Promoting autonomy for self correction in esp writing through task-induced load glo call 2015pptx

Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction in ESP writing through task-induced load

Mrs. Manashi G. DuttaKhon Kaen University

[email protected]

Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction

Claim made by Benson (2001) : Learner autonomy as a multidimensional construct

A sufficient account of learner autonomy in language learning should include three levels of control over learning

- 1. Control over learning management, - 2. Control over cognitive processes and - 3. Control over learning content.

Murase (2007): All these are interrelated.

Promoting learner autonomy for self-correctionBenson (2011) :

• Educational technologies and autonomy have always been there.

• New challenge is that the new generations of technologies like Web 2.0 and other internet based ones do not tend to foster autonomy or train.

• They presuppose autonomy.

Promoting learner autonomy for self-correctionJiménez Raya, Lamb & Vieira (2007) :

Both teacher and learner autonomy

competence that involve attitudinal dispositions, knowledge, abilities to develop self-determination, social responsibility and critical awareness to develop learners as self-determined, socially responsible and critically aware participants in (and beyond) educational environments, within a vision of education as (inter)personal empowerment and social transformation.


A continuous process in which different degrees of self-management and self-regulation may take place at different moments and in diverse aspects of learning.

Denotes a proactive and interactive role and it is desirable and feasible in a formal education context.

This study engaged learners in interactive roles and investigated whether it is feasible or not in a formal educational context.


Participants:

84 Fifth year students of Faculty of Dentistry and 2 students of Faculty of Medicine

“Writing in English for Health Sciences”

Out of 86, 11 - high proficiency, 10 - mid proficiency and 11 - low proficiency were purposefully randomly chosen for this study on the basis of their Midterm and Final test scores.

32 participants.


• A regular semester of 16 weeks.

• Students and the teachers met once a week for 3-4 hours.

• Areas of learning : Summary, Narrative, Paragraph, Letter, Essay, Case report, Abstract and Presentation outline.

• Graded : Grammar and vocabulary, Content, Organization (the way a piece of writing is put together), Mechanics, Fluency (style and ease of communication).


Task model

• Manual• Teacher's handout

First draftZPD zone


1. Grammar & Vocabulary

2. Content

3. Organization (The way a piece of writing is put together)

4. Mechanics

5. Fluency (Style and ease of communication)

Grammar & Vocabulary

Student’s responsibility to

edit using technology/com

puter applications.

Teachers played no role on correcting

errors.

Use of tenses.Use of persons.

Subject Verb agreement.

Correct word order.

Range of vocabulary (Variety and

sophistication).Use of vocabulary

is consistently correct and appropriate.

Content

Students used checklists to

understand the area of content development. Teacher didn’t

provide feedback on

contents of the writings.

Task achievement.Audience is addressed.

Subject matter is dealt.Title is

appropriate.Topic

development.Work

completed.

OrganizationStudents used checklists to

understand the area of

organization development. Teacher didn’t

give any corrective

feedback on organization of

the writings. Teacher asked

for clarity at times only if

coherence was lost.

Introduction with orientation

who/when/where.Identify the main

idea that pervades the composition.

Does everything in the

composition contribute to the

main idea?Paragraphing.

Ending is suitable.

Coherence refers to the linking of ideas through

logical sequencing.

Overall progression of

ideas and writing.

4. Mechanics

Students used checklists to

understand the area of

mechanics. Teacher didn’t give corrective

feedback on mechanics of the writings.

Teacher asked for clarity at times only if

cohesion was lost.

Cohesion (Varied and appropriate use of cohesive devices such as

logical connectors,

pronouns and conjunctions).

Conceptual and referential

relationships between and

within sentences are clear.

Use of punctuation.Use of capital

letter (including Title).

Space between word and

sentences.Sentence

formation (Ease and

communication).

5. Fluency

Teacher asked questions to

clarify at times whether editing was done or not.

There was no corrective

feedback or suggestions provided for improving

learner’s fluency.

Consistent grammatical

control of complex language.

Syntactically fluent and

appropriate for the genre.

Easy to read expressively.

Variety in length of sentences with

accuracy.Edit for

conciseness, run on sentences, and

fragments.Show how no two sentences start

alike.

Band scores:

1= Emerging (1.5)

2= Developing (2.5)

3=Proficient

Duration of the course: January – April, 2015

Genres taught in 16 weeks Summary, Narrative, Letter, Paragraph, Essay, Case Report, Abstract, Presentation outline

Chosen genre Summary writing Total number of writing pieces

Task 1

Pre test was conducted immediately after the course started. Students were provided with basic guidelines on how to write a summary.

Students wrote the first draft of the 3rd activity as homework and exchanged with peers for review. Typed the 2nd draft in MS word and sent for teacher’s comments using Google doc after 1st self-editing. 3rd draft was submitted for final grading after 2nd time self-editing.

Used for teaching the whole class about summary writing through handouts and students sent the first draft for teacher’s comments using Google doc.

Task 2Week-1

Four

Classroom practice

Used for Pre and Post tests

Written as homeworkTask 3

Task load on students

-Information about useful online resources and computer applications. - Submit error (local) free drafts (without any highlight).

-Self report on strategies application > to create readiness. -Students reflected through self report on their knowledge of summary writing.

-Peer-review using teacher’s evaluation rubric. -Awareness for self-evaluation and strategies.

Task 2Week-15

Task 4 Written as homework

First draft of the 4th activity was a home work and exchanged with peers for review. 2nd draft typed in MS word and sent for teacher’s comments using Google doc after 1st self-editing. 3rd draft was submitted for final grading after 2nd self-editing.

-Peer-review using guidelines aiming for better understanding of coherence and organization in writing. -Awareness for self evaluation and strategies.

Used for Pre and Post tests Pre test writings were returned to the students at the time of Post test along with the evaluation rubric without grading and any corrective feedback from teacher.

-Students could self-evaluate their first draft of the writing and reproduced a new piece on the same topic and following the same test instructions.

During the 13 weeks between the 1st and the 15th, students did practice of self-evaluation, peer-review and editing by using applications, online resources and computer tools.


Data collection

Data for the study were collected through several instruments: Tasks, Tests, Questionnaire and Self-reports.


All 3 groups with three proficiency levels displayed

P value .000 < α (.05) which is highly significant.

Test Statisticsb

-4.861a

.000ZAsymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

post - pre

Based on negative ranks.a.

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Testb.

Self reports

Questionnaire on Strategy for Learning Better writing in English

- Based on SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) Oxford

(1989, 1990)

- 39 questions prepared on self help strategies.

- 35 questions directed towards writing strategies only.

- Modified to make students aware of the individual actions expected

to be taken by them to achieve learning goals.

- Not in the beginning , in the mid of the semester.


A student reported:

Using technology for only online dictionary in the beginning .

In the questionnaire survey, she reported:Using technology for:

Internet for planning writing. App for editing writing Look for guidelines for designing writing Using book for grammar rules.


37. Do you think you can help yourself to become a better writer?

Majority – Yes (42/13) - Autonomy

38. Do you believe that you can correct your own mistakes?

Majority - May be and not sure

39. Do you think you can be a better writer using technologies?

Majority - May be and not sure


Limitations:

- No training to learners on strategies.

- No training to learners on think aloud.

- Data collection on strategy application should have been included with PRE and POST tests.


Future studies:

About measuring self-correction strategy applications by learners through trained think aloud self-reports and measure autonomy and technology use simultaneously.