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
[email protected]@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