A Dialogic Analysis of Instructor-Student Interactions in L2 Writing Conferences Antonio Causarano Assistant Professor of Education (PhD) & Pei-ni Lin.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Performance Assessment
Advertisements

Importance of Questioning and Feedback Technique in developing 3 Cs
Helping L2 writers respond to writing assignments across the curriculum Part 2 Zuzana Tomaš Eastern Michigan University
WORKING TOGETHER ACROSS THE CURRICULUM CCSS ELA and Literacy In Content Areas.
1 DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS FOR ESL Liz Davidson & Nadia Casarotto CMM General Studies and Further Education.
Bank of Performance Assessment Tasks in English
An Action Learning Approach For Increasing Critical Thinking Skills In An Information Systems Capstone Course Alan Burns School of CTI DePaul University.
Asynchronous Discussions and Assessment in Online Learning Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous Discussions and Assessment in.
Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) at Sojourner Douglass College Faculty and Staff Session One Saturday, November 9, 2013.
Monitoring through Walk-Throughs Participants are expected to purpose the book: The Three-Minute Classroom Walk-Through: Changing School Supervisory.
Eloise Forster, Ed.D. Foundation for Educational Administration (FEA)
Peer Review How to make it work for you 1. In your experience… What have you tried? ▫What worked? ▫What didn’t work? What were the students’ responses?
Assessing the Impact of the Interactive Learning Space Initiative on Faculty Morale and Student Achievement Ball State University 2015 Spring Assessment.
Standards That Count: Reading, Discussion, Writing, and Presentation.
Building Effective Content Literacy Tasks. The Cycle of Assessment Teach: Does the instruction and the tasks align to the identified learning target(s)?
Taeho Yu, Ph.D. Ana R. Abad-Jorge, Ed.D., M.S., RDN Kevin Lucey, M.M. Examining the Relationships Between Level of Students’ Perceived Presence and Academic.
MUS Outcomes Assessment Workshop University-wide Program-level Writing Assessment at The University of Montana Beverly Ann Chin Chair, Writing Committee.
ELA Grade 11/12 Cohort Common Core Transition Training SY March 7, 2014 Professional Development Center (PDC) Judy Henderson, Emily Jimenez, Elizabeth.
Course Work 2: Critical Reflection GERALDINE DORAN B
Critical Information Literacy
Learning Assessment Techniques
Spelling and beyond – Curriculum
Planning Instruction Component 3: Session 4
The Interpersonal Mode
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
Inter-Professional Education and Practice in Autism Spectrum Disorders
What do these mean? Your time is up Ready for anything (Red E)
Jovana Milosavljevic Ardeljan PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
IBCC Reflective Project.
Research Methods for Business Students
SLOs: What Are They? Information in this presentation comes from the Fundamentals of Assessment conference led by Dr. Amy Driscoll and sponsored by.
Performance Assessment Development
Instructional Coaching Samir Omara RELO-NileTESOL Trainer s. m
Academic writing for researchers
The Concept of INTERDISCIPLINARY TEACHING
How do grade levels currently plan at your school?
Introduction to the NSU Write from the Start QEP
Presentation by: Nora, Katherine, Carmen, and Shadia
K-3 Student Reflection and Self-Assessment
By Jennifer Forsthoefel Courtesy of The Writing Studio
Writing to Learn vs. Writing in the Disciplines
Critical Reading Charting the Text.
The Call for Action: Coaching and Supporting Mathematics Instruction
Spelling and beyond Literacy Toolkit HGIOS
Investigating science
Obj. 2.2 Discuss considerations involved before, during and after an interview To view this presentation, first, turn up your volume and second, launch.
The Graduate College Travel Summary Presentation
Reading Closely For Textual Details
Planning Instruction Component 3: Session 4
EDU 5818 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
SECOND LANGUAGE LISTENING Comprehension: Process and Pedagogy
Topic Principles and Theories in Curriculum Development
Essentials of Oral Defense (English/Chinese Translation)
Pacific Peoples Research Skills Symposium, 2018
Rakhymzhanova Bayan, Center of Excellence, Kazakhstan
Essentials of Oral Defense (Legal English)
K–8 Session 1: Exploring the Critical Areas
EDD/581 Week 1.
The Heart of Student Success
FCE (FIRST CERTIFICATE IN ENGLISH) General information.
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
The Pilot Study of Research
Eloise Forster, Ed.D. Foundation for Educational Administration (FEA)
Patricia Sampson Graner
Paper 1: Tues 6th June GCSE English Language Paper 2: Mon 12th June
Learning Community II Survey
DEVELOPING ACADEMIC LANGUAGE AND TEACHING LEARNING STRATEGIES
EDU 5818 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Presentation transcript:

A Dialogic Analysis of Instructor-Student Interactions in L2 Writing Conferences Antonio Causarano Assistant Professor of Education (PhD) & Pei-ni Lin Causarano (PhD) University of Mary Washington The 35th Second Language Research Forum (SLRF 2016) Thirty Years of Instructed SLA: Learning, Instruction, Learning, and Outcome September 22-September 25, 2016 Teachers College, Columbia University

Introduction Feedback in educational settings is considered an important pedagogic component to support students’ learning across different content areas and disciplines Research suggests that the quality of feedback given by the instructor to the students is paramount to scaffold students’ learning on the content of the curriculum (Goldstein, 2004; Hyland & Hyland, 2006)

Introduction Feedback in L2 writing bears a tremendous importance to guide L2 writers in the process of acquiring a new system of meaning to express their ideas on paper or any other medium (Atkinson, 2004). One of the various models to give specific and effective feedback to L2 writers is the writing conference.

What the Literature Says about L2 Feedback Literature on feedback in L2 focuses primarily on written feedback (Ewert, 2009) Scholarship in L2 writing feedback presents few studies that focus their attention to the dialogic interaction between the instructor and L2 writers and the type and quality of questions leading to effective dialogic teaching and learning for L2 writers (Ewert, 2009).

What the Literature Says about L2 Feedback Dialogic interaction in L2 writing conferences is the key to put the L2 writer at the center of learning how to write in a second language due to the fact that dialogic interaction has the potential to clarify issues occurring in L2 writing processes (Zhu, 2001).

What the Literature Says about L2 Feedback As Burke and Pieterick (2010) claim feedback in L2 writing is core to lay out the blueprint for effective collaboration between instructor and L2 writer on writing in a second language. Feedback become the dialogic ground where reflective thinking on the writing processes in a second language are analyzed and clarified to support the L2 writer in refining his/her ability to write in a second language. In turn, feedback is core to refine the writing process in a second language.

Bakhtin/Volosinov (1986) dialogic framework The Utterance as the unit of analysis of language in sociocultural contexts Meaning is found in the context in which language is used by a community of speakers According to Bakhtin/Volosinov (1986) meaning in language emerges from the interactions between and among specific individuals or language communities within specific social and cultural contexts.

Purpose of The Study This paper investigates how the dynamic of dialogic teaching during L2 writing conferences affects students’ clarification of key aspects of L2 academic writing.

Question The Question: How effective are one to one L2 writing conferences in clarifying key aspect of academic writing in L2 writers during the writing process?

Theoretical Framework Bakhtin’s dialogic framework: to study the questions used by the instructor during the L2 writing conferences Erickson's (2007) Question Typology: to analyze the type of questions used by the instructor during the L2 Conferences with the participants

Method A qualitative research approach with a case study design Sample Population: Four international students and the instructor in a freshman ESL composition course in a large state university in the US.

Data Collection Data: Four individual writing conferences between students and instructor: to discuss the academic papers written by the participants in this course Procedure: Data were collected in one semester Each writing conference had the duration of 10-12 minutes Four conferences per participant were tape recorded and transcribed Five post L2 Conferences interviews were tape recorded and transcribed (one for each participant and one with the instructor)

The Participants Four International students participated in the this study The four international students belonged to different countries as follows: (a) Vietnam; (b) China; (c) Mongolia; (d) Mexico.

The Participants Paola’s L1: Spanish. 4 years of academic English instruction Laura L1: Chinese (Mongolia) 7 years of academic English instruction Tom L1: Vietnamese 10 years of academic English instruction Susan L1: Chinese 10 years of academic English instruction

Coding for L2 Writing Conferences: Erickson’s Typology Factual Answers are simple and straight forward based on fact or knowledge Convergent A limited range of acceptable answers are based on inferences Divergent Answers can vary widely based on students’ interpretation, analysis, synthesis, and perceptions Evaluative Answers require sophisticated cognitive or affective judgment

Coding for L2 Writing Conferences Goal: to capture how questions from both the instructor and the student had the potential to generate a dialogic process of clarification on specific components of the L2 writing process. The coding were categorized into TT (Teacher’s Talk) ST (Student’s Talk) TC (Teacher’s Comment) SC (Student’s Clarification)

Analysis To examine how various types and quality of statements foster dialogic teaching and learning during writing conferences based on Erickson's (2007) question typology To examine how dialogic interactions support or hinder in clarifying important aspects of the L2 writing process during the L2 conferences.

Samples Factual Factual Factual Paola’s Sample: TT: This is very good, OK? Did you do that? [Pointing at the graph in the paper] ST: Yes. TC: You have to use “There are other factors…” This is the correct form. Ok? ST: Ok. TT: When you use the form with “else” you have to use the following form: “What else influences…” Ok? TT: You put a graph and a table in the paper. You have to choose one or the other. You do not have to put both in the paper. Ok? ST: Ok TT: Remember to describe your graph and what the graph is supposed to mean for your paper. Ok? Factual Factual Convergent Convergent Factual

Samples Susan’s Conference TT: Do you have any questions? ST: No. TT: Remember the address in the letter must be single space. ST: OK. TT: You talk about your experience as an international student in the letter. Remember to use always the same person in the letter. If you begin with I, you have to use throughout the letter. TT: Do not put two negatives in the same sentence. It is confusing for a English reader. ST: Ok. Factual l Convergent Convergent

Samples From the Interviews: Student Question: Have you found the L2 writing conference effective to improve your writing? Answer (Paola): Well…I guess so. I understood what the instructor wants for the second draft. I think, I have the information I need to improve my writing…May be I should have asked more specific questions on the vocabulary…not sure about it.

Samples from Interview: The Instructor Question: Were the students able to ask questions to clarify their writing? Answer: I think that overall they were able to do so…well, my concern is that they are not taking risks in asking the hard questions to the me to clarify more of the academic writing process…I should probably have a pre-conference meeting next time I teach this course.

Findings Only factual and convergent teacher’s talks and teacher’s comments were used in writing conferences Only factual student’s talks were fostered in writing conferences

Discussions Dialogic teaching was missing from the L2 writing conferences due to an overuse of factual questions instead of higher-order thinking questions, such as divergent and evaluative questions, which promote higher levels of critical thinking. The instructor’s frequent use of factual questions led the students to use short responses, such as yes-no answers, which prevent critical clarifications in the process of writing in English as L2.

Implications Although elements of dialogic interactions were not found in the L2 conferences, more research is needed to understand how to scaffold and support more dialogic interactions during L2 writing conferences to allow L2 writers to have more participation and learning opportunities in the L2 writing process.

Limitation & Further Exploration This study represents a preliminary analysis on the teaching of L2 writing process with an emphasis on studying the writing conferences Further research needs to be conducted to align how quality of L2 writing conferences have an impact on the quality of L2 students’ writing

Thank you!