Using Technology to Teach Writing

1
Using Technology to Teach Writing

• Lecture 10
• Teaching Writing in EFL/ESL
• Joy Robbins

2
Todays Session

• Word Processing in the classroom
• Online writing conferencing collaboration
• Using corpora to teach/develop students writing

3
Discussion

• Do you use a computer regularly for your own
  writing? Why (not)?
• If you do, do you do everything (i.e. planning,
  composing, revising, editing, etc.) on the
  computer? Or do you do some of this with pen and
  paper? Why?
• In what ways has your writing benefited from
  computer-based writing tools? What frustrations
  or disadvantages have you experienced?
• What do you think are the greatest advantages
  computers offer to second language writers? What
  are the potential drawbacks?
• What sort of computer-based writing activities
  would you get your students to do? Why?
• (Partly based on questions by Ferris Hedgcock
  1998 264)

4
A quick look at research on the use of Word
Processing (WP) in the classroom
5
Word processing advantages (1)

• Students are said to have a positive attitude to
  WP (Aykel Kamisli 1999 Rusmin 1999)
• Research shows students produce longer texts when
  word processing than when writing with pen
  paper (Brock Pennington 1999 Chadwick Bruce
  1989 Pennington Brock 1992)

6
Word processing advantages (2)

• WP allows for easier revision of texts
• Surface-level editing for spelling and
  mechanics is encouraged in a word processing
  environment. At the same time, the ease with
  which individual words can be searched and whole
  sections of the text deleted, added, or moved
  suggests that word processing may have value as a
  macro-level revision tool. Rather than being a
  separate activity following the generation of a
  draft, revision in a computer context is closely
  linked to text generation. (Pennington 2003 290)

7
WP planning, revising

• L2 writers revise more when WP rather than using
  pen paper (Chadwick Bruce 1989 Li Cumming
  2001 Phinney Kouri 1993)
• L2 writers revise more continuously when WP
  (Phinney Kouri 1993)
• In pen-and-paper composing, writers often spend
  a lot of time in intensive planning before
  writing to avoid making mistakes or changing
  their minds about what they want to say and then
  having to undertake the tedious chore of
  rewriting or recopying text already written down.
  Under such conditions, pen-and-paper writers may
  habitually write a paper without any revision or
  with only a minimum amount of revision to avoid
  producing more than one draft. (Pennington 2003
  290)

8
Benefits of WP summary

• When the learners knowledge and attitudes
  towards WP are favourablethey will gradually
  experience effects on their writing behaviour of
  three types
• Manner Effects. A sense of the ease of writing
  and revising in a fluid writing process involving
  continuous and recursive write-revise cycles
• Quantity Effects. Writing for extended periods
  of time, producing long texts with much content
  and many revisions
• Quality Effects. Writing to a high standard in
  terms of topic development, formal
  characteristics, and writing goal (Pennington
  2003 292)

9
Potential Drawbacks of WP Summary

• Students may become frustrated with
  computer-based writing instruction if they have
  negative attitudes towards computers, and/or if
  they experience technical problems (Pennington
  2003)
• Although some studies have reported that students
  collaborate more when using computers to write,
  other studies report less collaboration, inferior
  revisions and redrafting, and no significant
  gains in writing quality in computer-based
  writing classrooms in comparison to pen-and-paper
  classrooms (Bernhardt et al 1989, 1990 Harris
  1985 Hawisher 1987)

10
WP Summary

• Computer-based writing research dates so quickly.
  We need current research on the benefits of L2
  word processing
• BUT
• Overall students like it, it seems to have
  advantages for writing as mentioned earlier, it
  is necessary these days, and it can also help
  make giving feedback easier
• How can you integrate WP in your teaching
  context?

11
Using Technology for Conferencing Collaboration
12
Student-student Conferencing Via Computer

• Sullivan Pratt (1996) found student writing
  improved in a networked vs. traditional
  classroom. Students also gave each other more
  focused feedback and more of it
• ____________________________
• Skinner Austin (1999) included a weekly 3 hour
  computer conferencing discussion period in their
  pre-sessional courses for non-native students,
  mainly from East Asia.
• They investigated the students feelings about
  conferencing by questionnaire.
• Students reported that computer conferencing was
  motivating for three reasons

13
S-s Conferencing Via Computer (2)

• Students were interacting with a real audience
• Students found computer conferencing made them
  feel more confident and comfortable with
  participating
• Students felt less apprehensive about writing
• Lets have a look at some of the students
  comments

14
Conferencing enhanced interaction

• other students comments always give me some new
  ideas
• What I learnt from taking part in the
  conferencing course wasso many minds. I enjoyed
  very much to read other students comments and
  give mine.
• I love to speak to other students to use
  conferences and we knew better each other than in
  the classroom. I feel they want to hear me
  because they know me.
• No matter if I make error because I have feeling
  that everyone is the same.

15
Getting everyone involved

• Computer-based conference classes are also said
  to lead to higher rates of participation
• More students contribute in comparison to a
  traditional speaking activity, where only some of
  the students seem prepared to speak

16
Conferencing increased participation

• I think it is easier for me to write down
  opinions than speak it out. When writing I can
  express my opinions logically. I think this
  system benefits me a lot.
• Skinner Austin (1999) comment
• The notion of enhancing personal confidence was
  particularly noticeable with students who were
  generally weak in traditional oral discussions.
  Throughout the six-week course the Japanese
  students were hesitant to express individual
  opinion in classroom situations, but added
  numerous controversial comments to various
  conferences. (p.274)

17
Increased participation (2)

• Skinner Austin partly attribute the students
  increased participation to the fact that
  computer-based writing occurs at a slower pace
  than oral discussions, so students had time to
  consider each response as it arrived (p.274)
• Another reason commonly given for increased
  participation in computer-based chat classes is
  that students are less self-conscious about
  making mistakes because of the anonymous quality
  of network communication which can be
  face-saving (Hoffman 1996 55).
• Warschauer (2001) claims that it is often those
  students who participate the least in traditional
  speaking activities who participate the most in
  network-based activities.

18
Simple Ways to do Online Conferencing

• Word Skype, Tinychat, Google Hangouts

19
More Integrated Ways to do Conferencing Online
into Collaboration

• Google Drive (previously Google Docs)
• a way to store documents on the cloud.
  Students can invite other students to their
  document or you can set up documents for groups
  of your choosing. People can comment on or edit
  the document while chatting in the side bar.

20
More Integrated Ways to do Conferencing Online
into Collaboration (non Google)

• Sync.in
• A web-based, no sign-up document collaboration
  site. Students can work on a text together, chat
  in the sidebar, and export the final version to
  HTML or .txt
• Twiddla
• A web-based, no sign-up meeting room. Focus
  can be a whiteboard, a document, a webpage.
  Sign-in needed to save work, 30-day free trial
• Vyew like above but free forever
• Really so many possibilities!! Check out this
  mind map of current online collaboration tools

21
Computer-assisted language learning and process
writing an example from Korea

• If online collaboration is not possible, you can
  still use computers to improve student writing
  through simpler means
• Suh (2002) 19 intermediate Korean undergraduates
  learning English

22
First session

• In the 1st lesson, the class chose to write about
  the topic travelling abroad
• The learners were then asked to think about where
  they wanted to visit and what they wanted to do
  there
• Learners surfed the Web for information about the
  country they had in mind, finding out about
  hotels, food, museums, historical sites, etc by
  using search engines like Yahoo
• When they found relevant information, learners
  took notes or printed pages out. They then
  discussed their chosen destinations with other
  learners, in an attempt to persuade them to come
  along with them
• Once students had found someone who agreed to go
  on holiday to the same destination they formed a
  pair

23
Second session

• The class now began to think about what they
  would include in their essays on travelling
  abroad, and how to organize their writing
• The students worked in pairs and wrote a 1st
  draft of their essay together
• Then different pairs exchanged their 1st drafts
  via email. The pairs read each others drafts and
  were asked to provide feedback and comments on
  the writing. They were asked by the teacher to
  focus in their comments on meaning (clarity of
  message, effective transitions between sentences
  and paragraphs, and appropriate vocabulary (Suh
  2002672) ) rather than on grammar

24
Third session

• Some students had emailed their colleagues their
  feedback
• Each pair read the feedback on their 1st drafts
  from their colleagues
• Pairs of students worked with other pairs to help
  them revise their 1st drafts in the light of
  these comments
• Based on these discussions, each pair now
  produced a 2nd draft
• Because their colleagues feedback had focused on
  ideas and meaning rather than on grammar,
  students were encouraged to improve the grammar
  in their 2nd drafts by looking at grammar books
  and grammar websites

25
Out of class

• Students worked in pairs outside the class
  (presumably either face-to-face or via email) and
  produced a 3rd and final draft, which they then
  sent to the teacher
• Imagine a teacher who has very little class time
  with studentssay 4 hours a week to cover
  everything (i.e. grammar, vocabulary, skills).
  How could they teach writing in a similar way to
  Suh?

26
Analyzing the students reactions

• Suh (2002) asked the learners to write their
  reactions to this approach to the teaching of
  writing in a journal (in Korean)
• Suhs data showed that the students were very
  positive about process writing and about CALL
• Lets have a look at a few of the things they
  said, beginning with their comments about using
  the Internet

27
Using the Internet pros

• Many of the students believed the Internet was a
  tool they could use to improve their writing
• To me, one great advantage of using the
  Internet is that it helps my composition a great
  deal. When writing my drafts in the class, I
  experience considerable difficulty finding
  appropriate structures and vocabulary expressing
  specific ideas. When this happens, it strikes me
  sometimes that a few English sites I visited
  before include texts using similar structures and
  vocabulary which I want to use. Then I
  immediately go back to those sites, and check
  them out to see if I can use the structures and
  words in them to express meaning in my draft. In
  this was, I can solve some problems (p.674)

28
Using the Internet cons

• But some students also reported that they had
  difficulty finding what they wanted on the
  Internet
• The Internet is easy to use, and is very
  convenient for getting information. But often I
  experience difficulty in searching for exactly
  what I want, feel frustrated, and even stop
  searching because there are so many similar sites
  out there, and because a considerable amount of
  time is needed to check out each of the sites
  (p.674)
• What could the teacher have done to try to make
  this student less frustrated?

29
Corpora
30
Whats a corpus? What are corpora?

• a corpus is a body of written text or
  transcribed speech which can serve as a basis for
  linguistic analysis and description. (Kennedy
  1998 1)
• Corpora is the plural of corpus 1 corpus, 2 or
  more corpora
• Corpora can consist of writing or (transcribed)
  speech

31
What could go into a corpus?

• Spoken Corpora
• conversations in the pub telephone
  conversations political interviews on the
  TV/radio pop song lyrics student interviews
  soap operas, etc. etc.
• Written Corpora
• student essays academic articles
  formal/informal letters emails online
  chatroom/bulletin board postings, etc. etc.

32
What can we find out from a corpus? (1)

• how frequent certain words and phrases are
• the differences between near-synonyms (e.g.
  island vs. isle weak vs. feeble to adore vs. to
  worship see Gesuato (2007) for good examples of
  how corpora enable you to do this)
• the key words in a corpus. These are not usually
  the most frequent words, but are the unusually
  frequent ones (Scott 1999). So, for instance,
  OKeefe et al (2007 12-13) show that words like
  tax, income, average, and equity are
  unusually frequent, key words in an economics
  lecture
• Key words can be used by teachers and
  materials writers to create word lists, for
  example in Languages for Specific Purposes
  programmes (e.g. English for pilots), where the
  key specialised vocabulary can be automatically
  identified (OKeefe et al 2007 13)

33
What can we find out from a corpus? (2)

• the most frequent collocates of the word/phrase
  (e.g. heavy, pouring, torrential rain)

34
Collocation another example

• The term collocation refers to the tendency of
  words to occur in the close environment of
  particular other words. For example, Michael
  Hallidaydiscusses the fact that the noun tea
  often co-occurs with the adjective strong but not
  with its near-synonym powerful on the other
  hand, we might describe a car as powerful, but we
  would be unlikely to call it strong. (Anderson
  Corbett 2009 53)

35
What can we find out from a corpus? (3)

• the colligates of the word/phrase (i.e. the
  lexico-grammar customarily surrounding it, e.g.
  want to want object to verb want
  noun/noun phrase)
• occupation of owning a business. In college, I
  want to study biology first.
• the children's thoughts and knowledge, and I
  want children to remember me
• is to become a good teacher. Most people want
  to be a lawyer or a doctor, but I
• valuable thing in life is happiness. Some
  people want money, honor, or health. But I
• I am a 35 year old female student who wants to
  be an English teacher.
• As Dellar (2003) says, corpora have helped us
  become awarethat grammar is much broader than
  sentence-based/tense-based grammar Words have
  their own micro-grammar.

36
Colligation a definition

• Colligation is usually defined as the tendency
  of a word to co-occur, not with another word or
  phrase as in collocation, but with a
  grammatical category or construction. (Anderson
  Corbett 2009 58)

37
What can we find out from a corpus? (4)

• If corpora of non-native speech and writing is
  used, we can compare and contrast how different
  users with the same mother tongue (e.g. Chinese
  students) use English compared to other
  non-natives (e.g. German students) and/or native
  speakers
• This could then show Chinese or German learners
  most frequent errors
• Or it could be used to show what the key features
  of Chinese or German English are

38
Using corpora to teach writing practical
activities

• Lets try! I will sent you a document I used with
  MA students to teach them about corpora. What do
  you think?
• One of the easiest corpora to use
• https//ca.sketchengine.co.uk/open/
• And a useful document teaching you to use it

39
Corpora noticing two studies

• Watson Todd (2001) and Gaskell Cobb (2004) are
  examples of studies which use corpora to get
  students to notice, and then correct, their errors

40

• Heres how Gaskell Cobb (2004) used corpora and
  concordances to get student writers to correct
  their own errors

41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
Watson Todd (2001)

• Watson Todd identified vocabulary that his
  learners had difficulty with in their writing
• He got learners to search for this vocabulary on
  the Internet, and to make concordances (10
  examples) containing the vocabulary
• The learners also compared their writing, and
  their use of the vocabulary, with a native
  speaker reference corpus
• Learners were able to notice and self-correct
  their errors in 70 of cases

44
References

• Anderson, W. Corbett, J. (2009) Exploring
  English with Online Corpora An Introduction.
  Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.
• Aykel A Kimisli S (1999) Word processing in the
  EFL classroom effects on writing strategies,
  attitudes, and products. In MC Pennington (ed.),
  Writing in an Electronic Medium Research with
  Language Learners. Houston Athelstan, pp.27-60.
• Bernhardt SA et al (1989) Teaching college
  composition with computers a program evaluation
  study. Written Communication 6 108-133.
• Bernhardt SA et al (1990) Teaching college
  composition with computers a timed observation
  study. Written Communication 7 342-374.
• Brock MN Pennington MC (1999) A comparative
  study of text analysis and peer tutoring as peer
  input to writing on computer in an ESL context.
  In MC Pennington (ed.), Writing in an Electronic
  Medium Research with Language Learners. Houston
  Athelstan, pp.61-94.
• Chadwick S Bruce N (1989) The revision process
  in academic writing from pen to paper to word
  processor. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and
  Language Teaching 12 1-27.
• Dellar H (2003) What have corpora ever done for
  us? DevelopingTeachers.com, March 2003.
  http//www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtrai
  ning/corpora1_hugh.htm
• Ferris D Hedgcock JS (1998) Teaching ESL
  Composition Purpose, Process, and Practice.
  Mahwah Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Gaskell D Cobb T (2004) Can learners use
  concordance feedback for writing errors? System
  32(3) 301-319.
• Gesuato S (2007) How (dis)similar? Telling the
  difference between near-synonyms in a foreign
  language. In E. Hidalgo et al (eds.), Corpora in
  the Foreign Language Classroom. Amsterdam
  Rodopi, pp.175-190.
• Harris J (1985) Student writers and word
  processing a preliminary evaluation. College
  Composition Communication 36 323-330.
• Hawisher GE (1987) The effects of word processing
  on the revision strategies of college freshmen.
  Research in the Teaching of English 21 145-159.
• Hoffman R (1996) Computer networks webs of
  communication for language learning. In MC
  Pennington (ed.), The Power of CALL. Houston
  Athelstan, pp.55-78.

45
References (contd.)

• Jones S Tetroe J (1987) Composing in a second
  language. In A Matsuhashi (ed.), Writing in Real
  Time Modelling Production Processes. Norwood
  Ablex, pp.34-57.
• Kennedy GD (1998) An Introduction to Corpus
  Linguistics. London Longman.
• Li J Cumming A (2001) Word processing and
  second language writing a longitudinal case
  study. International Journal of English Studies
  1(2) 127-152.
• OKeeffe A et al (2007) From Corpus to Classroom
  Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge
  Cambridge University Press.
• Pennington MC (2003) The impact of the computer
  in second language writing. In B Kroll (ed.),
  Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language
  Writing. Cambridge Cambridge University Press,
  pp.287-310.
• Pennington MC Brock MN (1992) Process and
  product approaches to computer-assisted
  composition. In MC Pennington V Stevens (ed.),
  Computers in Applied Linguistics An
  International Perspective. Clevedon Multilingual
  Matters, pp.79-109.
• Phinney M Khouri S (1993) Computers, revision,
  and ESL writers the role of experience. Journal
  of Second Language Writing 2 257-277.
• Rusmin RS (1999) Patterns of adaptation to a new
  writing environment the experience of word
  processing by mature second language writers. In
  MC Pennington (ed.), Writing in an Electronic
  Medium Research with Language Learners. Houston
  Athelstan, pp.183-227.
• Skinner B Austin R (1999) Computer
  conferencing does it motivate students? ELT
  Journal 53(4) 270-279.
• Suh J-S (2002) Effectiveness of CALL writing
  instruction the voices of Korean EFL learners.
  Foreign Language Annals 35(6) 669-679.
• Sullivan N Pratt E (1996) A comparative study
  of two ESL writing environments a
  computer-assisted classroom and a traditional
  oral classroom. System 29(4) 491-501.
• Warschauer M (2001) On-line communication. In R
  Carter D Nunan (eds.), The Cambridge Guide to
  Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.
  Cambridge Cambridge University Press,
  pp.207-212.
• Watson Todd R (2001) Induction from self-selected
  concordances and self-correction. System 29(1)
  91-102.

46
This weeks reading

• Chapter 9 of Ferris Hedgcock (1998/2005)
  Teaching ESL Composition Purpose, Process and
  Practice. Mahwah Lawrence Erlbaum.