Oral and Written Communication in Writing Conferences at the Primary School Level - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 24
About This Presentation
Title:

Oral and Written Communication in Writing Conferences at the Primary School Level

Description:

Let the students express themselves in order to learn: entering into genuine ... (2 PRGs per province = 8 children per province): October, December and Mars, 2003 ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:679
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 25
Provided by: stphanl
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Oral and Written Communication in Writing Conferences at the Primary School Level


1
Oral and Written Communication in Writing
Conferences at the Primary School Level  
Symposium Success Factors in the Development of
Literacy Skills in French-Canadian Schools 15th
European Conference on Reading August 7, 2007,
Berlin
  • Lizanne Lafontaine, Université du Québec en
    Outaouais
  • www.lizannelafontaine.com
  • Sylvie Blain, University of Moncton
  • This study was made possible thanks to the
    financial support provided by the Social Sciences
    and Humanities Research Council of Canada

2
Issues
  • Disappointing results from Francophone students
    in NB and QC with respect to written productions
    (groupe DIEPE, 1995 Council of Ministers of
    Education, Canada, 1994 ministère de lÉducation
    du Québec, 2001)
  • Several studies have examined the impact of
    verbal peer feedback in first and second
    languages (writing conferences, PRGs), both among
    children and adults (Blain, 2001 Blain and
    Painchaud, 1999 Connor and Asenavage 1994
    Mendonça and Johnson, 1994 Nelson and Murphy,
    1993)
  • Studies dealing with conversation structure among
    students in the context of mutual assistance and
    developing writing skills, as well as their
    effects on task problems such as autonomous
    writing, are few in number and warrant further
    study (Dreyfus and Cellier, 2000  Le Cunff and
    Jourdain, 1999 Ceillier, 2003 Caillier, 2003)

3
Issues (contd)
  • Which pedagogy should be encouraged in minority
    linguistic settings (and also in majority
    settings) in order to promote the development of
    literacy skills? (Cormier, 2005)
  • Creation of a positive language connection and
    optimization of the linguistic production and
    reception in the French language
  • Positive language connection
  • Do not denigrate English
  • Emphasize on improved status of French
  • Accept vernacular language and build on its basis
  • Shift from informal situations to formal
    situations
  • Let the students express themselves in order to
    learn entering into genuine discussions helps
    the development of oral skills, which are linked
    to a predominantly Francophone identity
  • Do not simplify matters

4
Research Questions
  • Does the manner in which students interact during
    PRGs motivate the children to take into account,
    or not, the comments of their peers?
  • Do the reviews (arising or not from peers) help
    improve writing quality?
  • Does ongoing verbal feedback during PRGs promote
    better oral language quality?

5
Theoretical Framework
  • Oral language as a teaching object through
    didactic gender models (Dolz and Schneuwly, 1998
    Lafontaine, 2001 2003) and oral integrated into
    classroom instruction (Nonnon, 2001 Le Cunff,
    1999)
  • Reflective oral learning by interacting,
    factoring in the recipient, active listening,
    rephrasing, speaking to develop social skills,
    scaffolding, oral language allowing reflective
    writing feedback (Cellier, 2003 Lusetti, 2004
    Bouchard, 2004 Auriac-Peyronnet, 2003 Chabanne
    and Bucheton, 2002 Delabarre and Trégnier, 2001
    Plane, 2001 Nonnon, 2000)
  • Structure of discursive behaviors and
    interactions that support understanding in French
    classes (Ceillier, 2003 Caillier, 2003 Dreyfus
    and Cellier, 2000  Durand, 1998  Le Cunff,
    1993  Le Cunff, Turco and Gadet, 1998 
    Trégnier, 1990)
  • Linguistic insecurity in Francophone minority
    settings (Boudreau and Dubois, 1992)

6
Theoretical Framework (contd)
  • Writing Process planning, text set-up, revision
    (Flower and Hayes, 1981 Scardamalia and
    Bereiter, 1986 Bruer, 1993 Fayol,1993)
  • Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky)
  • Studies outcomes on PRGs among primary school
    students (Blain and Painchaud, 1999 Messier,
    1989 Samway, 1987 Urzua, 1987 Russell, 1983
    Sudol and Sudol, 1991 Blain, 1997 and 2001
    Brakel-Olson, 1990 MacArthur, Schwartz and
    Graham, 1991)
  • Essential Instructional Components for Literacy
    (The Report of the Expert Panel on Literacy and
    Numeracy Instruction, 2005)
  • Instructional Strategies supporting
    French-language education (The Report of the
    Expert Panel, 2005 Larkin, 2001 Hogan and
    Pressley, 1997)  

7
Instructional Intervention PRGs
  • PRGs Meeting between a writer and their peers
    during which the writer reads out loud their text
    and receives comments from group members on both
    the content and the form of the text
  • A) Individual text writing
  • B) Teams of 4 first meeting (consistency and
    structure)
  • Each writer reads their text out loud
  • Each writer receives verbal feedback
  • Positive comments
  • Questions
  • Specific suggestions
  • C) Individual review to integrate or not comments
  • D) Teams of 4 second meeting (error correction)
  • Peers read a writers text
  • They verbally outline errors they found,
    explaining the source of the error to the writer
  • E) Individual review to integrate or not comments

8
Methodology
  • Participants
  • Two fourth-grade classes in Moncton (NB) and two
    in Gatineau (QC) (two control groups CGs and
    two experimental groups EGs) for a total of 72
    participants for writing and 16 in oral (2 EGs)
  • Data Collection - Writing
  • One essay per month during 6 months first draft
    and final copy for a total of 852 essays
  • Data Collection - Writing and Oral
  • Three series of PRGs recorded on audiotape for 16
    children (2 PRGs per province 8 children per
    province) October, December and Mars, 2003
  • Three series of semi-directed interviews for 8
    children having participated in PRGs (4 per
    province)

9
Methodology (contd)
  • Data Analysis - Writing
  • Three actions taken
  • Word count (MS Word)
  • 5-point holistic score (Blain, 2001)
  • Analytical score obtained using three measures
    for the content (communication, organization,
    consistency) and five measures for the form
    (syntax, lexicon, punctuation, grammar and
    usage).
  • Two judges who were unaware of the studys
    objectives assessed the 852 essays
  • Data Analysis - Oral
  • PRGs
  • Speech Components pragmatic, discursive,
    linguistic, metalinguistic, self-work,
    metalinguistic knowledge (Le Cunff and Jourdain,
    1999)
  • Discursive behaviors explain, justify, rephrase,
    discuss, convince, interrupt, deny, suggest, etc.
  • Scaffolding adults and peers discursive
    behaviors (language intervention whereby the
    speaker helps someone else overcome difficulties)

10
Methodology (contd)
  • Data Analysis Oral (contd)
  • INTERVIEWS
  • Integration or non integration of comments
  • Impact (positive or negative) of speech
  • PRGs AND INTERVIEWS
  • Verbatim transcription and content analysis by
    category using Atlas.ti
  • Interjudge reliability
  • Analysis tools on the quality of oral language
    (criteria drawn from the theoretical framework
    and curriculum programs - MÉQ and MÉNB, 2001)
  • Assessment grid for oral language quality
  • Writers table
  • Skills scale

11
Outcomes Question 1
  • PRGs and interviews
  • Peer comments that are integrated into the text
    because verbalization is done in a polite, kind,
    relevant or justified manner (supporting material
    in PRGs)
  • These comments are also integrated because the
    writer (according to analysis of interview
    verbatims)
  • Appreciated the suggestions made by their peers
  • Agreed with the suggested correction
  • Checked the correction using reference tools
  • Integrated their own corrections on an individual
    basis
  • Agreed with the adults suggestion

12
Outcomes Question 1 (contd)
  • In PRGs, speech focuses on the following
    components
  • Metalinguistic knowledge error finding and
    explaining, correction proposals
  • Pragmatic discussions on challenging situations
    (ideas conveyed in the text, acceptance or
    non-acceptance of the misformulated comments)
  • Discursive discussions on discursive behaviors
    (PRGs procedures)
  • Behaviours ask, suggest and explain/justify as
    required in the PRGs procedures
  • Linguistic discussions on textual consistency

13
Outcomes Question 1 (contd)
  • Peer support contributes to skills development in
    literacy by
  • Questioning (Whats the characters name?)
  • Encouraging (You need to add an s because there
    are several ghosts)
  • Reformulating (You need to add some adjectives to
    your text you need to elaborate in order to
    better describe your character you know, add a
    couple of adjectives.)

14
Outcomes Question 2
  • Pearsons correlation ranges from 0.281 to 0.938
  • Better correlation for the assessment of the form
    (from 0.764 to 0.938)
  • Except for the lexicon (only 0.281) criterion
    removed
  • Measures obtained for the content ranged from 0.5
    to 0.678
  • Pearsons correlation for the holistic score is
    0.53
  • We didnt keep the essays for which the
    difference between the judges was too large in
    order to improve the agreement ratio
  • The content correlation is higher (ranges from
    0.573 to 0.847)
  • The holistic score correlation is at 0.59
  • For the remainder of the essays, we calculated
    the average score given by both judges

15
Question 2 (contd) Word Count (Sig 0.89)
16
Question 2 (contd) Holistic Score (Sig
0.961)
17
Question 2 (contd) Total Analytical Score
(Sig 0.248)
18
Question 2 (contd) Differences between both
settingsSig 0.00 (Percentage error - Form)
19
Question 3 Average of Speaker Types and Skills
Scale per province
  • QC Average to good speakers acquiring-level
    scale
  • NB Weak to average speakers acquiring-level
    scale
  • No significant improvement in oral language
    quality remains the same from one PRG to another
  • Oral skills used unconsciously

20
Question 3 (contd)
  • Similarities between both provinces
  • Oral knowledge acquired
  • Varied lexicon
  • Rephrasing
  • Reasoning
  • Use of connectors
  • Complex sentences and prosodic features among the
    strongest students
  • Active listening (developed throughout the PRGs)
  • Oral knowledge not acquired
  • Construction of interrogative sentences
  • Volume of the voice, intonation and fluidity
    among the weak students
  • Articulation and pronunciation
  • Vocabulary use of Anglicisms
  • Speaker types and skills scales remain unchanged
  • Use of a familiar language register encouraging
    discussions

21
Question 3 (contd)
  • Differences between both provinces
  • NB weaker articulation and pronunciation,
    greater English influence lexical Anglicisms
    (well, so) and semantical Anglicisms (non jai
    pas) complete sentences in English
  • NB greater difficulty in formulating complex
    sentences, because of too many short sentences
    incorrect interrogative sentence structure (où
    cque tas trouvé ça addition of pronoun ce)
  • QC lexical Anglicisms (Game boy, Barbie, fun)
    and interrogative sentence structure (Tu
    veux-tu? addition of pronoun tu) associated with
    a familiar language level
  • QC omissions and repetitions, "parrot"
    (repeating profusely what others have already
    said)
  • QC vague and meaningless statements (Add more
    verbs to your text.)

22
Study Limitations
  • Small groups met outside of the classrooms
    biased image of real-life situation
  • PRGs taped but not filmed absence or lack of
    certain data
  • Oral as an Instructional Medium PRGs only
    perceived as a way to improve writing skills and
    not as a way to develop or teach oral knowledge
  • Strong adult presence in PRGs in QC and
    inconsistent adult presence in NB

23
Conclusion In QC and NB regarding the
Development of Success Factors in Literacy
  • Lack of significant improvement in writing
    quality may be due to
  • Small number of PRGs (3 in total for 7
    productions)
  • The CG was also helped to review their texts,
    either from the teacher or from the reference
    tools we can therefore consider both groups as
    being experimental
  • The major diffrences noted between the minority
    and majority settings with respect to the form
    confirmed the test outcomes at the national level
    (PIRS).
  • The significant differences between both settings
    (minority and majority) may have contribued to
    the lack of significant differences between CGs
    and EGs.
  • Structure of literacy skills (oral/writing) with
    respect to the language (syntax, consistency,
    lexicon, spelling, etc.).
  • Structure of social skills (listening,
    consideration of others, etc.).
  • Regular participation to PRGs didnt help
    children improve their oral language skills
    (speaker types and skills scales remain
    unchanged).
  • Oral communication is not didacticized by
    teachers it is rather integrated into classroom
    instruction, but unconsciously.

24
Conclusion In QC and NB regarding the
Development of Success Factors in Literacy
(contd)
  • The instructional intervention (PRGs) fulfills
    some of the essential components of literacy and
    puts forward some instructional strategies
    promoting French learning
  • Instructional Components
  • Re-use
  • Appropriate Language
  • Guided practice in writing and transfer
    possibility
  • Clear and well-organized teaching
  • Instructional Strategies
  • Scaffolding common objectives, identification of
    the students needs and progress follow-up,
    adequate assistance, perseverance in the pursuit
    of the objectives, feedback, control of the level
    of frustration and risk taking, integration and
    autonomy
  • Modelling
  • Guided practice
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com