malaysian journal of elt research - volume 10 (1) 2014

7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014

1/68

Malaysian Journal of ELT Research

ISSN: 1511-8002

Vol. 10(1), 2014

INTERNATIONAL BOARD OF ADVISORS

Alastair Pennycook

Universityof Technology, Sydney

Chan Swee Heng

University Putra Malaysia

David WrayUniversity of Warwick

Paul MatsudaArizona State University

EDITORIAL BOARD

Director of Journals:

Ramesh NairUniversiti Teknologi Mara, Malaysia

Chief Editor:

Stefanie Pillai

University of Malaya, Malaysia

Editors:

Chua Meng HuatUniversity of Malaya, Malaysia

Lee King Siong

Surinder Pal Kaur



2/68

Malaysian Journal of ELT Research Vol. 10(1) April 2014

ii

REVIEWERS

Agnes Liau Wei Lin

Universiti Sains Malaysia

Azrai Hj AbdullahUniversiti Teknologi Petronas, Malaysia

Francisco Perlas Dumanig


George Teoh Boon Sai

Universiti Sains Malaysia

Jelani Sulaiman

Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

John Kullman

Canterbury Christ Church University, United Kingdom

Jonathan NewtonVictoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Mardziah Hayati AbdullahUniversiti Putra Malaysia

Meei-Ling Liaw

National Taichung University, Taiwan

Nor Fariza binti Mohd. Nor

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Noorizah Binti Mohd Noor


Rajasegaran P. Krishnasamy

Universiti Teknologi Mara Melaka, Malaysia

Rosnaini bt Mahmud

Universiti Putra Malaysia

Ruanni F. TupasNational Institute of Education, Singapore

Sa-hui (Agatha) FanNational Taichung University, Taiwan
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/68


iii

Salah Troudi

University of Exeter, United Kingdom

Shanthini Pillai


Ting Su HieUniversiti Sarawak Malaysia

Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf,Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia


4/68


iv

CONTRIBUTORS

Asiah Kassimis a postgraduate candidate at the Faculty of Languages & Linguistics, University

of Malaya. The focus of her study is in the field of second language acquisition. She is currently

teaching English language proficiency courses for undergraduate students at Universiti Malaysia

Pahang.

Daljeet Singh Sedhu is an English Lecturer in Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, PerakBranch Campus. His research interests are metacognitive teaching and learning of English

Language and paraphrasing skills.

Masoumeh Dousti obtained a BA in English literature and an MA in TEFL from Urmia

University in Iran. Her research interests are needs analysis, computer-assisted language

learning, and educational technology.

Mun Yee Lee is an English Lecturer at Tunku Abdul Rahman University College (Perak BranchCampus). Her research areas of interest include students development of writing skills in

English, changes of global education trends and management.

Ng Lee Luan teaches postgraduate courses at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics,

University of Malaya. Her research interests include computer assisted language learning, online

learning, and teaching and learning at higher education.

Sara Jalali is an assistant professor of TEFL at the Department of English Language and

Literature at Urmia University in Iran. Her research interests are mostly in the areas of CALL,

needs analysis, testing and assessment in EFL.

S. Chee Choy, PhD is an Associate Professor and Branch Campus Head of Tunku Abdul

Rahman University College (Perak Branch Campus) Her research interests are perceptions, andattitudes in language learning.

Tgk. Maya Silviyantiis a lecturer at the Department of English Language, Faculty of Teacher

Training and Education, at Universitas Syiah Kuala in Aceh. She also teaches at the LanguageCenter of the university. Her research interests are in the field of educational technology and itsimplementation in the L2 classroom. She obtained her Bachelor of Education from Universitas

Syiah Kuala, and a Mastersof Arts in educational technology and TESOL from the University

of Manchester.

Yunisrina Qismullah Yusufis a lecturer of Linguistics at Universitas Syiah Kuala. Her research

interests are mainly in linguistics, culture and education. She obtained her Bachelor of Educationfrom Universitas Syiah Kuala, and a Mastersof Linguistics and PhD in (Phonology) from the

University of Malaya. She is currently the chief editor of Studies in English Language andEducation (SiELE).


5/68


v

INFORMATIONS FOR AUTHORS

ABOUT MaJER

The Malaysian Journal of ELT Research (MaJER)aims to advance knowledge of and to

develop expertise in critical and scientific inquiry in English language teaching and learning. The

journal is intended for academicians, researchers, teacher educators and graduate students who

are involved in research and dissemination of knowledge in the field. This is a refereed online

journal which will publish articles in an on-going manner. All articles in this journal undergo

anonymous peer review by two referees.

Submission of a manuscript to MaJER implies that the work submitted is original and has not

appeared in other publications (whether electronic or print) and nor is it being considered for

publication elsewhere. Corresponding authors are responsible for ensuring that all contributors to

the manuscript submitted are properly and duly acknowledged. The Malaysian English Language

Teaching Association (MELTA) and the Editorial Board of MaJER will not be responsible for

any authorship disputes arising from the publication of an article in MaJER.

Whilst every effort is made to verify the originality of manuscripts and to proofread accepted

manuscripts, MELTA and the Editorial Board of MaJER cannot be held responsible for errors or

accuracy of information contained in articles published in MaJER. Further, the views and

opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of MELTA or the Editorial

Board or their agents.

Authors are invited to submit articles that focus on new theoretical perspectives, syntheses ofresearch, discussions of methodological issues and scholarly analyses of issues in ELT. Articles

may also include debates on a variety of perspectives, policy and theories, investigations of

alternative modes of research in ELT, examination of trends in ELT and the advancement of

knowledge and understanding of effective English language teaching and learning. The article

must be accompanied by an abstract and a bio data of the author(s).

GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION OF ARTICLES

1. All articles submitted must be original materials not under consideration or published

elsewhere. Authors must state if a paper has been presented at a conference and appears

or will appear in the proceedings of a conference.

2. Authors must use spelling and punctuation that is common to written communication in

the UK.

3. Manuscripts may be submitted via e-mail [email protected] the subject of

the email written as SUBMISSION TO MAJER.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


6/68


vi

4. For the first submission, send your manuscript in two MS Word files. One should have

the names and details of authors removedand saved as MaJER Title of Paper-

Review Copy.doc, and the other with the author information included saved as MaJER

Title of Paper-Non Review Copy.doc.

5. The cover page should include: a. A title. b. Name and institutional affiliation of each

author as you would like it to appear in the published version and contact full contact

information (full mailing address, telephone/fax numbers and e-mail address).

6. The second page should consist of an abstract of not more than 200 words, followed by

a list of not more than five keywords.

7. The article should begin on the third page.

8. All references and citations should be checked for accuracy and spelling, and follow the

APA format. References in the main text should not be different from those in the

reference section.

9. Footnotes are not acceptable but rather, should be worked into the text.

10.

Articles for the Malaysian Journal of ELT Research that contain quantitative orqualitative analysis or survey research reports must follow research conventions strictly.

11.A 150 word bio data of the author(s) must also be provided after the references section.


7/68

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts on

Paraphrasing Skills of ESL Students

S. CHEE CHOY, MUN YEE LEE, DALJEET SINGH SEDHUTunku Abdul Rahman University College, Perak Branch Campus, Malaysia

ABSTRACT

This study examined the influence of cultural and contextual settings of passages on

ESL students paraphrasing skills using a sample of forty-one students enrolled in a

university diploma programme. The results showed that students paraphrase better with

passages that contained main points that were easy to identify. The culture and context

of the passages played an important, but secondary role of stimulating students interest.

It was also found that there were changes in students perceptions of themsel ves as

learners after they had learned the paraphrasing skills. They were more confident about

using their paraphrasing skills especially with passages that contained subject matter

that was easy to understand and interesting.

KEYWORDS: ESL, paraphrasing skills, student perceptions, cultural settings,contextual settings


8/68

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 2

Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.

Background

Previous studies showed that paraphrasing skills helped ESL students learn

academic writing (Omar, 2003). In other studies there were indications thatculture had an influence on writing and learning (Boondao, Hurst & Sheard,

2009). Studies conducted by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) and Lee and Choy(2010) showed that skills alone did not help students with paraphrasing. Otherfactors, including culture and context, influenced their abilities. Hence, the

current study was conducted to investigate whether culturally familiar texts

influenced students paraphrasing skills.

Most bilingual students find translating from their first language to a second

language challenging, especially when this language is the medium of

instruction. This was highlighted by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) in their

article on the influence of context on paraphrasing tasks of bilingual students.Another study by Lee and Choys (2010) found that students were not helped

by paraphrasing skills alone. Other factors that were cultural in nature alsodetermined their ability to summarise a passage. Yu (2008) suggested thatthese cultural factors were language bound and found that students did better

at summaries when they were allowed to paraphrase in Chinese, their first

language, what they had read in English, which they learned as a foreignlanguage. This suggested that students skills could exceed what they

expressed if they were not hindered by their command of the second or

foreign language. The results from these studies were inconclusive; hence

further research was necessary to determine if the cultural orientation of apassage also influenced a students performance in a paraphrasing task.

Studies by Yu (2008) and Orellana and Reynolds (2008) also suggested thatcontextual settings of passages played a part in students performances when

paraphrasing. Students tended to perform better in their native language (Yu,

2008). However, the results from both studies indicated that students preferred

to paraphrase in English because it was easier to directly copy the text evenwhen it was not fully understood. It was also found that proper understanding

of the text and the time allowed for the task were important prerequisites for

paraphrasing (Yu, 2008).

Paraphrasing skills, therefore, were viewed as process driven rather than skills

driven as these skills depended on a students comprehension of the context of

the passage (Johns, 1988). Hence, it was best for students to have priorexperience with the context and content of the text. Passages that were

culturally, nationally and ethnically bound to students help them derive more

meaning. The strategies students used to process the paraphrasing task wasalso important as it influenced how successful they were when completing the

task (Johns, 1988). Another difficulty with paraphrasing was that students

were writing to an unknown, absent audience (Orellana and Reynolds, 2008)Hence, they were often oblivious to what this audience would like to know


9/68



and want included from the passage. The identification of this audience was

often not emphasised by the teacher. Students would possibly benefit from

being provided with such process enhancing information to help themparaphrase.

Westin (2006) found that readers could better comprehend passages that wereculturally related to them. The same study also found that second languagespeakers had greater difficulty paraphrasing passages that contained contexts

that were unfamiliar to them. Students who had to translate texts in order to

understand them might gloss over meanings of words creating inaccuracies intheir paraphrasing (Orellana and Reynolds, 2008). Therefore it would be

difficult to paraphrase accurately while keeping the writing context, as well as

content, accurate. Hare and Borchardt (1984) further noted that the

paraphrasing of passages by less proficient readers were more piecemeal,sentence by sentence based, rather than based on the whole passage.

Most studies on paraphrasing focused on the use of strategies to enhance skillsrequired to carry out the task. There was little emphasis on the type of

learning that took place as a consequence of these skills (Johns, 1988; Scott,

1998). Anthony (1996) noted that students should be actively involved in their

own learning and stressed the need for them to make learning meaningful tothemselves rather than a passive acceptance of information or repetition of

knowledge. Students actively involved in learning, required an emphasis of

contextual learning where students constructed their own learningexperiences. This form of learning could enhance students paraphrasing skills

as they would be able to apply these skills to different passages and situations.

Methods

The Present Study

This study was interested in determining the perceptions of students when

carrying out paraphrasing tasks that were culturally and contextually oriented

for them. Students performances in their paraphrasing tasks were measuredusing selected passages. The perceptions of the students interpreted from

interviews were used to determine how they used the paraphrasing skills and

the influence of the passages on their ability to paraphrase. A search of the

literature found a dearth of information on the influence of passages onstudents paraphrasing skills with the exception of studies by Yu (2008) and

Orellana and Reynolds (2008). Hence, in an attempt to enhance our

understanding of such influences two research questions (RQ) were used to

underpin this study:

RQ1. What were students perceptions of the paraphrasing skills taught using

passages that were culturally and contextually relevant?


10/68



RQ2. Were students perceptions of the paraphrasing skills reflected in their

performance in the paraphrasing tests?

Design and procedure

This study was carried out using the qualitative approach with a sample offorty-one students who were pursuing diploma programmes at a university inMalaysia. All of the students in the sample were adult learners, non-native

speakers of English and had obtained a C in English for their SPM

Examinations in the Malaysian equivalent of the GCE O Levels. Theinformed consent of each student was obtained with an assurance of

anonymity. These students were allowed to withdraw at any time from the

study and were also told that any information provided by them would only be

viewed by the researchers.

The intervention was for a ten week period during the first semester when the

students were learning paraphrasing skills in their English course. Thestudents were taught paraphrasing skills with relevant practise exercises

during these ten weeks. Two tests were administered to the sample group: a

teacher made pre- and post-test for paraphrasing which consisted of a selected

passage to be paraphrased.

The pre-test was administered on the second week, while the post test was

administered on the twelfth week of the fourteen-week semester. In theteacher made paraphrasing tests, two passages were chosen for students. The

first passage was contextually familiar to the students, while the second

passage was not. The two passages were selected to study the influence of

familiar passages on students abilities to paraphrase (Appendix A andAppendix B). The readability levels of the two passages were determined

using the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests (Kincaid, Fishburne, Rogers, &

Chissom, 1975).

In order to ensure that the passages chosen for the pre- and post-tests were

appropriate, ten passages were initially selected. The passages were checkedfor readability levels using the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests, and read for

content and context relevancy by the researchers. The passages were all 350 to

450 words long with readability levels of between Grade 8 to Grade 9. As the

students were ESL learners, passages chosen were lower than university levelEnglish. These passages were read and re-read until two of them were finally

chosen based on the subject matter of the passages. The two passages chosen

had the same reading level at Grade 8.5 and were on hijacking in South Africa

for the unfamiliar passage and the custom of handshaking for the familiarpassage.

In addition to the tests, the students were interviewed as a group. They wereasked questions about what they had learned as well as their impressions of


11/68



the paraphrasing tasks they had carried out during class. A list of the questions

can be found on Appendix C. A total of two interview sessions were recorded

and videotaped, one before teaching the paraphrasing skill and the other after.These sessions were then transcribed by the researchers for analysis. The

students were encouraged to be vocal with their views during the sessions and

were asked to indicate their responses with a show of hands which theinterviewer recorded using an observation protocol (Creswell, 2013).

The results obtained led to the use of the interpretive approach. The interview

data was analysed, and themes were allowed to emerge from it. Theinterpretation was based on the perspectives of the researchers and, as such,

was value laden and biased. These salient points from the interview were then

analysed and grouped under a common category (Radnor, 2002). An

interpretive approach was used as the researchers were subjectively involvedwith the participants through their interactions with them. The goal here was

to rely on the participants views of paraphrasing which were formed during

interaction with the researchers (Creswell, 2013). The researchers alsoaddressed the process that the students went through to learn paraphrasing.

The analyses were used to answer the research questions. The sample used

was from a Malaysian population and cannot be generalised. The hope of the

researchers was that the results obtained might be applicable to students ofother nationalities in similar situations.

Results

RQ1. What were students perceptions of the effectiveness of the paraphrasing

skills taught using passages that were culturally and contextually relevant?

From the analysis of the interviews, several salient points were found. These

points were grouped into the following categories and used to answer the

research question. The quotes from the interviews were edited to aid thereaders understanding.

Culturally and contextually familiar passages were harder.

Fifty-eight per cent of the students perceived that paraphrasing the

contextually familiar passages was more difficult. They found the task

difficult because they did not know how to identify the important points to beincluded in their paraphrased passage. Although the handshake was familiar to

these students, they found it difficult to pick out the main points in the

passage. For instance, Student K commented:Handshake is something common for me. However, I am confused

with which points to choose from the passage, although the passage

is easy to understand.


12/68



Student F noted the difficulty of the passage:The handshake passage is more difficult for me as there are hidden

points. I got the main points, but I could not formulate the answer.

The language used in the passage is not the problem.

Culturally and contextually unfamiliar passages were easier.

About fifty-eight per cent of the students perceived the contextually

unfamiliar passage was easier because the main points in the passage wereobvious and could be easily identified. The comments from students implied

that an easier to understand passage in terms of the language might be more

helpful for ESL students than the context of the passage. For instance, StudentO commented:

The hijack passage is easier because I can find all the points, but

the handshake passage is difficult as the main points were not

clear.

Student V commented:The hijack passage is easier. I understand the passage better. Ihave never read about car hijack before, but I managed to get the

necessary information.

Sixteen per cent of the students from this group perceived that they could

paraphrase better because they were interested in the subject matter. Thesestudents also mentioned they had some prior knowledge of the topic in the

passage and found the passage easier to paraphrase and summarise. For

instance, Student C commented:The hijack text is easier than handshake. I read some hijacking

articles and most of the cases were from foreign news. The

meaning of the passage can be easily understood.

Understanding requirements of the task improved confidence

levels.

All the students mentioned that their ability to understand the requirements of

the task and identify the main points affected their confidence levels. Forinstance, Student V commented:

The exercise where I had to summarise the advantages and

disadvantages of watching television, is rather an easy task because

the requirement is understood and the points were easily lifted from

the passage. Thus, I was confident about doing it.

Another Student H also commented:I was more confident about carrying out the task after I was able to

understand what was required; I was not as confident before I tried

it.


13/68



Students were unable to apply skills.

All of the students perceived that the skills taught were useful, but they were

not able to fully apply them in their exercises and tests. Even after many

practise exercises in paraphrasing, they continued to have difficultiesunderstanding and applying the requirements of the task and extracting themain points from the passage. For instance Student K said:

The skills taught are useful, and I am more confident as a result, but

I still have difficulties when I have to paraphrase. I could do the

practise exercises and I did well in the exercises. They were easier

than the passage because they were short sentences. Whereas the

passage had so many sentences and I did not know which was

important and which was not.

Other students commented that the skills taught helped as long as the points in

the passages were clear and could easily be lifted from the text. When the

passages were difficult they found paraphrasing confusing. For example,Student M commented:The skills taught are useful as long as the passage is easy to

understand. The points must be easy to find. When the passages get

difficult it is confusing to apply the skills. I do not know where to

begin.

Skills did not help.

About thirty per cent of the students perceived that the paraphrasing skills

they learned did not help. They could not apply the techniques that weretaught, and their poor command of English was an obstacle when

paraphrasing. This was evidenced by Student T who commented:Techniques were useful. But even when I used them to help me do

the paraphrasing, I cannot find the main points. Sometimes examples

are like the main points, and I include them as part of the answer. I

cannot differentiate them well because I am poor in English .

Other students were unsure if the techniques actually helped them carry out

the paraphrasing task. For instance Student H said:After learning the techniques, I did not apply them on the tests

only on the exercises. I did not use the techniques as I was not

taught them especially before the first test.

Comprehension of passage was essential when applying paraphrasing skill.

There were two different passages given to students. About thirty per cent ofthe students found the hijack passage easier to understand while the rest of

them found the handshake passage easier. The comments from students

suggested that perceptions of paraphrasing tasks depended on whetherstudents found the passage easy to understand and whether the main points

were obvious in the passage. For instance, Student O said:


14/68



The hijack passage is easier because I could find the points,

but the handshake passage was difficult. There were so many

points and I could not differentiate the main points from the

less important ones.

Student S further commented:

The hijack passage was harder. I could not differentiate themain points and examples. The handshake passage was

straight to the point. The context was more familiar to me.

It was also found that paraphrasing skills were only useful if students could

comprehend the passages to a certain level. This was evidenced in thecomment made by Student C:

If I understand the whole passage then I would be able to

write, and apply the techniques that I was taught. But if I

could only understand the passage a little then I would just

try to copy the main points and make a passage with the

sentences I copy.

Discussion: RQ1

The passage on the handshake, a gesture practised by most people, could be

perceived as part of a world-wide culture and, therefore, familiar to thestudents. However, based on what students expressed during the interview, the

contextually relevant passages were more difficult to paraphrase as the main

points were obscured by the sub-points in the passage. Thus, the way thepassage was written might be more important than its culture and context.

This finding did not support research by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) and

Yu (2008) as the ease of assessing the main points might be more important

than the contextual setting of the passages for ESL students when they wereparaphrasing. In the contextually familiar passage, the students had difficulty

differentiating the main points from the secondary ones.

The findings also suggested that if students were able to extract the main

points without difficulty they could paraphrase the passage. Students with

some knowledge of the subject found the task easier to carry out. Thissupported research done by Johns (1988) and Westin (2006) who noted that

prior knowledge of the context of the passage might help students to

paraphrase a passage better. This prior knowledge acted as a bridge which

helped them understand the passage. The ease of lifting the main points froma passage proved more important than the context of the passage for ESL

students. The familiarity of the subject matter played a role in helping these

students but seemed to be a secondary factor to the ease of identifying the

main points from the passage.

Students felt that they were more confident about paraphrasing if they could

understand the requirements of the task and if the main points of the passagewere clear and direct. Hence, these tasks seemed dependent on the structure of


15/68



the passages rather than the cultural orientations. Students found it easier to

focus on the requirements of the tasks rather than on the context and culture

orientation of the passage. This supported findings by Lee and Choy (2010)and Westin (2006) that teaching paraphrasing skills alone did not help

students acquire these skills. Students paraphrased better when they could

identify the main points from the text. Also, interest in the subject matterhelped students carry out paraphrasing tasks, but this was secondary.

It would seem that the exercises for learning paraphrasing skills were easier

because they were mostly in short sentences or paragraphs giving a falseimpression that paraphrasing was easy. However, when applying these skills

to the passages, most of them perceived the tasks were more difficult when

they had to apply the skills they learned. It could be that these students needed

to be introduced to paraphrasing short paragraphs then gradually progressed towhole passages. The process where the students started paraphrasing

sentences and immediately progressed to full passages was daunting,

especially for ESL learners. It seemed that confidence in carrying out this taskcould be built if students were given a transition period where paraphrasing

tasks progressed from sentences to short paragraphs and finally to full

passages. This further supported the findings by Lee and Choy (2010) that

skills alone did not help students paraphrasing abilities. Students alsoperceived they were more confident paraphrasing if they understood the

requirements and could find the main points in the passage without difficulty.

They seemed to focus on the requirements of the tasks rather than the contextand culture of the passage.

Some of the students did not find the paraphrasing skills useful and were

unable to apply them when paraphrasing passages. One of the problemsconstantly mentioned was that they did not have a good command of the

English language which hindered their ability to carry out the task. This would

support the findings of Orellana and Reynolds (2008) that students with apoor command of the language they were paraphrasing in would have more

difficulty carrying out the task effectively.

The type of passage seemed to influence students comprehension level. This

was likely dependent on students prior knowledge of the subject matter in the

passage. The cultural influences did not seem to directly affect the students

ability to paraphrase the passage. Students who were able to comprehend thepassage to a certain level were able to lift the main points. This seemed to

agree with the findings of Hare and Borchardt (1984) and Westin (2006) that

ESL students with less language proficiency tend to paraphrase a passage

piecemeal and just extract information from the passage verbatim.

Paraphrasing skills were useful if students could apply them to passages they

could adequately comprehend. As such, the contextual settings might not beas important as ensuring that students had the language ability to understand


16/68



the passage to be paraphrased. This finding seemed to support research by

Johns (1988) that students comprehension of a passage was important to help

them effectively carry out a paraphrasing task. However, this did not supportthe findings by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) and Yu (2008) that the cultural

settings of a passage played an important part in helping students paraphrase.

Hence, the cultural setting of a passage was of secondary importance tostudents comprehension of a passage when carrying out a paraphrasing task.

RQ2. Were students perceptions of the paraphrasing skills reflected in their

performance in the paraphrasing tests?

In an attempt to answer RQ 2, students performances in the post and pre -tests

were used in the analysis. Table 1 shows a summary of the scores obtained.

Table 1. Results of students paraphrasing scores

AverageParaphrasing

Score

CulturallyUnfamiliar

Passage(%)

CulturallyFamiliar

Passage(%)

Pre-Test 50 55

Post-Test 60 60

Discussion: RQ2

The results of the paraphrasing test showed a bigger improvement in students

scores for the unfamiliar text than the familiar one. Students paraphrasing theunfamiliar passage had an average ten point increase in their post test scores

from fifty points to sixty points. In comparison, students who paraphrased the

familiar passage had an average five point increase in their post test scores

from fifty points to sixty points. As the readability levels of both passageswere the same at grade 8.5, it would imply that the cultural orientation of a

passage might only play a secondary role as to how easy it was for students to

identify the main points in the passage.

The students were able to paraphrase the unfamiliar passage better because it

was easier to identify the main points when compared to the familiar one. This

finding did not support research by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) thatfamiliar texts help students perform their paraphrasing tasks better. It rather

suggested that another factor influencing students abilities to paraphrase was

their abilities to comprehend the passages. Students were able to understandthe unfamiliar passage better than the one that was familiar to them.


17/68



Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that using familiar texts did not directly helpstudents improve their paraphrasing skills. However, ensuring that the

students understand the requirements of the tasks and using passages that are

interesting to students with easy to identify main points as a start will helpbuild confidence. The culture and context of the passage play a secondaryrole. Also, students perceptions of their own paraphrasing skills do not seem

to accurately reflect their actual skills when paraphrasing. Further research on

how teaching strategies can be tailored to suit the needs of ESL learners canbe carried out. Another suggestion will be scaffolding the learning of

paraphrasing skills by having students paraphrase sentences and then short

paragraphs and eventually longer passages. Since the selection of passages for

paraphrasing tasks seem to influence the performance of ESL learners, furtherstudies are needed as well. A passage needs to have content and context that

are easy for students to understand until they become more proficient with the

language.

The strategies that have been used to teach paraphrasing skills to students in

the past also need re-examination. Teachers seem to be teaching the strategies

without realising that their students are having difficulty applying them. Theselection of passages for paraphrasing, usually done by the teacher, could

result in students finding the passages uninteresting, especially if they have

had no prior knowledge of the topic. Further studies need to be carried out todetermine if passages of interest can influence students performances when

paraphrasing, as there are indicators in this study that this could have a greater

influence than its cultural orientation.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Frances A. Bryant to thesuccessful completion of this paper.

References

Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(4), 349-369.

Boondao, R., Hurst, A. J., & Sheard, J. I. (2009). Understanding cultural

influences: Principles for personalized E-learning systems.International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 4(9), 691-695.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing

among five approaches.Los Angeles: Sage.Hare, V. C., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct Instruction of summarization

skills.Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 62-78.


18/68



Johns, A. M. (1988). Reading for summarising: An approach to text

orientation and processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 4(2), 79-

90.Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975).

Deviation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index,

Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlistedpersonnel. Memphis: Naval Technical Training, U.S. Naval AirStation.

Lee, M. Y., & Choy, S. C. (2010). Effects of teaching paraphrasing skills to

studetns learning summary writing in ESL. TARC InternationalConference on Learning and Teaching (pp. 71-77). Kuala Lumpur:

Tunku Abdul Rahman College.

Omar, A. H. (2003). Language and language situation in Southeast Asia:

With a focus in Malaysia.Kuala Lumpur: Akademi Pengajian Melayu,Universiti Malaya.

Orellana, M. F., & Reynolds, J. F. (2008). Cultural modeling: Leveraging

bilingual skills for school paraphrasing tasks. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 43(1), 48-65.

Radnor, H. A. (2002). Researching your professional practice: Doing

interpretive research in educational settings.London: Open University

Press.Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A

Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45-

80.Westin, E. (2006). Cultural and historical narrative in native and non-native

speaker language. In H. L. Andersen, K. Lund, & K. Risager, Culture

in Language Learning(pp. 45-55). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Yu, G. (2008). Reading to summarise in English and Chinese: A tale of twolanguages?Language Testing, 25(4), 521-551.


19/68



APPENDIX A

The Custom of Handshaking

A handshake is a short ritual in which two people grasp each others right or

left hand often accompanied by a brief up and down movement of the graspedhands. Research shows that handshaking was practised as far back as the 2nd

century BC. It is believed that it originated during the Roman Empire, when

people would grasp each other at the elbow rather than the hand as a gesture

of trust, showing that they are not carrying any weapons beneath their sleeves.The handshake is commonly done upon meeting, greeting, parting,

offering congratulations, expressing gratitude or completing an agreement. In

sports or other competitive activities, it is also done as a sign of good

sportsmanship. Its purpose is to demonstrate goodwill, trust and equality. Menare more likely to shake hands than women. However, in business situations,

it is considered the standard greeting for both sexes.

In some cultures, people shake both hands but in most cultures peopleshake the right hand. In Islam, shaking hands, along with the greeting

Assalamualaikum (peace be upon you), is a regular greeting. Boy Scouts

specifically use a left handshake. Since the right hand is more commonly

dominant, the left hand would typically be used in holding a shield; byshaking with the left hand, one is defenceless while trusting the other person

who may still be holding a weapon in the right hand.

In the olden days, it was always the most important person, or thestrongest in the group, who had to extend the hand. That has changed. Today,

anybody at any place and at any time has the right to offer you his hand.

It is believed that when you extend your hand, there are three ways of

doing it, palm down, palm vertical and palm up. The palm down way forcesthe other person to offer palm up, and he can feel in an underdog position.

Doing it palm vertical is a generous way to offer a handshake. It sends the

signal of cooperation, I want to work with you. Salespeople often offer ahandshake palm up. This is a subtle way of indicating the at-your-service

aspect of doing business. It says that the other person is in charge.

Your summary must:

Be in continuous writing (not in note form)

Not be longer than 80 words, including the 10 words given below

Begin your summary as follows:A handshake is a shor t r itual in which two people ....


20/68



APPENDIX B

Hijacking in South Africa

The article describes the way car owners in South Africa have adapted their

lifestyles to meet the threat of hijacks. Write an account of what they do toprevent hijacks.People who live in and around Johannesburg are used to stories of cars

being hijacked and it is difficult to find a family that has not been affected by

a hijack. Johannesburg is in the Gauteng district and last year in this districtalone, 8979 hijackings were reported to the police. That is about 24 a day.

Most did not result in death but in more than 80 per cent of cases, hijackers

were armed with guns and there was a threat of death.

People drive defensively in Johannesburg. They keep their windowsup, their doors locked and skip red lights because any car waiting at an

intersection is vulnerable. They are vigilant and careful, and if a suspicious-

looking car or character is outside their house, they drive on. If their cars arebumped by other cars on highway, they also drive on because stopping to

investigate is too dangerous.

While some hijackings are smooth, quick and polite, some are

exceptionally violent and involve hostages and murder. Cars have been takenwith babies and children still strapped in the back seat. Because of this, many

mothers no longer strap their children into cars. They think it is too risky. If

they are at the supermarket, they always pack the groceries into the car beforethey let the children to get in. They are permanently on their guard.

Many parents prepare their children for such situations as if they were

practising fire drill. They tell them, for example, that if hijack takes place,

they are to listen to their parents and not the hijackers.Hijacking is so much a part of daily life that a book was recently

published on what to do in the case of a hijack. One radio station even runs a

hijack-watch line that describes cars that have been taken and asks motoriststo look out for them.

Your summary must:

Be in continuous writing (not in note form)

Not be longer than 80 words, including the 10 words given below

Begin your summary as follows:

Car owners in South Afr ica are so fr ightened of hi jack...


21/68



APPENDIX C

Interview questions:

1. What were your experiences when you were attempting to write the

paraphrasing tests?2. What did you have to do to complete the summary writing test?3. What were your experiences using the paraphrasing skills that you learned?

Were these skills something new or something familiar to you?

4. How well did you think you applied the summary writing techniques taughtto you in class?

5. What were some of the difficulties you encountered while producing a

summary?

6. Which of the two passages did you prefer? Why?7. What do you see were your strengths and weaknesses when you attempted

to complete the task?

8. What were your feelings about the first test when you attempted it? Whatabout the second test?


22/68

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue in Enhancing

Written Corrective Feedback Efficacy

ASIAH KASSIMUniversiti Malaysia Pahang

NG LEE LUANUniversity of Malaya

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses findings from a qualitative investigation to identify factors inrelation to language-related episodes (LREs) that influence the uptake and retention in the

accurate use of subject-verb agreement and prepositions resulting from indirect focused

and indirect unfocused written corrective feedback. In relation to these identified factors,the roles of collaborative dialogue were determined through the analyses of the LREs and

the interviews with selected participants. The participants in the study who received

either focused or unfocused indirect corrective feedback for their written work were

required to revise their work collaboratively during the pair talk. Findings from the

analyses of the two data sources suggest that collaborative dialogue played a crucial rolein enhancing the corrective feedback efficacy in facilitating participants language

learning development. Primarily, collaborative dialogue enhanced learners focus towardsungrammatical uses in written work. Working collaboratively also provided learners with

means to extensively deliberate over the corrections, which led to insightful reflections

on their existing linguistic knowledge in response to the corrective feedback that theyreceived for their written work.

KEYWORDS: Collaborative dialogue, language-related episodes, written corrective

feedback


23/68

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue 17

Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.

Introduction

One of the pertinent issues that has been continuously discussed in the field of second

language learning is the role of corrective feedback (CF) and its influence on learnerslinguistic development. A good number of studies relate contradictory views on this

matter. At one end, some scholars believe that corrective feedback is facilitative forlanguage acquisition. Findings from a number of studies have shown that CF helped thelearners to revise their work and write more accurately in subsequent writings (e.g.,

Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005; Chandler, 2003; Ferris,

2006). On the other hand, researchers like Truscott (1996) argued that grammar

corrections are ineffective and may be detrimental to language learning development(Truscott, 1996; Truscott & Hsu, 2008).

After over a decade of incessant debate, Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum and Wolfersberger

(2010) asserted that researchers have been asking the wrong question with regards to therole of CF in language learning. Framing of the inquiries should focus more on how CF

can be exploited to help students become better writers, than to ask whether or not CFshould be given to the learners written work. This line of argument is parallel to that ofFerris (2004) who stated that the importance of a study should be put on the types of CF

to be employed in different learning instructions that can cater to different learners

needs. White (2003) acknowledges the importance of examining data based onindividual performance because depending solely on statistical figures derived from

group scores may not be able to provide accurate interpretation in addressing grammar

proficiency of diverse learners. Moreover, drawing on suggestions brought forth by Van

Beuningen (2010) calling for more qualitative inquiries on CF issues, the present studyattempted to examine CF effectiveness from the learners perspective in relation to

influencing factors and the roles that collaborative dialogue play in enhancing the CF

efficacy. Thus, the analyses of the interviews and the LREs occurring in collaborativedialogue may shed some light to questions of the present study which primarily attempt

to identify factors that influence uptake and retention of the CF and the roles that

collaborative dialogue play in enhancing this learning process.

Written corrective feedback, collaborative dialogue and the output hypothesis

Based on previous studies, it can be asserted that attention must be given to the CF(Chandler, 2003) and there should be engagement with [the] feedback to enhance

uptake and retention (Lee, 2013). The Chandler (2003) study strongly indicated that

improvement in subsequent written work can be evident only when the learners attended

to the feedback and revise their writing accordingly, because if no revision was made itcan be considered as equivalent to giving no error feedback (Chandler, 2003, p. 280). In

other words, learners must demonstrate attentiveness towards the CF provided for it to

take effect in their written work.

With the assumption that CF can be more effective when attention is focused on the CF

received, a number of studies have incorporated the written CF with other approaches,such as oral conference and metalinguistic explanation (Bitchener et al., 2005), error log


24/68



and continuous revision (Hartshorn et al., 2010) and collaborative dialogues (Storch &

Wigglesworth, 2010). Lee (2013) has also suggested that in order to maximise student

learning, working in pairs to make revisions should be taken into account as the meansto enhance learning development.

With regards to collaborative dialogue, one aspect that has mostly been examined is thelanguage-related episodes (LREs) that occurred during the revision process. LRE isdefined as any part of the discourse where students talk about the language they are

producing, question their language use or correct themselves or others (Swain & Lapkin,

1995). A number of studies that involve LREs analysis have been conducted toinvestigate the effectiveness of learning instructions utilising collaborative tasks in

various contexts of language learning (e.g., Philp, Walter & Basturkmen, 2010; Sato &

Ballinger, 2012). Storch and Wigglesworths (2010) study for instance, looked at the

extent of LREs that occur in pair talks and how they influence uptake and retention oflanguage features negotiated in the collaborative dialogue. Findings from that study

suggest that the more extensive the engagement in the LREs is, the greater the uptake and

retention are of the linguistic forms discussed. Ishiis (2011) study using turn-basedcoding system had also analysed collaborative dialogues to explore learners learning

strategies in improving linguistic accuracy in written work.

The key concept of Swains (2005) output hypothesis is that learners are actively engagedin the process of language learning and collaborative dialogue can be viewed as the

means to achieve this condition. Swain (2005) outlines the output hypothesis by

proposing three functions that the theory serves: noticing, hypothesis testing andmetalinguistics. Noticing is important because it provides learners with the information of

the gap in the learners interlanguage system. Furthermore, hypothesis testing involves

learners to produce modified output and stretch their interlanguage system to find out

the target-like use of the linguistic form in question. This stage is significant because thisis where learners, as implied by Ferris (2006), will be most encouraged to be involved in

deeper internal processing and enhance the uptake and retention of the targeted

linguistic forms into their interlanguage system. This leads to the third function of theoutput hypothesis, that is, the reflection on learners metalinguistic knowledge. The

resolution of the hypothesis testing and the reflection of the learners linguistic

knowledge will be the formation of a new or enhanced linguistic acquisition as well asthe realisation of the gap that exists in the learners interlanguage system.

In relation to the issue reviewed above, the present studys aim to explore the CF issue

from the learners perspectives would hopefully render some insights on the learnersengagement with feedback and the process that were involved in responding to the CF

that they received. Hyland (2010) indicates the scarcity of studies that have been carried

out investigating the learners strategies and learning processes that take place which

may increase CF efficacy in order to achieve full learning potential (Hyland, 2010 , p.179).

It is hypothesised that collaborative dialogue plays a crucial role in enhancing the writtencorrective feedback that learners received leading to uptake and retention. Thus, it is the


25/68



intention of the present study that through the analysis of the LREs and interviews,

factors that influencing uptake and retention can be identified and the roles of

collaborative dialogue can be ascertained as to the manner this approach may enhancelanguage learning development.

The study

Research Questions

This study aimed to identify factors that influenced uptake and retention of the CF onsubject-verb agreement (SVA) and preposition in written work. Incorporating

collaborative dialogue as part of the treatment process, this inquiry was investigated from

the learners perspectives in investigating the roles that collaborative dialogue plays in

enhancing CF efficacy. The following research questions guided the present study: (1)What are the factors in relation to the Language-Related Episodes (LREs) that influence

uptake and retention of the written corrective feedback on subject-verb agreement and

prepositions in written work?; and (2) What are the roles of collaborative dialogue inenhancing the effectiveness of written corrective feedback in relation to the identified

influencing factors?

Participants

The study was conducted at a technical university in the East Coast of Malaysia involving

90 undergraduate students who were enrolled in the fourth level of English languageproficiency course. In order to fulfil the academic requirements, students at the university

are required to complete four levels of English language course and in general, they are

placed at the intermediate proficiency level. The average number of years of the

participants formal English language lesson is 13.5 depending on whether they enrolledin a Diploma programme or a Foundation course after high school at the age of 18. Three

groups of 30 participants each were randomly assigned as the focused indirect CF (FCF),

unfocused indirect CF (UFCF) or the control group.

Design and procedures

Throughout the 12 weeks, the participants were required to write five 200-word

descriptions on graphic prompts of technological theme, of which 30 minutes were

allocated for each task. The participants were required to identify salient information in

the graph to write the description which comprises an introductory sentence, discussionof the important information and a concluding remark. The selection of these written

tasks considered two main aspects; (i) this instrument elicited sufficient use of SVA and

prepositions; and (ii) it was the form of written task that the participants were familiar

with, so that the instructions and requirements of the tasks can be fully understood by theparticipants.

The pre-test took place in week 2 and followed by Writing Task 1 (WT1) in week 3.WT1 was returned the following week to the participants with either the UFCF or FCF.


26/68



The group that received FCF were given feedback on only subject-verb agreement and

preposition errors. For example:

SVA* users prefer to using a Mozilla web brouser

Even though there are other errors in the sentence, feedback was only provided for theselected linguistic forms. In the example, the selected error is subject-verb agreement,

and the part where the error occurred was underlined and indicted by the symbol SVA

above the underlined phrase to inform the learner of the error type.

The participants in the UFCF group, in addition to the two targeted structures, they also

received feedback on other linguistic features that were adapted from Azars (1992) guide

for correcting writing errors. Below is the example of the indirect unfocused feedback:

SVA P A SP M/S*The users prefer at use a Mozilla web brousers

Apart from SVA and prepositions, feedback on article (A), singular/plural(SP) and

spelling (M/S) were also provided for the sentence in the example. The feedback wasmore comprehensive and learners were provided with a much extensive range of

corrections for their written work. Learners were provided with only the indication of the

errors committed by underlining the selected parts and informing the types of errorscommitted. The correct forms, however, were not provided with the feedback.

Upon receiving their writings with the CF, they were given five minutes to look through

their work on their own before they started working with their partner. The participantswere given the freedom to choose their own partner for the pair talk to ensure that they

were comfortable discussing their written work. The LREs were elicited from the two

pair talk sessions. These sessions took place in the multimedia language laboratory andeach student had an access to the computer for recording purposes. 30 minutes were

allocated to discuss each written work. However, they were allowed to extent their

discussion if necessary. Once they have finished discussing both written work and hadsaved the recording on the computer, all the notes and the written work were collected.

Immediately after that, the participants completed Writing Task 2. The writings were

returned with the CF the following week and the same procedures took place. The

immediate post-test was conducted after the second pair-talk session ended and thedelayed post-test was administered six weeks later. The interview was conducted in week

13, the subsequent week after the delayed post-test. Each interview session lasted for

approximately 45 minutes to one hour.

Coding and analysis

The first source of data came from the two written work of the FCF and UFCF groups.The CF provided for each piece of writing was identified and categorised according to the


27/68



two targeted linguistic forms. The second source of the data was the transcribed

collaborative dialogues of the UFCF and FCF groups in the two treatment sessions. All

relevant episodes which contained deliberations on the two targeted linguistic forms wereidentified and coded into the following categorisations:

Linguistic formsSVA/ prepositions Resolutioncorrectly/ incorrectly/ unresolved

Focus on ungrammaticalityperfunctory/ substantive

Hypothesising correctionlimited/ extensive

Post-response reflections

The two targeted linguistic forms were identified and coded as either SVA or

prepositions. In terms of resolution, correct resolution is when the pairs were able tocome up with the corrected forms of the errors committed. Incorrect resolution is when

the pairs came up with the forms that are inaccurate for the context of the written work.

The feedback was considered unresolved when the pairs during the deliberation over the

feedback mentioned that they did not know the correct form. Substantive focus is codedwhen the learners were able to understand why the errors were committed and able to

explain on the corrections. Perfunctory focus is when the learners did not understand why

an error was committed and were not able to explain the corrections (Qi & Lapkin, 2001).Extensive hypothesising of correction is when the participants deliberated extensively

over an error and tried out several options before finally agreeing on a correction.

Limited hypothesising of correction is when participants made correction by justacknowledging the feedback and simply came up with a correction without much

deliberation. Post-response reflection is when learners reflected on their existing

linguistic knowledge in comparison to the CF that they received and the deliberated

corrections.

The third source of data came from the writings of the immediate and delayed post-tests.

In order to examine the retention of the corrective feedback, a process-product analysiswas employed (Nassaji & Swain, 2000; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010). The analysis

linked the LREs in collaborative dialogue with the performance of the participants in the

immediate and delayed post-tests. To establish this link, the examination focused on

comparison between the response of the participants to the corrective feedback on thetwo targeted structures with the accurate use of these two forms in similar instances

identified in the immediate and delayed post-tests.

Finally, the fourth source of data was the analysis of interviews conducted with the

participants in a week following the delayed post-test. The interview was analysed forresponses given on the roles of collaborative dialogue in enhancing the CF efficacy.

Results and discussion

According to White (2003), examining data at individual level is a welcome trend

which allows possibility of exploring more information on the individual linguisticcompetence. Bitchener et al. (2005) also suggested that individual performance may be


28/68



one of the factors that influenced the disparity in the accuracy scores over a period of

time. Thus, this paper discusses qualitative findings that may render some insights as to

how the CF and collaborative dialogue may have facilitated the learners in improvingaccuracy in written work. In order to achieve this, factors that may have influenced the

uptake and retention were identified from the analyses of the LREs as well as interviews

exploring the issue from the learners perspectives and what roles does t he collaborativedialogue play in enhancing the learning development in relation to the factors identified.

Learners focus on ungrammatical uses

According to Swain (2005), noticing plays an important role in directing learners

attention to the gap that exists in their interlanguage system. This awareness assists

learners to reflect on their language production and make necessary revisions. By

employing focused or unfocused indirect CF, errors were made salient for the learners tofocus their attention towards grammatical and ungrammatical uses while making room

for them to test their language hypothesis in making corrections during the collaborative

dialogue.

Close examination reveals that participants who demonstrated substantive focus seemed

to attain greater uptake and retention than those who showed only perfunctory focus.

Extract 1 is the LREs of learners demonstrating substantive focus. It was evident that thepairs showed substantive focus when deliberating over a SVA error and eventually were

able to explain why the sentence was wrong and identified the correct form to use.

Extract 1

(1)

(2)

Amira SVA error herethe most popular device are

herethe subject is device

(3) Hana device are not are we need singularmmmdevice?

(4)

(5)

Amira Yes device is singular singular so, cannot use

are singularthen I should use isso, device is(6) Hana Ormmm devices are?

(7)

(8)(9)

Amira no not devices I just talk about one device

heremobile phoneso, it should bedevicesingularverb is device is

Amira (all names in this article are pseudonyms) was fully aware that she was directed

toward the phrase the device are which was not in agreement in terms of numbers to theverb used (line 1). When Hana suggested the use of are with devices, she asserted that

she was talking about one device, the mobile phone and it should agree with the verb is,

since it is singular (lines 6 to 8). This LRE indicated that when the pairs attentions were

directed towards the non-target like output, they managed to make accurate correctionsince they demonstrated substantive focus by clearly stating the reason for the error

committed. This finding seems to corroborate the results from other studies that suggest

the greater role substantive noticing plays in enhancing uptake of corrective feedback thatis observed through the analysis of LREs (Qi & Lapkin, 2001; Sachs & Polio, 2007).


29/68



On the other hand, pairs that only demonstrated perfunctory focus would just simply read

the CF and agreed on a correction. An example of perfunctory focus is given in Extract 2.

Extract 2

1) Syed NextSVA the numbers increases

(2) Nabila Change to the number increasesno s(3) Syed Ok the numberno snext

Syed simply agreed on the suggestion and changed the numbers to the number,

leaving out the s. They were able to make accurate correction, but they did notdemonstrate understanding over the CF and the errors committed. With this simple

assumption, they tend to make mistakes when correcting similar SVA errors since they

were not completely aware of the subject or the verb of the sentence. Interview with this

pair of participants revealed that they just assumed that when the error is SVA, they justneeded to omit or add an s to one of the words underlined by the researcher. When

asked if they knew which one was the subject or the verb in the underlined phrases, they

mostly pointed out the verb correctly, but it was not consistent with the subject. Anexample is given below:

SVA

Another web browser used by the internet user are Safari.

In this sentence, Syed pointed to the the internet user as the subject and during the pair

talk, he added s to the word user instead of using is to make it ag reeable with theactual subject of the sentence. He simply assumed that the internet users was the subject

of the sentence and it should be plural since are was used subsequent to the assumed

subject. What this condition implies is that even though they sometimes managed to

make accurate corrections, by not clearly being aware of the reason for their errors, theywere unable to take up and retain the CF in the long run.

Hypothesising corr ections

Similar to the Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) study, learners in the present study who

were engaged in the LREs more extensively showed a greater uptake and retention of theCF for the two target structures. Participants who did not extensively test their language

hypothesis seemed to not show much uptake and retention of the forms. They tended to

repeat the same errors in the subsequent written work. The example below illustrates

extensive hypothesising of correction during the collaborative dialogue deliberating overa CF on a preposition error.

Extract 3

(1) Amin P errorprepositionat year 2007.(3) Ain Why wrong? Maybe it should year 2007? no at

(4) Amin No.. mmm preposition so maybe at 2007?

(5)(6)

Ain at 2007, no year? but at 2007 not right at year2007 is better maybe we should change at use


30/68



(7) different preposition.

(8)

(9)(10)

Amin at I think to show place at the bus stop for

yearwe should use other preposition... maybeon or in?

(11)

(12)(13)

Ain in?... in year 2007 on year 2007 I think in year

2007 is better like dalam tahun2007 (in the year2007) ok in year 2007

The participants in Extract 3 had extensively hypothesised the corrections during the

LRE. They tested several possibilities (lines 4 to 9) before agreeing on the correction inline (11). These learners were able to understand the CF and why an error had been

committed (lines 7-8) which provided them with more opportunity to extensively engage

in the deliberation of the CF.

On the other hand, when participants did not extensively hypothesise the correction, the

uptake and retention was considerably lower than those who had had extensive

engagements in deliberating the CF. An interview with a participant revealed that shecould not remember much from the pair talk when discussing the CF. The selected part of

the audio recorded pair talk was played to her and her written work was shown when she

was asked to recall during the interview.

This partI dont remember when I write later after the pair talkI just

write did not think about the discussionI cannot remember we

discussed very quickly.(Rubi, personal communication, January 3, 2012)

Rubi admitted that she could not remember the pair-talk when she was writing the

subsequent tasks since the discussion was very short and did not trigger much emphasison the forms being deliberated.

Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) suggested that extensive engagement provides thelearners with more opportunity to test their language hypothesis while getting immediate

feedback from their peers. They also stated that learners have more resources in the

learning process when deliberating over the CF collaboratively since they can assist eachother and rely on each others metalinguistic knowledge. Swain (2005) stated that

learners need to test their language hypothesis in order to modify the output resulting

from the CF provided.

Learners post-response reflections

As evident in the LREs, learners who reflected on their linguistic knowledge following

their response to the CF that they received demonstrated greater uptake and retention ofthe accurate forms in subsequent written work. These learners showed improved accuracy

on a condition that they were willing to unlearn the existing metalinguistic knowledge in

their interlanguage system. To illustrate this condition, an example is described below ona preposition error, in conclusion. Most participants used as a conclusion, but after


31/68



much deliberation and reflections, even though the participants were reluctant to accept

the correct preposition, they were willing to change their familiar way of using the

phrase. Extract 4 is an LRE excerpt from the first pair talk session.

Extract 4

(1) Cheah Here preposition error as a conclusion why?(2)(3)

Sia as a conclusion? preposition error so how wechange this?

(4)

(5)

Why is this wrong? I always use this.. I didnt realise

this is wrong maybe as conclusion, no a, just asconclusion.

(6)

(7)

(8)

Cheah Well maybe but as conclusion does not sound

rightI think change the preposition as maybe we

cannot use as, use something else.(9)

(10)

Sia But as a conclusion I always use this as a

conclusion change to what?

(11)(12)

(13)

Cheah I think its in conclusionin conclusion or maybe toconclusion?... no that to conclude. in

conclusion

(14) Sia But why?... in conclusion doesnt sound right

dalam kesimpulan(in conclusion)(15) Cheah I think in conclusion that is how it is used

(16) Sia Ok lets try that in conclusion

(UFCF Pair 2 Collaborative Dialogue 1)

Cheahwas quite reluctant to accept the newly agreed form in conclusion because she

had been using as a conclusion and was never pointed out that it was incorrect (lines 1 -

4). Eventually, after some deliberations, she accepted the form and changed her sentenceaccordingly. This unlearning process enhanced the reflective function leading to greater

uptake and retention of the CF. The following are samples of sentences taken from

Cheahswritings.

Writing Task 1 original sentence sample:

PAs a conclusion, in 2008 households in Japan preferred to own a mobilephones for communication.

Revised sentence:

In conclusion, in 2008 households in Japan preferred to own a mobile phonesfor communication.

Task 2 sample sentence:In conclusion, the internet surfers use Internet Explorer more when surf the

internet compared to other web browsers.


32/68



Delayed post-test sample sentence:

In conclusion, Singapore had highest number of subscribers in 2005.

It was evident that Cheahdemonstrated uptake as seen in Task 2 sample sentence and the

accurate use was retained after six weeks as shown in the delayed post-test sample

sentence. Internalisation of the new accepted form occurred after the learners werewilling to unlearn the previous used forms. The fact that these participants generallyacknowledge their limited knowledge and skills in using the L2 made them to be more

receptive of the feedback. One learner admitted that she always felt that her English was

not good and she needed more practice to improve her language proficiency.

My English weak. I always feel when I write my sentence wrong. I need

teacher tell me how can make them more accurate. During pair talk my

friend help me a lot and maybe more discussion like this can help improvemore because I get feedback from teacher and from my friend. I can learn

more that way.

(Cheah, personal communication, January 4, 2012).

This receptiveness towards the corrective feedback due to the level of proficiency has

also been discussed in the Patthey-Chavez and Ferris (1997) study comparing learners of

different proficiency levels in their use of the CF in revising their written work. Lowerproficiency learners were more inclined to use the CF thoroughly than the more able

learners who employed the CF as initiatives to changes in their writings (as cited in

Hyland & Hyland, 2006). The unlearning that took place was an indication that thelearners have reflected on their own metalinguistic knowledge and they were more

receptive towards the new learned language features and made progress in the learning

development.

Roles of collaborative dialogue from the learners perspectives

The output hypothesis theorises that learning can occur when the learners producelanguage (Swain, 2005). One of the means for the learners to produce language apart

from the written work is through collaborative dialogue. Exploring this issue from the

learners perspectives, the present study attempted to address the question posed byWigglesworth and Storch (2012) asking how collaborative dialogue is able to enhance

learning development.

In terms of the importance of attention given by the learners to the CF that they received,interviews revealed that collaborative dialogue was viewed by the learners as the means

to ensure that attention is paid to the CF since revision was required to be completed

through the pair talk subsequent to getting back their written work. A number of

participants admitted during the interview that the pair talk made them focus on the CFthat they received.


33/68



The pair talk made pay more attention to the CF that I received. If I were to

work on my own individually, I wouldnt pay that much attention... I

would usually just browse through once and keep the writing away.(Raj, personal communication, January 4, 2012)

This attitude was shared by most participants admitting that the attention that was givento the CF was because they needed to make corrections collaboratively during the pairtalk. They were obligated to attend to the CF in order to contribute to the discussion

during the pair talk. The collaborative mindset that was proposed to be essential in the

Sato and Ballinger (2012) study can be also extended to the context of the present study.Having viewed the importance of collaborative work in completing tasks, learners were

able to contribute more to the learning process, eventually enhancing each learners

language development.

Focus on ungrammatical uses was greatly enhanced by the collaborative dialogue. By

discussing the CF with a partner, a learner can be more aware of the gap that exists in

their interlanguage system. A participant stated that working collaboratively helped her tobecome more conscious of her language use.

My friend help with the correction. If I made corrections on my own, I dont

know why they wrong, but when discuss, we help each other. So, Iunderstand better why they are wrong and how correct them.

(Nazira, personal communication, January 6, 2012)

Most participants felt that without the collaborative dialogue, they may not pay attention

to why errors have occurred. They would either simply make corrections without giving

much thought or may not even bother to correct the errors. If this happened, the CF that

was provided would not be beneficial to the learners and learning would not occur.

As evident in the LREs analysis, collaborative dialogue provided means for extensive

hypothesising of corrections. Learners deliberated over the CF more when they workcollaboratively to make corrections than when they work on their own. A participant said

that when they were discussing the CF, they were motivated to discuss thoroughly until

they arrived to the decision that they are both satisfied with.

When we discussed, we tried many times until when we were confident with

the corrections. But if I revise on my own, I just simply made correction and

did not think much about it.(Alif, personal communication, January 5, 2012)

Most participants expressed that since they needed to contribute to the pair talk, they

really focused on the CF and they wanted to be certain of the corrections that they agreedon.

Findings also reveal that collaborative dialogue enhances reflective function. Learnerswere able to focus on ungrammatical uses in their existing language system and


34/68



extensively hypothesise their corrections mainly because collaborative dialogue provides

them with the means to reflect on their linguistic knowledge. Swain (2005) stated that the

pair talk can be regarded as the exterior source of physical and mental regulation for anindividual (Swain, 2005, p. 478). This regulation and scaffolding that occurred during

the collaborative dialogue would then be internalised into individual learners language

system. This internalisation can be an indication of learning taking place. Learnersexpressed that working collaboratively to make corrections can be beneficial since theywere able to help each other and improve on their own linguistic knowledge.

Discussion to make corrections helped me a lot. I cannot make all correctionsalone because I dont know all. My partner help make me realise why the

error.

(Jannah, personal communication, January 6, 2012)

Another participant stated that working with a partner was better than working on her

own in making corrections.

I think I liked work with a friend more than work alone to make corrections.

We help each other a lot if I work alone I did not know the

correctionsI did not know why I was wrongmy friend helped me explain

why they were wrong.(Maya, personal communication, January 5, 2012)

Working collaboratively provided the learners the means to get input from their peers ontheir language use in addition to the CF provided by the teacher. In order for the CF to be

effective, it is important for them to be able to understand their errors and their language

use.

Conclusion

Learners in the present study demonstrated that they were inclined to reflect on theirexisting second language system as a result of responding to the CF that they received, as

well as going through the process of focusing on the ungrammatical uses and

hypothesising the corrections. The findings from this study suggest that collaborativedialogue enhanced the facilitative effects of the CF in assisting learners to improve

accuracy of SVA and prepositions in written work. As indicated by Wigglesworth and

Storch (2012) on the importance of producing language to learn, which is theorised in the

context of the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 2005), collaborative dialogue provides themeans for learners to produce language during the learning process. In other words, the

effectiveness of this learning process was greatly enhanced by the collaborative dialogue

that primarily direct and focus the learners attention towards the CF and to reflect on the

language use in written work. As Storch says (2010, p. 42), learning requires extensiveand sustained meaningful exposure and practice. In relation to this, it is evident from the

findings of this study that employing collaborative dialogue has

malaysian journal of elt research - volume 10 (1) 2014

Documents