task repetition, self- reflection, and feedback · don myles and eva kartchava school of...

Task repetition, self-reflection, and feedback

DonMylesandEvaKartchavaSchoolofLinguistics andLanguageStudies

CarletonUniversity

TESLOttawaFall2018PDEventNovember17th,2018

EAP is “characterized by activities that simulate academic work; for example, reading academic texts and taking notes; writing research reports or essays; making formal seminar presentations”.

Cheng, Myles, and Curtis (as cited in Fox, Cheng, and Zumbo, 2013, p.2)

English for Academic Purposes

2

Goals of EAP: §Simulate a content class §Provide students with the opportunity

to interact with and produce a wide variety of genres of academic writing (and speaking)

§Prepare the learners for university §Address specific language

development issues.

English for Academic Purposes

3

Instructional context

Issues for international students at Carleton University:

§ Language of Instruction- English§ Linguistic demands- High

Therefore, all students must;§ Prove that the student have the level of

English needed to be successful.§ Complete an English as a Second

Language Academic (ESLA) course(s).§ English as a Second Language

Requirement (ESLR)?http://carleton.ca/slals/credit-esl/

4

Option 1 – Entrance without ESLR§ 3 years of English high school in an

English country§ An acceptable English proficiency test

score

IELTS = 6.5 iBT TOEFL = 86 CAEL = 70

§ French Canadians need to prove 4 years of Canadian high school English

http://carleton.ca/slals/credit-esl/

Instructional context

5

Course IELTS TOEFL iBT CAEL CLBESLA 1300 Introductory Academic English

5.0 61 50 5/6

ESLA 1500 Intermediate Academic English

5.5 71 60 6

ESLA 1900 Advanced Academic English

6.0 84 70 7IELTS to CLB from https://ieltscanadatest.com/test-results/ielts-and-clb/

Option #2 – EAP Entrance with lower test scores

Instructional context

6

While taking an EAP course at Carleton University, students can also take courses in their majors

§ ESLA 1300 Introduction - 0.5 credit§ ESLA 1500 Intermediate - 1.0 credit§ ESLA 1900 Advanced - 1.5 credits

http://carleton.ca/slals/credit-esl/

Instructional context

7

Theme-based Language Instruction (TBLI)§ Content not based on the students’ majors.

• Students from many disciplines• Select a theme that could be of interest to

the majority of the class• Connect the theme to the students’ majors

(Myers, 1996)

Pedagogical approach

8

EAP Classroom Tasks: Writing/Speaking –§ Classroom genres – a form of writing or

speaking with a wide variation that is found in many academic environments

(Dudley-Evans, 2002; Freedman, 1995; Johns, 1997)

Writing –§ 5 paragraph essay, reports, and summariesSpeaking –§ Discussion groups, presentations, and audio/

video posts

Pedagogical approach

9

The Speaking Task

Part of my Intermediate English for Academic Purposes class at Carleton University.§ First of two formal presentation activities. § Middle of the term § Topic was selected by the students to limit the

cognitive load (Van Gerven, Paas, Merriënboer, Hendriks, and Schmidt, 2003)

§ Limit memorization and allow them to focus on the presentation

§ Goal was to provide specific feedback on their spoken English and their academic presentation skills.

§ Participants- 26 university-level EAP learners 10

The Independent Learning Project had 4 components:PART 1- Give a short academic presentation on an approved topic of their choice. PART 2- Listen to their recording and analyze their presentationPART 3- Re-record the presentation at home and post the new recording to their CU Portfolio.PART 4- Write a short discussion explaining how well they corrected the issues in this second presentation.

The Speaking Task: Pedagogical goals

11

Part #1- Independent Learning Project Presentation: Each student-§ wrote and presented a 4-5 minute talk on a

topic of their choice.§ recorded their presentations § made formal academic APA PowerPoint

presentations with in-text citations and references.

§ confirmed that their recordings were in the correct format (MP3)

§ posted to their materials to their CU Portfolio

The Speaking Task

12

Part #2- Analyzing and Assessing the Presentation: Each student-§ Assessed their presentations using the five-

trait rubric that focused on learners’ performance in terms of language and format

§ I also provided feedback using the same rubric§ Created a plan to improve their presentations

using the individual reflection and my feedback.

§ Wrote a 400-500 word reflection with the following headings, description, feelings, evaluations, analysis, and conclusion

The Speaking Task

13

Assessment rubric

14

Part #3- Record an Improved Presentation: Each student-§ Wrote an improved PPT and oral presentation

using their own reflection, my feedback, and their own plan to improve their presentations.

§ This was recorded at home. § Could recorded it many times and select the

best version§ Posted the new improved recording and

PowerPoint in CU Portfolio

The Speaking Task

15

ePortfolio example

Presentation and reflection, using embedded MP3s and photo

16

Part #4- Final Analysis and Assessment:Each student-§ Listened to their new and old presentation§ Wrote a 250 word explanation on the

differences§ What items were they able to improve and

what were less successful on correcting. § Demonstrated careful reflection on the new

presentation and how it followed their improvement plan

§ Teacher assessed the new presentations using the same five-trait rubric

The Speaking Task

17

The Speaking Task: Theoretical goals

1. Task repetition2. Teacher feedback 3. Self-feedback/reflection

18

(1) Task repetition

§ Learners tend to focus on completing a task and therefore on what to say (content), not how (accuracy) to say it (Skehan, 1996, 1998)

• Task repetition promotes attention accuracy and fluency more than the content alone (Bygate, 2001; Hawkes 2012)

§ Benefits L2 acquisition• Improvement in learners’ output in terms of

complexity, accuracy, and fluency (Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011; Bygate, 1996; Gass, Mackey, Alvarez-Torres, & Fernandez-Garcia, 1999; Lynch & MacLean, 2001)

• Improvements in spoken accuracy (van de Guchte, Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, & Bimmel, 2015)

19

(1) Task repetition

§ Improvements in spoken accuracy may be transferable to new contexts

§ This transfer is improved when learners receive feedback between performances (Sheppard as cited in van de Guchte, Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, & Bimmel, 2015)

§ Task-Feedback-Task is an effective strategy to improve the learners’ accuracy and to reduce the “boredom” factor (van de Guchte, Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, & Bimmel, 2015)

20

(2) Teacher feedback

Feedback – “information provided by an agent (e.g., teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 81) with the goal of enhancing learning = reducing “discrepancies between current understandings/performance and a desired goal” (ibid, p. 86)

§ Teachers:• Design appropriately challenging tasks, with specific

goals• Create a learning environment that promotes feedback,

learner self-regulation and autonomy-building skills§ Students:

• Seek/learn better strategies to complete tasks• Engage in self-feedback/reflection to achieve goals 21

(3) Self-feedback/Reflection

“We do not learn from experience... we learn from reflecting on experience.”

(John Dewey)

22

(3) Self-feedback/Reflection

Benefits of self-feedback/reflection (Allen & Casbergue, 2000; Blue, 1994; Dowling, 2006; Oskarsson, 1989)

§ Promotes learning§ Raises level of awareness§ Improves goal-orientation§ Expands range of assessment§ Shares assessment burden§ Encourages greater effort§ Boosts self-confidence§ Facilitates self-awareness of learning

strengths and weaknesses23

(3) Self-feedback/Reflection

Effectiveness depends on§ Clear criteria§ Training§ Intervention and feedback§ Sufficient practice (e.g., AlFallay, 2004; Chen, 2006, 2008;

Orsmond et al., 2000; Patri, 2002, Stefani, 1998; Stiggins, 2001)

Multimedia-based reflection§ Multimedia artifacts make the reflection more

personal (Halter & Levin, 2014; Stockero, 2008) § Captures actions for later self-reflection (Cheng & Chau,

2009)§ Higher, more advanced or enhanced level of self-

reflection (Cheng & Chau, 2009; Etscheidt, Curran, & Sawyer, 2012; Stockero, 2008) 24

ePortfolio: What and Why?

A digital container able to store audio and video content including text (Abrami & Barrett, 2005)

§ Help students “develop, demonstrate, displayand reflect” on their learning (Milman & Kilbane, 2005; Schwartz, 2006)

§ Students actively engage in learning while creating their portfolios (Heinrich, Bhattacharya, & Rayudu,2007)

§ Inclusion of multimodal artifacts that permit the students more options for exhibiting their development (Lin, 2008)

25

So what?

§ Students favored participation in self-feedback/reflection (Chen, 2006, 2008; Orsmond et al., 1997) and did not see it as the teacher’s responsibility alone (Chan, 1995; Chen, 2008)

§ Clear criteria and T’s feedback (e.g., AlFallay, 2004; Chen, 2006, 2008) helped Ss to engage in self-feedback/ reflection, encouraging • self-awareness of learning strengths / weaknesses• goal-orientation• greater effort• boosting self-confidence (Oskarsson, 1989; Blue, 1994)

§ Students reported improvement in fluency and pronunciation as a result => impact of task repetition (Ellis, 2009; Long, 2015; Skehan & Foster, 1997) 26

Implications

Image retrieved from http://atlasofthefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/static1.squarespace1.jpg27

Implications

§ Provided students with a new tool (video and audio recording) to improve their spoken English and presentation skills

§ Created more independent learners§ Provided proof of development and growth§ Improved their fluency and accuracy § Students benefit from reflecting on their

presentations§ Student reflections can be improved by the

incorporation of multimedia artifacts (video, audio, photos)

28

Task-Based Language Teaching

29

eva.kartchava@carleton.cadon.myles@carleton.ca30

References

Dudley-Evans, T. (2002). The teaching of the academic essay: Is a genre approach possible? In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 224-235). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Abrami, P.C., and H. Barrett. (2005). Directions for research and development on electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31(3). http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/92/86.

Ahmadian, M.J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15, 23–49.

Allen, R. M., & Casbergue, R. M. (2000). Impact of teachers’ recall on their effectiveness in mentoring novice teachers: The unexpected prowess of the transitional stage in the continuum from novice to expert. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.

Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2009). Digital video for fostering self-reflection in an ePortfolio environment. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(4), 337-350.

Coombe, C., and L. Barlow. (2004). The reflective portfolio: Two case studies from the United Arab Emirates. English Teaching Forum 42(1). http://eca.state.gov/forum/vols/vol42/no1/p.18.htm (accessed December 18, 2008).

Dowling, D. (2006). Designing a competency based program to facilitate the progression of experienced engineering technologists to professional engineer status. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31, 95–107.

Etscheidt, S., Curran, C., & Sawyer, C. (2012). Promoting reflection in teacher preparation programs: A multilevel model. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(1), 7–26.

Fox, J., Cheng, L., & Zumbo, B. D. (2014). Do they make a difference? The impact of English language programs on second languagestudents in Canadian universities. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 57-85.

Freedman, A. (1995). The what, where, when, why, and how of classroom genres. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 121-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M.J., & Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549−581.

Halter, C., & Levin, J. (2014). Digital video projects of, by, and for new teachers: The multiple educational functions of creating multimedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 23(1), 383-406. 31

References

Hawkes, M.L. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66, 327–336.Heinrich, E., Bhattacharya, M., & Rayudu, R. (2007). Preparation for lifelong learning using ePortfolios. European Journal of Engineering

Education, 32(6), 653-663. Huang, L. S. (2010). Do different modalities of reflection matter? An exploration of adult second-language learners’ reported strategy use

and oral language production. System, 38, 245-261.Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Lin, Q. (2008). Preservice teachers' learning experiences of constructing e-portfolios online. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3),

194-200. Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). A case of exercising: effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M.

Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 141–162). Harlow: Longman. Milman, N.B., and C.R. Kilbane. (2005). Digital teaching portfolios: Catalysts for fostering authentic professional development. Canadian

Journal of Learning and Technology 31(3), http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/95/89 (accessed May 5, 2016).Myers, L. (1996). The contribution of genre theory to theme-based EAP: Navigating foreign fiords. TESL Canada Journal, 13(2), 33-45.Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Schwartz, C. (2006). Managing electronic portfolios. In Revisiting Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education, edited by P. Hernon, R. E.

Dugan and C. Schwartz, pp. 151–164, Westport: CON. Libraries Unlimited:Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Stockero, S.L. (2008). Using a video-based curriculum to develop a reflective stance in prospective mathematics teachers. Journal of

Mathematics Teacher Education 11(4), 373–94.Tripp, T., & Rich, P. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education: An

International Journal of Research and Studies, 28(5), 728–739.van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bimmel, P. (2015). Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT. Language

Teaching Research, 20(3), 300-320.Van Gerven, P., Paas, F., Merriënboer, J., Hendriks, M., & Schmidt, H. (2003). The efficiency of multimedia learning into old age. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 489-505. Retrieved from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/cogloadtheory/index.htm

32