L2 Writing & CALL

Hongmei WuSLAT 5813/30/2005

Overview

Pedagogical approaches to L2 writing CALL applications in L2 writing Peer review in LAN-based instruction General Discussion

Pedagogical Approaches

Writing as a product Writing as a process

Product Approach

1960s and 1970s Focus on form

Sentence-level linguistic forms, controlled discourse Instructional activities

Explicit grammar instruction, sentence combining, tense or voice shifting, choosing or filling in transitions, etc.

Bottom-up Building words into sentences, paragraphs, passages…

Contrastive rhetoric (Kaplan, 1966; Connor, 1996) Rhetorical patterns differ from culture to culture. Target language

rhetorical forms need to be taught as well as linguistic forms.

Process Approach

Since 1970s Focus on the writing process

Cognitive activities and strategies, multiple drafts are required Instructional activities

Explicit teaching of strategies at different writing stages: brainstorming, clustering, outlining, researching and focusing a topic, overcoming writer’s block, revising for content, organization, style, grammar and mechanics, proofreading, peer review, self-evaluation or reflection, etc.

Top-down Putting ideas down on the page: beginning with an idea or thesis,

developing it in a certain organization, materializing it in linguistic forms.

The product approach has been integrated into one of the final stages of the writing process which deals with the linguistic aspect of writing in particular.

CALL Applications: Stages

Prewriting Software programs: prompted writing, brainstorming, outlining,

research (Butler-Pascoe and Wilburg 2003) Web databases, google searches Asynchronous discussion forums (Payne 2003)

Composing/drafting Word processor: more output, less anxiety to mess up the draft

Revising and Editing Grammar and spell checker Online/electronic dictionaries, thesaurus, concordancing programs Electronic peer review using “track changes” and “insert comments” Synchronous or asynchronous peer review discussions on the LAN

or the web Publishing

Course/project websites

CALL Applications: General

General applications Online writing labs: OWL,

Harvard Online writing tool Writing software programs: Daedalus

Integrated Writing Environment (DIWE) Online course management programs:

nicenet, webCT, d2l Emails, key pals, web logs, chats

Peer Review in LAN-Based Instruction Computers connected to one another in a

local area network (LAN) Uses software programs such as MOO Teacher is reduced to another line on the

network (with certain privileges sometimes) Both synchronous and asynchronous, whole

class and small group discussions possible Discussion transcripts can be saved or

printed out after class.

Advantages

Positive student affect No turn-taking: empowers students, more student-driven

and student-centered No interruption from other students: equal opportunity for

more reserved, more self-conscious, less articulate, less aggressive, slower students; work at their own pace

Retains the immediacy and interactiveness of a face-to-face discussion

Reduces anxiety: less face-threatening, lower affective filter Community building: more free, open, honest and candid

discussions; social context cues such as skin color, gender, age, nationality and L1 background don’t privilege some students over others

Advantages

Quantity Simultaneous “speaking”: Increases student

production Less code-switching between target and native

languages (a common problem in FL classrooms) Quality

Longer, more complex utterances Slows down the discussion: more time to do in-

depth thinking and respond more fully to questions

Problems & Solutions

Divided opinions on student affect: students’ learning styles matter and an integrated or combined approach is preferred

Quantity does not equal quality: pre-task asynchronous discussions

Indifference to grammar and accuracy: follow-up discussion based on saved transcripts

Potentially “chaotic” communication concomitant with the freedom of turn-taking and students “speaking” at the same time (Beauvois, 1998)

Problems & Solutions, cont’d

Potentially “chaotic” communication (Beauvois, 1998) More time maintaining the

conversation (Liu & Sadler, 2003) Take the discussion less seriously

(Hayward & Tuzi, 2003) “When a discussion gets lively, new

messages are added so rapidly that many students are unable to keep up with the discussion, creating a confusing, disjointed discourse that nullifies the collaborative nature of LANs” (Brain, 2004, p.104)

Solution: Whole-class conferences and smaller group conferences

S1: “oh oh”S2 arrives.S3: “What paragraphs”S4: “hi S2”S2: “HEY”S1: “u wrote about Jack”S1: “what happened,

man?”S2: “hey christine”S2: “err your paper

sucked”S3: “Hi S2”S2: “hehehe”

(Liu & Sadler, 2003)

General Discussion Advantages

Autonomous and self-pacing: more individualized instruction

Positive student affect: anxiety reducing Interactive: encourages collaboration Authentic language use: a stronger sense of

audience Transcend time and space: flexibility Multiple modalities of written texts

Conclusion More research and a combined approach

Questions?

Thank you!