Articles Volume 12, Number 2 June 2008 Special Issue on ...

Articles More Than a Linguisic Reference: The Infuence of Corpus Technology on L2 Academic Writing Abstract | Article PDF Hyunsook Yoon, Dongguk University pp. 31-48 Asynchronous Forums in EAP: Assessment Issues Abstract | Article PDF Sara Kol and Miriam Schcolnik Tel Aviv University pp. 49-70 Raising Students' Awareness of CrossCultural Contrastive Rhetoric Via an ELearning Course Abstract | Article PDF Minjie Xing, University of Manchester Jinghui Wang, Harbin Institute of Technology Kenneth Spencer, University of Hull pp. 71-93 Beyond the Design of Automated Writing Evaluation: Pedagogical Practices and Perceived Learning Effectiveness in EFL Writing Classes Abstract | Article PDF Chi-Fen Emily Chen and Wei-Yuan Eugene Cheng National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan pp. 94-112 Call for Papers Article PDF pp. 113 Reviewer Acknowledgments Article PDF p. 114-115

Volume 12, Number 2 June 2008 Special Issue on Technology and Learning to Write Columns From the Editors Article PDF by Dorothy Chun & Irene Thompson pp. 1 From the Special Issue Editor Article PDF by Joel Bloch pp. 2-6 Emerging Technologies Web-Writing 2.0: Enabling, Documenting, and Assessing Writing Online Article PDF by Robert Godwin-Jones pp. 8-12 Announcements News from Sponsoring Organizations Article PDF pp. 13-16

Reviews Edited by Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas netTrekker d. i. Thinkronize, Inc. Article PDF Reviewed by Leslie Huff pp. 17-25 A Practical Guide to Using Technology in Langage Teaching John de Szendeffy Article PDF Reviewed by Jody Gabler pp. 26-30

Contact: Editors or Managing Editor Copyright © 2008 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501. Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.

About Language Learning & Technology

Language Learning & Technology is a refereed journal which began publication in July 1997. The journal seeks to disseminate research to foreign and second language educators in the US and around the world on issues related to technology and language education. •

Language Learning & Technology is sponsored and funded by the University of Hawai'i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) and the Michigan State University Center for Language Education And Research (CLEAR), and is co-sponsored by the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL).

•

Language Learning & Technology is a fully refereed journal with an editorial board of scholars in the fields of second language acquisition and computer-assisted language learning. The focus of the publication is not technology per se, but rather issues related to language learning and language teaching, and how they are affected or enhanced by the use of technologies.

•

Language Learning & Technology is published exclusively on the World Wide Web. In this way, the journal seeks to (a) reach a broad audience in a timely manner, (b) provide a multimedia format which can more fully illustrate the technologies under discussion, and (c) provide hypermedia links to related background information.

•

Beginning with Volume 7, Number 1, Language Learning & Technology is indexed in the exclusive Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), ISI Alerting Services, Social Scisearch, and Current Contents/Social and Behavioral Sciences.

•

Language Learning & Technology is currently published three times per year (February, June, and October).

Copyright © 2008 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501. Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.

Sponsors, Board, and Editorial Staff Volume 12, Number 2 Sponsors University of Hawaiì National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR)

Co-Sponsor Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

Advisory and Editorial Boards Advisory Board Susan Gass Richard Schmidt

Michigan State University University of Hawaiì

[email protected] [email protected]

Georgetown University Université de Franche-Comte University of Hawaiì Virginia Commonwealth Univ. Second Language Tesing, Inc. Stanford University Montclair State University University of Münster The Open University University of South Carolina University of Queensland San Diego State University Georgetown University San Jose State University University of San Francisco University of Hawaiì University of Hawaiì Santa Clara University Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC University of Cal., Berkeley Montclair State University Monterey Institute of International Studies Univ. of California, Irvine

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Editorial Board Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas Thierry Chanier Graham Crookes Robert Godwin-Jones Lucinda Hart-González Philip Hubbard Michelle Knobel Marcus Kötter Marie-Noelle Lamy Lara Lomicka Allan Luke Mary Ann Lyman-Hager Alison Mackey Denise Murray Noriko Nagata John Norris Lourdes Ortega Jill Pellettieri Joy Kreeft Peyton Maggie Sokolik Susana Sotillo Leo van Lier Mark Warschauer

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Editorial Staff Editors

Dorothy Chun Irene Thompson

Associate Editors Managing Editor Web Production Editor Book & Multimedia Review Editor On the Net Editors Emerging Technologies Editor Copy Editors

Trude Heift Carla Meskill Hunter Hatfield Carol Wilson-Duffy Sigrun BiesenbachLucas Jean W. LeLoup Robert Ponterio Robert Godwin-Jones Stephanie Alexis Balunda Matthew Buscemi Elizabeth Pfaff Lavolette Suann Robinson

University of CA, Santa Barbara The George Washington University (Emerita) Simon Fraser University SUNY-Albany University of Hawaiì Michigan State University Georgetown University

[email protected] thompson@roadstarinternet. net [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

SUNY at Cortland SUNY at Cortland Virginia Commonwealth University Indiana University

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

University of Hawaiì University of Hawaiì

[email protected] [email protected]

University of Hawaiì

[email protected]

[email protected]

Copyright © 2008 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501. The contents of this publication were developed under a grant from the Department of Education (CFDA 84.229, P229A60012-96 and P229A6007). However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and one should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

Information for Contributors Language Learning & Technology is seeking submissions of previously unpublished manuscripts on any topic related to the area of language learning and technology. Articles should be written so that they are accessible to a broad audience of language educators, including those individuals who may not be familiar with the particular subject matter addressed in the article. General guidelines are available for reporting on both quantitative and qualitative research. Manuscripts are being solicited in the following categories: Articles | Commentaries | Reviews

Articles Articles should report on original research or present an original framework that links previous research, educational theory, and language teaching practices that utilize technology. Articles containing only descriptions of software, classroom procedures, or those presenting results of attitude surveys without discussing data on actual language learning outcomes will not be considered. Full-length articles should be no more than 8,500 words in length, including references, and should include an abstract of no more than 200 words. Appendices should be limited to no more than 1,500 words. We encourage articles that take advantage of the electronic format by including hypermedia links to multimedia material both within and outside the article. All article manuscripts submitted to Language Learning & Technology go through a two-step review process. Step 1: Internal Review. The editors of the journal first review each manuscript to see if it meets the basic requirements for articles published in the journal (i.e., that it reports on original research or presents an original framework linking previous research, educational theory, and teaching practices), and that it is of sufficient quality to merit external review. Manuscripts which do not meet these requirements or are principally descriptions of classroom practices or software are not sent out for further review, and authors of these manuscripts are encouraged to submit their work elsewhere. This internal review takes about 1-2 weeks. Following the internal review, authors are notified by e-mail as to whether their manuscript has been sent out for external review or, if not, why. Step 2: External Review. Submissions which meet the basic requirements are then sent out for blind peer review from 2-3 experts in the field, either from the journal's editorial board or from our larger list of reviewers. This second review process takes 2-3 months. Following the external review, the authors are sent copies of the external reviewers' comments and are notified as to the decision (accept as is, accept pending changes, revise and resubmit, or reject. Titles should be concise (preferably fewer than 10 words) and adequately descriptive of the content of the article. Some good examples are • • •

Social Dimensions of Telecollaborative Foreign Language Study "Reflective Conversation" in the Virtual Language Classroom Teaching German Modal Particles: A Corpus-Based Approach Copyright © 2007 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501. Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.

Commentaries Commentaries are short articles, usually no more than 2,000 words, discussing material previously published in Language Learning & Technology or otherwise offering interesting opinions on theoretical and research issues related to language learning and technology. Commentaries which comment on previous articles should do so in a constructive fashion. Hypermedia links to additional information may be included. Commentaries go through the same two-step review process as for articles described above. Submission Guidelines for Articles and Commentaries Please list the names, institutions, e-mail addresses, and if applicable, World Wide Web addresses (URLs), of all authors. Also include a brief biographical statement (maximum 50 words, in sentence format) for each author. (This information will be temporarily removed when the articles are distributed for blind review.) Articles and commentaries can be transmitted in either of the following ways: 1. By electronic mail, send the main document and any accompanying files (images, etc.) to [email protected] 2. By mail, send the material on a Macintosh or IBM diskette to LLT NFLRC University of Hawai'i at Manoa 1859 East-West Road, #106 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Please check the General Policies below for additional guidelines.

Reviews Language Learning & Technology publishes reviews of professional books, classroom texts, and technological resources related to the use of technology in language learning, teaching, and testing. Reviews should normally include references to published theory and research in SLA, CALL, pedagogy, or other relevant disciplines. Reviewers are encouraged to incorporate images (e.g., screen shots or book covers) and hypermedia links that provide additional information, as well as specific ideas for classroom or research-oriented implementations. Reviews of individual books or software are generally 1,200-1,600 words long, while comparative reviews of multiple products may be 2,000 words or longer. They can be submitted in ASCII, Rich Text Format, Word, or HTML. Accompanying images should be sent separately as jpeg or gif files. Reviews should include the name, institutional affiliation, e-mail address, URL (if applicable), and a short biographical statement (maximum 50 words) of the reviewer(s). In addition, the following information should be included in a table at the beginning of the review: Books Author(s) Title Series (if applicable) Publisher City and country

Software Title (including previous titles, if applicable) and version number Platform Minimum hardware requirements Publisher (with contact information) Support offered


Year of publication Number of pages Price ISBN

Target language Target audience (type of user, level, etc.) Price ISBN (if applicable)

LLT does not accept unsolicited reviews. Contact Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas if you are interested in having material reviewed or in serving as a reviewer ([email protected]). Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas 21333 Comus Court Ashburn, VA 20147 General Policies The following policies apply to all articles, reviews, and commentaries: All submissions should conform to the requirements of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4th edition). Authors are responsible for the accuracy of references and citations, which must be in APA format. Manuscripts that have already been published elsewhere or are being considered for publication elsewhere are not eligible to be considered for publication in Language Learning & Technology. It is the responsibility of the author to inform the editor of any similar work that is already published or under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors of accepted manuscripts will assign to Language Learning & Technology the permanent right to electronically distribute their article, but authors will retain copyright and, after the article has appeared in Language Learning & Technology, authors may republish their text (in print and/or electronic form) as long as they clearly acknowledge Language Learning & Technology as the original publisher. The editors of Language Learning & Technology reserve the right to make editorial changes in any manuscript accepted for publication for the sake of style or clarity. Authors will be consulted only if the changes are major. Authors of published articles, commentaries, and reviews will receive 10 free hard-copy offprints of their articles upon publication. Articles and reviews may be submitted in the following formats: HTML files Microsoft Word documents RTF documents ASCII text If a different format is required in order to better handle foreign language fonts, please consult with the editors.


Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/editors/

June 2008, Volume 12, Number 2 p. 1

FROM THE EDITORS We are pleased to present Volume 12, Number 2 of Language Learning and Technology, which is a special issue on “Technology and Learning to Write,” guest edited by Joel Bloch. Together with our indefatigable Associate Editor, Rick Kern, Joel has assembled four articles that report on the latest research in how technology can be helpful for L2 writers. Please see the From the Special Issue Editor column for a description of the content of this special issue. In conjunction with the four articles, Bob Godwin-Jones provides an excellent, timely overview of cutting-edge modes and uses of writing online in the "Emerging Technologies" column. His column "Web-writing 2.0: Enabling, documenting, and assessing writing online" describes new tools and services that facilitate online composing, editing, and assessing writing. The issue also includes two reviews, compiled and edited by Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas. The first review by Lesley Huff evaluates NetTrekker d.i., a web-based search engine that helps teachers and students in English-speaking classrooms find appropriate learning materials for a wide range of subjects and for multiple levels of ability. It is especially helpful for teachers who need to provide "differentiated instruction" for different types of learners in their classroom, e.g., for students whose first language is not English. There are specific tools and resources for English language learners, such as translation tools that translate between English and 14 other languages. The second review by Jody Gabler examines the 2005 book A Practical Guide to Using Computers in Language Teaching, which is targeted towards teachers who are new to using technology in instruction and is designed to help them integrate computer technology into their language teaching – from providing the rationale for doing so to numerous ideas for classroom activities to technical considerations for both teachers and administrators. We would like to share some good news with our readers. First, we are delighted to welcome two excellent additions to our LLT team: Trude Heift and Carla Meskill have accepted our invitation to become Associate Editors. We would like to thank Rick Kern for his many years of outstanding service to the journal. Second, in a recently completed survey of senior experts around the world, reported at the Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO) conference held in San Francisco, March 18-22, 2008, LLT was ranked highest for overall quality among 19 educational technology-related journals. Researchers Bryan Smith and Barbara Lafford also reported that more than twice as many of these experts try to publish their own work in LLT than in the next two highest rated journals combined. LLT was also included in two of the European Science Foundation's 2007 lists of exemplary journals; the first list was for Linguistics journals, and the second for Pedagogical and Educational Research journals. No other journal dealing with the uses of technology in language teaching and learning was included in both lists. If you are not already a subscriber, please take a few minutes to fill out the form for a free subscription to LLT. One final note: Starting with this issue, LLT will be publishing PDF files only, discontinuing the HTML version. We wish you all a relaxing and productive summer! Irene Thompson & Dorothy Chun

Copyright © 2008, ISSN 1094-3501

1

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/speced.html

June 2008, Volume 12, Number 2 pp. 2-6

FROM THE SPECIAL ISSUE EDITOR In my book on using technology in L2 composition teaching (Bloch, 2007), I begin with an anecdote from one of the earliest CALL-sig (Special Interest Group) meetings at the International TESOL conference in the early 1980s. At a panel of some of the leaders of the sig, a colleague asked whether there was any evidence that computers helped students write better. The experts hemmed and hawed that there was no real evidence to prove this and there was even some evidence that students might even write less. The colleague responded that she couldn’t ask her dean to buy computers unless there was proof that they helped students write better. Today, we may still have to beg administrators for money, but the use of various technologies has become almost inevitable. The issue that teachers must ask now is: Given the vast number of technologies they have access to—be it hardware, software, or Internet technologies—which ones are most appropriate for the teaching they are engaged in? Teachers are overwhelmed by the number of technologies continually coming online. Before one technology is fully understood, a new technology is released that promises an even better learning experience. When I wrote my book, I feared that the moment the book was published, it would be outdated. In fact, a slew of new technologies that I had barely mentioned are now seen as potential tools for composition teachers. Microblogging sites like Twitter, social networking sites like Facebook, and new ways of integrating multimedia have become new sites for potential research. There is a second issue underlying the question of whether technology can help students write better, which has long intrigued me. Namely, that the answer to this question is always “it depends.” This question was first raised to me by Chris Haas (1996), who graduated from the same rhetoric program at Carnegie Mellon as I. Chris had done research on how the size and the resolution of the monitor affected the quality of the writing. Thus, the statement made by the panelist that sometimes students write less does not say anything about the inherent nature of the computer but about how it was designed or configured, a point that Larry Lessig (1999) would later expound upon in his book on the impact of technological architectures on how they are to be used. Haas also did research on another important factor: How do the different backgrounds of students affect how they use the computer? There were few "digital natives" at that time, so Haas focused on the different writing backgrounds of her participants, including myself. If you add the "teacher" factor to this mix of potential influences, especially their attitudes toward technology, background in computers and in writing, and their goals and plans for implementation, we can see that any answer to the question of how a particular technology affects student writing may not be generalizable from one situation to another. Despite the inability to give a definitive, universal answer to the question "How does technology affect student writing?" we still pursue an answer. The articles published in this issue of Language Learning & Technology represent some of the most recent attempts to address the question. Being guest editor of this issue has allowed me to step out of my often confining job as a composition teacher in a large American university to see how different technologies are being used around the world. What frankly surprised me was that the great majority of abstracts initially submitted for this issue came from teachers working in EFL contexts, which, on second thought, should not be so surprising considering the tremendous growth in the use of technologies, as well as a strong


2

Joel Bloch

From the Special Issue Editor

optimism in their potential, in countries where English is not the dominant language. The growth of the Internet has provided a means for helping teachers deal with a variety of problems that have long concerned them: how to find authentic discourse, how to create authentic interactions, how to extend the audience for student writers, and how to access programs that were once locked behind gated walls. The Internet has clearly become the dominant technology for facilitating interactions among students, between students and teachers, and between native and nonnative speakers. There are also more macro-level issues as well that have contributed to the interest in using technologies in language learning. There has been a growing recognition of the important role technology can play in social and economic development. Nicholas Negroponte (1995) and Harold Rheingold (2003) have written extensively on the impact of technology in Asian countries, where three of the articles in this issue were written. One of these is from Korea, which has the highest per capita wireless penetration, although the research was conducted in the United States. A fourth article is set in Israel, which has the highest per capita number of startup technology companies in the world. All of these social, historical, and economic factors have contributed to the growing interest and acceptance of technology in the composition classroom. Another factor that intrigued me after reading all the submitted abstracts was which technologies were of greatest interest. What initially surprised me was that there was very little interest in what we call Web 2.0 technologies. Web 2.0 is a somewhat controversial term that refers to a growing number of technologies that allow users to become both consumers and producers of web content. Using Web 2.0 technologies in the composition classroom can have a tremendous impact since they can be used not only to help students with their print-based writing but also to help them become literate using a variety of technologies. There has been a growing interest in these technologies in L2 composition, and there have been a number of online conferences or convergences sponsored by Webheads in Action, as well as online courses supported by the TESOL Electronic Village Online, which have focused heavily on the use of Web 2.0 technologies. My own fear of writing an outdated book was partly based on the feeling that I had spent too much time on some of the "older" technologies, like chat rooms or web page design, and not enough on Web 2.0 at a time when books that focused solely on Web 2.0 were being published. After giving some thought to why there were so few Web 2.0 abstracts, the explanation was not too surprising. Although I have taught ESL composition for many years, my educational background is primarily in L1 composition theory. One of the differences I have sensed, without too much hard evidence, is that L1 composition has become more technologically driven while L2 composition has remained more problem-driven. As I have tried to show in my research, these two areas are not incompatible, but the differences between them can affect not only the nature of the research but also what types of students are being studied. Much L1 composition research has focused on the usefuless of the newest technologies for advanced-level students or those aiming for a professional writing career, as such students are likely to require the technology in future work. On the other hand, ESL teachers, who rarely teach students at such an advanced level, are more concerned with students who have difficulties in their writing ability. The result has been that L2 research has focused in much greater depth on those technologies that were thought to be most useful for solving the problems students

Language Learning & Technology

3

Joel Bloch


have. Although there has been a lot of anecdotal evidence concerning potential, there has been little formal research on how twittering or creating Facebook pages help develop student writing at any level. Of the four articles in this issue, three of them address older technologies and one a relatively new one. The authors of these articles all work in an EFL context. These papers are problem-centered and address not so much whether technologies can improve the writing product but rather the writing process. All these papers share one other quality: they all deal with the implementation of a technology and the interrelationship of the architecture of the technology, its use in the writing classroom, and the backgrounds of its users. Although none of these papers can conclude anything definitive about the beneficial effects of using the technology, they all find that its usefulness depends heavily on the interaction of these factors. Yoon’s paper is the second of a series she has written on the implementation of a concordancing program in an advanced graduate-level composition course (Yoon & Hirvela, 2004). Her work reflects the evolution of the use of concordancing. While initially the domain of linguistic researchers, the development of Internet-based programs like Collins Cobuild, has allowed teachers to use concordancing first as a means to develop teaching materials and more recently as a tool for student use. Yoon examines how students used the concordancing program to search for strings of grammatical items and collocational relationships. She finds that differences among student attitudes, backgrounds, and writing experiences affect how they used the program and how they viewed its effectiveness. She does not address whether the student writing had improved, something that could not really be addressed, but rather how the use of concordancing could improve the writing processes of the students, which could in turn improve their future writing. Finally, she reminds us that we are dealing with technologies that can, and often do, crash and how this instability can affect students’ perception and use of technology. Kol and Schcolnik discuss an often-used technology: asynchronous discourse. Interest in asynchronous discourse has often been eclipsed by the newer, Web 2.0 technologies such as blogging. However, as Kol and Schcolnik demonstrate, asynchronous discourse can be an important tool for generating ideas and reflecting on these ideas. As in Yoon’s paper, the technology can provide a space where students can reflect on particular aspects of their writing processes. But perhaps the most important aspect of this paper is how the technology facilitates interaction in an academic writing class. As Kol and Schcolnik argue, interaction can be difficult in a class where none of the students are native English speakers. However, interaction is essential in the kinds of argumentative writing assignments Kol and Schcolnik have their students write. Argumentative writing requires a dialogue with those who agree with you, those who disagree, and those in the middle. Although Kol and Schcolnik do not show whether the use of asynchronous discourse can produce better argumentative papers, they do show how it can produce a more robust process of invention, which, as has long been argued, can facilitate a more sophisticated level of argumentation. Xing, Wang, and Spencer deal with a more controversial problem: the question of how a technology can be used to teach Chinese-speaking students the appropriate rhetorical forms found in Western academic writing. Both synchronous and asynchronous technologies have been popular in second language learning to link native and nonnative


4

Joel Bloch


speakers. Xing, Wang, and Spencer take this a step further to explore whether these technologies can be used to teach academic rhetoric. They situate their research in the controversy over contrastive rhetoric. The study of contrastive rhetoric, which has been fiercely debated since the publication of Robert Kaplan’s (1966) seminal paper, compares the rhetoric of the student’s home culture to the rhetoric of the target language to attempt to explain how the former may influence the latter, often in negative ways (cf. Bloch & Chi, 1995). Proponents of contrastive rhetoric assume that speakers of one language transfer rhetorical forms from their home language to their second language. They argue that Chinese speakers learn a form of rhetoric that if transferred into their English-language writing may be difficult for English-language readers to follow or may be inappropriate in that particular genre. Proponents typically find, as Kol and Schcolnik also found, that they can use technology to create a cooperative learning environment that can help students develop their writing. While Xing et al. tackle a controversial topic, Chen and Cheng examine one of the most controversial technologies, namely, Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) programs. These programs were first developed to evaluate student essays submitted in high stakes testing programs to reduce the need for qualified teachers to serve as evaluators. Proponents have argued that their evaluations correlate highly with those of human evaluators. Opponents have criticized and even ridiculed AWE programs on the grounds that they promote false criteria for evaluating student papers. Chen and Cheng propose a different direction for using these programs -- as a way of providing feedback for students. Their research raises two old questions about CALL. The first is whether technology can replace teachers. The second is whether technology should be used to relieve teachers of certain tasks, so they have time for other, perhaps more important, aspects of teaching. AWE programs cannot, of course, replace teachers, but this paper asks whether they can provide extra rounds of feedback that could help students in revising their papers. Chen and Cheng do not find a definitive answer to this question. What they do find is how various teacher and student factors might have to be considered in searching for the answer. As in Yoon’s paper, both student attitudes and teacher attitudes can have a tremendous effect on whether the technology can be useful. The articles in this issue provide an important perspective on how teachers can match the problems they are facing with the appropriate technology and how that choice of technology can affect how a course is taught. These articles demonstrate various ways in which the introduction of a technology is never a neutral act but can be affected by a variety of factors ranging from student/teacher attitudes to the architecture of the technology and how stable it is. Before concluding my commentary, I must give kudos to Mark Warschauer, who founded the journal, and Dorothy Chun and Irene Thompson, who have valiantly maintained it, for their vision of the importance of an open access, online journal long before being "open and online" was cool. As a reviewer, I have frequently seen potentially interesting articles that suffer from the author’s lack of access to the latest journals whose growing costs make them difficult for individuals or libraries to own. In the age of the Internet, there has been a tremendous push for freeing information from behind real or virtual gates that deny universal access so that it could be used by anyone who has access to the Internet, regardless of where they live. Richard Stallman has defined this freedom as being "free as in free speech, not as a free beer", by which he means that information should be made available so that anybody can use it and develop it (Williams, 2002). Universities such as MIT and Carnegie Mellon have made


5

Joel Bloch


course materials available for anyone to study. Personally, it makes me feel good that when someone asks me for an article, I can give them a link rather than having to download a file from behind a password-protected website to which I have the privilege of unlimited access. No more worries that I’m in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for bypassing the journal’s copy protection. danah boyd (that’s how she spells her name) has argued that those who can should only publish in open access journals and that everyone should cite articles from such journals in order to raise their profile in the academic world. I don’t know if open access is the future of academic publishing, but I am thankful that Dorothy and Irene have given me the opportunity to participate in this endeavor. I would also like to thank all the reviewers not only for their time but also for their patience and perspective in helping us shape the articles that appear in this issue. I would like to thank Rick Kern for all his help in putting this issue together, and, most of all, I would like to thank Hunter Hatfield, without whom this issue might still be floating around Cyberspace. Sincerely, Joel Bloch

REFERENCES Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995) A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a Second Language (pp. 231-274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bloch. J. (2007). Technology in the L2 composition classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. boyd, d. (2008, February 6). Open-access is the future: Boycott locked-down academic journals. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2008/02/06/openaccess_is_t.html. Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20. Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf Rheingold, H. (2003). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Williams, S. (2002). Free as in freedom: Richard Stallman’s crusade for free software. O’Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol, CA. Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 257-283.


6

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/emerging/


EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES WEB-WRITING 2.0: ENABLING, DOCUMENTING, AND ASSESSING WRITING ONLINE Robert Godwin-Jones Virginia Commonwealth University Trends in the use of the Internet in recent years, collectively coined Web 2.0, have precipitated changes in modes and uses of writing online. Blogs and social networking sites provide new opportunities and incentives for personal writing. This reading-to-write culture requires use and development of language skills. The challenge for language teachers is to extend students' Internet world beyond their first language, to leverage participation in the read-write Web as a learning opportunity for language selfdevelopment, and to find means to link informal and recreational writing with formal and academic writing. There are increased possibilities for moving in these directions with new tools and services that have arisen to facilitate online composition/editing and to assess writing. Browser-based text editors make it easier than ever to participate in online sites. Language tools and services offer automatic assessment of writing, enabling the development of reviewing skills, so essential to improving writing. Finally, electronic portfolios provide a mechanism for bringing together samples of learners' written work, thereby encouraging more global self-assessment of students' language skills. ENABLING WRITING ONLINE One of the major developments of Web 2.0 is the increase in availability of tools and services that are accessed directly through a Web browser rather than residing on the user desktop. Recently, for example, Adobe released an alternative to its high-end graphics editor, Photoshop, called Photoshop Express, which enables online editing of pictures and graphics, following in the footsteps of services such as Picnik and picture-editing tools provided by networking sites like Flickr or Facebook. This same trend is evident in the large number of online editors to emerge recently on the Web. Most are free services, which are used within a Web browser, and which include OnText, widgEditor, XStandard, and Textile. The editors vary in their features, but most offer basic editing and formatting and not the full feature set of a word processor such as Microsoft Office. Since the editors are browser-based, they are agnostic as to operating system and will typically run in any of the major browsers. The online editors normally save documents being edited to a server, sometimes doing so automatically at certain intervals so that work is not lost. Some offer particular features such as Writeboard's ability to let users subscribe to a document with RSS, so as to be notified of editing changes. The Zoho Writer offers automatic versioning, document templates, and direct blog posting from within the editor. In fact, most of the editors are specifically designed for creating posts to blogs or social networking sites. The fact that the new online editing tools feature WYSIWYG editing ("what you see is what you get") is a result of new features that anticipate HTML 5, the upcoming revision of the core Web formatting language. The two tags that enable word processing-like manipulation of text within a browser are contenteditable and designMode, now supported on mainstream browsers as well as on some mobile devices. Previously text-entry fields in HTML forms could accept plain text only. Unfortunately, not all browsers handle these new functions in the same way, which has made it difficult for developers to create rich text editing plug-ins that work universally. This is also true with support of the onpaste function, which allows rich text to be copied and pasted into a text editing window with all of its formatting intact. This is particularly a problem when copying from Microsoft Word due to proprietary markup tags. A feature that users expect to find in text editors, reliable undo, is inconsistently implemented in the online rich text editors, again because of differences in support among browsers.


7

Robert Godwin-Jones

Enabling, Documenting, and Assessing Writing Online

Another new feature of HTML 5 beginning to be supported is a simple local database linked to the browser that allows documents to be saved locally, as is traditional in a desktop word processor. Previously, the only ways to save data locally was through the use of HTML "cookies", which have major limitations in number and size, or as Local Shared Objects, available only to the Flash Player. The local database currently used in the Firefox and Safari browsers is SQLite, a small but robust database that is embedded in programs rather than running as a separate process. It is also used in Skype, the popular Internet phone service. Google has implemented its own version of an embedded database called Google Gears. Recently, Google added support for Google Gears to Google Docs, probably the most widely used tool for online text editing. Installing Google Gears allows text to be saved to either the Google server or on the local computer. Editing changes made while the user is off-line are synced to the online versions when the user is re-connected to the Internet. Like similar Web services, Google Docs makes it easy to share documents and to collaborate on projects. In edition to the text editor, Google also has introduced an online spreadsheet and presentation tools. Google Docs currently supports 48 languages, with 8 Indic languages having been added recently. The interface allows the user to change to right-to-left text display if needed. Another free editor with explicit support for multiple languages is FCKeditor, which was designed originally for use in scripting languages, but now supports general text editing. Microsoft has launched its own Web version of its office suite called Office Live Workspace, which offers some different features from Google Docs, particularly the option of integration into the desktop Office suite. Microsoft Office integration is also a feature of Zoho Writer. Also of interest to language professionals is MLEditor, a tool specifically designed for multilingual use. It features Unicode-related conversions as well as conversion between Traditional and Simplified Chinese. A similar tool is MtScript, a multilingual text editor that enables use of different writing systems within the same text. DOCUMENTING WRITING ONLINE Google offers online storage of documents up to a maximum of 5,000 documents or presentations. This is a service now available from a variety of companies, some of which, such as box.net and omnidrive, specialize in providing (free) document storage. This allows both for access from multiple locations, as well as for easier sharing of documents. Some offer specially formatted access from mobile devices, such as Mobile Google Docs. Of course, much of the writing done on the Web today is saved centrally through having been posted in sites such as MySpace or Facebook or as entries to blogs or wikis. In institutional settings, there is encouragement, sometimes an obligation, to collect student writing in a more structured environment, such as an electronic portfolio or e-portfolio. Portfolios have long been a standard way for professionals such as artists or architects to collect and showcase their work. Aspiring teachers in the US now routinely are expected to assemble a teacher portfolio. Increasingly, students are creating them for academic, professional and personal use. In order to make portfolios sharable, the trend has been away from hard copy versions and towards e-portfolios. As privacy concerns may be an issue, e-portfolio systems normally provide some kind of access control, which may be global or fine-tuned to specific groups or parts of the portfolio. One of the advantages of maintaining a portfolio of writings online is the ease with which one may share the content. Having an electronic portfolio also makes it a simple process to incorporate other kinds of work such as multimedia files or presentations. There are many different options for creation of an e-portfolio, as Helen Barrett has demonstrated in recent years by duplicating her own portfolio using a variety of (mostly) free online tools and services including wikis (WikiSpaces), blogs (WordPress), hosting sites (GeoCities), content management systems (Plone) and even a bookmarking service (del.icio.us). She has offered documentation for the process of creating an e-portfolio using Google Docs and other tools from Google. University students may decide–


8

Robert Godwin-Jones


or be required to–create a portfolio from within the learning management system (Blackboard, Angel, desire2learn, etc.) in use at their institution. Creating an e-portfolio in such a closed system, however, limits its use and may defeat the goal of establishing a mechanism for life-long documentation of learning and achievement. Efforts have been underway for some time to create standards for e-portfolios that would allow migration from one system to another. The IMS Global Consortium has introduced the IMS ePortfolio Specification, which allows for a variety of different kinds of portfolios (assessment, presentation, learning, personal development), which can be combined, exported, and imported into compatible systems. So far, however, little support has been forthcoming from commercial vendors. The Europortfolio project, headed by the European Institute for E-Learning (EIfEL), is an attempt to coordinate portfolio standards among European countries. There are several open source projects which promise greater interoperability including the Open Source Portfolio, part of the Sakai Project, and Mahara, a project out of New Zealand which features sophisticated access control and optional integration with Moodle. Moodle users also have access to Moofolio, specifically designed for that open source learning management system. There are next generation electronic learning environments that are built around Web 2.0 services. The Elgg and Digication systems, for example, are designed to encourage the integration of e-portfolios with services such as blogs. One of the more extensive projects along these lines is ePet portfolio, which originated at Newcastle University and is now a collaborative, EU-funded project. ePet has been designed for maximum flexibility in its use, allowing both stand-alone access and integration into a managed learning environment, and includes a project for developing portfolio interoperability. Portfolios have obvious benefits for language learning as a means to include writing samples and other documentation of language ability. Probably the highest profile language portfolio project is the European Language Portfolio (ELP), which has been in existence since 2000 and has a large number of local implementations. The vast majority of the validated ELP systems are not electronic. An exception is the implementation in the Netherlands. The Dutch ELP follows the ELP division into linguistic biography, language passport, and a dossier of written work. However, it also incorporates an interesting additional component called, learning activities, which allows learners to practice their language skills. This is one more advantage of an electronic portfolio, the ability to link to both open-ended environments such as blogs or to targeted resources for enhancing skills. In addition to the Dutch ELP, there have been a number of other projects to create electronic versions or enhancements of the ELP. The Leipziger Lernportfolio begins with the ELP and adds more professionally-oriented options. The eDossier project from Spain is integrated into a Web 2.0-inspired learning environment and incorporates its own online text editor. Global Language Portfolios, from Pat Cummins of Virginia Commonwealth University, combines both the language assessment standards of the European Common Framework of Reference for Languages and the proficiency standards of ACTFL (American Association of Teachers of Foreign Languages). Ideally, e-portfolios can serve to bridge the gap between formal instruction and informal learning. Of course, this is only feasible if the portfolios are designed primarily to allow users to determine how best to present and document themselves and their work and secondarily as a means to fulfil a requirement or as part of a formal assessment process. Having a portfolio system with the flexibility to easily divide private from public spheres, to link or not as desired to outside sources, and to include standardized criteria only when needed, is more likely to become a vehicle for life-long learning and its documentation, rather than simply an academic exercise. Potentially, well-designed and expandable e-portfolios offer to the Myspace generation a more inviting environment than the rigid confines of the traditional learning management system.


9

Robert Godwin-Jones


ASSESSING WRITING ONLINE The use of portfolios in language learning should contribute to learners taking more responsibility for documenting and assessing their language abilities. Only in rare cases, such as the Dutch ELP, do portfolio environments supply help or advice in improving language skills. There have been, of course, means for users to receive feedback on the quality of their writing for some time. A variety of proofing tools are available, both for spelling and grammar. These tools are widely used, but vary in their usefulness. This is particularly the case with grammar checkers, which tend to be designed for native speakers, and which often generate too many false positives to be useful. The development team for the Microsoft Office grammar checkers has an interesting discussion of the challenge in creating effective grammar checkers and the individual language idiosyncrasies which make it difficult to write generic grammar analysis code. In addition to Microsoft tools, there are a variety of online services such as spellchecker.net or spellcheckplus which check both spelling and grammar (English only). One of the more interesting projects of this kind is LanguageTool, which is available in 12 languages. User text is first analyzed sentence by sentence, with each word assigned a part-of-speech tag and each sentence split into semantic chunks. Rules for that language are then applied to provide feedback to the writer. The basic rules are written in XML and the format is basic enough for non-programmers to be able to add additional rules. LanguageTool can be used as a stand-alone program or integrated into the open source OpenOffice software. AbiWord is a similar open source, multilingual text processor with proofing capabilities. It offers support for a wide variety of languages, including 19 different versions of Spanish. In terms of assessing writing, there are now a variety of products that go further than checking grammar; they actually supply formal assessment and a score. These are usually known as Automated Essay Scoring (AES) programs. The best-known choices in the U.S. are Criterion e-rater from the Educational Testing Service and My Access! from Vantage Learning. These programs are built, as are the grammar checkers, on advances in natural language processing as well as artificial intelligence. They are used primarily in high-stakes, high-volume contexts such as standardized testing. Some offer evaluation of practice writing submitted online. Most of the advanced work in this area has been done in English, so such tools may be of particular interest to ESL or EFL teachers, but the kind of writing evaluated by AES programs is not what is emphasized most often in language learning. They look for a set structure (like a formal essay) and tend to encourage formulaic rather than purposeful writing. What tends to be of most use to learners is indirect feedback, which points to problems in written work but leaves it to the writer to find the solution. This requires the learner to reflect on the application of language rules to one's own actual writing. Many language teachers use codes (such as John Lalande's ECCO - error correction code) to mark student writing. There are several programs that allow instructors to enter such codes electronically. Markin, for example, is a Windows program that allows for code marking in 7 languages. Annotations are returned to students in RTL or HTML formats and can be emailed. Markin includes a statistical feature, which allows for collocation and computation of annotations. Programs like Markin have the advantage over mainstream grammar checkers in that they are designed specifically with language learners in mind. While Markin is a commercial product, a free Web service called BonPatron is available for French writers and was recently reviewed in Calico Journal. Users type or paste text into the text entry box and then click Check the text (the interface is in English or French). BonPatron then checks and returns the text in the same window, flagging but not correcting probable problems. It uses text formatting and colors to indicate the nature of the problem and its severity. Passing the mouse over an item brings up an explanation and a sample of correct usage of the form in question. BonPatron provides the option of displaying a list of marked problems and the category to which they belong. Because BonPatron flags but does not correct errors, it requires the writer to reflect on the problem and to generate a solution. This


10

Robert Godwin-Jones


more active engagement in learning is in keeping with current language learning practices. A tool like BonPatron could be particularly helpful for inexperienced teachers or in situations in which faster feedback is desirable. While products or services like BonPatron improve on the traditional spell and grammar checkers, they still target only one side of assessing writing, focusing on specific errors in grammar or vocabulary usage. They don't address more general issues of global composition and structure or more communicatively oriented criteria such as appropriateness of register for the target audience or cultural/sociolinguistic context. It clearly is a much simpler task to find errors in aspects of writing less prone to subjective judgments and for which there are clear-cut right and wrong responses. Artificial intelligence is not yet at the point where more intangible and creative aspects of writing can be effectively machine-evaluated. For situations in which an automated analysis of student writing is desirable, an interesting alternative can be to supply learners with samples of annotated student texts. These texts can be annotated in advance and supplied to the learners so they can judge their own compositions in light of the corrections and comments given by instructors for the sample texts. This was done in an Australian project entitled Bridges to China. The study showed that users reacted well to this kind of peer-to-peer interaction. The program was used in a distance-learning environment, and it does seem to lend itself well to learners working independently. Ideally, of courses, one would want to make available to students a range of opportunities and options for improving their writing, including annotated samples, peer review, and automated or indirect feedback. Social networking sites have become important in the lives of many young people, and this argues for finding means to help students become more articulated and effective writers in whatever language they choose.

RESOURCE LIST Text Editors and Proofing Tools • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Google Docs Online writing and editing Multilingual Word Processors and Text Editors List for Windows users Edit Pad Online text editor XStandard Plug-in WYSIWYG editor Textile Web Text Generator widgEditor WYSIWYG editor FCKEditor Popular rich text editor MLEditor Multilingual editor MTScript Multilingual editor AbiWord Open source word processing Spellchecker.net Online spelling, grammar, and thesaurus checking (English) Markin Tool for marking error codes BonPatron Online grammar checker for French Design and evaluation of grammar checkers in multiple languages Lessons from Microsoft CrossCheck Grammar checker for Swedish LanguageTool Open Source language checker Language Tools Open source projects Office Live Workspace Microsoft service


11

Robert Godwin-Jones


•

Analysis of Office Live Workspace Comparison with Google Docs • Google Docs mobile An entry page formatted for mobile devices Electronic Portfolios • • • • • •

Electronic Portfolios Collection of e-portfolios in different formats Open Source Portfolio Part of the Sakai project Mahara Open source e-portfolio project European Language Portfolio Validated ELP systems Officially sanctioned implementations of ELP Global Language Portfolios Project from Virginia Commonwealth University • ePet European e-portfolio project Standards

• • • • • • •

HTML 5 From W3C Cient-side database storage Part of proposed HTML 5 ContentEditable Demo Demo of HTML 5 feature Local Browser database Example using WebKit/Safari SQLite Lightweight database engine IMS ePortfolio Proposed standard for electronic portfolios Europortfolio Project to coordinate use of portfolios


12

News From Our Sponsors

NEWS FROM SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS Sponsors University of Hawaiì National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR) Co-Sponsor Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

University of Hawai'i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) The University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center engages in research and materials development projects and conducts workshops and conferences for language professionals among its many activities. FILIPINO AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE: FUTURE DIRECTIONS & PROSPECTS This conference, to be held on March 17-19, 2008 at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, is a venue for bringing together scholars, writers, language teachers, researchers and other practitioners from around the world to discuss issues pertaining to the role of Filipino as a global language. Participants can be teachers, researchers, program administrators/coordinators and other practitioners who are directly involved in the promotion and nurturing of the Filipino language, literature and culture. This first conference is geared towards establishing a tradition of scholarly meetings of this kind among practitioners in the field of Filipino language, literature and culture studies. (The NFLRC serves as co-sponsor for this event). 2008 SECOND LANGUAGE RESEARCH FORUM Just in! With the theme, Exploring SLA: Perspectives, Positions, and Practices, the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF) returns to the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa for the third time on October 1719. 2008 (with the NFLRC serving as co-sponsor). Check out our website as more information becomes available. NEW NFLRC PUBLICATIONS Selected papers from Pragmatics in the CJK Classroom: The State of the Art This online collection (http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/CJKProceedings/) presents 10 selected papers from the forum on Pragmatics in the CJK Classroom: The State of the Art held from June 5 to June 7, 2006 at the University of Hawai‘i-Manoa in Honolulu, Hawai‘i. The papers are representative of the many outstanding contributions to the field of L2 pragmatics that were presented at the gathering. The papers are also representative of the diverse range of research interests and pedagogical issues taken up by the conference presenters. Cumulatively, the papers in this volume address current concerns in L2 pragmatics that range from the development of pragmatic competence by children and college-age students in both foreign and second language settings to pragmatics-focused instruction in the foreign language classroom for students at all levels of foreign language learning. The pedagogically-oriented contributions are diverse in their scope: from innovative approaches for teaching true beginners to the specialized curriculum of students receiving post-graduate professional training. Instructional innovations for L2 classroom pragmatics-focused teaching from each of the language groups — Chinese, Japanese, and Korean — are included. Check out our many other publications. OUR ONLINE JOURNALS SOLICIT SUBMISSIONS


13


Language Learning & Technology is a refereed online journal, jointly sponsored by the University of Hawaiì NFLRC and the Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR). LLT focuses on issues related to technology and language education. For more information on submission guidelines, visit the LLT submissions page. Language Documentation & Conservation is a fully refereed, open-access journal sponsored by NFLRC and published exclusively in electronic form by the University of Hawai‘i Press. LD&C publishes papers on all topics related to language documentation and conservation. For more information on submission guidelines, visit the LD&C submissions page. Reading in a Foreign Language is a refereed online journal, jointly sponsored by the University of Hawaiì NFLRC and the Department of Second Language Studies. RFL serves as an excellent source for the latest developments in the field, both theoretical and pedagogic, including improving standards for foreign language reading. For more information on submission guidelines, , visit the RFL submissions page.

Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR) CLEAR's mission is to promote the teaching and learning of foreign languages in the United States. Projects focus on materials development, professional development training, and foreign language research. MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT Selected Products The list below comprises just some of our free and low-cost materials for language educators. Be sure to visit our website occasionally for updates and announcements on new products: http://clear.msu.edu. •

• •

•

NEW! Celebrating the World’s Languages: A Guide to Creating a World Languages Day Event (guide) – This publication provides a step-by-step guide to planning "World Languages Day," a university event for high school students designed to stimulate interest in learning languages and to highlight the importance of cultural awareness. NEW! La phonétique française (CD-ROM) – Now available in beta version, this cross-platform multimedia program consists of interactive lessons that can be used by French teachers to learn how to teach pronunciation, or by advanced students working independently. CLEAR’s Rich Internet Applications initiative has been underway for over a year. RIA is a research and development lab where our programmers are working on free tools that language teachers can use to create online language teaching materials – or have their students create activities themselves! o NEW! Audio Dropboxes (put a dropbox in any web page; students’ recordings get put into your dropbox automatically) o NEW! Conversations (record prompts for students to do virtual interviews and conversations) o Mashups (combine media elements to create a new resource for language teaching) o Viewpoint (record or upload videos to link from other sites or embed inside your own web pages) o SMILE (tool for creating interactive online exercises) MIMEA: Multimedia Interactive Modules for Education and Assessment (German, Chinese, Arabic, Vietnamese, Korean, Russian; online video clips and activities)


14


•

Language Learning Materials for Russian: A Content-Based Course Pack (online learning modules)

Coming Soon!

•

Introductory Business German (CD-ROM)

PARTNERSHIP WITH ACTFL In January and February 2008, CLEAR collaborated with the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) to manage their student video podcast contest, “Not Just a Language Class!” This contest was part of the Discover Languages… Discover the World! (http://www.discoverlanguages.org) national public awareness campaign to build public support for language education. Students were asked to create a two-minute video podcast depicting how the study of other languages had had an impact on their lives. ACTFL contacted CLEAR and requested that we create an online submission and storage system for the podcast entries based on our Rich Internet Application called Viewpoint. We were able to tailor the contest website to ACTFL’s needs, and look forward to future collaboration – watch for this annual contest! (ACTFL is using our Rich Internet Applications… are you? http://ria.clear.msu.edu) CONFERENCES CLEAR exhibits at local and national conferences year-round. We hope to see you at ACTFL, CALICO, MiWLA, NCOLCTL, Central States, and other conferences. UPCOMING CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS •

•

Central States Conference - Dearborn, MI - March 6-8, 2008 •

Workshop: Using Rich Internet Applications in Your Classroom

•

Session: Report from the R&D Lab: Rich Internet Applications for Language Learning

•

Session: Reaching Out and Building Enrollment through a "World Languages Day"

CALICO - San Francisco, CA - March 18-22, 2008 •

Session: Learners' Perception and Preference of Audio Stimuli During an Online Pragmatics Test

NEWSLETTER CLEAR News is a biyearly publication covering FL teaching techniques, research, and materials. Contact the CLEAR office to join the mailing list or check it out on the Web at http://clear.msu.edu/newsletter/. We welcome your submissions!

The Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) The Center for Applied Linguistics is a private, nonprofit organization that promotes and improves the teaching and learning of languages, identifies and solves problems related to language and culture, and serves as a resource for information about language and culture. CAL carries out a wide range of activities in the fields of English as a second language, foreign languages, cultural education, and linguistics. Featured Resources: •

CAL News


15


CAL News is our new periodic electronic newsletter created to provide periodic updates about our projects and research s well as information about new publications, online resources, products, and services of interest to our readers. Visit our Web site to sign up. •

Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Languages The Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Languages (the Alliance) consists of individuals and organizations who share a commitment to advancing language development for heritage language speakers in the United States. The Alliance is committed to fostering the development of the heritage language proficiencies of individuals in this country as part of a larger effort to educate members of our society who can function professionally in English and other languages. The Alliance has revamped its Web site to offer expanded content and improved navigation.

•

National K-12 Foreign Language Survey Underway CAL conducts a national survey of foreign language instruction in elementary and secondary schools every decade to gain greater understanding of current patterns and shifts over time in enrollments, the number of schools offering foreign language classes, the types of foreign language offerings, foreign language curricula and methodologies, teacher qualifications and training, and the effects of NCLB, among other issues. We are currently conducting the third survey to be able to show trends in foreign language education at three points in time (1987, 1997, 2007). For further details, see the fall 2007 update.

•

Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners (CREATE) Visit the newly expanded CREATE Web site to learn more about CREATE, its research and upcoming events. To keep current on CREATE activities, sign up to receive an electronic newsletter and periodic announcements.

•

Spotlight on Language Series In support of the Discover Languages campaign led by ACTFL, CAL has developed a regular Web series to provide information about specific languages. These language spotlights are introductory in nature and are intended to encourage readers to explore these languages and CAL’s work with them in more detail. Different languages will be highlighted periodically.

•

CAL Services CAL provides a variety of professional development and technical assistance services related to language education and assessment needs.

Recent Publications: • • • • • •

Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education, Second Edition Developing Reading and Writing in Second Language Learners Refugees from Burma: Their Backgrounds and Refugee Experiences An Insider’s Guide to SIOP Coaching Realizing the Vision of Two-Way Immersion: Fostering Effective Programs and Classrooms What’s Different About Teaching Reading to Students Learning English?

Visit CAL’s Web site to learn more about our projects, resources, and services.


16

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/yoon/


MORE THAN A LINGUISTIC REFERENCE: THE INFLUENCE OF CORPUS TECHNOLOGY ON L2 ACADEMIC WRITING Hyunsook Yoon Dongguk University, Korea This paper reports on a qualitative study that investigated the changes in students’ writing process associated with corpus use over an extended period of time. The primary purpose of this study was to examine how corpus technology affects students’ development of competence as second language (L2) writers. The research was mainly based on case studies with six L2 writers in an English for Academic Purposes writing course. The findings revealed that corpus use not only had an immediate effect by helping the students solve immediate writing/language problems, but also promoted their perceptions of lexicogrammar and language awareness. Once the corpus approach was introduced to the writing process, the students assumed more responsibility for their writing and became more independent writers, and their confidence in writing increased. This study identified a wide variety of individual experiences and learning contexts that were involved in deciding the levels of the students’ willingness and success in using corpora. This paper also discusses the distinctive contributions of general corpora to English for Academic Purposes and the importance of lexical and grammatical aspects in L2 writing pedagogy. INTRODUCTION Recently, corpus technology has demonstrated great potential for second language (L2) writing instruction by integrating vocabulary, grammar, and discourse patterns of given types of writing into the teaching of L2 writing (Gledhill, 2000; Hyland, 2002; Jabbour, 1997, 2001; Tribble, 1999, 2002). A substantial number of corpus studies have been involved in developing corpus-informed syllabi, teaching materials, and classroom activities (e.g., Conrad, 1999; Flowerdew, 1998; Thurstun & Candlin, 1998). Those studies have emphasized that the corpus approach not only can enhance learners’ awareness of lexico-grammatical patterning of texts, but also can foster inductive learning. Whereas early corpus research had an impact on the development of classroom materials and grammar references, researchers have begun to look at academic written discourse, in combination with genre analysis, to inform English for Academic Purposes (EAP) materials (J. Flowerdew, 2002) and "help students to develop competence as writers within specific academic domains" (Tribble, 2002, p.131). While many corpus studies have mainly focused on genre-based text analysis and materials development, relatively few studies have examined students’ writing experiences in association with corpus use. Moreover, those studies are limited in terms of their scope and data collection methods. The studies have addressed student reactions to a corpus-based lesson (Sun, 2000), the importance of training students in the corpus approach for their own use (Turnbull & Burston, 1998), and the effectiveness of independent corpus investigations (Kennedy & Miceli, 2001; Fan & Xu, 2002). Notably, most of the studies have focused on teaching a corpus approach per se rather than incorporating it into the writing process. In terms of data collection procedures, many of these studies conducted a one-time evaluation of students’ use of corpora within a short time and provided limited qualitative insights (Fan & Xu, 2002; Sun, 2000), or else they studied a very small sample of participants with little use of corpora (Turnbull & Burston, 1998). In short, the previous studies did not fully illuminate students’ corpus use in L2 writing, thus resulting in a limited understanding of the role of corpus use in student writing development. Even fewer studies have examined the effect of the corpus approach on students’ performance, which makes it difficult to assume the value of corpus-based pedagogy (L. Flowerdew, 2002). As Lee and Swales (2006) observed, there were only a few studies that examined students’ attitudes toward corpora


31

Hyunsook Yoon

The Influence of Corpus Technology on L2 Academic Writing

or concordancing in EAP writing classes. Those are Yoon and Hirvela (2004), Gaskell and Cobb (2004), and Lee and Swales (2006). Being aware of the scarcity of the studies in the area, Yoon and Hirvela (2004) examined ESL students’ corpus behavior and their attitudes towards using corpora. Using quantitative and qualitative analysis, they found that corpus use helped the students learn common usage patterns of words, which resulted in increased confidence about L2 writing. Gaskell & Cobb (2004) argued from their preliminary research that concordancing can also help lowerintermediate L2 learners with their grammar learning. They provided data-driven writing feedback to the students’ typical errors by using the online concordancing software. The students were led to online concordance links from their drafts so as to correct their errors themselves. They found that although the results did not indicate a dramatic decrease in students’ errors, many students believed concordancing was useful and concordance information could be a successful grammar resource. In contrast to the two studies that used general corpora, Lee and Swales (2006) designed an experimental course for doctoral students who worked with both specialized and general corpora. As non-linguiststurned-corpus analysts, the students explored the lexico-grammatical and discourse patterns of their own disciplinary genres. The findings revealed that their knowledge about disciplinary writing increased through the "technology-enhanced rhetorical consciousness-raising” activity (p. 72). The above-mentioned studies can be seen as an answer to the widespread criticism that "the various educational uses of concordancing are more talked about than tested with real learners" (Gaskell and Cobb, 2004, p. 317). The studies have increased our understanding of corpus use in L2 writing, but they do not provide an extensive treatment of the role of the corpus approach in L2 writing pedagogy. There is a need for further research that explores how the use of corpus technology affects students’ L2 writing behavior and process. As Phinney (1996) points out, technology may not automatically generate better written products, but it may change "the way writers approach the writing process" (p.139). Much needs to be done to find out how the use of corpora affects students’ L2 writing experiences as a whole. Yoon and Hirvela (2004) collected student feedback on their perceptions of corpora through semi-structured interviews, but it was limited to one-time short interviews. We still need more qualitative insights to determine the potential of concordance work in students’ writing development over a longer period of time. In addition, little research has looked at the students’ individual experiences in the analysis of corpus use. In fact, many corpus studies have regarded learners as a monolithic group rather than as idiosyncratic individuals. Some research found differences in the effect of corpus use on language learning related to personal backgrounds, such as language proficiency and familiarity with the new approach (Turnbull & Burston, 1998; Yoon & Hirvela, 2004). Given the individual and private process of writing, we need to develop learner-specific descriptions of corpus use in order to adjust our instruction to learners’ needs. Another important issue in the use of corpora in L2 writing pedagogy is the selection of corpora. Many previous corpus studies used in-house programs or specialized corpora as opposed to general corpora. It is true that many scholars have emphasized the usefulness of specialized corpora in EAP. However, general corpora can also have a place in L2 writing classrooms. Many teachers may not have the time or skill to develop their own corpora. Fortunately, some general corpora allow free access so that teachers do not need to construct their own corpora. More importantly, general corpora can make distinctive contributions to EAP writing programs. Considering that students are often from a variety of disciplines, it may be impractical to focus on one discipline-specific corpus in writing courses. General corpora can be used more effectively by focusing on the most frequent general words, thus catering to the needs of all the students in the program. Bernardini (2001), one of the proponents of using general corpora in language teaching, argues that easily accessible online corpora (e.g., the Bank of English) opened a new era for "wide-ranging exploration of the pedagogic potential of large corpora" (p.220), which can promote Language Learning & Technology

32

Hyunsook Yoon


"serendipitous learning" (p. 226.) We need an empirical report from actual teaching that uses easily accessible general corpora to encourage teachers and students to use the new corpus approach. This study attempts to fill several gaps in the research literature by examining the writing process associated with corpus use over time, investigating how corpus use affects the way students deal with linguistic issues in writing and the ways they approach L2 writing. Additionally, the study considers a variety of students’ individual experiences and learning contexts so as to deepen our understanding of corpus use in ESL tertiary classrooms. The research questions addressed were as follows: How do ESL students use corpus technology in L2 academic writing? How does corpus technology affect their language learning and approaches to L2 writing? What are individual experiences and contextual factors that mediate the influence of corpus technology on students’ L2 writing? METHODS Setting The research site of the study was a graduate-level advanced ESL academic writing course at a large American research university. This university requires non-native English speakers to take an ESL writing placement test upon their arrival. The results are used to assign students to one of three courses in the undergraduate or graduate sequences in the program. The final course in the graduate sequence was chosen for this study. The course was taught by a veteran ESL teacher who had used corpus work extensively in his own teaching. A preliminary study was conducted with the same instructor one year prior to the present study in order to develop research skills and enhance the design for the present study. Prior contact in the earlier study (Yoon & Hirvela, 2004) established significant rapport between the instructor and the researcher. The class met twice per week for two and a half hours per session for ten weeks. The course was an ideal choice for the purpose of this study in that the teacher incorporated the corpus approach into the curriculum as part of the regular classroom activities, rather than focusing on teaching the approach per se. The research site can be seen as an EAP writing course, rather than a general ESL course, given its content and emphasis on disciplinary writing. The course not only taught the students about the general structure of academic papers, but also required them to follow the writing conventions of their own fields. As such, students chose the topic and content of their writing based on their interests and needs in their studies. The classroom teacher in this study used a free online corpus, the Collins COBUILD Corpus, which is one of the largest general corpora available. As general corpora are often used to represent common usage of the language, the issue of representativeness becomes more important for general corpora than for specialized corpora because "corpus results always depend to a large extent on size and composition of the corpus" (Kaltenböck & Mehlmauer-Larcher, 2005, p.76). The Collins Cobuild corpus was considered a good choice for the study because of its accessibility and size. The corpus, also known as the Bank of English, consists of more than 500 million words as of January 2007 and continues to expand in size based on carefully designed sampling methodology. The Collins COBUILD website [http://www.collins.co.uk/Corpus/CorpusSearch.aspx] provides a concordance and a collocation sampler from which one can draw 40 randomly chosen concordance lines and see what are statistically the most frequent 100 collocates. The sampler offers instructions on how to conduct a search, though the concordance and collocate search process requires minimal technical skill. Also, the corpus is word-class tagged so that one can narrow a search by using the part-of-speech tags (e.g., search "use/NOUN").


33

Hyunsook Yoon


The teacher wanted students to integrate corpus use into their writing to become more independent and advanced writers.1 He required students to search the corpus regarding their own writing problems and to e-mail the search results to him on a weekly basis. He then combined those results on handouts regularly provided to the class so students could benefit from each other’s corpus searches. In addition, he usually began class sessions by commenting on writing errors that he found in students’ drafts. He encouraged them to research the problems through the corpus. He also wrote feedback on their papers, directing them to search out solutions rather than correcting errors immediately. In so doing, he expected that by the end of the course, the class would generate a useful lexicon that stemmed from their own errors. Worth noting here is the instructor’s pedagogical model for the design of the course. Students were expected to use corpora to solve their sentence-level writing problems by themselves, while the teacher used other materials (e.g., Swales & Feak’s, 1994, Academic writing for graduate students) and activities (e.g., constructing a style manual for academic papers in a given field) to teach the organizational and rhetorical aspects of academic writing. Data Collection and Analysis As this study adopted a primarily qualitative framework in order to closely examine the students’ L2 writing process over an extended period of time, it focused on six case study participants among the 14 students in the class. Regarding nationality, the class was not very diverse; ten students were Korean, three were Chinese, and one was Romanian. At the beginning of the course, six students were chosen to reflect diversity in age, gender, academic major, writing experiences, and technology skills, and they became the main focus of the research. The study followed up on the six focal students in the subsequent quarter in order to examine their independent corpus use and L2 writing after they left the writing course. In this respect, this study can be seen as a response to Chambers’ (2007) call for research on students’ autonomous corpus use apart from classroom-based use. Reviewing earlier studies in learner corpus consultation, Chambers also called for further report from non-corpus expert teachers (rather than from researcher-teachers), which was also implemented in the present study. This study used triangulation of multiple methods and data sources as a way of ensuring credibility of the data as well as obtaining thick contextualized descriptions about the topic. The data came from six main sources: 1) classroom observational notes, 2) interviews, 3) recall protocols, 4) corpus search logs, 5) class corpus search assignments, and 6) written reflections on corpus use. During classroom observations over the ten weeks of the quarter, observational notes were kept in a researcher journal. The participants were interviewed approximately once every two weeks for an hour during the first quarter. However, due to a corpus service breakdown that occurred several times during the following quarter, comparatively fewer interviews were conducted in the second quarter. The unexpected technological breakdown made the interviews address hypothetical questions rather than real-world experiences. Questions were restructured to ask students how they would have used the corpus had it been available at that time. All interviews were recorded on audiotape and transcribed as soon as possible in a standard word-processing program for subsequent analysis. As is common in qualitative research, analysis of the data components was done simultaneously with data collection so that the study was shaped to focus on issues emerging as data were collected. Participant Background This study constructed portraits of the six focal students consisting of individual life experiences and writing experiences. Those experiences were a lens through which to understand different contexts of the individual students’ L2 writing experiences. Table 1 provides an overview of those experiences which were considered likely to be most relevant to this study.


34

Hyunsook Yoon


Table 1. Overview of Case Study Participants Wol2 (28, F)

Chan (29, M) June (24, F)

L1 Korean Korean Program of study M.Ed., Special Ph.D., Education Natural Resources Education Years of English 12 13 learning3 Months in U.S. at the start of the 12 1 study TOEFL (TWE) 240 (4.0) 270 (4.5) scores4 Unique Korean Military experiences language service at US affecting English/ teacher (3 ½ Army base literacy skills years) MEd qualitative research thesis L2 writing TWE TWE & Took experience a class in Korea Computer skills Low Intermediate

Sung (32, M) Nick (29, M)

Ming (29, M)

Korean M.S., Aerospace Engineering

Korean Romanian Ph.D., History M.S., Nuclear Engineering

Chinese Ph.D., Molecular Genetics

13

14

5

10+

1

1

12

1

240 (3.5)

253 (4.0)

217 (3.5)

607 (3.5)

MA in Japan

Took previous writing classes in the ESL program

Published a paper in English

TWE

TWE

High

Low

1 yr coursework in US &previous writing classes High

TWE & Published a paper in English High

Four students were majoring in science-related fields (one in combined science and education); one was in education; and the other one in the humanities. Two participants, Wol and Nick, had been in the United States for one year; the other four students were new arrivals, and they were still adjusting to the new environment as foreigners. All except Nick were experiencing their first academic term in an American university setting. Wol had been in the United States for the previous year as a housewife, but this was her first American academic term. The students were assumed to be at similar, if not the same, levels of writing proficiency because they were assigned to the course based on placement test results or after completing the prerequisite courses. Nick was the only one who was not directly assigned to the course by the test. He had spent one year in the institution where he took the first two courses of the three course-sequenced writing program. During that time, Nick also performed many writing assignments in classes and learned L2 writing. Table 2 presents a more specific description of the focal students’ views of L2 learning and their writing processes, which were obtained from the initial interviews with them. Wol enjoyed writing in her native language, as she used to be a Korean language arts teacher. She did not have any academic writing experiences in English. She neither had much content knowledge nor disciplinary writing experience in her field of study, since the major was a new field to her. Nevertheless, she was confident in her L2 writing, as she believed she could always generate many ideas with ease. At the same time, she wanted to develop her own writing style. She even hoped to keep her unique L1 voice in L2 writing. Like Wol, Chan enjoyed writing in general, and among the participants he had the most experience in L1 academic literacy. He wrote a qualitative research thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for his master’s degree in Korea. Moreover, pursuing the same major throughout his college and graduate studies provided him with a large amount of content knowledge in his field. He was not afraid of L2 writing, and he believed any type of writing activity was manageable. Most of all, he had a sincere, genuine interest in


35

Hyunsook Yoon


L2 writing. Thus, his goal in writing was not just to communicate ideas, but to develop persuasive and powerful texts. Table 2. Overview of Participants’ Views on Language Learning and Writing Experiences Wol

Chan

June

Sung

Nick

Ming

Confidence in grammar?

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Enjoy writing?

Yes

Yes

No

No

Informal writing only

No

Inexperienced

Semiexperienced

Inexperienced

Experienced

No

No

Yes (very high) Yes (high)

L1 academic Very writing Experienced experienced experience Confidence in L2 Yes Yes writing? Used L1 Used L1 Uses of L1 in L2 mainly for mainly for writing organizing organizing Language Idiomatic Difficulties in L2 issue, content expressions, writing knowledge language issue Careful Whole L2 writing drafting/ composition, processes writing, local global revision revision Writing foci / Good writing Genuine goals of L2 beyond interest in writing communicating writing Initial attitude to Positive Positive corpus use

Thought in L1 Thought in L1 Used L1 first even for first even for Rarely used L1 mainly for expressions expressions organizing Organizational Rhetorical concerns concerns

No major difficulties

Different writing culture

Careful Little revision drafting/ due to lack of writing, local time revision

Whole Little revision composition, due to lack of global revision time

Get the ideas on paper

Get the ideas on paper

Communicating "Good enough" content writing

Unsure

Negative

Very positive

Positive

June, the youngest participant, did not like writing in general and was inexperienced in L1 academic writing. For her, writing was just "stressful," as she had no successful experience in writing, even in Korean. As a science major, she was not given many opportunities to write papers. Most of her assignments were about computer programming, and she wrote reports that were preoccupied with numbers and mathematical formulae. Thus, she was not confident in writing in her L1, let alone her L2. In fact, she reported a great difficulty in L2 academic writing from the beginning. She also showed a lack of confidence in grammar. For her, L2 writing was a burden that required her to work hard to get across her points. Sung had a diverse background in terms of life experiences, languages, and academic studies. He majored in Japanese linguistics in a Korean university and studied international politics for his master’s degree in a Japanese university, writing his master’s thesis in Japanese. At the time of this study he was pursuing his Ph.D. in history at an American institution. English was therefore his third language. Like June, Sung disliked writing in general. Similarly, his primary concern in writing was to get his ideas across on paper, with an emphasis on correct use of linguistic features. As mentioned earlier, Nick had completed the first two courses of the writing program. Since that program incorporated corpus use into the curriculum, Nick was the only participant who had already been exposed to the corpus. In fact, he participated in the prior study, where he expressed a highly positive attitude toward corpus use. He did not like writing in his native language, and neither did he have any experience in L1 academic writing. Like June, Nick did not have many opportunities to write with words, but mainly worked with numbers and formulae in his science major. Regarding L2 writing, he enjoyed


36

Hyunsook Yoon


informal correspondence, such as by email. He had great confidence in writing in English, although he did not enjoy it. For him, writing in English was not difficult. He said his confidence came from his experiences in writing courses. The last participant, Ming, had extensive experience in Chinese academic writing from his college and graduate studies. With respect to L2 writing, Ming’s experience was very similar to Nick’s. Ming did not enjoy writing, but he liked shorter, more informal forms of writing, such as web-based chatting and emailing. He wrote only because he had to do it. However, he showed a great amount of confidence in his L2 writing. His primary focus in his writing was to communicate content to readers. He viewed the main purpose of writing as making himself understood by others. He did not care so much about text as long as his writing was "good enough." With respect to the corpus, Wol, Chan, Nick, and Ming were initially positive toward its use. As noted earlier, Nick was highly enthusiastic toward the corpus. In contrast, June and Sung showed an unfavorable attitude toward corpora, albeit for different reasons: June had difficulty using the search technique, and Sung questioned the usefulness of the corpus over the dictionary. It was apparent, from the beginning of the study, that the students’ L2 writing praxis was an intricate picture of their L1 academic literacy experiences, L2 learning history, disciplinary content knowledge, and educational/cultural learning contexts. FINDINGS Students’ Corpus Use in L2 Writing This section reports the findings of the six students regarding their use of the corpus and their evaluations of its value in their L2 writing. The participants’ corpus search logs, e-mail assignments, and interviews revealed their frequency of corpus use, the purpose of specific corpus searches, and their corpus use patterns while writing. On the whole, Wol, Chan, and Sung used the corpus much more frequently than June, Nick, and Ming, as confirmed by the number of corpus search logs (19 pages and 11 pages on average, respectively) and also through interviews. The former three used it for other courses and their own needs in L2 writing, as well as for the writing class, while the latter three reported that they only used the corpus for class writing assignments. One factor that might explain this difference is their respective fields of study. The latter three were science majors, where they may have had less need for writing in their courses. On the other hand, the former three were non-science majors (i.e., education, history, and science education), fields likely to require more writing and a wider variety of styles. The participants looked up the problematic words and patterns which they encountered frequently during the process of writing and revising essays for the course. Table 3 shows some examples of the participants’ main corpus search items. Many of them frequently searched for appropriate preposition usage, as indicated by their self-reports. The next most common use of the corpus was for correct usages and contexts of words. Such usages include questions about what kind of complements verbs take (e.g., clause or noun form), whether verbs are commonly used as active or passive forms (e.g., "consist of" vs. "is consisted of"), and which collocations the verbs take. The most frequently searched word class was verb form, which shows that the participants had the most interest or difficulty in verb usage. Chan’s corpus use here deserves discussion. As the most frequent user, his corpus use illustrated a wide range of corpus searches and considerable depth of analysis and interpretation. The other participants’ corpus searches were mostly limited to so-called "substantial" linguistic elements for sentence construction, such as verbs, nouns and prepositions. Chan had a similar repertoire at the beginning, but expanded it to include "less crucial" linguistic features (e.g., adjectives and adverbs). His enthusiasm and passion about corpus analysis were quite noticeable throughout the study. He not only checked the corpus


37

Hyunsook Yoon


to solve linguistic/writing problems, but he also browsed through the corpus, out of curiosity, to test whether the corpus would provide better expressions, even when he had no problem. He said, "I wanted to use the corpus because I was also curious about how well it will produce the results, whether there are better expressions, as well as in order to check whether mine is correct." Table 3. Examples of Participants’ Corpus Search Items Chan

Purpose

Item Usage/ regarding Contexts of have difficulty uses understanding (noun?/verb?) addressing (noun?/verb?) both in?/ in both? 6

V+N8

Wol

Remark Helpful yes to? in + ing? yes yes(++)7 need "of"? appropriat yes(++) e/-ly? proper yes

sequence?

Time5 8' 15' 30' 10' 7'

on the contrary/ to the contrary

no

15'

in contrast/ by contrast

no

30'

review(noun) summary war verb? problem/issue verb? discussion

little 10' little 10' yes 15' yes(+++) 20' yes 4'

Sung

Item relate classify influence ground

Remark Helpful Time yes 30" 1'30" prep also yes prep also yes prep also yes accompany prep also yes 30" absorb prep also yes project joinable yes 1' verb become joinable yes verb help +ing? yes 1'30" rate(verb)

V+N adj+N

frequency

high?

adv+adj adv+V V+adj

lower affect feel

quite?

yes

yes yes difficult? yes

3'

bias mistake

yes

30"

Item Remark regard +clause? pen(verb) embed evaluate seem describe harbor(verb) opaque obscure controversial encounter accuse prep also reluctance clothe consist passive? experience contract damage

Helpful Time yes 5" no 5" yes 3' no 3' yes 2' yes yes 5' yes yes yes 3' yes yes 1' yes 1' yes 2' yes 3' no 1' yes 5'

depict enunciate approach

yes

1'

no

2'

what object?

2' 20' 8'

While Chan had a genuine interest in the corpus, the other participants perceived it more pragmatically as a problem-solving tool. It was a necessary inconvenience for them. Sung said, "I use it because I need it, not because I like it. I hope I can write without it." Ming’s corpus use was also need-based, particularly for writing assignments. He emphasized he would use the corpus more frequently if he had more writing to do because it was only during writing that problems arose. In fact, as Ming insisted, the participants’ frequency of corpus use seemed to be related to the amount of writing tasks they had to complete. Table 4 shows each participant’s number of writing assignments for each quarter. All of the participants had at least three writing assignments in the writing class in the first quarter. On the other hand, the amount of writing tasks in the second quarter, when they were no longer in a writing course, varied considerably among them. The table shows that the three science-major participants, June, Nick, and Ming, had no major writing tasks, although they sometimes wrote short lab reports. These three participants used the corpus infrequently. As mentioned above, Nick and Ming were initially positive towards corpus use. Despite their positive attitudes toward the corpus, however, they actually used the corpus infrequently during the study time frame. Ming attributed this mainly to his lack of time, while Nick simply had few writing assignments. He simply did not have to use the corpus. Also, it seemed that his increased confidence in English writing


38

Hyunsook Yoon


required less use of the corpus as time passed. Nonetheless, they indicated that they planned to use corpora more frequently when they did encounter more writing assignments and formal papers. Table 4. The Amount of the Participants’ Writing Assignments Name Wol Chan June Sung Nick Ming

1st quarter 3 writing class assignments 6 short papers for content courses 3 writing class assignments 1 major paper for content course 3 writing class assignments Weekly journal for content course 3 writing class assignments 2 papers for content courses 3 writing class assignments 3 writing class assignments

2nd quarter 1 case study paper, weekly journal, 2 interview papers, 1 reflection paper 1 long research proposal, 5-6 page long weekly memo Lab report (mainly mathematical formulae) 2 research papers No textual writing 1 short proposal

June initially showed an unfavorable attitude toward corpora. Her attitude, however, became positive, with increased use. She appreciated the weekly corpus search assignments that gave her more opportunities to practice. This suggests that students may need to be exposed to technology for a certain period of time in order to effectively use it or like it. June’s change to a positive attitude, however, did not prompt her to use corpora more frequently. In fact, June often struggled with corpus use. One reason was that she needed more training to use the search technique effectively. Also, her lower level of language proficiency hindered her corpus use. She experienced difficulty in putting the collocate words in correct order with the target words. During the study, she kept checking about whether her search and analysis were correct. As such, she reported that she wanted someone to help interpret the results and make the necessary patterns for her. Interestingly enough, Sung, the only participant who initially showed a clearly negative attitude toward corpus use, turned out to be one of the most frequent corpus users. He generally turned in a two- or threepage search log per week while the other participants submitted one page on average. This was an unexpected finding. His studies in history required a great deal of writing, so he had a need for and a keen interest in improving his writing. Some participants used the corpus while initially composing their writing assignments, while others used it only for revising. Interestingly, the more frequent corpus users, Wol, Chan, and Sung, used it for composing. The less frequent users’ main purpose was in revision. June, who was in this category, reported that a key factor was its availability at the time of writing. However, she preferred using a dictionary for initial composing while reverting to the corpus for revision. Nick delayed his corpus use until the revision stage because he wrote his first draft by hand and then typed it into a computer when the corpus was available. He often marked problematic words in his handwritten draft, and then checked them in the corpus when revising. With respect to the benefits of corpus use, most participants expressed similar points, such as learning common usage patterns and showing subtle nuances and contexts of usage. In other words, the students agreed that it provided textual help in writing. When corpora are viewed as a linguistic resource, one important question that arises is the precise role they play in language learning. The participants themselves asked profound questions regarding whether new learning would take place by corpus use. Their comments were revealing. Wol suspected that corpus use did not create new knowledge because she only used it to double-check or review whether her current knowledge was correct. If the data were inconsistent with her current knowledge, she just ignored it and did not expand her range of linguistic


39

Hyunsook Yoon


performance. Her learning curve remained static. She said (all quotations from students are translations from their original Korean): When I am looking for, say, a phrasal verb, I don’t do guessing in advance. From my past rote learning experiences, I always try to recall what I learned. Even when I look up the corpus, I try to recite my memory from the rote learning, rather than guessing based on the data. So, for me, even guessing or checking just means checking whether my memory is correct. (Interview 5) Chan asked the same question: "Which comes first? Do I analyze the data from the scratch or do I interpret the data just based on my prior knowledge?" He continued: When I analyze corpus data, especially the collocate output, I often ask myself the question whether I think my prototype9 is correct based on the data or on what I’ve learned. I seem to use and interpret the data based on my prior knowledge. Therefore, I doubt whether I can interpret the data and construct prototypes if I don’t have any grammar or word knowledge. (Interview 2) Certainly, people refer to their prior knowledge to acquire new knowledge, and corpus analysis requires a certain level of prior grammar and word knowledge. As noted earlier, an interesting question is whether corpus use only confirms, reinforces, or serves to review the student’s prior knowledge, or whether it extends the process to new learning. One clear finding from the study was that most of the participants did not use the corpus for learning new material. This point becomes more evident if we look at their corpus use behaviors. They rarely used the corpus for unknown words or phrases; rather, they used it for checking or extending their current knowledge about words. This might not seem surprising given their advanced level as L2 users. On the other hand, some reported that they checked the dictionary for definitions of unfamiliar words in order to obtain new information about meanings and usages. They viewed the corpus as a linguistic resource like a dictionary, as well as a linguistic checker. In addition to providing actual textual help in writing, the corpus seemed to help the participants gain a psychological advantage in their language learning. Once they checked assignments against the corpus, the students seemed to feel more confident about their L2 writing. Chan said, "if I look up the corpus, I feel confident, because once I check it, I feel it’s right and I feel comfortable." Ming also said, "I have confidence because I get common usage. I am sure I follow the common usage." According to Nick, "Because I know I have 40 sentences [from which] I can pick the best phrase, I feel confident because it’s not mine and I know it’s right." That is, if they consulted the corpus, they felt confident about using the common usage correctly, which could enhance their overall confidence in their writing. On the other hand, as noted earlier, Nick added that gaining more confidence in his English writing would, perhaps ironically, lessen his need to use corpora. Changes in the Students’ L2 Learning and Approaches to L2 Writing Changes in the students’ L2 learning This section presents the findings concerning the participants’ understanding of language learning acquired through the corpus approach and their later approaches to L2 writing. It is necessary, though, to be cautious about placing too much emphasis on the antecedents or determinants of the changes that were observed in the students’ perceptions. In a qualitative inquiry like this, it may be misleading to conclude that the students’ perceptions of language and L2 writing changed due only to corpus use experiences. In particular, the fact that corpus work comprised only part of the writing course makes it difficult to identify any conclusive evidence of changes in writing practices. Despite these caveats, certain similarities appear that point in the direction of the corpus’ influence.


40

Hyunsook Yoon


With respect to understanding of the target language, most participants expressed a combined concept of vocabulary and grammar, or "lexico-grammar" in technical terms, by the end of the study. For example, Chan initially had a strong grammar-based view of language, that is, "grammar is the core of the language and learning a language is learning grammar." He also held a clear distinction between words and grammar; words are for representing meaning, while the purpose of grammar is to connect those words. Later, however, his attitude toward language changed. He viewed grammar more through the concept of collocation. Learning a language is to learn how the people of that language use the language. Basically, what we learned as grammar is all related to collocation. For example, we just learned "make use of" as a chunk, but the fact that it is not "make use in" or "make usage of" is based on collocation. (Interview 8) Furthermore, for Chan, vocabulary, grammar, and usage (collocations or idioms) are all mixed concepts. He explained the relationship among those while drawing an insightful diagram (Figure 1): In Korea, we taught "vocabulary" "grammar" and "idioms" separately. But they are not separate, but all one. Actually, we have to learn words focusing on expressions, and, in the middle, here is usage or collocation. Let’s take an example of "make use of." In the past, we taught words and grammar separately. But we can teach them both; if we teach the word "make," teach like this (circling vocabulary and usage together in the diagram), and if we teach grammar, teach like this (circling usage and grammar together in the diagram). I think this is the main approach of collocation, and if we expand the approach, we can cover all of them. (Interview 8)

Vocabulary (make, use,..)

Usage/Collocation (make use of)

Grammar (Verb + Noun + Preposition)

Figure 1. Chan's perception of collocation While it is not clear whether the change in the students’ view of language was solely the result of corpus use, the corpus approach that focuses on collocation and that intermingles form with meaning pushed the boundaries of grammar and lexis to a merged area and promoted positive perceptions of lexico-grammar. As advanced ESL students, their writing problems were often related to word usage rather than grammatical aspects, and their experiences with corpora enabled them to address these problems meaningfully. Another important influence of corpus use on language learning was increased awareness of the importance of collocation and language sensitivity. Once participants were aware of the importance of collocations or common usage patterns, most of them reported that they began to pay more attention to the combinations of words in their reading as well as their writing. Chan reported that he started paying much more attention to the common expressions or collocations since beginning corpus use. The following is extracted from his reflection notes: A change after corpus use is that I came to pay attention to the expressions that I ignored in the past. I usually focused on understanding content and didn’t focus on word usage, except for some cases when I found beautiful expressions. However, after the quarter, I came to pay attention to the aspect. (Written reflections) June paid close attention to usage patterns in her academic pursuits but also expanded this concern to her pleasure reading in English. She said:


41

Hyunsook Yoon


When reading an English text, I focus on word usage. During the winter break, I read the novel "Big Fish." I used to read just for getting information, but at that time, I also looked at the usage. I am trying to get more familiar with the patterns. (Interview 5) Unlike June, Wol did not consciously pay attention to common usage patterns, although she felt that her knowledge about collocations increased as she was exposed to various English texts. Wol added that expressions that became familiar through reading naturally came out in her writing. This reiterates a crucial point: exposure and noticing (whether it be conscious or unconscious) can be transferred to learning and writing. In short, corpus use not only helped them to solve immediate writing/language problems, but also seemed to expand their language awareness and helped them with their language learning. In other words, developing the awareness that collocations exist or that they are important in language learning/writing is an educational process in itself. It leads learners to focus on those patterns, resulting in learning. Changes in the students’ approaches to L2 writing At the beginning of the study, the participants perceived four areas as the main causes of writing difficulties: 1) insufficient command of the target language, 2) organizational and rhetorical concerns, 3) inadequate content knowledge, and 4) unfamiliar writing culture. By the end of the study, they still reported difficulties writing due to insufficient command of the target language. However, they noted improvement in the other areas and attributed it to writing instruction and writing practice during the first quarter. Therefore, they believed there to be progress in three of four main problem areas. The language difficulty area (#1 above) could not be so easily resolved. On the other hand, by the second quarter, all but June reported that they were more confident about writing than in the previous quarter. They mostly attributed their success to three factors: 1) the writing course (partly corpus use), 2) more writing experience, and 3) their enhanced disciplinary/content knowledge. Chan found L2 writing much less burdensome than in the previous quarter. He attributed this change to successfully finishing the final long paper in the writing course. In addition, his "bank of expressions" expanded through corpus use and writing practice. Ming agreed that writing in the second quarter was much easier due to the extensive practice offered in the class. Wol also said her writing became easier in the second quarter mainly due to her enhanced content knowledge. However, while writing may have become easier in general, she was frustrated at making the same mistakes in grammar and expressions. In other words, her intellectual appreciation of writing and approach to writing improved, but troublesome language issues lingered on. While Sung also felt much more comfortable with writing later in the study, he still encountered grammatical difficulties. He tried to reduce the frequency of chronic grammatical mistakes. At the same time, he pointed out his lack of a variety of expression and how he tended to "stick to only familiar vocabulary and structures": I felt much more comfortable about writing this quarter, and the process of writing also got easy. But I still have difficulties using articles and prepositions. Maybe they can never be fixed completely. I just try to get used to those uses and focus on them in revision to lessen the number of mistakes. (Interview 5) June was the only participant who lost confidence in writing later in the study. The main reason was that her major field offered few chances to write in English, thus preventing her from gaining additional practice in writing. She felt her writing skills may even have declined because she did not have a lot of writing practice. She still faced various difficulties from linguistic issues to idea generation to organization.


42

Hyunsook Yoon


Overall, the participants praised the advantages of corpus use in L2 writing. They commented that corpus use particularly helped them acquire the correct usage of words, which was a chronic problem in their writing. Wol and Sung valued the corpus over the dictionary when they wanted to check correct usages. The usefulness of the corpus was also reflected in the fact that they were at a loss when the technology malfunctioned at times in the second quarter. June did realize that the corpus provided an advantage over other references when the corpus became unavailable due to technical problems. As the most extensive corpus user, Chan felt helpless when the corpous was unavaible. He became used to editing his writing by using the corpus, but once access to it was lost, he just finished his writing with little revision. That is, the technology breakdown deprived him of a vital resource for editing. Without the corpus, he wrote without consulting a dictionary when he encountered trouble spots. On the other hand, while he showed a great level of corpus dependency throughout the study, he indicated that time and interest is more closely related to the reduction of writing errors: I don’t think corpus use directly reduces writing errors. Rather, I think the amount of errors is related to how much time I spend on revising during the writing process. I think we make mistakes, not because we don’t know, but because we don’t check. When writing, I have a sense that this may be wrong, but I don’t check because I have no time, and then the teacher points out the error. So, corpus helps, but it’s more an issue of whether we have time and willingness to check. (Interview 3) The participants’ overall writing process (drafting, composing, and editing) did not undergo dramatic changes as a result of corpus use. The general process remained the same, but there were minor changes. For example, students seemed to pay closer attention to word usage and collocation during writing and editing. While other factors, such as instruction, influenced their writing process, the use of corpus technology enabled them to include a self-editing step. For instance, Wol said corpus use helped her form a habit of checking and double-checking her writing. Previously, she did little revision. Another student, Ming, also commented on the editing step added to his writing process: If I don’t have corpus, I will not check after I write all the papers. But with corpus, I search on that instant in the corpus. (Interview 4) Chan also noted the influence of the corpus on his writing process. He often checked the corpus for accuracy and clarity during writing, and so he reported a change not only in the process, but also in the quality of writing. He felt that corpus use gave him more confidence in his writing: My approach to writing did not change all together from a big picture, but since the part of checking the corpus came in my writing process, the quality and process of my writing has changed to a certain degree. I came to check the corpus quite often during writing. I check the corpus to find the most appropriate expressions and depend on the corpus before I produce the final product. If I check the corpus, I feel more confident about the quality of my writing. (Interview 3) June reported that her use of the corpus changed her understanding of language, which then changed her approach to writing. That is, after she realized that a word changes meaning depending on the context, she began to pay more attention to the uses of words when writing. In short, once the corpus approach was introduced to the writing process, the participants took more responsibility for their writing by checking the corpus, and they approached writing with more ease and confidence. DISCUSSION The primary purpose of this study was to examine the ways corpus technology affects ESL students’ L2 writing experiences. The findings revealed that the corpus approach heightened the students’ language


43

Hyunsook Yoon


awareness, which, in turn, affected their approaches to writing and the writing process. Regardless of their frequency of corpus use, their exposure to it made them aware of the importance of common usage and collocation in writing. That is, the corpus served as a meaningful reference for language input and also served as a catalyst in helping them to become more attentive to their writing. The participants’ overall writing process did not dramatically change after adopting the corpus. However, the general process underwent changes that were minor but useful. They formed a habit of checking their writing while composing, rather than writing only rough, unpolished drafts, and hence the base was built for independent learning. In other words, as the corpus approach was introduced and linked to the writing process, they took more responsibility for their writing. The fact that corpora were available also gave them more confidence in the quality of their final product. As such, their overall confidence in writing increased, and they approached writing with less emotional stress. The finding that they had more control over their own language learning and writing is an important point given that the main writing difficulties they encountered later were in the language domain. As newcomers, the participants initially struggled with two things: 1) the language issue and 2) academic discourse familiarization – learning a different academic culture and its disciplinary writing practices. In particular, most of them had few experiences in academic writing in English. But, later, their enhanced knowledge about the content in their discipline and acculturation in the disciplinary environment made them feel that writing came easier to them. However, they still struggled while seeking the appropriate linguistic features to express their intended meanings. Therefore it appears that the linguistic domain remained a major challenge even for the advanced level students, who were well trained in composition skills. This finding lends support to Hinkel’s (2002) call for directing greater attention to the linguistic features in L2 writing instruction. She emphasizes the need for addressing "the issue of language development, lexicon expansion, or sentence construction for NNSs [non-native speakers]" (p.56) in writing instruction. For L2 writers, the focus on content without taking into account their linguistic concerns may not lead them to become competent writers. As a matter of fact, while current writing research has mainly addressed the so-called more global or discourse aspects of writing, such as content and rhetoric, "a lack of grammatical or lexical accuracy can [still] be a major issue for L2 writers" (Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998, p.274). While L2 writers are well trained in developing their ideas, the linguistic domain is often a major challenge for many of them. Grammar-focused instruction may not adequately prepare them for the linguistic demands of L2 writing. Therefore, L2 writing research and pedagogy should address this issue more fully in order to help students become more competent writers. Here corpus technology (e.g., general corpus concordancing) is a promising tool to help L2 writers deal with linguistic problems in writing. Tribble (1999) and Jabbour (2001) argue that the corpus approach not only raises learners’ language awareness but also can contribute to an understanding of functions of linguistic features in context. This study found that a wide array of individual experiences and contextual factors played an important role in determining the frequency and range of corpus use, selection of linguistic items for searches, the depth of analysis and interpretation, and thus the successful exploitation of corpus resources. The experiences and factors identified in this study were various: nature of writing experiences in L1 and L2, interest in writing improvement, characteristics of the field of study, need for the resources, familiarity with the corpus technology, time availability, and level of English language and writing proficiency. Noteworthy was the relationship between participants’ frequency of corpus use and the number of writing assignments. The number of writing tasks varied among the students, and this affected their corpus use. This need-based attitude toward corpus use is a revealing finding. If the technology is not geared toward the students’ immediate needs, it may not capture their interest despite its value in improving their writing. Hence, despite the usefulness of the technology, lack of meaningful engagement with writing would limit its appeal.


44

Hyunsook Yoon


Also worth noting are the findings about the use of general corpora in EAP. Specialized corpora can be useful resources that present discipline-specific linguistic and discourse patterns in EAP writing contexts. At the same time, it is useful to recognize the strengths of general corpora over discipline-specific corpora in an EAP classroom for students from a variety of disciplines. Here it is important to recall that advanced L2 learners can acquire discourse level or rhetorical characteristics more quickly than linguistic features. While writing instruction can address the global level issues effectively, general corpora can be used to help students deal with their chronic, harder-to-acquire linguistic problems on their own. In particular, as seen in the participants’ behaviors in this study, students can learn technical words specific to their disciplines through their own reading and content knowledge. This is consistent with Jabbour’s (1997) point that students may be more familiar with the subject words than their EAP teachers, while those words may be irrelevant to the class as a whole. In sum, general corpora that present the most frequently occurring general words can be used effectively, because they cater to the needs of all the students in an EAP classroom. Lastly, without challenging the value of the findings, some limitations of the study should be noted. This study primarily investigated students’ writing experiences rather than examining their writing products in relation to corpus use. We cannot conclusively generalize from a limited number of participants. However, the qualitative approach helps us understand processes of learning that are not easily identifiable through quantitative methods. Some of the insights gained can be further examined in quantitative studies that investigate their applicability over a broader range and larger number of participants. A valuable future line of inquiry, for example, could examine whether corpus use can effect changes in the students’ writing proficiency. IMPLICATIONS FOR PEDAGOGY The findings of the study provide significant implications for teaching L2 writing in an EAP classroom, especially where corpus use is integrated into instruction. While recent writing research mainly addresses the global or discourse aspects of writing, language issues should not be ignored. For L2 writers, the mastery of lexical and grammatical accuracy can contribute to an increased confidence in themselves as writers as well as a possible increase in the quality of their writing. These findings suggest a need for a pedagogy that accounts for a longer-term language learning process to acquire expressions and word usage than is recognized in conventional class preparation. One especially important benefit of the corpus approach in this course was its focus on collocation patterns and typical contexts of word use. This focus on commonly used language chunks can help L2 learners acquire conventional use and fluency, which is often not achieved by studying structural rules. Thus, the study suggests a strategy that integrates lexico-grammatical features into language education and writing instruction. The combined concept of lexis and grammar can enhance students’ repertoire of English expressions and usage in L2 writing. A significant finding of the study is that students took more responsibility for their language learning as a result of their corpus experience. This is one of the most important roles that corpus technology plays in L2 writing. Corpora are tools that allow students to solve their linguistic and writing problems independently, and they raise students’ linguistic awareness through problem-solving with authentic texts. This suggests that L2 writing instructors can incorporate the student-initiated corpus search as a supplement to classroom activities (rather than replace the conventional ways of teaching) in order to promote students’ independence and self-monitoring. In the present study, a wide variety of individual experiences and learning contexts were involved in deciding the level of the students’ willingness and their degree of success in using corpora. Writing teachers who attempt to incorporate the corpus approach into their instruction need to understand the multi-faceted aspects of technology use that could facilitate or impede the individual students’ L2 writing.


45

Hyunsook Yoon


It is clear that not all students learn in the same way, and the new technology may not work equally well for all students. In particular, one important pedagogical question to be addressed is how to meet the needs of students who are at variant levels in their development of academic literacy, including those in the same course, who are presumed to have roughly the same level of L2 writing ability. For example, students’ low level of grammar or language proficiency will probably interfere with their corpus use. L2 educators need to identify individual difficulties and needs in students’ L2 writing and help the students build upon their strengths so as to develop skills that compensate for or overcome their weaknesses. Serious thought should be given to ways to manage unexpected technology malfunctions that could occur during the course of instruction, a frustration that may inhibit student learning, as seen in this study when some students were left helpless after the online corpus broke down. It is imperative that students have comparable resources made available so they can continue studies in the event of a technological breakdown. Alternatives include making corpora materials available off-line, such as on a CD-ROM, or in dictionaries that are created using corpora data. Although such dictionaries do not allow students to use corpus resources to the fullest, they can at least provide them with the most common contexts of words, which is preferable to giving them out-of-context definitions. CONCLUSION When it comes to writing development, corpus-based activity is not the only or the best approach for all learners, but this study has shown it to be an important learning tool that has significant pedagogical potential in EAP writing contexts. Corpora can be used not only as a linguistic resource that helps students to solve immediate writing/language problems, but also as an important tool that encourages learners to become more independent L2 writers. If well planned, learning with corpora can enhance the learners’ writing experiences and their confidence, and thus contribute to their overall writing development.

NOTES 1. This study adopted the approach used in Yoon & Hirvela (2004). See it for a detailed illustration of concordance work integrated into a writing class. 2. The names of the participants are pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality. 3. Student approximated years of study. 4. Ming’s score is based on the former paper-and-pencil test, while the others are based on computerbased tests. 5. For the amount of time, < ' >indicates minute, and < " > indicates second. 6. Chan searched the same item three times on different days. 7. The participant marked level of satisfaction. 8. For simple representation, linguistic class terms for the search are presented in acronyms. That is, V stands for verb, N for noun, prep for preposition, adj for adjective, and adv for adverb. Also, target searches are in bold. For example, V+N indicates that the participant searched the noun in order to find appropriate verbs that are commonly used with the noun. 9. “Prototype strings” are the most commonly used forms of word usage. The teacher taught the class how to use concordance and collocate data to construct “prototype strings” as a way of integrating corpus use with students’ language learning.


46

Hyunsook Yoon


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the reviewers of this manuscript as well as the editors for their insightful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Hyunsook Yoon is an assistant professor of the Department of English at Dongguk University, Korea. She has a Ph.D. in Foreign and Second Language Education from The Ohio State University. Her research interests include corpus linguistics, second language reading and writing, teacher education, and ESP/EAP. E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES Bernardini, S. (2001). ‘Spoilt for choice’: A learner explores general language corpora. In G. Aston (Ed.), Learning with corpora (pp. 220-249). Houston, TX: CLUEB. Chambers, A. (2007). Popularising corpus consultation by language learners and teachers. In E. Hidalgo, L. Quereda, & J. Santana (Eds.), Corpora in the foreign language classroom: Selected papers from the sixth international conference on teaching and language corpora (TaLC 6) (pp.3-16). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. Conrad, S. (1999). The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System, 27(1), 1-18. Fan, M., & Xu, X. (2002). An evaluation of an online bilingual corpus for the self-learning of legal English. System, 30(1), 47-63. Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Flowerdew, J. (Ed.). (2002). Academic discourse. Harlow, England: Longman. Flowerdew, L. (1998). Integrating 'expert' and 'interlanguage' computer corpora findings on causality: Discoveries for teachers and students. English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 329-345. Flowerdew, L. (2002). Corpus-based analyses in EAP. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 95-114). Harlow, England: Longman. Gaskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32(3), 301-319. Gledhill, C. (2000). The discourse function of collocation in research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 19(2), 115-135. Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers' text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hyland, K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-130). Harlow, England: Longman.


47

Hyunsook Yoon


Jabbour, G. (1997). Corpus linguistics, contextual collocation, and ESP syllabus creation: A text analysis approach to the study of the medical research article. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham, UK. Jabbour, G. (2001). Lexis and grammar in second language reading and writing. In D. Belcher, & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 291-308). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Kaltenböck, G., & Mehlmauer-larcher, B. (2005). Computer corpora and the language classroom: On the potential and limitations of computer corpora in language teaching. ReCALL, 17(1), 65-84. Kennedy, C., & Miceli, T. (2001). An evaluation of intermediate students' approaches to corpus investigation. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 77-90. Lee, D., & Swales J. (2006). A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 56-75. Phinney, M. (1996). Exploring the virtual world: Computers in the second language writing classroom. In M. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 137-152). Houston, TX: Athelstan. Sun, Y.-C. (2000). Using on-line corpus to facilitate language learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, British Columbia, Canada. Swales, J., & Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: A course for nonnative speakers of English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Thurstun, J., & Candlin, C. (1998). Concordancing and the teaching of the vocabulary of academic English. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 267-280. Tribble, C. (1999). Writing difficult texts. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Lancaster University, UK. Tribble, C. (2002). Corpora and corpus analysis: New windows on academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 131- 149). Harlow, England: Longman. Turnbull, J., & Burston, J. (1998). Towards independent concordance work for students: Lessons from a case study. ON-CALL, 12(2), 10-21. Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 257-283.


48

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/kolschcolnik/


ASYNCHRONOUS FORUMS IN EAP: ASSESSMENT ISSUES Sara Kol and Miriam Schcolnik Tel Aviv University This paper reports on a pilot and a subsequent study that focused on the assessment of student writing in asynchronous text-stimulated forum discussions. The study, which was conducted in advanced English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses, aimed at determining suitable assessment criteria for written academic discussions. In addition, the study tapped student attitudes toward forums, checked the effect of forum participation on student writing, and characterized the text-stimulated forum discussions. Based on a content analysis of the pilot data, the constructs of reflection and interaction were selected as assessment criteria to be evaluated in the main study. These criteria were found to be usable but insufficient for student assessment in the EAP courses. A questionnaire showed that the student attitudes were positive and that most students felt that their writing improved, even though an analysis of language complexity showed no significant improvement. A qualitative analysis of the transcripts revealed deep student involvement with the content and with their peers as well as an academic register interspersed with conversational interactions. INTRODUCTION Asynchronous online forums provide a venue for thoughtful discussion and as such have become a common component in both distance and blended courses (Cummings, Bonk, & Jacobs, 2002). These discussions allow for dynamic growth, development, and interchange of ideas among students, and therefore can play an important role in student learning (Barbour & Collins, 2005; Wu & Hiltz, 2004). Online discussions are not uniformly implemented in courses. In some courses, discussion participation is mandatory (e.g., Wu & Hiltz, 2004); in others, it is not required (Sullivan & Pratt, 1996). In some courses, the forum discussions are closely related in time and topic to class sessions (e.g., BiesenbachLucas, 2004), while in others, the connection to the lectures is not direct and may be perceived negatively by students as a non-essential add-on to the course (Chong, 1998; Sherry, 2000). Some forum discussions are clearly structured by the instructor, who specifies the aspects of the topic or questions to be focused on (Black, 2005); other forums do not stipulate anything beyond the topic and allow students free range of exploration (Dougiamas & Taylor, 2003). In some forums, instructors are regular participants, responding to student questions and providing corrective feedback (Sotillo, 2000); in others, the instructor is an observer, whose presence is felt but not seen (Biesenbach-Lucas, 2004). In some cases, students get credit just for participating (Sotillo, 2000), while in others, forum participation is on a volunteer basis and no course credit is given (Althaus, 1996). In some online discussions, the groups are kept fairly small: 3–7 students (Bohlke, 2003; Warschauer, 1996), while in others, the whole class participates (Sullivan & Pratt, 1996). In a discussion forum, students can brainstorm, disseminate information, role-play, and discuss course material, and the asynchronous nature of the discussion allows time for reflection (Althaus, 1996; Harasim, 1992; Warschauer, 1999). This reflection, labeled the "ripple effect" by Bernath and Rubin (1999), can lead to the deep thinking that is necessary to make connections between new and old information, integrate the two, and synthesize; that is, the reflection can give rise to a new perspective, which can engender the development of new ideas from existing information. By promoting student engagement, reflection, and critical thinking (Duffy, Dueber, & Hawley, 1998; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000; Jonassen, 1994; Sherry, 2000), forums can be used to enhance the

49 Copyright © 2008, ISSN 1094-3501

Sara Kol & Miriam Schcolnik

Asynchronous Forums in EAP: Assessment Issues

learning experience (Bernath & Hulsmann, undated; Bhagyavati et al., 2005). When students struggle to organize their thoughts and put them in writing for an authentic audience, deeper cognitive processing may be at work, leading to more learning (Berge, 1997; Zamel, 1992). As Lapadat (2002) said, "Expressing oneself via a written medium holds the promise of writing one’s way into understanding". Lemke (1989) concurs that writing facilitates the construction of meaning. However, in practice, this does not always happen (McLoughlin & Luca, 2000); for example, in a study by Angeli, Bonk, and Hara (1998), many of the online interactions were superficial, and the claims made by the students were unsupported. Nevertheless, learners seem to feel that online discussions are useful (Harasim, 1992; Wu & Hiltz, 2004). If writing helps to clarify the learner’s understanding, then reading-based writing may be especially useful when reading texts in a second language. "Writing allows insights that may have been inaccessible . . . at the time the text was read" (Zamel, 1992, p. 472). Moreover, Pellettieri (2000) claimed that as learners attempt to formulate and support their ideas in the most exact language possible and organize the presentation of the ideas in a logical fashion, they could experience vocabulary acquisition as well as syntactic growth. In language courses, forums may serve the following purposes: encouraging thoughtful communication in the language, allowing for the development of writing skills, providing a framework for text discussion, and facilitating the acquisition of what Chun (1994) calls "interactive competence." Warschauer (1999) has described how computer-mediated communication facilitates the combination of the two language functions, interaction and reflection. Reflective interaction can promote language learning (Ellis, 2005; Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999; Ortega, 1997; Sauvignon, 2002; Warschauer, 2007) by motivating students "to stretch their linguistic resources in order to meet the demands of real communication in a social context" (Ortega, 1997, p. 83). Although some of this research refers to synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC), interactive competence and social skills are relevant to both synchronous and asynchronous communication. A relevant issue in the use of asynchronous forums in education is the assessment of student contributions in the context of the level and objectives of the course. The following section begins with a short survey of writing assessment in general and proceeds to a review of the literature dealing with forum analysis and assessment. Assessing Forum Contributions In academic contexts, the quality of first-language papers is usually assessed by evaluating the accuracy of the content, the originality and development of thoughts and ideas, and the soundness of the writer’s logic (Weigle, 2002). When dealing with English as a second or foreign language, language elements (e.g., morphological, lexical, or syntactic accuracy) play an important role. Language elements are not only used to measure quality at a point in time, but also can be used as signs of language development over time. Language instructors may tend to favor fluency (often defined as writing easily and as much as possible in the time given) over language accuracy (defined as degree of correctness or avoidance of mistakes), but many feel that both deserve attention. Accuracy is especially important for writing in academic contexts (Weigle, 2002) and is assessed by analyzing the number and types of errors. Fluency in writing can be measured in many different ways, depending on how fluency is defined (Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, & Kim, 1998). In our study, given that the discussions were asynchronous, fluency was measured by the amount of writing that was produced (text length), rather than the amount of writing produced in a given amount of time. However, neither fluency nor accuracy was part of the student assessment. Another construct often used to measure second language development is language complexity, which may focus on lexical factors or syntactic factors. Lexical complexity is reflected in two dimensions: range


50



(lexical variation) and size (lexical sophistication) of a second language writer’s productive vocabulary (Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, & Kim, 1998). An analysis of lexical complexity looks at how many different words are used or how sophisticated the words are. Syntactic complexity reflects elements such as sentence length, amount of embedding, and range and sophistication of structures (Ortega, 2003). However, the relation between syntactic complexity measures and improved writing quality or linguistic ability is not clear (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Ortega, 2003). Moreover, the relationship between sentence-level complexity and overall quality as reflected in coherence, for example, is not well established either (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). Despite these reservations, as part of the exploration, language complexity was measured so as to obtain a more detailed picture of student contributions. Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) is somewhere on the continuum between paper-based writing and speech (Kern, 2006). As a distinct form of writing, it therefore requires a customized form of assessment. When assessing forum contributions, in addition to the criteria normally used to evaluate compositions or essays, communicative parameters, such as the ability to participate in a written discussion, need to be taken into account. The realization of the difference between forum writing and the writing of traditional papers was a motivation to search for parameters that characterize quality in forum writing. These parameters could then serve as assessment criteria to grade student contributions. How can forum discussions be analyzed? Some studies focus on the nature of student messages or their length, depth, or purpose. Henri (1992) proposed a model for analyzing CMC messages tapping five aspects of the learning process as reflected in the messages: participative, interactive, social, cognitive, and metacognitive. This model focused on process rather than product and has been used by many other researchers of CMC (e.g., Angeli, Bonk, & Hara, 1998; Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2002; Schrire, 2003) as a basis for their work or the development of their own models. Oskoz (2005) and McLoughlin and Luca (2000) have also developed process-based systems for the analysis of online interactions. The latter traces knowledge construction as it moves through five phases from knowledge sharing to knowledge building. However, many systems for analyzing CMC messages are too tedious and time-consuming to serve as practical assessment tools (Dringus & Ellis, 2004; Ho, 2002). Practitioners need to assess student contributions fairly and efficiently and may not be able to go into all the details encompassed in the descriptive instruments used for research. In addition, instructors need to focus on the achievement of course objectives. To aid instructors in assessing forum contributions, Dringus and Ellis (2004) developed SCAFFOLD—Scale for Forums/Online Discussion Assessment, which used the following criteria: interaction, analysis, expansion of discussion scope, clarification, closure, comprehensiveness, accuracy of information, degree of evaluation, originality, reflection, synthesis, and summary. Bauer (2002) added the criteria of stimulating discussion and critiquing other students’ contributions. The aforementioned criteria were developed for content courses. Criteria need to be determined for assessing student forum writing in language courses. This paper reports on a study of the use of forums for text-stimulated discussions in advanced English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses. The main aims of the study were to determine what constitutes quality in online discussions in EAP courses and then to find suitable criteria for assessing student forum contributions. In addition, the study attempted to tap student attitudes toward forums and check the effect of forum participation on student writing. Moreover, the extensive data available was used to characterize the text-stimulated forum discussions. It was hoped that through this kind of multi-focused investigation of forums, broader insights would emerge that could prove useful to professionals in the field.


51



FORUMS IN EAP: PILOT AND MAIN STUDY The goals for using forums in the EAP courses were to provide a framework for text discussion where every student in the class could participate, to encourage thoughtful communication in English, and to offer an authentic and relevant writing experience. The research was carried out at Tel Aviv University over two semesters. In the first semester, a pilot was conducted to determine criteria for assessing student forum contributions. The following semester, the main study evaluated whether the assessment criteria selected in the pilot study were usable and sufficient. An additional aim of the study was to learn more about text-stimulated forum discussions in EAP courses. The participants were freshmen taking one-semester advanced-level EAP courses, specific to different subject areas. The courses in the first semester (pilot) and the second semester (main study) were different, and so were the students. The students were mainly native speakers of Hebrew, with substantial numbers of native speakers of Arabic and Russian. The average student age was 23, and both genders were equally represented. In both semesters, the participants were required to participate in four textstimulated forum discussions and answer an attitude questionnaire at the end of the course. The courses were taught by the researchers. The software used for the threaded forum discussions is part of the learning management system used by the university (Britannica HighLearn). The Pilot The purpose of the pilot was to determine criteria for assessing student forum contributions. The participants were 94 undergraduate students in four advanced-level EAP courses. The courses, which met for 4 hours a week, were English for Mathematics and Computer Science, English for Physiotherapy, English for Occupational Therapy, and English for Chemistry. The first three forums were whole class discussions, and the last forum was used for small-group (3- to 5-student) discussions of texts in preparation for a class symposium. Each group selected a different topic for presentation to the class in the symposium, and the forum gave the groups an opportunity to collaborate outside of class. All forums had the same guidelines (see Figure 1), which was necessary because the students were assessed on how well they followed the generic guidelines. Each forum was kept open for approximately two weeks. 1. a. Ask at least one question on the article about something that is not clear to you. b. Answer at least one question that someone asked. 2. a. Express your thoughts on the articles you read. b. React to at least one other person's thoughts. Figure 1. Forum guidelines in pilot. Although the instructors observed the forum activity, they did not participate. It was hoped that the forums would provide a framework for free and fluent writing, unconstrained by teacher presence and not subject to the observer effect (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). In an attempt to assess student contributions according to more than mere participation, the assessment was based on how well the students followed the guidelines. That is, the students received credit for following the forum instructions, including asking and answering questions about the article and listing interesting points. Language accuracy was not assessed because the focus of the advanced EAP courses is text comprehension and language is not explicitly taught. The forum grades constituted 15% of the final mark for the course. According to Warschauer (1999), reflection and interaction intersect in forum communication. Given that the main goal in the forums was thoughtful communication, the data analysis was focused on the presence of reflection as well as interaction. These two constructs seemed particularly relevant to text-stimulated forum discussions because the text discussions involved the expression of ideas—presupposing


52



reflection—and the exchange of ideas with others. The constructs seemed possible candidates for assessment criteria. Language accuracy, on the other hand, did not seem at the time a suitable criterion, given that the goal of the forums was not writing improvement. Data Analysis To use reflection and interaction in the assessment process, a list of identifiable signs of the two had to be developed. Therefore, the data were searched for instances of the two constructs, a taxonomy of the signs of reflection and interaction was developed, and a list of language markers was compiled (Tables 1 and 2). Signs are the actions or deeds that show that an underlying event has occurred; for example, agreeing and disagreeing show that thought or reflection has occurred. Language markers are the words that signal the realization of the action; for example, the words I concur show that the writer has thought about a point and agrees with an idea that was expressed. Table 1. Signs and Markers of Reflection Signs of reflection Critically analyzes content and form

Markers of reflection I think/believe/feel/see . . . I started wondering about . . .

Agrees/disagrees with author’s views

I agree/disagree/object . . .

Recapitulates and summarizes

I now realize/understand/see that . .. After reading the article I think that . . . I read an article about that . . . That reminds me of . . . I was surprised/angry/upset/in awe . . . It made me think about the issue seriously. Let me give an example. . . This is like. . .

Expresses insights/ideas Connects text to other sources Expresses reactions, opinions, conclusions, implications Supports views through facts, analogies, and examples

Data examples "In my opinion the article deals too much with the ridiculous claim that organs have the same status as a live human being." "I don't agree with the author because cloning is against religious law." "Now I realize just how important cloning is." "I think humanity needs rules." "Here’s a link to something else about gene therapy." "Is there any way to create a male baby without any help from men?" "I think all the mess began after the cloning of Dolly because before this people didn’t believe it would ever happen."

At the end of the semester, the students completed a short questionnaire that tapped their attitudes toward the forums and their perceptions of the usefulness of the forums for text discussion and improving their English. Most questions required a yes-no response, and one required the students to check adjectives that they felt applied to the use of the forums for text discussion. The results of the attitude questionnaire are given in Table 3. As can be seen in Table 3, most students felt that the forum discussions were effective in both improving their English (63%) and understanding the texts (73%). The latter finding may reflect the forum instructions, which explicitly required students to ask about unclear points in the text and to answer classmates’ questions. Regarding the importance of the grade, the students were divided almost equally. However, only one third of the students chose the adjectives pleasant and motivating to describe how they felt about the use of the forums, and most students did not feel that participating in the forums was easy. Informal conversations with the students revealed that some felt that participation in the forums required


53



time and effort that they did not have, due to the already demanding curriculum and course requirements. In addition, those students living in dormitories complained about trouble finding available computers in the dorms at night. These factors may explain the low percentages. They may also explain why only 32% of the students chose the adjectives pleasant and motivating. Table 2. Signs and Markers of Interaction Signs of interaction Asks and answers "real" questions related to the text Clarifies views/requests clarification Agrees/disagrees with peer/suggests modification Tries to persuade Evaluates peer contributions Encourages interaction

Markers of interaction In the text he talks about . . . /Is this related to . . . /Do you know of any other . . . /I think the answer you are looking for is in par. X I think you misunderstood my idea/What do you mean? As X said/There is a problem/I would like to sharpen X’s thoughts/I almost agree with you/I think you forgot something very important Don’t you think that . . . /I think you should . . . Your question is very relevant/I think you wrote very important points Please send me your opinions and feelings/Share your views with me

Table 3. Student Attitudes: Pilot Question Did participation in the forum help you improve your English? Did writing your ideas and getting feedback from your friends help you understand the texts? Should the grade for the forums be included in the course grade? Was it easy to participate in the forums? Were the forum discussions pleasant and motivating?

Yes Response (%) 63 73 51 35 32

The analysis of the pilot data guided the framing of the research questions for the main study. The taxonomy of signs of reflection and interaction developed in the pilot provided the basis for the checklist used as a tool for assessing student forum contributions the following semester. Main Study The research questions that guided the main study were 1. Are reflection and interaction usable and sufficient criteria to assess student contributions? 2. How do students feel about the use of forums? 3. Does forum participation over one semester affect student writing in terms of language complexity? Method In preparation for the study, four online tutorials were created to explain the nature of reflection and interaction and teach the language markers required for those functions. The tutorials explain how to agree and disagree, express an opinion, support an opinion, and interact with others. At the beginning of the semester, the markers of reflection and interaction were taught, and the tutorials were put online. The participants were 156 students in four advanced-level courses. The courses, which met for 4 hours a week for a semester, were English for Mathematics and Computer Science, English for Engineering, and


54



two sections of English for Biology. The courses followed a mixed-mode, blended learning approach, in which most of the lessons were conducted in the classroom and occasionally in the computer learning center. Each of the classes had a course site, and a number of the homework assignments required use of the site for Internet-based tasks. Instruction and practice in digital literacy skills, such as skimming a digital article or using an online dictionary, were part of the course curriculum. Forums were an integral, graded part of the courses and took the place of text-based homework questions. A grade, along with teacher feedback on the contributions, was e-mailed to each student after each forum was closed. The students wrote to a practice forum before receiving any instruction on forum writing. These messages constituted the baseline for comparison. In addition to the practice forum, students participated in three forums. All forums were whole class discussions, and guidelines were slightly adapted for each forum according to the needs of the specific course and readings. In general, students were asked to express their ideas on a topic related to texts that they had read and respond to others’ statements and questions (see Figure 2 for an example of forum instructions). The instructions used the word "discuss" without specifying exactly how the discussion should be conducted. This change from the pilot instructions was made to allow for a more spontaneous and natural exchange of ideas. Students were instructed to write their forum messages as academic exchanges and to avoid informal abbreviations (e.g., ur for "you are") and other informal usage. The length of forum messages was not specified because the focus was on the quality of the forum communication, rather than on the quantity. Each forum was open for about two weeks.

1. Read the article on the new translation device. 2. Discuss what you have read: a. Comment on the features of the device, ask questions about points you didn't understand, or express your thoughts on additional applications of the device. b. Read your classmates' contributions and react to them. Figure 2. Example of forum instructions in main study Students were informed that their contributions would be checked for evidence of reflection on both general and specific points in the text and for interaction with other students. As in the pilot, the instructors did not participate in the online discussions. Forum participation constituted 15% of the final mark. To assess the student forum contributions, the messages were checked for evidence of reflection and interaction. Equal weight was given to each of the two criteria. At first, an attempt was made to break down the grade into quality and quantity, but determining the quality of reflection was not only difficult but also possibly invalid in the context of an EAP course. The aim of the assessment of reflection was not to judge the breadth or depth of thought, but rather to determine whether the students comprehended the text, expressed their views, and supported them. Data Analysis To determine if reflection and interaction were usable criteria, a checklist based on the signs and markers (see Tables 1 and 2) was prepared and used for assessment. In practice, the signs, more so than the markers, guided the assessment. In addition, the time spent assessing student contributions was recorded. To determine if reflection and interaction were sufficient criteria, the quality of 20 forum contributions was holistically assessed by the authors using a six-point scale (inter-rater reliability = 0.72) and compared with the grades given on the basis of reflection and interaction. In cases of discrepancy between the two, the data were analyzed to clarify the cause.


55



To tap student attitudes towards the forums, an online survey was administered at the end of the semester. The survey checked how students felt about forum usefulness in advanced language courses and the contribution of forums to students’ reading, writing, and communicative skills. To check whether the forum participation had affected the student writing, a text analysis was performed comparing the first and last forums, using a random sample of 20 students. To perform the analysis, all contributions to a forum by each of the 20 students were put together and analyzed using the Textalyser program (http://textalyser.net/). The program taps four measures: number of words (reflecting quantity or fluency), lexical diversity (reflecting richness of vocabulary), word length (reflecting lexical sophistication), and average number of words per sentence (reflecting syntactic complexity). Even though the characterization of the forum communication was not one of the main goals of the study, the available transcripts were used for this purpose. Table 4 lists the forums included in the analysis for forum characterization and specifies their coding. The goal of the qualitative analysis of the forum transcripts was to develop a better understanding of the features of communication in our text-stimulated forum discussions, for which students were given specific guidelines and assessment criteria. Regularities or patterns, or what Tesch (1990, p. 113) calls "commonalities," were searched for in the data, through repetitive readings of the transcripts. The analysis involved extracting what seemed to be significant or key phrases/sentences and then clustering them by category or issue. In addition, the awareness of audience and the overall flow of the discussions were checked. The goal of the quantitative analysis was to check the amount of student writing (length of contributions), the presence or absence of audience awareness (explicit acknowledgment of others but not necessarily implying interaction), and the extent of interaction (number of replies to a thread-opening message). Table 4. Forum Coding Forum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Class Biology, Section 1 Biology, Section 1 Biology, Section 2 Biology, Section 2 Math & Computer Science Math & Computer Science Engineering Engineering

Forum topic Extinctions Cloning Extinctions Cloning Fermat Cloning Fermat Cloning

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Usability and Sufficiency of Assessment Criteria The instances of reflection and interaction were easily located, so the assessment criteria were deemed usable. Assessing a student’s contributions to a forum took an average of 25 minutes, meaning that it could take two full days to mark one forum for a class of 30 students. The assessment involved reading each contribution in the context of the other students’ messages and checking for the presence of reflection and interaction, whether explicitly marked or not. However, because reading a student’s contributions often required "jumping" from page to page to find all of that student’s messages as well as remembering what the student had written on the previous page, the time involved may not be a function of the criteria but rather a result of the technical aspects of the application. In other words, grading using other criteria would probably have taken just as long.


56



Although interaction and reflection were found to be usable assessment criteria, they did not prove to be sufficient. The comparison of the holistic assessment with the criteria-based grades showed that the two did not always match. In the cases of discrepancy, the holistic assessment was always lower. A closer look at those contributions revealed that in some cases, although the students had received full credit for reflection and interaction, their English was poor. In other cases, the contributions did not refer specifically to information in the texts, meaning that the students may have written without having read the texts carefully. As a result of this comparison, the criteria of reflection and interaction were deemed insufficient for assessing text-stimulated forum discussions in the EAP courses. Student Attitudes Towards the EAP Forums The results of the student attitude questionnaire are presented in Table 5. Table 5. Student Attitudes Question Were the tutorials helpful? Should English courses include forums? Did the grade motivate you to write better? Did the forums help you improve your writing? Should the teacher participate in the forums? Did the forums help you learn new words? Did the forums help you understand the texts? Did the forum help you prepare for the quiz?

Yes 76% 73% 70% 70% 53% 44% 40% 24%

As shown in Table 5, even though writing in the forums was time consuming, a large percentage of the students felt that forums should be included in the English courses, that is, that the activity was worthwhile. Similarly, a large percentage of the students felt that their writing improved as a result of their forum writing experiences. However, less than half of the students said that the forums helped them understand the texts. This is probably a result of the fact that, in the forums, students discussed their reactions to the ideas that interested them rather than discuss what was unclear in the texts. As mentioned above, in the main study, the forum instructions did not explicitly require students to ask and answer questions about the text. The high percentage of positive answers to the question of whether forums should be included in the EAP courses may reflect the fact that the students appreciated the extra opportunity to communicate with their peers, as reflected in comments 3 and 5 below. Comment 1 probably represents the feelings of the 27% who felt that forums should not be part of the course. Comments 2 and 4 show a preference for this type of task over more traditional homework tasks. 1) "Forum participation should not be required but optional. I usually just write something because I have to, and it weighs down on me." 2) "Forum participation enriched the course. It forced me to use English to express thoughts and feelings . . . it improved my vocabulary and writing skills." 3) "It allowed me to get to know my classmates better." 4) "Forum text discussions are much better than answering questions on worksheets!" 5) "It was interesting to read my classmates’ comments." The fact that 70% of the students felt that the grade was important to motivate them seems to indicate that forum participation should be assessed and graded.


57



Effect of Asynchronous Discussion on Writing The first and last forums were analyzed for language complexity. The text analysis comparing the two forums showed no significant differences in quantity, lexical diversity, word length, and number of words per sentence. In Table 6, number of words reflects quantity, which is also a sign of fluency; lexical diversity is the ratio of different words to the total number of words, reflecting lexical variation or richness of vocabulary, which is an indicator of textual quality; average number of syllables per word reflects word length, which indicates lexical sophistication; and average number of words per sentence is a measure of syntactic complexity (Ortega, 2003). Table 6. Language Complexity Means (N=20) Number of words Lexical diversity Mean Syllables per word Mean Words per sentence

First Forum 208 63% 1.65 19.4

Last Forum 238 60% 1.59 18.4

p 0.26 0.15 0.06 0.30

The fact that no significant differences were found between the language complexity in the first and last forums is not surprising for a number of reasons. First, in a short period of a few months, language development may not be observable with advanced students. An observation period of a year of college level instruction is probably needed for substantial changes in the syntactic complexity of L2 writing to be observed (Ortega, 2003). Second, although no significant improvement in language complexity was found, language improvement may have been evident had the criterion been other than language complexity, for example, grammatical accuracy. Thirdly, had the sample not been random but rather handpicked to include only the weaker students, improvement may have been apparent. Finally, the students probably had more time to devote to English assignments at the beginning of the semester, when they wrote for the first forum, than at the end of the semester, when they needed time to prepare for final exams in all their courses. Forum Characteristics A number of issues emerged from the qualitative and quantitative analyses of the forum transcripts. The results are discussed below and illustrative examples presented, unedited except for spelling corrections. The generalizability of these results is limited to forum discussions with similar contexts. Qualitative The qualitative analysis revealed the following characteristics: Academic register plus. Students were instructed to write their forum messages as academic exchanges and to avoid informal abbreviations and other informal usage. At the same time, they knew that one of the assessment criteria was interaction with their peers. The analysis of the transcripts showed the use of written academic register accompanied by informal conversational interactions, including expression of feelings through smileys and exclamation points. Linguistically, the forum writing was an amalgam, containing both informal conversational elements and formal academic discourse. The informal elements, common in spoken registers (Biber, 2006), included language indicating thought processes and the expression of stance, for example, I think, and the language used to express feelings, for example, I really don't have an answer, I wish I had. . . . The students used compound and complex sentences as well as simple sentences. They used rich academic vocabulary, including adjectives, adverbs, and sentence connectors, which are not common in oral discussions (Crystal, 2001). Whether the words came from the dictionary or from other resources used, the data show that the students were aware of these lexical items as they consciously incorporated them into their forum messages. Here are some examples:


58



"We don't hunt and destroy natural habitats of animals simply for survival, we do it mostly for our comfort, without taking into account the consequence of our actions." (Forum 3) "The inevitable question regarding the above facts is: How would human cloning affect the world population? Is it going to be a negligible factor? Is it going to extremely accelerate the overpopulation process?" (Forum 6) Involvement with source materials and peer messages. Reflection and interaction were apparent in the forum messages through the opinions and thoughts students expressed, evidencing deep involvement with source materials and with peer opinions, reflected in expressions of disagreement, thoughtful questions posed to peers, and rhetorical questions. The involvement with the source materials was evident in the claims students made and the support they provided. This type of writing can be assumed to be the product of a process of mindful reading of the resources. Here is an example: "Most people think that cloning is the victory of human over the nature. I want to refer to this issue by checking two points that in my opinion refute the sentence above. First of all scientists are using woman's egg, and need woman's womb for hosting…. Second, we can't promise that the clone will have the exact attributes like the source. He will be growing up in another environment and under different condition." (Forum 8) Involvement with peer opinions is reflected in the following example: "Let me tell you something. You think that Wiles sacrificed his life because he abandoned his friends and because he lived in total isolation. Well, maybe for normal people this is a life of sacrifice, but for him this wasn’t. For him, proving Fermat’s last theorem was his goal and quitting from his lifetime goal will be the real sacrifice." (Forum 7) At times, student involvement led to a sharing of their thought processes with the class (see the interactions in Appendix A, for example) and demonstrated how writing facilitates understanding (Lapadat, 2002). Student interactions in the forums were explicit and constructive, often including a positive statement before expressing criticism, for example, "I agree with you about how it is amazing to think about theorems when you are ten years old !!! But in the other hand, . . ." (Forum 7). The interaction often went back and forth a number of times as the students responded to the remarks of their classmates (see Appendix B for an example). Moreover, all forum discussions stayed on topic. The forum messages included many questions, as would be expected in authentic communicative exchanges, questions to which the writers genuinely seemed to be waiting for a reply. For example, in response to a student’s comment that she would permit the cloning of animals but not of humans, another asked: "Why do you believe that scientists should be allowed to clone animals and not humans? What is the difference?" (Forum 2). Students also used rhetorical questions as a means of expressing their ideas, for example, "What will happen to our lives if clones will be allowed? People will create their babies . . ." (Forum 2). Audience awareness was evident in almost all of the messages. Crystal (2001, p. 18) claimed, ". . . as the Internet is a medium almost entirely dependent on reactions to written messages, awareness of audience must hold a primary place in any discussion." Forum 7 (with 67 messages) was randomly selected, and the initial sentences in each message were read. In almost all of the initial sentences, the students indicated awareness of their audience at some point, for example, "Hi everyone" or a reference to "an article that WE read."


59



Forum messages also included references to peer contributions and required source materials, with occasional extension beyond the required readings and the classroom. Some messages showed that students chose to read several postings before contributing to the discussion. For example, "As many of you claimed, and I agree, biological diversity is tremendously important to humankind" (Forum 3). Moreover, students appreciated the new perspective gained from reading their classmates’ messages, for example, "You gave me a new point of view" (Forum 4). Whether the purpose of reading the messages was to decide to whom to respond, to see what their classmates thought, or simply to look over sample contributions, students were involved in this authentic reading experience as a side effect of the forum writing assignment. Not only did students discuss the forum topics with their classmates through the forums, but some also talked with their friends and families: "I came home and asked my family and friends what their opinion was, and as I expected they were all amazed" (Forum 8). Others connected the forum discussions to external knowledge resources: "In my opinion (and as we learned in ecology class ) . . ." (Forum 1). Quantitative Through the quantitative analysis of the data and the records, the following characteristics emerged: Characteristic length of contributions. A quantitative feature that can be used to characterize online messages is length. In a group discussion of a novel in a U.S. college, Crystal (2001) found an average message length of 8.1 lines (p. 145). In the analysis, great variance was found in the lengths of the contributions, ranging from extremes of only a few words to several hundred words. To estimate the amount of English students wrote, the words in each of the messages in Forum 1 were counted, and the other forums were searched for very short and very long messages. Forum 1 had an average of about 175 words per student, per forum, but this average gives only a rough idea of the amount of student writing, as the values were widely distributed and included extremes of 431 and 63. The longest single message in all the forums contained 887 words (many more than necessary), and the shortest, a mere 22 words (many fewer than expected). Table 7. Unanswered Thread-Opening Messages Forum 5 7 1 2 3 6 8 4

Unanswered thread-opening messages 24% 29% 37% 40% 42% 42% 52% 53%

Extent of interaction. The extent of interaction varied across the forums. Two related aspects of the interaction were checked: the number of thread-opening messages that went unanswered and the average number of replies to a thread-opening message. A thread-opening message is an attempt to start a threaded discussion. If no one replies, the thread never materializes. The percentages of thread-opening messages that went unanswered in each of the eight forums are presented in Table 7, in ascending order. All the forums contained thread-opening messages that went unanswered. The range was from 24 to 53%. What may explain this variation? Four explanations seem plausible: time, topic, language, and social reasons. For example, if a message was posted close to the date when the forum was ‘locked,’ other students would not have had time to answer (i.e., time). This was observed in many instances of unanswered messages. If the topic of a given message was not interesting or motivating, other students


60



would not have replied (i.e., topic). An unclear message, instead of being followed by a question of clarification may have been left unanswered by busy peers (i.e., language). It was observed that students tended to reply to their friends, and therefore some messages remained unanswered (i.e., social). The interaction index (see Table 8), developed by the authors to measure the amount of interaction that took place, had a small range of values. This index was calculated by averaging the number of replies to each thread-opening message. The modified index is the average number of replies to those threadopening messages for which there were replies, that is, excluding those thread-opening messages that had no replies. The average number of replies (see modified index) ranged from 2 to 4. What may explain the variance? One possible explanation is the interest level of the topic itself, and another is the interest level of the thread-opening message. Table 8. Interaction Index Forum 6 1 7 3 8 5 2 4

Interaction index 2.53 2.47 2.24 1.57 1.21 1.67 1.24 0.94

Modified index 4.36 3.92 3.13 2.75 2.50 2.12 2.07 2.00

The purpose of the analysis of the forum transcripts was to see how the students communicated in their asynchronous discussions. Did the forum guidelines and the assessment criteria affect student messages? They probably did because the guidelines and the criteria played a part in forming the context for the forum communication. In addition, assessment often has a backwash effect on what students pay attention to and how they perform. The analysis revealed that the students did indeed follow the guidelines, as was reflected in the characteristics of their writing. Interestingly, however, the analysis revealed an additional characteristic that was not part of the guidelines, namely, informal conversational style. FINAL THOUGHTS The insights that emerged from this study have deepened our understanding of the use of forums in EAP courses. Forums allow for written communication in English among students who would normally communicate in their native language. When language learners contribute to a forum discussion, they get experience in L2 communication, without slipping into their native language, as can occur in EFL class discussions. In this study, the forum discussions required students to write about academic topics and express and support their ideas, while communicating with their peers in English. The asynchronous nature of the discussions allowed the students to think before "speaking," and the permanence of the writing may have encouraged them to be responsible for what they wrote. Asynchronous CMC seemed to encourage a unique type of thoughtful interchange. Although the researchers originally thought that forum writing could substitute for text-based homework questions, the results of the study showed that the online discussions could not serve this purpose. Students were interested in discussing the ideas, especially the controversial ideas in a text, and not in checking to see if they were able to follow an argument correctly or understand a fine point. The students did not discuss the texts, as had been expected; rather, they used the forums to react to the ideas, the new information, and the authors’ arguments. The texts constituted the stimuli and provided the content,


61



vocabulary, issues, and ideas for discussion. This may explain the results of the attitude questionnaire, which showed that very few students felt that the forum discussion helped them prepare for the quizzes or understand the texts. It may also explain the fact that students did not ask for text clarification in the forums. Regarding the assessment criteria, reflection and interaction were found to be usable but insufficient. Based on this finding, two assessment criteria were added: a) language and b) reference to specific information in the text (see Figure 3 for the revised criteria). The former was added to encourage accuracy and clarity of expression and eventually to improve the quality of students’ academic writing even if this was not the main goal of the forum discussions. The latter was added to encourage "text-responsible" (Weigle, Boldt, & Valsecchi, 2003) contributions. As in a typical academic discussion, students need to point to (i.e., cite) the specific information in the text that provided the basis for their thoughts. Further research could test the suitability and usability of the new set of criteria.

Figure 3. Revised assessment criteria now in use as guidelines for EAP forum writing. The fact that a large majority of the students felt that forums should be part of the courses and should be graded lends relevance to the quest for assessment criteria. Moreover, the apparent effect of the guidelines on forum communication shows the importance of sound assessment criteria. The addition of a language criterion may raise language awareness and impact the quality of student writing. A future study could investigate the effect of the addition of the language criterion on grammatical accuracy. Forum writing can now be assessed in a way that is suitable to context, medium, and purpose. The criteria of reflection and reference to information in the text make the assessment suitable to the academic context; the criterion of interaction makes the assessment suitable to the digital medium; and the criterion of language makes the assessment suitable to the purpose of language courses. The assessment criteria that emerged from this study may be used as a basis for guidelines for effective academic communication. The forums offered students the opportunity to write extensively and mindfully, to use the rich academic vocabulary encountered in their readings, to learn from teacher feedback and peer contributions, and to become aware of the criteria necessary to assess and improve their writing. Based on the positive attitudes of the students and their reflection and interaction in the forums, there seems to be a place for textstimulated forum discussions in EAP courses.


62



APPENDICES Appendix A. Example of Extensive Forum Interaction From the forum discussion on the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem in the course, "English for Engineering" Message from S I think that Andrew Wiles donated a big part of his life for math. 7 years he tried and succeed to prove Fermat Lest Theoren. As I see it, Wiles sacrificed a bit of his personal life. In the article, the author wrote that Wiles had abandoned any work, which was not directly relevant to Fermat Lest Theorem. In order to keep his work confidential, Wiles needed to insolate himself from his familiar society. My question for you is: dose it worth it? Dose the proof worth Wiles' sacrifice? I would like to read what you think about it. Sincerely yours S Reply from D Hi S…, I believe that all those years that Prof. Wiles devoted in order to prove Fermat's last theorem worth it. In retrospective it was worth even if he had failed to prove it. I think so, mainly because his work developed the mathematics in a unique way. In page 19 it is said: "I could try and prove results, which, even if they didn't get the whole thing, would be worthwhile mathematics. I didn't feel I'd be wasting my time". In order to show how he already contributed to the mathematics before he had completed his proof, I bring the following quotation from page 26: "After three years of non-stop effort Wiles had made series of breakthroughs. He had applied Galois groups to elliptic Equations, he had broken the elliptic equations into an infinite number of pieces, and then he had proved that the first piece of every elliptic equation had to be modular". In addition, he was awarded by the prize and glory that come with a successful proof of a 300 years problem, that great mathematicians had failed to prove. Yours, D Reply from S HEY S…


63



i read what you wrote, and i think that if someone has a dream, he should do everything to achieve it, even if he has to give up a lot. in WEILES'S case , he gave up his enviroment, but not his family that has ben their for him , so actually he succsseded achievung his dream, and yet having a supportive family, which in some cases is the best enviorment that someone can have-so in some way-he had it whole. sincerely yours, S Reply from M Regarding your question: I think it is a tough question and there is no obvious answer. Some would say that Wiles dedicared his life for proving a useless theorem. As we all know 'Fermat's Last Theorem' has no implementations. Furthermore it is almost insignificant as fr as the number theory is concerned. Others would say that Mathmatics is a philosophical science that does not always have to connected top the real world. It means that when a mathematician faces a problem, he/she tries to solve it no matter what the consequences are. The purity of Mathmatics depends on its completeness and integrity. Therefore mathematicians are commited to solve all the open problems left in Mathmatics. I belong to the second group. Reply from A G In the article we read about Wiles sacrificese. For 7 years he tried to prove a theory that cost him his life. It cost him his life because he abanded everything that was importent : his work ,his family and most important his friends. I think that when someone sacrifisied does things he sacrifice his life because that family and friends are some of the things that are the most important in life and nothing in the world do not worth this sacrifice, specially no math........ Sincerely yours, AG The cost of the research Reply from S In my opinion the cost he paid for the proving of the formula is not as high as you might think. It wasn’t said he was closed in his home for 7 years and tried to prove the formula, he had a social life and met with friends and even became a father. It might be the he had reduced the amount of the free time activities he participated in but still he wasn’t totally isolated from the society. Further more he tried to make his dream come true and he succeeded. Many people wasted their lives (literally) trying to make their dream come true so the 7 years he wasted for the research isn't very large amount of time and surely not time wasted for nothing. Put yourselves in this situation! Reply from H


64



When I read the article I had some thinking about sacrificing your life for your study; and not only in math but also in any research. Most of you said that the proof worth Wiles' sacrifices. Is it?! I had some problems thinking this way. Can you think about sacrificing your own life for your own research? What about Wiles' choices; he abandoned he's friends, he worked along (with out even tell his colleagues), and even publish some research in order not to arouse suspicion. Can you definitely sure you'll do the same?! What about you're studying today? Do you truly sacrifice your own life in order to succeed this year? If yes, do you feel ok with that, without any regrets? What about your friends, your family? If you'll try to put yourselves in this situation, I think you will have much more problem answering simply "yes". Sincerely yours, H Of course its worth it! Reply from Y Let me tell you something. You think that Wiles sacrificed his life, because he obendend his friends and because he lived in totall isoletion. Well maybe for normal peopel this is a life scrifice, but for him this was'nt. For him proving Fermat's last theorem was his goal, and quiting from his lifetime goal will be the real life sacrifice. In my opinion the true way to solve a problam (like Fermat's last theorem) is Wiles way. Furthermore I think that life are worth screficing for a limited time (7 years for example), for achieving your dream, think about it... Sincerely yours, Y you made me think about.... Reply from K As a student at a program that is specified for research, you made me think if that is what I want to do for living. On tha one hand, I'm very interested in the human body, and on the other hand, I want to live, to have life other than that. As much as I want to learn about our body, and discover thing (without isolating...)' I also want to hav fun, have family and live a fully life... Wiles chose to have one thing mainly. Without criticized him, I think that the favored way is to find the balance between them, and enjoy the both.


65



That's how i see it. K (Medical student who joined the English for Engineering course) childhood dreams... Reply from A In my opinion, the answer to this question is not conclusive. Andrew Wiles chose to fulfill his childhood dream, and realized that in order to do so, he would have to isolate himself for several years, until he would managed to work out the answer. There is no doubt that the height of mathematician's life is proving a theorem that no other mathematician in the last centuries has managed to prove. Furthermore, one can see that he didn't neglect his family, out of the understanding that they were helping him by supporting him fulfill his dream. Therefore I believe Andrew Wiles chose the way that was fit his dreams, instead of living normal boring mathematician life... Sincerely yours, SW Appendix B. Example of Thought Development Shared in Forum From forum discussion of cloning in the course English for Biology: About the couple who lost their only son-what if it took them years of fertility tests and treatment in order to give birth to this one son which they adore, admire and worship the ground he walks on...I think I got carried away. What I meant to say is: what if they can't have another child? Also, even if they can have more children, who is to say this specific child might not have grown up to become a great scientist that will find a cure for cancer? Then again, maybe he will become a bum or, if we consider the traumatic experience his parents have been through, a disturbed individual. You can't tell, and nobody else can either... so that is why I think it's a problem to decide whether or not it should be legal to clone human beings. I really don't have an answer, I wish I had ... I was thinking about a governmental committee to decide whether a person should be cloned or not. However, such a committee may be prone to corruption, resulting in a situation where only the rich and powerful will be able to have a second chance for a better life, only they will be able to revive their loved ones and only they will be able to become in a way immortal. Ergo I am not sure this is such a great idea. Does anyone else have other suggestions?


66



ABOUT THE AUTHORS Sara Kol develops and teaches English for Academic Purposes science courses at Tel Aviv University. She develops online learning materials and course websites. She is also a teacher trainer in a national project preparing high school English teachers to develop materials and teach with cutting-edge technology. Her research interests are EAP curriculum development, digital text presentation and CMC in advanced EFL courses. Email: [email protected] Miriam Schcolnik is Director of the Language Learning Center at Tel Aviv University. She develops and teaches advanced courses in English for Academic Purposes and Technology in Language Teaching. She designs multimedia programs and online learning environments, and has written many EFL textbooks and teachers' resource books. Her research interests are e-reading and computer mediated communication in language learning. Email: [email protected]

REFERENCES Althaus, S. (1996). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with online discussions. Paper prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/conference_papers/_manuscripts/sal96a.pdf. Angeli, C., Bonk, C. J., & Hara, N. (1998). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. CRLT Technical Report, No. 2–98. Retrieved from Ingenta Connect. Bhagyavati, Kurkovsky, S., & Whitehead, C.C. (2005). Using Asynchronous Discussions to Enhance Student Participation in CS Courses. Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, St. Louis, Missouri, 111-115. Retrieved from ACM Digital Library. Barbour, M. K., & Collins, M. A. J. (2005). Online writing as an indicator of student performance. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(8). Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Aug_05/article02.htm . Bauer, J. F. (2002). Assessing student work from chatrooms and bulletin boards. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 91, 31–36. Berge, Z. (1997). Computer conferencing and the on-line classroom. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 3(1), 3–21. Bernath, U., & Hulsmann, T. (undated). Asynchronous discussions in virtual seminars: Might they work? Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/zef/literat/eden0203.pdf . Bernath, U., & Rubin, E. (1999). Final Report and Documentation of the Virtual Seminar for Professional Development in Distance Education. A project within the AT&T Global Distance Learning Initiative sponsored by the AT&T Foundation and the International Council for Open and Distance Education, BIS-Verlag: Oldenburg, Germany. Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.


67



Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2004). Asynchronous web discussions in teacher training courses: Promoting collaborative learning—or not? AACE Journal, 12(2), 155–170. Black, A. (2005). The use of asynchronous discussion: Creating a text of talk. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 5–24. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Bohlke, O. (2003). A comparison of student participation levels by group size and language stages during chatroom and face-to-face discussions in German. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 67–88. Chong, S. M. (1998). Models of asynchronous computer conferencing for collaborative learning in large college classes. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy apprenticeship and discourse (pp. 157–182). New Jersey: L. Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17–31. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummings, J. A.; Bonk, C. J., & Jacobs, F. R. (2002). Twenty first century college syllabi: Options for online communication and interactivity. Internet and Higher Education, 5(1), 1–19. Dougiamas, M., & Taylor, P. C. (2003). Moodle: Using learning communities to create an open source course management system. Proceedings of the EDMEDIA 2003 Conference, Honolulu, HI. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://dougiamas.com/writing/edmedia2003/. Dringus, L. P., & Ellis, T. J. (2004). Building the SCAFFOLD for evaluating threaded discussion forum activity: Describing and categorizing contributions. 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 20–23, Savannah, GA. Duffy, T. M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C. L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy apprenticeship and discourse (pp. 51–77). New Jersey: L. Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209–224. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory & practice of writing. London: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2002). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152. Harasim, L. (1992). Foreword: Towards the electronic university. In M. Paulsen's, From bulletin boards to electronic universities: Distance education, Computer-mediated communication, and online education. ACSDE Research Monograph, Pennsylvania State University. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing—The Najaden papers (pp. 117–136). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Ho, S. (2002). Evaluating students' participation in on-line discussions. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw02/papers/refereed/ho/paper.html. Language Learning & Technology

68



Jonassen, D. (2001). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. Paper presented at 3rd Simposio Internacional de Informatica Educativa, Portugal. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://www.esev.ipv.pt/3siie/actas/actas/doc01.pdf. Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210. Lamy, M. N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). Reflective conversation in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43–61. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num2/article2/index.html. Lapadat, J. C. (2002). Written interaction: A key component in online learning. JCMC, 7(4). Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue4/lapadat.html. Lemke, J. L. (1989). Making text talk. Theory-into-Practice, 28(2), 136–41. McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how? In A. Herrmann & M. M. Kulski (Eds.), Flexible futures in tertiary teaching. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2–4 February, 2000. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html. Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 82-93. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/ortega/default.html. Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. Oskoz, A. (2005). Students’ dynamic assessment via online chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 512–136. Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: the role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sauvignon, S. (Ed.) (2002). Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Schrire, S. (2003). A model for evaluating the process of learning in asynchronous computer conferencing. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 17(1), 6–12. Sherry, L. (2000). The nature and purpose of online discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(1), 19–52. Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82–119. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html. Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computerassisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24(4), 491–501. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: The Falmer Press. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2–3), 7–26. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


69



Warschauer, M. (2007). Technology and writing. In C. Davison & J. Cummins (Eds.), The International Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 907-912). Norwell, MA: Springer. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge Language Assessment Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weigle, S. C., Boldt, H., & Valsecchi, M. I. (2003). Effects of task and rater background on the evaluation of ESL student writing: A pilot study. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 345–354. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Wu, D., & Hiltz, R. S. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139-152. Zamel, V. (1992). Writing one's way into reading. TESOL Quarterly, 26(3), 463-485.


70

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/xingetal/


RAISING STUDENTS' AWARENESS OF CROSS-CULTURAL CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC IN ENGLISH WRITING VIA AN ELEARNING COURSE Minjie Xing, University of Manchester Jinghui Wang, Harbin Institute of Technology Kenneth Spencer, University of Hull This study investigated the potential impact of e-learning on raising overseas students' cultural awareness and explored the possibility of creating an interactive learning environment for them to improve their English academic writing. The study was based on a comparison of Chinese and English rhetoric in academic writing, including a comparison of Chinese students' writings in Chinese with native English speakers' writings in English and Chinese students' writings in English with the help of an e-course and Chinese students' writings in English without the help of an e-course. Five features of contrastive rhetoric were used as criteria for the comparison. The experimental results show that the group using the e-course was successful in learning about defined aspects of English rhetoric in academic writing, reaching a level of performance that equalled that of native English speakers. Data analysis also revealed that e-learning resources helped students to compare rhetorical styles across cultures and that the interactive learning environment was effective in improving overseas students' English academic writing. INTRODUCTION Academic writing is complex in that it involves more than grammar. It involves familiarity with the writing conventions of university culture and disciplinary subcultures in which the second/foreign language learner participates (Schneider & Fujishima, 1995). Ballard and Clanchy (1984) found that while a student is inducted into a particular discipline through lectures, discussions, and laboratory work, it is through the written assignments that success is most commonly judged. Although foreign language proficiency is at the heart of writing, the real problem for overseas students is not language-related errors, but the fact that students have not met the expectations of the academic reader of the target language. Learners who come from communities that practise other forms of discourse, or communities in which literate discourse serves either no viable function or an entirely different purpose, are at a disadvantage, because they have not realised or accepted the registers and purposes of discourse in the academic community (Grabe & Kaplan, 1989; Stern, 1992). For some overseas students, essays have to be written in the unfamiliar rhetorical styles of the target culture (Crowe & Peterson, 1995). An added complexity is that different cultural conventions are involved in academic argument. These conventions are important from the point of view of the teacher in that overseas students may have a logical orientation, but it may be perceived to be illogical to a reader anticipating a different culturally-constrained demonstration of logic. Jordan (1997) looked at the writing difficulties of overseas postgraduates attending writing classes at a university in the U.K. The students were asked to comment on their own writing problems using a sixpoint scale, ranging from no difficulties to a lot of difficulties. The order of problem areas selected by the students (%) is listed below:


71

Xing, Wang, and Spencer

Students' Awareness of Cross-Cultural Contrastive Rhetoric

vocabulary

62%

style

53%

spelling

42%

grammar

38%

punctuation

18%

handwriting

12%

A similar questionnaire was given to the students’ instructors. Their responses were as follows: style

92%

grammar

77%

vocabulary

70%

handwriting

31%

punctuation

23%

spelling

23%

The results illustrate the mismatch between student and instructor perceptions of the problems associated with students' written work. Whereas students selected vocabulary as offering the greatest challenge (62%), instructors clearly indicated style as being of greatest concern (92%). Students generally underestimated their problems, with large discrepancies for style and grammar when compared with the instructors’ perceptions. Clearly this academic barrier will lead to an escalation of academic culture shock for the overseas students, especially as it was not seen as a barrier by nearly 50% of the students surveyed. Weir (1988) also conducted a wide-ranging survey of instructors and students that considered the writing difficulties of overseas students and concluded that the clarity of the message and the arrangement and development of written work were the most important criteria in tutors' assessments of written work. However, further research by Santos (1988), who investigated the reactions of 178 professors to two 400word compositions, one of which was written by a Chinese student, revealed that lexical errors were the most serious problem for non-native speakers, suggesting that Jordan's students' perceptions may not be wholly incorrect. Achieving success in a new culture does not, however, lie solely in learning the grammar and lexicon of the language. Ability to negotiate cultural barriers and develop new ways of learning are also essential. Teachers need to be familiar with the socio-cultural sources of the problems encountered by overseas students writing in a foreign language, including differences in rhetorical styles (Cai, 1993). As most overseas students bring with them linguistic, cultural, attitudinal, and academic experiences (Leki, 1992), and many of them already possess study skills at an advanced level in their own language, what they actually need is help in transferring these skills to the target language and adjusting them to a different academic environment (Jordan, 1997). The rationale for the development of the e-course described here was to lessen the impact of these cultural barriers by raising students' awareness of cross-cultural contrastive rhetoric and facilitating their academic writing in the target language. Theoretical Bases Contrastive rhetoric is the study of the differences that occur between the discourses of different languages and cultures as reflected in foreign students' writing. Kaplan (1966) suggested that all written languages contain a variety of organisational modes, and that native speakers recognise which modes to use and the consequences of their choices. However, he implied that the non-native speaker does not Language Learning & Technology

72



possess a complete inventory of possible alternatives, does not recognise the sociolinguistic constraints of those alternatives, and does not know what constraints a choice imposes on the text. Kaplan's data were used (see Connor, 2002; Hinds, 1990; Hirose, 2003) to support contrastive rhetoric as a theory that dealt with foreign language learners' cultural barriers in their academic writing. Such studies show how writers' cultural backgrounds influence their organisation of writing; what they choose to use as evidence in supporting their main ideas; how they express their main ideas; and how they write in the foreign language (Benda, 1999). They also show how different rhetorical preferences are reflected in textual organisation in different languages (Grabe & Kaplan, 1989). Contrastive rhetoric is also an area of research in second/foreign language learning that identifies problems in composition encountered by second/foreign language writers by referring them to the rhetorical strategies of the first language. It maintains that language and writing are cultural phenomena, and, as a direct consequence, each language has unique rhetorical conventions (Connor, 1996). For foreign students, linguistic and cultural patterns transfer to their writing in the target language not only at the word and sentence level but also at the discourse level (Moran, 1991). Since their original styles may not work with the new tasks assigned by the target language teachers, they need to adapt to the new academic context which has its own conventions (Jordan, 1997). White (2001) explored the reasons why a student who has produced a grammatically acceptable text failed to fulfil the requirements of the writing task and indicated that cultural expectancies influence the perceived success or failure of written communication. Learning to compose in a foreign language is not an isolated classroom activity, but a social and cultural experience. For example, the rules of English composition encapsulate values that are absent in, or sometimes contradictory to, the values of other societies. Likewise, the rules of Chinese writing reflect beliefs and values that may not be found in other societies. Therefore, learning the rules of composition in a foreign language is, to a certain extent, learning the values of the corresponding foreign society (Shen, 1989). The process of learning to write in the target language is a process of creating and defining a new identity and balancing it with the old identity. The following five contrastive features were identified for study, based on the research of Ballard and Clanchy (1991), Cho (1999), Connor (1996), Cortazzi and Jin (1997), and Schneider and Fujishima (1995). 1. Inductive vs. Deductive (Presence and Placement of Thesis Statement) A paper written in the preferred British or American deductive style, in which the main idea is stated first, would be considered poorly written in China, where the inductive pattern is more common, with background material given first to lead the reader to the main point (Cortazzi & Jin, 1997). For the same reason, a Chinese student's delayed introduction of purpose makes the writing appear incoherent to the English-speaking reader (Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Connor, 1996). Matalene (1985) argued, based on sample essays written by Chinese ESL students in China, that arguments are often delayed and statements sometimes seem unconnected in the eyes of the Western reader. Scarcella (1984) examined the function of initial sentences in native- and non-native English-speaking American university freshman essays and found that non-native speakers tended to use longer but less effective "orientations" (i.e., introductions to the topic). Schneider and Fujishima (1995) also claim that, at the discourse level, the Chinese student has learned the technique of starting with a broad topic and gradually narrowing it down to the focus of the paper. It is possible to judge whether an essay is inductive or deductive by looking at the presence and placement of the thesis statement, as Cho (1999) suggests. A thesis statement is defined as a sentence summarising the fundamental argument of an essay (Megginson, 1996). Therefore, if the thesis statement is placed at


73



the beginning of the introduction or in the first paragraph, the essay is assumed to be deductive, and if not, it might be either inductive or quasi-inductive. 2. "Start-Sustain-Turn-Sum" vs. "Introduction-Body-Conclusion" (Number of Paragraphs) It is claimed that Chinese rhetorical style consists of a four-part pattern: qi ('start, open') establishes the field or prepares the reader for the topic; cheng ('carry on, sustain') introduces and develops the topic; zhuan ('turn') turns to a seemingly unrelated subject or looks at the problem from another angle; and he ('conclude') sums up the essay whereby the author's opinion is established or hinted at (Connor, 1996; Grabe & Kaplan, 1998; Hinds, 1990; Swales, 1990). This pattern is believed to have originated historically in Chinese poetry (Tsao, 1983). Differently from the qi-cheng-zhuan-he pattern, the English way of structuring an essay, though its structure is flexible, normally includes introduction, body and conclusion. English essays generally place more emphasis on form than do Chinese essays. Each part has its distinct function: the introduction brings out the theme, the middle contains the argument with its supporting evidence, and the ending summarises the essay. Chinese writing places the emphasis more on the whole: it is more synthetic, more changeable, and there is no clear-cut separation between the parts. Also, Chinese rhetorical style is not very strict about the need for coherent links between parts. It relies more heavily on the reader's interpretation. The structural pattern of an essay can be determined by looking at the number and function of the paragraphs. Cho (1999) proposes that "the total and average numbers of paragraphs may reflect the general structure of the essay that each group of students intended to construct" (p. 23). From this view, comparing numbers and functions of paragraphs may reveal rhetorical differences between the two groups and contribute to the identification of the rhetorical style of an essay. 3. Circular vs. Linear (Topic Sentences and Topic Changes) Kaplan (1966) suggested that Anglo-European expository essays follow a linear development, whereas in Chinese the paragraph development may be said to be "turning and turning in a widening gyre." The circles or gyres turn around the subject and show it from a variety of tangential views, but the subject is never looked at directly. Ostler (1997) demonstrated that 89% of essays by native speakers of American English in her study put the theme at the beginning of the essay. Because of their familiarity with the Anglo-European linear style, many Western teachers find Asian students' essays confusing, either because there is no topic sentence in a paragraph or because too many things are mentioned within one paragraph. As a result, they commonly comment that a paragraph is irrelevant, illogical, or unclear. Shen (1989) claimed that the essential rule for English logical organisation is the use of a topic sentence, whereas the essential structural rule for Chinese composition is to proceed from the surface to the core. Young (1994) contended that the qi-chen-zhuan-he pattern continues to influence Chinese writing, and Western readers might see Chinese style as circular starts, tangential views, and subdued stances. In Eason's (1995) study, Chinese students employed topic-comment structure, delayed introduction of purpose, and abruptly shifted their viewpoint. None of the American students exhibited topic-comment structure or delayed introduction of purpose. Circularity can be measured by looking at the frequency of topic changes in paragraphs where topic sentences are used. Linearity can be indicated by a low frequency of topic changes or a low average number of topic sentences in a paragraph. 4. Metaphorical vs. Straightforward (Use of Metaphors and Proverbs) In China, one of the important criteria for grading writing is the use of allusion, analogy, and proverbs, since their usage is thought to contribute to the beauty of the language (Chen & Chung, 1994). ESL/EFL teachers often comment that their students use patterns of language and stylistic conventions that they have learnt in their native languages and cultures. This transfer is not just idiosyncratic variation but involves recurring patterns of organisation and rhetorical conventions reminiscent of writing in the


74



students' native language and culture (Connor, 1996, p. 3). Matalene (1985) found that Chinese students are fond of fixed patterns such as proverbs, idioms, maxims, literary allusions, and analogies, and also defer to tradition and to the authority of the past. In contrast, Western readers regard these patterns as clichés, and Western teachers of writing encourage students to write in their own voice using their own words. The elusiveness of allusions, analogies, and proverbs allows, or even encourages, more than one interpretation of their meaning. Whether it is or is not desirable to use metaphors and proverbs is open to debate, but this is one of the areas where contrastive differences in rhetoric can be examined. 5. Explicit Discourse Markers (Marks of Coherence and Unity) English essays use explicit discourse markers to signal relations between sentences and parts of texts. These devices are words or phrases that act as aids to help readers make connections between what has already been stated and what is forthcoming (Connor, 1996). Comparisons are based on the counts of these logical devices within texts. It is through devices such as these that the writer is able to organise ideas and help readers follow along from one sentence to another (Byram, 1989). English readers expect and require landmarks of coherence and unity as they read. They believe that the writer needs to provide transitional statements. In Chinese, the beauty of writing is believed to lie in delicacy and subtlety, not in its straightforwardness (Shen & Yao, 1999). The Chinese language places emphasis on coherence of meaning rather than coherence of form. As long as ideas are flowing, it does not matter whether there is coherent form, for, as the proverb goes, "Every river flows into the sea." This underlying attitude toward writing affects the way textual information is organised and the techniques employed to implement the writing task. Discourse markers are also called "signposts" or "transitions." They give the appearance that logical connections exist between sentences, paragraphs and sections of the essay and allow readers to piece together ideas into a logically coherent argument. Burstein, Kukich, Wolff, Lu and Chodorow (1998) used discourse markers, in addition to syntactic information and topical content vector analyses, to mark essays because the total number of discourse markers reflects the general coherence and unity of the essay. Comparing the number of such markers should reveal rhetorical differences between the groups. Because L2 writers bring with them various cultural experiences that affect their writing, EFL teaching may not be successful if the underlying culture in the first language (L1) is not addressed, or if contrasts between L1 and L2 writing structures are not made sufficiently explicit. Students need to know not only the forms of language, but also the cultural constraints associated with the forms and the consequences of selecting a particular form. Understanding those contrastive aspects of two cultures may constitute the first step for ESL/EFL students to attain sensitivity to common errors traceable to their first language and culture. Approaches such as contrastive rhetoric provide a mechanism through which teachers may gain understanding of the problems faced by their students when trying to learn how to produce a coherent and cohesive text in L2 (Kaplan, 1990). METHOD Research Questions The first research question focuses on the rhetorical styles of Chinese and UK writers and asks: what are the differences in style, as measured by the indicators discussed, between UK and Chinese writers? Clearly, a failure to demonstrate measurable differences would undermine the theory outlined in the preceding sections. The second research question deals with the attainments of a group of 60 PhD students who have studied academic English, and asks: using the five measures outlined above, have these students already attained


75



a rhetorical style close to that used by UK writers, or does their English writing remain indistinguishable from that of other Chinese writers who have studied less or no English? The third research question concerns the success of the training course that is designed to shift the students’ style of writing closer to that of UK writers: is the training course successful in shifting student performance, and does the additional access to the associated e-course produce additional benefits? Participants Altogether 90 Chinese students and 15 English university lecturers participated in this study. Sixty students who were PhD candidates majoring in natural sciences at the Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT), China, were assigned to the Study Group. They were randomly assigned to an Experimental Group (N = 30) or a Control Group (N = 30) during the training phase. Students from both the Experimental and the Control Groups had four hours of English language instruction per week (two hours for listening/speaking and two hours for reading/writing). In addition, the Experimental Group used the ecourse for academic writing for supplementary instruction. Students in the Experimental Group were expected to spend twenty minutes every other week for each unit in the e-course. If students completed the assignment in less than twenty minutes, they could log out or use more time to follow further comparisons and discussions online. In addition, 30 Chinese students majoring in Chinese language studies (the Chinese Writers Group), provided a baseline for identifying rhetorical features in Chinese. Fifteen of these students were from Harbin Teachers' University and 15 were from Heilongjiang University. All of them were in their final year of undergraduate studies. Fifteen lecturers from Salford (the UK Writers Group) were teaching a basic foundation English course and most of their students were Chinese. Their essays were used as an English baseline for comparison with the writing style of the non-native speakers (NNS). The E-Learning Course An e-learning environment for the teaching of English academic writing was designed and implemented at the Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT) and Salford University. The objectives of the e-course were: • to raise awareness of differences in rhetorical styles; • to facilitate students' academic writing in the target language (English) to encourage social interaction among peers, between students and tutors and between EFL students and native speakers of English. The five contrastive rhetorical features were explained in the e-course, and opportunities for interaction among participants were provided through the use of synchronous chat room facilities, including occasional use of Web video cameras, and asynchronous e-mail and bulletin boards. The curriculum content of the e-course is summarised in Table 1. The students wrote an essay every other week during the study, going through the same process each time. During the writing process, students sent their first drafts to the e-course bulletin board and compared them with the Western linear vs. Chinese non-linear rhetorical organization templates, which were displayed in the discussion area of the e-course system. The tutor provided feedback on the students’ performance so that all members could look at both the draft essay and the tutor's comments. Students were encouraged to send their comments on their peers' work to the online discussion. They could also compare their own essays and those of their peers with essays written by Salford University lecturers, and then synchronously or asynchronously discuss essential aspects of the topic with native speakers before producing the final version of their own essays. This interactive procedure is shown in Figure 1.


76



Table 1. Curriculum Content of the e-Course. Instructions

Activities • •

definition of thesis Week 1-2 Theme/thesis statement and its functions statement

• •

• • Week 3-4 Topic sentences

definition of topic sentence and its functions

• • • • •

Week 5-6 Structure

introduction, main body, conclusion and their functions

Week 7-8 Paragraphs

definition of paragraphs and their functions

Week 9-10 Discourse markers

definition of discourse markers and their functions

•

• • • • •

read the model essays and identify thesis statement read the model essays with thesis statements omitted and insert an appropriate statement read the model essays with thesis statements taken out and write appropriate thesis statements write an essay of approximately 400 words on the topic of "Autonomy and control in higher education" with emphasis on the placement of theme/thesis statement. select the topic sentence in each paragraph in the model essays compare the selected sentences with the original and see if they are identical? Similar? read the model essays with topic sentences left out and insert appropriate topic sentences read the model essays with topic sentences taken out and write appropriate topic sentences write an essay of approximately 400 words on the topic of "The use of internet in higher education" with one topic sentence in each paragraph. read model essays without paragraph division and divide the essays into paragraphs write three paragraphs with one for the introduction, one for the body, and one for the conclusion write an essay of approximately 400 words on the topic of "Advantages and disadvantages of online university degree programs" with a three-or-four paragraph essay consisting of an introduction, main body and conclusion. read the model essays presented in one paragraph and divide them into paragraphs write a four-paragraph essay with a topic sentence in each paragraph. identify all the discourse markers in a sample essay explain how their omission would affect the essay. write an essay of approximately 400 words on the topic of "What do you think of the English courses at universities?" with an emphasis on discourse markers.

The contrastive features displayed on the bulletin board were available to all students in the Experimental Group. These features and the pre-experiment analysis of the students' essays were displayed as text, charts and graphs, with figures presented in different colours that contrasted the Chinese and English styles. Tutors made comments about content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics, with an emphasis on the English writing style, and sent them to the bulletin board. Model essays produced by


77



native speakers of English had the five different contrastive features marked with different colours to help students identify the particular features.

Writing process in the e-course

Contrastive features

First draft

(second draft) Teacher feedback

Final product

Discussion with native speakers

E-course bulletin board

NS model essays

Discussion among students

Figure 1. The writing process in the e-course. If there was anything they did not understand, or if they needed clarification, students could write to native speakers, peers, or tutors for additional assistance. After consultation, they sent the discussed points to the bulletin board for everybody to read. The process of reformulation (rewriting, revising) of essays with reference to contrastive features, teacher and peer feedback, model essays, and interactions with native speakers, was intended to facilitate changes in the way in which the essays were constructed, gradually shaping students’ writing style to reflect features associated with English academic writing. The communication between Chinese students and English native speakers allowed students to observe, compare and analyse parallel materials from their respective cultures. They could exchange viewpoints in a reciprocal way and gain an ever-deepening understanding of the other culture, thereby expanding their cross-cultural analysis. Online discussions in a risk-free environment, brainstorming and categorizing, and debriefing are examples of instructional methods that allowed learners to examine their understanding of course objectives through interaction with other individuals. Learners were encouraged to test their ideas against alternative views and alternative contexts. Within this cognitive construction approach, other people are considered to be a source of conflict that stimulates new thinking. Cooperative learning creates opportunities to form communities of inquiry that in turn encourage critical dialogue. Materials Materials for Studying the Contrastive Rhetorical Features Immediately before the start of the writing course for the Harbin PhD students, three sets of essays were analysed: Chinese essays produced by the Chinese Writers Group (30 essays); English essays by the UK Writers Group (15 essays); and the first essays in English by the 60 PhD students in the Study Group,


78



which was later randomly divided into the Control Group (30 essays) and Experimental Group (30 essays). These essays were analysed for the five features of contrastive rhetoric to explore the following: • the difference between essay writing styles in Chinese and English; • a baseline description of the essay writing style of the Study Group; a "norm" for essay writing by English native speakers. Materials for the E-course The materials used in the e-course came from three sources: the model English essays designed for the International English Language Testing System (IELTS, published by Cambridge University Press); the model English essays by the UK Writers Group; and English essays written by Chinese students in the Study Group. In addition, during the learning process, students' essays were consistently uploaded into the e-course as an input to trigger online discussion and feedback from both the tutor and other English native speakers. Students' final draft essays were also uploaded into the e-course so that everybody could see what improvements had been achieved. Assessment In the pre-training period of this study, all the students from the Study Group wrote an essay of about 400 words on the title of "What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of higher education and to what extent have you benefited from higher education?" Their essays were analysed according to the five contrastive rhetoric features. To obtain a comparative view, the essays by the UK Writers Group and those from the Chinese Writers Group, all on the same topic, were analysed to compare their contrastive features. The Study Group was then randomly divided into the Control Group and the Experimental Group (which had access to the e-learning course). Both the first (pre e-course) and last essays of the Control and Experimental Groups were analysed to determine shifts in writing style during the e-course training period. For the purpose of this research, the same definitions of terms were applied to all sets of data (English and Chinese). The method proved useful in that it revealed rhetorical patterns from the two cultures. The principal researcher coded the essay data for the position of thesis statement, presence of topic sentences, number of paragraphs, use of metaphors and number of discourse markers for later statistical analysis (see Appendix). In addition, two lecturers at HIT also coded the rhetorical features of all essays. Cronbach's Alpha for inter-rater reliability was 0.87 with inter-rater correlations of 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8. The data from the experimental study on the e-course for writing style were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). RESULTS Pre-Training Results The initial analysis was conducted to determine the pre-course, base level scores for the five aspects of rhetorical style for the three main groups: Chinese writers, UK writers, and the 60 Chinese students of English (Study Group), who would later be randomly assigned to the Experimental and Control Groups for the training period. The comparisons of words and paragraphs are interval data, and were evaluated by ANOVA and t-tests, whereas presence of metaphors and topic changes in the groups, and the position of the thesis statement are categorical data and were evaluated by Crosstabs analysis, which uses Chi-square to determine significance. The three groups of writers had different levels of education and writing competence, and it was anticipated that the length of the essays would vary. Therefore, before comparisons were made, essay length was checked for statistically significant differences across the groups. The results of the ANOVA,


79



comparing the four groups, are presented in Table 2, together with post-hoc Bonferroni t-test results. The ANOVA was statistically significant, F (3,101) = 12.16, p < 0.001, and the post-hoc tests indicated that there were significant differences between the Experimental and Control Groups when compared with the Chinese writers group. Therefore, for interval data comparisons between the groups that were found to have different word totals, the count of discourse markers and paragraphs was standardised at a rate per 100 words. Table 2. Comparison of Essay Word Totals

1 2 3 4

Between Subjects ANOVA N M SD Experimental 30 414.27 45.68 Control 30 417.80 45.77 UK 15 451.00 107.29 Chinese 30 504.07 71.55 ANOVA, F (3,101) = 12.16, p < 0.001

Bonferroni post-hoc t-tests, p values 2 3 4 p=1.00(NS) p=0.47(NS) p