task conceptualization and writing development: dynamics of change in a task-based eap course rosa...
TRANSCRIPT
Task conceptualization and writing development: Dynamics of change in a
task-based EAP course
Rosa M. ManchónUniversity of Murcia, [email protected]
TBLT 2009 Conference, Lancaster University
Learner’s engagement with pedagogic tasks
Language learning development
Task-related factors
Learner-related factors
Learner’s own perceptions of task demands, goals, and expected outcomes
Processing activity during task performance
Insider dimension of task performance
Learner factors/ Insider dimension of tasks
Task complexity/Task difficulty
(Robinson, 2001, 2005)
Dörnyei, 2002Murphy, 2003Robinson 2001, 2007Tavaloki, 2009Tavaloki & Skehan, 2005
•Speaking tasks
• Results might not apply to writing
Learners’ ability and affective factors are likey to mediate the production and learning opportunities that tasks afford, and these individual difference-task dimension interactions are in great need of further theoretical motivation and subsequent study for their effects in language production and language learning during task-based instruction (Robinson, 2007:210).
Tasks and writing
Learner/ Insider dimension of tasks
TASK CONCEPTUALIZATION: TASK CONCEPTUALIZATION: Learner’s assessment of the Learner’s assessment of the complexity and demands of the task at complexity and demands of the task at hand.hand.
When confronted with any academic writing task, a first thing a student must do is create an understanding of what skills, products, and processes the task requires and make a plan of action that will lead to a written product that apprppriately fulfills
the writing task (Wolfersberger, 2007 :: 73)
Research questions
1. Did the participants´ conceptualization of academic writing changed after completing an EAP course?
2. Did any observed changes influence the participants´ goals for academic writing?
3. Did any observed changes in task conceptualization and goals correspond to any observed changes in the participants´ writing products?
4. What factors influenced any observed changes in the participants´ conceptualization of academic writing?
Students:
18 students in the fourth year of a five-year degree in English Studies
Age: 21-24 L2 proficiency level: advanced (OPT) Previous year:
5 students: SA previous year Rest: Language course
Participation on voluntary basis. Consent form.
METHOD: PARTICIPANTS
Content modules:Content modules:
Empirical study in SLA module Text analyses (linguistics modules), literary
analysis, etc No explicit instruction in writing except for the SLA
module.
EAP courseEAP course Compulsory module Develop more advanced and integrated reading and
writing skills 3 contact hour per week x 30 weeks
METHOD: students’ writing experience and instruction
AssignmentsAssignments A personal statement to support a (fictitious) application to a
postgraduate course in the UK or USA A synthesis of a group of pre-assigned texts, mainly from
newspapers A report of a survey designed and carried out by students
themselves on a topic of interest to them
JournalsJournals45 journals over the course of the year that include:
a) free expressions of anything the student wants to write about;
b) topics set by the teacher (reflections on the course, their learning, beliefs, strategies, the textbook, teaching, classes, etc.)
METHOD: EAP course
METHOD: Tasks and procedures
T1: Oct- Nov. T2: May-June
Students
•OPT•L2 writing•Semi-structured interviews
•OPT•L2 writing•Semi-structured interviews•Journals
Teacher •Written narrative
•Semi-structured interview
Learning
Context
•Institutional information on the EAP course
•Interviews with other lecturers teaching in the 4th year.
Data analysis
• Conventions in the analysis of qualitative data (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
• Interview profile & data reduction
• Journals: recurrent patterns and summary of the main overarching themes
RESULTS: RQs 1& 2Multi-dimensional mental model of writing
More ambitious in the goals pursued (more problem solving)
Deeper processing while writing and while processing feedback
Multi-dimensional model of writing
• Levels: ideational, textual, linguistic
• Audience concerns
• Conventions of academic writing
Product dimension
Process dimension
• The prewriting stage
• Writing is rewriting
• Stages of problem-solving activity
Self-regulation strategiesDynamics in task-conceptualization
Goals
1. From accuracy to addressing a whole range of concerns
2. Improvement of writing abilities in the future
3. From fulfilling task requirement to writing for self-satisfaction (self-imposed standards of achievenent)
4. To approximate native-like standards and develop a personal voice
5. From fulfilling task requirements to writing in order to improve language competences.
L2 proficiencyL2 proficiency:
Time 1: M= 154.50, SD=9.91 Time 2: M= 159.61, SD=10.65 Z(15) =-2.87, p=0.004
L2 writingL2 writing Analytic measures Holistic assessment
RQ 3 : Written products
Analytic measuresAnalytic measures Z p
Accuracy Error-free clauses -2.59 .01
Fluency Essay length -2.50 .01
Total number of clauses -2.79 .01
Total number of sentences -2.94 .00
Lexical variety
Chaudron’s Word Variation -2.50 .01
n.s: •Accuracy: Error-free sentences, Percentage of error free sentences/clauses.• Lexical variety: D value, TTR• Syntactic complexity: No sub. CL; CL per S ratio; Sub. CL. per CL./S; Coordination index; Clause length; Sentence length.
Holistic measuresHolistic measures:
RESULTS
Time 1 Time 2 Wilcoxon Sig
M SD M SD Z p
Communicative 5.66 1.02 7.16 1.24 -2.899 .004
Organization 5.38 1.24 7.05 1.34 -3.04 .002
Argumentation 5.50 0.78 7.00 1.28 -3.347 .001
Accuracy 5.83 0.70 6.50 1.20 -1.913 .056
Appropriacy 6.11 0.67 7.11 0.96 -3.166 .002
Holistic rating 28.5 3.73 34.8 4.9 -3.484 .000
1. Task instructions and evaluation rubric 2. Teacher and peer factors:
• Extensive and challenging output practice• Cognitive conflict instructional strategies• Guided feedback- and guided formulation and revision process• Feedback for acquisition (not just for accuracy).• Guided peer review• Students´ involvement in peer review activities• Encouragement of cooperative learning
RQ 4 : Influencing factors
Conclusion:
Metacognitive knowledge + WR practice
Self-confidence
Attempt to write more complex & longer texts
Write to learn
L2 learning
Motivation to
write
L2 writing
•Motivating factor
•Goal
References:
• Murphy, J. (2003). Task-based learning. The interaction between tasks and learners. ELT Journal, 57 (4), 352-360.
• Robinson , P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In R. Robisnon (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Robisnon, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43 (1), 1-32.
• Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 193-213.
• Tavaloki, P. (2009). Investigating task difficulty: learners’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19 (1), 1-25.
• Tavaloki, P. & Skehan, P. (2005) Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language (pp. 239-177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Wolfersberger, M. A. (2007). Second Language Writing from Sources: An Ethnographic Study of an Argument Essay Task. Unpublished PHD Dissertation, University of Auckland.