I felt that all the assigned readings this week to be quite interesting in one way or another. All had great ideas for CALL, which I plan to manipulate and use in some yet that has yet to be determined yet. Chiu and Savignon offer a wonderful perspective into process and form-focused writing. The color schemes and bolded texts seemed like a clear way to highlight corrective feedback; however, it takes more than colored, italicized text for the feedback to be meaningful and result in correction. Teachers have the responsibility to provide clear and comprehensible feedback; if a student isn't sure as to what the teaching is saying, the washback effect is lost. In this article, the writing was done through email, which I find to be not the best medium to employ. There are much better digital mediums that would lend themselves to more of a collaborative work-in-progress feeling. Google docs would be a much better tool or Word (w/ track changes in the margins) As for Gaskell and Cobb's study of concordance use to improve writing, I felt that the results were all over the place. Some students increased their errors while some decreased errors. The most important thing I took away from this article is that in the future if I decide to use a concordance for writing, it will be part of a larger picture. In other words, I do not expect students to rely solely on the concordance to glean the often times complex syntactical structures they may have issues with. The key word here is triangulation; implementing multiple tools/resources including explicit instruction to help them with complex grammar. The last point that I found interesting was from the Murray and Hourigan article about micropublishing. As a result of working "online" or with a digital document, the feeling of finality is absent. I can totally contest to this idea of finality; as soon as you print your document, it is DONE. Revisions may be made, but everytime it is a tangible item, it is a "final product". By keeping all revision online, that finality feeling only occurs at the moment you print.
After reading Chiu and Savignon, I think it's clear that there is a lot of potential with integrating writing and CALL, especially so when it comes to providing writing feedback. Although, I'm disappointed because of all the communication methods available, they chose to use email as the feedback source. Ludicrous! That's like using a ladle to eat cereal with - sure it works, but very inappropriate & awkward. One could use microsoft tracking, or adobe acrobat or other apps for much better results and experiences. Nonetheless, if the means & technology are available, I would definately implement a process similar to this in my classroom. Going digital would make both writers' & feedback providers' lives easier, and I really like the idea of being able to store / retrieve multiple versions. These are critical pieces to the writing process that need to be looked at. I also like using color signals to help students parse either categories or versions - this is a good idea.
Gaskell & Cobb raise an interesting idea of using concordancing for feedback. I feel that in their research, they over-use & abuse the application, but nonetheless I think it too has potential. If it is used in occasions which warrant its use (i.e. in instances which really do need a full blown look at the grammar in different contexts), it could be a very useful tool for the students. And as Professor Rott suggested - an even better use would be for the teacher to write their own sample as corpus & run the concordancer on the sample. Interesting.
Per my comments above - listing possible feedback applications - I just stumbled upon this interesting web 2.0 app that allows for collaborative feedback. Pretty cool: http://a.nnotate.com/
Based on the Murray & Hourigan reading, it is very important for teachers to allow their second language students to have access to technology for writing in L2.
Collaboration, particularly done in pairs, helps students to provide meaningful input and corrective feedback to each other as they work together to express what they want to write. I see peer editing as a form of corrective feedback, which has the capability to draw student attention to meaning and/or form. The finished written product is a better quality, in many cases, when students are able to work together. However, as the teacher, I would ensure that I was available to provide groups with immediate, corrective feedback. It is inherent that pairs of students can make mistakes. Technology facilitates collaborative activity while providing for a constructivist writing experience. To this end, I would allow my students to use blogs for writing in the L2 because it allows them to have a sense of shared ownership with their peers. In turn, students will pay attention to the quality of writing since there is a real audience.
Feedback for writing can also be given from the teacher to the students through computers. For example, the use of Tracking in MS Word is a helpful tool because it highlights the edits and how they were edited. Teacher feedback is also a powerful tool. In light of this, it is important for the teacher to focus on one type of feedback at at time- either content or form (Chiu & Sauvignon, 2006). When presented with both types of feedback, it could be too overwhelming. Part of writing in L2 involves paying attention to the correct grammatical forms, etc., which leads to the eventual acquisition of the L2. Nonetheless, as a teacher I would use discretion in using technology to provide feedback for my students. Some students still respond better to handwritten feedback.
The results of the Gaskell & Cobb study had proven that students must consistently use concordances for them to be of any utility- but they did not contribute to significant error reductions in the L2. As an instructor, I do not feel that concordances are the best tools to facilitate writing in a second language. Although they provide multiple examples of a word usage, the meaning has to be gleaned by the context. For some learners, this may be insufficient information without having definitions of these words.
Both of the reading this week were fairly useful. The Chiu and Sauvignon article brought up some interesting issues. It is curious that their work was done over email. I agree with Marc that Word would have been a much better forum for that study. But I do think that students will certainly benefit from their errors being specially marked. Anything that will increase the chance of something being "noticed" and changed is probably a good thing. In our own teaching, this can be applied by using a system of various markings, each of which indicate a certain needed change. This added element in feedback may help our students better understand the changes needed. As for the other article, I really like the use of concordances. Of course, I wouldn't just use concordances to help my students but I would use them as supplementary materials. Students frequently ask me about possible contexts for word use. Many of these questions could be answered by a simple concordance search. I especially think these would be useful with fairly curious students. In the ITA program here, at a recent staff meeting, we looked at a variety of concordances to evaluate our descriptions of certain verb tenses - another possible use for the classroom.
I was intrigued by some of the ideas about writing evaluation presented in the Chiu and Savignon article. They insist language instructors should be take into account that language is a social phenomenon and should focus on how meaning is created in various ways rather than strictly correcting the grammatical accuracy of students’ writing and providing mostly negative feedback. The article also mentions a study by Bloch, in which he found that email and other online interaction enhances the classroom experience by allowing students to extend social relationships beyond the classroom and assume multiple identities which call for different uses of language. I find that considering the true social nature of language and its multiple variations in form and content is crucial while developing material for a class. Introducing online social networking applications for language learning that students can use in their real personal lives as well just seems like common sense to me. Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, etc. are all applications that have great potential for writing socially between students as well as writing for traditional classroom activities. Instructors could provide concise feedback in posts and students can even correct each other if they are so inclined. Even if the writing being done is not entirely accurate, the fact that students are generating large amounts of writing in different contexts will no doubt eventually improve upon their overall writing skills.
Although the results of Gaskell & Cobb study showed that the use of concordances did not contribute to significant error reductions, I would integrate it into my classes. I believe concordances can be really helpful, especially if used as supplementary materials, and not as the only source of feedback. I agree with Monica when she says that for some students the information provided by the concordances may not be sufficient if they do not know the definitions of the words. As far as the writing being done through email, I have already tried it in my Portuguese classes, and it did not work out. I found Microsoft Word’s Comment function much more effective.
Chiu and Savignon have interesting ideas about feedback -- although e-mail may not be the best format for feedback, considering what else is available (even a JING through someone's paper would be better -- actually preferable). Still, there is no clear consensus on whether feedback (particularly grammar feedback) even has a positive effect on writers (search for Truscott or Krashen articles) -- although it is expected. So,the format of the feedback matters less than the content, I think. As Nathan says, it's all about "noticing and changing" -- to that end MSWord comment is better because you can highlight a section and comment without necessarily fixing the error.
Writing in an L2 (or in our L1) is usually one of the last language skills acquired ... if ever (well, pragmatics I think are always last in line), yet it is a skill usually left to the side when teaching a language. We teach vocabulary, we teach morphology (verbs, plurals), we even sometimes teach pronunciation, but we seldon teach how to write in an L2. We as TAs, instructors or the like, are very seldom TEACHED HOW TO TEACH WRITING. We are usually trained in how to correct or how to grade a written sample, but very seldom are we trained in how to help the language learner when presented with a white piece of paper (or an empty screen nowadays), on how to lead him/her through the writing process. Chiu and Savignon don't help in that regard either. Althought they mention "writing as a process", they, once again, skip the first steps in the process and go to the grading/correcting part of the already produced written material. Gaskell & Cobb do the same thing by offering concordance as a tool to help reduce learner's mistakes. As with any type of communication, feedback in the written form can also not be noticed or be missinterpreted, but I think Chiu and Savignon idea with the colors and comments may help a bit on that regard. The question-form comments (Chiu and Savignon) is a further step into the "writing as a process" idea, where the instructor and the learner engage together in this process, through their feedback-and-response communication.
I agree with several others who mentioned that using technology to provide writing feedback is quite useful, though using email to do so (per the Chiu and Savignon study) seems cumbersome. However, I liked the idea of color-coded feedback and responding at several points in the writing process.
With my own students this semester, I have made a conscious effort to provide specific types of feedback on preliminary drafts, focusing on larger issues (content, thesis-development, and coherence) on the first draft and sentence level issues (grammar, word choice, fragments, etc.) on the second draft. It has taken a couple of complete cycles of the writing process for them to get used to the idea that I am not pointing out verb tense or punctuation issues on the first draft. Many of them feel that if there is any problem at all on any draft, it should be marked so that they can improve it for the next draft; this can become overwhelming both for me (having to mark so much on each essay) and for the students, who may find that their returned essays have more of my writing on them than their own. Focusing on specific issues with each essay and allowing that list to grow on subsequent assignments helps to keep feedback and correction reasonable.
With students who are a little more comfortable with technology, I could definitely see myself using MS Word change tracking and comments or having my students write with Googledocs to streamline the process.
I also liked the idea of using concordances for writing but feel that it should be a more controlled activity, perhaps in conjunction with grammar study and reading.
Both articles were interesting. I thought that the Chiu and Savignon article brought up some interesting points in terms of students' attention to feedback as well as what type of feedback it should be. It seems very logical, especially in terms of L2 learning, to divide form and content-based feedback between separate drafts, even if for no other reason than to make the task of writing in a second language less daunting. I think that This approach would work well for assignments in the beginning of the course, although they would take longer to make it to final draft form. In terms of computer-assisted feedback, I sort of tend to agree with our class discussion about the importance of a tangible paper draft with thoughtful handwritten feedback being an important motivator for students. However, I think that many students would be as comfortable with this format of revision and correction, and that this could work really well with perhaps smaller, more frequent assignments.
Overall, I find corrective feedback to be a tricky subject. It's hard to find a balance between over-correcting and offering too little feedback. I have tutored students in the past that were completely overwhelmed by the amount of feedback from their teachers (longer than the actual paper) and students that were overwhelmed by the fact of not having enough feedback.
Based on my experience, I have to agree with Chiu and Savigon that teachers often focus more on form than content. Also, when given both types of feedback (form and content) students tend to focus more on the form. Perhaps it is more direct and easier to fix?
Therefore, I think CALL has some great ideas for corrective feedback. I really like the idea of using to MStracking and OneNote, because it is not permanent. It can be changed throughout the process and it offers flexibility. Also, I like the dimension of adding color. One way that this can be exploited is by adding a dominant color to comments about content and a less dominant color to form comments. Perhaps, this may help students see the importance of content.
I also love the idea of using emailing to communicate corrective feedback. I have tutored many students not understand their teacher's comments (both the handwriting and the meaning). They often felt lost and confused but were too intimidated to talk to their teacher or did not have access. Email opens up the line of communication. Its not in person so it is less threatening and it can be done outside of class. I think there is a lot of potential for using CALL applications for corrective feedback.
I liked how Murry and Hourigan broke down the advantages of different forms of micropublishing in regards to writing. Powerpoint allows one to "present different media through one mode". We experienced this first-hand in class. Although this can be beneficial to an instructor, I see it more as an output tool. When I create my Powerpoint presentations, it forces me to narrow down and focus my topic because what has to be presented in the show are concise points and evidence. Being allowed to include audio, video, text, and visuals makes Powerpoint a great program to present a final product.
The benefit of web page creation that stood out the most to me was the presence of a wider, more real audience. As a student, knowing that one's website may be viewed by one's peers adds a greater sense of responsibility and motivation to create something interesting and to create it well. Weblogs carry that sense too, because they can also be viewed by one's peers. As Murry & Hourigan point out, weblogs focus on a topic of interest, creating a more structured task. Through weblogs, students can learn from each other and further develop their ideas. Weblogs can be used for class purposes to discuss a culture. A weblog can also be created where students can discuss the grammar aspects they are having trouble with.
Murry & Hourigan explain that Wikis are useful because a wiki is a place to swap info. It is also a potential place for instructors and students to collaborate. While that is true, it is also a place to be misinformed if the wiki is not regularly maintained, depending on the topic being written on.
Regarding peer feedback, I liked the idea of having pairs to work in a written project. However, feedback from one person could be insufficient. I would suggest having groups in three to develop a collaborative written assignment using Microsoft (& track changes). Everyday the teacher has an assignment, like a journal entry but that is relevant to the main topic. Day 1, everyone makes their first entry. Day 2 student (a) revises and makes comments on what student (b) wrote yesterday, (c) on what (b) wrote, and (a) on what (c) wrote. Day three, they make comments on the other student. Day 4 the same process. I believe that the first two or three times it would be confusing but I saw a teacher did this (with pen and paper) and they were giving very good comments, because not only one person read it, but two. When using Track Changes, students can choose a color so that the teacher and the owner knows who wrote what and can ask for clarification, and the teacher could have his/her own one. About concordances, I am amazed that something like this exists because there is just too much input that can benefit ELL from all over the world. It is sad that there are not enough of them in Spanish, though. If I was to implement concordances in my classroom, I would use them after most of the definitions are provided. I believe that students need to analyze the meanings of the words and preferably, know them well enough before giving them examples, with new meanings that will appear. One last thing that I have to say is about social networking applications. I know that we can use Blog to have the students writing, but some of you mention Facebook and I personally don’t think it is a good idea. The main reason is because most of its users are not there with academic purposes and their writing is not the one that a teacher is expected to see in a paper. If students have new friends, and like to make/add comments, they will most likely follow what the rest are doing (errors).
I really like Bicho's statement that writing is always the last language skill to be taught to students. The question is: how can one really teach writing? In reading the Chiu and Savignon article I came to realize that writing should always go hand in hand with reading and grammar. Similar to Nathan's comment,I agree that language is a socially charged action and therefore students' writing should have that component. We teach writing by providing input for students to work with. I would provide my students with a genuine site where they can read or listen/see to input. This serves as a pre-reading activity that activates their schema of their task. Once they have been introduced to a writing task, I would use CALL applications in order to promote writing skills. For example, let's say I want my students to write about their favorite sports. I would set up a blog where they can brainstorm on the ideas about what factors and references come up on their minds- I can provide them with pre-existing blogs and articles, and a corpus with common phrases of sports. Once this pre-writing stage has been completed, students are given a specific task to follow. They complete a draft and follow through the same procedure that Chiu and Savignon proposed. In such as type of instruction students would get feedback based on content, for the study showed that improvement arises from this and not from focusing on form. However, like everyone else I too believe that the Chiu and Savignon study is not very reliable in terms that it lacks enough participants. In my instructional plan I would use MSWord to track changes on students' drafts, but I would require for them to do multiple drafts. I like Liliana's idea of setting up in pairs. I could see how they provide eachother feedback on content, provide my own feedback. Students would then provide a second draft in which I would look for more structure. The CALL applications have such a great potential for serving as tools that can support teaching various writing methods!
I felt that all the assigned readings this week to be quite interesting in one way or another. All had great ideas for CALL, which I plan to manipulate and use in some yet that has yet to be determined yet.
ReplyDeleteChiu and Savignon offer a wonderful perspective into process and form-focused writing. The color schemes and bolded texts seemed like a clear way to highlight corrective feedback; however, it takes more than colored, italicized text for the feedback to be meaningful and result in correction. Teachers have the responsibility to provide clear and comprehensible feedback; if a student isn't sure as to what the teaching is saying, the washback effect is lost.
In this article, the writing was done through email, which I find to be not the best medium to employ. There are much better digital mediums that would lend themselves to more of a collaborative work-in-progress feeling. Google docs would be a much better tool or Word (w/ track changes in the margins)
As for Gaskell and Cobb's study of concordance use to improve writing, I felt that the results were all over the place. Some students increased their errors while some decreased errors. The most important thing I took away from this article is that in the future if I decide to use a concordance for writing, it will be part of a larger picture. In other words, I do not expect students to rely solely on the concordance to glean the often times complex syntactical structures they may have issues with. The key word here is triangulation; implementing multiple tools/resources including explicit instruction to help them with complex grammar.
The last point that I found interesting was from the Murray and Hourigan article about micropublishing. As a result of working "online" or with a digital document, the feeling of finality is absent. I can totally contest to this idea of finality; as soon as you print your document, it is DONE. Revisions may be made, but everytime it is a tangible item, it is a "final product". By keeping all revision online, that finality feeling only occurs at the moment you print.
After reading Chiu and Savignon, I think it's clear that there is a lot of potential with integrating writing and CALL, especially so when it comes to providing writing feedback. Although, I'm disappointed because of all the communication methods available, they chose to use email as the feedback source. Ludicrous! That's like using a ladle to eat cereal with - sure it works, but very inappropriate & awkward. One could use microsoft tracking, or adobe acrobat or other apps for much better results and experiences. Nonetheless, if the means & technology are available, I would definately implement a process similar to this in my classroom. Going digital would make both writers' & feedback providers' lives easier, and I really like the idea of being able to store / retrieve multiple versions. These are critical pieces to the writing process that need to be looked at. I also like using color signals to help students parse either categories or versions - this is a good idea.
ReplyDeleteGaskell & Cobb raise an interesting idea of using concordancing for feedback. I feel that in their research, they over-use & abuse the application, but nonetheless I think it too has potential. If it is used in occasions which warrant its use (i.e. in instances which really do need a full blown look at the grammar in different contexts), it could be a very useful tool for the students. And as Professor Rott suggested - an even better use would be for the teacher to write their own sample as corpus & run the concordancer on the sample. Interesting.
Per my comments above - listing possible feedback applications - I just stumbled upon this interesting web 2.0 app that allows for collaborative feedback. Pretty cool: http://a.nnotate.com/
ReplyDeleteBased on the Murray & Hourigan reading, it is very important for teachers to allow their second language students to have access to technology for writing in L2.
ReplyDeleteCollaboration, particularly done in pairs, helps students to provide meaningful input and corrective feedback to each other as they work together to express what they want to write. I see peer editing as a form of corrective feedback, which has the capability to draw student attention to meaning and/or form. The finished written product is a better quality, in many cases, when students are able to work together. However, as the teacher, I would ensure that I was available to provide groups with immediate, corrective feedback. It is inherent that pairs of students can make mistakes. Technology facilitates collaborative activity while providing for a constructivist writing experience. To this end, I would allow my students to use blogs for writing in the L2 because it allows them to have a sense of shared ownership with their peers. In turn, students will pay attention to the quality of writing since there is a real audience.
Feedback for writing can also be given from the teacher to the students through computers. For example, the use of Tracking in MS Word is a helpful tool because it highlights the edits and how they were edited. Teacher feedback is also a powerful tool. In light of this, it is important for the teacher to focus on one type of feedback at at time- either content or form (Chiu & Sauvignon, 2006). When presented with both types of feedback, it could be too overwhelming. Part of writing in L2 involves paying attention to the correct grammatical forms, etc., which leads to the eventual acquisition of the L2. Nonetheless, as a teacher I would use discretion in using technology to provide feedback for my students. Some students still respond better to handwritten feedback.
The results of the Gaskell & Cobb study had proven that students must consistently use concordances for them to be of any utility- but they did not contribute to significant error reductions in the L2. As an instructor, I do not feel that concordances are the best tools to facilitate writing in a second language. Although they provide multiple examples of a word usage, the meaning has to be gleaned by the context. For some learners, this may be insufficient information without having definitions of these words.
Both of the reading this week were fairly useful. The Chiu and Sauvignon article brought up some interesting issues. It is curious that their work was done over email. I agree with Marc that Word would have been a much better forum for that study. But I do think that students will certainly benefit from their errors being specially marked. Anything that will increase the chance of something being "noticed" and changed is probably a good thing. In our own teaching, this can be applied by using a system of various markings, each of which indicate a certain needed change. This added element in feedback may help our students better understand the changes needed.
ReplyDeleteAs for the other article, I really like the use of concordances. Of course, I wouldn't just use concordances to help my students but I would use them as supplementary materials. Students frequently ask me about possible contexts for word use. Many of these questions could be answered by a simple concordance search. I especially think these would be useful with fairly curious students. In the ITA program here, at a recent staff meeting, we looked at a variety of concordances to evaluate our descriptions of certain verb tenses - another possible use for the classroom.
I was intrigued by some of the ideas about writing evaluation presented in the Chiu and Savignon article. They insist language instructors should be take into account that language is a social phenomenon and should focus on how meaning is created in various ways rather than strictly correcting the grammatical accuracy of students’ writing and providing mostly negative feedback. The article also mentions a study by Bloch, in which he found that email and other online interaction enhances the classroom experience by allowing students to extend social relationships beyond the classroom and assume multiple identities which call for different uses of language. I find that considering the true social nature of language and its multiple variations in form and content is crucial while developing material for a class. Introducing online social networking applications for language learning that students can use in their real personal lives as well just seems like common sense to me. Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, etc. are all applications that have great potential for writing socially between students as well as writing for traditional classroom activities. Instructors could provide concise feedback in posts and students can even correct each other if they are so inclined. Even if the writing being done is not entirely accurate, the fact that students are generating large amounts of writing in different contexts will no doubt eventually improve upon their overall writing skills.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the results of Gaskell & Cobb study showed that the use of concordances did not contribute to significant error reductions, I would integrate it into my classes. I believe concordances can be really helpful, especially if used as supplementary materials, and not as the only source of feedback. I agree with Monica when she says that for some students the information provided by the concordances may not be sufficient if they do not know the definitions of the words.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the writing being done through email, I have already tried it in my Portuguese classes, and it did not work out. I found Microsoft Word’s Comment function much more effective.
Chiu and Savignon have interesting ideas about feedback -- although e-mail may not be the best format for feedback, considering what else is available (even a JING through someone's paper would be better -- actually preferable). Still, there is no clear consensus on whether feedback (particularly grammar feedback) even has a positive effect on writers (search for Truscott or Krashen articles) -- although it is expected. So,the format of the feedback matters less than the content, I think. As Nathan says, it's all about "noticing and changing" -- to that end MSWord comment is better because you can highlight a section and comment without necessarily fixing the error.
ReplyDelete-Jonathan Gourlay
Writing in an L2 (or in our L1) is usually one of the last language skills acquired ... if ever (well, pragmatics I think are always last in line), yet it is a skill usually left to the side when teaching a language. We teach vocabulary, we teach morphology (verbs, plurals), we even sometimes teach pronunciation, but we seldon teach how to write in an L2. We as TAs, instructors or the like, are very seldom TEACHED HOW TO TEACH WRITING. We are usually trained in how to correct or how to grade a written sample, but very seldom are we trained in how to help the language learner when presented with a white piece of paper (or an empty screen nowadays), on how to lead him/her through the writing process.
ReplyDeleteChiu and Savignon don't help in that regard either. Althought they mention "writing as a process", they, once again, skip the first steps in the process and go to the grading/correcting part of the already produced written material. Gaskell & Cobb do the same thing by offering concordance as a tool to help reduce learner's mistakes.
As with any type of communication, feedback in the written form can also not be noticed or be missinterpreted, but I think Chiu and Savignon idea with the colors and comments may help a bit on that regard. The question-form comments (Chiu and Savignon) is a further step into the "writing as a process" idea, where the instructor and the learner engage together in this process, through their feedback-and-response communication.
I agree with several others who mentioned that using technology to provide writing feedback is quite useful, though using email to do so (per the Chiu and Savignon study) seems cumbersome. However, I liked the idea of color-coded feedback and responding at several points in the writing process.
ReplyDeleteWith my own students this semester, I have made a conscious effort to provide specific types of feedback on preliminary drafts, focusing on larger issues (content, thesis-development, and coherence) on the first draft and sentence level issues (grammar, word choice, fragments, etc.) on the second draft. It has taken a couple of complete cycles of the writing process for them to get used to the idea that I am not pointing out verb tense or punctuation issues on the first draft. Many of them feel that if there is any problem at all on any draft, it should be marked so that they can improve it for the next draft; this can become overwhelming both for me (having to mark so much on each essay) and for the students, who may find that their returned essays have more of my writing on them than their own. Focusing on specific issues with each essay and allowing that list to grow on subsequent assignments helps to keep feedback and correction reasonable.
With students who are a little more comfortable with technology, I could definitely see myself using MS Word change tracking and comments or having my students write with Googledocs to streamline the process.
I also liked the idea of using concordances for writing but feel that it should be a more controlled activity, perhaps in conjunction with grammar study and reading.
trischa
Both articles were interesting. I thought that the Chiu and Savignon article brought up some interesting points in terms of students' attention to feedback as well as what type of feedback it should be. It seems very logical, especially in terms of L2 learning, to divide form and content-based feedback between separate drafts, even if for no other reason than to make the task of writing in a second language less daunting. I think that This approach would work well for assignments in the beginning of the course, although they would take longer to make it to final draft form. In terms of computer-assisted feedback, I sort of tend to agree with our class discussion about the importance of a tangible paper draft with thoughtful handwritten feedback being an important motivator for students. However, I think that many students would be as comfortable with this format of revision and correction, and that this could work really well with perhaps smaller, more frequent assignments.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I find corrective feedback to be a tricky subject. It's hard to find a balance between over-correcting and offering too little feedback. I have tutored students in the past that were completely overwhelmed by the amount of feedback from their teachers (longer than the actual paper) and students that were overwhelmed by the fact of not having enough feedback.
ReplyDeleteBased on my experience, I have to agree with Chiu and Savigon that teachers often focus more on form than content. Also, when given both types of feedback (form and content) students tend to focus more on the form. Perhaps it is more direct and easier to fix?
Therefore, I think CALL has some great ideas for corrective feedback. I really like the idea of using to MStracking and OneNote, because it is not permanent. It can be changed throughout the process and it offers flexibility. Also, I like the dimension of adding color. One way that this can be exploited is by adding a dominant color to comments about content and a less dominant color to form comments. Perhaps, this may help students see the importance of content.
I also love the idea of using emailing to communicate corrective feedback. I have tutored many students not understand their teacher's comments (both the handwriting and the meaning). They often felt lost and confused but were too intimidated to talk to their teacher or did not have access. Email opens up the line of communication. Its not in person so it is less threatening and it can be done outside of class. I think there is a lot of potential for using CALL applications for corrective feedback.
I liked how Murry and Hourigan broke down the advantages of different forms of micropublishing in regards to writing. Powerpoint allows one to "present different media through one mode". We experienced this first-hand in class. Although this can be beneficial to an instructor, I see it more as an output tool. When I create my Powerpoint presentations, it forces me to narrow down and focus my topic because what has to be presented in the show are concise points and evidence. Being allowed to include audio, video, text, and visuals makes Powerpoint a great program to present a final product.
ReplyDeleteThe benefit of web page creation that stood out the most to me was the presence of a wider, more real audience. As a student, knowing that one's website may be viewed by one's peers adds a greater sense of responsibility and motivation to create something interesting and to create it well.
Weblogs carry that sense too, because they can also be viewed by one's peers. As Murry & Hourigan point out, weblogs focus on a topic of interest, creating a more structured task. Through weblogs, students can learn from each other and further develop their ideas.
Weblogs can be used for class purposes to discuss a culture. A weblog can also be created where students can discuss the grammar aspects they are having trouble with.
Murry & Hourigan explain that Wikis are useful because a wiki is a place to swap info. It is also a potential place for instructors and students to collaborate. While that is true, it is also a place to be misinformed if the wiki is not regularly maintained, depending on the topic being written on.
Regarding peer feedback, I liked the idea of having pairs to work in a written project. However, feedback from one person could be insufficient. I would suggest having groups in three to develop a collaborative written assignment using Microsoft (& track changes). Everyday the teacher has an assignment, like a journal entry but that is relevant to the main topic. Day 1, everyone makes their first entry. Day 2 student (a) revises and makes comments on what student (b) wrote yesterday, (c) on what (b) wrote, and (a) on what (c) wrote. Day three, they make comments on the other student. Day 4 the same process. I believe that the first two or three times it would be confusing but I saw a teacher did this (with pen and paper) and they were giving very good comments, because not only one person read it, but two. When using Track Changes, students can choose a color so that the teacher and the owner knows who wrote what and can ask for clarification, and the teacher could have his/her own one.
ReplyDeleteAbout concordances, I am amazed that something like this exists because there is just too much input that can benefit ELL from all over the world. It is sad that there are not enough of them in Spanish, though. If I was to implement concordances in my classroom, I would use them after most of the definitions are provided. I believe that students need to analyze the meanings of the words and preferably, know them well enough before giving them examples, with new meanings that will appear.
One last thing that I have to say is about social networking applications. I know that we can use Blog to have the students writing, but some of you mention Facebook and I personally don’t think it is a good idea. The main reason is because most of its users are not there with academic purposes and their writing is not the one that a teacher is expected to see in a paper. If students have new friends, and like to make/add comments, they will most likely follow what the rest are doing (errors).
I really like Bicho's statement that writing is always the last language skill to be taught to students. The question is: how can one really teach writing? In reading the Chiu and Savignon article I came to realize that writing should always go hand in hand with reading and grammar. Similar to Nathan's comment,I agree that language is a socially charged action and therefore students' writing should have that component.
ReplyDeleteWe teach writing by providing input for students to work with. I would provide my students with a genuine site where they can read or listen/see to input. This serves as a pre-reading activity that activates their schema of their task.
Once they have been introduced to a writing task, I would use CALL applications in order to promote writing skills. For example, let's say I want my students to write about their favorite sports. I would set up a blog where they can brainstorm on the ideas about what factors and references come up on their minds- I can provide them with pre-existing blogs and articles, and a corpus with common phrases of sports.
Once this pre-writing stage has been completed, students are given a specific task to follow. They complete a draft and follow through the same procedure that Chiu and Savignon proposed. In such as type of instruction students would get feedback based on content, for the study showed that improvement arises from this and not from focusing on form.
However, like everyone else I too believe that the Chiu and Savignon study is not very reliable in terms that it lacks enough participants.
In my instructional plan I would use MSWord to track changes on students' drafts, but I would require for them to do multiple drafts. I like Liliana's idea of setting up in pairs. I could see how they provide eachother feedback on content, provide my own feedback. Students would then provide a second draft in which I would look for more structure.
The CALL applications have such a great potential for serving as tools that can support teaching various writing methods!