Review – Journeys Near and Far 1 & 2: Reading and Responding Critically by Liz Flynn

March 25, 2002 by Leave a Comment

Journeys Near and Far: Reading and Responding Critically is a two-volume reader de-signed for intermediate and high-intermediate ESL learners. Books 1 and 2 may be taught in subsequent courses, but would stand alone equally well. The set is a well-developed, solid addition to the growing array of cultural readers available to ESL educators.

Each book is made up of five chapters of three or four reading selections organized around a general theme. Prereading and preview activities appear before each selection; a short glos- sary, a cloze exercise, and open-ended questions for small group discussion follow.

The previews are particularly outstanding. Students examine the reading to discover as much as possible before they read, by looking at the title, author, source, and any pictures or charts. They then read the first and last paragraphs, skim the rest, and write down their im- pressions and questions. Unfortunately, the preview section appears only a few times in each book, so students have just three opportunities to do a guided preview before they are expected to do it independently.

Another useful activity is “Another Look at the Selection”, which invites students to delve more deeply into the ideas, language, or style of a reading selection. Typical questions ask why a piece was written in a particular way, ask students to identify and list certain struc- tural or grammatical elements, or ask whether they agree with a statement or idea mentioned in the reading.

“Vocabulary Building” presents exercises along with learning strategies for students, in- cluding a vocabulary log. “In Your Words” asks students to write their opinions about spe- cific parts of the reading selection. A minor problem with this activity is that it allows only limited space for students to answer questions that are often quite complex. The “Summing Up” activity helps students summarize class opinions, make inferences about the readings, and check whether all their questions have been answered.

At the end of each chapter is an excellent “Reflecting and Synthesizing” activity that en- courages students to make connections between all the readings in that chapter. This section includes discussion questions and writing prompts, some of which address how the issues in the reading selections affect students’ own lives.

Best and Reppy have brought together authentic texts from a range of sources, from Nelson Mandela to Newsweek, and from Robert Frost to the Consumers Union. The readings are selected on the basis of their interest to students, and the activities are designed to encourage students’ active participation in their own learning. Citing Freire and Vygotsky, the authors have not simplified the reading selections but have developed activities to facilitate stu- dents’ understanding of the texts. Among the interactive activities and assignments are a vocabulary log, reading journal, classroom debate, short answer and longer writing prompts, double-entry reading journal, and Internet research. Experienced teachers will be able to choose those activities most beneficial to their students.

The authors suggest that Journeys Near and Far is most appropriate for intermediate ESL learners in post-secondary academic programs, but the critical thinking skills demanded by the activities would also benefit pre-academic ESL students who are preparing to meet the reading and writing demands of college or community college classes. Pre-academic stu- dents might find some of the activity instructions complex and difficult to understand, espe- cially in the second book, but this problem can be minimized with a teacher’s guidance and careful selection of activities.

Teachers will find Journeys Near and Far to be an engaging and versatile set of readers. The reading content, discussion questions, and writing activities will provide an interesting and enjoyable challenge to intermediate students in a reading or writing course.

Filed under 2002 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Review – Content and Formal Schemata in ESL Reading by Yunkyoung Kang

March 11, 2002 by Leave a Comment

Schema theory is a framework for the mental representation of knowledge. Schema, also called the “building block of cognition” (Rumelhart 1980), is a significant notion in under- standing the knowledge structure of our brains. What we know exists as schemata hierar- chies and this prior knowledge is activated when we encounter new information. This is the essential point to understanding how schema theory works and this fact has been investi- gated in the cognitive science field for decades. Rumelhart defines schema as follows:

A schema theory is basically a theory about… how knowledge is presented and about how that representation facilitates the use of the knowledge in particular ways. According to schema theories, all knowledge is packaged into units… [called] schemata. Embedded in these packets of knowledge is… information about how this knowledge is to be used.

A schema, then is a data structure for representing the generic concepts stored in memory. There are schemata representing our knowledge about all concepts: those underlying ob- jects, situation, events, sequences of events, actions and sequences of actions. A schema contains, as part of its specification, the network of interrelations that is believed to nor- mally hold among the constituents of the concept in question. A schema theory embodies a prototype theory of meaning. That is, inasmuch as a schema underlying a concept stored in memory corresponds to the meaning of that concept, meanings are encoded in terms of the typical or normal situations or events that instantiate that concept.

Schema theory has been utilized in research fields such as ESL education, especially in reading and writing instruction. According to schema theory, ESL students from different countries have different schemata and most have difficulties in processing knowledge like English native speakers. As this theory states, proficient readers are able to activate prior knowledge stored in memory to integrate new linguistic data in the comprehension process. Therefore, under schema theory, ESL reading and writing classes should utilize pre-reading and pre-writing activities to activate prior knowledge and teachers should provide minimal background knowledge when students do not have sufficient prior knowledge, especially due to cultural differences.

Despite all the recent developments in ESL research, the traditional grammar-translation approach is still practiced in most English classes throughout Asian countries such as Korea and Japan. In these countries, memorization and sentence level analysis using bottom-up skills is dominant in reading classes and students suffer from the inevitable lack of ability to use top-down skills. Therefore, reading practice based on schema theory is highly recom- mended for such students not only because it focuses on training for culture-specific texts but also since it trains students to use a top-down process in reading. This directly contrasts with the bottom-up process that these students are familiar with from traditional grammar- translation exercises.

Summary: Content and Formal Schemata in ESL Reading

Carrell is a well-known researcher on schema theory who has written various papers on it as well as on ESL/EFL teaching. According to Carrell, there are two types of schema: content and formal. Much research has studied the effects of each type separate from the other. In testing for content schemata effects, the formal rhetorical structure of a text constant is kept the same while content is manipulated for each comparable group of subjects to process each different content. Similarly, formal schemata effects can also be tested by keeping the content of a text constant while varying the rhetorical organization, and having comparable groups of subjects process each different rhetorical pattern. Research on content schemata consists of Steffensen, Joag-dev, and Anderson (1979), and Johnson (1981)’s study. Their findings suggest that text which contains culturally-familiar content schema is easier to process. Conversely, research that studied the effects of formal schemata (e.g. Carrell’s own previous studies, 1984a, 1984b) found that familiar formal schemata helped subjects better recall protocol information.

However, Carrell acknowledges that no research has successfully studied the combined ef- fects of both content and formal schemata in a single controlled study. Kintsch and Greene (1978), Carrell (1981), and Berkowitz and Taylor (1981) attempted to combine them in a single study but failed in controlling variables. Therefore, in the article, the author tries to examine the combined interaction of content and formal schemata in a single study, distinct from many studies which studied them separately. The purpose of this study is to show the simultaneous effects of both formal and content schemata on ESL reading comprehension which will make possible the rendering of specific hypotheses about reading familiar con- tent in an unfamiliar rhetorical form, or unfamiliar content in a familiar rhetorical form.

To examine this hypothesis, Carrell had two groups of ESL students (28 Muslims and 24 Catholics) read either culturally familiar content or culturally unfamiliar content. Within each group, half of the group read a familiar well-organized rhetorical format and the other half an unfamiliar, altered rhetorical format. Familiar content and familiar form in this study were defined as “texts which reflected the content domain of the reader’s cultural- religious group membership and a well-organized temporal sequence ordering, both pre- sumed to be related to the reader’s content and formal schemata, respectively.” Unfamiliar content and unfamiliar form in this study were defined as “texts which reflected a content domain opposite to the reader’s cultural-religious group membership and an inter- leaved/scrambled organization, both presumed to be unrelated to the reader’s content and formal schemata, respectively.” After the subjects read the text at their own pace, they were tested on recall by writing down everything they could remember from the passage. Also, a set of 14 multiple-choice comprehension inference questions for each text was given to the subjects.

The outcome supported the results of previous studies that reading is easiest when both con- tent and form are familiar and that reading is the most difficult when both are unfamiliar. When either form or content was unfamiliar, it was revealed that unfamiliar content sche- mata affected reading comprehension to a greater extent than formal schemata. In other words, reading familiar content even in an unfamiliar rhetorical form is relatively easier than reading unfamiliar content in a familiar rhetorical form. However, rhetorical form played a significant role in the comprehension of the top-level episodic arrangements of a text and in the understanding of event sequences and temporal relations among events.

Based on this result, Carrell claims that in the ESL reading classroom, content is of primary importance. Therefore, ESL reading teachers should be facilitators of the acquisition of appropriate cultural content knowledge to exemplify the schemata-embodying background knowledge which helps students comprehend, learn, and remember well. Carrell also sug- gests that ESL reading teachers should be aware of the rhetorical organization of texts in addition to teaching students how to identify and utilize top-level rhetorical organization of text for better comprehension and recall.

The greatest strength of the analysis was the careful control of variables. For example, Car- rell paid careful attention to detail in organizing texts, forming culturally homogeneous groups (based on religion), and analyzing multiple-choice questions both quantitatively and qualitatively with the fewest possible variables. One commendable feature of this article is that this study was not only pioneering – being the first of its kind – but it also called for further research on this issue. ESL teachers and researchers will both benefit greatly from Carrell’s thorough treatment of this topic.

Works cited:

Berkowitz, S., & Taylor, B. (1981). The effects of text type and familiarity on the nature of information recalled by readers. In M.L. Kamil (Ed.), Directions in reading: Research and instruction (pp. 157-161). Washington, DC: National Reading Conference.

Carrell, P.L. (1981) Culture-specific schemata in L2 comprehension. In R. Orem & J. Has- kell (Eds.), Selected papers from the Ninth Illinois TESOL/BE Annual Convention, First Midwest TESOL Conference (pp. 123-132). Chicago: Illinois TESOL/BE.

Carrell, P.L. (1984a). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quar- terly, 18, 441-469.

Carrell, P.L. (1984b). Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension. Language Learning, 34, 87-112.

Johnson, P. (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of a text. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 169-181.

Kintsch, W., & Greene, E. (1978). The role of culture specific schemata in the comprehen- sion and recall of stories. Discourse Processes, 1, 1-13.

Rumelhart, D.E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce, & W.F. Brewer (eds.) Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. 33-58. Hills- dale, NJ: Lawreence Erlbaum Associates.

Steffensen, M.S., Joag-dev, C., & Anderson, R.C. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 10-29.

Filed under 2002 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Review of Research on Conferencing by Jennifer Feyen

March 10, 2002 by Leave a Comment

Articles Reviewed:
  •  Cumming, Alister and So, Sufumi. (1996). Tutoring second language text revision: does the approach to instruction or the language of communication make a differ- ence. Journal of Second Language Writing. 5(3). 197-226.
  •  Ferris, Dana R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly. 29(1). 33-52.
  •  Goldstein, Lynn M. and Conrad, Susan M.. (1990). “Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences.” TESOL Quarterly. 24(3). 443-460.
  •  Harris, Muriel and Silva, Tony. (1993). Tutoring ESL students: issues and options. College Composition and Communication. 44(4). 525-536.
  •  Powers, Judith K. and Nelson, Jane V. (1995). L2 writers and the writing center: a national survey of writing center conferencing at graduate institutions. Journal of Second Language Writing. 4(2). 113-138.
  •  Richardson, Paul. (1994). “New perspectives on writing conferences.” The Austra- lian Journal of Language and Literacy. 17(1). 73-80.

    Conferencing about student writing is very relevant to my current position teaching Eng-

    lish. I am a tutor for a Rhetoric and Writing Studies (RWS) 95 class, and meet on a one-to- one basis with students frequently. Each student is required to conference with me at least once during the semester; however, most students have met with me on a more consistent basis. I feel that the individualized attention given in conferences is an important aspect to improving writing skills. After reading the articles regarding conferencing, it became ap- parent that the teacher or tutor engaging in this dialogue has the potential to make the time valuable to the student, improving his writing skills. Additionally, the teacher or tutor has the potential to make the session less productive through means such as dominating the talk and agenda. Knowing what is most useful to help students, and understanding how the teacher or tutor can affect the conferencing session both negatively and positively were goals that I wanted to accomplish through this paper. When I teach my own class in the near future, I would like to utilize this information when engaging in teacher-student con- ferences to better assist my students. Additionally, I intend to share the findings with my class tutor in hopes that the generalizations from the research will help him/her when con- ferencing students.

Article Summaries & Evaluations

The first article, by Powers and Nelson (1995), discusses a research study regarding writing centers throughout the nation. Data for the article was gathered via a questionnaire sent to writing centers throughout the nation. The survey was mailed to 110 graduate institutions across the nation, and 75 (67%) of them responded. The purpose of this study was to dis- cuss “the kinds of L2 writers writing centers serve, the training of writing center staff for L2 conferencing, the types of assistance L2 writers most frequently request, the differences writing centers perceive in working with L1 and L2 graduate writers, and the difficulties they encounter in meeting the needs of L2 clientele” (Powers & Nelson, 1995: 113). One conclusion drawn from analysis of the data is that there is a growing demand for ESL con- ferencing. The study focused on graduate writing students, and indicated that the most fre- quent request for L2 writing assistance dealt with students’ master thesis. Native English speaking students tended to request help with organization of their papers, whereas L2 Eng- lish speakers focused more on correctness and style. Powers and Nelson also discuss the importance of understanding the different needs of L2 English writers. “First, the majority of writing centers nationwide operate under staffing conditions that make effective training for L2 conferencing especially difficult: a regular turnover of conferencing staff, accompa- nied, almost inevitably, by relative inexperience” (Powers & Nelson, 1995: 128). In other words, the demand for ESL conferencing tutors exceeds the need. In addition, the tutors were not trained or did not have the experience necessary to address the needs of the ESL writers. The needs of L1 and L2 writers differ, and to be a successful tutor one must acquire an understanding of the unique needs of L2 writers. “L2 conferencing proficiency, like L2 writing proficiency, comes slowly, over time and with experience” (Powers & Nelson, 129). This quote suggests that even if short training sessions were implemented, the high turnover rate and relative lack of experience that the tutors in writing centers have may be negatively affecting the feedback that the L2 writers are receiving from the abundance of inexperienced tutors.

I felt that this article was very good. The research brings up important arguments in regards to the insufficient training of ESL tutors. Those who implement policy or make decisions regarding tutor training would benefit from reading this article. It is apparent that those who tutor ESL students need to have training specific to that field. The needs of the students will be better met with better trained tutors. In addition to increased training, tutors should be given more incentives to remain in their current positions. The longer one tutors, the more proficient one becomes at the job. I personally feel that my tutoring skills have improved drastically since I began this past summer. The more experience I have, and the more ques- tions and situations that I am involved in with students have improved my abilities greatly. In addition, I feel more confident that I can answer student questions, and that my sugges- tions for paper improvement are valid. With this high turn over rate, the students do not receive the expertise of a more knowledgeable, competent tutor. This may result in a less effective, less meaningful conferencing session.

In the second article, Harris and Silva (1993) discuss the interaction between students who are English language learners and tutors at writing centers, and give suggestions to tutors. The article uses findings and examples from several different studies to support the argu- ments and suggestions made. The first section of the article focuses on error types, and what tutors should correct. Harris and Silva suggest beginning the conferencing session by expressing a positive aspect of the student’s paper. From there, the article recommends categorizing errors between global and local, giving priority to the first. The article also discusses the cultural differences in writing styles that may be prevalent in papers’ of stu- dents from certain cultures, particularly Asian. Additionally, cultural differences in regards to body language and contact, as well as cultural assumptions such as appropriate times to arrive are discussed. One important point in the article is in regards to the differences in composing styles between native and non-native speakers. The tentative findings are that ESL writers “plan less, write with more difficulty (primarily due to lack of lexical re- sources), reread what they have written less, and exhibit less facility in revising by ear” (Harris & Silva, 529). Suggestions are made for tutors to encourage students to lengthen the time they spend planning, composing and editing their work. Additionally, it is recom- mended that tutors focus on rhetorical matters before linguistic ones, as this sequence is perceived to be beneficial to the ESL writer. Helping the student to develop strategies to strengthen his writing skills on his own is also advantageous to the student.

This article is extremely beneficial to tutors. It gives specific examples regarding problems that tutors may have as well as solutions. Harris and Silva make suggestions about what to focus on and give priority to, and give reasons as to why something is important. Anybody who is planning on tutoring or teaching would benefit from reading this article. I felt that the generalizations were helpful; additionally, Harris and Silva make a point that tutors and teachers should be careful to not over-generalize as each student is unique.

The article by Cumming and So (1996) addresses “the dynamics of problem solving through spoken discourse in one-to-one tutoring of second language writing, aiming to determine if these processes might vary according to the instructional approach or the language of com- munication utilized” (197). The study focused on text revision and consisted of 20 students, each receiving four individual tutoring sessions. Two sessions were in English, and two in the L1 of the student. Additionally, one session in each language utilized the procedural facilitation method and the other error correction. Procedural facilitation focuses on prompting students to help them discover corrections to errors themselves. Error correction deals with explaining the error to the student without encouraging the student to rectify the error on his own. The study shows that discourse patterns are similar for both approaches and in both the L1 and L2 of the student. Additionally, the article discusses discourse analysis of conferencing sessions between the tutor and student. These figures ranged from students identifying 52% to 32% of the problems in the writing in comparison with tutors identifying 68% to 75% of such problems, students leading negotia- tions in 35% to 45% of these transactions in comparison with tutors leading 55% to 65% of these negotiations (often in fact preventing the potential for students to negotiate), and stu- dents resolving 30% to 45% of the problems compared with tutors resolving 55% to 70% of these problems. (Cumming & So, 1996: 210)

Additionally, the study shows that students and tutors tend to concentrate most on grammar rules, spelling, and word choice. Regarding language preference, Cumming and So suggest that tutoring in the mother tongue gives students a greater opportunity to link the two lan- guages, analyzing features. They also felt that the tutoring discourse sequence appeared to be similar to classroom discourse of the IRE sequence (initiation, response, evaluation).

This was another very helpful article. It highlighted the dominance of the tutor in the con- ferencing sessions. Teachers and tutors would benefit from reading this article as they may not be aware of the extent to which they dictate the agenda of the conferencing session. Additionally, the study indicated that using the students’ L1 in writing conference did not result negatively on the student, but rather the authors concluded that this may be a positive occurrence. The primary focus on grammar, spelling, and word choice was an important aspect of the article. These language features need to be addressed; however, it is generally recommended that focusing on content and format first is beneficial to the student.

The fourth article that I reviewed was written by Ferris (1995) focused on written comments of teachers, but is significant to conferencing in that there are noteworthy misunderstandings in written comments, which might encourage conferencing sessions to alleviate the confu- sion. The study focused on teachers’ written comments in a multiple-draft essay context, whereas previous research had mainly dealt with a single-draft context. According to this study, students pay more attention to teacher comments on first drafts of multiple-draft compositions. In addition, students who are required to revise their essays pay more atten- tion to comments, even on final drafts where revision was not expected. The study indicates that students take the feedback from their teachers seriously, respecting their opinions and appreciating their effort. However, many students reported that they went to outside sources to assist them in understanding or responding to the teacher’s comments. “Students re- ported receiving and paying the most attention to feedback on grammar, content, and or- ganization, in that order” (Ferris, 1995: 48). Additionally, the study indicates the impor- tance of providing positive feedback to students.

Though this study was helpful from a written comment point of view, it did not focus to the extent that I expected on student misunderstandings of teacher comments. The article was still very good, and would be beneficial to any teacher or tutor who writes comments on student essays. One of the most enlightening parts of the article discussed the impact that teacher comments had on students. Positive comments often times made quite an impact on students, as they remembered specific examples of praise given by the teacher. In addition, some negative comments had an impact on students. “Several wrote rather bitterly that their teachers’ comments were all negative and that this fact depressed them and decreased their motivation and self-esteem” (Ferris, 1995:46). This statement really had an affect on me, and made me very aware of the power of feedback. Often times I do not think that tutors and teachers realize the impact that they can have on students.

The study done by Goldstein and Conrad (1990) examined characteristics of individual con- ferences between the teacher of an advanced ESL composition class and three of her stu- dents from different cultural backgrounds. In addition, it looked at how the students dealt with revisions of the drafts discussed in the conferences. Data was collected by taping the conferences (with student permission), transcribing the results orthographically, and analyz- ing both the discourse of the transcription as well as each draft of each students’ paper to determine revision. The article indicates that there is a great difference in the degree to which each student provides input in regards to both agenda setting and interactional dis- course. Additionally, students varied in the amount of meaning clarification. The results of the study show a positive relationship between negotiation and successful revision. “In con- trast, when the students did not negotiate (i.e., when the teacher made revision suggestions and the student backchanneled), the subsequent revisions were often either unsuccessful or not attempted at all” (Goldstein & Conrad, 1990: 454). This study shows the importance of negotiation of meeting in teacher-student conference.

I felt that this was another useful article. It indicated the individual differences that students bring to a conference that could affect the discourse. In addition, it showed that students who negotiate meaning are more likely to have successful revisions. Once again, those who are teaching or tutoring would benefit from this type of article. When I conference with students, often times I can tell that they do not understand the point that I am making but are simply backchanneling. One of the reasons this occurs, I believe, is cultural differences. Certain cultures feel that it is negative to question a teacher. Though I am not their teacher in the typical sense, I am teaching them during the conferencing sessions. When I explain why there is an error, even if the student does not understand, he often will backchannel indicating an affirmative. This study indicates that students are significantly more likely to be successful with their revisions if they negotiate meaning, which is more likely to occur if they feel comfortable expressing that they still do not understand, even after one explana- tion. These individual differences are important, and teachers should be aware of the indi- vidual circumstances that each student brings and try to adjust their style accordingly. Con- ferencing the same way for each student is not adequate to address the needs of the indi- viduals.

Richardson’s article (1994) discusses several previous studies about writing conferences. The purpose of the study was to discuss the interaction of conferencing and how it varies from that of the classroom. The first study cited indicates that conferences are dominated by the teacher, as is often the case in the classroom. “To their surprise, the researchers found that the longer, seemingly more substantial conferences were sustained by the degree to which the student’s text already matched the teacher’s schema and the nature of the inter- personal relationship between the student and the teacher” (Richardson, 1994: 74). An additional study indicates that despite a teacher’s feeling that she treats all students the same, conferences differ depending upon the students. Another study shows that teachers are not aware of the extent to which they dominate conferences. Writing conferences were also shown to focus mainly on correction of errors indicated by the teacher. Another study indi- cates that the dynamics of conferencing changes over time. During the first half of a six- week writing course, conferences were dominated by the IRE sequence. However, during the second half of the course, students controlled and participated more in the discourse than previously. The article then indicates the need to look more closely at how we evaluate writing conferences, and mentions another study that suggests that who is agenda setting and steering may be a better analysis of conferencing then ratio of teacher to student talk.

This article was the least useful out of the six. It gave a rather brief summary of several articles about conferencing; however, I did not feel that an adequate amount of information was given for each study. As a quick overview, it was sufficient, but I found myself want- ing more information about the validity and circumstances of each study. I felt that the arti- cles he mentions may have over-generalized findings, as they seem to be about individual cases rather than larger research studies. However, there are several significant points that are made. For example, the awareness of how much a teacher perceives and actually speaks in one-on-one student conferences and how that could affect the conferencing in a negative way. I think that people who are interested in the topic of conferencing would benefit from this article, as it gives a springboard of other articles to look into more closely. Addition- ally, a teacher or tutor who does not make time to read several studies may benefit from the short results report of this article.

Discussion

The articles reviewed are in order from general tutoring to more specific teacher-student interaction in a conferencing environment. The Powers and Nelson article deals with an overview of conferencing centers throughout the nation. This is followed by Harris and Silva’s discussion of general issues that tutors in writing centers may encounter. From there, Ferris’ article deals more specifically with teacher-student dynamics, focusing on written comments, rather than interaction. Goldstein and Conrad discuss the interaction between teacher and student in a conferencing situation. Then the review is concluded with the Richardson article, which gives several specific results of studies between teachers and students in a conferencing setting.

A few of the articles discuss the inexperience of tutors who engage in writing conferences. The Powers and Nelson article dealt more with problems that graduate students may en- counter with writing centers. The biggest problem seemed to be with the lack of training and experience that tutors at writing centers have. The importance of experience was em- phasized. Additionally, the Harris and Silva article seemed to reiterate this idea. Its target reading population seemed to be that of the tutors the writing centers from the Powers and Nelson article employ. This article dealt with specific examples and helpful instruction that the novice tutor would benefit from knowing.

Goldstein and Conrad discuss previous studies that indicated ESL students have difficulty understanding teachers’ written comments. This was one of the reasons they performed the study, as students were unclear as to the teachers’ meaning. When the meaning was clear, or when the student negotiated meaning during the conference, successful revisions were more likely. Though the Ferris article did not discuss the misunderstanding of teacher comment to the extent I would have liked, the parallel between these two articles is impor- tant. Student reaction to teacher comments is a factor in conferencing. The students who perceived that they had no positive comments on their essays may feel better during confer- encing if the suggestion that was made in the Harris and Silva article about starting off con- ferences on a positive note was utilized. I think that a student’s perception of his writing is a significant factor in whether his writing improves. When he feels he is doing well, and that the writing process is positive, his motivation for writing will increase. However, if his esteem is lowered, and he feels he is only getting negative feedback, this may decrease his motivation, thus hindering his writing improvement.

Additionally, the teacher dominance of conferences is an important issue. As indicated in the Richardson article, teachers may not realize the degree to which they overpower confer- encing sessions. On a similar note, the Goldstein and Conrad article discussed the impor- tance of student participation in the conference and its affect on improved revisions. If teachers dominate the agenda and the amount of discourse, the students may be less likely to have an opportunity to negotiate meaning, which increases their chances of producing a successful revision. Additionally, the Cumming and So article indicated the percentages to which tutors and students prevailed in particular discourse structures. Overwhelmingly, the tutor dominated each aspect that was studies (identifying, leading negotiations, and resolv- ing). This study indicated that tutors leading the negotiations may have prevented the stu- dents from negotiating meaning, which the Goldstein and Conrad article showed as being significantly important.

The type of interaction in writing conferences was shown as similar to classroom discourse in several articles. The Richardson article discussed a study that indicated the IRE sequence is prevalent, at least in the first sessions, of conferencing. This is contradicting to what one may have predicted as the conferencing session is often thought of as a one-on-one discus- sion where the student can more openly discuss concerns, ask questions, and participate in meaningful discourse with the instructor. However, the dynamics of the classroom appear to parallel that of the conferencing session in many cases. In addition to the discussion in the Richardson article, the Cumming and So article also mentions the IRE sequence preva- lent in conferences. Additionally, Goldstein and Conrad suggest that there are variations with individual students in regards to how they interact with the teacher during a conferenc- ing session. They suggest that while students may add additional input to a conference, set the agenda, or negotiate meaning, they also may chose not to. It could be a students’ indi- vidual differences, teachers’ different treatment of students, or, more likely, a combination of both of these factors. Goldstein and Conrad discuss several cultural characteristics of students that may affect the discourse structure of conferences.

In addition, the content of discussion in writing conferences focused primarily on sentence level errors. The Ferris article indicates “it is program policy that teachers focus on content and organization in their feedback on first drafts, saving grammatical and mechanical con- cerns for final drafts” (1995: 37). However, Ferris also indicates that the students felt that they received the most comments on grammar. This could be because the content and or- ganization comments can be stated in a relatively short manner, whereas the grammar errors may be more frequent. Additionally, Cumming and So discuss that tutors’ and students’ main focus is regarding grammar rules, spelling and word choice. The Harris and Silva article also suggests that the tutor focus on rhetorical matters prior to linguistic ones. They even recommend that tutors be firm about this sequenced approach. However, despite the recommendations and policies in place, studies indicate that these sentence level errors ac- count for an abundance of conferencing time. Powers and Nelson also discuss the over- whelming amount of grammar correction in relation to substance or organization. They suggest that the content of the masters thesis are specialized to the point that the tutors do not understand the content, thus they default to focusing on grammar. However, even if tutors understood the content, indicted by other studies and student requests, it is likely that the focus would remain on sentence level corrections.

There were several overlapping themes throughout the articles reviewed: lack of tutor ex- perience and training, unclear meaning in teacher comments, teacher dominance of confer- encing sessions, and the focus on sentence level errors despite the recommendations to pri- marily concentrate on organization and content. Awareness of such inconsistencies as well as further study in these areas would be beneficial to both teachers and students.

Filed under 2002 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Issue of Error Correction in ESL Student Writing by Chi-Ping Chang

March 10, 2002 by Leave a Comment

After having several English writing classes in college, I realized that, except for the college writing structure, every writing instructor has a different standard and expectation of ESL students’ writing. Errors that were recognized by one teacher may not be recognized by an- other; the paper that receives positive comments from one teacher may be criticized by an- other. The confusion has resulted in frustration. Recalling my experience in writing classes provides the point of departure for this review of the literature. Despite of my personal negative attitude towards writing, I think it might be helpful to my academic writing to find out what researchers have found on error correction in ESL writing.

I first started with the website “Google,” and found the Journal of Second Language Writ- ing. I easily obtained a few articles about grammar correction and feedback in ESL writing. One of them titled “The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A response to Truscott (1996)” written by Ferris (1999) caught my attention the most. After skimming through it, I desperately wanted to read Truscott’s article on grammar correction. Therefore, I went back to the library and searched for articles related to the subject of “grammar cor- rection in ESL writing classes.” I first tried ERIC, one of the Article Databases in the li- brary, but the result was not satisfactory. Then I searched under LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts), and I luckily obtained some relevant articles. Among other articles, I found Truscott’s paper about grammar correction in L2 writing published in 1996. To my surprise, Truscott (1999) later wrote an article responding to Ferris’ criticisms. It is very interesting to see two researchers defending themselves by providing numerous evi- dence to argue against each other. Besides ERIC and LLBA, I also searched under PsycInfo. This database also has a few articles related to this topic, but compared to LLBA, the results are not as relevant to my interest.

Individual review of each source

I. The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes

This is a journal article published by Language Learning in 1996. The complete reference is as follows: Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.

Truscott (1996) argues that grammar correction in second-language writing classes should be abandoned because it is ineffective and harmful. A number of studies are cited to provide evidence for the ineffectiveness and unhelpfulness of grammar correction in ESL writing classes. He concludes that there is no reason to correct grammar errors.

Though Truscott managed to find numerous negative results in many studies to support his thesis and only few positive results stemming from the grammar correction. It needs to be noted that he did not conduct any actual experiment in ESL writing classes to support his argument in the paper, and he might have overlooked some other significant findings that contradict arguments against grammar correction. For those ESL teachers who find respond- ing to students’ errors in writing very tiring and time-consuming, or those who think that students’ motivation might be negatively affected, Truscott’s article might be beneficial.

II. The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response to Truscott (1996)

This is a journal article published by Journal of Second Language Writing in 1999. The complete reference is as follows: Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing 8(1), 1-11.

After the scrutiny of Truscott’s evidence, Ferris (1999) claims that, “Truscott’s conclusion that grammar correction has no place in writing courses and should be abandoned is pre- mature and overly strong” (p. 2). She accuses Truscott for rejecting findings of previous studies that favor grammar correction, and claims that the studies Truscott used to support his conclusion do not address the present issue. She points out two problems in Truscott’s argument. One is the definition for the term “error correction,” and the other is his review of previous research findings on error correction in ESL writing classes. Examining the articles that Truscott cited to support his thesis, Ferris finds that, first, the subjects in those studies are very diverse and not comparable; second, the research design and instructional method vary across studies; third, Truscott overstates the negative findings, and disregards those that contradict his argument. Ferris also uses her own previous research findings and teach- ing experiences to confront Truscott’s argument and to support error correction in L2 writ- ing classes.

Although Ferris did not cite as many research findings as Truscott, she evaluated his argu- ment carefully and systematically, by pointing out not only the flaws in Truscott’s article but also her agreement with Truscott. Ferris encourages teachers to listen to students and consider their needs before deciding what and how to provide feedback on error correction to students. Her article is a great support to writing teachers who are for error correction in L2 writing.

page3image488

III. The Case for “The case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes”: A Response to Ferris

This is a journal article published by Journal of Second Language Writing in 1999. The complete reference is as followings: Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: a response to Ferris. Journal of Second Lan- guage Writing, 8(2), 111-122.

Truscott responds to Ferris’ evaluation of his previous article published in 1996. He rejects Ferris’ criticisms on his case again grammar correction, and asserts that Ferris’ arguments are unfounded and biased. He responds to each of the issues from Ferris’ article with his own counter arguments, and compares the previous evidence and statements of his thesis with Ferris’ arguments. He claims that Ferris does not provide any published sources to support her position against his argument, nor does she find any adequate and sufficient evidence to show that his conclusion is inconsistent with other research findings he cites (since Ferris criticizes his conclusion as being “premature and overly strong.”). He says, “…only the most sympathetic of readers would consider this adequate support for the accu- sation” (p.114).

Truscott’s responses to Ferris article provide readers, especially ESL writing teachers, great opportunities to reevaluate the arguments that have been made by both Truscott and Ferris. Like Ferris, I made assumptions while reading Truscott’s first article on grammar correc- tion. For instance, I doubted the credibility and reliability of the research studies that Trus- cott used in his article in 1996. The reason was that some of the experiments seemed to be only carried on for a short period of time; therefore, the results did not appear to be convinc- ing to me. Ferris calls that “one-shot experimental treatment.” Yet, Truscott denies the statement, and claims that those studies were considerably longer than a semester. It leads us to think that to be an objective reader, one should not ignore views of either side.

IV. Grammar Correction in ESL students writing: How effective is it?

This is a journal article posted on Schuylkill website which is founded and edited by gradu- ate students of Temple University. The complete reference is as follows: Loewen, S. (1998). Grammar Correction in ESL students writing: How effective is it? Retrieved October 7, 2001, from Temple University, Schuylkill web site: http://www.temple.edu/gradmag/fall98/loewen.

Loewen conducts a research project to examine Truscott’s argument, and devises a research question: “Does correcting grammatical errors in students’ essay result in improved accu- racy in the use of those structures in subsequent revision as well as in the new essays?” (p. 2). He finds no significant effect for grammar correction, which confirms Truscott’s argu- ment. However, Loewen points out some limitations of his study, which need to be consid-ered before generating any conclusion. One is the small sample size of the study, and the other is the infrequency occurrence of the structures that were under investigation.

This study provides a more objective view on grammar correction in ESL writing, although the result shows no significant effect on error correction in this experiment. Further research on the present issue may be essential in providing more objective scientific evidence.

V. ESL Learners’ Performance in Error Correction in Writing: Some Implications for Teaching

This is a journal article published by Elsevier Science Ltd in 1997. The complete reference is as follows: Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System 25 (4), 465-477.

The purpose of this study is to examine three common assumptions about error correction in ESL writing classes—1. overt correction is helpful; 2. students can cope with error feed- back in the form of a correction code; 3. all errors deserve equal attention (p. 465). An er- ror correction task was designed in three different conditions (direct prompting, indirect prompting, and no prompting at all) to test the assumptions, and 149 subjects participated in this study. The results show that students’ major difficulty in error correction is recognizing the existence of errors. Some pedagogical implications arise from the study. Lee concludes that, first, teacher’s error feedback is very important to facilitate error location to help error detection; second, teachers must clearly explain to students the principals of grammatical terminology to prevent them from making errors; third, it is suggested that teachers decide their priorities in error correction, based on the needs and language proficiency of the learn- ers.

This article is beneficial to both students and teachers. It provides useful insights as to what methods of instructions teachers should use in order to empower students to become better editors and writers. At the time students reading the article can learn what are the essential skills they need in order to improve their writing abilities, and useful tools for self-error detection and correction.

Conclusion

Truscott’s review paper on grammar correction published in 1996 has led to a great deal of discussion. He argues that grammar correction is both ineffective and harmful and therefore it has no place in the writing classroom. However, Ferris rejects Truscott’s thesis after scru- tinizing his sources. It was found that some of her arguments against Truscott were not valid. For example, she criticized the lack of definition for the term “error correction, ” which was denied by Truscott in his response to Ferris’ article in 1999. Before making any judgment, I went back to Truscott’s article published in 1996, but failed to find the term “error correction” in his article. Nevertheless, Ferris made good points that, “…the viewer has under- or over-stated the findings and claims of the original studies to suit his or her own generalizations or arguments” (p.4)

Loewen and Lee both reviewed Truscott’s paper on grammar correction. Instead of debating over the issue of grammar correction, they conducted experiments individually. Loewen focused on how much grammar correction can improve students’ accuracy in writing, and the study result showed no significant improvement. Loewen avoids making a conclusion on whether grammar correction should be abandoned or not. Instead he makes another hy- pothesis for further research. That is,

…analytic learners might benefit from grammar correction because it would be consistent with their method of language learning. Holistic learners, on the other hand, might not benefit from such a method (p.7).

On the other hand, Lee focused on students’ performance in error correction in written texts, and examined some common assumptions about teachers’ error correction. Based on the study findings, Lee generated some pedagogical implications by rephrasing the three as- sumptions mentioned above: 1. error feedback may be more desirable than overt correc- tion; 2. error feedback by means of a correction code must be handled with care; and 3. some errors may deserve more attention than others (p. 471).

There are some statements from Ferris’ article that I, as an ESL student, totally agree with. I think every ESL writing teacher should be aware of the fact that: “…teachers are inconsis- tent in their ability and willingness to recognize and correct errors and provide adequate grammar explanations to their students.” She goes on and states, “…often students don’t understand grammar feedback or are unmotivated to deal with it.”

There is contrary evidence as to whether or not grammar correction is beneficial to students in ESL writing classes. Due to the lack of conclusive evidence for each case, it should be left for the readers to decide whether error correction in teaching ESL writing should be abandoned or not.

Filed under 2002 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

Portfolios in the ESL Classroom: A Critical Review of the Literature by Sarah C Trudell

March 10, 2002 by Leave a Comment

Review of:

  •  Burt, Miriam & Keenan, Fran. (1995). Adult ESL Learner Assessment: Purposes and Tools. ERIC Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education Washington DC, ERIC Identifier ED386962, 1-5.
  •  Gottlieb, Margo. (1995). Nurturing Student Learning Through Portfolios. TESOL Journal, Autumn 1995, 12-14.
  •  Hamp-Lyons, Liz & Condon, William. (1999). Assessing the Portfolio: Principles for Practice, Theory, and Research. Cresskill, NJ. Hampton Press, 23-29, 60-62, 68-73.
  •  Moya, Sharon & O’Malley, Michael. (1994). A Portfolio Assessment Model for ESL. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, Spring 1994, 1-16.
  •  Tannenbaum, Jo Ellen. (1996). Practical Ideas on Alternative Assessment for ESL Students. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics Washington DC, ERIC Identifier ED395500, 1-6.

    Why Portfolios?

    Throughout elementary school, I had the horrible privilege of taking the Iowa Test of Basic Skills each April. We had to sit for hours and take long Reading, Math, and Social Studies tests. I always did OK on them, but knew that I could do better. I just got so nervous. While taking the tests, time just flew by and I would almost always run out of time before I finished taking the test– and I am a native speaker of English!

    While beginning my teaching career, I realized that many of the students that I would be teaching would still have to take the tests that are similar to the ones that I had to take as a child (and, in fact, through college), even though they do not have the same grasp of the language or test-taking strategies that I had when I took those tests. I learned that there are alternative forms of assessment besides tests, and now strive to implement these forms of assessment in the classes that I teach. One such form of alternative assessment is the portfo- lio. For this critique, I decided to review the current literature concerning portfolios as they pertain to teaching English as a Second Language.

The Search

The actual search for the literature was a learning experience in itself. Aside from collecting and reading articles and chapters from hard copy books etc., I was able to search the WEB for different articles pertaining to Portfolios. Many sites were un-refereed, if you will, and still others would provide the name of the article and an abstract, but I could not find the actual article in a publication. One such site/journal that I had problems with was Computer Assisted Language Learning (1999, Vol. 12, No. 3). I was given the abstract of an article by Saad Al Khatani, 1999, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, but could not access the actual article. I believe that, for me, more education on the topic of searching through the WEB is warranted!

The site that I had the most success with was the Educational Resources Information Center, or, ERIC. The sub-site from which I was able to find information is the ERIC Clearing- house on Languages and Linguistics, Washington DC. I was able to access the information quickly, and easily. I was impressed with the fact that I was directed to articles on Alterna- tive Assessment, which had just a small insert or paragraph on Portfolios. This Website is quite thorough and specific.

Review of the Literature

I was able to review five articles/chapters concerning Portfolios as they pertain to the ESL classroom. Two texts, “Practical Ideas on Alternative Assessment,” (Tannenbaum, 1996), and “Adult ESL Learner Assessment: Purposes and Tools,” (Burt, Keenan, 1995), are from the ERIC site. The third text, “Nurturing Student Learning Through Portfolios,” (Gottlieb, 1995) is from TESOL Journal. The fourth text is from Assessing the Portfolio: Principles for Practice, Theory, and Research, (Hamp-Lyons, 1999). This is a dual chapter text. The fifth text is “A Portfolio Assessment Model for ESL,” (Moya, O’Malley, 1994) which is from the Journal of Educational Issues on Minority Students. A review of each text is be- low.

“Practical Ideas on Alternative Assessment”, (Tannenbaum, 1996)

In this article, Jo-Ellen Tannenbaum discusses Alternative Assessment as a whole. She lists criteria that most forms of Alternative Assessment meet:

  • Focus is on documenting individual student growth over time.
  • Emphasis is on students’ strengths (what they know), rather than weaknesses

    (what they don’t know).

  • Consideration is given to the learning styles, language proficiencies, cultural and

    educational backgrounds, and grade levels of students. (Tannenbaum, 1996, p.1)

    Tannenbaum writes that Alternative Assessments are useful with English as a Second Lan- guage students because they, “employ strategies that ask students to show what they can do… in contrast to traditional testing.” (Tannenbaum, p.1)

    In her discussion of Portfolios, Tannenbaum describes the use of Portfolios in a classroom. She refers to three authors, Tierney, Carter, and Desai (1991) in their discussion of Portfo- lios. They suggest that:

    Among other things, teachers [should] do the following: maintain anecdotal re- cords from their reviews of portfolios and from regularly scheduled conferences with students about the work in their portfolios; keep checklists that link portfolio work with criteria that they consider integral to the type of work being collected; and devise continua of descriptors to plot student achievement.

    (Tannenbaum, p.4) Tannenbaum suggests that the following materials be put in a portfolio:

    1. Audio- and videotaped recordings of readings or oral presentations.
    2. Writing samples such as dialogue journal entries, book reports, writing assign-

      ments (drafts of final copies), reading log entries, or other writing projects.

    3. Art work such as pictures or drawings, and graphs and charts.
    4. Conference or interview notes and anecdotal records.
    5. Checklists (by teacher, peers, or student).
    6. Tests and quizzes.

    Tannenbaum stresses that it is important to include more than one entry of a particular type of portfolio content in order to gain “multiple perspectives on students’ academic develop- ment.

    This particular article is presented in an academic manner, and is informative and practical. It provides theory as well as lists everyday ideas for implementing the process of portfolio development and assessment in the classroom. It seems that this proposal can be used not just for ESL students, but for all learners.

page4image488

“Adult ESL Learner Assessment: Purposes and Tools”, (Burt, Keenan, 1995)

In their article, “Adult ESL Learner Assessment: Purposes and Tools”, Miriam Burt and Fran Keenan discuss what learner assessment is in terms of its use for placement, progress, enrollment purposes, verification of program effectiveness, and justification of further fund- ing. Burt and Keenan describe commercially available tests (multiple choice tests) and pro- vide reasons why these commercially available tests have limitations. They suggest that evaluators may not know whether an ESL student is having trouble with selected test items because of “difficulties with reading, with the vocabulary, or with the cultural notions un- derlying the test items.” (Burt, Keenan, 1995, p. 2)

Burt and Keenan state that, “Many adult (and K-12) educators promote the use of alternative assessment tools that incorporate learner goals and relate more closely to instruction. They provide alternatives to commercially available tests. One such alternative is the Portfolio. They refer to Fingeret, 1993 and Wrigley, 1992 in their assertion that:

Learner portfolios, collections of individual work, are common examples of alter- native assessment. Portfolios can include such items as reports on books read, notes from learner/teacher interviews, learners’ reflections on their progress, writ- ing samples, data from performance-based assessments, and scores on commer- cially available tests.

(Burt, Keenan, p.3)

This article, although quite informative, left me wanting more practical ideas concerning what should go into a portfolio, and how a teacher should plan and implement the use of portfolios. The conclusion was short and basic, but stated the overall assertion of the article, that, “current practice and theory seem to recommend using a combination of commercially available and program-developed alternative assessment instruments.” (Burt, Keenan, p.3) This article would be helpful to a new teacher who needs ideas as to how to alternatively assess his or her students.

Nurturing Student Learning Through Portfolios, (Gottlieb, 1995)

In her article, “Nurturing Student Learning Through Portfolios,” Margo Gottlieb discusses the fact that there has been a rise of instructional and assessment practices that are “holistic, student centered, performance based, process oriented, integrated, and multidimensional.” (Gottlieb, 1995, p.12) She writes that portfolios are a means of alternative assessment and that they “facilitate articulation between teachers and individual students, other teachers, parents, and administrators.” (Gottlieb, p.12) She describes a “CRADLE” approach to port- folio development. CRADLE stands for developing Collections, encouraging Reflective practices, Assessing the portfolio, Documenting achievement, ensuring Linkages, and Evaluating portfolios. She asserts that teachers must have professional development and training in order to “reach acceptable levels of reliability for the entire portfolio.” (Gottlieb, p.14) This article was extremely informative. It gave me a template to follow in developing my own portfolio system. This article would be appropriate for teachers of ESL students as well as teachers of native English speaking students.

Assessing the Portfolio: Principles for Practice, Theory, & Research, (Hamp-Lyons, 1999)

Liz Hamp-Lyons, in her chapters concerning portfolios, writes of the existence of portfolios as tools for “gathering performances of widely varying kinds.” (Hamp-Lyons, 1999, p.22) She states that portfolio assessments provide useful information that educators, students, and the public can trust. Hamp-Lyons discusses portfolios in the K-12 classroom. She asserts that norm-referenced tests and other standardized tests have no particular relation to what teachers are teaching in their classrooms. These tests are incomplete and unfair. Perform- ance assessments (portfolios) “provide richer information about what students can do, and [they] leave[s] room for students to show more than the test asks.” (Hamp-Lyons, p.26)

Hamp-Lyons writes that although many individual teachers may use portfolios in their class- rooms, college level portfolio based writing assessment is less “robust” than in K-12 classes. Hamp-Lyons continues her discussion about portfolios in referring to nonnative writers. She asserts that nonnative writers struggle with timed writing tests, and that writing tests do not show the breadth of the students’ capabilities. The use of portfolios enables ESL stu- dents to show their best work.

Hamp-Lyons makes a point in saying that while portfolios show the progress and aptitude of students, they also show the effectiveness of the particular pedagogical program the portfo- lio has been developed for.

This was an appropriate piece for ESL teachers. Hamp-Lyons discusses portfolios from many teaching levels (K-12, College etc.). Her assertion that portfolios are a reflection on the program for which the portfolio is developed is something to consider.

A Portfolio Assessment Model for ESL, (Moya, O’Malley, 1994)

In their discussion of portfolios in the article “A Portfolio Assessment Model for ESL”, Sharon S. Moya and J. Michael O’Malley provide examples of school districts that have programs with portfolio development and assessment. They explain the use of portfolios and stress that “A portfolio used for educational assessment must offer more than a show- case for student products; it must be the product of a complete assessment procedure that has been systematically planned, implemented, and evaluated (Moya, O’Malley, 1994, p.1). They list five features of a model portfolio procedure: comprehensiveness, predetermined and systematic, informative, tailored (meaningful to teachers, students, staff, and parents), and authentic.

Moya and O’Malley propose the rationale for using portfolios in the ESL classroom, stating:

Language proficiency must be viewed as a composite of many levels of knowl- edge, skills, and capabilities. A varied approach to measurement, including both test and nontest methods, is, therefore, needed to ascertain student strengths and weaknesses in all critical areas. Portfolio assessment encourages the use of multi- ple measures.

(Moya, O’Malley, p. 4)

Moya and O’Malley discuss the Portfolio Assessment Model, which has six interrelated levels of assessment: 1.) Identify purpose and focus of portfolio; 2.) Plan portfolio contents; 3.) Design portfolio analysis; 4.) Prepare for instruction; 5.) Plan verification of procedures; and 6.) Implement the model. (Moya, O’Malley, p.5)

This article provides both theory and practical suggestions for implementing the use of port- folios in the classroom. The steps in the model are easy to follow and can be adapted and utilized in all grade levels (K-12, university, adult etc.).

A Summary of the Arguments

There is a common thread that runs throughout the articles above. This thread is that the use of portfolios in the ESL classroom is an important addition to the assessment procedures of the class. With a rise in the number of ESL and EFL students in our schools today, portfo- lios are an effective way to assess the whole student, not just pick apart the students’ weak- nesses. Portfolios give students many opportunities to present their best work, and, in so doing, are encouraged to do their best.

Portfolios are a means of assessing the students’ strengths and weaknesses, not only in test- taking abilities, but in a variety of skills such as planning, revising, and presenting a sample of writing. Portfolios provide opportunities for students to reflect upon who they are as learners, writers, and people. This is especially important in the development of ESL stu- dents’ confidence, and attitudes towards their growth in learning English as a second lan- guage.

The articles all assert that portfolios produce a better student and better teaching programs. This view is clearly presented in Hamp-Lyon’s discussion. She writes that portfolios actu- ally point out the weaknesses of the program addressed. We can assume that this can be quite threatening for teachers who have been teaching in the traditional structure, where teachers teach, but the students are tested on things that do not directly reflect the specific programs that the teacher presents.

The articles suggest the use of many different forms of work provided by the student. These are clearly listed in Tannenbaum’s, Burt’s and Keenan’s, and Moya’s and O’Malley’s dis- cussions.

Two articles are very effective in presenting a model or a plan in implementing a program of portfolio use in the classroom. Gottlieb discusses the CRADLE approach, and Moya and O’Malley discuss the portfolio assessment model for ESL. There is a contrast between the two approaches, though. Gottlieb’s CRADLE Approach is more student-centered, where students are asked to collect their own pieces of work, and reflect upon the process through which these pieces of text were developed. In Moya and O’Malley’s argument, the teacher or “committee” is the guiding factor in the development of portfolios in the classroom. This argument provides explicit instructions for teachers to follow in developing the portfolio program.

Burt and Keenan are the only authors who pointed out the downfalls of the use of portfolios in the classroom. Like all strategies of assessment, the use of Portfolios is not completely thorough in the assessment of students. They state that portfolio development and imple- mentation, as well as evaluation, is time consuming for both students and teachers. They assert that many ESL students are resistant to alternative forms of assessment like portfolios. They also make a point of saying that funders, (from the state, or program etc.) require hard evidence as to the progress of students. They do not want to read millions of students’ port- folios, but they will look at lists and data which show how a particular program is running.

Filed under 2002 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The CBET Handbook for The Oxford Picture Dictionaries by Carmen Waszak

March 10, 2002 by Leave a Comment

With the passing of California Proposition 227, a state funded program for parents was de- veloped. The purpose of this program, called the Community Based English Tutoring (CBET) Program, is for local educational agencies (LEAs) to provide free or subsidized programs of adult English language instruction to parents or other members of the commu- nity who pledge to provide personal English language tutoring to English learners (http://www.cde.ca.gov/cilbranch/cbet). For the most part, publishers have not focused on Community Based Tutoring and as a result, CBET resources for teachers have been scarce.

However, Oxford University Press is one publisher that has taken an interest in CBET by publishing The CBET Handbook for The Oxford Picture Dictionaries. This handbook is part of an English Language Development program which includes workbooks, picture dic- tionaries, a teacher1s resource book, and Classic Classroom Activities, all published by Ox- ford.

One of the best attributes of the handbook is its simple organization. This makes the book manageable even for the novice teacher. The book is divided into three major sections: strategies for teaching with the Oxford Picture Dictionary Programs, lessons on tutoring skills with reproducible readings and worksheets, and lessons on organizing and planning skills. The target audience is ESL/CBET instructors; however, the contents may be helpful to any adults who have children, adults who would like to tutor, or adults who lack experi- ence with reading strategies and organization skills.

The first section of the book will be useful to teachers who have access to Oxford1s other materials; ie. The Oxford Picture Dictionary, Classic Classroom Activities. In this section are procedures on introducing a new topic and presenting new language along with a few activities. A few of the activities involve using picture cards, which are not included in this handbook. However, you can either make your own picture cards or use reproducible pic- ture cards from another source. Students seem to enjoy the activities in this first section, giving them the opportunity to become actively engaged with the material and each other. They may also become more familiar with the new vocabulary in a much shorter time period using these activities. Also, the students, in turn, then could teach these 3games2 to other students, making learning more meaningful.

While the first section holds some enjoyable activities, the second section is likely to be the most important part for the teacher. In this section, all the lessons have one goal in mind: to teach adults how to tutor reading. Nevertheless, these lessons are also useful to students in the early stages of literacy by teaching them strategies and activities for independent read- ing. This section may also be indispensable for new ESL instructors to become familiar with strategies beginning readers use.

The lessons in the second section are presented in order, from the first lesson on how to start a conversation with a student to the last lesson on how to give praise and correct errors. Each lesson is divided into three parts: the first part begins with Teacher1s Notes (the objec- tive, background information for the teacher, and background knowledge required of the student). The second part is a reading for the student, and the last part a practice worksheet to practice the new skill.

The last section is Teaching Organizing and Planning Skills to Your Adult Students serves as an extension to section two and is self-explanatory. It is organized in the same manner as in the previous section with Teacher1s Notes, student reading, and practice worksheet. These lessons focus on teaching students how to be independent. Students learn to use and create a monthly calendar, create a place to study, plan a tutoring session, and record tutor- ing goals and activities. These play a valuable role in becoming a successful student as well as a successful tutor.

Although the last section of the handbook plays a valuable role in student success, it re- quires a higher level of English proficiency. For example, one lesson objective is 3to help tutors prepare for, plan, reflect on, and chart their tutorial sessions2, which requires students to fill out four different forms in one lesson; whereas in section two, there was only one practice sheet per lesson. Thus, the last section may have limited success in a beginning level class.

Overall, the handbook serves as a nice start in teaching tutoring, reading, planning, and or- ganization skills to adult students. It is advisable to present the lessons sequentially since they tend to build on each other. The most beneficial part of the handbook is section two, which can be used alone as long as you make or have access to picture cards. The lesson plans are easy to follow and concise. They allow students to practice tutoring skills and strategies before entering the classroom, making the transition from student to tutor much smoother. Students also build planning and organizing skills that help students achieve suc- cess in school.

Filed under 2002 Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Review – Beyond the Silence: Listening for Democracy by Lydia Hammett

March 10, 2002 by Leave a Comment

The book, Beyond the Silence: Listening for Democracy is a collection of stories edited by Cynthia McDermott that represent the voices of educators and students who share the dream and promise of democracy and social justice in the classroom. McDermott, who is a profes- sor at California State University-Dominguez Hills in Los Angeles, California, values the principles and perspectives of critical pedagogy reflected in democratic education.1 The creation of a democratic school or classroom is presented for elementary through secondary teachers as well as college level professors.

McDermott and the contributing authors share and address the essential elements found in democratic classrooms, including teaching practices, ideas, and techniques that support a holistic process through conflict resolution, community building, reflection, and authentic learning that are valuable in a linguistically diverse society. Therefore, drawing upon their knowledge and experience, the editor put together this book to encourage educators and students to take the steps and the journey to creating the environment for a much needed democratic learning in America’s schools.

Democracy in the classroom is a process, yet it promotes a culturally responsive learning environment in which students participate in the curriculum by making choices and reflect- ing on their interests and learning goals, which according to McDermott and her colleagues, is an optimal educational environment for students to learn their best. The implementation of this process may involve time and practice, may present challenges in and out of the classroom, and may be difficult and unfamiliar to students who are asked to make decisions and take responsibility for their learning. However, Beyond the Silence is structured to serve as a reference for teachers who are already implementing democratic practices as well as novice educators who want to shift their teacher-centered pedagogical practice to one that promotes social justice, equality and student empowerment. Each chapter features the work of an “expert” (e.g., a teacher, teacher educator, or paraprofessional) and narratives from practitioners and students whose classroom experience is informed by that expert. For ex-

1 Considering the perspectives of critical theory, critical educators are concerned with how descriptions, discus- sions, and representations in textbooks, curriculum materials, course content, and social relations embodied in class- room practices benefit dominant groups and exclude subordinate ones (McLaren, 1995). For example, in Chapter Two, The Curriculum Connection, Hilton Smith, an experienced democ- ratic teacher, addresses principles for project-centered learning that are practiced and evi- dent in classroom experiences offered by the three separate narratives of two teachers and a student. In order to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the process of democratic teaching, McDermott conceptualizes, what I would consider, three main aspects to the establishment of a democratic educational environment: making decision about be- havior and curriculum, creating a trusting learning environment, and encouraging reflection and self-evaluations for independent thinking and conflict resolution.

Teachers can move beyond the practice of behaviorism and create a classroom environment where students make decisions about their behavior and the curriculum. Teachers often practice the behaviorist process by providing students with rewards as motivators when do- ing work and giving punishments when work is not done to teacher expectations. Alfie Kohn, a former teacher who writes and speaks widely on human behavior, education, and social theory, discusses the concept of rewards, the approaches used by teachers to motivate students, and the struggles faced when trying to undo the detrimental effects of extrinsic motivators. Kohn recommends that teachers reflect on their rationale for “doing praise” and consider that “if we want kids to become sharp thinkers and people who are in love with ideas, we can’t choose…to motivate them from the outside” (p.13). The need for extrinsic motivators diminishes when students engage in curriculum that is satisfying, interesting, and is part of an authentic learning experience. The issues of shared student-teacher power and the coverage of curriculum by means of student participation, active learning, and responsi- bility are appropriately addressed through classroom experiences, however Kohn’s discus- sion on the concept of rewards has limited supporting examples.

Teachers can create a trusting learning environment and encourage social responsibility by providing students opportunities where they can work together and respect each other. Trust is the key ingredient in creating a democratic community of learners. The teacher needs to trust that his or her students will be responsible when they take on a learning chal- lenge, students need to trust that their teacher will be there to help them understand as they process knowledge, and students need to trust each other as they problem pose and solve through teambuilding activities. For example, Jeff Hass, a high school English teacher at Downtown Business Magnets High School in Los Angeles, understands the reciprocal func- tions of education when his students demonstrate to him that they know the importance of teamwork, trust, and responsible learning behavior. Chapters three, five and eight provides examples of democratic learning experiences and describes specific social skills that teach- ers and students can use to build and creating a community of learners. McDermott and the contributing authors recognize that education with mandated curricula can be an obstacle to building a community in a classroom or a school, however they stress that teachers keep in mind that children need to be engaged in and develop skills that will prepare them to be active participants in a democratic society.

Perhaps most importantly, it is the trusting learning environment that serves as a foundation for other aspects of the democratic process to strengthen. Students need to feel that they will be heard and respected for their opinions, especially during reflection and self- evaluation.

Teachers can encourage independent thinking skills and conflict resolution skills through the process of reflection and self-evaluation. Clifford Knapp, a professor of Curriculum and Instruction at Northern Illinois University, addresses the power of reflections while McDermott presents strategies and practices of self-evaluation in the classroom. When used as instructional tools, well planned and conducted, reflection and self-evaluation engages students in their learning process by helping them focus on the learning and their responsi- bility to it. Reflection sessions can be a powerful learning skill and an integral part of the student learning and thinking process, and can be implemented in any grade level. Kim Douillard and Jan Hamilton, who co-teach a first-, second-, and third-grade multiage class in Cardiff-by-the-Sea, share how reflection and “thinking about thinking” has deepened the learning experience of their students. By reacting and responding to knowledge, students improve their reasoning and problem-solving skills, and increase their critical thinking abili- ties.

Moreover, the process of self-evaluation encourages students to reflect not only on their learning, but on their behavior and on the choices they make when setting learning and working goals, analyzing quality work, and when making trustworthy decisions as well. Reflection and self-evaluation is a process that incorporates both teacher and students. In recounting her personal experience with self-evaluation in her classroom, Sharon Setoguchi, an English, Japanese, and Journalism teacher at Stephen M. White Middle School in Los Angeles, learned that trust is “the single most important factor in helping students become self-reflective” in the process of self-evaluation (p.112).

Overall, McDermott has woven together the essential elements that intertwine for the crea- tion of a democratic educational environment. The strong positions heard by the contribu- tors represent democratic voices in pedagogical decisions that affect diverse populations in education. A democratic pedagogy decision will leave readers feeling the need to go be- yond the silencing that exists in many non-democratic classrooms today and to be more self- reflective in educational efforts that creates a culturally responsive learning environment. The journey, as suggested by the contributing authors, is not one without obstacles, yet it is an approach that is a process of continuum progress and growth. The challenges in trans- forming into a democratic teacher and abandoning the traditional classroom patterns where student voices are not heard, respected, and trusted, can cause uncertainty and distress. However, McDermott has put together this valuable tool in which an educator can consider a new task, one that will “demonstrate how classrooms organized around the rhythms and routines grounded in natural learning processes make democratic classrooms more practical educational places” (p.50).

Filed under 2002 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts