malaysian journal of elt research - volume 10 (1) 2014
Post on 04-Feb-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
1/68
Malaysian Journal of ELT Research
ISSN: 1511-8002
Vol. 10(1), 2014
INTERNATIONAL BOARD OF ADVISORS
Alastair Pennycook
Universityof Technology, Sydney
Chan Swee Heng
University Putra Malaysia
David WrayUniversity of Warwick
Paul MatsudaArizona State University
EDITORIAL BOARD
Director of Journals:
Ramesh NairUniversiti Teknologi Mara, Malaysia
Chief Editor:
Stefanie Pillai
University of Malaya, Malaysia
Editors:
Chua Meng HuatUniversity of Malaya, Malaysia
Lee King Siong
Surinder Pal Kaur
University of Malaya, Malaysia
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
2/68
Malaysian Journal of ELT Research Vol. 10(1) April 2014
ii
REVIEWERS
Agnes Liau Wei Lin
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Azrai Hj AbdullahUniversiti Teknologi Petronas, Malaysia
Francisco Perlas Dumanig
University of Malaya, Malaysia
George Teoh Boon Sai
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Jelani Sulaiman
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
John Kullman
Canterbury Christ Church University, United Kingdom
Jonathan NewtonVictoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Mardziah Hayati AbdullahUniversiti Putra Malaysia
Meei-Ling Liaw
National Taichung University, Taiwan
Nor Fariza binti Mohd. Nor
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Noorizah Binti Mohd Noor
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Rajasegaran P. Krishnasamy
Universiti Teknologi Mara Melaka, Malaysia
Rosnaini bt Mahmud
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Ruanni F. TupasNational Institute of Education, Singapore
Sa-hui (Agatha) FanNational Taichung University, Taiwan
mailto:izah@pkrisc.cc.ukm.mymailto:izah@pkrisc.cc.ukm.my -
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
3/68
Malaysian Journal of ELT Research Vol. 10(1) April 2014
iii
Salah Troudi
University of Exeter, United Kingdom
Shanthini Pillai
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Ting Su HieUniversiti Sarawak Malaysia
Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf,Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
4/68
Malaysian Journal of ELT Research Vol. 10(1) April 2014
iv
CONTRIBUTORS
Asiah Kassimis a postgraduate candidate at the Faculty of Languages & Linguistics, University
of Malaya. The focus of her study is in the field of second language acquisition. She is currently
teaching English language proficiency courses for undergraduate students at Universiti Malaysia
Pahang.
Daljeet Singh Sedhu is an English Lecturer in Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, PerakBranch Campus. His research interests are metacognitive teaching and learning of English
Language and paraphrasing skills.
Masoumeh Dousti obtained a BA in English literature and an MA in TEFL from Urmia
University in Iran. Her research interests are needs analysis, computer-assisted language
learning, and educational technology.
Mun Yee Lee is an English Lecturer at Tunku Abdul Rahman University College (Perak BranchCampus). Her research areas of interest include students development of writing skills in
English, changes of global education trends and management.
Ng Lee Luan teaches postgraduate courses at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics,
University of Malaya. Her research interests include computer assisted language learning, online
learning, and teaching and learning at higher education.
Sara Jalali is an assistant professor of TEFL at the Department of English Language and
Literature at Urmia University in Iran. Her research interests are mostly in the areas of CALL,
needs analysis, testing and assessment in EFL.
S. Chee Choy, PhD is an Associate Professor and Branch Campus Head of Tunku Abdul
Rahman University College (Perak Branch Campus) Her research interests are perceptions, andattitudes in language learning.
Tgk. Maya Silviyantiis a lecturer at the Department of English Language, Faculty of Teacher
Training and Education, at Universitas Syiah Kuala in Aceh. She also teaches at the LanguageCenter of the university. Her research interests are in the field of educational technology and itsimplementation in the L2 classroom. She obtained her Bachelor of Education from Universitas
Syiah Kuala, and a Mastersof Arts in educational technology and TESOL from the University
of Manchester.
Yunisrina Qismullah Yusufis a lecturer of Linguistics at Universitas Syiah Kuala. Her research
interests are mainly in linguistics, culture and education. She obtained her Bachelor of Educationfrom Universitas Syiah Kuala, and a Mastersof Linguistics and PhD in (Phonology) from the
University of Malaya. She is currently the chief editor of Studies in English Language andEducation (SiELE).
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
5/68
Malaysian Journal of ELT Research Vol. 10(1) April 2014
v
INFORMATIONS FOR AUTHORS
ABOUT MaJER
The Malaysian Journal of ELT Research (MaJER)aims to advance knowledge of and to
develop expertise in critical and scientific inquiry in English language teaching and learning. The
journal is intended for academicians, researchers, teacher educators and graduate students who
are involved in research and dissemination of knowledge in the field. This is a refereed online
journal which will publish articles in an on-going manner. All articles in this journal undergo
anonymous peer review by two referees.
Submission of a manuscript to MaJER implies that the work submitted is original and has not
appeared in other publications (whether electronic or print) and nor is it being considered for
publication elsewhere. Corresponding authors are responsible for ensuring that all contributors to
the manuscript submitted are properly and duly acknowledged. The Malaysian English Language
Teaching Association (MELTA) and the Editorial Board of MaJER will not be responsible for
any authorship disputes arising from the publication of an article in MaJER.
Whilst every effort is made to verify the originality of manuscripts and to proofread accepted
manuscripts, MELTA and the Editorial Board of MaJER cannot be held responsible for errors or
accuracy of information contained in articles published in MaJER. Further, the views and
opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of MELTA or the Editorial
Board or their agents.
Authors are invited to submit articles that focus on new theoretical perspectives, syntheses ofresearch, discussions of methodological issues and scholarly analyses of issues in ELT. Articles
may also include debates on a variety of perspectives, policy and theories, investigations of
alternative modes of research in ELT, examination of trends in ELT and the advancement of
knowledge and understanding of effective English language teaching and learning. The article
must be accompanied by an abstract and a bio data of the author(s).
GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION OF ARTICLES
1. All articles submitted must be original materials not under consideration or published
elsewhere. Authors must state if a paper has been presented at a conference and appears
or will appear in the proceedings of a conference.
2. Authors must use spelling and punctuation that is common to written communication in
the UK.
3. Manuscripts may be submitted via e-mail tojournals@melta.org.mywith the subject of
the email written as SUBMISSION TO MAJER.
mailto:journals@melta.org.mymailto:journals@melta.org.mymailto:journals@melta.org.mymailto:journals@melta.org.my -
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
6/68
Malaysian Journal of ELT Research Vol. 10(1) April 2014
vi
4. For the first submission, send your manuscript in two MS Word files. One should have
the names and details of authors removedand saved as MaJER Title of Paper-
Review Copy.doc, and the other with the author information included saved as MaJER
Title of Paper-Non Review Copy.doc.
5. The cover page should include: a. A title. b. Name and institutional affiliation of each
author as you would like it to appear in the published version and contact full contact
information (full mailing address, telephone/fax numbers and e-mail address).
6. The second page should consist of an abstract of not more than 200 words, followed by
a list of not more than five keywords.
7. The article should begin on the third page.
8. All references and citations should be checked for accuracy and spelling, and follow the
APA format. References in the main text should not be different from those in the
reference section.
9. Footnotes are not acceptable but rather, should be worked into the text.
10.
Articles for the Malaysian Journal of ELT Research that contain quantitative orqualitative analysis or survey research reports must follow research conventions strictly.
11.A 150 word bio data of the author(s) must also be provided after the references section.
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
7/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts on
Paraphrasing Skills of ESL Students
S. CHEE CHOY, MUN YEE LEE, DALJEET SINGH SEDHUTunku Abdul Rahman University College, Perak Branch Campus, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
This study examined the influence of cultural and contextual settings of passages on
ESL students paraphrasing skills using a sample of forty-one students enrolled in a
university diploma programme. The results showed that students paraphrase better with
passages that contained main points that were easy to identify. The culture and context
of the passages played an important, but secondary role of stimulating students interest.
It was also found that there were changes in students perceptions of themsel ves as
learners after they had learned the paraphrasing skills. They were more confident about
using their paraphrasing skills especially with passages that contained subject matter
that was easy to understand and interesting.
KEYWORDS: ESL, paraphrasing skills, student perceptions, cultural settings,contextual settings
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
8/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 2
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
Background
Previous studies showed that paraphrasing skills helped ESL students learn
academic writing (Omar, 2003). In other studies there were indications thatculture had an influence on writing and learning (Boondao, Hurst & Sheard,
2009). Studies conducted by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) and Lee and Choy(2010) showed that skills alone did not help students with paraphrasing. Otherfactors, including culture and context, influenced their abilities. Hence, the
current study was conducted to investigate whether culturally familiar texts
influenced students paraphrasing skills.
Most bilingual students find translating from their first language to a second
language challenging, especially when this language is the medium of
instruction. This was highlighted by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) in their
article on the influence of context on paraphrasing tasks of bilingual students.Another study by Lee and Choys (2010) found that students were not helped
by paraphrasing skills alone. Other factors that were cultural in nature alsodetermined their ability to summarise a passage. Yu (2008) suggested thatthese cultural factors were language bound and found that students did better
at summaries when they were allowed to paraphrase in Chinese, their first
language, what they had read in English, which they learned as a foreignlanguage. This suggested that students skills could exceed what they
expressed if they were not hindered by their command of the second or
foreign language. The results from these studies were inconclusive; hence
further research was necessary to determine if the cultural orientation of apassage also influenced a students performance in a paraphrasing task.
Studies by Yu (2008) and Orellana and Reynolds (2008) also suggested thatcontextual settings of passages played a part in students performances when
paraphrasing. Students tended to perform better in their native language (Yu,
2008). However, the results from both studies indicated that students preferred
to paraphrase in English because it was easier to directly copy the text evenwhen it was not fully understood. It was also found that proper understanding
of the text and the time allowed for the task were important prerequisites for
paraphrasing (Yu, 2008).
Paraphrasing skills, therefore, were viewed as process driven rather than skills
driven as these skills depended on a students comprehension of the context of
the passage (Johns, 1988). Hence, it was best for students to have priorexperience with the context and content of the text. Passages that were
culturally, nationally and ethnically bound to students help them derive more
meaning. The strategies students used to process the paraphrasing task wasalso important as it influenced how successful they were when completing the
task (Johns, 1988). Another difficulty with paraphrasing was that students
were writing to an unknown, absent audience (Orellana and Reynolds, 2008)Hence, they were often oblivious to what this audience would like to know
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
9/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 3
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
and want included from the passage. The identification of this audience was
often not emphasised by the teacher. Students would possibly benefit from
being provided with such process enhancing information to help themparaphrase.
Westin (2006) found that readers could better comprehend passages that wereculturally related to them. The same study also found that second languagespeakers had greater difficulty paraphrasing passages that contained contexts
that were unfamiliar to them. Students who had to translate texts in order to
understand them might gloss over meanings of words creating inaccuracies intheir paraphrasing (Orellana and Reynolds, 2008). Therefore it would be
difficult to paraphrase accurately while keeping the writing context, as well as
content, accurate. Hare and Borchardt (1984) further noted that the
paraphrasing of passages by less proficient readers were more piecemeal,sentence by sentence based, rather than based on the whole passage.
Most studies on paraphrasing focused on the use of strategies to enhance skillsrequired to carry out the task. There was little emphasis on the type of
learning that took place as a consequence of these skills (Johns, 1988; Scott,
1998). Anthony (1996) noted that students should be actively involved in their
own learning and stressed the need for them to make learning meaningful tothemselves rather than a passive acceptance of information or repetition of
knowledge. Students actively involved in learning, required an emphasis of
contextual learning where students constructed their own learningexperiences. This form of learning could enhance students paraphrasing skills
as they would be able to apply these skills to different passages and situations.
Methods
The Present Study
This study was interested in determining the perceptions of students when
carrying out paraphrasing tasks that were culturally and contextually oriented
for them. Students performances in their paraphrasing tasks were measuredusing selected passages. The perceptions of the students interpreted from
interviews were used to determine how they used the paraphrasing skills and
the influence of the passages on their ability to paraphrase. A search of the
literature found a dearth of information on the influence of passages onstudents paraphrasing skills with the exception of studies by Yu (2008) and
Orellana and Reynolds (2008). Hence, in an attempt to enhance our
understanding of such influences two research questions (RQ) were used to
underpin this study:
RQ1. What were students perceptions of the paraphrasing skills taught using
passages that were culturally and contextually relevant?
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
10/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 4
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
RQ2. Were students perceptions of the paraphrasing skills reflected in their
performance in the paraphrasing tests?
Design and procedure
This study was carried out using the qualitative approach with a sample offorty-one students who were pursuing diploma programmes at a university inMalaysia. All of the students in the sample were adult learners, non-native
speakers of English and had obtained a C in English for their SPM
Examinations in the Malaysian equivalent of the GCE O Levels. Theinformed consent of each student was obtained with an assurance of
anonymity. These students were allowed to withdraw at any time from the
study and were also told that any information provided by them would only be
viewed by the researchers.
The intervention was for a ten week period during the first semester when the
students were learning paraphrasing skills in their English course. Thestudents were taught paraphrasing skills with relevant practise exercises
during these ten weeks. Two tests were administered to the sample group: a
teacher made pre- and post-test for paraphrasing which consisted of a selected
passage to be paraphrased.
The pre-test was administered on the second week, while the post test was
administered on the twelfth week of the fourteen-week semester. In theteacher made paraphrasing tests, two passages were chosen for students. The
first passage was contextually familiar to the students, while the second
passage was not. The two passages were selected to study the influence of
familiar passages on students abilities to paraphrase (Appendix A andAppendix B). The readability levels of the two passages were determined
using the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests (Kincaid, Fishburne, Rogers, &
Chissom, 1975).
In order to ensure that the passages chosen for the pre- and post-tests were
appropriate, ten passages were initially selected. The passages were checkedfor readability levels using the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests, and read for
content and context relevancy by the researchers. The passages were all 350 to
450 words long with readability levels of between Grade 8 to Grade 9. As the
students were ESL learners, passages chosen were lower than university levelEnglish. These passages were read and re-read until two of them were finally
chosen based on the subject matter of the passages. The two passages chosen
had the same reading level at Grade 8.5 and were on hijacking in South Africa
for the unfamiliar passage and the custom of handshaking for the familiarpassage.
In addition to the tests, the students were interviewed as a group. They wereasked questions about what they had learned as well as their impressions of
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
11/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 5
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
the paraphrasing tasks they had carried out during class. A list of the questions
can be found on Appendix C. A total of two interview sessions were recorded
and videotaped, one before teaching the paraphrasing skill and the other after.These sessions were then transcribed by the researchers for analysis. The
students were encouraged to be vocal with their views during the sessions and
were asked to indicate their responses with a show of hands which theinterviewer recorded using an observation protocol (Creswell, 2013).
The results obtained led to the use of the interpretive approach. The interview
data was analysed, and themes were allowed to emerge from it. Theinterpretation was based on the perspectives of the researchers and, as such,
was value laden and biased. These salient points from the interview were then
analysed and grouped under a common category (Radnor, 2002). An
interpretive approach was used as the researchers were subjectively involvedwith the participants through their interactions with them. The goal here was
to rely on the participants views of paraphrasing which were formed during
interaction with the researchers (Creswell, 2013). The researchers alsoaddressed the process that the students went through to learn paraphrasing.
The analyses were used to answer the research questions. The sample used
was from a Malaysian population and cannot be generalised. The hope of the
researchers was that the results obtained might be applicable to students ofother nationalities in similar situations.
Results
RQ1. What were students perceptions of the effectiveness of the paraphrasing
skills taught using passages that were culturally and contextually relevant?
From the analysis of the interviews, several salient points were found. These
points were grouped into the following categories and used to answer the
research question. The quotes from the interviews were edited to aid thereaders understanding.
Culturally and contextually familiar passages were harder.
Fifty-eight per cent of the students perceived that paraphrasing the
contextually familiar passages was more difficult. They found the task
difficult because they did not know how to identify the important points to beincluded in their paraphrased passage. Although the handshake was familiar to
these students, they found it difficult to pick out the main points in the
passage. For instance, Student K commented:Handshake is something common for me. However, I am confused
with which points to choose from the passage, although the passage
is easy to understand.
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
12/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 6
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
Student F noted the difficulty of the passage:The handshake passage is more difficult for me as there are hidden
points. I got the main points, but I could not formulate the answer.
The language used in the passage is not the problem.
Culturally and contextually unfamiliar passages were easier.
About fifty-eight per cent of the students perceived the contextually
unfamiliar passage was easier because the main points in the passage wereobvious and could be easily identified. The comments from students implied
that an easier to understand passage in terms of the language might be more
helpful for ESL students than the context of the passage. For instance, StudentO commented:
The hijack passage is easier because I can find all the points, but
the handshake passage is difficult as the main points were not
clear.
Student V commented:The hijack passage is easier. I understand the passage better. Ihave never read about car hijack before, but I managed to get the
necessary information.
Sixteen per cent of the students from this group perceived that they could
paraphrase better because they were interested in the subject matter. Thesestudents also mentioned they had some prior knowledge of the topic in the
passage and found the passage easier to paraphrase and summarise. For
instance, Student C commented:The hijack text is easier than handshake. I read some hijacking
articles and most of the cases were from foreign news. The
meaning of the passage can be easily understood.
Understanding requirements of the task improved confidence
levels.
All the students mentioned that their ability to understand the requirements of
the task and identify the main points affected their confidence levels. Forinstance, Student V commented:
The exercise where I had to summarise the advantages and
disadvantages of watching television, is rather an easy task because
the requirement is understood and the points were easily lifted from
the passage. Thus, I was confident about doing it.
Another Student H also commented:I was more confident about carrying out the task after I was able to
understand what was required; I was not as confident before I tried
it.
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
13/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 7
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
Students were unable to apply skills.
All of the students perceived that the skills taught were useful, but they were
not able to fully apply them in their exercises and tests. Even after many
practise exercises in paraphrasing, they continued to have difficultiesunderstanding and applying the requirements of the task and extracting themain points from the passage. For instance Student K said:
The skills taught are useful, and I am more confident as a result, but
I still have difficulties when I have to paraphrase. I could do the
practise exercises and I did well in the exercises. They were easier
than the passage because they were short sentences. Whereas the
passage had so many sentences and I did not know which was
important and which was not.
Other students commented that the skills taught helped as long as the points in
the passages were clear and could easily be lifted from the text. When the
passages were difficult they found paraphrasing confusing. For example,Student M commented:The skills taught are useful as long as the passage is easy to
understand. The points must be easy to find. When the passages get
difficult it is confusing to apply the skills. I do not know where to
begin.
Skills did not help.
About thirty per cent of the students perceived that the paraphrasing skills
they learned did not help. They could not apply the techniques that weretaught, and their poor command of English was an obstacle when
paraphrasing. This was evidenced by Student T who commented:Techniques were useful. But even when I used them to help me do
the paraphrasing, I cannot find the main points. Sometimes examples
are like the main points, and I include them as part of the answer. I
cannot differentiate them well because I am poor in English .
Other students were unsure if the techniques actually helped them carry out
the paraphrasing task. For instance Student H said:After learning the techniques, I did not apply them on the tests
only on the exercises. I did not use the techniques as I was not
taught them especially before the first test.
Comprehension of passage was essential when applying paraphrasing skill.
There were two different passages given to students. About thirty per cent ofthe students found the hijack passage easier to understand while the rest of
them found the handshake passage easier. The comments from students
suggested that perceptions of paraphrasing tasks depended on whetherstudents found the passage easy to understand and whether the main points
were obvious in the passage. For instance, Student O said:
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
14/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 8
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
The hijack passage is easier because I could find the points,
but the handshake passage was difficult. There were so many
points and I could not differentiate the main points from the
less important ones.
Student S further commented:
The hijack passage was harder. I could not differentiate themain points and examples. The handshake passage was
straight to the point. The context was more familiar to me.
It was also found that paraphrasing skills were only useful if students could
comprehend the passages to a certain level. This was evidenced in thecomment made by Student C:
If I understand the whole passage then I would be able to
write, and apply the techniques that I was taught. But if I
could only understand the passage a little then I would just
try to copy the main points and make a passage with the
sentences I copy.
Discussion: RQ1
The passage on the handshake, a gesture practised by most people, could be
perceived as part of a world-wide culture and, therefore, familiar to thestudents. However, based on what students expressed during the interview, the
contextually relevant passages were more difficult to paraphrase as the main
points were obscured by the sub-points in the passage. Thus, the way thepassage was written might be more important than its culture and context.
This finding did not support research by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) and
Yu (2008) as the ease of assessing the main points might be more important
than the contextual setting of the passages for ESL students when they wereparaphrasing. In the contextually familiar passage, the students had difficulty
differentiating the main points from the secondary ones.
The findings also suggested that if students were able to extract the main
points without difficulty they could paraphrase the passage. Students with
some knowledge of the subject found the task easier to carry out. Thissupported research done by Johns (1988) and Westin (2006) who noted that
prior knowledge of the context of the passage might help students to
paraphrase a passage better. This prior knowledge acted as a bridge which
helped them understand the passage. The ease of lifting the main points froma passage proved more important than the context of the passage for ESL
students. The familiarity of the subject matter played a role in helping these
students but seemed to be a secondary factor to the ease of identifying the
main points from the passage.
Students felt that they were more confident about paraphrasing if they could
understand the requirements of the task and if the main points of the passagewere clear and direct. Hence, these tasks seemed dependent on the structure of
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
15/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 9
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
the passages rather than the cultural orientations. Students found it easier to
focus on the requirements of the tasks rather than on the context and culture
orientation of the passage. This supported findings by Lee and Choy (2010)and Westin (2006) that teaching paraphrasing skills alone did not help
students acquire these skills. Students paraphrased better when they could
identify the main points from the text. Also, interest in the subject matterhelped students carry out paraphrasing tasks, but this was secondary.
It would seem that the exercises for learning paraphrasing skills were easier
because they were mostly in short sentences or paragraphs giving a falseimpression that paraphrasing was easy. However, when applying these skills
to the passages, most of them perceived the tasks were more difficult when
they had to apply the skills they learned. It could be that these students needed
to be introduced to paraphrasing short paragraphs then gradually progressed towhole passages. The process where the students started paraphrasing
sentences and immediately progressed to full passages was daunting,
especially for ESL learners. It seemed that confidence in carrying out this taskcould be built if students were given a transition period where paraphrasing
tasks progressed from sentences to short paragraphs and finally to full
passages. This further supported the findings by Lee and Choy (2010) that
skills alone did not help students paraphrasing abilities. Students alsoperceived they were more confident paraphrasing if they understood the
requirements and could find the main points in the passage without difficulty.
They seemed to focus on the requirements of the tasks rather than the contextand culture of the passage.
Some of the students did not find the paraphrasing skills useful and were
unable to apply them when paraphrasing passages. One of the problemsconstantly mentioned was that they did not have a good command of the
English language which hindered their ability to carry out the task. This would
support the findings of Orellana and Reynolds (2008) that students with apoor command of the language they were paraphrasing in would have more
difficulty carrying out the task effectively.
The type of passage seemed to influence students comprehension level. This
was likely dependent on students prior knowledge of the subject matter in the
passage. The cultural influences did not seem to directly affect the students
ability to paraphrase the passage. Students who were able to comprehend thepassage to a certain level were able to lift the main points. This seemed to
agree with the findings of Hare and Borchardt (1984) and Westin (2006) that
ESL students with less language proficiency tend to paraphrase a passage
piecemeal and just extract information from the passage verbatim.
Paraphrasing skills were useful if students could apply them to passages they
could adequately comprehend. As such, the contextual settings might not beas important as ensuring that students had the language ability to understand
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
16/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 10
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
the passage to be paraphrased. This finding seemed to support research by
Johns (1988) that students comprehension of a passage was important to help
them effectively carry out a paraphrasing task. However, this did not supportthe findings by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) and Yu (2008) that the cultural
settings of a passage played an important part in helping students paraphrase.
Hence, the cultural setting of a passage was of secondary importance tostudents comprehension of a passage when carrying out a paraphrasing task.
RQ2. Were students perceptions of the paraphrasing skills reflected in their
performance in the paraphrasing tests?
In an attempt to answer RQ 2, students performances in the post and pre -tests
were used in the analysis. Table 1 shows a summary of the scores obtained.
Table 1. Results of students paraphrasing scores
AverageParaphrasing
Score
CulturallyUnfamiliar
Passage(%)
CulturallyFamiliar
Passage(%)
Pre-Test 50 55
Post-Test 60 60
Discussion: RQ2
The results of the paraphrasing test showed a bigger improvement in students
scores for the unfamiliar text than the familiar one. Students paraphrasing theunfamiliar passage had an average ten point increase in their post test scores
from fifty points to sixty points. In comparison, students who paraphrased the
familiar passage had an average five point increase in their post test scores
from fifty points to sixty points. As the readability levels of both passageswere the same at grade 8.5, it would imply that the cultural orientation of a
passage might only play a secondary role as to how easy it was for students to
identify the main points in the passage.
The students were able to paraphrase the unfamiliar passage better because it
was easier to identify the main points when compared to the familiar one. This
finding did not support research by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) thatfamiliar texts help students perform their paraphrasing tasks better. It rather
suggested that another factor influencing students abilities to paraphrase was
their abilities to comprehend the passages. Students were able to understandthe unfamiliar passage better than the one that was familiar to them.
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
17/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 11
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that using familiar texts did not directly helpstudents improve their paraphrasing skills. However, ensuring that the
students understand the requirements of the tasks and using passages that are
interesting to students with easy to identify main points as a start will helpbuild confidence. The culture and context of the passage play a secondaryrole. Also, students perceptions of their own paraphrasing skills do not seem
to accurately reflect their actual skills when paraphrasing. Further research on
how teaching strategies can be tailored to suit the needs of ESL learners canbe carried out. Another suggestion will be scaffolding the learning of
paraphrasing skills by having students paraphrase sentences and then short
paragraphs and eventually longer passages. Since the selection of passages for
paraphrasing tasks seem to influence the performance of ESL learners, furtherstudies are needed as well. A passage needs to have content and context that
are easy for students to understand until they become more proficient with the
language.
The strategies that have been used to teach paraphrasing skills to students in
the past also need re-examination. Teachers seem to be teaching the strategies
without realising that their students are having difficulty applying them. Theselection of passages for paraphrasing, usually done by the teacher, could
result in students finding the passages uninteresting, especially if they have
had no prior knowledge of the topic. Further studies need to be carried out todetermine if passages of interest can influence students performances when
paraphrasing, as there are indicators in this study that this could have a greater
influence than its cultural orientation.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Frances A. Bryant to thesuccessful completion of this paper.
References
Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(4), 349-369.
Boondao, R., Hurst, A. J., & Sheard, J. I. (2009). Understanding cultural
influences: Principles for personalized E-learning systems.International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 4(9), 691-695.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches.Los Angeles: Sage.Hare, V. C., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct Instruction of summarization
skills.Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 62-78.
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
18/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 12
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
Johns, A. M. (1988). Reading for summarising: An approach to text
orientation and processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 4(2), 79-
90.Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975).
Deviation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index,
Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlistedpersonnel. Memphis: Naval Technical Training, U.S. Naval AirStation.
Lee, M. Y., & Choy, S. C. (2010). Effects of teaching paraphrasing skills to
studetns learning summary writing in ESL. TARC InternationalConference on Learning and Teaching (pp. 71-77). Kuala Lumpur:
Tunku Abdul Rahman College.
Omar, A. H. (2003). Language and language situation in Southeast Asia:
With a focus in Malaysia.Kuala Lumpur: Akademi Pengajian Melayu,Universiti Malaya.
Orellana, M. F., & Reynolds, J. F. (2008). Cultural modeling: Leveraging
bilingual skills for school paraphrasing tasks. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 43(1), 48-65.
Radnor, H. A. (2002). Researching your professional practice: Doing
interpretive research in educational settings.London: Open University
Press.Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A
Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45-
80.Westin, E. (2006). Cultural and historical narrative in native and non-native
speaker language. In H. L. Andersen, K. Lund, & K. Risager, Culture
in Language Learning(pp. 45-55). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Yu, G. (2008). Reading to summarise in English and Chinese: A tale of twolanguages?Language Testing, 25(4), 521-551.
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
19/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 13
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
APPENDIX A
The Custom of Handshaking
A handshake is a short ritual in which two people grasp each others right or
left hand often accompanied by a brief up and down movement of the graspedhands. Research shows that handshaking was practised as far back as the 2nd
century BC. It is believed that it originated during the Roman Empire, when
people would grasp each other at the elbow rather than the hand as a gesture
of trust, showing that they are not carrying any weapons beneath their sleeves.The handshake is commonly done upon meeting, greeting, parting,
offering congratulations, expressing gratitude or completing an agreement. In
sports or other competitive activities, it is also done as a sign of good
sportsmanship. Its purpose is to demonstrate goodwill, trust and equality. Menare more likely to shake hands than women. However, in business situations,
it is considered the standard greeting for both sexes.
In some cultures, people shake both hands but in most cultures peopleshake the right hand. In Islam, shaking hands, along with the greeting
Assalamualaikum (peace be upon you), is a regular greeting. Boy Scouts
specifically use a left handshake. Since the right hand is more commonly
dominant, the left hand would typically be used in holding a shield; byshaking with the left hand, one is defenceless while trusting the other person
who may still be holding a weapon in the right hand.
In the olden days, it was always the most important person, or thestrongest in the group, who had to extend the hand. That has changed. Today,
anybody at any place and at any time has the right to offer you his hand.
It is believed that when you extend your hand, there are three ways of
doing it, palm down, palm vertical and palm up. The palm down way forcesthe other person to offer palm up, and he can feel in an underdog position.
Doing it palm vertical is a generous way to offer a handshake. It sends the
signal of cooperation, I want to work with you. Salespeople often offer ahandshake palm up. This is a subtle way of indicating the at-your-service
aspect of doing business. It says that the other person is in charge.
Your summary must:
Be in continuous writing (not in note form)
Not be longer than 80 words, including the 10 words given below
Begin your summary as follows:A handshake is a shor t r itual in which two people ....
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
20/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 14
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
APPENDIX B
Hijacking in South Africa
The article describes the way car owners in South Africa have adapted their
lifestyles to meet the threat of hijacks. Write an account of what they do toprevent hijacks.People who live in and around Johannesburg are used to stories of cars
being hijacked and it is difficult to find a family that has not been affected by
a hijack. Johannesburg is in the Gauteng district and last year in this districtalone, 8979 hijackings were reported to the police. That is about 24 a day.
Most did not result in death but in more than 80 per cent of cases, hijackers
were armed with guns and there was a threat of death.
People drive defensively in Johannesburg. They keep their windowsup, their doors locked and skip red lights because any car waiting at an
intersection is vulnerable. They are vigilant and careful, and if a suspicious-
looking car or character is outside their house, they drive on. If their cars arebumped by other cars on highway, they also drive on because stopping to
investigate is too dangerous.
While some hijackings are smooth, quick and polite, some are
exceptionally violent and involve hostages and murder. Cars have been takenwith babies and children still strapped in the back seat. Because of this, many
mothers no longer strap their children into cars. They think it is too risky. If
they are at the supermarket, they always pack the groceries into the car beforethey let the children to get in. They are permanently on their guard.
Many parents prepare their children for such situations as if they were
practising fire drill. They tell them, for example, that if hijack takes place,
they are to listen to their parents and not the hijackers.Hijacking is so much a part of daily life that a book was recently
published on what to do in the case of a hijack. One radio station even runs a
hijack-watch line that describes cars that have been taken and asks motoriststo look out for them.
Your summary must:
Be in continuous writing (not in note form)
Not be longer than 80 words, including the 10 words given below
Begin your summary as follows:
Car owners in South Afr ica are so fr ightened of hi jack...
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
21/68
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts 15
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
APPENDIX C
Interview questions:
1. What were your experiences when you were attempting to write the
paraphrasing tests?2. What did you have to do to complete the summary writing test?3. What were your experiences using the paraphrasing skills that you learned?
Were these skills something new or something familiar to you?
4. How well did you think you applied the summary writing techniques taughtto you in class?
5. What were some of the difficulties you encountered while producing a
summary?
6. Which of the two passages did you prefer? Why?7. What do you see were your strengths and weaknesses when you attempted
to complete the task?
8. What were your feelings about the first test when you attempted it? Whatabout the second test?
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
22/68
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue in Enhancing
Written Corrective Feedback Efficacy
ASIAH KASSIMUniversiti Malaysia Pahang
NG LEE LUANUniversity of Malaya
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses findings from a qualitative investigation to identify factors inrelation to language-related episodes (LREs) that influence the uptake and retention in the
accurate use of subject-verb agreement and prepositions resulting from indirect focused
and indirect unfocused written corrective feedback. In relation to these identified factors,the roles of collaborative dialogue were determined through the analyses of the LREs and
the interviews with selected participants. The participants in the study who received
either focused or unfocused indirect corrective feedback for their written work were
required to revise their work collaboratively during the pair talk. Findings from the
analyses of the two data sources suggest that collaborative dialogue played a crucial rolein enhancing the corrective feedback efficacy in facilitating participants language
learning development. Primarily, collaborative dialogue enhanced learners focus towardsungrammatical uses in written work. Working collaboratively also provided learners with
means to extensively deliberate over the corrections, which led to insightful reflections
on their existing linguistic knowledge in response to the corrective feedback that theyreceived for their written work.
KEYWORDS: Collaborative dialogue, language-related episodes, written corrective
feedback
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
23/68
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue 17
Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.
Introduction
One of the pertinent issues that has been continuously discussed in the field of second
language learning is the role of corrective feedback (CF) and its influence on learnerslinguistic development. A good number of studies relate contradictory views on this
matter. At one end, some scholars believe that corrective feedback is facilitative forlanguage acquisition. Findings from a number of studies have shown that CF helped thelearners to revise their work and write more accurately in subsequent writings (e.g.,
Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005; Chandler, 2003; Ferris,
2006). On the other hand, researchers like Truscott (1996) argued that grammar
corrections are ineffective and may be detrimental to language learning development(Truscott, 1996; Truscott & Hsu, 2008).
After over a decade of incessant debate, Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum and Wolfersberger
(2010) asserted that researchers have been asking the wrong question with regards to therole of CF in language learning. Framing of the inquiries should focus more on how CF
can be exploited to help students become better writers, than to ask whether or not CFshould be given to the learners written work. This line of argument is parallel to that ofFerris (2004) who stated that the importance of a study should be put on the types of CF
to be employed in different learning instructions that can cater to different learners
needs. White (2003) acknowledges the importance of examining data based onindividual performance because depending solely on statistical figures derived from
group scores may not be able to provide accurate interpretation in addressing grammar
proficiency of diverse learners. Moreover, drawing on suggestions brought forth by Van
Beuningen (2010) calling for more qualitative inquiries on CF issues, the present studyattempted to examine CF effectiveness from the learners perspective in relation to
influencing factors and the roles that collaborative dialogue play in enhancing the CF
efficacy. Thus, the analyses of the interviews and the LREs occurring in collaborativedialogue may shed some light to questions of the present study which primarily attempt
to identify factors that influence uptake and retention of the CF and the roles that
collaborative dialogue play in enhancing this learning process.
Written corrective feedback, collaborative dialogue and the output hypothesis
Based on previous studies, it can be asserted that attention must be given to the CF(Chandler, 2003) and there should be engagement with [the] feedback to enhance
uptake and retention (Lee, 2013). The Chandler (2003) study strongly indicated that
improvement in subsequent written work can be evident only when the learners attended
to the feedback and revise their writing accordingly, because if no revision was made itcan be considered as equivalent to giving no error feedback (Chandler, 2003, p. 280). In
other words, learners must demonstrate attentiveness towards the CF provided for it to
take effect in their written work.
With the assumption that CF can be more effective when attention is focused on the CF
received, a number of studies have incorporated the written CF with other approaches,such as oral conference and metalinguistic explanation (Bitchener et al., 2005), error log
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
24/68
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue 18
Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.
and continuous revision (Hartshorn et al., 2010) and collaborative dialogues (Storch &
Wigglesworth, 2010). Lee (2013) has also suggested that in order to maximise student
learning, working in pairs to make revisions should be taken into account as the meansto enhance learning development.
With regards to collaborative dialogue, one aspect that has mostly been examined is thelanguage-related episodes (LREs) that occurred during the revision process. LRE isdefined as any part of the discourse where students talk about the language they are
producing, question their language use or correct themselves or others (Swain & Lapkin,
1995). A number of studies that involve LREs analysis have been conducted toinvestigate the effectiveness of learning instructions utilising collaborative tasks in
various contexts of language learning (e.g., Philp, Walter & Basturkmen, 2010; Sato &
Ballinger, 2012). Storch and Wigglesworths (2010) study for instance, looked at the
extent of LREs that occur in pair talks and how they influence uptake and retention oflanguage features negotiated in the collaborative dialogue. Findings from that study
suggest that the more extensive the engagement in the LREs is, the greater the uptake and
retention are of the linguistic forms discussed. Ishiis (2011) study using turn-basedcoding system had also analysed collaborative dialogues to explore learners learning
strategies in improving linguistic accuracy in written work.
The key concept of Swains (2005) output hypothesis is that learners are actively engagedin the process of language learning and collaborative dialogue can be viewed as the
means to achieve this condition. Swain (2005) outlines the output hypothesis by
proposing three functions that the theory serves: noticing, hypothesis testing andmetalinguistics. Noticing is important because it provides learners with the information of
the gap in the learners interlanguage system. Furthermore, hypothesis testing involves
learners to produce modified output and stretch their interlanguage system to find out
the target-like use of the linguistic form in question. This stage is significant because thisis where learners, as implied by Ferris (2006), will be most encouraged to be involved in
deeper internal processing and enhance the uptake and retention of the targeted
linguistic forms into their interlanguage system. This leads to the third function of theoutput hypothesis, that is, the reflection on learners metalinguistic knowledge. The
resolution of the hypothesis testing and the reflection of the learners linguistic
knowledge will be the formation of a new or enhanced linguistic acquisition as well asthe realisation of the gap that exists in the learners interlanguage system.
In relation to the issue reviewed above, the present studys aim to explore the CF issue
from the learners perspectives would hopefully render some insights on the learnersengagement with feedback and the process that were involved in responding to the CF
that they received. Hyland (2010) indicates the scarcity of studies that have been carried
out investigating the learners strategies and learning processes that take place which
may increase CF efficacy in order to achieve full learning potential (Hyland, 2010 , p.179).
It is hypothesised that collaborative dialogue plays a crucial role in enhancing the writtencorrective feedback that learners received leading to uptake and retention. Thus, it is the
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
25/68
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue 19
Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.
intention of the present study that through the analysis of the LREs and interviews,
factors that influencing uptake and retention can be identified and the roles of
collaborative dialogue can be ascertained as to the manner this approach may enhancelanguage learning development.
The study
Research Questions
This study aimed to identify factors that influenced uptake and retention of the CF onsubject-verb agreement (SVA) and preposition in written work. Incorporating
collaborative dialogue as part of the treatment process, this inquiry was investigated from
the learners perspectives in investigating the roles that collaborative dialogue plays in
enhancing CF efficacy. The following research questions guided the present study: (1)What are the factors in relation to the Language-Related Episodes (LREs) that influence
uptake and retention of the written corrective feedback on subject-verb agreement and
prepositions in written work?; and (2) What are the roles of collaborative dialogue inenhancing the effectiveness of written corrective feedback in relation to the identified
influencing factors?
Participants
The study was conducted at a technical university in the East Coast of Malaysia involving
90 undergraduate students who were enrolled in the fourth level of English languageproficiency course. In order to fulfil the academic requirements, students at the university
are required to complete four levels of English language course and in general, they are
placed at the intermediate proficiency level. The average number of years of the
participants formal English language lesson is 13.5 depending on whether they enrolledin a Diploma programme or a Foundation course after high school at the age of 18. Three
groups of 30 participants each were randomly assigned as the focused indirect CF (FCF),
unfocused indirect CF (UFCF) or the control group.
Design and procedures
Throughout the 12 weeks, the participants were required to write five 200-word
descriptions on graphic prompts of technological theme, of which 30 minutes were
allocated for each task. The participants were required to identify salient information in
the graph to write the description which comprises an introductory sentence, discussionof the important information and a concluding remark. The selection of these written
tasks considered two main aspects; (i) this instrument elicited sufficient use of SVA and
prepositions; and (ii) it was the form of written task that the participants were familiar
with, so that the instructions and requirements of the tasks can be fully understood by theparticipants.
The pre-test took place in week 2 and followed by Writing Task 1 (WT1) in week 3.WT1 was returned the following week to the participants with either the UFCF or FCF.
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
26/68
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue 20
Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.
The group that received FCF were given feedback on only subject-verb agreement and
preposition errors. For example:
SVA* users prefer to using a Mozilla web brouser
Even though there are other errors in the sentence, feedback was only provided for theselected linguistic forms. In the example, the selected error is subject-verb agreement,
and the part where the error occurred was underlined and indicted by the symbol SVA
above the underlined phrase to inform the learner of the error type.
The participants in the UFCF group, in addition to the two targeted structures, they also
received feedback on other linguistic features that were adapted from Azars (1992) guide
for correcting writing errors. Below is the example of the indirect unfocused feedback:
SVA P A SP M/S*The users prefer at use a Mozilla web brousers
Apart from SVA and prepositions, feedback on article (A), singular/plural(SP) and
spelling (M/S) were also provided for the sentence in the example. The feedback wasmore comprehensive and learners were provided with a much extensive range of
corrections for their written work. Learners were provided with only the indication of the
errors committed by underlining the selected parts and informing the types of errorscommitted. The correct forms, however, were not provided with the feedback.
Upon receiving their writings with the CF, they were given five minutes to look through
their work on their own before they started working with their partner. The participantswere given the freedom to choose their own partner for the pair talk to ensure that they
were comfortable discussing their written work. The LREs were elicited from the two
pair talk sessions. These sessions took place in the multimedia language laboratory andeach student had an access to the computer for recording purposes. 30 minutes were
allocated to discuss each written work. However, they were allowed to extent their
discussion if necessary. Once they have finished discussing both written work and hadsaved the recording on the computer, all the notes and the written work were collected.
Immediately after that, the participants completed Writing Task 2. The writings were
returned with the CF the following week and the same procedures took place. The
immediate post-test was conducted after the second pair-talk session ended and thedelayed post-test was administered six weeks later. The interview was conducted in week
13, the subsequent week after the delayed post-test. Each interview session lasted for
approximately 45 minutes to one hour.
Coding and analysis
The first source of data came from the two written work of the FCF and UFCF groups.The CF provided for each piece of writing was identified and categorised according to the
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
27/68
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue 21
Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.
two targeted linguistic forms. The second source of the data was the transcribed
collaborative dialogues of the UFCF and FCF groups in the two treatment sessions. All
relevant episodes which contained deliberations on the two targeted linguistic forms wereidentified and coded into the following categorisations:
Linguistic formsSVA/ prepositions Resolutioncorrectly/ incorrectly/ unresolved
Focus on ungrammaticalityperfunctory/ substantive
Hypothesising correctionlimited/ extensive
Post-response reflections
The two targeted linguistic forms were identified and coded as either SVA or
prepositions. In terms of resolution, correct resolution is when the pairs were able tocome up with the corrected forms of the errors committed. Incorrect resolution is when
the pairs came up with the forms that are inaccurate for the context of the written work.
The feedback was considered unresolved when the pairs during the deliberation over the
feedback mentioned that they did not know the correct form. Substantive focus is codedwhen the learners were able to understand why the errors were committed and able to
explain on the corrections. Perfunctory focus is when the learners did not understand why
an error was committed and were not able to explain the corrections (Qi & Lapkin, 2001).Extensive hypothesising of correction is when the participants deliberated extensively
over an error and tried out several options before finally agreeing on a correction.
Limited hypothesising of correction is when participants made correction by justacknowledging the feedback and simply came up with a correction without much
deliberation. Post-response reflection is when learners reflected on their existing
linguistic knowledge in comparison to the CF that they received and the deliberated
corrections.
The third source of data came from the writings of the immediate and delayed post-tests.
In order to examine the retention of the corrective feedback, a process-product analysiswas employed (Nassaji & Swain, 2000; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010). The analysis
linked the LREs in collaborative dialogue with the performance of the participants in the
immediate and delayed post-tests. To establish this link, the examination focused on
comparison between the response of the participants to the corrective feedback on thetwo targeted structures with the accurate use of these two forms in similar instances
identified in the immediate and delayed post-tests.
Finally, the fourth source of data was the analysis of interviews conducted with the
participants in a week following the delayed post-test. The interview was analysed forresponses given on the roles of collaborative dialogue in enhancing the CF efficacy.
Results and discussion
According to White (2003), examining data at individual level is a welcome trend
which allows possibility of exploring more information on the individual linguisticcompetence. Bitchener et al. (2005) also suggested that individual performance may be
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
28/68
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue 22
Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.
one of the factors that influenced the disparity in the accuracy scores over a period of
time. Thus, this paper discusses qualitative findings that may render some insights as to
how the CF and collaborative dialogue may have facilitated the learners in improvingaccuracy in written work. In order to achieve this, factors that may have influenced the
uptake and retention were identified from the analyses of the LREs as well as interviews
exploring the issue from the learners perspectives and what roles does t he collaborativedialogue play in enhancing the learning development in relation to the factors identified.
Learners focus on ungrammatical uses
According to Swain (2005), noticing plays an important role in directing learners
attention to the gap that exists in their interlanguage system. This awareness assists
learners to reflect on their language production and make necessary revisions. By
employing focused or unfocused indirect CF, errors were made salient for the learners tofocus their attention towards grammatical and ungrammatical uses while making room
for them to test their language hypothesis in making corrections during the collaborative
dialogue.
Close examination reveals that participants who demonstrated substantive focus seemed
to attain greater uptake and retention than those who showed only perfunctory focus.
Extract 1 is the LREs of learners demonstrating substantive focus. It was evident that thepairs showed substantive focus when deliberating over a SVA error and eventually were
able to explain why the sentence was wrong and identified the correct form to use.
Extract 1
(1)
(2)
Amira SVA error herethe most popular device are
herethe subject is device
(3) Hana device are not are we need singularmmmdevice?
(4)
(5)
Amira Yes device is singular singular so, cannot use
are singularthen I should use isso, device is(6) Hana Ormmm devices are?
(7)
(8)(9)
Amira no not devices I just talk about one device
heremobile phoneso, it should bedevicesingularverb is device is
Amira (all names in this article are pseudonyms) was fully aware that she was directed
toward the phrase the device are which was not in agreement in terms of numbers to theverb used (line 1). When Hana suggested the use of are with devices, she asserted that
she was talking about one device, the mobile phone and it should agree with the verb is,
since it is singular (lines 6 to 8). This LRE indicated that when the pairs attentions were
directed towards the non-target like output, they managed to make accurate correctionsince they demonstrated substantive focus by clearly stating the reason for the error
committed. This finding seems to corroborate the results from other studies that suggest
the greater role substantive noticing plays in enhancing uptake of corrective feedback thatis observed through the analysis of LREs (Qi & Lapkin, 2001; Sachs & Polio, 2007).
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
29/68
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue 23
Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.
On the other hand, pairs that only demonstrated perfunctory focus would just simply read
the CF and agreed on a correction. An example of perfunctory focus is given in Extract 2.
Extract 2
1) Syed NextSVA the numbers increases
(2) Nabila Change to the number increasesno s(3) Syed Ok the numberno snext
Syed simply agreed on the suggestion and changed the numbers to the number,
leaving out the s. They were able to make accurate correction, but they did notdemonstrate understanding over the CF and the errors committed. With this simple
assumption, they tend to make mistakes when correcting similar SVA errors since they
were not completely aware of the subject or the verb of the sentence. Interview with this
pair of participants revealed that they just assumed that when the error is SVA, they justneeded to omit or add an s to one of the words underlined by the researcher. When
asked if they knew which one was the subject or the verb in the underlined phrases, they
mostly pointed out the verb correctly, but it was not consistent with the subject. Anexample is given below:
SVA
Another web browser used by the internet user are Safari.
In this sentence, Syed pointed to the the internet user as the subject and during the pair
talk, he added s to the word user instead of using is to make it ag reeable with theactual subject of the sentence. He simply assumed that the internet users was the subject
of the sentence and it should be plural since are was used subsequent to the assumed
subject. What this condition implies is that even though they sometimes managed to
make accurate corrections, by not clearly being aware of the reason for their errors, theywere unable to take up and retain the CF in the long run.
Hypothesising corr ections
Similar to the Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) study, learners in the present study who
were engaged in the LREs more extensively showed a greater uptake and retention of theCF for the two target structures. Participants who did not extensively test their language
hypothesis seemed to not show much uptake and retention of the forms. They tended to
repeat the same errors in the subsequent written work. The example below illustrates
extensive hypothesising of correction during the collaborative dialogue deliberating overa CF on a preposition error.
Extract 3
(1) Amin P errorprepositionat year 2007.(3) Ain Why wrong? Maybe it should year 2007? no at
(4) Amin No.. mmm preposition so maybe at 2007?
(5)(6)
Ain at 2007, no year? but at 2007 not right at year2007 is better maybe we should change at use
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
30/68
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue 24
Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.
(7) different preposition.
(8)
(9)(10)
Amin at I think to show place at the bus stop for
yearwe should use other preposition... maybeon or in?
(11)
(12)(13)
Ain in?... in year 2007 on year 2007 I think in year
2007 is better like dalam tahun2007 (in the year2007) ok in year 2007
The participants in Extract 3 had extensively hypothesised the corrections during the
LRE. They tested several possibilities (lines 4 to 9) before agreeing on the correction inline (11). These learners were able to understand the CF and why an error had been
committed (lines 7-8) which provided them with more opportunity to extensively engage
in the deliberation of the CF.
On the other hand, when participants did not extensively hypothesise the correction, the
uptake and retention was considerably lower than those who had had extensive
engagements in deliberating the CF. An interview with a participant revealed that shecould not remember much from the pair talk when discussing the CF. The selected part of
the audio recorded pair talk was played to her and her written work was shown when she
was asked to recall during the interview.
This partI dont remember when I write later after the pair talkI just
write did not think about the discussionI cannot remember we
discussed very quickly.(Rubi, personal communication, January 3, 2012)
Rubi admitted that she could not remember the pair-talk when she was writing the
subsequent tasks since the discussion was very short and did not trigger much emphasison the forms being deliberated.
Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) suggested that extensive engagement provides thelearners with more opportunity to test their language hypothesis while getting immediate
feedback from their peers. They also stated that learners have more resources in the
learning process when deliberating over the CF collaboratively since they can assist eachother and rely on each others metalinguistic knowledge. Swain (2005) stated that
learners need to test their language hypothesis in order to modify the output resulting
from the CF provided.
Learners post-response reflections
As evident in the LREs, learners who reflected on their linguistic knowledge following
their response to the CF that they received demonstrated greater uptake and retention ofthe accurate forms in subsequent written work. These learners showed improved accuracy
on a condition that they were willing to unlearn the existing metalinguistic knowledge in
their interlanguage system. To illustrate this condition, an example is described below ona preposition error, in conclusion. Most participants used as a conclusion, but after
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
31/68
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue 25
Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.
much deliberation and reflections, even though the participants were reluctant to accept
the correct preposition, they were willing to change their familiar way of using the
phrase. Extract 4 is an LRE excerpt from the first pair talk session.
Extract 4
(1) Cheah Here preposition error as a conclusion why?(2)(3)
Sia as a conclusion? preposition error so how wechange this?
(4)
(5)
Why is this wrong? I always use this.. I didnt realise
this is wrong maybe as conclusion, no a, just asconclusion.
(6)
(7)
(8)
Cheah Well maybe but as conclusion does not sound
rightI think change the preposition as maybe we
cannot use as, use something else.(9)
(10)
Sia But as a conclusion I always use this as a
conclusion change to what?
(11)(12)
(13)
Cheah I think its in conclusionin conclusion or maybe toconclusion?... no that to conclude. in
conclusion
(14) Sia But why?... in conclusion doesnt sound right
dalam kesimpulan(in conclusion)(15) Cheah I think in conclusion that is how it is used
(16) Sia Ok lets try that in conclusion
(UFCF Pair 2 Collaborative Dialogue 1)
Cheahwas quite reluctant to accept the newly agreed form in conclusion because she
had been using as a conclusion and was never pointed out that it was incorrect (lines 1 -
4). Eventually, after some deliberations, she accepted the form and changed her sentenceaccordingly. This unlearning process enhanced the reflective function leading to greater
uptake and retention of the CF. The following are samples of sentences taken from
Cheahswritings.
Writing Task 1 original sentence sample:
PAs a conclusion, in 2008 households in Japan preferred to own a mobilephones for communication.
Revised sentence:
In conclusion, in 2008 households in Japan preferred to own a mobile phonesfor communication.
Task 2 sample sentence:In conclusion, the internet surfers use Internet Explorer more when surf the
internet compared to other web browsers.
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
32/68
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue 26
Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.
Delayed post-test sample sentence:
In conclusion, Singapore had highest number of subscribers in 2005.
It was evident that Cheahdemonstrated uptake as seen in Task 2 sample sentence and the
accurate use was retained after six weeks as shown in the delayed post-test sample
sentence. Internalisation of the new accepted form occurred after the learners werewilling to unlearn the previous used forms. The fact that these participants generallyacknowledge their limited knowledge and skills in using the L2 made them to be more
receptive of the feedback. One learner admitted that she always felt that her English was
not good and she needed more practice to improve her language proficiency.
My English weak. I always feel when I write my sentence wrong. I need
teacher tell me how can make them more accurate. During pair talk my
friend help me a lot and maybe more discussion like this can help improvemore because I get feedback from teacher and from my friend. I can learn
more that way.
(Cheah, personal communication, January 4, 2012).
This receptiveness towards the corrective feedback due to the level of proficiency has
also been discussed in the Patthey-Chavez and Ferris (1997) study comparing learners of
different proficiency levels in their use of the CF in revising their written work. Lowerproficiency learners were more inclined to use the CF thoroughly than the more able
learners who employed the CF as initiatives to changes in their writings (as cited in
Hyland & Hyland, 2006). The unlearning that took place was an indication that thelearners have reflected on their own metalinguistic knowledge and they were more
receptive towards the new learned language features and made progress in the learning
development.
Roles of collaborative dialogue from the learners perspectives
The output hypothesis theorises that learning can occur when the learners producelanguage (Swain, 2005). One of the means for the learners to produce language apart
from the written work is through collaborative dialogue. Exploring this issue from the
learners perspectives, the present study attempted to address the question posed byWigglesworth and Storch (2012) asking how collaborative dialogue is able to enhance
learning development.
In terms of the importance of attention given by the learners to the CF that they received,interviews revealed that collaborative dialogue was viewed by the learners as the means
to ensure that attention is paid to the CF since revision was required to be completed
through the pair talk subsequent to getting back their written work. A number of
participants admitted during the interview that the pair talk made them focus on the CFthat they received.
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
33/68
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue 27
Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.
The pair talk made pay more attention to the CF that I received. If I were to
work on my own individually, I wouldnt pay that much attention... I
would usually just browse through once and keep the writing away.(Raj, personal communication, January 4, 2012)
This attitude was shared by most participants admitting that the attention that was givento the CF was because they needed to make corrections collaboratively during the pairtalk. They were obligated to attend to the CF in order to contribute to the discussion
during the pair talk. The collaborative mindset that was proposed to be essential in the
Sato and Ballinger (2012) study can be also extended to the context of the present study.Having viewed the importance of collaborative work in completing tasks, learners were
able to contribute more to the learning process, eventually enhancing each learners
language development.
Focus on ungrammatical uses was greatly enhanced by the collaborative dialogue. By
discussing the CF with a partner, a learner can be more aware of the gap that exists in
their interlanguage system. A participant stated that working collaboratively helped her tobecome more conscious of her language use.
My friend help with the correction. If I made corrections on my own, I dont
know why they wrong, but when discuss, we help each other. So, Iunderstand better why they are wrong and how correct them.
(Nazira, personal communication, January 6, 2012)
Most participants felt that without the collaborative dialogue, they may not pay attention
to why errors have occurred. They would either simply make corrections without giving
much thought or may not even bother to correct the errors. If this happened, the CF that
was provided would not be beneficial to the learners and learning would not occur.
As evident in the LREs analysis, collaborative dialogue provided means for extensive
hypothesising of corrections. Learners deliberated over the CF more when they workcollaboratively to make corrections than when they work on their own. A participant said
that when they were discussing the CF, they were motivated to discuss thoroughly until
they arrived to the decision that they are both satisfied with.
When we discussed, we tried many times until when we were confident with
the corrections. But if I revise on my own, I just simply made correction and
did not think much about it.(Alif, personal communication, January 5, 2012)
Most participants expressed that since they needed to contribute to the pair talk, they
really focused on the CF and they wanted to be certain of the corrections that they agreedon.
Findings also reveal that collaborative dialogue enhances reflective function. Learnerswere able to focus on ungrammatical uses in their existing language system and
-
7/21/2019 Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014
34/68
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue 28
Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014).Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.
extensively hypothesise their corrections mainly because collaborative dialogue provides
them with the means to reflect on their linguistic knowledge. Swain (2005) stated that the
pair talk can be regarded as the exterior source of physical and mental regulation for anindividual (Swain, 2005, p. 478). This regulation and scaffolding that occurred during
the collaborative dialogue would then be internalised into individual learners language
system. This internalisation can be an indication of learning taking place. Learnersexpressed that working collaboratively to make corrections can be beneficial since theywere able to help each other and improve on their own linguistic knowledge.
Discussion to make corrections helped me a lot. I cannot make all correctionsalone because I dont know all. My partner help make me realise why the
error.
(Jannah, personal communication, January 6, 2012)
Another participant stated that working with a partner was better than working on her
own in making corrections.
I think I liked work with a friend more than work alone to make corrections.
We help each other a lot if I work alone I did not know the
correctionsI did not know why I was wrongmy friend helped me explain
why they were wrong.(Maya, personal communication, January 5, 2012)
Working collaboratively provided the learners the means to get input from their peers ontheir language use in addition to the CF provided by the teacher. In order for the CF to be
effective, it is important for them to be able to understand their errors and their language
use.
Conclusion
Learners in the present study demonstrated that they were inclined to reflect on theirexisting second language system as a result of responding to the CF that they received, as
well as going through the process of focusing on the ungrammatical uses and
hypothesising the corrections. The findings from this study suggest that collaborativedialogue enhanced the facilitative effects of the CF in assisting learners to improve
accuracy of SVA and prepositions in written work. As indicated by Wigglesworth and
Storch (2012) on the importance of producing language to learn, which is theorised in the
context of the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 2005), collaborative dialogue provides themeans for learners to produce language during the learning process. In other words, the
effectiveness of this learning process was greatly enhanced by the collaborative dialogue
that primarily direct and focus the learners attention towards the CF and to reflect on the
language use in written work. As Storch says (2010, p. 42), learning requires extensiveand sustained meaningful exposure and practice. In relation to this, it is evident from the
findings of this study that employing collaborative dialogue has
top related