Promoting autonomy for self correction in esp writing through task-induced load glo call 2015pptx
Download as PPTX, PDF2 likes426 views
This document discusses a study that promoted learner autonomy for self-correction in English writing among Thai university students. The study engaged 32 students in interactive writing tasks that required self-evaluation, peer review, and self-correction of drafts using technology without teacher feedback. Results showed significant improvement in writing scores from pre-to-post-tests. A questionnaire found that while students were unsure initially if they could correct their own mistakes, many believed they could become better writers by using strategies and technology for self-directed learning. The study suggests promoting autonomy this way is feasible but future research should include strategy training and measure autonomy gains directly.
Promoting autonomy for self correction in esp writing through task-induced load glo call 2015pptx
- 1. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction in ESP writing through task-induced load Mrs. Manashi G. Dutta Khon Kaen University manshigdutta@gmail.com
- 2. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction Claim made by Benson (2001) : Learner autonomy as a multidimensional construct A sufficient account of learner autonomy in language learning should include three levels of control over learning -1. Control over learning management, -2. Control over cognitive processes and -3. Control over learning content. Murase (2007): All these are interrelated.
- 3. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction Benson (2011) : • Educational technologies and autonomy have always been there. • New challenge is that the new generations of technologies like Web 2.0 and other internet based ones do not tend to foster autonomy or train. • They presuppose autonomy.
- 4. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction Jiménez Raya, Lamb & Vieira (2007) : Both teacher and learner autonomy competence that involve attitudinal dispositions, knowledge, abilities to develop self-determination, social responsibility and critical awareness to develop learners as self-determined, socially responsible and critically aware participants in (and beyond) educational environments, within a vision of education as (inter)personal empowerment and social transformation.
- 5. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction A continuous process in which different degrees of self- management and self-regulation may take place at different moments and in diverse aspects of learning. Denotes a proactive and interactive role and it is desirable and feasible in a formal education context. This study engaged learners in interactive roles and investigated whether it is feasible or not in a formal educational context.
- 6. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction Participants: 84 Fifth year students of Faculty of Dentistry and 2 students of Faculty of Medicine “Writing in English for Health Sciences” Out of 86, 11 - high proficiency, 10 - mid proficiency and 11 - low proficiency were purposefully randomly chosen for this study on the basis of their Midterm and Final test scores. 32 participants.
- 7. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction • A regular semester of 16 weeks. • Students and the teachers met once a week for 3-4 hours. • Areas of learning : Summary, Narrative, Paragraph, Letter, Essay, Case report, Abstract and Presentation outline. • Graded : Grammar and vocabulary, Content, Organization (the way a piece of writing is put together), Mechanics, Fluency (style and ease of communication).
- 8. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction Task model • Manual • Teacher's handout First draft ZPD zone • Self evaluation • Peer review • Technology • Self-correction Second draft ZPD + 1 zone • Technology • Self- correction Third draft ZPD + 1 =
- 9. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction 1. Grammar & Vocabulary 2. Content 3. Organization (The way a piece of writing is put together) 4. Mechanics 5. Fluency (Style and ease of communication)
- 10. Grammar & Vocabulary Student’s responsibility to edit using technology/computer applications. Teachers played no role on correcting errors. Use of tenses. Use of persons. Subject Verb agreement. Correct word order. Range of vocabulary (Variety and sophistication). Use of vocabulary is consistently correct and appropriate.
- 11. Content Students used checklists to understand the area of content development. Teacher didn’t provide feedback on contents of the writings. Task achievement. Audience is addressed. Subject matter is dealt. Title is appropriate. Topic development. Work completed.
- 12. Organization Students used checklists to understand the area of organization development. Teacher didn’t give any corrective feedback on organization of the writings. Teacher asked for clarity at times only if coherence was lost. Introduction with orientation who/when/where. Identify the main idea that pervades the composition. Does everything in the composition contribute to the main idea? Paragraphing. Ending is suitable. Coherence refers to the linking of ideas through logical sequencing. Overall progression of ideas and writing.
- 13. 4. Mechanics Students used checklists to understand the area of mechanics. Teacher didn’t give corrective feedback on mechanics of the writings. Teacher asked for clarity at times only if cohesion was lost. Cohesion (Varied and appropriate use of cohesive devices such as logical connectors, pronouns and conjunctions). Conceptual and referential relationships between and within sentences are clear. Use of punctuation. Use of capital letter (including Title). Space between word and sentences. Sentence formation (Ease and communication).
- 14. 5. Fluency Teacher asked questions to clarify at times whether editing was done or not. There was no corrective feedback or suggestions provided for improving learner’s fluency. Consistent grammatical control of complex language. Syntactically fluent and appropriate for the genre. Easy to read expressively. Variety in length of sentences with accuracy. Edit for conciseness, run on sentences, and fragments. Show how no two sentences start alike.
- 15. Band scores: 1= Emerging (1.5) 2= Developing (2.5) 3=Proficient
- 16. Duration of the course: January – April, 2015 res taught in 16 weeks Summary, Narrative, Letter, Paragraph, Essay, Case Report, Abstract, Presentation outline sen genre Summary writing Total number of writing pieces k 1 Pre test was conducted immediately after the course started. Students were provided with basic guidelines on how to write a summary. Students wrote the first draft of the 3rd activity as homework and exchanged with peers for review. Typed the 2nd draft in MS word and sent for teacher’s comments using Google doc after 1st self-editing. 3rd draft was submitted for final grading after 2nd time self-editing. Used for teaching the whole class about summary writing through handouts and students sent the first draft for teacher’s comments using Google doc. k 2 k-1 Four Classroom practice Used for Pre and Post tests Written as homeworkk 3 Task load on students -Information about useful online resources and computer applications. - Submit error (local) free drafts (withou any highlight). -Self report on strategies application > create readiness. -Students reflected through self report on their knowledge summary writing. -Peer-review using teacher’s evaluation rubric. -Awareness for self-evaluation and strategies. k 2 k-15 k 4 Written as homework First draft of the 4th activity was a home work and exchanged with peers for review. 2nd draft typed in MS word and sent for teacher’s comments using Google doc after 1st self-editing. 3rd draft was submitted for final grading after 2nd self-editing. -Peer-review using guidelines aiming for better understanding of coherence and organization in writing. -Awareness for self evaluation and strategies. Used for Pre and Post tests Pre test writings were returned to the students at the time of Post test along with the evaluation rubric without grading and any corrective feedback from teacher. -Students could self-evaluate their first dr of the writing and reproduced a new piece on the same topic and following the same test instructions.
- 17. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction Data collection Data for the study were collected through several instruments: Tasks, Tests, Questionnaire and Self-reports.
- 18. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction All 3 groups with three proficiency levels displayed P value .000 < α (.05) which is highly significant. Test Statisticsb -4.861a .000 Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) post - pre Based on negative ranks.a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Testb.
- 19. Self reports
- 23. Questionnaire on Strategy for Learning Better writing in English - Based on SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) Oxford (1989, 1990) - 39 questions prepared on self help strategies. - 35 questions directed towards writing strategies only. - Modified to make students aware of the individual actions expected to be taken by them to achieve learning goals. - Not in the beginning , in the mid of the semester.
- 24. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction A student reported: Using technology for only online dictionary in the beginning . In the questionnaire survey, she reported: Using technology for: Internet for planning writing. App for editing writing Look for guidelines for designing writing Using book for grammar rules.
- 25. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction 37. Do you think you can help yourself to become a better writer? Majority – Yes (42/13) - Autonomy 38. Do you believe that you can correct your own mistakes? Majority - May be and not sure 39. Do you think you can be a better writer using technologies? Majority - May be and not sure
- 26. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction Limitations: -No training to learners on strategies. -No training to learners on think aloud. -Data collection on strategy application should have been included with PRE and POST tests.
- 27. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction Future studies: About measuring self-correction strategy applications by learners through trained think aloud self-reports and measure autonomy and technology use simultaneously.