between the possible amounts of distance between the two parties of the

A Discourse Analysis on the Mitigation Language …

81

supervision process as well as examine a variety of reactions to my attitude as a supervisor. For instance, Brad was very much in control of his situation and displayed a significant amount of power during all the stages of the process by offering me copies of the recordings he had been planning to perform as well as asking me to execute the supervisory feedback session within the next 24 hours after my classroom observation. On the other hand, his use of initiative, which I interpreted as one of his possible strengths as a teacher during the preobservation session, was not balanced with his ability to involve all the students in the classroom activities during my observation. He seemed to keep his distance from his students as an authority figure rather than maintain the profile of a powerful and interactive teacher. He depended more on his time management skills and kept the class moving smoothly but he did not seem to have much of a rapport with the class. They did all he said but they did not seem to enjoy themselves. In my opinion, language learning is supposed to be communicative, informative and fun. But there was no element of fun in the air, the reason for which might have been his health situation with his throat. If I had the chance of observing him one more time, I would certainly supervise him about this aspect of his performance as I believe he has all that it takes to be a fun teacher thanks to his jolly nature. Unlike Brad, Shuei Li was a little tense during the two pre-observation conferences and made it clear by expressing her dissatisfaction with my attempt at recording those sessions. But other than that, she was very cooperative and confident especially during her classroom instruction and the post-observation sessions. However, she seemed to keep the pre-observation sessions as short as possible. Looking back now, I relate this to her excitement before the event. As a non-native speaker, she gave me the chance of witnessing a different approach to teaching as compared to NSETs. Medgyes ( 2001) refers to this difference arguing that non-native-speaking teachers adopt a more guided approach, are more cautious, are more empathetic to the students, attend to real needs, and have realistic expectations.(as cited in Bailey, 2006, p.308). That indeed was the case because I had observed that Brad as NSET did adopt what Medgyes defines a more flexible, more innovative… and frequently more casual approach (ibid.). I have decided to focus on Shuei Li’s performance in this paper since I believe she, as a NNSET, offers better prospects having similarities to my target audience at my home teaching situation, where I supervise NNES pre-service teachers. Her performance displayed a lot of positive changes since our feedback session. First of all, she increased her use of L2 in her instruction and made sure the students

82

İrfan Kuran

understood what she was saying by asking them comprehension check questions in L1 and L2. Another improvement with her teaching behavior was her continuous attempt to involve every student in the classroom tasks. She achieved this goal by walking toward them and mildly insisting on eliciting a response from them. Fortunately, the students were very responsive despite the fact that it was the final lesson of the semester before the final exams. Almost all the students seemed to be eagerly participating in the activities and following the teacher’s instructions carefully. Shuei Li used more social chitchat phrases, thus offering her students a spoken flavor of the target language. She remembered to praise them every time they made and effort and this seemed to provide the students with encouragement to do better. Her classroom management skills were good and she did very well in terms of realizing her lesson plan. The lesson flowed very smoothly and it did not sound like the last of the semester. Both the teacher and the students were enthusiastic and performed well.

THE DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSCRIPT Wajnryb (1995) defines Mitigation as the linguistic means by which a speaker deliberately hedges what he / she is saying by taking into account the reactions of the hearer (as cited in Bailey, 2006, p.189). I am going to first analyze the transcript (you can refer to Appendix IV for the whole transcription) according to three major types of mitigation in supervisory discourse she describes as: (1) hypermitigation, meaning there is so much mitigation the message is overly softened, often at the expense of clarity; (2) hypomitigation, meaning there is too little mitigation and the message is so direct as to be blunt; and (3) above-the-utterance-level mitigation, meaning the softened criticism is accomplished at the discourse level (ibid.:166). Later I will examine and discuss in detail the types of utterance level mitigation used in the feedback session.

Hypermitigation Devices There is none as I was aware of the significance of not being too indirect in putting across to the supervisee some negative feedback. I was lucky in that my supervisee was one of my best classmates and she herself had asked me to observe her in the first place. I knew that I would not have to be too indirect to

A Discourse Analysis on the Mitigation Language …

83

express any negative criticism for fear of performing a face-threatening act. And then again there was not much to criticize as the teacher seemed to have followed my advice about such issues as increasing her use of L2 and the variety of social chit-chat phrases and expressions even drawing the attention of the reluctant students, whom she mostly expected to act sensibly as college students, by directing comprehension check questions and attention checking.

Hypomitigation Devices They are almost non-existent as I was determined to avoid acting the supervisor Wajnryb (1994a) refers to as “up-front, blunt and totally frank”. The closest I might have come to the level of hypomitigation could be the point where I indirectly criticized the teacher for not doing much on the reluctance of certain students and say “Oh, I would definitely do something about it. I mean their attendance and behavior. I wouldn’t ignore their reluctance and would definitely try to involve them in all the activities”. The message is indirect but clear and therefore it runs the risk of threatening the face of a teacher with whom one may just have a formal relationship. Another example is when I asked my supervisee how many of the students she would fail. But it was not a question criticizing a negative behavior. I was only being a little nosy as we teachers do not usually announce to others the number of students we will have to fail.

Above –the-Utterance- Level Mitigation Devices Example: “I wish I were one of your students in this class. But not everybody was so enthusiastic, I’m afraid. I mean the two Asian American guys at the back.” Here I prepare the supervisee for the forthcoming negative feedback by expressing my admiration for a positive side of her teaching.

Utterance-Level Mitigation Strategies Used Wajnryb classifies three main types of mitigating strategies as syntactic, semantic and indirect and what follows are examples from the transcript (I should note that no instance of the use of indirect mitigation strategies has been observed).

84

İrfan Kuran

a. Syntactic Mitigation Devices Used Tense shift: “would you change anything about your teaching style, the textbook you use or anything?” Negating: “I wouldn’t ignore their reluctance”. Interrogatives: “Why do you think some of them have been so irregular in their attendance?”

“What about their performance in the oral sections?” “How are you planning to teach the course next year?” “I mean, would you change anything about your teaching style, the textbook you use or anything?” These questions all suggest alternative practices, which might as well have been tried by the teacher, rather than directly mention those alternatives as possible solutions. Modal verbs: “I would definitely do something about it” “I wouldn’t ignore their reluctance and would definitely try to involve them…”, “ Would you change anything about your teaching style?…”

b. Semantic Mitigation Devices Used Wajnryb’s main semantic mitigation strategies for mitigating direct utterances and examples from the transcript are as follows: Qualm indicators/Hesitation markers: “You know, we teachers kind of know who is likely to pass or fail…” Delaying asides: “ I wish I were one of your students in the class, too. But not everybody was so enthusiastic, I’m afraid.” Lexical hedges/Metaphorical lexemes: “Well, you can’t learn much unless you do what it takes” with the hidden message that teachers should somehow get their students to make an effort to learn through various techniques. Style shifting: “Well, you can’t learn much unless you do what it takes.” This example includes the use of impersonal “you”, which creates an informal and indirect effect.

There normally are more subcategories under Semantic mitigation strategies but I do not seem to have used them in abundance, which suggests that I preferred being more direct than indirect, which my supervisee also observed and verbalized to me during our post observation session as can be seen in the transcript. But my directness was carefully worded and it benefited from the informal relationship I had with my supervisee outside the classroom.

A Discourse Analysis on the Mitigation Language …

85

Furthermore, I practiced utmost attention to not threaten my supervisee’s face and encouraged her to reflect on her own professional skills in a cooperative atmosphere. In terms of the Johari Window named after its creators, Joseph Luft and Harry Ingram (1969) I tried to help her to move from the blind self-quadrant to the open self-quadrant in terms of her weaknesses (as cited in Bailey, 2006, p.38).

CONCLUSION In this paper I have discussed the outcomes of the supervision I have provided for two of my classmates focusing on one of them in depth in terms of the mitigation strategies I used and all the insight I gained out of the process as an experienced practicing supervisor. I have had the opportunity of developing my own professional skills by experimenting with constructs such as pre-observation conferencing and cooperative and non-directive supervision. I also became aware of the importance of listening to the supervisee as well as of providing them with advice for professional development. I also realized that the supervisees benefit much more from the supervisory process if they are encouraged to discover their own strengths and weaknesses through carefully worded input including various forms of mitigation accordingly. This new perspective into supervision helped me to discover my own strengths and weaknesses as a supervisor. Throughout the entire supervisory process with both classmates my priority was to perform a non-directive performance as I came to understand that it was the most viable option allowing more opportunities for professional development for both participants. I followed the argument offered by Bailey (2006) that in the non-directive approach, supervisors‘ responses to teachers‘ ideas should not be to agree or disagree immediately but to encourage teachers’ reflection and draw out further ideas based on that reflection, which was something that I had not considered before with the pre-service teachers I supervised and I tended to be very judgmental of their performances believing that direct criticism would save us time and energy and accelerate the supervisees’ professional development. This time I avoided judgmental comments and tried to establish a close interaction with my supervisees in an effort to allow room for reflective supervision. My guiding principle in this endeavor was Sergiovanni’s (1985) argument that teachers and supervisors must join forces “in trying to make sense of complex situations, in sharing

86

İrfan Kuran

perceptions, and in arriving at ‘treatments’ and other courses of action together” (as cited in Bailey, 2006, p.332). I have every intention to put into practice all the outcomes of this supervisory experience and hope that both my pre-service teachers and I will be benefiting highly from this experience. There is a lot of potential in the application of such analysis also for those supervisors out there who need to improve their performance and want to have a hand in the professional development of their colleagues and student teachers.

APPENDICES Appendix I: Observing an ESL Class with Brad Watson After a friendly and relaxed pre-observation session at the Graduate Teaching Assistants room of the Applied Linguistics Department, I have arranged observing a full ESL lesson with Brad Watson, a classmate from my Teacher Supervision course at an American State University. I was planning to audiotape the pre-observation session as well as the class observation itself. When I raised the issue, Brad said that it would not be a problem for him as he himself would videotape his lesson to be observed and that he could provide me with a copy of the recording if I wanted to have one, which was very relaxing. His trust in himself and me was very comforting. Walen and DeRose (1993) argue that trust is the foundation for productive communication and opens the door for self-evaluation (as cited in Bailey, 2006, p.189). Brad taught a low intermediate level reading class of 12 students in their early 20s; 8 Saudi Arabians, 1 Greek, 1 Korean,1 Chinese and 1student from Kongo. I started audio-taping the class and taking detailed field notes along the way. He started his class with a warm up session talking about the quiz results for about a minute and mentioned his sore throat asking them to be tolerant toward the quality of his voice. From the way the students responded to this, I inferred that he had created a friendly relationship with the class. He projected an image of food on the screen about the use of chemicals in food processing and asked if they were familiar with Asian food with a few students answering eagerly, which took about two minutes. He then moved onto an activity based on some flashcards which the students had apparently been given in the previous class. He asked them to return them. While they were doing so, he checked their work praising them.

A Discourse Analysis on the Mitigation Language …

87

The flashcards were supposed to be filled with additional sentences about various food items. In the next stage he asked them to share their sentences with a friend and then invited a female student to the board to share her sentences with the rest of the class. He modeled a sample interaction with her about the ingredients of some food from her flashcard. After checking their understanding of the procedure, he asked the students to stand up and pair up with somebody with the same color shoes and role-play similar interactions. The students did this a bit reluctantly, which in my opinion might have been due to my presence in the classroom. While they were carrying out the task, he listened to them closely by standing near and praising them. He then got two pairs at the board to do it for the rest of the class and expressed his satisfaction with their performance. At this stage, almost all the students seemed to be actively involved by either doing the activity or listening to those performing at the board except for a Saudi boy in the back of the room. Students returned their flashcards and the teacher asked them to put away their cell phones as it was time for the quiz. Receiving their quizzes, the students started dealing with them quietly with a few occasional students approaching the teacher’s desk to ask for a few clarifications. Ten minutes later, the students received the second part of the quiz when one of them mentioned some discrepancy with the instructions and the teacher explained it to the whole class thanking the student. After the timely completion of the quiz, they moved onto checking the answers by looking at the questions on the screen. The teacher got individual students answer the questions and wrote the answers in the gaps. He read them aloud very clearly despite the problem with his throat, which was worthy of notice. After the quiz check, the teacher handed the students an article entitled “Chinese food syndrome” asking them to read it and mark the unknown words. He then asked them to make an original sentence about the main idea and prepare three “Why” questions about the text. Receiving a question for task clarification from a student, he did that making sure everybody understood it. After a comprehension question was answered by a student, the class worked on the article for three minutes with the teacher closely monitoring their performance. After an extra three minutes granted by the teacher, they were asked to tell him about the words they did not understand. The problem words were explained by the teacher and various students.

88

İrfan Kuran

For the last five minutes of the class time the class got into two large groups and shared their “Why” questions with each other. When one of the groups experienced a problem the teacher dealt with it and let the other group hear his explanation by saying it out loud. The teacher called time and assigned homework by drawing everybody’s attention on the screen. Before the class left, he handed out their previous works. The first thing that attracted my attention about Brad’s style of teaching was his precision with time management. He smoothly followed his lesson plan without causing any gaps and handled questions confidently in spite of a sore throat. The way he reflected individual student feedback to the rest of the class was also one of his strengths. What seemed to be missing from the atmosphere was the lack of enjoyment in the classroom. Knowing the relaxed and jovial nature of his, I must admit that I had expected a more fun class with enthusiastic student participation. The students did participate but there was a lack of enthusiasm in their participation. If Brad had not told me that it was a very relaxed class and my presence would not affect their performance at all, I would not have worried but it was the case. I guess Brad should depend more on his inter-personal skills that he exhibits outside the classroom. His students would highly benefit from his relaxed manners and use of colloquial expressions which, he could perfectly adopt as a native speaker. Such a change in his instructional behavior might help his students to relax as well. As a result, they would likely get more actively involved in the activities and progress more.

Appendix II: Observing A Chinese L2 Class with Shuei Li Observation I April 10, 2013 I observed Shuei Li twice teaching Chinese to an undergraduate class of 20 students. The original class population was 24 but there were drop-outs, hence the present number. It was an all skills class with special emphasis on writing due to the distinctive writing system used. Both lessons were audiotaped and followed by post-observation conferences. When I entered the class, she had already started delivering some handouts to the students. The atmosphere was relaxed and friendly. The teacher mostly spoke in English and occasionally used Chinese while interacting with

A Discourse Analysis on the Mitigation Language …

89

the class. I soon noticed that the handouts were related to the quiz they were given the previous week and they were checking their answers to the quiz questions together. The teacher asked who had certain Chinese words on their handouts for the English words she called and put the students having the same words into pairs to make sentences with them. When their sentences were ready, they shared them with the rest of the class by reading them aloud. During the activity the teacher attended the students closely and answered their questions in English. What attracted my attention at this point was that she did not share the outcome of this intraction with the rest of the class. The good thing was that all the students were actively involved. Her attitude to the other pairs checking their work closely and answering all their questions attentively gave me the impression that she had a good rapport with the class. Three minutes later the teacher had groups of students read their sentences aloud with the whole class repeating after them in chorus. She remembered to praise the groups in L1. As the next activity the teacher displayed a dialogue about ordering food on the screen and had the whole class repeat the lines from the dialogue in chorus. The students joined in eagerly. After that the teacher mentioned an assignment about the students’ sending her e-mails about their favorite food expressing her dissatisfaction that not many students had replied. Next up was a listening activity which required ordering the sentences heard in the recording. She warned the students not to look at the script in L1 and praised them saying “Good Job” again in L1 when they carried it out successfully. The teacher then allowed them to check their answers against the text and a chorus repetition followed. The following task was a pair work activity in which students chose one of the four alternative dialogues in their handouts and practiced it with their partners. The instructions, which were given in L1 again, were eagerly followed by the students. Afterwards the teacher chose a particular pair to role-play their chosen dialogue at the board, which they did well and got warmly praised by the teacher and the whole class. One of the pairs at the board included a quiet, usually reluctant looking male student, who rendered the dialogue very well and the class liked their performance very much particularly because of the quality of his voice as I understood from the comments made by the other members of the class. Next up was work on a study guide and a worksheet about the upcoming final quiz. The class started working on them immediately. The teacher then

90

İrfan Kuran

put some incomplete rules on the screen and asked the students to work them out. The class responded eagerly and the rules were completed successfully. The next stage of the lesson was devoted to reading, which was carried out through handouts with a passage and comprehension questions. The teacher asked the students to work on them on their own and monitored them closely by answering the questions she was asked by individual students. In the mean time she kept praising them in L1 and L2. She also asked them to write their names on the back of their handouts, which she said was going to help her check their attendance. I found her approach to checking the attendance very practical. The last section included students’ PowerPoint presentations on Chinese culture. The teacher asked for some volunteers to deliver their presentations and three students volunteered to do so. It was a presentation about Chinese education system and was made in L1. The content was quite interesting and led to some comparison between the American and Chinese systems. Despite the quality of the content the presenters seemed much too relaxed and even indifferent to what they were doing. After the presentation the teacher thanked the three students and gave the class their quiz papers back and the class concluded.

Appendix III: Observing a Chinese L2 Class with Shuei Li Observation II April 23, 2013 When I entered the room for the second half of the lesson, the whole class was listening to the teacher very carefully. She was speaking Chinese and asking questions about the images of various clothing items on the screen. Whenever the students had difficulty answering, she helped them in L1 and L2. She put different Chinese characters on the screen and directed questions to the individual members of the class. They were fully involved listening to her very carefully. One of the questions directed to a male student was about a pair of boots and he hesitated for a while. The teacher helped him put a sentence together and he seemed to be relieved. Later the teacher moved onto the exam practice asking the class to find two partners and form groups of 3. She provided them with handouts containing model questions they were likely to answer in the written final exam. Except for two Asian-American male students in the back they all did

A Discourse Analysis on the Mitigation Language …

91

that started working eagerly. The two students remained silent for a while and then somehow started working on the practice questions, too. The teacher monitored each group closely and gave them immediate feedback. About three minutes later the teacher displayed the oral interview schedule on the screen asking the class to consider changing their original slots as she would be busy presenting her MA graduation presentation to her Department. The students offered alternatives and it was settled in an orderly manner. Next the teacher asked them to take out the previously handed model oral interview questions and practice them with a partner for the next five minutes. She said that she was ready to answer any questions they had. After a while the teacher displayed 10 sample interview questions on the screen. Most students started working on their own with a few others working together in small groups. The teacher walked about the classroom dealing with individual problems. While almost the entire class was busy with this, the two boys in the back enjoyed their private conversation. On noticing their indifference, the teacher directed a few questions to one of them conducting an interview about his major. To my surprise he was able to answer her questions and we learned that there was no equivalent for it in Chinese. The teacher then called for the attention of the class, explained a few important aspects of the oral interview in L1 and went onto asking individual practice questions. Later she reminded them of the oral interview task of reading a passage aloud and answering questions about it. She showed them a sample reading text on the screen, started reading it aloud with the whole class joining her except for the two students in the back. After this the teacher asked them to turn to a certain page in their text books for a narration. She passed handouts to the class and asked them to get into pairs for a gap-filling activity about the same reading text. They started work with the teacher closely monitoring them. At this point I was pleasantly surprised to see that even the two students in the back were doing the task individually. After this activity the teacher asked them to move onto a speaking activity in their handouts. The students tried to fill out the gaps in a dialogue individually and they were called on to read their answers aloud. The teacher concluded the class and asked the students in L2 not to be late for their oral interviews, which they seemed to have understood. One of the students asked her in L1 where the oral interview would be held. In response the teacher displayed the required information on the screen while most of the students were leaving the classroom.

92

İrfan Kuran

Appendix IV: The Transcript for the Post-Observation Conference with Shuei Li after the Second Classroom Observation In the following transcript S stands for the supervisor (me) and T represents the teacher (Shuei Li). S: Hi Shuei Li, ready for the feedback session? T: Yeah, let’s do it but please don’t record it. S: You know that I have to but OK, as you like it. I’ll take notes then. Right, let me first share with you my observation notes. When I entered the class everybody was all eyes and ears listening to you. You mostly spoke in Chinese and they seemed to follow you without much difficulty. It was the exam practice you mentioned during the pre-observation session right? T: Yes. As their proficiency level is not high, I had previously given them 30 questions likely to be asked so that they would not panic in the exam. I only made a small percentage of them into exam questions but the result wasn’t very promising. We then agreed to decrease the number of questions to 10 but they would have to study transcribing and memorizing them all, which I thought would be harder but it seems to work better. Yes, that’s what we were working on when you entered the room. S: I see, and I liked the way you code-switched while interacting with them this time and it seemed to work well. Even I was able to pick up a few words of Chinese from the context. T: Really? Great! S: Yes, of course. I wish I were one of your students in the class, too. But not everybody was so enthusiastic, I’m afraid. I mean the two Asian-American guys at the back. T: You’re right. You know what? I had been teaching at college level for three years in China before this job and my students always worked hard and participated in the class doing their best. I expect my students here to act like college students and I don’t really warn them about their behavior. S: Oh, I would definitely do something about it. I mean their attendance and behavior. I wouldn’t ignore their reluctance and would definitely try to involve them in all the activities. T: Yes, of course. You are very experienced. One of the two most experienced students in the (supervision) class actually and your observations are very sharp. S: Sharp? What exactly do you mean by that?

A Discourse Analysis on the Mitigation Language …

93

T: I mean you observe very carefully. You do it so professionally. You do not miss anything and your comments are always to the point. S: Oh, are they? I am glad to hear you say that. What about the other students in the class? Why do you think some of them have been so irregular in their attendance? T: Most students take Chinese just to complete their credits. Some of them are heritage students and they speak Chinese with their parents at home. They are very fluent with the language but they don’t do well in the exams. Another thing is that they are stuck between two cultures. 6 students dropped out of the course already and a few others have been very irregular, thus missing a lot of instruction. The two students in the back are clear examples of this attitude. S: But they can at least read and understand the Chinese characters. I find it a good achievement. It must have been very hard for them to get used to the writing system. You must be proud of yourself. T: Oh, thank you. When they failed the reading sections in the initial quizzes, I prepared new reading texts for them to study in order to improve their performance. We studied them together and it seems to have worked. S: What about their performance in the oral sections? T: Well, nobody fails the oral interview. We have practiced certain skills previously such as reading aloud, introducing yourself and the like, and they are good at them .They only want to speak the language, they don’t want to read or write. S: Why is that? T: Well, most of them taught that it would be an experience similar to learning Spanish. Can you believe it? They had no idea what it was actually like. S: Then why did they choose to study it in the first place? I mean they could have done other courses or languages for their credits, couldn’t they? T: Because of their ignorance. As I said, they just wanted to complete their credits and the heritage students chose it thinking that it would be so easy for them to pass the course. S: How many of them are likely to fail? I mean have you decided yet? You know, we teachers kind of know who is likely to pass or fail according to their general performance and attitude. T: Well, 10% of the student population is failing due to their lack of attendance already. I haven’t finished marking their papers yet so I don’t know. S: How are you planning to teach the course next year? I mean would you change anything about your teaching style, the textbook you use or anything?

94

İrfan Kuran

T: There won’t be a next year. I am graduating, you know. I have already made certain changes about my teaching, anyway. I have focused more on speaking skills but some of them didn’t like it. One of the students even questioned my teaching skills. S: Really? Well, you can’t learn much unless you do what it takes. T: Absolutely. S: Thank you for allowing me to supervise you, Shuei Li. It was a great pleasure for me to work with you. T: Sure. The pleasure is mine. I enjoyed it, too.

REFERENCES Bailey, K, M. (2006). Language teacher supervision: A case-based approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gebhard, J, G. (1999). Seeing teaching differently through observation (chapter 3).In Jerry Gebhard and Robert Oprandy (eds.), Language teaching awareness: A guide to exploring beliefs and practices. Cambridge University Press, 35-58. Luft, J. & Ingram, H.(1969). Of human interaction. New York: national press books. Medgyes, P. (2001). When the teacher is a non-native speaker. In Marianne Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language(3rd ed.). Boston:Heinle and Heinle 415-427. Sergiovanni, T, J.(1985). Landscapes, mindscapes, and reflective practice in supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1(1), 5-17. Wajnryb, R. (1995a).Teachers’ perceptions of mitigation in supervisory discourse: A report of a pilot study. South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 23(1), 71-82. Walen, E., & DeRose, M. (1993).The power of peer appraisals. Educational leadership, 51, 45-48.

In: Discourse Perspectives … Editors: D. Yuksel and B. Inan

ISBN: 978-1-62808-867-0 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 7

A COMPARISON OF THE CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PATTERNS OF NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE SPEAKING TEACHERS OF ENGLISH: TURKISH AND AMERICAN ELT SETTINGS Banu İnan Kocaeli University, Faculty of Education, ELT Department, Turkey

ABSTRACT Learner errors and how course instructors should react to these errors have been studied extensively by many different people up to now. This aim of this chapter is to compare and contrast the basic corrective feedback patterns used by native and non-native speaker teachers of English in two different ELT settings, a Turkish and an American EFL setting. Classroom conversations of one native (NS) and one non-native speaker (NNS) teacher of English from Turkish EFL setting and one NS and one NNS teacher of English from American ESL setting in readingbased courses were video-recorded for four weeks and they were transcribed by the researchers. The findings of this chapter indicate that NS teachers of English are more tolerant about learners‘ spoken errors 

Corresponding author: [email protected].

96

Banu İnan than NNS teachers of English but they try to correct as many pronunciation and lexical errors as possible. On the other hand, NNS teachers of English do supply corrective feedback for lots of grammatical errors but they are not as sensitive as NS teachers of English about the pronunciation and lexical errors in both contexts.

INTRODUCTION There has been considerable amount of research on feedback in the last few years. The data gathered as a result of the research have exemplified different issues related to feedback. A part of the research investigates what type of learner error is corrected and in what ways (Chaudron, 1977; Fanselow, 1977; Sheorey, 1986; Lyster, 2001; Morris, 2002a & 2002b), another aspect of the research is associated with the effect of different feedback types on learner performance (Guntermann, 1978; Carroll et al., 1992; Dekeyser, 1993; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Leeman, 2003; Lyster, 2004; Ammar & Spada, 2006). A third but less extensively studied dimension of feedback-related research is about the differences of corrective feedback according to teacher variables such as gender (Lee, 2002), and experience (Yoneyama, 1982). Allright (1975) points out that research on teacher feedback supplies information about how effective teacher’s interaction is and how language learning takes place. Most of the research above is based upon the idea that comprehensible input, by itself, is not adequate to explain the complex phenomenon of second/foreign language acquisition; negative evidence (i.e., information about ungrammaticality) is also an important requirement (Panova & Lyster, 2002), which will enable learners to identify the differences between their actual productions and the original forms in the target language and to modify their interlanguage accordingly. One of the most influential ways of supplying this negative evidence in the classroom is through corrective feedback. As suggested by Chaudron (1977, p.31), corrective feedback refers to “any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of the learner utterance”. Lyster & Ranta (1997) developed a “corrective discourse model” based on this definition of corrective feedback. This model consists of three moves, which are: (a) error, (b) feedback and (c) learner uptake. Error is the utterance which is not wellformed. In Lyster and Ranta’s classification, feedback is examined in six groups, which are exemplified below – (a) explicit correction, (b) recast, (c)

A Comparison of the Corrective Feedback Patterns of Native ...

97

clarification requests, (d) metalinguistic feedback, (e) elicitation, and (f) repetition. Learner uptake, in this model, “refers to a student’s utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback and that constitutes a reaction in some way to the teacher’s intention to draw attention to some aspect of the student’s initial utterance” (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p.49). Uptake was considered to be either an indicator of how effective corrective feedback is (Chaudron, 1977) or as an aid for learners to notice the gap between the target form and their interlanguage form (Mackey et al., 2000). Lyster and Ranta (1997) identify two types of uptake, which are “repair” and “needs repair”.

Figure 1. Error treatment sequence by Lyster and Ranta (1997).

Banu İnan

98

In repair, learner error is corrected with the help of corrective feedback, whereas in needs repair, corrective feedback does not bring about the correction of learner error. A number of researchers also focused on the concept of “uptake” and its role in the process of language acquisition. Lyster & Ranta (1997) contend that learners are able to practise using language items by means of uptake, which may lead to their automatic retrieval, Ellis, Basturkmen and Loewen (2001) suggest that uptake may be facilitative of acquisition. In the corrective feedback model suggested by Lyster&Ranta (1997), the error treatment sequence is as in Figure 1.

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK TYPES The following corrective feedback types and their definitions were taken from Lyster & Ranta (1997) and the examples are from 10-11 year-old students in an ESL class (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p.126-127). Explicit correction refers to the explicit provision of the correct form. As the teacher provides the correct form, s/he clearly indicates that what the student had said was incorrect (for example, ‘Oh, you mean…’, ‘You should say …’). S T

The dog run fastly. (student error) ‘Fastly’ doesn’t exist. ‘Fast’ does not take –ly. That’s why I picked ‘quickly’. (explicit correction)

Recasts involve the teacher’s reformulation of al lor part of a student’s utterance, minus the error. Recasts are generally implicit in that they are not introduced by ‘You mean’, ‘You should say’, or ‘Use this word’. Clarification requests indicate to students either that their utterance has been misunderstood by the teacher or that the utterance is incorrect in some way and that a repetition or a reformulation is required. A clarification request includes phrases such as ‘Pardon me…?’ It may also include a repetition of the error as in ‘What do you mean by…?’ T S

How often do you wash the dishes? Fourteen. (student error)

A Comparison of the Corrective Feedback Patterns of Native ... T S T S T S

99

Excuse me? (clarification request) Fourteen. Fourteen what? (clarification request) Fourteen for a week. Fourteen times a week (recast) Yes. Lunch and dinner.

Elicitation refers to at least three techniques that teachers use to directly elicit the correct form from the students. First, teachers elicit completion of their own utterance (for example, ‘It’s a …’). Second, teachers use questions to elicit correct forms (for example, ‘How do we say x in English?’). Third, teachers occasionally ask students to reformulate their utterance. S T S

My father cleans the plate. (student error) Excuse me, he cleans the ??? (elicitation) Plates?

Repetition refers to the teacher’s repetition of the student’s erroneous utterance. In most cases, teachers adjust their intonation so as to highlight the error. In the following example, the repetition is followed by a recast. S T

He’s in the bathroom. (student error) Bathroom? Bedroom. He’s in the bedroom. (repetition)

Multiple feedback includes more than one type of feedback supplied by the teacher as a result of the students’ erroneous utterances. Among all these types of feedback, recasts are one of the most commonly studied types of corrective feedback in different settings such as L1 acquisition (Farrar, 1992; Saxton, 1997), SLA (Lyster& Ranta, 1997; Long, Inagaki & Ortega, 1998; Sakai, 2011) and EFL (Fukuya & Zhang, 2002; Yang, 2010).

The Significance of Corrective Feedback within the Scope of Sociocultural Theory Sociocultural Theory (SCT), as suggested by Lev Vygotsky (1978), describes learning as a social process. In his theory, Vygotsky mentions the importance of social interaction in the cognitive development of an individual. In order to identify the connection between sociocultural theory and the

100

Banu İnan

process of language acquisition, Lantof (2006) identifies two basic constructs of sociocultural theory in terms of language development, which are mediation and internalization and the use of L2 by speakers as a mediator was paid extra attention by researchers working in this field (Frawley & Lantof, 1985; Ellis, 1997, 2003; Swain, 2000, 2001). According to Ellis (2009, p.12) language learning is defined as “dialogically based and that acquisition occurs in rather than as a result of interaction”. In this sense, it is difficult to define L2 learning as a purely individual activity. As development, according to this theory, originates in the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), the guidance learners get from more capable peers or the collaboration emerging between a novice and an expert becomes extremely important. Corrective feedback is an important part of this collaboration taking place between learners and the teacher in the classroom. As teachers constitute an important part of this process of error-feedbackuptake, their characteristics have got significant roles when their reactions, attitudes and personal features are taken into consideration. One of the most widely disputed teacher characteristics is their being native or non-native.

NS-NNS Teacher Dichotomy With the increasing importance of English as a second/foreign language all around the world, the need for teachers who will teach this language has also increased. A long standing question deals with the instructional differences, if any, between NS and NNS teachers of English. Davies (1996, p.157) points out that “the native speaker is a fine myth: we need it as a model, a goal, almost an inspiration. But it is useless as a measure; it will not help us to define our goals.” Likewise, Medgyes (2001, p.440) suggests that “…the glory once attached to the NS teachers has faded, and an increasing number of ELT experts assert that the “ideal teacher” is no longer a category reserved for NS teachers.” Widdowson (1994, p.385) also mentioned similar things about the issue saying that “the very fact that English is an international language means that no nation can have custody over it.” Most of the studies carried out up to now were either related to the student opinions of NS and NNS teachers(Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999; Moussu, 2002; Liang, 2002) or related to the differences between them in terms of their evaluations of discreet out-of-context sentences (James, 1977; Sheorey, 1986; McCretton & Rider, 1993;). However, studies focusing on the classroom talks of native and non-native speaker teachers and their reactions to students’ oral

A Comparison of the Corrective Feedback Patterns of Native ...

101

language productions are very scarce. It is believed that this chapter will contribute to the related literature with the fact that it was carried out two different ELT settings in two different countries and that its basic focus is on the teachers’ reactions to students’ oral language productions in these two settings. This work summarized in this chapter aims to answer the following research questions: 1. What kind of errors is committed in the reading-based discussions in the Turkish and American ELT settings by learners of English? 2. What are the attitudes of NS and NNS teachers of English towards these errors? Are NS teachers of English more tolerant of learners‘ errors than NNS teachers of English? 3. What kind of corrective feedback do the NS and NNS teachers of English supply to the errors students make in the reading-based classroom discussions?

METHOD Participants The subjects for this study discussed in this chapter were 1 native and 1 non-native speaker teachers of English in a Turkish EFL context and 1 native and 1 non-native speaker teacher of English in an American ESL context, all of whom were teaching at the university level to adult learners with Table 1. Demographic information about the participant teachers in both settings Turkish EFL setting NS Teacher NNS Teacher of English of English Female Female American Turkish M.A. PhD 5 years of experience 10 years of experience

American ESL setting NS Teacher NNS Teacher of English of English Male Female Korean American M.A M.A 6 years of 3 years of experience experience

Banu İnan

102

Table 2. Demographic information about the participant students in both settings Turkey NNS Teacher 20 students from Turkey 1 students from Uzbekistan 1 students from Kazakhstan 2 students from Turkmenistan

NS Teacher 18 students from Turkey 1 students from Turkmenistan 2 students from Uzbekistan 1 students from Kazakhstan

The USA NNS Teacher NS Teacher 2 students 1 students from Korea from Mongolia 3 students 4 students from Vietnam from Korea 4 students 1 students from China from Russia 1 students 6 students from Japan from Japan 2 students 1 students from Samoa from China 1 students from Timor-Leste 1 students from Germany

intermediate level of English. Demographic information related to the 4 teachers taking part in this study discussed in this chapter is given in Table 1. Demographic information about the participant students in both settings are given in Table 2.

Instructional Context The instructional context this study in this chapter includes two different countries and two different ELT settings. The classrooms in Turkey and the USA were both located at state universities and they both included intermediate level learners of English. In each setting, two different classes were chosen; one taught by a NS teacher of English and one taught by a NNS teacher of English.

Procedure and Interrater Reliability In the writing of this chapter, reading- based courses were chosen because the researcher thought that the classroom interactions taking place throughout the discussions might lead to a greater amount of learner language when compared to more traditional teacher-centered lecturing sessions in grammar-

A Comparison of the Corrective Feedback Patterns of Native ...

103

based courses. Classroom interactions in both settings were audio-recorded for 4 weeks in both of these settings, where students and teachers came together for 4 hours a week. Before the recordings started, the teachers were not informed of the exact focus of these recordings in order not to influence the natural flow of the courses. After the recordings were over, they were transcribed by the researchers in order to carry out a detailed analysis and they were each numbered and described as “episodes” by the researchers. In each episode, types of learner errors, types of teachers’ corrective feedback and whether these types of corrective feedback led to learner uptake (Lyster& Ranta, 1997) were analysed with a view to finding out the similarities and differences between the classroom interactions taking part in a class taught by a NS teacher of English and the classroom interactions taking part in a class taught by a NNS teacher of English.

Analyzed Categories In this chapter types of errors and feedback were analyzed according to the categories shown in Table 3 below: Table 3. Categories of analysis related to error and feedback types Error Grammar Vocabulary Pronunciation Other

Feedback Feedback No feedback

Feedback Type Explicit correction Repetition Recasts Metalinguistic feedback Clarification request Elicitation Multiple feedback

In each classroom, 5 episodes of teacher-fronted text based discussion were analyzed and coded by the researcher. 10 % of the data was chosen randomly. It was firstly coded by the researcher and then a training manual for the second rater was prepared by the researcher and it included the definition of each type of learner error, teacher feedback as suggested by Lyster and Ranta (1997) and student reactions –whether there was an uptake or not. In this same manual, for each type of learner error, and corrective feedback, one example was supplied. The examples in the training manual were not the same with the original data that the second researcher was asked to code. The rater

Banu İnan

104

is a researcher with a PhD in English language teaching who is working in the same department with the researcher. After the codings were compared and contrasted, interrater reliability was found to be .94.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The first research question this chapter aimed to answer was about the types of errors committed by learners in the EFL settings. The following table indicates the types of errors committed by learners. Table 4. Distribution of errors according to 2 different settings Error Types Grammatical Lexical Pronunciation Other TOTAL

Turkish EFL NS Teacher 10 7 8 3 28

Turkish EFL NNS Teacher 9 8 6 1 24

American ESL NS Teacher 9 5 6 2 22

American ESL NNS Teacher 8 3 2 1 14

As can be seen in the Table 4, the majority of the errors committed in both contexts consists of grammar and vocabulary errors. Some example errors are shown in the following excerpt which is one of the transcribed episodes in the American ESL setting, in a class taught by a NS teacher of English.

Excerpt 1 22

T

23

Ch

24 25

T Sh

26

T

OK, here it says “No pain, no gain”. What do you guys think? What are your ideas? What does this mean to you? Guys, listen up. You’ve heard that before? You don’t have a pain. You don’t have a adventure (grammatical). You are challenging something. ……… (inaudible) Yeah, you are challenging. OK, anybody else? When we young (grammatical) , we don’t care about success (grammar), probably we don’t understand. But when we get older, we think we success (lex). We make long way until now like, I can’t explain. Past, we start when we born (grammatical). Now and past, all our way our success. Because we went kindergarden, is very success (lexical).. We learn how to eat, how walk, how to explain our feelings, so everything success (lexical).. When we start to working (grammatical), we always fall down. When we stand up and go next step next step and next step. T: OK, good. Anybody else wanna share something? Any experience, any story? ……….

A Comparison of the Corrective Feedback Patterns of Native ...

105

Table 5. Frequencies and percentages of error treatment sequences in Turkish EFL context NNS Number of Errors Number of Errors ignored Feedback Type Explicit correction Recast Clarification requests Elicitation Metalinguistic feedback Multiple feedback Repetition

28 2 Number 17 6 3

% 65 23 12

NS 24 10 Number 7 4 3

% 50 28 22

In order to be able to answer the second research question of this chapter, in addition to the types of errors committed by learners in these two settings, frequencies and percentages of error treatment sequences were discerned for each instructional setting. Table 5 illustrates the numbers of errors in both settings and the ones that are ignored by NS and NNS teachers as well as the types of corrective feedback for these errors committed by learners. Table 6. Frequencies and percentages of error treatment sequences in American ESL context Number of Errors Number of Errors ignored Feedback Type Explicit feedback Recast Clarification requests Elicitation Metalinguistic feedback Multiple feedback Repetition

NNS 14 3 Number 1 5 2 3

% 9 45 18 28

NS 22 15 Number 4 1 2

% 57 14 29

As can be seen in Table 4, the NS teacher in the Turkish EFL context was more tolerant of learner errors in general. When she felt the need to supply corrective feedback, she mostly used “recast” and “elicitation” as forms of feedback. Likewise, the most common feedback types supplied by NNS teacher were “recast” and “elicitation”.

106

Banu İnan

As it is shown in Table 6 above, in the American context, similar to the one in the Turkish context, the NS teacher was more tolerant of student errors; for this reason, he preferred to ignore most of the student errors. The tolerance of NS of English is quite apparent in Excerpt 1 above. Even though the utterances produced by the learner include a lot of grammatical and lexical errors, he simply ignores them. This finding of the chapter is parallel to those of Arva& Medgyes (2000), Diaz (2009), Sheorey (1986), Hughes and Lascaratou (1982) which suggest that NNS teachers focus more on form and accuracy than meaning and fluency. As another similarity with the Turkish context, in the American context, too, both the NS and NNS teacher preferred to supply corrective feedback in the form of recast mostly (45 % and 57 %), and repetitions, respectively (28%, 29%). When the findings of this chapter are taken into consideration, the finding that in both settings, recast is the most common form of corrective feedback in the foreign language classrooms is parallel with the findings of previous studies (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Lyster, 1998b; Doughty, 1994). Moreover, the finding in the American ESL setting suggesting that “repetition” is the second most common form of corrective feedback is similar to that of Pica et al. (1989).

REFERENCES Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of language teacher’s treatment of learner error. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education: On TESOL’75 (96109). Washington, DC: TESOL. Arva, V. & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System, 28, 355-372. Davies, A. (1996). What second language learners can tell us about the native speaker: Identifying and describing exception. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Chicago, IL. Diaz, N. R. (2009). A Comparative Study on Native and NN Teachers’ Scaffolding Techniques in SLA at an early age. Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 17, 57-73. Doughty, C. (1994) Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In J.E. Alatis (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table

A Comparison of the Corrective Feedback Patterns of Native ...

107

on Language and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1 (1), 3-18. Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 28, 90-98. Frawley, W. & Lantof, J. P. (1985). Second language discourse: A Vygotskyan perspective. Applied Linguistics, 6, 19-44. Fukuya, Y. J. & Zhang, Y. (2002). Effects of recasts on EFL learners‘ acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request, Second Language Studies, 21(1), 1-47. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom, NH: Heinemann. James, C. (1977). Judgments of error gravities. ELT Journal, 31(2), 116-124. Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387–398. Hughes, A. & Lascaratou, C. (1982). Competing criteria for error gravity, ELT Journal, 36(3), 175-182. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford and New York: Pergamon Institute of English. Lantof, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 67-109. Liang, K. (2002). English as a second language (ESL) students’ attitudes towards non-native English-speaking teachers‘ accentedness. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. California State University, Los Angeles, CA. Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Long, M., Inagaki, S. & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative evidence in SLA:Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.

108

Banu İnan

Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218. Lyster, R & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300. Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquistion, 19, 37-66. Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471497. McCretton, E. & Rider, N. (1993). Error gravity and error hierarchies. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 177-188. Medgyes, P. (2001). When the teacher is a non-native speaker. In M. CelceMurcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, (429442). The USA: Heinle & Heinle. Moussu, L. (2002). English as a second language students’ reactions to nonnative English speaking teachers. Unpublished M. A. Thesis. Brigham Young University, Utah. Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N. & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90. Sakai, H. (2011). Do recasts promote noticing the gap in L2 learning? Asian EFL Journal, 13(1), 357-385. Samimy, K. & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999). To be a native or non-native speaker: Perceptions of ‘non-native’ students in a graduate TESOL program. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching (127144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24, 139-161. Sheorey, R. (1986). Error perceptions of native-speaking and non-native speaking teachers of ESL. ELT Journal, 40(4), 306-312. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (235-252). Rowley, M.A: Newbury House. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantof (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (97-115). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

A Comparison of the Corrective Feedback Patterns of Native ...

109

Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18, 275-302. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London: Harward University Press. Widdowson, H. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 377-380. Yang, Y. C. (2010). Recasts in the EFL classroom: A comparison of native and nonnative teachers. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, The USA: The University of Texas at Austin.

In: Discourse Perspectives … Editors: D. Yuksel and B. Inan

ISBN: 978-1-62808-867-0 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 8

UPTAKE AND AUDIO RECORDINGS: EXPLORING LEARNERS’ RESPONSES TO CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK Megan Calvert  Kocaeli University, Faculty of Education, ELT Department, Turkey

ABSTRACT While numerous studies have been conducted into the effects of corrective feedback (CF), learners are not often asked their opinions on why they incorporate or reject such feedback in their revised work. The classroom-based study discussed in this chapter builds on a previous study in which feedback types and error types were compared to uptake rates on a revised audio recording. Since feedback and error types seemed to show very limited correlation with uptake, further investigations were conducted to explore students’ reasons for their responses to CF. Twenty one students were shown the original comments and data about their uptake and then interviewed briefly to examine their attitudes and approaches to the assignment. Results reveal a variety of possible reasons why students may be more or less inclined to make changes to a second



Corresponding author: [email protected].

112

Megan Calvert recording based on their teacher’s CF. An heuristic device to help teachers prevent problems with similar assignments and increase uptake rates is proposed.

INTRODUCTION A great number of teachers believe that corrective feedback (CF) helps students improve their language ability, and it could easily be argued that we have good evidence for that belief. Numerous studies confirm that corrective feedback is effective at improving accuracy in revisions (Ferris, 1997; Ferris 2001; Sheen, 2007; Truscott and Hsu, 2008) and ultimately in learning gains (Sheen, 2007; Bitchener, 2008). More specifically, certain studies have linked modified output or uptake (meaning here an attempt at repair in response to CF) to higher learning gains (Sheen, 2008; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Nobuyoshi and Ellis, 1993). Although this would indicate that the internal process by which students respond to corrective feedback and use it to make revisions would be a major subject of concern for teachers and researchers, limited research has been conducted to explore participants‘ perspectives on corrective feedback in real classroom environments. This absence has drawn the attention of researchers in recent years, such as Storch (2010), who calls for more of this type of research in particular in her critical meta-analysis of recent written corrective feedback research: This call for more qualitative approaches to research on WCF does not imply that there is no merit in experimental research on the topic. Rather, what I argue is that in the desire to conduct more robust research, the pendulum has swung too far towards experimental studies. If the aim is to shed light on the impact of WCF on students’ writing, then I would like to propose that future studies need to adopt a more qualitative and ecologically valid research design. (Storch, 2010; p. 44)

This chapter, therefore, seeks to contribute to our knowledge in this realm by examining students’ reasons for varying levels of uptake in a real classroom situation by means of qualitative interviews. It additionally fills a rather notable gap in research because it concerns written corrective feedback on student audio recordings, a unique situation which fuses elements of both written and oral classroom communication.

Uptake and Audio Recordings

113

LITERATURE REVIEW Studies in the past have linked varying levels of effective response to numerous possible factors which could play a role in student uptake. These include misunderstanding of CF, affective factors and attitudes, developmental readiness, and attention and engagement.

Misunderstanding of CF One of the earliest studies in CF was that of Fanselow (1977), who analyzed 11 different teachers in the classroom, their feedback habits, and student responses. In this chapter, it was speculated that confusion and ambiguity were playing a role in these interactions and leading to continued errors. One issue he pointed to was the fact that students may not have recognized a teacher’s response as corrective feedback if it was too subtle: “When a student’s incorrect response is followed by a subtle shaking of the head or ‘again,’ the student does not necessarily know that his response contained an error or know the location of the error. ‘Again’ can mean ‘I did not hear you’ as well as ‘you made a mistake’.” (588). Fanselow also draws attention to the fact that repetition may be used confusingly either for corrective purposes or for reinforcement, and that the inconsistency of response to errors in general may leave students unsure about standards of acceptance. While not a major concern of researchers in subsequent years, the issue of misunderstanding has not gone unnoticed in more recent studies. Lyster (1998) points out that recasts may have lower rates of uptake simply because they can confuse learners for the same reasons pointed out by Fanselow—that learners often do not recognize the more subtle corrective force in rephrasing or repeating and may in fact mistake these discourse moves for actions such as confirming understanding, reinforcing correctness, or to create a sense of solidarity with the interlocutor. Conrad and Goldstein (1999) also pointed to misunderstanding of written CF as a reason for unsuccessful revisions in their analysis of 3 students’ papers and subsequent qualitative interviews. Egi (2007) additionally points out that the form of recasts can determine whether learners interpret them as responses to content or as CF.

114

Megan Calvert

Affective Factors and Attitudes Several studies that examined the effectiveness of CF have pointed to the role of affective factors and individual differences. Sheen, in two subsequent studies, suggested that aptitude for language analysis may be strongly related to increased acquisition (2007) and demonstrated that low anxiety learners tended to outperform high anxiety learners when given CF in the form of recasts (2008). Dekeyser’s (1993) study of Dutch high school students also showed a correlation between low anxiety and benefits of CF. High previous achievement and strong grammatical sensitivity, factors which were also associated with students who had higher rates of uptake in Dekeyser’s study, could also be linked to these lower level of anxiety. Goals and attitudes towards feedback are also considered in several studies. Storch and Wigglesworth (2010), in a quasi-experimental study of advanced level university students showed that students’ attitudes and beliefs about good feedback and good writing in some cases led to resistance towards feedback that contradicted these notions and lower rates of uptake and retention. Swain and Lapkin (2002) similarly noted a resistance to feedback in their analysis of the process of revision in response to reformulated writing by one pair of adolescent French immersion learners. This resistance was only noted to occur, however, in two main circumstances: 1) if the reformulation contradicted a rule that had been internalized incorrectly or 2) if the reformulation contradicted their original meaning. On the other hand, when learners do not dispute the feedback, several studies show that a strong motivation towards improvement can have a positive effect on learners’ revisions (Dekeyser, 1993; Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Mackey, 2006). Another related and interesting factor to consider is the role of the relationship between the teacher and the student. Lee and Schallert (2008) examine two different English learners in a Korean classroom and their attitudes about written feedback in depth. They discover that one key factor that influenced uptake on revisions was the level of trust in the teacher, pointing out that while one student embraced the comments, the other resisted them because of a suspicious attitude towards the teacher’s competence. While the fact that the teacher was a non-native English speaker does play a role, the need to consider this relationship is important in any circumstance.

Uptake and Audio Recordings

115

Developmental Readiness Another individual difference that may play a role in student response to feedback is their developmental readiness and level of proficiency. Ammar and Spada (2006) for example, studied a group of primary school students’ acquisition of third person possessive determiners and found that students’ proficiency level had an impact on the effectiveness of feedback. They found that while high proficiency learners benefited equally from prompts and recasts, prompts were more effective for lower proficiency learners, indicating that the type of feedback may be less relevant for advanced learners. In an experimental study of adult and young adult learners of English in Australia, Mackey and Philp (1998) also divided learners into “readies” and “unreadies” in terms of their developmental readiness for question formation, and found that the “readies” were in fact better able to benefit from feedback and posttests.

Attention and Engagement Lastly, studies have also shown that where students focus their attention and how they engage with feedback may also play a role in the effects of CF. In one interesting study of oral CF by Sheen (2004) that analyzed four widely varied language classrooms in Canada, Korea, and New Zealand, both the salience of the recast and the extent to which students were oriented to linguistic form seemed to have a positive impact on rates of uptake. In other words, it seems that learners not only need to recognize the corrective force of the feedback, but it needs to have strong significance to them as well. Lyster and Mori (2006) in a comparison of two different foreign language contexts, French and Japanese immersion classes, showed that a teacher’s emphasis on accuracy may also play a role in increasing or decreasing rates of uptake in response to oral CF. Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) furthermore emphasize in the results of their study of pairs working to revise a piece of writing that learners who engaged more with the feedback demonstrated both higher rates of uptake and retention in a post-test. Hyland (1998) also examines and compares two learners’ revision processes over a semester in depth, showing that each learner was driven by complex influences toward either the communicative force of language or the correctness of it. These studies all seem to imply that the area that matters to learners is where they tend to put their efforts.

116

Megan Calvert

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY This study reviewed in this chapter builds on a previous classrom-based research study which analyzed student uptake rates in three different freshman advanced oral communication classes at a Turkish university. In the original study, students were asked to do a series of digital audio recording assignments on various topics, followed by one re-recording of an assignment of their choice based on the teacher’s corrective feedback. The original recordings and the re-recordings were compared for student uptake rates, where uptake was defined by an attempt, successful or unsuccessful, at repair. Of the 346 total CF moves analyzed, 56% were classified as showing evidence of uptake. The CF was also coded and categorized by type of feedback (metalinguistic clue, explicit, recast, or clarification request) and by type of error (grammar, word choice, pronunciation, or content and organization). Of the four CF types, the only type to have higher than average rates of uptake was metalinguistic clues, although when these were sorted by general metalinguistic clues (ie. “grammar needs work”) from specific metalinguistic clues (ie. “use past tense here”), specific clues had slightly lower than average uptake rates (52.2%) whereas general feedback, which leaves a broad range for attempts at improvement, showed a much higher rate of uptake (71.2%). Explicit correction and recasts had nearly identical rates of uptake at 53.2% and 54.5% respectively, and clarification requests had the only notably lower rate of uptake at 47.2%. This last finding was speculated to be due in part to the students’ and teacher’s likely inability to pinpoint the source of the communication breakdown. Interestingly, error type also appeared to have little correlation with uptake rates, with all categories hovering around the average. The only category to have an apparently lower rate of uptake was pronunciation. This was believed to be due to students’ relatively limited training in pronunciation compared to grammar, word choice or content. The re-recording assignment instructions Recording #6: A Re-recording: Choose any ONE of your previous recordings and think about what you could have done better. Consider your fluency, your grammar, your pronunciation (stress and intonation especially), your vocabulary (including idioms and expressions), the content, and the way it was organized. There is always room for improvement! Improve it, practice it and re-record it. It may be slightly shorter, but it should still be close to the original time limits.

Figure 1. Re-recording assignment instructions.

Uptake and Audio Recordings

117

Although the initial study yielded rather interesting results, it also raised several questions about the factors that lead to effective and ineffective corrective discourse. Certain surprising elements appeared in the data, such as the following conversation with a student named Ecevit (all names are pseudonyms) that arose in response to the original self-introduction recording. The conversation took place in writing, through comments posted to the file sharing website Soundcloud.com, through which students had been submitting their files. Ecevit: [audio]...read detective novels, to draw caricatures... T: [written comment] What did you say after detective novels? Ecevit: [written comment]oh no! I said “to draw caricatures’”, but it souds [sic] as if I pronounced “todraw caricatures”. It’s surely my fault that “to draw” sounds like a compound noun. Terribly sorry for that. :( Another thing, [commenting on a different corrective feedback move] my apology for the incorrectly-spelled words “outside of class, I mean, in my spare time” that you wrote down the accurate version of. :/ T: [written comment]Actually it’s the wrong word stress on caricature that was the problem http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. com/dictionary/ caricatures#caricature_1 Ecevit: [written comment] Absolutely right! The accurate phonemic transcription of ‘‘caricature‘‘ is supposed to be like /ˈkærɪkətʃʊə(r)/. Nevertheless, I pronounced it within the record like /’kɛrıkɛıtʃə(r)/, which is quite a dreadful mistake. :/ Beyond that, this mispronunciation caused me to put away the stress on an improper syllable, the third one in order, I mean. :( Again and again I’m deeply sorry for all those mistakes you mentioned superficially. Next time, I hope I’ll come up with a much more satisfactory job in your presence. :)

This student clearly showed meaningful interest in the corrective feedback his teacher was making, even commenting on errors that he made which were not evident in the corrective feedback, such as the incorrect vowel sounds in “caricature,” or possibly not even evident in the recording itself (“incorrectlyspelled words”). However, when his second recording was analyzed, his uptake rate was the lowest rate of all the students, with 0% uptake on 6 corrective feedback moves. Only two other students in the entire study demonstrated 0% uptake, and in both cases had received unusually little CF. Even the one general metalinguistic clue given, “Work on fluency mainly,” which would have been statistically more likely to result in uptake, was deemed to have had no uptake by both analysts examining the data. He had

118

Megan Calvert

clearly noticed and worked to understand the feedback, and had yet avoided every single error commented on. Further exploration was needed to understand his and other students’ thought processes. An additional interesting factor emerged which emerged when looking closer at individual study participants was the surprisingly wide distribution of individual uptake percentages that students demonstrated in their second recordings (see Table 1). With percentages of uptake ranging from 0% to 100%, and the group split into three roughly equal groups of “low,” “mixed” and “high” uptake, it became apparent that there was more variation from student to student than by CF or error type.

CURRENT STUDY: RESEARCH QUESTION With this background in mind, an additional study was conducted with the following research question in mind: What factors could be linked with high, mixed and low uptake rates in a closer examination of the revision process? The intention of the research is therefore to try to identify more precisely what external factors, behaviors, or attitudes led to more or less “success” on the second recording when success is measured by student correction of marked mistakes. While this definition of success can clearly be seen as faulty since students may have legitimate reasons to disregard the CF given by the instructor, examining the process from this point of view can still yield useful insights for instructors using similar assignments. Table 1. Rate of uptake by student Uptake Percentage Range 0% 1–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%

Number of Students in Range 3 11 8 10 24 14 7 19 12

Percentage of Students in Range 20.4%

Classification Low

44.4%

Mixed

35.2%

High

Uptake and Audio Recordings

119

Procedure In order to examine the reasons behind the varied rates of uptake, qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 randomly selected students in the following semester. All were full-time students in their first year of university in an English Language Teaching program, and all except one were Turkish citizens and native or near-native Turkish speakers. The groups were roughly even, with 5 students in the high uptake category, 8 from the mixed uptake category and 8 from the low uptake category. Interviews were conducted subsequent to final exams, ensuring that concerns about grades would not prevent students from answering questions honestly. Interviews were done in English, with students electing to enter either individually or in pairs, and lasted about 5 to 10 minutes per group. Learners were shown written versions of their original feedback in order to stimulate recall. Questions that were commonly asked included, “Can you tell me how you did the rerecording?” “What did you think the goal of the assignment was?” and “You didn’t fix many of your mistakes in your second recording—can you tell me why?” The conversations were recorded and then selectively transcribed, then analyzed for patterns. Some analysis of revisions not related to interviews is included as well.

RESULTS High Uptake Learners Of the high uptake learners, a pattern of self-reliance and dedication to self-improvement seemed to emerge. Three out of the five interestingly mentioned turning to outside sources, either a dictionary or a friend who could help. The teacher’s (“T”) original feedback seems to be used in conjunction with these sources. T: Ah, so you fixed things that weren’t on my feedback list either. Abdullah: I was careful...for example “approximately, approximately, approximately. I tried again and again. And I look at a dictionary and your comments and I listen their pronunciation.” T: Did you look at my feedback? Aysel: Yes, absolutely. Actually at first I choose my special words and I look... them at the dictionary.

120

Megan Calvert Adile: I get to listen my friend and he suggested me some things and then I fixed them. T: So it wasn’t just my feedback. It was your friend helping you? Adile: Your feedback and his feedback.

A fourth student similarly seemed to emphasize her own role and effort in conjunction with the teacher’s feedback. Bahar: “I saw your comments in Soundcloud...” T: Did you try to go back and look at the feedback while you were doing it? Did you think that was an important part of doing the re-recording? Bahar: I feedback myself, and other recordings...I’m careful.

By saying “I feedback myself,” she seems to imply that self-reliance and her own ability to discern her errors was a more important key than the instructor’s comments. The fifth student in this group emphasized the value he placed on how he could benefit from the recordings, perhaps indicating a strong intrinsic motivation toward self-improvement. Serkan: I think our English speaking skill is improved by your recordings and the other homeworks because when I listen my voice on the Soundcloud on the first semester, it’s so different from now, and I can make a sentence more easily than the first semester.

This appreciation for the value of the assignment seems to show that he approached the re-recording with a similar mindset to the other high uptake students. Another theme that emerged amongst this group of students was effort and attention to detail, though these were not comments confined solely to the high uptake group. Abdullah: I read your all comments and...the place where you comment, I re-record again. And I tried again and again. I re-recorded it 10 times or 20 times. T: Mmm. You really wanted to fix all those mistakes. Abdullah: For example, I pronounced it ‘partner,’ partner or partner, like that. It changed. Adile: My grammar is always full of mistakes... I listened repeat and repeat...

Uptake and Audio Recordings

121

T: So...was it really important for you to fix the grammar and the pronunciation mistakes in there? Adile: Was it important? Yes, it is important for me because I want to fix them all. So I have to...be full of non-mistakes.

Interestingly, students in this group were not necessarily the most advanced English speakers amongst their classmates as measured by grades and impressions of instructors, but their dedication appeared to lead them to higher rates of uptake.

Mixed Uptake Learners Amongst the 8 students with mixed uptake rates (between 25 and 75% uptake), the most common theme that emerged in interviews was that of making effort without achieving the desired results. More than half of the eight students in fact had something to say along these lines: Ferhat: While I am doing that assignment I was ill. [That’s why] I couldn’t get all of them. I tried to fix all of them but maybe I couldn’t. Binnaz: When I came to [that part of the recording], I couldn’t do that. For example, while [the recording was going on], I said, “it doesn’t about,” for example. “It isn’t about,” I should say. That doesn’t mean that I don’t know the rules. Sevkal: Actually I write your feedbacks into colorful papers and put them where I can see them, how can I say. And I just try it, but I just fix half of them. T: Yeah. So you did try...Well I just noticed you have a hard time with past tense. Sevkal: Actually in my all recordings there was a problem about past tense. I don’t know why...when I try to use past I just forget it and I begin to use present tense. Belgin: Actually I look what did you write, but I think I didn’t [do] a good job. I forget. I try to do better, but I forget. Aylin: I saw this mistake because you send me e-mail with this feedbacks and I search it again and again. T: So you did look at the feedback? Aylin: Yes. T: So you do have any explanation for why you repeated the same mistakes?

122

Megan Calvert Aylin: Maybe. I can’t remember it. I saw one and I can try to fix. But already I have a difficult about the grammar, for example, article, and like that. For example, in first term, you said that, “your speaking and your pronunciation very good but your grammar is not good.” I know that I have a difficult[y] about the grammar but I tried to fix it.

The students who made these kinds of comments seemed to express a certain amount of frustration at not being to achieve the goals they had set out for themselves. They were frequently aware of what they wanted to achieve (“it doesn’t mean I don’t know the rules”), and in some cases reported significant effort and deliberate strategies (such as the “colored” papers” described above), and yet still had not achieved a sense of success. Interestingly, Aylin, a mixed uptake student and Serkan, a high uptake student, were an openly attached couple who participated in the interviews at the same time. When asked for their views on why Serkan was more successful in repairing the errors marked in the original recording, new explanations emerged: Serkan: “I didn’t do different things about it. I just read your explanation about my mistakes and I tried to fix them. Aylin: “Maybe I didn’t read correctly.” Serkan: And she’s more excited, more than me. T: Nervous? Serkan: Because when she’s record her voice, she’s so excited about. T: Nervous. Serkan: ...Yeah, nervous.

Aylin begins to doubt her efficacy in understanding the feedback even though she reported having “searched it again and again,” while Serkan suggests perhaps there are affective factors at play. Another theme that emerged in the interviews in this group was that these students tended to report less detail in their approaches to the re-recording. One student, for example, reported paying attention to her errors briefly, but not feeling any particular need to correcting them with care: Makbule: I looked again and then I found my mistakes, like grammatical mistakes like...I said. But only I looked but I didn’t do anything about it. Yeah. Only I listen and my record and I yeah, there is mistakes. Like that.

Uptake and Audio Recordings

123

Several students reported doing the recording spontaneously and without prepared notes, either because of time pressure, because they felt perhaps that it was a desirable quality, or because that it was sufficient to apply some effort to correction in this process. Ferhat: I was ill, and its due date was about to expire, and I just opened the recorder and start to record. Aylin: And as far as I can, I record spontaneously. I think that, for example, I push, not push, I open the recording and whatever I think I said and this change my speaking ability. Makbule: So you noticed the mistakes, but did you try to do the recording in a natural way? S: I did...but I didn’t [just] record, but I repeat and I fix them.

Other students who took a less detailed approach to correcting their errors also reported being attentive to the feedback, but as a general note to keep in mind to improve their speaking ability as a whole. Binnaz: Yes, for example, the first thing you said last semester was intonation. And after your suggestion, I was more careful intonation, for example, or grammatical [errors]. T: Can you just tell me a little bit about how you did the re-recording? Did you try to use the feedback? Berkan: Well, I did use the feedback, but I didn’t take specific parts of it. Because I know I have a very big flaw in grammar so I just tried to record it in a better way, so that grammatical mistakes are not that apparent. So I don’t take your reflection point by point, but I take it as a general...grammatical mistakes was the general direction for me in that reflection.

Although uptake was measured mostly in terms of specifics, these students may have had success in this matter more generally. A less common theme in this group, but one that is quite notable as well, was the suggestion that the feedback may not have been effective because it may not have been clearly understood by the recipients. On mixed uptake student, when asked to give a reason for why she may not have had as high an uptake rate as her interview partner suggested, “Maybe I didn’t read correctly,” in reference to the instructor’s original feedback. Less directly, it emerged in the course of an interview with another student that he had not understood the use of capitals to indicate stress in the word, “hisTORic.”

124

Megan Calvert Can: As to the stressing errors, I couldn’t get it because I don’t know where to stress. T: Ok, but does this make sense to you where I tried to put the word stress? Can: Yes, right now, it does. T: Ok, but the first time it didn’t? Can: No.

The instructor had incorrectly assumed that capitals would be a clear metalinguistic indicator for word stress. Although misunderstanding of CF appeared in a limited way in the interviews, it should be noted that numerous examples of misunderstanding of CF appeared in the original data, and that students are likely under reporting this aspect of concern due to lack of awareness in many cases. One example of this might be worthy of note is another student who, while she did not participate in the interviews, did reply to her teacher’s comment and provided a bit of insight into the source of her misunderstanding: S (in original recording): I feel myself bad about it...[error in bold] T’s CF: I feel bad about it S: I feel bad about it so much but I am staying at dormitory and while I was recording, there were sounds like this and more. I hope you will [forgive] me. And I want to say that I will go my hometown, I am going to prepare a new record and send you. Excuse me please, good days Professor.

This unfortunate misunderstanding of the teacher’s recast provides evidence that recasts can easily be misinterpreted as non-linguistic comments; here the student believes the teacher is saying she feels bad about the recording, when she is simply recasting an error. In this situation, the student’s difficulty in identifying this common Turkish L1 transference error was probably also compounded by the lack of both visual access and temporal proximity unique to the context of audio recordings. The lack of ability to highlight the particular error or add emphasis, intonation or gestures as would be possible in either written or oral CF respectively also adds to these types of problems. This second example from a separate participant who was also not interviewed also shows that the lack of ability to highlight an incorrect word merely guided the student to make an additional mistake rather than correcting the one noted:

Uptake and Audio Recordings

125

S:..in the middle of the Turkey...[error in bold; bold not included in original comment] T: no “the” is needed S: in middle of the Turkey

Had the instructor been able to highlight the incorrect word as done here, the student would perhaps have been more easily able to target it and correct himself. The last point to mention about the mixed uptake students is that students may have had personal agendas that were in conflict with the limited and inherently teacher-centered construct of uptake. One student, for example, explained rather directly why she felt that uptake was not always desirable: T: Some of your mistakes you fixed and some you didn’t. It was 50/50. Do you remember why some of them you didn’t fix? Binnaz: I don’t remember, but I may have avoided it. T: Okay. Binnaz: Yeah, because if I find it difficult, I may avoid it actually, to be honest.

While it may have been preferable from the teacher’s perspective to simply correct the errors as directed, from this student’s perspective, correction added difficulty to the assignment, perhaps as a result increasing stress, frustration, or the likelihood of further errors. This comment may also be viewed in terms of stages of grammatical development, and the student may simply have resisted due to lack of developmental readiness. Another student similarly described a conflicting personal agenda: Can: I just tried to make it more fluent because in my opinion my basic [in]adequacy is fluency because in my speech there are more stops. That’s why I try to make it more fluent and no stops. T: Ok, but I didn’t say anything about your fluency, but I did say something about your word stress. Can: I understand, but I did not consider them much. I just tried to make it better what I don’t like in my speech, in my recording.

Whereas the instructor had noted and emphasized word stress as a key to increasing the quality of this student’s speaking ability, the student himself had focused on what he felt was a more important area to work on.

126

Megan Calvert

Low Uptake Learners Of the 8 students in the low uptake group (25% uptake or less), certain similarities with the mixed uptake group appeared and unique trends were evidenced as well. It’s important to note that one of the key commonalities in this group that was unique compared to the others was that 3 of the 8 students in experienced problems with access to the feedback. One student reluctantly admitted that she had lost the feedback: Gamze: Actually, I couldn’t remember exactly, but I do, I think I do my best in the, in my assignments and I, certainly I had some deficiencies. But I don’t know... T: Well do you remember how you did it? Did you read my feedback beforehand? Did you think the feedback was important? Did you avoid the errors? Do you remember how you did it? Gamze: Actually I...[asking for translation from partner in Turkish] T: Lost? Gamze: Lost. I lost your feedbacks. T:Ah hah! Gamze: Yeah, I lost my feedbacks. I only listen again and I try to do it again, honestly.

Another student, meanwhile, reported that the timing of the assignment and her personal circumstances prevented her from having access to the feedback: T: Do you remember how you did that re-recording? Did you look at my feedback before you did the re-recording? Nursan: Actually, I was...I recorded this re-recording during a journey. I was going to Istanbul, and I had to record it without seeing your comments. T: Ah! Nursan: Then I uploaded the re-recording and then I realized you had sent some comments on it.

A third student seemed not recall having ever seen the feedback: T: I gave three comments and you didn’t use any of the comments in the end. Do you know why? Kader: No, I don’t remember.

Uptake and Audio Recordings

127

T: I just gave you a little bit of feedback on paper. I wrote...[reads comments]. You didn’t change any of those. Do you remember seeing this feedback?” Kader: No. T: No? Kader: No I don’t. T: Maybe you didn’t see it. Kader: Yes, I don’t remember.

While this third student’s response leaves some definite room for doubt, the fact that he did not recall the comments when they were shown to him does seem to indicate that he did not use the feedback to improve his re-recording. Aside from these unique circumstances which would clearly limit uptake rates, the remaining 5 students shared interesting commonalities as well, the main one being that in most cases they used different words in the second recording. In some cases, this was simply an effect of their approach to the rerecording: T: Do you remember what you did or how you did it? Leyla: Actually, I can’t remember. But, I think I make, I said some different things from first one. Not same things. So can be about that. T: So why did you choose to say different things? Leyla: I don’t know because its...I...for example I open my phone and I say “Hi, I am [gives name],” whatever I thought at that moment. T: So you didn’t prepare it, you didn’t like, try to write down your mistakes and fix them? Leyla: No. Usman: I sit and record with the phone, and I send it to the computer. I’m not listening to it. I just listen to it in the first place with the phone and if it’s okay for me then I send it... T: When you were doing the re-recording, did you look at my feedback? Usman: No, I’m sorry, I didn’t look at, to be honest, I didn’t look at it. After I read the feedbacks once, I didn’t read the feedback again. I did it on my own." T: Okay, and why. Or why not? Usman: I guess because I read the feedback and I didn’t go back again. I’m not sure. T: [...]You just read it once and you thought that was enough? Usman: Yes. T: Do you remember what you were thinking about the assignment while you were doing it?

128

Megan Calvert Buse: Actually, I read your comments about my first recording and there were some problems about my pronunciation, but I didn’t know I have to, I need to record it again. […] So I don’t know if I could correct myself. I think there was some pronunciation problems. I remember that I correct them, like “Portuguese.” T: Yeah, like Portuguese and otherwise like, [...] “it becomes better and better, easier and easier,” that was a little bit of grammar. Do you remember trying to fix those in your final recording? Or did you avoid them maybe? Did you avoid them as you were doing it? Buse: I didn’t avoid them [on purpose]. I just correct that word “Portuguese” and I think I didn’t use that “easier and easier” again. T: So you just avoided it [unintentionally]. Buse: Uh-huh.

In other cases, it appeared to be the same strategy, but a bit more intentional. Orhan: In the re-recording I selected a new topic I think. T: Ah, ok, maybe it changed. Orhan: Yes, I didn’t use this sentence in my re-recording. That’s why I didn’t correct it. T: Do you remember why you decided to use a different story then? Orhan: Yeah, I...I thought it would be more professional to choose another topic. And you said this sentence is not express your opinion, what you want to explain. That’s why I selected another topic to speak about.

The student reported using different words in this case because he felt that it would express his ideas more clearly or that it would improve the quality of his recording as a whole. Had his intentions and his strategy of using entire new sentences and topics been taken into account in the process of determining uptake, the results may have been different. From a research perspective, however, it seems quite difficult in this context to determine accurately the intentions of the student in response to the original feedback. Finally, Ecevit, the student who had been so interested in the original feedback, but whose classification was 0% uptake, revealed a similar strategy to the other students in this group. In his interview, he explains at first that he took a more natural, spontaneous approach to the recording: T: How did you approach that assignment? How did you approach that re-recording?

Uptake and Audio Recordings

129

Ecevit: I thought in the first recording, I, uh, I benefit a bit from the notes I had prepared for the recording, but in the second, the improved selfintroduction, I tried a bit com...compromise. I just talked about a certain subject, I didn’t prepare any notes, any reminders.

He also suggests that there may have been a misunderstanding, this time not of the CF itself, but rather of the goals of the assignment: T: Were you trying to...I guess my impression is that you were trying to make it better by using different words, make it interesting. Ecevit: Yeah [...] Is it unusual to do that? T: Well different students did different things. So some students looked at it and they used the exact same words, but they just fixed their grammar mistakes. But you had a really different approach. You did something totally different, you described different things about yourself, and then... Ecevit: I may have misunderstood that part.

Table 2. Summary of findings: Themes in interviews by uptake level High Uptake (N=5)  Consulting with external sources  Use of dictionaries  Assistance from friends  Detailed attention to CF  repetition  point-by-point approach  Appreciation for the value of the assignment

Mixed Uptake (N=8)  Perceived frustration in efforts to improve  Nervousness  Less detailed attention to CF  time pressure  spontaneous/natural recording  took “general direction”  Misunderstanding of CF  Intentional avoidance due to difficulty of uptake  Conflicting priorities between teacher and student

Low Uptake (N=8)  Lack of access to CF  Lost  Physically inaccessible  Never received  Change in content/language choices  spontaneous/natural recording  new content perceived as preferable (“more professional”)  misunderstanding of assignment goals  conflicting priorities between teacher and student

He also later reveals a barrier to uptake similar to that of S12, the mixed uptake student quoted above, when he demonstrates a personal agenda for selfimprovement that’s in conflict with the teacher’s corrective feedback. Ecevit: In my opinion, I don’t usually make grammar mistakes, grammatical mistakes in my records. But apart from that I just um, work, worked on my vocabulary. T: So you’re really focused on vocabulary?

130

Megan Calvert Ecevit: Yeah, vocabulary. Because I think the only way English I can change the recording, improve the recording, is vocabulary.

These comments contradict the perceptions of the teacher and her feedback on the original recording. Of the 6 CF comments, 2 were classified as grammatical errors, 3 were pronunciation errors, and only 1 was word choice. While the teacher’s perception was that grammar and pronunciation were the most meaningful areas for improvement, the student’s perception was that vocabulary was “the only way” he could improve.

DISCUSSION While many of the factors examined here have appeared in previous studies as well, others arise that often ignored in less contextualized studies. One theme that arose in the interviews was misunderstanding. Lyster (1998) and Egi (2007) in particular point to recasts as being easily mistaken to have some other non-corrective role. While that problem did appear to arise in other data, it was not mentioned in particular by the students. The only thing mentioned was that the teacher’s strategies for indicating stress were not clear to Can, and may not have been clear to other students as well. Indeed, it seems quite difficult for students to pinpoint the source of their misunderstanding or even for teachers and students to readily determine whether or not misunderstanding has even occurred. Beyond the interviews, however, other types of misunderstanding occurred as well, some which perhaps should be considered more deeply for the context of written feedback on audio recordings in particular. Anxiety, as suggested by Dekeyser (1993) and Sheen (2008), also appeared to a small degree in the interviews with students, although it was only mentioned directly by one student describing another. It is interesting to note that that particular student seemed less inclined to offer that explanation for her own lower rate of uptake. Indirectly, the five mixed uptake students who described an effort to improve their recordings but a frustrated lack of success may have been limited by anxiety and negative feelings derived from lack of success as well. Attitudes about the CF and level of engagement with it (Storch& Wigglesworth, 2010; Swain &Lapkin, 2002) also play a role here as well. Students in the high uptake group reported a rather thorough engagement with the feedback and a strong appreciation for the value of the assignment, which

Uptake and Audio Recordings

131

was in sharp contrast to the low uptake group. Whereas high uptake students embraced and went beyond the CF, low uptake students either rejected, disputed or disregarded the CF they were given. Interestingly, in many cases it was the teacher’s perception that these low uptake students who rejected the teacher’s feedback tended to have strong English abilities. As Conrad and Goldstein (1999) point out, if a student does not have trust in the instructor, that student may be more likely to reject the feedback. Stronger English abilities and more time spent learning and studying English may have led these students to have more faith in their own self-assessment than in that of a stranger. Motivation, therefore, seem to be strong in students from all three categories, and does not seem to be as strongly correlated with uptake as researchers such as Dekeyser (1993) have suggested in previous studies. Although also not directly apparent in the interviews, developmental readiness (Ammar&Spada, 2006; Mackey &Philp, 1998) may have also played a role. We might surmise from the evidence that the mixed uptake students who struggled to incorporate feedback despite their strategies and efforts may simply have not been ready to incorporate this feedback. One student who mentioned avoiding errors as a strategies did so because she found it too “difficult” to incorporate them, which may, as previously mentioned, have been a sign of lack of developmental readiness as well. Hyland (1998) mentioned this intentional avoidance strategy in her qualitative study as well. Given that this study discussed in this chapter is based on a real classroom situation, several practical barriers to uptake appeared in the interview data that are important to consider but not often addressed in research. More experimental studies are less likely to reveal the practical concerns that teachers need to address, in particular lack of access to CF and misunderstanding of assignment goals. Students who lose their feedback or failed to grasp the task given them may well be excluded from other studies, but here serve the purpose of reminding us of how essential these factors are in successful classwork. Another practical point often overlooked is that underlying various reasons for lower rates of uptake may simply be a lack of time to devote to the assignment. This echoes Conrad and Goldstein’s (1999) finding that the pressures of outside commitments can lead to less effective revisions.

132

Megan Calvert

CONCLUSION Given the findings above, an heuristic device (see Figure 2) for teachers who wish to give similar assignments might be proposed detailing four key obstacles to uptake that must be overcome or addressed in order to facilitate maximum benefits from CF. Four questions that teachers can ask themselves to address these obstacles and suggestions for doing so are given below. 1. Do students have access to feedback? While students themselves clearly have responsibility for retaining the feedback given them, there are still strategies teachers can use to ensure feedback is readily available when needed. One factor to consider on this point is the means of transmitting feedback. Interestingly, while most of the feedback was given electronically, the one student who reported not seeing his feedback was given his feedback on paper (his recording was submitted on CD), indicating that this difference may have been a factor. Certainly increased consistency in the means of transmission would be advisable, but digital feedback also affords the luxury of a backup copy to help alleviate the problem of loss as well. Since much feedback was going through email and emails can easily be deleted or lost, another suggestion would be to streamline feedback on an audio hosting site such as Soundcloud or a learning management system. This could allow for students to submit assignments and receive feedback which would keep the assignments and feedback more neatly collected in a single tool dedicated to classroom needs. Alternatively, simply alerting students to the need to keep feedback early on in the semester and repeatedly when feedback is given could direct students’ attention to the importance of the feedback itself and prevent issues with loss as well. 2. Do students understand the feedback? While students also bear some responsibility for understanding the feedback they receive, the onus in this case is arguably more on the instructors. Thus, teachers need to take great care with the feedback they give to increase clarity and limit ambiguity, and numerous lessons can be derived from the data in this circumstance. In the case of the student who did not understand the convention of capitalizing letters to indicate stress, the teacher could have certainly done more to make her shorthand clearer. One option would be, for example, to supply a key to students with typical types of feedback and codes or shorthand to indicate when feedback is

Uptake and Audio Recordings

133

corrective and when it is not. Another option would be to supply examples of CF in class and have students discuss appropriate responses to the errors. 3. Do students understand the assignment goals? Assignment goals must also be clearly communicated to students particularly to avoid cases where students are creating a whole new recording rather than improving on the original recording. While students’ desire for creativity, challenge and self-direction are important and should by no means be ignored, they may not fit into an assignment such as this. If an instructor wishes to have students do a revision recording, much like a revised composition, it could be helpful to convey that expectation very clearly. On the other hand, the interviews here also show evidence that altering the goals and expectations of such an assignment may give students more of a feeling of ownership over their work and thus provide more engagement, which has been shown to be desirable as well (Storch& Wigglesworth, 2010). Pushing them to follow advice that they disagree with or which conflicts with their beliefs about their own skills or about language learning in general may actually cause students to disengage, in which case this would have the opposite of the desired effect. Perhaps a more open negotiation with students about the goals of the assignment would lead to both more engagement and a better understanding of goals. 4. Do students have sufficient support in achieving those goals? Finally, providing effective and sufficient support for students in achieving the goals of the assignment may help overcome several obstacles that appeared in the students interviews. In particular, the students who made an effort to correct their mistakes but were not successful in that endeavor could benefit from explicit instruction on strategies for correcting mistakes. The instructor could, for example, walk students through the process and have them practice in class. Class time to work on revisions could additionally prevent problems from outside time commitments or lack of access to resources. If time allows, the instructor can also meet with students individually to explain feedback and guide students toward more effective corrections. Another possibility could be to pair students together so that they support each other through peer reviews and suggestions for improvement. This could simulate the process by which high uptake students improved their re-recordings through input from friends.

134

Megan Calvert

While it is important to keep in mind that uptake may not lead to learning goals as effectively as teachers tend to believe (Truscott & Hsu, 2008), this paper can still shed light on the internal processes of students as they respond to feedback and improve their productive abilities. For teachers who make the assumption that uptake is a worthwhile goal for the classroom, the insights and suggestions given here can serve to improve instruction. In particular, teachers can gain guidance for strategies for more effectively incorporating audio recordings into coursework and for providing corrective feedback on such recordings.

Figure 2. Suggested strategies for increasing uptake.

REFERENCES Ammar, A. &Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback.Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118. Conrad, S. & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147-179.

Uptake and Audio Recordings

135

Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of length and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511-537. DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501-514. Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals, 10, 583-593. Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339. Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error correction in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184. Hyland, F. (1998).The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286. Lee, G. &Schallert, D. (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacherstudent relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course. Journal of Second Language Writing (17), 165–182. Lyster, R. &Ranta, L. (1997).Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66. Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81. Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006).Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300. Mackey, A. &Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356. Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430. Nobuyoshi, J. & Ellis, R. (1993).Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. English Language Teaching Journal, 47, 203–210. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners‘ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283. Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.

136

Megan Calvert

Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010).Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334. Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46. Swain, M. &Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners‘ response to reformulation. International Journal of Education Research, 37, 285–304. Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second language Writing, 17, 292–305.

In: Discourse Perspectives … Editors: D. Yuksel and B. Inan

ISBN: 978-1-62808-867-0 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 9

WRITING AND REVISION WITH CODED AND UNCODED FEEDBACK Patricia Tehan Kocaeli University, Faculty of Education, ELT Department, Turkey

ABSTRACT Corrective feedback has been the focus of debates for the past two decades. Researchers have been dealing with questions of its place in second language writing, its effectiveness, and if it helps (or harms) at all. The results of this previous research have led to the creation of terms for the classification of feedback, such as “direct/indirect,” “focused/ comprehensive,” and “coded/uncoded.” The study discussed in this chapter, which took place in an EFL environment in an English Language Teaching department, investigates the relative effectiveness of coded versus uncoded feedback by comparing two drafts of an assignment. The results indicate that the coded feedback is slightly more effective, but this may be due to discrepancies in the frequency with which each type of feedback was given. While no solid conclusions can be drawn, the chapter implicates that for revision purposes, both coded and uncoded feedback are far more effective for improving accuracy than leaving students to their own devices.



Corresponding author: [email protected].

138

Patricia Tehan

INTRODUCTION In classrooms, offices and homes all over the world, there are teachers at this very moment giving corrective feedback. They are marking exams, recasting student responses in lessons, and commenting on assignments. While it might not be explicitly laid out in contracts, it is safe to assume that most teachers consider giving corrective feedback an integral part of their jobs: the student makes errors and then learns from those errors, a process fostered by the teacher’s involvement in making the existence of the error known to the student. It is also generally understood that students desire feedback from their instructors as part of their learning process. The past few decades of educational research have called this process into question, at least in the realm of grammar correction. Though for years many have assumed it to be an implicit part of a teacher’s job, the past few decades have seen a strong debate as to its place in the classroom. Two of the problems with error correction, as noted by Truscott (1999) are the potential inability for a teacher to find (and correctly identify) each type and each instance of an error in a student assignment along with the time involved in circling, underlining, crossing out and changing these errors. In a real classroom setting, even the most conscientious of teachers will find, especially upon seeing the second draft of an assignment, that mistakes in the first draft had gone unrectified.

BACKGROUND LITERATURE The debate regarding corrective grammar feedback gained momentum in 1996 when Truscott published his call for the abandonment of the practice, calling it unhelpful at best and harmful at worst. Since then, a number of studies on both sides of the issue have been published, attempting to confirm or debunk Truscott’s thesis by testing various aspects of corrective feedback. The majority of the responses (Bruton, 2009; Ferris, 1999; Lee, 1997; Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken, 2012) have been in favor of continuing the practice of giving corrective feedback, though most have agreed that the specifics of the most effective types of feedback and manner(s) in which to deliver it is in need of further research. The argument has also been made that, at the very least, students themselves are in favor of the continuation of written corrective feedback. Citing a number of studies (e.g. Ferris, 1995; Ferris et al.,

Writing and Revision with Coded and Uncoded Feedback

139

2000; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Komura, 1999; Leki, 1991; Roberts, 1999), Ferris and Roberts (2001) state that research results “have consistently reported that L2 student writers want, expect, and value teacher feedback on their written errors. In several of these studies, students have also indicated that they prefer indirect feedback with error codes or labels attached over either direct teacher correction or errors being simply marked but not labeled (Ferris et al., 2000; Komura, 1999; Leki, 1991; Rennie, 2000)” (p. 166). Most of the literature categorizes corrective feedback into two general types, “direct” corrective feedback and “indirect” corrective feedback. Ferris and Roberts (2001) define direct feedback as “when the teacher provides the correct form for the student writer; if the student revises the text, s/he needs only to transcribe the correction into the final version” (p. 163). Bitchener expands on this in his 2008 article, adding “the crossing out of an unnecessary word/phrase/morpheme, the insertion of a missing word/phrase/morpheme, or the provision of the correct form or structure” (p. 105) to the definition. In contrast, indirect feedback, “occurs when the teacher indicates in some way that an error exists but does not provide the correction, thus letting the writer know that there is a problem but leaving it to the student to solve it” (Ferris & Roberts, 2001, p.163-4). This may include the simple underlining, tallying, or coding of errors (Bitchener, 2008; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986). Other terms in previous literature have also been used to describe and differentiate types of feedback. Lee (1997) uses the terms “overt correction” and “error feedback,” which roughly correspond to direct and indirect error correction, respectively. In a 2005 article, Bitchener, Young and Cameron outline the differences between “coded” and “uncoded” feedback, the former indicating both the place and the type of error (but not the explicit correct form), and the latter indicating the general vicinity in which an error has occurred but not the type or exact nature. The merits of “focused” and “comprehensive” feedback are also being debated. Focused corrective feedback is when the instructor provides feedback on only a single or a small group of features previously selected as targets, e.g. articles (Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007). Comprehensive feedback, therefore, is when the instructor provides feedback on errors regardless of type. Sheen et al (2009) noticed greater improvements in the focused feedback group than the comprehensive group (though they noted that the unsystematic nature in which the comprehensive feedback was given may have influenced the results). Van Beuningen et al (2012) point out that comprehensive feedback is the style that

140

Patricia Tehan

most teachers actually practice in the classroom because the goal is to make overall improvements, rather than improving a few select features. Another important issue related to written corrective feedback is whether the students are aware of their errors in the first place. Researchers in the field of second language acquisition have referred to this awareness as “noticing,” and it has been claimed that learning cannot occur without noticing (Schmidt, 1990). For example, Lee (1997) created a study testing students’ knowledge in grammar correction, finding that most participants in the study had the requisite understanding to correct errors but lacked the perception to find them in their own work; it is also worth noting that the participants in this study had relatively low metalinguistic knowledge and had difficulty assigning terms to describe error type. For this reason, researchers have speculated that teachers‘ feedback draws the students’ attention to these errors, which then allows the students the opportunity to refine their interlanguage (Ellis, 1998). Furthermore, because teachers occupy a position of authority, their feedback may add extra weight to the noticing process. Ferris notes that, “Students are likely to attend to and appreciate feedback on their errors, and this may motivate them both to make corrections and to work harder on improving their writing. The lack of such feedback may lead to anxiety or resentment, which could decrease motivation and lower confidence in their teachers” (2004, p. 51). It is worth noting that SLA research has indicated that direct feedback, in the form of recasting, resulted in the least amount of learner uptake (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Various studies have revealed conflicting results as to which form of feedback is most effective, though again, most show positive results for corrective feedback in general. Some researchers hypothesize that indirect corrective feedback can lead to more permanent learning because it pushes the students to actively engage in the correction process (e.g., Ferris, 1995; Lalande, 1982). Ferris’s 2001 study indicates that, with or without codes, students who receive corrective feedback outperform those who do not. Both experimental groups, whose work was given either coded or uncoded indirect feedback, were able to accurately fix a substantially higher number of errors than the control group. Chandler (2003) found that error correction improved accuracy significantly more over time than sheer, uncorrected writing practice did. She also found that although students preferred coded indirect feedback (“Underline and describe”), they performed better with direct feedback (“Correct”) and uncoded indirect feedback (“Underline”). While this reaffirms Ferris’s interpretation of Truscott that student do not always know what’s best

Writing and Revision with Coded and Uncoded Feedback

141

for them (Ferris, 2004), it weakens the argument that error correction is harmful. Adding to the lack of consensus amongst researchers is the lack of connection between the worlds of research and classroom application. In Bruton’s 2009 review article criticizing Truscott’s stance in the debate about corrective feedback, he also picked apart several recently published studies that provide evidence contradicting Truscott. One of Bruton’s main issues is the nature of the assignments used in the studies. As a proponent of process writing, which he describes as, “Purposeful writing with language errors corrected at an editing stage, followed by rewriting – some pre-writing focus optional” (p. 610), he found the writing assignments used in these studies to “not have clear writing purposes or goals, and there is no reference to the students knowing why they are writing. There is no expected assessment either, and of course no criteria, except implicit correctness” (p. 608). Though this type of assignment may be useful for research purposes, he questions whether the non-communicative nature and lack of “ecological credibility” (p. 611) make them worthwhile.

METHODOLOGY The study for this chapter took place in a university preparation year academic writing course. The researcher is the instructor of this course, and the participants are students in this course. It is an EFL environment, and the medium of instruction is English. In total, the class consists of 31 students (twenty-seven females and four males) representing five European and Asian countries, none of which are primarily English-speaking nations. 90% of the students in the course had had prior formal English education. Along with the writing course, the students were also enrolled in intensive grammar, speaking, listening/phonetics, reading, and media classes. All teachers used English as the means of instruction. The students were in class for approximately 24 hours per week, of which four were dedicated to their writing course. Coupled with the prior language instruction that most students had received, participants in this study had had extensive exposure to and practice with metalinguistic terminology in comparison to the sample populations of previous studies (e.g. Lee, 1997). Furthermore, these students are members of an English language teaching department. Unlike students learning English as a graduation requirement or for work purposes in non-teaching sectors, these particular students, upon

142

Patricia Tehan

graduation, are going to be tasked with teaching the very language they are involved in learning. In their hands will be the duty of educating others in a foreign language. In a few short years they are going to be the error-correctors and the feedback-givers for the next generation. In their courses they are not only receiving language instruction, but they are witnessing and experiencing models of teaching that many of them will go on to use in their own classrooms. For these students, these classes are more than just language classes: they are a kind of vocational training. This population is therefore quite different from the participants in most other error feedback studies to date (e.g. Bitchener, 2008; Lee, 1997; Van Beuningen et al., 2012). These students have all graduated from high school, passed a national standardized university placement exam, and accepted appointments into the four-year ELT degree program at this university. However, the department administered its own placement exam before the beginning of the first term, consisting of four skill exams (reading, writing, listening and speaking) and one grammar exam. Based on the overall combined results of this exam, the students were separated into two groups of approximately equal size. The students in the first group, who had a global score of over 60%, were allowed to immediately begin their first-year coursework. The students in the second group, whose grammar scores ranged from 4.5% to 15.5% and whose writing scores ranged from 0% to 14% of their overall exam grades, were placed into the ELT department’s preparation class for an additional year of pre-first-year language instruction. It is important to note this because although there was no explicit pre-test for the current study, the students’ skill level had already been tested as a part of their being in this course in the first place and found to be in need of additional practice for both form and content reasons. The sample for the study includes 36 first and second drafts from 18 students. Though all students were required to complete the assignment, a number of the assignments were eliminated from the sample population for several reasons. Some students were found to have plagiarized on either their first or second draft, rendering their assignments inadmissible to this study (because what is the point of studying errors that the students didn’t actually make themselves?). Other few students neglected to resubmit their original drafts. For ethical purposes, the use of a control group was not considered, though the researcher acknowledges the empirical problems involved. The material for the study was collected in the middle of the second term of a two-term course. All the students had been enrolled in the course from the beginning and were familiar with the researcher’s instruction and feedback style. In class, they had produced timed writing pieces, worked on collective-

Writing and Revision with Coded and Uncoded Feedback

143

learning tasks, and completed several peer-review workshops. Prior to this particular assignment, the students had submitted a number of assignments on various topics. The assignments differed in length (earlier assignments consisting of a single paragraph and later assignments getting progressively longer) as well as in style – some assignments were descriptive or narrative (and did not require much analysis from the students), while others, particularly later assignments, were opinion or persuasive essays and needed more significant explanation and justification. The assignment for this study asked the students to choose an example of a story about a popular local folktale character. They were then to re-tell and analyze their chosen story, looking at the conflict, solution and lesson. This was given as an at-home assignment and due five days later. The assignments were corrected in the same fashion as all other assignments since the beginning of the course the previous fall. As with the previous assignments, the feedback was unfocused and comprehensive, including issues of content, paragraph structure, grammar, spelling and punctuation. For the purposes of this study, feedback was categorized as either “coded” or “uncoded”. These terms are based off of Bitchener’s definition (2005), but altered in a few ways. In this chapter, “coded” feedback is a mixture of features of direct and indirect feedback whereas “uncoded” is purely indirect. The main distinction between “coded” and “uncoded” feedback as they are used in this chapter is that “coded” feedback guides the student towards a specific type of correction, whereas “uncoded” feedback requires the student to identify the exact location, type, and correct version of the error. Included in “coded” error corrections are instances where the specific type of error (e.g. word choice, tense, spelling, preposition, conjugation) was explicitly given; instances where an unnecessary word was crossed out (e.g. “they came by running”); and instances where a specific missing word was indicated (mostly articles and prepositions). “Uncoded” error corrections include instances where the fact that an error had occurred was indicated by circling or underlining the general area in which the error occurred, but the exact nature of the error was not stated (e.g. in the clause, “The problem didn’t solve,” the incorrect usage of passive voice was circled but no explanation was given). The two types of feedback were given randomly to all students; as this is descriptive research, there was no manipulation of the total instances of either type of feedback. Therefore, it happened that “coded” feedback was used significantly more frequently than “uncoded” feedback. Feedback was not limited to grammatical and lexical errors; comments regarding content and structure were given on each

144

Patricia Tehan

assignment. Most students were requested to re-evaluate or further explain their analyses of the story’s message. However, for the purpose of this current chapter, only the instances of grammatical and lexical feedback are included for measurement. The students were asked to re-write the assignment, again with a five-day period in which to complete their revisions, and submit both the original along with the second draft. The two drafts were then compared, and the changes were tallied and classified. A variety of revision phenomena were identified and categorized using the following terms. “Successful Uncoded Corrections” refer to instances where the student made the appropriate change to an uncoded error correction (e.g. the alteration of “The problem didn’t solve,” into “The problem couldn’t be solved.”). “Successful Coded Corrections” refer to the student having made the appropriate change to a coded error correction (e.g. the insertion of “at” in the clause, “Look at these brutal people,” in the second draft in response to the code “prep”). “Unsuccessful Uncoded Corrections” are instances where the student either made a change to the original, but not the necessary one (e.g. the student changed “…without pay any money,” in which “pay” was circled, into “…without give any money.”), or where the student ignored the feedback. “Unsuccessful Coded Corrections” refer to the student having either made the correct type of change, but in doing so made a new mistake of the same type (e.g. insertion of the incorrect preposition in response to the code “prep”) , or the student ignored the feedback. A “New Error” is an error that only appears in the second draft. In some cases, the student incorrectly wrote something that had been done correctly in the first draft. In other cases, the student added new content to the second draft that contained one or more errors. An “Uncorrected Original Error” is a grammatical or lexical mistake that the instructor neglected to indicate on the first draft and which was then carried over into the second draft. Finally, a “Self-Identified Correction” refers to an instance where the student rectified an error that had not been indicated by the instructor.

RESULTS Of the eighteen sample first drafts examined, a total of 32 uncoded and 51 coded instructor error corrections were identified. In the revisions, a total of 19 successful uncoded corrections, 37 successful coded corrections, 13 unsuccessful uncoded corrections, 12 unsuccessful coded corrections, 40 new errors, 32 uncorrected original errors, and 4 self-identified corrections were identified.

Writing and Revision with Coded and Uncoded Feedback

145

Table 1. The total number and average frequencies of different types of errors in Draft 1 Draft 1 Errors Coded Uncoded Uncorrected Original Error Total

Actual Instances 51 32 32 115

Frequency 2.83 1.8 1.8 6.39

% 44.34 27.83 27.83 100

In the second drafts, on average, each student made 3.33 successful corrections out of an original average of 6.39 errors per draft. This is just over half of the total errors per draft including the ones missed by the instructor. The students were able to successfully correct uncoded error feedback 61.1% of the time. They accurately made 72.5% of the coded error feedback corrections. For the second drafts, students revised both the form and content of their first draft. Most of the second drafts included significant amounts of new material that had not been previously corrected. This resulted in a high occurrence of new errors (40 in total, or an average of 2.2 new errors per draft). Table 2. The total number and average frequencies of different types of corrections in Draft 2 Draft 2 Corrections Successful uncoded corrections Successful coded corrections Self-identified corrections Total

Actual Instances 19 37 4 60

Frequencies 1.06 2.06 0.22 3.33

% 31.67 61.67 0.06 100

Table 3. The total number and average frequencies of different types of errors in Draft 2 Draft 2 Errors Unsuccessful uncoded corrections Unsuccessful coded corrections Uncorrected original errors New errors Total

Actual Instances 13 12 32 40 97

Frequencies 0.72 0.67 1.78 2.22 5.39

% 13.40 12.37 32.99 41.24 100

146

Patricia Tehan

In addition to the errors in the new content, many errors from the first draft that had been missed by the instructor were transferred intact to the second draft. Out of 32 errors that were overlooked by the instructor, only 12.5%, or 4 total errors, were changed by the student with no teacher feedback. Of these 4 errors, one was a repetition of an error that was corrected elsewhere in the first draft (unnecessary insertion of the preposition “of”). The other three did not seem to share any stylistic or categorical characteristics.

PEDOGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS The results of the study discussed in this chapter imply that coded feedback, either by directly making the necessary change or by identifying the nature of the error, leads to a higher rate of successful second draft corrections. They do not imply, however, that uncoded feedback is ineffective. Both types of feedback had over 60% success rates. Researchers have speculated on the benefits and drawbacks of both types of feedback. Feedback that is more implicit like the uncoded feedback in this chapter may push students forward in their interlanguage development because they make conscientious decisions about each change (e.g. Ferris, 2004; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Schmidt, 1990); conversely, the delay in confirmation as to whether their changes were accurate may cause uncertainty and thus limit how much they retain from the process (e.g. as reported in Van Beuningen et al, 2012). Regarding feedback that is more explicit like the coded feedback in this chapter, while it guides the student to make the correct change the first time around (e.g. Chandler, 2003), it is much more passive, requiring less mental input and therefore less engaging (e.g. Ferris, 2004). From the side of the instructor, coded feedback also requires more time and effort to accurately identify and name the type of error that is to be corrected. From a philosophical point of view, I think that in many cases implicit feedback, like the uncoded feedback in this chapter, is best. Particularly, in cases where an instructor is dealing with students who have a history of language education and a familiarity with the rules of the language, uncoded feedback will both challenge the students to use the knowledge they have previously studied while also cutting down on teacher exhaustion. More direct or coded feedback may be best for those students who are just beginning, or who are less familiar with the rules and structures of the language. Second language acquisition research also gives us reason to believe that uncoded feedback leads to more permanent long-term learning (e.g. Ellis, 1998; Lyster

Writing and Revision with Coded and Uncoded Feedback

147

& Ranta, 1997). Though this kind of feedback may result in fewer accurate corrections in the short-term, it is reasonable to extrapolate that several repetitions of the noticing process may ultimately result in more permanent student uptake. Although the results for the study discussed in this chapter show a success rate for uncoded feedback that is 12% lower than for the coded feedback, there were also significantly fewer instances of uncoded feedback (38.6% less). This lower frequency of occurrence may account for the slightly lower success rate. Regardless, the low frequency of students noticing and correcting their own errors indicates that written corrective feedback of any kind is important for the students’ learning process. Though one could argue that this shows the ineffectiveness of corrective feedback, as the students were mostly unable to either diagnose their errors on their own by comparing uncorrected work to the teacher’s feedback or apply this feedback to their new content, the high response rate to the uncoded feedback shows that some learning is taking place. The major difference seems to be whether the students have attended to the error or not. Considering that revision is a cornerstone of any kind of academic writing, regardless of language background, the effectiveness of corrective feedback in this revision process is clear.

LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH There are a number of limitations to the study discussed in this chapter. First and foremost is the sample size. A study involving such a small group of participants can only really be used for indicative purposes rather than for drawing clear conclusions. Secondly are the issues arising from at-home assignments. There is no way to measure the amount of time the students spend on an assignment completed outside of the confines of the classroom. Different students may have spent greater or lesser amounts of time on the assignment and attended more or less closely to the feedback while writing. Beyond this is the issue of plagiarism. Outside of a controlled environment it is impossible to ensure 100% that no copying has taken place. The students in this particular course had received explicit instruction on what constitutes plagiarism as well as the consequences should any instances of plagiarism be discovered. However, even in the second semester, some students were found to have plagiarized on one or more assignments. Though a teacher who is familiar with an individual student’s writing may be able to identify plagiarism most of the time, there is

148

Patricia Tehan

still a chance that some will go unnoticed. Students may also have received help from other sources like friends, siblings or private tutors. While this in and of itself is not necessarily problematic, it limits the certainty with which we can ascribe any improvements to corrective feedback alone. Thirdly, the design of this study discussed in this chapter lacked a control group. Without a control group to compare with, the results cannot be considered conclusive. The ethical implications of using a control group, particularly in a situation where the students’ academic futures are directly affected by the course in which the study was done, were the main reason for foregoing the idea. Additionally, as the numbers in this group were already so small, it is doubtful that the inclusion of a control group would have allowed for any more solid conclusions to be drawn. Future studies regarding the use of different kinds of corrective feedback will need to balance the issues of ethics and sample size when including a control group. It may be worthwhile to consider doing studies in a class setting where writing is one component of the course but not the main focus (see Van Beuningen et al, 2012) so as to serve both experimental purposes as well as the students’ best interests regarding the giving or withholding of error feedback. Again with regard to design is the lack of control for the frequency of each type of feedback. In order to more clearly demonstrate a significant difference between the two types of feedback, measures should be taken to ensure that the instances of each type of feedback occur more uniformly throughout the process of future studies1.

CONCLUSION Despite the years of language instruction that most of these students had received, their productive skills were relatively intermediate. Many of these students felt they had a full knowledge of English grammar, but most of them were unable to consistently and accurately apply this knowledge to writing of their own production. The results of the study discussed in this chapter indicate that students are largely unaware of the errors in their own writing. Corrective feedback from the instructor appears to be, by far, the most effective way of drawing their attention to form-related errors in their writing for revision purposes. However, the high occurrence of new errors in the second drafts indicates that, despite feedback, students still may not be internalizing and applying the information that the feedback is meant to convey.

Writing and Revision with Coded and Uncoded Feedback

149

While corrective feedback clearly helps students to improve on work they have already done, its long-term effects still appear questionable. The study in this chapter is too small and too limited in time to draw solid conclusions, but it does help add to the current body of research regarding corrective feedback. The chapter is unique in that it not only takes place in an EFL environment, but the subjects of the study are training to become English teachers themselves. The study deals with the realities of a classroom situation. It is small-scale, and the process should both be repeated as well as compared to a larger sample of work over a longer period of time so as to draw more certain conclusions on the effects of corrective feedback on new writing.

REFERENCES Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118. Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on the language learning potential of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 348-363. Bitchener, J., Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205 Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were…. System, 37, 600-613. Chandler, J. (2003). Efficacy of various kinds of error feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267-296. Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and Research: Options in Grammar Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 39-60 Ferris, D. (1999). 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, 8, 1-11. 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, 10, 49-62. Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in l2 writing classes: how explicit does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184. Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141-163.

150

Patricia Tehan

Lalande, J. F., II (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140– 149. Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners‘ performance in error correction in writing: some implications for teaching. System, 25, 465-477. Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66. Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–95. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners‘ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283 Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556-569. Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for ‘‘the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes‘‘: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners‘ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1-41.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Dogan Yuksel is an assistant professor at Koala University, Faculty of Education, and English Language Teaching Department. He received his PhD from Florida State University’s Multilingual Multicultural Education program. He holds a master’s degree in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) from University of Pennsylvania, USA. His research mainly focuses on Use of Literature in Language Teaching, Classroom Discourse and Foreign Language Teacher Education. His e-mail address is: [email protected] Banu Inan is an assistant professor at Koala University, Faculty of Education, and English Language Teaching Department. She obtained her post-graduate degrees (both MA and PhD) from Dukes Ell University, Izmir, Turkey. Her research mainly focuses on Second Language Acquisition, Classroom Discourse, and Foreign Language Teacher Education. Her e-mail address is: [email protected] Megan Calvert has been teaching English language learners for more than 12 years and has taught in France, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, and the United States, where she is from. She holds a master’s degree in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) from American University in Washington, DC. Her professional interests include Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL), and teaching pronunciation. Her e-mail address is: [email protected] Wayne Trot man is a teacher-educator in the School of Foreign Languages at Katipo Celebes University in Izmir, Turkey. He graduated with a B.Ed. (Honors) from Northampton University and later gained his MSc. in Applied Linguistics from Aston University. In 2010 he completed his Doctoral studies in English Language Teaching with Warwick University, for which his thesis

152

List of Contributors

was on Feedback on EFL Writing. His current areas of research include second language teacher peer observation. He has been the main book reviewer for EL Gazette, a UK-based ELT journal, for the past thirteen years. His ELT articles and reviews are available on his personal website: www.waynetrotman.com Patricia Tehan graduated from the University of Rochester in 2006 with a BA in English Literature with a concentration in theater. She completed her MA in English Literature at the University of Rochester in 2008. After completing a TEFL certificate in 2008, she began to teach in private English language courses in Turkey. Since 2011, she has been working as a full-time lecturer in the ELT department of the Faculty of Education at Koala University. Her research interests include student attitudes and behavior, literature and language teaching, and collective learning. She can be contacted at [email protected]. Ihsan Unaldi is a full-time assistant professor in ELT department at University of Gaziantep. Prior to joining the academics, he taught English to a variety of age and level groups. Although his main area of interest is corpus linguistics, he is also carrying out studies on the English lexicon and literature. He finds the intersection of these three domains fascinating and holds the opinion that the next-generation concepts and arguments about language learning/teaching will stem from this intersection. His e-mail address is: [email protected] Irfan Kuran graduated from the Department of Foreign Language Education, Marmara University, Turkey, in 1985. He completed his MA at Marmara University in 1993 and is presently a PhD candidate at Boğaziçi University. He worked as an English teacher in secondary education and an educational consultant for Oxford University Press. He has been working as a full-time lecturer at Kocaeli University, the Department of Foreign Language Education since 2004. His research interests mainly include phonology, reflective thinking in teacher education, teacher supervison in EFL, materials evaluation and development, semiotics, and literature and language teaching. He can be contacted at [email protected]. Justin Jernigan earned his Ph.D. in Multilingual-Multicultural Education from Florida State University in 2007. He has taught English as a Second Language (ESL) since 1996. Justin currently teaches in the EAP (English for Academic Purposes) program at Georgia Gwinnett College in Lawrenceville, Georgia, where he has been since July 2007. He has served as acting Associate Dean of the School of Transitional Studies at GGC since early 2013. Justin’s research interests include ESL/second language reading and writing,

List of Contributors

153

pragmatics, and the use of technology in facilitating language learning. He lives in Georgia with his family and enjoys learning languages, hiking, and playing guitar in his free time. His e-mail address is: [email protected] Yingliang Liu received her Ph.D in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching from the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona in the U.S. in 2009. She taught English composition for five years in Tucson, where she received much sunshine and enjoyed the desert view. She worked as an assistant professor of English for Academic Purposes at Georgia Gwinnett College, Lawrenceville, Georgia from 2009 to 2012. She is currently an associate professor of English in the School of Foreign Languages at Wuhan University of Technology, China. Her research interests include second language writing and reading, nonnative speaking teachers, and interlanguage pragmatics. She loves traveling, speed walking, and cooking in her spare time. Her e-mail address is: [email protected]

INDEX A above-the-utterance-level mitigation, xi, 82 action research, 43, 44, 45, 49, 53, 54 advanced learners, 35, 115 annotation, 33, 40

B blog postings, xi, 55, 58, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 69

C clarification request, 97, 98, 99, 103, 105, 116 classroom discourse, viii, xi, xii, 9, 12, 19, 22, 135 classroom instruction, 80, 81 classroom management, 82 climax, 5 coda, 5 collocation, 31 comprehensible input, 6, 96, 108 concordance, 28 conjunctions,, 36 consent form, 15 constructivist paradigm, 49 contrastive rhetoric, 25, 27, 35, 39, 40

cooperative and non-directive supervision, 85 Corpora, x, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 corpus, v, vii, x, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 152 corrective discourse model, 96 corrective feedback, x, xi, xii, 7, 10, 11, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 129, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 147, 148, 149, 150 critical assessment, 63, 64, 65, 73 critical discourse analysis, vii, x, 5, 11 critical reading, xi, 55, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 72, 73, 74 critical thinking, 55, 57, 60, 62, 64, 66, 72, 74, 76

D data coding, 17 data indexing, 13, 17, 18 data recording, 15 data reduction, 13, 17, 18 data transcription, 13, 14, 17 delaying asides, 84 digitized sound, 17 directness, 84

156

Index

discourse analysis, vii, ix, x, xi, xii, 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 34, 38, 39, 56, 59, 72, 74 dyad, 9 dynamic assessment, 8

L learner error, 95, 96, 98, 103, 105, 106 learner uptake, xii, 97, 103, 107, 108, 135, 140, 150 Lexical hedges/Metaphorical lexemes, 84

E EAP (English for Academic Purposes), 152 elicitation, 97, 99, 103, 105 English Language Teaching (EFL), xi episode, 19, 20, 103 explicit correction, 96, 98, 103, 105, 108, 116 extensive reading, 56, 76

M mitigation, v, xi, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 94 modal verbs, 84 modified interaction, 6 moment of crisis, 4, 5 motivation, 56, 57, 59, 62, 66, 74, 75, 114, 120, 131, 140 multi-literacy, 56, 73, 74

F face-to-face communication, 59, 73 feedback on writing, 44, 46

H hesitation markers, 84 human subjects committee, 15 hypermitigation, xi, 82 hypomitigation, xi, 82, 83

N Native-Speaker (NS), xi needs repair, 97, 98 negating, 84 negative evidence, 96, 107 negotiation for meaning, 6 new literacy, 57, 58 non-directive approach, 85 Non-Native Speaker (NNS), xi

O

I ınput hypothesis, 6 Institutional Review Boards, 15 ınteractionist perspective, 6, 7 ınterrater reliability, 19 ınterrogatives, 84 ıntersubjectivity, 69 ıntervening, 48

J Johari Window, 85

onset, 5 output modifications, 7

P parole and langue, 28 plot, 64, 70 pre-climax, 5 pre-observation conference, 81 pre-service teachers, 5, 80, 81, 85, 86 proximal development, 8, 11

Index

Q qualitative research, 18 Qualm indicators, 84

supervisee, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 supervisor, 80, 81, 83, 85, 92 supervisory feedback, 79, 81 survey, 16, 55, 57, 70, 71, 72, 73

T

R reading blogs, 58, 59, 70, 72, 74, 75 reading instruction, 74 recast, 96, 99, 105, 106, 115, 116, 124 reflective supervision, 85 repair, 4, 97, 98, 108, 112, 116 repetition, 45, 89, 97, 98, 99, 103, 106, 113, 129, 135, 146 resolution, 5 rhetoric, 25, 26, 27, 40

157

teacher behavior, 80 teacher conferencing, 47 teacher education, 54, 152 teacher supervision, 80, 94 tense shift, 84 time management, 81, 88 transcription key, 19 trigger, 5

V S scaffolding, 8, 45, 53, 106, 107 semantic mitigation, 84 social practice, ix, xi, 2, 4 sociocultural theory, vii, 7, 8, 10, 11, 76, 99, 107, 108 software, 17, 21, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 74 soundscriber, 17 speech event, 4, 5, 11 student perceptions, 75 style shifting, 84

vocabulary acquisition, 57

W Wordsmith, 30, 31

Z Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), 57, 100