collaboration and cooperation: the use of wikis with teens for second language writing
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
Collaboration and cooperation: The use of wikis with teens for second language
writing.
A dissertation submitted to The University of Manchester for the
degree of Master of Arts
in the Faculty of Humanities, School of Education
2012
Suzanne Naylor
Faculty of Humanities, School of Education The University of Manchester
! "!
Table of Contents: !Abstract ................................................................................................................ 6
Declaration ........................................................................................................... 7
Intellectual property statement ............................................................................. 7
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. 8
Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... 9
1: Introduction .................................................................................................... 10
1.1: Background ............................................................................................. 11
1.2: Rational ................................................................................................... 12
1.3: Research aims ........................................................................................ 13
2: Literature review ............................................................................................ 14
2.2: Writing in the L2 classroom. .................................................................... 18
3: Methodology .................................................................................................. 26
3.1 Action Research ....................................................................................... 26
3.1.2: Cycle 1 and cycle 2: Action research. ............................................. 27
3.1.3: The participants: ............................................................................... 28
3.1.4: The project: ....................................................................................... 30
3.1.5: Ethics and project design: ............................................................... 34
3.2: Data Collection ........................................................................................ 36
3.2.1: Participant survey ............................................................................. 36
3.2.2: Content Analysis ............................................................................... 39
3.2.3: Qualitative analysis of peer error correction ..................................... 39
3.2.4: Observations and Interview: ............................................................ 40
3.2.5: Validity .............................................................................................. 40
3.2.6: Limitations ........................................................................................ 41
3.2.7: Ethics ................................................................................................ 41
4: Findings ......................................................................................................... 42
4.1: Participant Survey. .................................................................................. 42
4.2 Content Analysis ...................................................................................... 51
4.2.1: Critical incidences in content analysis: ............................................ 52
4.3 Qualitative analysis of peer corrections .................................................. 53
4.3.1: Critical incidences reported in peer error correction analysis: ......... 57
! #!
4.4: Observations and critical incidence: Interview. ..................................... 58
4.5: Data from the Universitat de Barcelona. ................................................ 60
4.5.1: Measure of written fluency. .............................................................. 60
4.5.2: Measure of lexical richness ............................................................. 61
5: Discussion .................................................................................................... 62
5.1: Student perceptions ................................................................................ 62
5.2: Collaborative writing and ownership of texts. .......................................... 64
5.3: Student confidence in writing. ................................................................. 64
5.4: Peer correction and peer scaffolding. ..................................................... 65
5.5: Focus on form and focus on meaning. .................................................... 67
6: Conclusion. .................................................................................................... 68
6.1: Recommendations. ................................................................................. 70
Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 71
Appendix ............................................................................................................ 76
Appendix A: Styles of writing for the FCE. ......................................................... 77
Appendix B: Code for error correction ............................................................... 77
Appendix C: Raw data for qualitative analysis of error corrections. ................. 79
Appendix D: Ss pre - course survey. ................................................................ 80
Appendix E. Model error correction given to Ss as a pre task in a f2f
environment. ...................................................................................................... 84
Appendix F. Coding of content analysis. ........................................................... 85
Appendix G. Problems with reliability in content analysis and the interpretation
of vocabulary. .................................................................................................... 86
Appendix H. Transcribed interview with the teacher of class B. ........................ 86
Appendix I: Full responses to open questions asked in the post course survey
for Ss. ................................................................................................................ 91
! $!
List of figures:
! %!
List of Tables:
Total word count: 16.076. !!!
! &!
Abstract
Many teenage language students find writing in English a daunting and
demotivating task. The teaching of writing in the EFL classroom is often paper
based. However, for teenage students living in today’s highly technological
society, reading and writing in their own personal lives often takes place across
various digital platforms. This study is designed to explore how teachers can
bridge this gap between the classroom and the reality of everyday life by
exploiting wikis. It is possible that wikis can be used to encourage social
written interaction and to connect students across space and time. This study
examines a telecollaborative project between two groups of Catalan teenagers
studying English. Working collaboratively in groups of four and connected by a
wiki, students from the two classes wrote an extended text. To create the text
students took part in peer error correction. In addition the wiki provided an
interactive showcase for the final texts and students were able to experience
having an authentic audience for their written work within a writing community.
Student surveys, content analysis of student output during the project,
numerical analysis of student revisions and observations inform this project.
This study found that students were motivated by communication with other
students in a separate class and this written communication gave them more
authentic writing practice. This study also found that by working collaboratively
students were able to achieve a high level of accuracy in peer corrections.
However findings also pointed to lower levels of accuracy for vocabulary
corrections. The final texts were achieved through various stages of process
writing. The implications of this study are that wikis and the written social
communities that can emerge from within them, are more relevant to adolescent
students’ real world experiences. This study shows that used with care, wikis
provide an effective means in the teaching of second language writing to this
age group .
!!
! '!
Declaration I hereby declare that no portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has
been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification
of this or any other university or other institute of learning.
Suzanne Claire Naylor
Intellectual property statement i. The author of this dissertation (including any appendices and/or schedules to this dissertation) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes. ii. Copies of this dissertation, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made. iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the dissertation, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this dissertation, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions. iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this dissertation, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant Dissertation restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s regulations (see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and in The University’s Guidance for the Presentation of Dissertation !
! )!
Abbreviations
Nb: YL is a term which can cover Ss from early childhood into adulthood. The
focus of this study is based on teenagers aged 13 – 16. For that reason in this
study, this term will be used in respect to 13 – 16 year olds in this study.
CAE CMC CW F2F FCE FoF FoM L1 L2 P2P SLA Ss T Tc YL(s) ZPD !!
Certificate of Advanced English Computer mediated communication Collaborative writing Face to face First Certificate in English Focus on form Focus on meaning First (native) language Second language Peer to peer Second language acquisition Students Teacher / instructor Telecollaborative Young learner(s) Zone of proximal development
! *+!
1: Introduction
“For many children there is a gap between literacy practice in school and where
they use print based media and digital reading and writing at home”
EU High Level Group of Experts on literacy
Executive summary, September 2012: (9)
This recent European report has highlighted current discussion throughout
Europe in relation to levels of literacy amongst the population. The EU
executive summary on literacy in 2012 states that “one in five European fifteen-
year-olds lack the literacy skills required to successfully function in a modern
society” (p.6). The report suggests that the factors behind this are not
necessarily economic and that anyone who struggles with literacy can be
helped with the right support and help. One of the report’s recommendations
for adolescents is that literature teachers should provide increasingly diverse
reading material in class to provide motivation and digital reading should be part
of the norm in schools throughout Europe. Language and literature teachers
themselves should be trained to use more ICT skills in their classes (11).
This report is specifically based on speakers in their native language (L1). It
does not address students studying a second language (L2). However, it
follows that if there are problems with literacy levels at L1, and many students
struggle in this area it will have some bearing on learners at L2. When
considering adolescents who are learning English as a second language,
writing can be tiresome and uninspiring. It can be difficult for a teacher to find
appropriate activities that help to encourage students (Ss) towards reading and
especially writing, in class. For this reason it may be necessary to explore
different paths to the teaching of literacy. This dissertation will examine a
collaborative writing project between two groups of Catalan adolescent English
language students and their interaction in an online environment, a wiki.
! **!
1.1: Background
In Cataluña many Ss aim toward taking the Cambridge suite of exams,
specifically the First Certificate in English (FCE) and also the Certificate of
Advanced Exam (CAE). These exams can be key to their future as they
progress towards university education or employment. The exams are
comprehensive and cover a range of skills each given equal weighting. The
writing section of the exam has several styles of writing that need to be taught
for the student to be successful at this section of the exam. These styles can
range from a formal letter of application to a less formal magazine article and
each style has its own particular layout and specifications (appendix A).
Traditionally the teaching of writing in English in Spanish secondary schools as
well as in private language academies has been very paper based. It has
revolved around a student – teacher relationship. There is often no other
audience for student work. Teachers often mark, correct, make comments,
grade and return the paper to the student.
Many Spanish schools have recently updated their technology to include
interactive whiteboards (IWBs) with internet connection in classrooms. Some
schools also have school websites or portals with access for students and
teachers but on the whole this is usually for the purpose of storage of material,
grades and information, or for teacher – parent contact. Very few students
have had the experience of creating material online in their usual day-to-day
classes.
This study was conducted in a private English academy in Barcelona which
specialises in teaching English to young learners. The students who took part
in the project were from 13 to 16 years old and had a B1 level of English with
respect to the Common European Framework. This level is also defined as the
student being an “independent” user of the language (figure 1).
! *"!
Figure 1. Stages in the CEF - Common European Framework. (Wikipedia, 2012)!
Typically Ss at this level will be aiming to take the FCE exam (upper B2 Level)
in two to three years time. Previous research at the centre had shown that
writing frequently scored lower than other areas and there was a need to
improve results in this area and to extend the teaching of writing to lower levels
and ages in preparation for these exams.
1.2: Rational
Ss at B1 level who aim to take recognised exams in English or to study or work
in an English speaking environment will need process writing skills for more
extended academic style texts. This requires process writing. However, it is
difficult to encourage process writing in teenage learners. Revision of errors
and rewriting of texts is unappealing unless there is a necessity for the
revisions, in that the final text will have some use other than to obtain a grade.
The fact is that often there is no audience for a final text which is produced by a
student other than a teacher. Furthermore recommendations for teachers from
the 2011 examiners report into examinees performance at FCE suggest that;
“Information about the target reader and the reason for writing is given in each
question to help the candidate, and this should be pointed out during classroom
preparation.”(p.9). Without an authentic audience for Ss writing, the notion of a
specific target reader may be difficult for Ss at a young age to conceptualise.
A wiki could be used to create a learning community for Ss aimed at improving
their written skills. A wiki may provide exposure for Ss writing and an audience
for student work who could “interact” with student created texts. In addition, the
main affordance of a wiki is built around the idea of group editing of documents.
In this way, wikis lend themselves to education and collaborative writing
! *#!
projects. In the classroom wikis also allow for more scope than simple pen and
paper, they have the ability to extend communication outside the traditional
classroom walls and could allow communication between Ss in different
geographical areas thus providing a greater audience for work and a direct
necessity for written communication.
For teachers the availability of wikis in the classroom is a direct result
investment in ICT in the classroom. ICT has been heavily promoted in the
education of young learners in the belief that it is engaging and motivating for
them and will increase learning in the classroom. Indeed ICT, as the EU report
points out, is seen as a way to bridge the gap between adolescents real life
experiences and the classroom practices. In Spain this background has
resulted in many teachers being encouraged to include ICT into teaching, but
there is very little study into the effects of such policies with respect to
adolescents. Indeed, much of the research covering wikis and education have
focused on university adult students. There is very little research with respect
to adolescents and even less in the effect that using a wiki for the teaching of
writing would have in a L2 classroom.
1.3: Research aims
The aim of this research is to investigate the effect of using a wiki in the YL
classroom with regards to writing skills. In one sense a wiki could be used to
achieve a socially situated writing community. This community could be based
on the principles of intertexuality as defined by Myles (2002) and Storch (2011)
as a student created reading - writing message relationship. Therefore
intertexuality is the social nature of messages written and read by a specific
community. For an age group connected by social media, instant messenger
and text messages, intertextuality could be harnessed to provide a more
realistic context for writing and hence be more motivating and engaging for
teens.
In addition, a telecollabrative (Tc) writing project would possibly provide the
students with a genuine need for written communication and provide an ideal
! *$!
platform for the instruction of writing extended texts. The ease of collaboration
and the editing function of wikis could possibly aid awareness of process writing
by providing a platform for the planning and revising of extended texts. In
editing for revision this could provide a greater awareness of grammar and
vocabulary (FoF) and content (FoM).
The research questions are therefore:
1. Will using a wiki as a tool to promote intertextuality with Catalan adolescents
learning English be successful?
2. Will using a wiki for a telecollaborative project aid the teaching of process
writing with Catalan adolescents learning English?
2: Literature review
Changes in the way we communicate through writing on a daily basis have
altered greatly with the advent of web 2.0. Interactivity with people posting
written content on the web for others to read, can be seen in the rise of blogs,
wikis, and social networking sites. At no other time in history has the written
word been so prolific and so public. Along with this there has been a growing
interest among educators to capture this phenomenon and exploit it in the
classroom. This review will specifically examine wikis and the affordances they
have for the second language (L2) classroom. As wikis are synonymous with
collaboration this review will look first at the history of collaboration in education
and SLA, after the approach to writing in the teaching of L2 and then the use of
wikis in the classroom. Finally, it will look at specific literature examining writing
with young learners in SLA.
Although the aim of the review is to gain insight into the teaching of teens
(adolescents aged13-17) in SLA, there is a lack of studies solely in this field and
as a result a number of resources and papers have been reviewed from
associated fields. Due to the difference in terminology within the papers,
teachers, instructors and educators will be referred to as teachers for the
purpose of this study.
! *%!
2.1: Collaborative Learning in SLA: History and overview.
The notion of collaboration for educational purposes in general has seen a rise
in popularity in recent times. In more recent SLA literature this popularity is
often traced back to the ideas of the Russian psychologist Vygotsky, (Donato,
1994; Grant, 2009; Lee, 2008; Lund & Smordal, 2006; Kessler et al,
2012; Myles, 2002; Swain, 2010; Wheeler et al, 2008). Vygotsky speculated
that learning takes place when people construct meanings from the social
interactions around them and then internalise them (Matusov, 1998: 329).
Learning is therefore, socially situated in the first instance (figure 2).
Figure 2. Internalisation model of Development (Matusov, 1998: 329)
! *&!
In addition, he proposed the theory of the Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD), which he studied in children. Others have applied this idea to
adults “Vygotsky considered learning as a shared-joint process in a responsive
social context. In the Vygotskian framework, children are capable of far more
competent performance when they have proper assistance (scaffolded learning)
from adults.” (Gindus, 1999: 332).
In SLA these ideas have been explored by a number of researchers including
Donato (1994).. In his paper, “Collective Scaffolding in Second Language
Learning”, he described how, “the construct of L2 input and output in modified
interaction is the message model of communication. In this model, the goal of
conversational partners during a communicative event is the successful sending
and receiving of linguistic tokens”, (p.34). Here input can be defined as the
language the Ss receive and output is the language that Ss produce. This
study noted the verbal exchanges of 3 language students studying French. The
conclusions were that scaffolding in language learning could come not only
from the expert – novice model (teacher - student), but that more able partners
were capable of providing guided support to others. Donato used the
metaphor of scaffolding in SLA as a situation in which, “social interaction in a
knowledgeable participant can create, by means of speech, supportive
conditions in which the novice can participate in, and extend, current skills and
knowledge to higher levels of competence” (p.40). This is described as
“collective” scaffolding.
Swain in 2010 proposed that output is crucial in language acquisition as it
allows students to “notice gaps”. A message exchange must occur for students
to see a “hole” in their linguistic knowledge of L2 “as distinct from L1”; they then
recognise that they cannot express themselves fully at a particular moment in
time (p.100). As a result of this recognition of a gap, Ss must work hard to fill
these gaps as they build up their interlanguage. Interlanguage is defined by
Swain (2010) as being the student’s interpretation of L2 that the student adopts
before being a proficient, expert user. This will very often be an
approximation of L2 and it will preserve some features of L1.
! *'!
Students will attempt to fill this gap by turning to an external resource e.g. a
book, a dictionary, a teacher, a peer and so on (p.100). Swain argues that
output therefore pushes the students to process language more deeply.
Swain also proposed that output can allow for “hypothesis” testing of the
language. Students can test their linguistic knowledge and errors which are
made by the students can help to negotiate internal understandings that the
students may have about how L2 functions. In this way students are actively
involved in problem solving with the language and verbalisation helps them to
internalise the language (p.109). Language related episodes or LREs (Swain,
2010; Swain & Lapkin, 2001), are when students take part in hypothesis testing
and pay attention to errors and discuss linguistic forms with peers or with
teachers. This can be seen as collaborative dialogue:
True language learning takes place during these as students can negotiate the
meaning, construct more accurate information and internalise
knowledge. LREs can take place in either L1 or L2. This type of interaction is
sometimes called metatalk, or metalinguistic analysis, and is seen as
collaborative peer scaffolding, and is interpreted as ZDP in action. (Chong &
Saeidi, 2005; Guerrero & Villamil, 2000). Some research points out however
that a certain linguistic level is needed for this and that while peer scaffolding
does take place, not all LREs result in accuracy (de la Carolina & Garcia Mayo,
2007; Kessler et al 2012).
A: You understand? You shouldn’t write I didn’t. You should write I did not. You can check in a
book and you’ll find no contractions.
B: Yeah, but if I write it like that, I find it somewhat,
I don’t know, unnatural (Guerrero & Villamil, 2000. P.57)
!
! *(!
2.2: Writing in the L2 classroom.
Since the 70s current trends CLT - communicative language teaching - have
resulted in the popularity of pair work and group work in the L2 classroom. CLT
is based on communicative principles: “That is, language is seen as a social
tool that speakers use to make meaning; speakers communicate about
something to someone for some purpose, either orally or in writing.” (Savignon
& Savignon, 1983: 6)
However, as the previous quote implies, the focus on pair and group work has
usually been on speaking. Some authors believe that this is the result of
previous ideology in linguistics, which viewed the skill of writing as secondary to
speaking in communication and linguistic ability (Storch, 2011: 276; Harkau,
2002: 332). This ideology held that writing was not part of the internal language
system and that it was a relatively recent invention for “recording and
broadcasting what is spoken”. Therefore writing only encoded spoken
language and was not a form of communication in its own right (Harkau, 2002:
332). Harkau offers evidence of this influence; “Larsen – Freeman & Long’s
(1991) comprehensive overview of second language acquisition (which)
contains no explicit references to the effects of modality and its index includes
no mention of literacy, reading, writing or text.” (p.335).
Writing, it can be argued is socially situated (Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Lee, 2010 a;
Mak & Coniam, 2008). As a result of developments in new technologies
through the reading and writing of texts - literacy - a “textual community” is
created which demands specific cognitive and linguistic skills. With the advent
of new technologies communication is now multimodal and a new notion of
“multiliteracies”, better describes the social communicative processes of today
(Harkau, 2002: 335). As such, writing should now stand “on equal footing with
face-to-face interaction as a “semiotic activity””. (Harkau, 2002: 341).
! *)!
Harkau (2002) claims we need to expand our idea of what constitutes writing in
the L2 classroom. There is a general tendency to define “writing” in L2 as
academic based (p.342). Educational establishments and the testing of L2
have given prominence to formal extended compositions. As an example,
Cambridge First Certificate (FCE) is a popular English exam popular with
teenagers in Spain. The writing section of the test consists of a report, an
essay, a formal letter, an informal letter, an article, a story and a book report. In
general and with respect to young learners (YLs), these extended texts are
what language Ss in Spain tend to regard as the “writing” component in English
L2 lessons.
Academic writing adds to the cognitive load on the L2 student. Students not
only have to process linguistic information in L2 for output but also academic
writing constraints, both linguistic and cultural that must be adhered
to. Appropriate register forms a large part of these constraints. At FCE level,
Ss can lose marks in exams for the use of inappropriate register in writing.
Register is defined as “the act of adjusting something to a standard”
(www.visuwords.com). The concept of “appropriate register” means that L2
students must also gauge their vocabulary and grammar choices to particular
specifications. (Harkau, 2002: 338). In addition, the style of academic writing
may also differ culturally. L2 learners when writing must also cognitively
exchange the writing preferences and requirements of L1 for L2 (Myles, 2002).
The method of creating formal written texts is complex and L1 students often
follow a specific process when constructing a text. This is known as “process
writing” where students plan, write, revise, rewrite, proofread and redraft a text
before arriving at a final copy. This involves a sophisticated level of text
analysis. Process writing is essentially an L1 skill that has been brought into
the L2 classroom. Process writing may be effective in the teaching of writing to
L2 students but if L2 writers’ linguistic abilities limit what they can do and if the
L2 linguistic level is not high enough, then teachers need to combine both
process instruction and attention to language development (Myles, 2002).
! "+!
Producing L2, written or spoken, is cognitively complex as students are
consciously processing multiple factors. The result of this is that “in terms of
language production or comprehension learners must prioritise where they
allocate their attention, to form or meaning” (Serrano, 2007: 20). As a result,
when students verbally interact with peers, they have little time to reflect or plan
and as a result focus on meaning - FoM, takes over at the expense of focus on
form - FoF (McDonough, 2004; Swain, 2010). Often teachers and students feel
that with the speed of speaking accuracy is lost as students prioritise social
interaction and so focus on speed of fluency and content (McDonough,
2004). This contrasts with the time that is available when students write; they
have more time to plan and reflect on the language. (Harkau, 2002). As in
process writing, with more available time Ss can notice the gaps in their
knowledge, reflect on errors and give more time to FoF. In addition, without any
error analysis it is possible that fossilization of errors will occur whereby errors
become ingrained and continually appear despite correction (Myles, 2002).
Writing, however, does not only occur in formal contexts. Multiliteracies also
include short communicative texts e.g. emails and text (SMS) messages, and
students are often involved in these communicative exchanges in their daily
lives (Harkau 2002: 344). Practice in many alternative styles of writing is seen
as valid instruction (Myles, 2002) and repetition and practice is seen as key to
students’ improvement (Serrano, 2007). Students’ messages to peers in the L2
class and peer comments on students’ work may also contribute to Ss level of
literacy in both reading and writing. This student created reading - writing
message relationship is called intertextuality. (Myles, 2002; Storch, 2011)
Intertextuality is the result of cooperation by peers in L2 language
learning. This message relationship is more akin to Ss everyday use of
technology which is often used to connect with each other. Messaging has it’s
own conventions and while these are separate from the conventions of
academic writing they are often easier for YLs to construct.
! "*!
Intertexuality is distinct from collaborative writing (CW) which is, “the joint
production or the co-authoring of a text by two or more writers”, here it is
important to note that joint production also means joint ownership (Storch 2011:
275). What collaborative writing may offer in the L2 classroom is to lessen the
cognitive load on students. In the study of writing extended academic texts Ss
may be able to jointly negotiate meaning and be able to produce more as a
group than individually by utilizing ZPD (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009).
2.3: Wikis for collaborative writing in L2
The first documented use of a wiki to be used in education was in late 1997
when CoWeb was developed by the Institute of Technology in Georgia. Since
then wikis have been used mainly in Higher Education (Forte & Bruckman,
2007: 33). Wikis are online applications which contain editable pages, the most
recognised of these being Wikipedia. Content within a wiki page can be
hyperlinked to other wiki pages, and to the Internet in general. Within the wiki
pages multimedia files can easily be uploaded or linked. Wikis can be classed
as open, as in available to all the public, or closed and password
protected. The word “community” is often associated with wikis because people
contribute and edit pages and pool their knowledge together.
What makes wikis useful from a SLA and collaborative writing point of view is
that pages can be added to, changed and deleted by many people, and all
these changes are logged (Lee, 2010 a). This means that changes are
transparent and allow for teachers to easily track edits made by Ss when writing
texts. (Coniam & Kit, 2008; Lee, 2010 a).
! ""!
Figure 3. Conceptual model of wiki-based collaborative process writing
pedagogy (Li et al, 2012: 162)
Wikis seem to be ideal for collaborative writing in education (figure 3). Despite
the theoretical background which suggests collaborative work within a wiki
would have benefits, there are problems however which arise, and wikis do not
always guarantee genuine collaboration. In the reality of the classroom it can
be argued that it is not always inherently natural for students to collaborate with
their peers. (Lee, 2010 a; Lund, 2008; Kessler et al, 2012; Wang, 2009).
There is polarity between the individual and the collective. Formal education is
marked by exams and individual grades ranking students and thereby creating
! "#!
a competitive environment (Grant, 2009; Lund & Smordal, 2006; Wheeler et al,
2008). Evidence would suggest that for collaboration in a wiki to succeed,
students must sacrifice the individual to the collective.
There has to be an epistemological shift within not only the students but also
the teachers if a collaborative task is to be successful. Simply reproducing the
traditional school formula directly into a collaborative wiki project will not likely
succeed in collaborative learning (Forte & Bruckman, 2007; Grant, 2009; Lund
& Smordal, 2006). Research points to the fact that students must be primed
first before the task takes place. It may be necessary for teachers to discuss
beforehand with students how they should approach collaborative learning
(Kessler & Bikowski, 2010; Kessler et al, 2012; Wheeler et al, 2008). In
addition they should be coached in specific skills that are needed for
collaborative work and in some cases presented with models to follow (Coniam
& Kit, 2008; Grant, 2009; Lee, 2010 a; Wang, 2009; Wheeler et al, 2008).
A wiki however could also provide a platform to display student work and
provide an authentic audience where student writing can be viewed by
others, (Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Lee, 2010 a; Mak & Coniam, 2008). An
authentic audience, public or otherwise, for student produced writing has been
shown to prove positive for students’ motivation. Self-correction and more
attention to content in creating reader focused texts are often noted However
in some cases, with younger students, it was noted that an eternal audience
was less important. It was the teacher who was the most important audience
and in a secondary school setting this was seen to be due to student concerns
over grades (Grant, 2009). Elsewhere in the literature higher-level students,
while also concerned about grades, were observed being more motivated to
write well when they knew their peers would be reading (Kuteeva, 2011; Lee,
2010 b). It is worth noting that in a few cases where the wiki was an open one,
viewable by the public, there were teacher concerns over student postings
(Forte & Bruckman, 2007; Wheeler et al, 2008)
! "$!
An affordance of a wiki is that the writer, and the audience, can edit and add
comments to any work that is posted. In the case of peer comments on work
students’ reactions were mixed. Some studies reported that peer feedback was
positive and helped students to revise and improve their work (Kessler &
Bikowski, 2010; Kuteeva, 2011). However, student reaction to peer feedback
was not always welcome (Grant, 2009). In some studies it was speculated that
students see commenting and correcting errors within texts as the teacher’s
“job” (Coniam & Kit, 2008; Lee, 2010 a). Often students were simply not
comfortable or secure enough in their own linguistic ability to comment critically
on each other’s work and were uncomfortable doing so (Lee, 2010 a; Lee, 2010
b). Wheeler et al, (2008) point out that, unlike Wikipedia where editing
another’s writing is accepted, the writer / editor relationship is anonymous. This
contrasts with an educational setting where students in class know each other
and are involved in a learning community. A sense of “ownership” still prevails
and they are resistant to having their work altered by others (p.992). From the
opposite perspective students may also be wary of interfering with other
students’ work in order to avoid confrontation (Grant, 2009; Lee, 2010 a).
When students do peer edit studies have found that the nature of the edits can
differ. On the whole the edits are those that are the least invasive. Kessler
(2009) found that common changes in collaborative texts were word choice and
spelling (p. 85) and that students working in a wiki, as mentioned previously,
seemed to value FoM over FoF. This is at odds with other theories in
collaborative writing in the previous section where it was felt discussed that
writing would offer more time for students to be able to FoF. Often they
overlooked small grammar errors if they did not interfere with the overall
meaning. Mak & Coniam, (2008) found that students mostly added ideas to a
text and correcting grammatical errors was the least editorial change
(pg.451). Kessler et al (2012) reported that more text was added than deleted
(57%) and less was deleted (29%) than replaced (14%) (p.97). In some cases
Ss were motivated to individually FoF in their own writing but were unconcerned
about FoF in partners’ writing (Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Kuteeva, 2011)
! "%!
2.4: Wikis in the teaching of YLs in SLA
Most of the focus of the papers are university students and adults. However,
unlike adults teens are immersed in a very controlled school system. The
physiological makeup and the levels of maturity of teens are also somewhat
different to adults. In teenage years students are often working to “define who
they are and are acutely aware of the value of online self-presentation and
promotion among their peers” (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009: 136). Here we will
look at two papers dealing specifically with young learners and SLA.
Dooly (2011) observed a telecollaboration project with two groups of pre-teens
(10-11 year olds) from different countries (Spain and Czech) working on a joint
collaborative writing project. Dooly found that the move from a classroom
controlled environment to a more open environment in a wiki resulted in teacher
perceptions of students being mainly “off task”. Examination of students
however found that students were reading and producing the target language
but not within the bounds defined by the teacher. There was a gap therefore
“between the task-as-workplan, as conceived by the teacher and the task- as-
process, as interpreted and put into play by the students.” (p.85).
Lund and Smordal (2006) studied a collaborative writing project with upper
teens (17 year olds) studying English in an Upper Secondary School in
Norway. The task was for the students to collaborate on two writing projects in
a wiki. Each student had access to a laptop with internet connection and the
school had a policy of actively promoting group work. Despite this background,
the notion of joint ownership of work was difficult for the students to conceive
and students were reluctant to interfere with “somebody else’s
material”. Students were shown to have engaged with the project and
contributed out of school time although learners preferred “to go on creating
extensions indefinitely at the expense of rewriting, improving and editing one’s
own or a classmate’s contribution.” When edits were occasionally made they
were on FoF, and not FoM (p.41).
! "&!
2.5: Conclusion
In general the literature is positive in the use of wikis in CW in SLA. However
there are many drawbacks and contractions between the expectations of the
teacher and the reality of the task in progress and the result. There are
challenges in that the expectations of the student may not be in line with the
task, or the expectations of the teacher. With the lack of studies specifically
concerned with young learners it is not clear what would be needed in order to
create an online environment that would encourage them to participate in CW in
a wiki.
As scaffolding and LREs in a large part of collaborative work in L2 it is not
known if students of this age would be engaged and benefit from peer
scaffolding. In the same vein, it is unclear if they could be guided to process
write and peer edit and benefit from peer error correction. Furthermore it is not
known if providing an audience for their work, which peers could then interact
with - intertextuality – would be engaging for the students.
3: Methodology
3.1 Action Research
This research is the result of the second cycle in a sequence of action research
(figure 4). Action research is participatory research where the researcher’s role
is seen as “facilitator, guide, formulator and summarizer of knowledge” (Cohen
et al, 2007: 301). Being cyclical and responsive in nature action research allows
for a previous pilot study to be seen as cycle 1, informing revisions for the
dissertation study, noted as cycle 2. The researcher was therefore embedded
in the research and facilitated the project.
! "'!
Figure 4. Action research cycle (O’brien, 2001)
3.1.2: Cycle 1 and cycle 2: Action research.
!• The participants in cycle 1 reacted negatively to homework given online.
Therefore for cycle 2, all work was done onsite.
• As a result of cycle 1, a colour code for corrections was created. It was
found that the task of error correction without guidance in the form of
coloured highlights was cognitively too complex for the Ss linguistic
ability. (Appendix B)
• In cycle 1 computer access was limited and the “gap” times between the
different stages of the project were long and this had a negative impact
on student involvement.
• A layered marking scheme for the project, grading individual
performance and group contributions, was conceived in cycle one. In
this context however it was found to be redundant.
• A pre-course survey was developed as a result of the piloting of the
student survey. Cycle 1 had only one post course student survey.
However it was decided that a pre course survey would better illustrate
Ss backgrounds and experiences as they entered the project.
! "(!
• Cycle 1 involved only one teacher. Four teachers however were
involved in cycle 2 and all teachers had access to the wiki. In addition
teachers used the wiki in varying ways, from recording class information
to storing Ss work.
3.1.3: The participants:
A pre-course survey was conducted to gain some insight into the Ss
experiences and perceptions about a number of factors that would be involved
in the project. From this survey it transpired that Ss previous experience in
different styles of writing (formal letters, reports, essays, stories etc.) was
limited. When students completed written work it was generally the teacher
who made corrections on their work. However, some Ss had had experience of
teachers pointing out errors and Ss using this as a guide to self correct. All
students believed that student conducted error correction had validity for their
learning. In general Ss had little experience of having an authentic audience for
their written work which, one the whole, tended to be student – teacher based.
One student had previous experience working in a wiki for a French class,
although there are no details of what that experience was and whether it
involved Ss content creation. Despite the fact that many students had heard of
wikis, roughly only half had used them in school. However, this use was for
“searching for information”, leading to the conclusion that this may have been
research conducted on Wikipedia. Roughly only half of the Ss involved in this
study had done a collaborative writing project before in English. (Appendix D)
! ")!
Table 1. Differences between cycle one and cycle two of action research:
Variables Cycle 1 - Pilot Cycle 2 - Research
Sample number 28
Class A - 13 students
Class B - 15 students
20
Class A - 10 students
Class B - 10 student
Age range of students ____________________ Male to Female ratio
Class A - 14 -15
(average)
Class B - 14 -15
(average)
____________________
12:16
Class A - 14 - 15
(average)
Class B - 13 – 14
(average)
____________________
11:9
Class frequency 3 hours / week
1 class / week
October – June
9 months
4 hours / day
5 classes / week
June – July
1 month
• Computer room
with internet
connection – 7
terminals.
• Limited access.
Access
timetabled- 2
slots/ per month.
• 30 minute slots
• Computer room
with internet
connection – 7
terminals
• Unlimited access.
Not timetabled -
available at any
time.
• 30 minute slots
Teacher Class A -1 teacher
Class B - 1 teacher
Class A – 2 teachers
Class B – 2 teachers
Total number of teachers involved
1 teacher 4 teachers
! #+!
3.1.4: The project:
The project was conducted during an intensive course with Catalan teenagers
studying English. Four teachers were administrators on the wiki. Along with the
Tc project the wiki was used for recording lesson plans and homework and the
showcasing of Ss individual written work (figure 5).
Figure 5. PBworks: The wiki front page
Two teachers and their classes were involved in the Tc writing project and were
designated class A (blue class) and class B (red class). For the Tc project, five
groups were created with two Ss from each class in each one of the groups
(figure 6). There was some degree of familiarity between all participants being
in close proximity and being on the same intensive course. PBworks was the
chosen platform and from the outset, Ss were given an induction into managing
their profile and using the wiki.
! #*!
Figure 6. Stages and groupings of the TC project.
To prepare Ss for the notion of interaction with texts and having an authentic
audiences for their work, a pre - collaborative task was introduced (topic: About
me - an individual writing task where Ss wrote a descriptive personal profile).
This was conducted separately in the respective classes. To engage with the
texts Ss were instructed to read other Ss introductory pages and add peer
comments using the “comment” function at the bottom of the wiki page. The
comment function is not editable.
! #"!
Table 2. Information given to Ss for the project.
Article Essay (for and against)
Reader Someone buying a magazine
- It must be interesting and
easy to read. A less formal
style is needed
Someone who wants
information about a topic. It
must have fact about the
topic. These facts must be
positive and negative
(objective). A more formal
style is needed.
1st paragraph
Introduction: Questions and
interesting information in the
introduction can motivate the
reader to continue. it has
to be entertaining.
Introduction: An introduction
about the topic - general
"background " information
2nd paragraph
This should be an
introduction that explains
your topic on a basic level.
This should provide the
positive ideas about your
topic.
3rd paragraph
This should provide more
information about the subject
of the article
This should provide negative
ideas about your topic
4th paragraph
Conclusion - Here you
should give a summery and
a personal opinion about the
topic
Conclusion - Here you
should give a summery and
a personal opinion about the
topic.
More information.
CHECK PAGE 13 IN YOUR
STUDENT BOOK FOR
MORE INFORMATION
CHECK PAGE 63 / 64 IN
YOUR STUDENT BOOK
FOR MORE INFORMATION
HInts Hint: use adjectives to make
your writing more interesting
Hint: use facts to make your
writing more interesting to
the reader.
! ##!
The aim of the Tc project was to create a student magazine written by groups
made up from the two classes. From the student content produced in the wiki a
hardcopy copy of the project was to be printed and made available on
completion. The Tc project was highly structured and Ss were asked to write
within the theme of the “Environment”. This was in part to recycle vocabulary
that had been taught in the book, with the additional rationale that it is a
popular topic in FCE exams. Ss were given models and information regarding
a discursive essay and a magazine article to provide choices for the style of
their writing. These were based on content from the text book (table 2).
The participants were first introduced to the theme and given a timeline of
events. Pairs were then assigned by the teachers from the two groups and
asked to negotiate collaboratively in order to chose a topic and decide who
would write individual paragraphs.
Time constraints meant that Group A was asked to choose from the first two
paragraphs and Group B from the second (table 2). Ss worked in pairs in their
respective classes but group work was conducted through the wiki. In this way
a combination of F2F(face to face) and CMC (computer mediated
communication) was employed for different stages within the project.
In class, Ss were given the pre task of a model error correction exercise
(Appendix E). After negotiation in groups, Ss then wrote individual parts and
added their individual contribution to the groups’ wiki page. Ts checked these
texts for errors which were highlighted using a colour code system (appendix
A). Class A performed the first round of error correction working in pairs on a
shared terminal. The unresolved errors were again highlighted by the T and
class B then completed a second round of error corrections.
Ss written content for negotiation and post editing comments were not checked
for errors and no emphasis was placed on accuracy for these exchanges. The
final versions of the texts were formatted and images added for the final copy.
The students were then encouraged to read the final copies of their peers’ texts
! #$!
online in the wiki and to add personal comments about each others work in the
comment box. No homework was given to the students and all activities were
completed within the allocated time in the class or the computer room.
In addition to this research project, Class A was also among a number of other
classes from the intensive program at the academy to be included in an on-
going study funded by the Spanish government and conducted at the
Universitat de Barcelona. As part of this study they were given pre and post
course level tests in speaking / reading / writing and listening. The results of the
pre writing tests and post writing tests are included in this study by kind
permission of the principal researcher R. Serrano.2 This set of data is inclusive
of nine Ss from class A. It needs to be noted that Class B was not involved in
this particular study.
3.1.5: Ethics and project design:
!Given the age of the participants and the lack of research with this age group
within the literature it was important to consider the responsibilities that are
involved when teaching adolescents. These can be very different from those
involved in teaching university Ss or in adult education. With regard to
adolescents, Greenhow & Robelia maintain that “educators must help students
enact legal, ethical, responsible, safe, and advantageous online community
practices” (2009: 136).
For this to take place the project was informed by the work of McMillian and
Chavis in 1986 who developed a descriptive analysis of Sense of Community
(SOC), which was built upon by Wright (2004: 12) and further expanded to
include online communities (Koh & Kim 2003).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"! Universitat de Barcelona, Departament de Filologia Anglesa i Alemanya. Title: Adquisicion del ingles a diferentes edades en contextos de exposicion intensiva extraescolar y escolar. Principal Investigator: Raquel Serrano Other Researchers: Elsa Tragant, Àngels Llanes, and Anna Marsol Reference: FFI2010-18006 !!
! #%!
These concepts are known as Sense of Virtual Community (SOVC) and are
defined by:
1. Membership—people experience feelings of belonging to their virtual
community
2. Influence—people influence other members of their community
3. Immersion—people feel the state of flow during virtual community
navigation.” (Koh & Kim 2003: 77)
Additional concepts are:
a. Boundaries
b. Emotional safety
c. A sense of belonging and identification
d. Personal investment
e. A common symbol system
Koh & Kim maintain that membership to a virtual learning community was
“significantly affected by 1. leaders’ enthusiasm, 2. off-line activities and 3.
enjoyability”. (2003: 86).
In order to facilitate this and to ensure safe practice a number of steps were
taken.
• The notion of writing online and the responsibilities and consequences
that entails were discussed in class F2F. A “Code of Practice” outlining
guidelines for working within the wiki was discussed and signed by all Ss.
• Ss were encouraged to upload an icon to the wiki in order for
personalisation to take place and to encourage collective ownership of
the space.
• Special attention was paid to The British Council guidelines on social
networking (based on Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU )
with the aim of reducing risk, ie. bullying or abuse. The students were
instructed to set their controls in their private pbworks account to ensure
their individual email addresses (private contact details) were hidden.
! #&!
• The dialogue and interaction online were closely monitored by the
teachers involved.
• Ss were encouraged to follow up on messages and postings that other
students had left.
• The wiki was “closed” and password protected. Students were given
writer status, four teachers had administration rights and two senior
teachers had access.
3.2: Data Collection !Action research can be vulnerable to the subjectivity of the researcher and in
order to achieve objectivity triangulation of data collection was employed. In
addition a blend of both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods
were used as this would also enable more objective results (Nigas, 2000). The
data collection consisted of:
• A survey for Ss perceptions (pre and post course).
• Content analysis on the written output of the students during the Tc
project.
• Tabulation of discrete data on the editing process (peer error correction)
of written work produced for the Tc writing project.
• A post course interview with the teacher of class B.
• Observations of critical incidences that occurred during the project.
Although the sample size was small the researcher, as the teacher of class A
and facilitator of the project, had total access to the data. As a result it was
possible to gain 100% coverage of the sample. Due to the age of the
participants much of the methodology of the data collection was built around
anonymity to protect the identity of the participants.
3.2.1: Participant survey
!Student perceptions were collected to enhance “reflexivity” within the research.
This was to enable the participants to have a voice and thereby aspire to a
more democratic viewpoint of the study (Cohen et al, 2007: 310). Data was
! #'!
collected via an online self completion survey tool (Survey Monkey). This
online tool was chosen over interviews or paper questionnaires as this format
has been seen to promote more honest responses. (Randolph, 2008: 75) In
addition the researcher deemed a self completion survey to be less intrusive
than paper questionnaires as it could be undertaken anonymously within class
time and with the minimum of disruption to the class.
The design of the pre and post course questionnaires were based on numerical
strategies and closed questions with occasional open questions for added
insight. An online survey was chosen in order to aid anonymity and for ease
and speed of response. The survey was conducted in English (L2) and closed
questions have the added advantage that they “do not discriminate unduly on
the basis of how articulate respondents are” (Cohen et al, 2007: 321). In
addition the questions allowed for a fusion of quantitative and qualitative
measurement (Cohen et al, 2007: 321). Open questions were used sparingly
to add optional information but they were kept to a minimum as they take more
time and respondents may not have the linguistic knowledge to express their
ideas (Cohen et al, 2007: 331). The language was framed in structures that Ss
would be familiar with (table 2). Note that the responses from the participants to
the open questions have been reproduced entirely, thus there are errors in
grammar and vocabulary in the text of this data.
Both surveys - pre and post course - were designed to take ± 10 minutes to
complete and participation was optional. Within the survey all questions were
also optional. For this reason the data for the survey does not have 100%
coverage. However, response levels were high and coverage could be seen to
be inclusive.
During adolescence, a small difference in age can lead to a difference of
perception and understanding. Classes A and B were formed on the basis of
age with class A having a older profile (average 14 - 15 years) than class B
(average 13 - 14 years). Thus, although the same survey was given to both
classes the results were tabulated separately to detect whether the age of the
respondents affected response.
! #(!
After a pilot of the original survey in cycle 1, the survey was revised and a pre
and post course survey designed for cycle 2 (see 3.1.2.). A number of
numerical methods were used for questions which were set out either
individually or in a matrix format. The questions were comprised of:
1. Rating scales
2. Likert scales
3. Dichotomous questions
4. Open questions
Although every effort was made to make the survey as clear as possible
linguistically for the Ss to understand (table 2), there is the possibility that the
wording or layout could have been confusing. Moreover, there is the danger
that the respondents may not have interpreted the questions or scales as they
had been intended. In addition there were open questions for the Ss to add
more information. The language used was L2 and respondents were directed
to answer open questions in L2. Ss may therefore, not have been able to
express themselves as fully in L2 as they would have done using L1.
Table 3. Vocabulary used for Likert scales.
Likert scale
Never Hardly
ever
Sometimes Usually Always
Likert Scale
I really
don’t like
it
I don’t
like it
It’s ok I like it I really
like it
Likert scale
I learn a
lot
I learn
some
I learn a
little
I don’t
learn
anything.
! #)!
3.2.2: Content Analysis
Content analysis is regarded as a useful research technique for “making
replicable and valid inferences from texts to the contents of their use” (Cohen et
al, 2007: 475). Content analysis can be described as an “unobtrusive technique
that focuses on the language and linguistic features”, (Cohen et al, 2007: 477).
For the coding, text was broken down into units of analysis, these were blocks
of words which were separated into language functions (appendix F). The
frequency of these blocks were then measured with word counts and the
correlation between them was interpreted in a pie chart.
Reliability here may have been compromised in the researchers’ interpretation
of the text. This is known as witting and unwitting evidence: “witting, is that
which was intended to be imparted; unwitting evidence is that which can be
inferred from the text, and which may not be intended by the imparter.” (Cohen
et al, 2007: 490). Vocabulary may also be interpreted differently and this may
have affected Ss understanding of the questions (appendix G).
3.2.3: Qualitative analysis of peer error correction
Discrete data was taken from the texts which had been created in the wiki using
the page history function. The frequency of errors was calculated with the types
of error as variables.
• Round 1 – Group A - Total number of highlighted errors = number of
correct peer corrections + number of incorrect peer errors + number of
unresolved errors (errors which remained the same and were not altered
by the student)
• Round 2 - Group B - Total number of highlighted errors = number of
correct peer corrections + number of incorrect peer errors + number of
unresolved errors (errors which remained the same and were not altered
by the student)
• Final numbers of unresolved errors remaining.
! $+!
Variables were the types of errors which were categorised and colour coded.
The raw data Is included in the study (appendix C)
These results were then also cross tabulated to achieve a comparison between
classes A and B). This data was then represented graphically within a bar chart
and pie chart using Excel for ease of interpretation.
Reliability with this data collection could have been affected by human error
during the collection of this data through the page history functions and the
comparisons of texts at various stages. Also, there were certain anomalies that
occurred between the texts when a correction from class A, round 1, altered
meaning and then created different errors in round 2 (appendix C). There was
no measurement of complexity of errors.
3.2.4: Observations and Interview:
In action research, researchers are both participants and practitioners. They
are part of the social world they are studying (Cohen et al, 2007: 310). In cycle
1, no other teachers were involved with the project. In cycle 2 however, the two
classes had four separate teachers, two of which were involved in the Tc
project; the researcher (class A), plus one other T (class B). A semi structured
interview was conducted post course with the teacher of class B to collect T
observations of class B . This data was also sought to gain a balanced
understanding of the project and allow for internal validity of the results. The
interview was recorded and transcribed (appendix H).
From this interview as well as from the content analysis, observations were
made for critical incidences. This was in order to gather “live” data which was
socially situated and experienced first hand. Reporting of these occurrences
was under the premise that “Sometimes one event can occur which reveals an
extremely important insight into a person or situation” (Cohen et al, 2007: 404).
3.2.5: Validity
This is a small scale study and as action research it was conducted in a very
socially situated context. This should not be seen as research into the reaction
! $*!
of adolescents to collaborative writing in a wiki as a whole, but rather as a
description of the affects of this project with a specific set of participants at a
particular point in time. This can be vulnerable to change as changes because
availability and prior knowledge to technology amongst adolescents is rapidly
changing. In addition culturally accepted practices with technology and
exposure to technology can alter greatly amongst different cultural
communities.
In addition while the researcher has made every effort to be objectively factual,
there may be times when bias may have altered findings. To facilitate a more
objective vision a blend of qualitative and quantitative methods of data
collection were employed and internal validity sought with a peer interview. It is
however, entirely possible that some things have been overlooked and some
readings misinterpreted.
All data have been anonymised and stored in a data base for later checks.
3.2.6: Limitations
This study was designed to examine the effects of using a wiki for collaborative
writing with adolescents and the potential of using wikis for peer scaffolding. It
is not within the scope of this study to ascertain whether students would
progress more in their level of writing using wikis as opposed to using other
online platforms or indeed more “pen and paper” styles of teaching.
3.2.7: Ethics
As noted the project was set up with particular attention paid to facilitating safe
working practices for communication on line (see 3.1.5). Anonymity for
participants and lack of obstruction into the natural rhythm of the class was
central in the choosing of the data collection and analysis methods. The study
was conducted with the full knowledge and support of the teaching centre and
in accordance to the teaching centre policy in data protection and the wiki will
be destroyed after 6 months. Also in agreement with the teaching centre no
identifiable student writing from the project has been used in this dissertation.
The researcher received permission from the interviewee for the full use of this
interview in this study.
! $"!
4: Findings
4.1: Participant Survey. !In both the pre course and post course survey the students were questioned on
their perception of the level of difficulty within the various aspects of studying
English. The variables were:
a. speaking; b. grammar; c. vocabulary; d. writing; e. listening and f. reading.
The pre course survey (figure 7), shows that speaking is the seen as the most
difficult for Class A whereas grammar was on the whole, the most difficult for
Class B. With a ranking scale of 1 being for the easiest, and 6 for the most
difficult, mean values were calculated. In general, for both classes writing
scored a mark of ± 3 in the pre course survey. Post course data demonstrated
that this level dropped to ± 2.5 (figure 8), showing a general perception of
writing as being less difficult than previously thought. In group A writing
dropped to least difficult of all at the expense of grammar which increased in
value. This is in contrast to class B where grammar remained constant. Levels
for vocabulary remained constant in both classes with class A showing ± 2.75
and class B showing ± 2.5.
Figure 7. Perceived level of difficulty in various aspects of English pre course.
Class A Class B
Question: In your English studies what is the easiest (1) to the most difficult (6)
for you? Put them in order.
Variables:
a. speaking; b. grammar; c. vocabulary; d. writing; e. listening and f. reading
! $#!
Figure 8. Perceived level of difficulty in various aspects of English post course:
Class A Class B
Question: Have your ideas changed? Now at the end of the what is the easiest
(1) to the most difficult (6) for you? Put them in order.
Variables:
a. speaking; b. grammar; c. vocabulary; d. writing; e. listening and f. reading
At the end of the course the students were asked to evaluate their individual
progress in writing. All students perceived some progress made in their level of
writing (figure 9).
Figure 9. Ss’ thoughts on individual progress made in writing during the course.
Class A Class B
Question: Do you think your writing has improved during the course?
Variables: Yes, a lot – Yes, some – Yes, a little - No
! $$!
On the whole, students’ reactions to having an audience for their written work
were generally positive. However, some Ss were also a little ambivalent (it’s
OK) about having an audience. (figure 10).
Figure 10. Ss’ reactions to having an authentic audience for their work with
colour key.
Colour key
Class A Class B
Column 1 shows the Ss’ reactions having an audience for their written work.
Column 2 shows Ss’ reactions to receiving peer comments on their written
work.
Ss were also asked about their thoughts on reading other students’ work. This
also produced a more positive result indicating that Ss enjoyed reading their
peers’ work more than having their own work read (figure 11). This could
indicate the acute awareness of self presentation that is noted with this age
group (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009).
! $%!
Open questions were also asked here to give further insight (see the box
below). Note that in reporting these data, the comments have not been divided
in to classes (A and B). For a full representation of this data see appendix 8.
Open question:
This self awareness could also account for the differences in the attitude to
leaving comments for their peers. This evidence proves to be more mixed. It
is important also to note that there are a mix of ages here with some Ss as
young as 13 in class B and some Ss as old as 16 in class A. The variation in
data could have been a result of the combination of different age groups and
differing levels of maturity within the sample.
• In the wiki do you like it when other people read and comment on your written work?
• Well, depending. I've I had done a good work yes, but if not no. I like reading their comments.
!!
! $&!
Figure 11. Ss’ reactions to reading and commenting on peer written work in the
wiki, with colour key for variables.
Colour key.
Class A Class B
Column 1 shows Ss’ reactions to reading peer work.
Column 2 shows Ss’ reactions to leaving comments on their peers’ written work.
Open question:
!• In the wiki do you like it when you read and
comment on other student’s work?
• I like reading other students work, because reading it I learn other styles of writting. I also like congratulating them or saying what I don't like about their work.
• because the other people can know the opinion
• I don't like making comments.
!
! $'!
Generally speaking, Ss were positive about when asked about working
asynchronously with each other (figure 12). More negative responses were
recorded in Class B which also had a younger profile. One limitation of the
study was that some of the students involved knew each other outside the class
and the classes were geographically close (see 3.1.4). As a result this may
have altered the dynamic of necessity of need for communication using the wiki
as a medium.
In addition, an open question was also included for more information. From
these answers there is an indication that “meeting others” was a significant
motivating factor for their involvement.
Figure 12. Ss’ thoughts on working with another class asynchronously for the
Tc writing project.
Class A Class B
Question – For the environment project did you enjoy working with students
from the other class in the wiki?
Variables: Yes – No – Don’t know
! $(!
Open question:
Questions were also included with the object of gaining insight into Ss attitudes
towards the peer correction of errors. In the pre course survey all Ss felt that
correcting and revising errors in their written work had educational value for
them (appendix D). In the post course survey questions were prompted to give
a value to peer corrections (figures 13 & 14).
• What did you think about What did you think
about working with other students in the other class during "The Environment" project?
• I think it's really interesting meet new people and see the way to write from the other people.
• Is a good way to know people and to work as a group
• It's a good idea, because you can know how the other students work!
• I think we did good work with them.
! $)!
Figure 13. Ss’ perceptions of how much they learn by correcting other Ss’ work.
Class A Class B
Question: How much do you think you learn from correcting other students’
written work?
Variables: I learn a lot – I learn some – I learn a little – I don’t learn anything
Figure 14. Ss’ perceptions of how much they learn when other Ss’ correct the
errors in their writing.
Class A Class B
Question: How much do you think you learn from other students correcting your
work?
Variables: I learn a lot – I learn some – I learn a little – I don’t learn anything
The result is generally more positive when Ss are involved in correcting peer
errors as opposed to having their work corrected by peers.
! %+!
An open question was asked about the Ss opinion of the wiki in general. Some
key points that appear are that Ss like reading peer work, and having an
authentic audience for their work. A number of respondents mentioned peer
correction and FoF.
• In general, what do you think of the wiki that
we used in class?
• It's really interesting. I like reading the other students work. I think that this wiki is really usefull and really good.
• it was a useful instrument to comunicate with other students and to learn some kind of things, grammar, vocabulary...
• It's a good idea because all people can see your work, and you can see the work of other people
• it's very useful I think. !
• It's a good way to learn and know class mates thinks.
!• I think that the wiki is very good because you can
learn somethings about your classmates mistakes.
!• ok and it's a good way for learn and change your
errors at the same time !
• It's a different form to learn english. !
• It's very good and I enjoyed with the wiki !
! %*!
4.2 Content Analysis
The codes were intended to show specific written functions (appendix F).
The results are shown in figure 15. It is worthwhile noting that Grammar* and
Content* were single exchanges that were unique within the sample (see
critical incidences below). It is also worth noting that “peer comments” occurred
post production when the texts had been finalised. In these comments, the
focus was mainly on the content of the text, the nature of the chosen topics
themselves and Ss opinions towards the topics. In only one of these
exchanges did a comment dedicated to FoF appear. This was however, in
humour as the students from the two groups involved in this exchange were
acquainted (see 3.1.4). In this exchange the humour took the form of expert
(comment author) to novice (text author).
Interview T class B:
Some of them knew each other and when they did a humour element sort of
crept in. I think one of them wrote a bit of a negative comment that I was a bit
worried about, but they showed me a previous comment that they had got from
them and they said they were good friends, and that was quite obvious. And, it
was almost as if they had adopted a teacher’s role and they were writing
teacher like comments about their work.
! %"!
Figure 15. Content analysis of total written output in Tc project.
Overall, the Tc project generated a lot of written English in various forms. Only
the extended texts were emphasised for accuracy and these texts accounted
for 59% of the total written activity. 41% of writing was in more socially situated
exchanges which were content focused.
4.2.1: Critical incidences in content analysis:
!The two Grammar* and Content* exchanges provide some interesting insight
into the students behaviour:
Content* Grammar*
We have a plan to do the artcile. Imtroduction: -pesent the thopic -talk about why their are becoming extinct Part 1 Why there are becoming extinct Part 2: Ideas on how to protect the animals Conclution: -Summary and opinion
Comment box 1: what you prefer? Comment box 2: sorry I mean : what do you prefer? !
! %#!
The incidence in Content* occurred when Ss were negotiating which topic and
paragraph to write. It shows evidence of awareness of planning.
The incidence in Grammar* was written in the comment box section of the wiki
which has no editing function. It shows awareness of grammar and attention to
self correction. This was in a situation where FoM was emphasized and FoF
was not.
4.3 Qualitative analysis of peer corrections From discrete data taken from the wiki page revisions function the results were
tabulated into graph form and two important trends were revealed. In
completing the error correction exercises, types of errors were noted and
plotted in Excel against number of errors. It shows that the most significant
error by far is vocabulary and this was also the category which noted the most
number of unresolved edits at the end of the editing period (figure 16).
Figure 16. Results of peer correction by error type.
! %$!
Here the number of peer corrections are described as “rounds”. Thus round 1
indicates class A’s first attempt at peer correction and round 2 describes class
B’s attempt at peer correction.
In figure 16, verbs and nouns are reported separately although grammar is
often described as the combination of the two. These two factors were then
combined to give a more comprehensive overview of the categories of grammar
and vocabulary (figure 17). In this way the new factor grammar, as a whole,
had more errors in round one than vocabulary. In spite of this vocabulary errors
had a higher incidence of being unresolved both in round 2 and as a final
unresolved error count. This would point to the fact that vocabulary errors are
more troublesome for Ss to peer correct and grammar is easier to peer correct
both in round 1 and round 2.
Reliability here may be influenced by the category of “word order” as these
errors in themselves could contain errors in either grammar or vocabulary. No
distinction is made in word order as to the type of error. As it is, there are no
occurrences of unresolved errors for word order which limits the effect that this
may have had on the final results for grammar and vocabulary.
Figure 17: Comparisons of errors for grammar and vocabulary.
! %%!
As group A were first to take part in the error correction process, they had a
greater number of errors to peer correct in round 1 than group B had in round 2.
In round 2 it may have been that the remaining errors were more complex as
they had been left unresolved by class A. However, complexity of error is not
included in the data and so this can not be substantiated.
Figure 18. Cross tabulation of data for group comparisons in peer error
correction.
Despite the difference in quantity of errors the pattern of error correction
remains similar for both groups (figure 18). The pie charts below (figure 19),
shows the result of the percentage of the number of correct corrections,
incorrect corrections and unresolved errors which remain at the end of the
editing phase.
! %&!
Figure 19. Comparison of peer correcting activity with class A, round 1 and
class B, round 2.
Class A Class B
On the whole Ss were able to achieve a high rate of peer error correction
although two rounds were necessary for the text to be seen as “accurate”. At
the end of both editing phases the number of unresolved errors lay at 15. The
number of recorded attempts at solving errors was recorded at 180. This left a
92% accuracy rate when Ss in two rounds worked to peer correct.
This error correction was completed in pairs with a T present to provide support.
Ss requests for support often took the form of asking for confirmation rather
than asking for answers. This indicates that Ss were fully capable of correcting
peer errors which were within their ZPD.
! %'!
4.3.1: Critical incidences reported in peer error correction analysis: Table 4. Critical incidents from content analysis
Incident Group Class Type Indication
1 Group 1 Class B Added content to class
B paragraph during
their editing phase in
round 2.
Ownership of
text.
2 Group 4 Class B Corrected unidentified
errors in a class B text.
Ownership of
text.
3 Group 3 Class A Final paragraph
deleted from class B’s
contribution.
Deletion of
another’s
work.
4 Group 2 Class B Did not complete the
error correction
activity in round 2.
Technical error.
Technical
problems
which
interfere with
Ss work.
5 Group 2 Class B Text was added which
was cut and paste from
Wikipedia.
Cut and paste
(hyperlink)
culture.
Class A Ss
requiring
permission to
alter and
delete text.
Ownership of
text indicated.
! %(!
Incidences 1 and 2 would show that Ss were editing errors or adding content
beyond the remit (the highlighted code). It is clear that the class who went
beyond this remit were also the authors of the text in question. As students
were working in pairs it is not clear whether the Ss who were involved in these
edits were the authors or the partners of the authors. What is clear is that Ss
are going beyond what they were expected to do and this shows an interest in
the texts. It also shows an element of ownership of the text.
Conversely, only one incident of text deletion was noted. In incident 3, it is not
known if the Ss in class A accidently or purposely erased the text from class B.
Ss from class B did not inform the class teacher of this omission and this text
was not restored and included in the final version. This was the only incidence
of text deletion of a text from another author.
To support the ownership of text theory, in one case, 5, class B cut and paste
text from Wikipedia which did not fit the context of the text. Only with the
teacher’s implicit permission did the students in class A alter this text in a final
editing round.
In incident 4, the students had been working on the text in question but it a
technical error had frozen the screen and their edit was not saved. Technical
errors while editing the wiki pages occurred a number of times while working on
the shared computers. In response, Class A completed round 2 of the peer
correction.
4.4: Observations and critical incidence: Interview. !These are extracts from a recorded interview the T of class B (table 5). From
this interview Ss engagement in the project was noted. In addition, some
incidences of language awareness and interest in the language with regard to
FoF were recorded. Also of interest, are observations on the difference
between the conventions of the traditional classroom compared with the reality
of Ss everyday life and the polarity between the two worlds. The social nature
of the writing which took place is also a theme here. The full version of this
interview is included in the appendix, (appendix H).
! %)!
Table 5. Critical incidents reported from T class B’s interview.
Theme Observation
Ss motivation The general impression I got was quite positive,
the only negative behaviour really was probably
from students who were less able, they tended to
write less. Having said that they I thought they
were writing more than they would’ve done if it
just been a pencil and paper activity in the
classroom, the communicative element they
definitely responded well to.
!.But I’m just pleased that they are writing and
there are elements of pleasure there.
!!! they were generally engaged. They were
reading the other groups’ comments and then
building from that so it wasn’t that they went in
and did their task in isolation and there was one
point when they were correcting the others’
paragraphs and I was quite surprised how
motivated they were.
Incidence of LRE and extension of knowledge
some of the mistakes they were making were
above their level. They were using language that
they hadn’t learned yet, they hadn’t acquired,
whether it was like word order or whatever.
Actually, I remember there was one opportunity
there was, I think it was to do with reporting
verbs or something came up and I said, “that
needs an object after” and they actually asked
about “what other words follow this rule?”, which
I thought was quite good, I mean they are
actually asking there about grammar.
! &+!
Theme
Observation
Authentic audience for Ss work
(On Ss having an audience for their work)
It was a good thing, it makes you realise that in
the classroom they don’t, I don’t know whether
it’s ‘cos it’s the electronic medium and it’s the
generation where they are used to responding in
this way. I mean traditionally you’d write a
composition you can’t then sort of write in
conversational comments after the writing and
this was a lot better because they could. It
evolved, it was a bit more organic, the
exchanges afterwards.
4.5: Data from the Universitat de Barcelona. !Ss undertook a timed writing task pre and post course. This involved a timed
writing task. Ss were instructed to write a narrative based on a comic strip.
These texts were analysed for data. For a full explanation of the data analysis
in this data refer to Serrano (2011: 127-128).
4.5.1: Measure of written fluency.
One method was for lexical fluency which was based on word count (tokens).
The blue line indicates the pre course result and the red line indicates the post
course result. The data shows an increase in written fluency on the whole with
eight out of nine Ss improving in this area (figure 20)
! &*!
Figure 20. Levels of written fluency pre and post course. The Pre course
results are represented by the blue line, the post course by the red.
4.5.2: Measure of lexical richness
The study also used a measurement called Guiraud’s index to calculate lexical
richness or complexity of vocabulary. Neither test measures grammatical
complexity. The pre course and post course levels of lexical richness are not as
clear as written frequency and show scattered improvement (figure 21). While
there was improvement on the whole a few Ss (1, 5, 7, 9) have shown minimal
progress post course (5 & 9) or even regression (1 & 7).
! &"!
Figure 21. Levels of Lexical richness pre and post course. The Pre course
results are represented by the blue line, the post course by the red
5: Discussion
5.1: Student perceptions
From the literature review, some research found that Ss preferred individual
work to collaborative work (Forte & Bruckman, 2007; Grant, 2009; Lund &
Smordal, 2006) and that collaboration does not always succeed (Kessler et al,
2012; Kuteeva, 2011). Despite this research, these findings indicate that in this
instance the Ss were in favour of collaborative work and were motivated by
peer corrections. This could, in part, be attributed to the system of T highlights
on the texts to pinpoint errors for correction. It could be argued that with
highlighting Ss are given implicit permission by the T to change and alter peer
texts and in this way traditional classroom hierarchies are upheld. Grant (2009)
and Lee (2010a) found that Ss were wary of editing peer work to avoid
confrontation with peers. T highlighting may remove pressure from Ss when
peer editing. Furthermore, Ss vary in ability and T highlighting may give Ss the
confidence that is necessary to peer correct as shown by Kessler & Bikowski,
(2010). This would seem to be supported by class B T’s insight when asked
! &#!
about the level of T support the Ss required during the peer correction phase.
On the whole, the Ss asked for confirmation on the accuracy of their edits:
Moreover, Coniam & Lee (2008) and Lee (2010a) speculate that Ss see
correcting as the teacher’s role. Ss in this study were motivated to peer edit
although the teacher’s role in the editing process may still have been seen by
the Ss as conforming to the traditional teacher – student role.
As mentioned in the literature review, Ss are often motivated by having an
audience for their work. The findings here agree with this and Ss are
particularly motivated by reading and interacting with each other’s writing. What
the findings also suggest is that Ss are less keen on displaying their work than
reading and interacting with peer work. This may be due to self consciousness
which is often associated with this age group. Indeed there is evidence to
support the idea that for Ss, having good examples of their work on the wiki is
seen as important in order to present a good image to their peers.
It is also important to note however that for all Ss this was the first time that they
had ever done a Tc project for writing in a wiki. Only one student had
experience of using a wiki in school. It may be then that the Ss interest in
writing in the wiki could have been the novelty of the experience. It could also
however have been connected to the fact that the writing done on the wiki does
connect more with their everyday experiences of written communication.
In the wiki, do you like it when other people read and comment on your written work? Student: Well, depending. I've I had done a good work yes, but if not no. I like reading their comments. !
T class B: Some of them did, yeah (ask for support), but generally they would ask, “Is this alright?”.
! &$!
Despite this interest, some of the critical incidences noted in table 4 (4.3.1),
would suggest that although a high percentage of Ss were engaged, not all Ss
may have had the same level of engagement.
5.2: Collaborative writing and ownership of texts. !Storch’s (2011) definition of collaborative writing as joint production and joint
ownership of text may be unachievable at this age. Although Ss did edit errors
from peer texts they also displayed tendencies to “own” their particular
paragraphs. Beyond the highlighted errors, additional editing only happened on
owned tests. T permission was sought for deletion or content alteration of a
peer’s text. Rather than meshing text together as a whole, Ss approached each
paragraph as having independent authors. This may have also have been a
result of the task as Ss were directed to write independent paragraphs and
afterwards join them together to make a whole text. This may have reinforced
ownership of paragraphs. However, given that the traditional competitive
environment of a school is at odds with true collaboration (Grant, 2009; Lund &
Smordal, 2006; Wheeler et al, 2008), it is possibly far out of the Ss’ ZPD to
consider joint ownership. These findings agree with Lee (2010 a), in that Ss do
find it a challenge to relinquish ownership of text. While cooperation is possible
and can work well, collaboration as defined by Storch may not be attainable in
this context.
5.3: Student confidence in writing. !Comparisons of the pre and post course survey show that Ss viewed writing in
English as less difficult post course than pre course. This would indicate that
levels of confidence in their ability to write had increased over the course. This
increase may have been the result of a combination of more practice in writing
in general, in the form of social written exchanges as well as more practice at
writing and creating extended texts. Content analysis of the written output
shows 41% of content generated was for social reasons, with 59% attributed to
the writing task. This supports previous research, (Myles, 2002. Storch, 2011).
Myles (2002) proposed that Ss are able to communicate more effectively in
writing if they are exposed to different models and not only paragraphs and
! &%!
extended texts. Higher levels of student confidence would seem to support
this.
The data provided by the Universitat de Barcelona!on the progress made in
written fluency in class A (figure 20) would also seem to support this. Eight out
of nine Ss made progress in this area, whereby under timed conditions Ss
wrote more post course than pre course. This is not to say that Ss were more
accurate or complex in their writing but it may suggest a more positive approach
to writing in English.!
5.4: Peer correction and peer scaffolding. Ss in pairs averaged around a 67% accuracy rate (class A 64% and class B
69%) . This agrees with de la Carolina & Garcia Mayo (2007) and Kessler et al
(2012), as not all LREs are successful. Nevertheless, when conducted in
groups with two rounds this overall level of accuracy rises to 91%. This agrees
with the findings of Fernández Dobao (2012) that groups are more accurate
grammatically than pairs or individuals when working on texts: “Collaboration,
whether in pairs or in small groups, resulted in greater grammatical and lexical
accuracy. Although group work offered fewer opportunities for individual
participation, it had a positive impact on collaborative dialogue. Learners
working in small groups paid more attention to language and were more
successful at solving language-related problems than learners working in pairs.
Subsequently, they were also linguistically more accurate.” (p.55). Although it
can be seen that the level of accuracy upon completion of the text was high, it is
not within the scope of the study to assess whether all Ss actually benefitted
from these peer corrections. As the error correction was completed
asynchronously with two groups of pairs, not as a whole group together,
individuals within the groups may not have had the group collaborative dialogue
as reported by Fernández Dobao.
In spite of this, the overall ability in accurately correcting work may well be a
result of the fact that linguistically, peer errors are an excellent match for Ss
abilities. Perhaps because of this Ss were engaged and motivated and, in
! &&!
addition, perceived it as being valid for their learning. This agrees with the
findings of Shehadeh (2011) who investigated Ss perceptions of a collaborative
wiki project. Shehadeh reported that peer correction was seen as enjoyable,
and therefore a positive learning experience and that Ss felt it contributed to
their learning.
What is surprising is that contrary to student perceptions that grammar is very
difficult for them to learn (figure 8), the data from the error correction suggest
that Ss were able to accurately correct many of these grammar errors. What
these figures also suggest is that vocabulary has the lowest level of accuracy in
peer correction with a number of unresolved errors remaining in the final edit
(figures 16 & 17). Despite this, Ss perceive that grammar is more difficult than
vocabulary. The level of difficulty Ss accredited to vocabulary changed very
little, pre and post course (figure 7 & 8). This may be the result of the focus and
importance placed on grammar in in Spanish classrooms concerning English as
a second language and the undervaluing of vocabulary.
A possible explanation for the relatively high success rate of grammatical peer
error corrections may be that grammar tends to be formulaic with rules that can
be followed. This was also noted by Nuwar (2011) with first year university Ss
learning English. According to Swain (2010), Ss working together can test their
hypothesis about the language, verbalise, negotiate and construct meanings
together and then internalise knowledge. It maybe that with regard to grammar
this is effective. The LRE that was noted by the T of class B, was grammar
based and the T was able to verbalise the formula of the grammar to the Ss in
question.
T class B:
I think it was to do with reporting verbs or
something came up and I said, “that needs an
object after” and they actually asked about
“what other words follow this rule?”
! &'!
In the above quotation a formula is being described and because of this Ss
themselves may find it easier to verbalise formula to discuss grammar points
with each other. In contrast, vocabulary by it’s very nature does not always
follow set patterns. Vocabulary can also alter it’s definition depending on it’s
context and there may be no clear descriptors for Ss to be able to verbalise and
negotiate meaning. The very factor that affects reliability in content analysis,
i.e. “that words are inherently ambiguous and polyvalent” (Cohen et al, 2007:
490), may be at work here. For example, even a relatively simple vocabulary
item such as the word “school” may have many different uses (appendix G).
Added to this, the age range of the group may also have some effect. With
limited life experience some more abstract lexis may be harder for the Ss to
conceptualise. Ss results in the lexical richness test from the data provided by
the Universitat de Barcelona (figure 21), also appear to show that Ss have
difficulty with lexical complexity. The period of hypothesising, verbalising,
negotiating and constructing meaning with a peer or teacher may take longer to
complete as Ss struggle to internalising meaning. !
5.5: Focus on form and focus on meaning.
Having an authentic audience for their work is noted as a motivating factor for
Ss, who at times are more disposed to self correcting errors and, at times
focusing on content (Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Kessler, 2009; Kuteeva, 2011; Lee,
2010 b; Li et al, 2012). In the literature, collaborative writing within in a wiki has
shown two main trends with regards to this focus, either on form or on meaning
(content). Some research points to Ss having more involvement in FoM (Mak &
Coniam, 2008; Kessler 2009). Other research points to Ss concern with self
correction of their own text for grammar and vocabulary, but little concern for
FoF in a partners text, (thereby also displaying ownership of text). (Elola &
Oskoz, 2010; Kessler, 2009; Kuteeva, 2011; Lee, 2010 b; Li et al, 2012).
As noted, most of the studies in the literature have been conducted with
university Ss with higher linguistic levels This research however would suggest
that adolescent Ss at lower linguistic levels are less concerned with content
(FoM) than with grammar (FoF). This can be seen in the content analysis of Ss
writing. There is very little talk of content apart from the negotiations that took
! &(!
place for the choice of topic. Only one group did put forward a basic plan for
content (see 4.2.1). Ss may have strived for content individually while planning
their contribution but this is not recorded in any data. Comments on content on
peer work only occurred post production in the comment boxes beneath the wiki
pages. They were mostly general comments and were not critical of meaning
or did not comment on the style that the Ss in that group had used. They
concentrated more on giving their own personal opinion on topics that had been
discussed in the texts (see 4.2). It may have been that the task given to them
had been had focused on linguistic error correction and less emphasis and T
feedback given on the content. In the event of communicating in an online
space in the classroom, a new experience for most Ss, they may have looked to
the T to provide a model of what to do (Salmon, 2003). In that case there was
more feedback on form and this may have informed their input into the wiki.
6: Conclusion.
To conclude this study we will return to the original research aims and
questions.
1. Will using a wiki as a tool to promote intertextuality with Catalan adolescents
learning English be successful?
From this study it appears that in this socially situated context, using a wiki to
promote intertexuality in the L2 classroom is largely successful. This was
however a very controlled environment. The messages sent between Ss were
closely monitored. There was a blended learning aspect to this study which
had a combination of F2F and CMC. It is unclear whether an online writing
community in this context would be able to exist without the level of F2F input.
In addition, Ss were working in pairs at all times during this Tc project and this
was a result of limitations in computer access. The amount of non extended
text produced in the wiki, in the form of negotiations and comments, may have
been greater had Ss had individual access to a computer and internet
connection. On the other hand Ss may actually prefer to complete comments in
pairs. It appears that Ss valued the project and had a very positive view to
reading peer written work and posting and receiving messages. It is worth
! &)!
bearing in mind that there were problems in cycle 1 of the action research,
where computer access was restricted, as Ss had to wait a long time for peer
responses. This had a negative effect on the timing of the project and Ss
motivation. In contrast, cycle 2 benefitted from unlimited computer access. With
less time to wait for responses, Ss were more involved in the project. It would
suggest that using a wiki is successful in harnessing intertexuality as a tool for
the teaching of writing but this is dependant upon speed of response.
2. Will using a wiki for a telecollaborative project aid the teaching of process
writing with Catalan adolescents learning English?
In the second question, the wiki did help to promote the teaching of process
writing. Ss displayed signs of being more aware of planning and error
correction and the task of revising and re-revising text. In completing error
correction in groups and in rounds, this enabled the Ss to break down the task
to more manageable sections and therefore it led to a more positive approach
to revising work. Furthermore, the authentic audience for the final text
provided the “real world” motivation the Ss needed to develop a final copy that
was seen to be ready for a target reader.
An unexpected outcome in relation to this question is that the wiki makes T
analysis of Ss activity possible. Using a wiki does not only aid the teaching of
process writing to the Ss but it also makes information readily available to the T.
This information may provide specific insights into Ss strengths and
weaknesses. With regard to the data analysis of the errors for example, while
Ss were capable of peer correction, not all errors were successfully resolved
and that T should be aware of the limits of this. With this awareness however, T
can alter their expectations of what Ss are capable of performing.
Nevertheless, with a small sample size, caution must be applied, as the findings
might not be transferable to all situations with adolescents and it appears that
many factors, from computer access to the task given, will affect results.
!!
! '+!
!!!6.1: Recommendations. !As a result of this study certain recommendations have been made for future research,!!
• This study was completed with Ss from the same cultural and socio
economic backgrounds. Further research should be done to investigate
the effect of intertextuality that takes place among adolescent Ss where
background and culture are distinct factors.
• Also this study found vocabulary to be particularly difficult for Ss to
assimilate. This was also recorded by Nuwar (2011). The speculation
here is that it is more difficult for Ss to construct meanings for
vocabulary at this linguistic level. This being because vocabulary lacks
rules which do not able descriptors for student assimilation. However,
Further work is required to establish this.
• In addition, T time is not infinite and a wiki can grow fast. It can become
impossible for Ts to cover and monitor all Ss activity. This study involved
a small group of participants. Even with this small group some important
events went unnoticed (see 4.3.1 incident 4). With larger groups Ss
activity would result in lot of data for a Ts to examine. Research has
pointed to a certain level of success in peer evaluation during a
collaborative project taking place within a wiki with university level Ss (De
Wever et al, 2011). Further research should be done to investigate the
quality of peer evaluation within a wiki based project in order to extend
the notion of responsibility, ownership and collaboration with this age
group.
! '*!
Bibliography
Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, P. (2013). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. Alshumaimeri, Y. (2011). The effects of wikis on foreign language students writing performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 755-763. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.139 Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759-766. Bernard, R., & de Rubalcava, B. (2000). Collaborative online distance learning: Issues for future practice and research. Distance Education, 21(2), 260-277. Chong, L., & Saeidi, M. (2005). Focus on Form Approach in an EFL context. Paper presented at the 9th conference Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics (pp. 280-289). Tokyo: Waseda University Media Mix Corp.. Cohen, L., L. Manion and K. Morrison (2007). Research Methods in Education, 6th!ed., Routledge, New York. De Guerrero, M. C., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68. Demetriadis, S. N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computers & Education, 51(2), 939-954. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.012 Department of Education and Training (2006). Understanding Year 9 Students. A Theoretical Perspective. Paper No. 8 Part A. April 2006. Melbourne http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/publ/research/publ/UnderstandingYear9_PartA-rpt.pdf Donato, Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Ablex Pub. Dooly, M. (2011). Divergent perceptions of telecollaborative language learning tasks: Task-as-workplan VS. Task-as-process. About Language Learning & Technology, , 69. EU High level group of experts on literacy (2012). Executive summary 2012. Retrieved 15.09.2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/literacy/index_en.htm Elgort, I., Smith, A., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course work. Australasian Journal of Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(24), 195-210.
! '"!
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51-71. Ferrance, E. (2000). Themes in Education. Action Research. First Certificate in English Examiners Report 2011. Retrieved 10.09.2012, from https://www.teachers.cambridgeesol.org/ts/exams/generalenglish/fce Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2007). Constructing text:: Wiki as a toolkit for (collaborative?) learning. , 31-42. Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 119-140. doi:10.1080/17439880902923580(online Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(4), 329-350. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research. pp. 1-25). London: Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). COLLABORATIVE WRITING AMONG SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN ACADEMIC WEB-BASED PROJECTS. About Language Learning \& Technology, , 91. Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning \& Technology, 13(1), 79-95. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183-199. doi:10.1177/1362168810388711 Koh, J., & Young-Gul, K. (2003). Sense of Virtual Community: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Validation. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 75-93. Kuteeva, M. (2011). Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer–reader relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 44-57. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2010.04.007 Li, X., Chu, S., Ki, W., & Woo, M. (2012). Using a wiki based collaborative process writing pedagogy to facilitate collaborative writing among Chinese primary school students. Australasia Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 159-181. Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning \& Technology, 12(3), 53-72.
! '#!
Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. Calico Journal, 27(2), 260-276. Lee, L. (2010). Fostering reflective writing and interactive exchange through blogging in an advanced language course. ReCALL, 22(02), 212-227. doi:10.1017/S095834401000008X Lund, A. (2006). Is there a space for the teacher in a WIKI? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 international symposium on Wikis (pp. 37-46). Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: a collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(01) doi:10.1017/S0958344008000414 Lund, A., & Smordal, O. (2006). Is there a space for the teacher in a WIKI? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 international symposium on Wikis (pp. 37-46). Odense, Denmark: ACM. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36(3), 437-455. Matusov, E. (1998). When Solo Activity Is Not Privileged: Participation and Internalization Models of Development. Human development, 41(5-6), 326-349. doi:10.1159/000022595 Mawlawi Diab, N. (2010). Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts. System, 38(1), 85-95. McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207-224. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.01.003 Meishar!Tal, H., & Gorsky, P. (2010). Wikis: what students do and do not do when writing collaboratively. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25(1), 25-35. doi:10.1080/02680510903482074 Niglas, K. (2000). Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburgh http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001544.htm O’Brien, R. (2001) An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research. In Roberto Richarson (Ed.) Theory andPractice of Action Research http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html Randolph, J.J. (2008). Multidisciplinary Methods in Educational Technology Research and Development.
! '$!
Finland. HAMK University of Applied Sciences. Julkaisija. Randolph, J. (2009). A guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review. Practical Assessment, Research and Education, 14(13) Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating. Routledge. Savignon, S., & Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative Language Teaching: Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice. Communicative competence pp. 288). McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages. Serrano, R. (2007). Time Distribution and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language. Doctora en Filologia Anglesa, Univerisitat de Barcelona, Spain. Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305. Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative Writing in L2 Contexts: Processes, Outcomes, and Future Directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000079 Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. Researching pedagogic tasks pp. 258). Pearson Education. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. Researching pedagogic tasks pp. 258). Pearson Education. Swain, M. (2010). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education pp. 192). Multilingual Matters Limited. Wang, Q. (2009). Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1138-1146. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.023 Wang, Q. (2010). Using online shared workspaces to support group collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1270-1276. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.023 Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artefact: the emergent semiotics of web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27 doi:10.1017/S0267190508070013 Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer–Peer Interaction between L2 Learners of Different Proficiency Levels: Their Interactions and Reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 64(4), 605-635.
! '%!
Water- Adams, S. (2006). Action Research in Education Faculty of Education, University of Plymouth http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/actionresearch/arhome.htm
Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 987-995. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00799.x Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466. doi:10.1177/0265532209104670 Wikipedia. Retrieved 18.08.2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages
!
! '&!
Appendix Appendix A: Styles of writing for the FCE. Appendix B: Code for error correction Appendix C: Raw data for qualitative analysis of error corrections: Appendix D: Ss pre –course survey
Appendix E: Model error correction given to Ss as a pre task in a F2F environment:
Appendix F: Coding of content analysis.
Appendix G: Problems with reliability in content analysis and the interpretation of vocabulary.
Appendix H: Transcribed interview with T of class B. Appendix I: Full responses to open questions asked in the post course survey for Ss. _______________________________________________________________
! ''!
Appendix A: Styles of writing for the FCE. From FCE examiners report (2011: 11).
https://www.teachers.cambridgeesol.org/ts/exams/generalenglish/fce
Appendix B: Code for error correction Rational for categories: Although these descriptors are broad in definition past
experience with students at this level (B1) has been that descriptors which are
too precise can be confusing for the student. Therefore the descriptors were
defined in broad categories.
! '(!
Colour
Significance Definition Reliabilty
RED Verbs / grammar Problems with
verb tenses /
adjectives and
adverbs
Some problems
with verb tenses
could interfere
with nouns e.g.
plurals and
singular.
BLUE Nouns / singular
/ plural
Problems with
nouns / singular
and plurals /
pronouns /
articles
Some errors
could be seen as
verbs errors, e.g.
the cars was / the
cars were / cars
was / the cars
were.
GREEN
Spelling Incorrect spelling 100%
PURPLE Vocabulary Word choice or
word
combinations (+
prepositions /
Some choices of
verb + preposition
could have been
seen as a verb
error.
ORANGE Word order Incorrect
placement of
verbs / nouns /
auxiliary verb /
pronouns etc.
Some errors
could be altered
by adding
grammar words
or vocabulary
======= Missing word E.g. missing
auxiliary verb /
missing pronoun
or preposition
Some errors
could be
corrected by a
single word or by
rearranging the
sentence and
altering other
! ')!
Appendix C: Raw data for qualitative analysis of error corrections.
In counting errors from round one to round two, there are a number of
anomalies. Some new errors could be formed by the editing of the text and so
some work on round one could lead to new errors in round two:
E.g. Group B: “for our sons and grandsons” (vocabulary error) Spanish
translation: (hijos y nietos). Intended meaning is “for our children and grandchildren”. It is altered by group A in round one as “for our descendant.” The new vocabulary is deemed as correct however this now
becomes a noun error as a plural is needed for the context. Our descendants. This error now means that a vocabulary error has been solved but instead a
new noun error has appeared which would later appear in E2 error
calculations.
! (+!
Appendix D: Ss pre - course survey. Scale:
1. Ss previous experience of different writing styles in English
Class A (14 -15 ) Class B (13 – 14)
Question: In your English class at school what kinds of writing to you do?
Variables:
Stories – letters – essays –articles – dialogues – messages to other students
2. Audience for Ss written work: Class A Class B
Question: In your English class at school who reads the writing that you do?
Variables:
Your teacher – your classmate – family – friends – other students at school.
! (*!
3. Error correction of student work: Class A Class B
Question: In your English class at school who corrects your written work?
Variables:
SS self corrects – teacher only – teacher highlights errors and SS corrects –
teacher highlights errors and peers correct – peer correction only
4. SS perception of the value of error SS revision of errors in written work: Class A Class B
Question: Do you think that you learn anything from revising and correcting your
written work in English?
Variables: Yes – No – Don’t know
! ("!
5. Ss previous experience of collaborative writing projects.
Class A Class B
Question: Have you ever done a group writing project in your English class?
Variables: Yes – No
6a. Open question: Ss previous experience of collaborative work:
Class A Class B
• "!#$%&'!• (&)$*!#%+*!,)#$%&)*#-!&*#.+)/0!$,*+-!*123)/)/0!$,*+4!
• 5)"3%0.*#!
• 6'!3"#$!2&%7*8$-!9"#!"/!"&0.+*/$!:*;*/:)/0!$,"$!0,%#$#!*1)#$4!
• (*!9&)$*!"!/*9#!2"2*&!$%!*123")/)/0!#%+*$,)/0!$,"$!,"22*/*:!3%/0!"0%!%&!8%.3:!<*!)/=*/$*:!
• !
! (#!
7. Ss previous experience of working with a wiki in school. Class A Class B
Question: In any of your classes at school have you every used a wiki?
Variables: Yes / No
7b. open question - SS previous use of a wiki in school.
Class A Class B
Question: What did you use the wiki for?
• >%!3*"&/!;&*/8,!• 3%%?)/0!;%&!)/;%&+"$)%/!
!
• #*"&8,!)/;%&+"$)%/!• $%!#*"&8,!)/;%&+"$)%/4!• $,*'!0)=*!.#!$,*!+"&?#!• !
! ($!
Appendix E. Model error correction given to Ss as a pre task in a f2f environment.
! (%!
Appendix F. Coding of content analysis. Categories Function Examples Reliability Extended text Task given – a
discursive essay or a magazine article.
Texts on the subject of the environment. Four paragraphs. I from each student.
100%
Social English Greetings 100% Peer comments Post task
comments on the final version of the collaborative text
Written comments about the content of the text or whether the group had done a “good job”. One comment left in humour commenting on the ”bad” grammar of the text.
100%
Negotiation All language pre writing, relating to the choice of topic.
There is an overlap between negotiations and questions.
Content How to write the text. Only one group left a message proposing a plan for writing.
Basic essay plan. This category was separated from to Ss post writing remarks on the content. This appears in comments.
Grammar Discussion of grammar.
One comment left by a Ss to self correct a message in the absence of an edit function in the comment box.
Much of the grammar discussion was done verbally F2F in pairs while correcting errors. Error correction data has been collected separately.
Questions Direct questions left for group members.
Questions about the choice of topic or the task.
There is an overlap with the category of negotiation.
! (&!
Appendix G. Problems with reliability in content analysis and the interpretation of vocabulary.
Words are inherently ambiguous and polyvalent (the problem of homographs):
for example, what does the word “school” mean: building; a group of people; a
particular movement of artists (e.g. the impressionists school); a department (a
medical school); a noun; a verb (to drill, to induct to educate, to train, to control,
to attend an institution); a period of instructional time (“they stayed after school
to play sports”); a modifier (e.g. a school day); a sphere of activity (e.g. “the
school of hard knocks”); a collection of people adhering to a particular set of
principles (e.g. the utilitarian school); a style of life (e.g. “a gentleman from the
old school”); a group assembled for a particular purpose (e.g. a gambling
school) and so on. (Cohen et al, 2007: 490)
Appendix H. Transcribed interview with the teacher of class B. Questions by the researcher are in bold. Responses from the T of class B are in italics.
The start activity – about me – the students were guided to read and comment on the other students work. – what was your impression of the students doing that?
Their reaction was!. One comment I want to make on that is: it is difficult when
you are in a class to actually sit down and sort of see what rational they are
using or how they are interacting with it; the only feedback you get with it is
really what they write but yeah they were generally engaged. They were
reading the other groups’ comments and then building from that so it wasn’t that
they went in and did their task in isolation and there was one point when they
were correcting the others’ paragraphs and I was quite surprised how motivated
they were.
So there was more a social exchange going on?
! ('!
Yes, I think there is quite a lot going on – there was social exchange , there was
peer correction there was!Yes, it was interesting.
What was the students response to working with the other class?
A couple of things were going on. It depended on whether the student they
knew the other person in the other class.
Yes, ‘cos some of them knew each other didn’t they? Some of them knew each other and when they did a humour element sort of
crept in. I think one of them wrote a bit of a negative comment that I was a bit
worried about but they showed me a previous comment that they had got from
them and they said they were good friends and that was quite obvious and it
was almost as if they had adopted a teacher’s role and they writing teacher like
comments about their work. Other’s tended to be more, rather than analysing
their work, tended to be on the task and just responding to what they said so if
they were being asked about an opinion on their work they would generally go
“ok , we like your idea, here are some of our suggestions” so yeah..
You said (previously) when the roles came out, as my class was in the morning and had the first slot and the way that it was set up that they got the introduction and first paragraph that you said that some of your students wanted to have those roles, can you tell me about that? I think that is a teenage thing as well, I think when you get choices and some
choices have already been eliminated even before they start I think some of
them questioned that. On reflection what would have been good would have
been good would have been more of an open debate between them to decide
those roles I mean that would have taken longer, and possibly under the time
constraints not something that was really feasible, but that I think would have
produced quite a bit of language as well. Which also makes me think that I
should have concentrated on language purely for agreeing and disagreeing, as
that would have been quite functional.
! ((!
When the project was underway was there anything that you noticed in particular positive or negative that you remember from the computer room when they were doing their parts, writing or error correction or!.you mentioned that they would have liked more choice but was there anything else that you can remember? No nothing springs to mind. The general impression I got was quite positive,
the only negative behaviour really was probably from students who were less
able, they tended to write less. Having said that they I thought they were writing
more than they would’ve done if it just been a pencil and paper activity in the
classroom, the communicative element they definitely responded well to. Oh,
one negative part was that I caught some students using an online translator.
They were going into whichever topic they were writing about and they were
going into Wikipedia and then they were cut and pasting sections of that and
putting into and translator and then cut and pasting into the wiki, but that is just
a matter of monitoring.
Did you get them to write their parts in the class first and then get them to write it into the wiki later in the computer room or did you go into the computer room and write it straight into the wiki?
Generally we just went straight in. There was one we did some preliminary
work on but the problems is because a lot of the time is because they are
responding to what they others have written so they generally have to view that
first and if they are just viewing that as a task then what do they do the rest of
the time? The logical thing is that they respond in that time so generally it was
in the computer room. The only one that we did some preparation was for the
introductions. But once they were doing the topic discussions, the two
paragraphs and stuff it was straight in.
In the computer room while they were doing the error correction did they ask you for a lot of support? Some of them did yeah, but generally they would ask, “Is this alright?”.
! ()!
For clarification? Yeah, and well, there are different ways to point out that that errors are still
there – one of them would be, “OK, second line there are two mistakes” or
“there is a problem there with tense” or, and some of the colour coding that you
used was a good way to identify vocabulary mistakes. Generally I would refer
to the sentences.
But, for example, they didn’t ask you straight off, “what’s wrong with this?” they tried to do it and then they asked for clarification? Yeah, I mean some of the mistakes they were making were above their level.
They were using language that they hadn’t learned yet, they hadn’t acquired,
whether it was like word order or whatever. Actually, I remember there was
one opportunity there was, I think it was to do with reporting verbs or something
came up and I said, “that needs an object after” and they actually asked about
“what other words follow this rule?”, which I thought was quite good, I mean
they are actually asking there about grammar. But, generally a lot of them
would say, “is that alright?”. Some of them, I would just point to the word and I
would just say “ come on you know the answer to this” and just sort of push
them a bit and they could actually correct it themselves without actually
identifying if it was a vocabulary or grammar or!
Eventually we gave them a printed copy of this, a real world copy of this (work), what was their reaction to this?
Well yeah, I remember, a couple of the students actually left theirs; they didn’t
take them with them but the others yeah, they wanted copies to the point of
reminding me that they wanted their copy.
Do you see them looking at it, reading it or going through it? Within the class yeah, but whether they take it home and then look at it I don’t
know.
! )+!
Was there anything you thought could have improved it more? Not really, well, in some way give them greater ownership of the site, but how
you can do that I’m not sure. As you say there was very limited time. And it
was collaborating with another class. Probably giving them more choice, they
had very limited choice in which paragraph to write. Maybe giving them two
compositions, more choice – the only thought that I had was that you could
gameify it and making the peer correction a bit more points based. But I’m just
pleased that they are writing and there are elements of pleasure there.
What do you think about Ss reading and commenting and actually having an audience for their work? It was a good thing, it makes you realise that in the classroom they don’t, I
don’t’ know whether it’s ‘cos it’s the electronic medium and it’s the generation
where they are used to responding in this way. I mean traditionally you’d write
a composition you can’t then sort of write in conversational comments after the
writing and this was a lot better because they could. It evolved, it was a bit
more organic, the exchanges afterwards.
! )*!
Appendix I: Full responses to open questions asked in the post course survey for Ss.
Question Group A Group B
Do you think putting your work into the wiki is useful? Why?
because all of the class
can comment and give
their opinion
Well sometimes yes,
because you can look at
your mistakes and learn
more.
Because you learn and
the other people can
comment the errors
you practice your writing
and you can see what
the other people say
about the composition
'Cause it makes me see
my mistakes and learn
all the new that I put.
I learn more
because the other
people can see it and
can comment!
some people read
In the wiki do you like it when other people read and comment on your written work?
Because this is a good
way to learn more things
Well, depending. I've I
had done a good work
yes, but if not no. I like
reading their comments.
because it's interesting
to know the opinion of
other persons
Because i like when
people give me their
opinions.
you can learn your faults
! )"!
In the wiki do you like it when you read and comment on other student’s work?
Because they can learn
as I when they correct
my errors
I like reading other
students work, because
reading it I learn other
styles of writting. I also
like congratulating them
or saying what I don't
like about their work.
because the other
people can know the
opinion of the other
students.
I don't like making
comments.
they can learn , i do it
because i like that they
do it to me
It's a great idea
What did you think about What did you think about working with other students in the other class during "The Environment" project?
It's ok to knowing other
students.
i was OK
It was really good. I
specially liked my
group's topic because it
was not the tipic one
like: pollution or that
stuff.
I think it's really
interesting meet new
people and see the way
to write from the other
people.
I think we did good work
with them.
! )#!
Is a good way to know
people and to work as a
group
it was great!
It's a good idea, because
you can know how the
other students work!
I think that it's a great
idea.
it was very good!
i prefer another subject
good idea.
it's OK
In general, what do you think of the wiki that we used in class?
It's useful, specially to
look the grammar part.
It's really interesting. I
like reading the other
students work. I think
that this wiki is really
usefull and really good.
ok and it's a good way
for learn and change
your errors at the same
time
it was a useful instrum
ent to comunicate with
other students and to
learn some kind of
things, grammar,
vocabulary...
It's veery good and I
enjoyed with the wiki
I think that the wiki is
very good because you
can learn somethings
about your classmates
mistakes.
It's a different form to
learn english.
it's OK
! )$!
It's a good way to learn
and know class mates
thinks.
it is good
It's a good idea because
all people can see your
work, and you can see
the work of other people
it's very useful I think.
Very good
It's fine and it's easy to
use it.
its nice